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.
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.
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?
Having the common man vote for a president instead of a king was truly revolutionary, as was limiting the powers of government.
These sorts of discussions frequently dissolve into arguments over just what "revolutionary" means.
We can note the differences between US and Great Britain of the late 18th Century.
Property ownership was five times more widespread in the US than in Britain, and consequently, the US percentage of eligible voters was five times larger. This created new classes of political power, making it more difficult for aristocrats to enjoy strong domination.
America did away with the concept of royalty. No kings, dukes, earls, no titled distinctions. The lowest citizen was the equal of the highest in terms of civil rights enjoyed. (well, at least in legal theory)
Rising in class was much more possible in America. There were no legal obstructions to ambition and someone from poorer class could make good and became wealthy if he or she possessed the ability and energy required.
The Constitutional government which was crafted did a clever job of diffusing political power to the degree that it was difficult to get anything done without time and compromises. This has had the effect of weakening extremists and contributing to a long running stability.
If you wish to call any or all of the above revolutionary, than it was. If you do not think the degree of difference justifies that label, than it wasn't.
It is a little murky in my opinion...Like most of history, but generally it was a new experiment -- former colonies break loose and govern themselves. That was the paramount message. We could govern ourselves. Voting rights were broad but not everyone could vote from one state to another. The ruling group was mostly wealthy men. Often times, especially in South American examples, when wealthy stakeholders see their power or elite-ness being threatened there is a revolution. You can apply that model to some extent to the American Revolution. Things were starting to tighten up after 1763. What was perceived as entitlements were being reduced or threatened. The expressed ideals of the revolution were commendable but there were limited in practice.
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 would argue that in the context of the 18th century is was wildly revolutionary, so revolutionary few in Europe thought it could possibly sustain itself.
The question that intrigues me though is not whether it was revolutionary or whether or not the "tyranny" of the Crown was as critical issue as the realization of what economic riches were in store for American colonist by their disentanglement with Great Britain. But that is a discussion for another day.
Was the American Revolutionary War truly revolutionary?
Absolutely.
It broke all bonds with traditional governance. And it's not a stretch to say that the American Revolution strongly influenced the French Revolution. It also led to a number of other colonies in the Americas revolting against Spain.
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.
ABSOLUTELY yes!!!!
I mean, revolutions are and were then nothing new, but what was accomplished and written in those two documents were...and still are by the way.
For the first time in history, you had a document that dictated human rights, as not a right given by a governing body, but as a God-given right (or, just "a human dictated" right if you will) - with a constitution designed to, not dictate the powers of government, but to LIMIT the powers of government.
Essentially, it was an experiment...and it was successful! We can see the warped mess that the French Revolution turned into for an example of a revolution gone wrong.
Yes constitutions of representative government exist before this, and of course are common now...but I still submit that there is still no other structure of government or document guarding the powers of individual citizens and limiting government such as exists in the US. And it's one thing that the "social democracies" of Europe (and even some American politicians) will still not understand today - the unaliable right of individual citizens in the US over the "mass collective" rules of even a benign "nanny state" type government is the general concept of the founding fathers.
I am amazed at the sacrifice and bravery of those who fought against the British. Many were living comfortable lives, and could have continued to do so. Instead. they were imprisoned, and their homes and businesses were burned and pillaged. I hope I would have been brave enough to be a rebel, but I not know.
Neh.. nothing special...
However, on a second thought:
Most countries don't have such constitution and bill of rights even today in 2016, some 240 after the revolutionary war... Amazing, isn't it?
I also read somewhere that George lll, king of England, said about G. Washington, that if he didn't crown himself king after the victory, he is the greatest men ever...
Also, a few years later, the French revolutionaries, considered the American revolution quite special, so much as to adopt a few items from us for their country.
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.
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.
Was the American Revolutionary War truly revolutionary?
