Was the American Revolution actually a revolution? Did it actually change anything other than not having to pay to the British?
Was the American Revolution actually a revolution...
It was a bourgeois revolution. They taught us in history class that a lot of the leaders of the revolution were rich guys, i.e. John Hancock.
The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution too, but it did actually transform society. Did the American revolution achieve anything other than getting rid of taxes to the Brits?
The French Revolution was a peasant revolution. It was the peasants who took up arms and the rich assholes just rode the waves to shore.
The American Revolution was started by the burger bourgeoisie.
That said, the whole Constitution thing was somewhat novel as a historic event and did help inspire a lot of subsequent revolutionaries.
This is a pretty good article on the subject: marxist.com
Long story short, yes the American Revolution was a real bourgeois revolution, a number of huge manorial estates and lands belonging to the crown were broken up into smaller plots. But it remained a revolution half-done, in one way in particular, the institution of slavery was allowed to continue because of the influence the big Southern landowners had within the revolution which eventually made necessary another war to do away with it.
I heard the american constitution is largely inspired by the corsican consitution.
Well it did help the cause for replacing monarchies with republics but it was pretty shit.
but that's what happens in every war ever, just because the bourgeoisie didn't physically fight in it doesn't mean they didn't support it.
It was a big fucking mistake, that's what it was
Let's see… Everything america ever did? So basically 40% of the bad stuff that happened post the discovery of the continent
Google Bookchin (re: New England town meetings)
Can't you just give links or titles?
The Third Revolution is his major text on the American Revolution, but he also talks about it in Urbanization Without Cities and the rest of his work
That's a big book
The American Revolution is Vol. 1 iirc
It was a revolution in the sense that a colony rebelling and declaring independence was something new and, as time proved, became very influential. It was a paradigm shift. But not a material one, because in that aspect, all that happened was the de facto ruling porkies became the de jure ruling porkies. So it wasn't a revolution in the Marxist sense.
Still more of a revolution than anything the world has seen since 1989 tho.
There were wars of independence before, was it special because it was a colony?
Was the American Revolution considered left or right-wing in their own time?
No it was not. The Civil War on the other hand was most certainly a revolution.
There's a difference between landed gentry and bourgeois m8s. The real bourgeois revolution didn't happen until the civil war
the only institution that made any attempts to curtail slavery was the Catholic church frowning on civilizations and nations that enslaved Catholics
the British Empire would be the first and only proponent of abolishing slavery some 30-40 years after the American Revolution followed by France and the rest of Western Europe ending with America being the last Western nation to abolish it
the rest of the world though continued practicing the slave trade until the British Empire defacto conquered it and attempted to dismantle the slave trade internationally
funnily enough without the most moral European power dictating their values on the rest of the world slavery has seen a resurgence across the world
Aren't we forgetting that revolutionary France abolished slavery not 20 years after the revolution? Now if only that ever so moral European power hadn't set itself against the revolution…
The same writer also wrote pic related but I haven't read it.
A description of the book:
special because it was the largest colony to ever attempt secession of its time
supported by every other European power out of spite towards the rising Lion that was Britain though so not that special
America had to fight Britain, Hessian mercenaries and loyalist militia
Britain had to fight America, France, Spain, the Dutch Republic plus a multitude of Germanic mercenaries the French had employed
it was more like Britain had a rebellion on its hands and France out of venomous spite threw what was left of its military strength to support this rebellion due to losing Canada to Britain in the French and Indian war which had just happened a decade previous
Spain saw this as an opportunity to reclaim Florida and Caribbean territory that Britain had taken in the Anglo-Spanish wars
and the Dutch Republic saw that the Royal Navy was awfully distracted and used it as an opportunity to reclaim territory in Indonesia they'd lost to Britain in the Anglo-Dutch wars
so while America thinks they fought a heroic war against an overpowering foe and won they were actually just another factor in Britain fighting an almost global war against every other major European power besides Russia, Hungary and Austria
abolished it then re-instituted it in 1801
would you like being a slave freed in 1794 getting your taste of freedom for 7 years only to be put back in chains at the end of it and told "no you're a slave again now"
Slavery wasnt ended in French territory until 1826
also not abolished in overseas French territory until 1848
Yes, after the counter-revolution had emerged victorious.
Napoleon was counter-revolution?
an opportunist taking advantage of a broken system isnt really counter-revolution
Read Settlers. America was founded on the right to own slaves. The abolitionists only wanted to end slavery because a critical mass of negros in whtie states is incompitable with racist society.
Opinion immediately discarded. No one should be unironically reading that nazbol trash.
he undid many of the gains of the revolution, that's what makes him counter-revolutionary
The concepts of the political "left and right wing" didn't appear until the French Revolution.
Watch this if you want the TRUTH
It was a civil war between the English in England who were in the process of abolishing slavery, versus the English in the English colonies (primarily Virginia) in America who wanted to maintain slavery.
Initially the English in Boston were simply trying to avoid paying taxes in order to keep profiting from smuggling and racketeering. Then the Virginians read about Somerset v Stewart, and joined up with the Bostonian racketeers to form a terrorist group. Then France bankrolled the rebels in order to stick it to the British after the failure of the Seven Years' War, and precipitating the Anglo-French War of 1778.
The "Revolutionary War" wasn't much of a war, just some skirmishes with rebel terrorists. Only one-third of English colonists supported the rebels, another third were loyal, final third was indifferent. The naval war with France was Britain's chief concern. The colonial rebellion was able to sustain itself because Britain was battling France. The British realized that fighting the rebels was too expensive, so they gave up putting down the rebellion. The Revolution wasn't a war. It was eight years of terror attacks by confederates.
The "founding slavers" then set up America to be a confederacy by passing the Articles of Confederation. They also worked to assert black slavery and white supremacy as the pillars of Americanism.
and the Netherlands
This is truly a confounding conundrum. If only they had published a list of grievances with the British state, maybe called it something like "The Declaration of Independence"
Britain actually ended up giving Congress the concessions they wanted
Franklin decided independently not to agree to them and kept the war going because he wanted total independence
"In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
bit ridiculous this declaration though that it never reached the ears of its intended audience
George III was suffering porphyria the entirety of the time the independence war was on
he didnt learn that the American colonies had seceded from his empire until some years after it had happened in one of his moments of clarity
Idealist scum. Also loved now they just plagiarize Locke. Way to be original amerifats.
Wew there lad.
It was the first time people who always considered themselves part of a nation declared independence with the conscious intent to start a new one more or less overnight, wasn't it?
I think they meant it was a bougie revolution in as much as it was carried out by then, not the bourgeois revolution that Marxism refers to.
I think the Jesuits did discourage slavery, because it stood in the way of conversion and missions.
Rhizzone, is that you?
Napoleon and Stalin share something very important, in that they killed the revolution to save the revolution. They stopped it way, way short of its most lofty demands, but enshrined its gains.
Yeah and the Trojan war was because of Helen
The grievances were illegitimate.
The American colonies were represented in Parliament. It was infeasible to transport a representative physically back to England to represent them, so English lords spoke on behalf of the best interests of America as well as their own districts. American claims that this wasn't true representation was petty and obvious trolling. Now Americans are truly underrepresented, as US law says there must be a Congressional district for every 60,000 voters. If that were the case, there would be over 3,000 members of the House of Representatives, not just 435.
Each grievance reads like Americans had no idea what they were talking about.
Napoleon changed democracy into feudalism back again, so what's the deal with him saving the revolution?
The nigger is basically a monarchist.
You're not actually this fucking stupid, are you?
The Trojan War probably never happened and, if there was some battle that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are based on, the Greeks likely lost because "Troy" never fell to conquest and ultimately met its demise after an earthquake.
So, yes, the Trojan War was about Helen because it was a fictional event from Greek mythology.
Well you know what tankies say about national liberation struggles :^)
Napoleon and the Thermidor regime preceding him are the archetypes of reactionary, they even named it so.
He stopped or even reversed some of the Revolution's victories in order to secure the rest. Yes he brought monarchy back, but enacted free public education (even if not universal), (relatively) fair taxes, a more meritocratic army and government bureaucracy, promoted a French national identity and centralized government, a modern economy with fiscal incentives, institutes etc. Like I said, killed the Revolution to save the Revolution.
It was a revolution for the rich
It was a revolution for the rich
The Boston Tea Party was a response to King George III *lowering* taxes. They revolted to keep their profits high.
the french revolution was bourgeois tho
Uh… you got a citation on that?
The only good American general. A good strategist who not only doesn't glorify war, but recognizes it as a tragedy whose initiator ought to be punished exemplarily.