1776: Revolution or Power Struggle?

Was the American war against the British Empire...

A Revolutionary War?

A Radical Movement?

Or

A Conservative Movement?

A Power Struggle?

Definitions are needed to attempt to answer these questions.

A true Revolution is...

1. Producing significant and deep societal change;
….Deep change in social status either politically, culturally, and/or economically

: Therefore a strict constructionist position;
: A strict/literal interpretation

2. To change the existing status;
....Change in constitution, rulers, and/or policies.

: Therefore, a loose constructionist position;
: A loose/general interpretation


Historians agree with the loose constructionist position

However, a continued disagreement on the strict constructionist position
What paradigms are represented here?

Consensus/ Constructionists/ Traditional Historians

George Bancroft (1834-74)
· “God was on our side”; a Manifest Destiny:
· To spread the ideas of freedom, (human) progress, and democracy

Bernard Bailyn
Colonists implementing the views of radical British thinkers (i.e., John Locke)


Gordon Wood
· Produced major social changes;
· a radical event; provided America with its “democracy” and for liberty (Liberalism) for the individual (individualism)


Conflict and or Loose Constructionists/ New Historians

Carl Becker
· A struggle over who should rule at home (thirteen colonies)

Robert Brown
· Colonists already had an existing middle class democracy
· Therefore NO need for social revolution nor was there a social, cultural, or economic revolution.

Carl Degler
· Upper middle class colonists led a conservative revolution;
· to preserve an already existing class structure

Theodore Draper
· Ideology was not a factor;
· Maintaining an power structure among the American wealthy colonists


So, given these opposing views on the American Revolution what do you think?

Are you a Consensus Theorist or a Conflict Theorist?

Do you think that the American Revolution was a true revolution by definition...

Or a Power Struggle?

Hmm... I layed out the perspective of the status quo and the conspiracy theorists but yet the conspiracy theorists aren't interested.

If you want to understand how corrupt our society is, you have to understand the corruption of the past. You have to understand where the philosphy of our society flaws are routed in.

I laid it out as simple as possible so that it's simple to understand.

Consensus theorists think it was about creating a society based on freedom, equality, and liberty.

Conflict theroists think it was just a power struggle between the econmical elites of the Colonies and England.

I'll have to ruminate over the outline definitions and the subsequent explanation in a nutshell you've provided, and get back to you. It may take up to 18 hours, as I've got to wedge a work shift in there somewhere...

i say revolution, and not what some 19th or 20th century historian says but by what was writing in the journals of the men and women of that time 1760 1783 but some or form as late as 1790, by men who had fought in some of the last battles,for freedom, when a nation is brought forth from tyranny, and yields upon it's citizenry, freedom, it is a revolution. as seen here, www.myrevolutionarywar.com...

I have already pondered this idea, contemplating it into exhaustion yet no conclusive ending has been formed on my part, quite a contentious issue if I do say so myself. There are many factual disagreements which come into play on this subject, specifically two of them. One I have labored over extensively in my head, the other I have sporadically encountered.

This was a revolt (let us leave it at that for now) that occurred specifically in conjuncture with the rise of the enlightenment principles at the time. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Baron de Montesquieu, and Francois-Marie Arouet “Voltaire” were just some of leading figures in the movement along with the ones more influential to the colonists such as John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine.

The enlightenment principles espoused were being fought for mostly by the new middle class, or business class as they called it, which conspiracy theorists of the time had charged wanted to forcefully remove all restraints upon their rise in wealth which had been placed upon them by monarchy, nobility, aristocracy, and the churches. (Please remember the industrial revolution had just begun not too long before and this wealth was newly found)

So theorists have charged that the wealthiest bankers were members of the Illuminati and Freemasons who had conspired to overthrow all constraints upon their power grab. Before the enlightenment ideals caught on wealth was not decided upon strictly by material money but rather through honor, royalty, and blood. At the time the monarchies had dictated that the aristocracy was to help defend the poor/workers from the destructive interests of the middle class.

This infuriated many and conspiracy had begun to remove the ‘shackles’ of the old regimes and give people their liberty, which the theorists charged was a false liberty designed to enslave the individual into slavery to the masters of wealth. The business class charged the conspiracy theorists were only siding with the monarchies due to invested interests.

Most of the American founding fathers were quite wealthy, same with those who led the Jacobins in France, this class of people leading these revolts were either front-and-center wealthy subjects or they worked behind the scenes.

Here is a great synopsis of the leading book of the time during the French Revolution: Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism.

Although the notion that the American Revolution was led by the secret societies of wealthy bankers and businessmen was not so strong because the American Revolution was not aimed at overthrowing the entire culture at the time as the French Revolution was.

Also to note specifically for the American Revolution was that many of the wealthy bankers, businessmen, and traders sided with the British monarchy. 30-40% of Americans were loyalists to the crown at the time. Another important point is that George Washington was a Freemason, this is pretty well known today.

So was it a power grab? It depends upon whom you ask. Many at the time would loudly cry out to the people for their ignorance on the subject, how it is so easy to see that the enlightenment was engineered by those who despised everything about society and wanted absolute control in their hands and out of the hands of the monarchies. Others, the revolutionaries, would loudly cry out to the people to wake up from their oppression by monarchies and aristocracies, and that they were but mere serfs in the eyes of the kings.

I personally do not agree with most of the Enlightenment principles, although I also reject many of the pre-enlightenment principles, I generally find myself there with the Romanticists of the late 18th and early 19th century.

reply to post by Misoir


I do appreciate the fact that you look at the revolution in that sense.

HOWEVER, the revolution WAS NOT a conspiracy of the Illuminati or Freemasonry.

In fact, the Illuminati isn't so bad as people tend to spew.

The Illuminati was founded in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. The Order of the Illuminati was a new form of Freemasonry that focused on the ideals of Logic, Philosophy, Reason, and Enlightenment compared to the other Lodges of Freemasonry that were focused on the Occult and Esoteric Studies.

So when I say it was a power struggle. I'm not saying it was a power struggle of the Illuminati or Freemasons at all. I don't think what soever that it was a Freemason conspiracy. I do acknowledge that there are a lot of Freemason symbolism in our country but it was simply some rich people wanting to have power and nothing more. That is also the case for today. There is some form of shadow government but it's not the Freemasons or the Illuminati.

In fact, YOU nor I will ever know who they really are, but we do know the mediums in which they operate. We have to properly educate ourselves and stop being distracted by foolish conspiracies. I'm not saying that there is not a vast conspiracy but we don't know the organizations that are in charge. That's like trying to personify God in a sense.

Really research what the Illuminati was and you would be surprised to see what it really was.


Mozart was in the Order of the Illuminati and his friend Adam Weishaupt was the founder. Are you going to tell me he was involved in a vast NWO conspiracy to take over the world?

I'm not being rhetorical either, do you think Mozart conspired to over throw the British rule in the North American Colonies?

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'll have to ruminate over the outline definitions and the subsequent explanation in a nutshell you've provided, and get back to you. It may take up to 18 hours, as I've got to wedge a work shift in there somewhere...

It is in a nutshell but condensed in the sense that it is extremely easy to comprehend and apply.

I would love to hear your perspective.

well the saying know they enemy so with delay www.ehow.com... from the link

Origins
# The Illuminati was founded in the mid-1700s by Adam Weishaupt and backed by international bankers. Weishaupt produced the objectives and outlines of the Illuminati Order in 1776. He envisioned a secret society modeled after the Jesuits in which humans could coexist universally with nature. It was his response to the increased power of the clergy in Bavaria. The Illuminati tried to take credit for the Revolutionary War and French Revolution, to usher in the beginning of Weishaupt's ideal society.

so no they are not USA or even related to the Revolution war.

Read more: The History of the Illuminati | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

I believe it had elements of both, in different sectors.

The outline was sort of lost on me. I've not had to deal with outlines like that in several years, and seem to have lost my ability. I may have misunderstood it altogether. It seems to be saying that a "true" revolution must be radical, and anything short of that ("conservative" rather than "radical") cannot be a "revolution" by that definition.

In a sense that is so - conservatism tends to propagate the status quo, and so it would be difficult to define anything as "revolutionary" if it's trying to keep things as they are.

Socially, not too many things changed for the average Joe. So no, it wasn't any sort of "social revolution". Economically, not much changed either. Traders still traded, monetary units tended to stay as they were "Pounds and Spanish gold dollars). The initial attempts to change the monetary unit to Continental Dollars was pretty dismal, giving rise to the phrase "not worth a Continental". I've seen tavern lists from as late as 1810 that still priced their goods in Pounds, Shillings, and Pence. Traders still traded, farmers still farmed, blacksmiths still smithed, etc.

About the only area that could be considered a "revolution" was the political arena. The colonies revolted against a monarchy, and produced a radically different way of doing governmental business. A lot of the thought may have come from British thinkers (actually, I'd say ALL of it did, since even the colonials were "British", as British subjects) but it was in the actual implementation where things took a turn towards the radical.

I don't think it's an "either/or" proposition. It looks to me like the evaluation is dependent on which area of human endeavor the observer wants to concentrate. Nowadays, people tend to evaluate, and to place their labels, on the basis of social views. I don't happen to view politics and economics as mere branches or offshoots of the social, but most folks do. I tend to compartmentalize Social, Economic, and Political thought as separate areas entirely, but most seem to prefer to blend them together, lump them all into one basket.

Because of that tendency, I think most, if presented with this information, would say it was nothing more than a power struggle. I think politically, it was a revolution, economically it was a power struggle, and socially it was neither - it was business as usual, maintenance of the status quo in a fairly conservative manner.