Revolution or Independence?

Independence Day calls to mind the question, Why did the American Revolution usher in an era of unprecedented liberty, while most other revolutions (Cromwellian, French, Russian, Chinese, etc.) have led only to tyrannical rule? The war between the American colonies and the British Crown was not, needless to say, low-key and bloodless. The losing side suffered, often severely. (One of my own ancestors died in a rebel prison.) It was, however, vastly less bloody and brutal than the upheaval in France, and it did not throw up either a military dictatorship or a schism in civil society that lingered almost to the present day. (Hillaire Belloc noted once that, while Jacobite songs were often heard in English homes, he had been warned by the gendarmerie for intoning “Vexilla regis” on a beach in Brittany.)

One does not wish to oversimplify history, but the best answer to our question is, I think, the simplest: The American Revolution was not a revolution in any meaningful sense. It was a war for independence that upheld rather than subverted the colonies’ political and social traditions.

As an example of the opposing view – that a genuine revolution took place – libertarian Ilya Somin will serve:

[T]he American independence movement was . . . revolutionary in the sense that it sought to institute a radically new political system. The revolutionaries certainly were not trying to gain independence simply for the purpose of establishing a smaller country with a political system that largely copied Britain’s. For example, the rebels sought to create a polity with far stronger protections for individual freedom, no hereditary aristocracy, and a much more democratic political system than existed in 18th century Britain (or any other European state).

That is true if one compares post-war America to Britain. But the pertinent comparison is with the pre-war colonies, where the hand of the government was comparatively light, hereditary aristocrats were absent (only one English nobleman, a mere baron (Thomas, Lord Fairfax), ever settled permanently over here, and he left no descendants), and the franchise extended to most white males. The Revolution changed none of that to any marked extent. At most, the departure of many well-to-do loyalists for Canada or the mother country opened niches for ambitious men of the middling order to move into.

Then, too, the governments that the newly independent colonies set up didn’t diverge dramatically from the British model. Every State – and the United States after the adoption of the Constitution – had a monarchial executive and a legislature elected at frequent intervals. The major breaks with colonial practice were that the State governors were elected for a limited term rather than appointed by a distant King and the judiciary was independent of the executive. The latter was probably the biggest alteration, yet contemporaries barely noticed it, presumably because interference with judges and juries had been a constant colonial complaint; the new arrangement was seen as no more than a rectification of a longstanding grievance.

All in all, after 1783 the same people, espousing the same political principles, governed America in pretty much the same way as before 1776. The handful of real revolutionaries, of the Thomas Paine stripe, moved elsewhere to seek their utopias. For that matter, the defeated loyalists turned out to disagree with their rebel brethren on fundamental questions less sharply than one might have anticipated. Those who later took part in English politics tended, like the great guerrilla leader Banastre Tarleton, to ally with the “advanced” Whigs, who in turn looked to America as an inspiration.

At the time of Independence, pessimists abounded, afraid that the overthrow of the constituted authorities would set in motion a landslide descent into anarchy, followed by repression. Within a few years, the French experience would show that it was not irrational to be afraid. Happily, our revolution was conservative and organic, from which other countries and generations ought to have learned the blessings of continuity and prudence. Unluckily for them, many did not.

Comments

[pbh]

"the truth is that the vast majority [of those who supported the Crown] were ordinary people who were unjustly persecuted by the revolutionaries"

I can only suppose by this post that you are also a supporter of George III; otherwise, what is your point?

That the American Revolution was . . . *wrong*?

pbh

[Ed B]

It may help justify your patriotism to think of those who supported the Crown as all rich and aristocratic, but the truth is that the vast majority were ordinary people who were unjustly persecuted by the revolutionaries, and many were aboriginals and blacks who (rightly) saw the British Crown as the best protection of rights.

A little more detailed info here:

http://www.uelac.org/PDF/loyalist.pdf

[pbh]

"Happily, our revolution was conservative and organic, from which other countries and generations ought to have learned the blessings of continuity and prudence. Unluckily for them, many did not."

Although I so often find myself disagreeing with you, I believe that there is much in this post with which I can heartily agree. In particular the perception that historians should not compare the post Revolutionary United States with Britain but rather with the pre-Revolutionary United States.

My only quibble is with the label Conservative, if you indeed intend this as a label.

I would assert that the conservatism was preservative in intent, in that the Founders wanted to preserve the Liberal government that they had come to enjoy.

Conservatives, after all, were Tories.

I trust that you had a very happy Fourth.

pbh