Was the American Revolution actually a revolution?
How exactly would one define a revolution? According to Dictionary.com, a revolution is a sudden or momentous change in a situation. So, therefore, it is easy for most to place the American Revolution into the distinction of actually being a revolution. This is a statement that historian Howard Zinn would rebuke and laugh at. Zinn's book, A People's History of the United States: 1492- Present, offers plenty of evidence of why the American Revolution was, in fact, not a revolution. "Tyranny is tyranny," Zinn says in the title of his fourth chapter. Although Zinn's political standpoint is a bit socialist, he still offers many valid points to defend his argument. Had the United States gone from one tyrant to another? To say this would be inaccurate. However, there were many ways in which life, for the most part, remained the same. Not only does Zinn think that this "revolution" was unchanged in the aspect of the structure of government, but he also voices his views on how the social status and greed for money also remained the same. Prior to the American Revolution, the colonists were, of course, controlled by King George III and England. The King had complete control over these colonies and his word was supreme. Howe
What happened after the American Revolution was a change in government: instead of a king, there was to be a strong federal government. This previous quote illuminates Zinn's argument for how the colonists merely switched governments; the rich were still rich and the poor were still poor. However, as Zinn puts it, the Founding Father were wise and just men trying to achieve a good balance:. The slaves and indentured servants were a way to gain money, without them the rich would be nothing. Alexander Hamilton, our country's first Treasurer, stated that in order for a democratic society to survive, the rich must have all the power because they are "the permanent body" of America. Who cared about the lower classes, all they did was help the rich get where they were by being their slaves and indentured servants. According to historian Charles Beard, this federal government would appear to be beneficial for many reasons:The moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slave owners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds (91). A strong federal government aimed at protecting the rich. Even though the lower class was really getting screwed in about every way possible, one would think that there would be a chance that they could be able to practice whatever religion they desired. The men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class (83). Therefore, Zinn's title for his section on the American Revolution, "Tyranny is Tyranny," seems to make a lot more sense.
Common topics in this essay:
American Revolution,
Charles Beard,
Founding Father,
Revolution Post-Revolution,
Thomas Jefferson,
King Parliament,
Paine Society,
Thomas Paine,
Tyranny Tyranny,
Alexander Hamilton,
american revolution,
indentured servants,
federal government,
slaves indentured servants,
slaves indentured,
high-income white males,
revolution tyranny,
life remained,
tyranny tyranny,
war rich,
history united,
book people's history,
strong federal government,
people's history united,
structure government,
|
Acceptance Essays
