U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2016, 01:06 PM
 
4,991 posts, read 2,288,986 times
Reputation: 4861

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstwo View Post
By that I mean, not just for America, but for the time was what the founding father's sought out to do, achieve, and implement truly revolutionary by the world's standards in the late 18th century?

I read something about it on another forum and one person was saying that it is ridiculous how much we hold the founding father's ideals in such high esteem and it was barely much more than just englishmen having arguments/disagreements with other englishmen and that the declaration of independence, constitution and the government they started wasn't really that special.
Find another forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2016, 04:12 PM
 
13,515 posts, read 15,201,280 times
Reputation: 37885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Having the common man vote for a president instead of a king was truly revolutionary, as was limiting the powers of government.
The "common man" did not get to vote for the president of the U.S., nor did he get to even vote for the senators. Electoral rolls in the states were restricted to white males of property, the exact requirements were set by the states. In the earliest elections only a very small number of the white males population was able to vote. And despite the Bill of Rights, state-supported religious denominations existed for some years in a number of states.

Those eligible to vote elected their state legislatures, and the legislatures selected the senators for that state. An aristocratic system based on wealth and restricted voting.

The president of the U.S. was elected by the Electoral College, and the Electoral College was originally selected by the state legislatures, and presumed nothing like party politics but rather contests between fellow financial aristocrats.

The original constitution made no pretense that it was providing a government of the "common man, " it was created by a group of wealthy provincials who had successfully finished a war of separation with the mother country, and despite the high flown rhetoric they clearly saw political power as something to be vested only in the financially successful and to be conducted for the common man.

George Washington's second term shows him quite angry - as were other aristocratic Federalists - a the growing Democratic-Republican societies in the new United States, and the desire of "mechanics," i.e. common labourers for a vote. And rebellious small farmers were taken seriously, and dealt with as the social class enemies that they were.

It was not until the election campaigns of Andrew Jackson in the 1820's that the restrictive artistocratic assumptions of the original constitutional founders were totally undermined; though the manner of electing the U.S. Senate was not changed in the Constitution until the 20th century.

It took awhile for the fancy rhetoric to turn into a truly representative government, and depart from the assumed beneficent rule of one's nobly-intended betters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 04:46 PM
 
Location: New York Area
19,793 posts, read 7,770,126 times
Reputation: 14907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstwo View Post
By that I mean, not just for America, but for the time was what the founding father's sought out to do, achieve, and implement truly revolutionary by the world's standards in the late 18th century?

I read something about it on another forum and one person was saying that it is ridiculous how much we hold the founding father's ideals in such high esteem and it was barely much more than just englishmen having arguments/disagreements with other englishmen and that the declaration of independence, constitution and the government they started wasn't really that special.
In some respects it was extremely conservative and in some respects extremely revolutionary. It was revolutionary in the sense that a King with divine rights lost subjects through secession. Another was that it fused the head of state with the working leader, i.e. President. It was conservative in many more respects, the most obvious being that it sought for subjects the rights of Englishmen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
How many representative democracies in the Western World at that time?
Iceland, Switzerland and UK. I'm not sure if Netherlands was at that time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 11:09 PM
Status: "Not a Communism, just a KHAMnist." (set 21 hours ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,339 posts, read 2,395,898 times
Reputation: 4089
I agree the American Revolution was revolutionary, but nowhere near as radical as the French Revolution eventually turned out to be. The American Revolution didn't have a series of increasingly radical groups, one taking over from the previous group, to the point of committing executions and other atrocities against their political opponents (as the French Rev did). The US was simply content to win its independence from Britain, and form Articles of Confederation. The US is lucky not to have its revolution hijacked by people so ideological that it would kill any opponents, but instead came up with a better system of dealings -- the US Constitution as we know it (well, MOSTLY know it today).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 01:12 AM
 
Location: The High Desert
8,598 posts, read 4,719,920 times
Reputation: 16273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
I agree the American Revolution was revolutionary, but nowhere near as radical as the French Revolution eventually turned out to be. ........ The US is lucky not to have its revolution hijacked by people so ideological that it would kill any opponents, but instead came up with a better system of dealings -- the US Constitution as we know it (well, MOSTLY know it today).
True.
I wonder if our revolution would have been bloodier with reprisals and executions and increased levels of extremism if, like the French, we would have had deposed nobles and emerges (and unsympathetic neighbors) plotting to regain power....or perceived to be doing so. There might have been some paranoia but there were folks trying to undo the French revolution. We had the benefit of an ocean between us and the mother country and were somewhat supported by Spain during the war (our neighbor to the south and west at the time). The French monarchy was happy to help out if it meant England would be thrown out of the 13 colonies. The English in Canada were up to mischief but that was mostly an Indian frontier issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 04:46 AM
 
Location: Asia
2,773 posts, read 1,225,957 times
Reputation: 3035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Having the common man vote for a president instead of a king was truly revolutionary, as was limiting the powers of government.
The American Revolution was actually quite a conservative, rather than revolutionary, matter, with respect to some important aspects. The colonists did not seriously envision a president until well after the war ended and the experiment with the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate.

The colonists fought to free themselves from British rule because they felt, in many respects, that they were not being afforded the rights to which Englishmen had been traditionally entitled, namely a high degree of self-rule.

But, of course, in other ways it was revolutionary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2016, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,545 posts, read 18,489,065 times
Reputation: 16836
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
True.
I wonder if our revolution would have been bloodier with reprisals and executions and increased levels of extremism if, like the French, we would have had deposed nobles and emerges (and unsympathetic neighbors) plotting to regain power....or perceived to be doing so. There might have been some paranoia but there were folks trying to undo the French revolution. We had the benefit of an ocean between us and the mother country and were somewhat supported by Spain during the war (our neighbor to the south and west at the time). The French monarchy was happy to help out if it meant England would be thrown out of the 13 colonies. The English in Canada were up to mischief but that was mostly an Indian frontier issue.
It was also a very different situation. The French revolution was the culmination of centuries of issues, and the general disregard of the upper class for the welfare of the pesants. Weather also played apart, as the 'little ice age' had decimated food production and starvation was common. But the upper class did nothing to try to ease the pesant's burdens. They were just animals of labor. It didn't even begin with the radical version but a more tempered approach to give more rights and expand power into the growing 'middle class'. But the anger of the hungry and the general hatred of the aristocracy by those who suffered under them excellerated everything. The general terror and violence, and leaders who gained their power through blood was under nobody's control but the mob and a few key parties who knew how to control them.

The American revolution was between a mother country and its colony, and the usual inequities which existed. It was aslo a populist movement in some places. The English seeing the rising tide of things in the events in France were terrified it might come to resemble that. And it wasn't just battles and speeches and politics. Long before it was 'official', neighbors turned on neighbors, and depending on the prevaling sympathies in an area, those who disagreed might find their farm in flames and possibly with them inside.

It also became a proxy war between the English and the French, with other European powers sending aide to one side or another. The French did not necessariy side with the colonists because they shared their goals. But it would keep British troops busy far away from France. The gamble did not pay off for them in the end. But other European nations gave support to one degree or another to the colonists.

Without the aide from France and others, especially the discipline and leadership in organizing an uprising into an army, the Unites States would not exist., and even with it there was no guarentee that it would not end in a bloodbath of the revolutionaries as Britan reimposed power.

But Britan was the biggest bully on the block and the other lesser bullies who wanted more clout took advantage of the opportunity to take a chunk or two out of their power without losing much themselves.

Last edited by nightbird47; 03-02-2016 at 03:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2016, 08:22 PM
 
Location: New York Area
19,793 posts, read 7,770,126 times
Reputation: 14907
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
True.
I wonder if our revolution would have been bloodier with reprisals and executions and increased levels of extremism if, like the French, we would have had deposed nobles and emerges (and unsympathetic neighbors) plotting to regain power....or perceived to be doing so. There might have been some paranoia but there were folks trying to undo the French revolution. We had the benefit of an ocean between us and the mother country and were somewhat supported by Spain during the war (our neighbor to the south and west at the time). The French monarchy was happy to help out if it meant England would be thrown out of the 13 colonies. The English in Canada were up to mischief but that was mostly an Indian frontier issue.
Britain also had some tradition of liberal rule if not full democracy. In France it was one or the other. Also the Catholic Church backed up the monarchical rule. The Church of England had a much lighter hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2016, 08:24 PM
 
Location: New York Area
19,793 posts, read 7,770,126 times
Reputation: 14907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
The American Revolution was actually quite a conservative, rather than revolutionary, matter, with respect to some important aspects. The colonists did not seriously envision a president until well after the war ended and the experiment with the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate.

The colonists fought to free themselves from British rule because they felt, in many respects, that they were not being afforded the rights to which Englishmen had been traditionally entitled, namely a high degree of self-rule.

But, of course, in other ways it was revolutionary.
When the political leadership went to New York City for Washington's inauguration, there was no concept of bloodletting against opponents. Paris was always a different story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,773 posts, read 1,225,957 times
Reputation: 3035
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu View Post
And despite the Bill of Rights, state-supported religious denominations existed for some years in a number of states.
That wasn't in spite of the 1st amendment. That was by design and more or less in accordance with the 1st amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top