I thought it would be interesting to combine these two conversations and look at whether our new criterion can clear up our old question. My conclusion is that the American Revolution does not share the power change characteristic and thus may not be a revolution.
Let's take a look at the leaders of the American Revolution and the early United States.
This is Paul Revere's famous engraving of the Boston Massacre. Of course, the actual incident didn't look much like this, but one American wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" by the event. That American was John Adams, who served as defense attorney for the British soldiers, despite his own political leanings. It's hard to trace who was really "in charge" of the Boston Massacre, probably because no one was. However, it's interesting to note Adams' early appearance.
Let's take a look at the leaders of the American Revolution and the early United States.
This is Paul Revere's famous engraving of the Boston Massacre. Of course, the actual incident didn't look much like this, but one American wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" by the event. That American was John Adams, who served as defense attorney for the British soldiers, despite his own political leanings. It's hard to trace who was really "in charge" of the Boston Massacre, probably because no one was. However, it's interesting to note Adams' early appearance.
At least in a basic conception of US history, the next major action by Americans leading to the Revolutionary War was the Boston Tea Party. It was spearheaded by the Sons of Liberty, supported and arguably led by Samuel Adams (John's cousin).
The next year, both Adamses were appointed to the First Continental Congress. In 1775, both were also selected for the Second Continental Congress. That body is most famous for writing the Declaration of Independence and appointing George Washington as head of the army. (Here's a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was painted long after the event, but it's a nice visual aid.)
. 
Noticeably, there are two future presidents in the group at the front (the Declaration committee).After the war, when the Articles of Confederation needed replacing, General George Washington returned to act as president of the Constitutional Convention. After the states ratified the Constitution, Washington was of course elected president.
While some of the leaders of the revolution faded into relative anonymity (when was the last time you thought about Richard Henry Lee?), the first four presidents served in Congress during the war. Thus, the leadership of the revolution became the leaders of the new nation, representing a difference between the American Revolution and the revolutions discussed in last week's panel.
Static leadership does not absolutely rule out the American Revolution from consideration as a revolution, but it is worth adding to the discussion.
(Source-wise, I referred to Wikipedia and to my delightful high school history notes. The pictures are both public-domain, but I found them on Google Images.)
I'm glad you posted this topic Deborah I've been thinking a lot about it as well. I think as Americans we are automatically inclined to think of our American Revolution as a true revolution without contemplating what we actually define as a revolution. Finding your own views on revolution is important instead of simply accepting someone else's thoughts as gospel in order to thoughtfully consider both the past and the present.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point about the concept of static leadership, however I think this is only one small facet of the overarching definition we have been developing. Based on our classroom's musings I would say that what really makes the American Revolution revolutionary were the ideas that fueled it and led to their fight for independence. Ultimately it was a movement fueled by ideas about freedom which is one of Arendt's primary criteria. The colonists had the revolutionary idea that they didn't need to pay homage to a distant and disconnected overlord, and furthermore that there was something they could do to change that situation. They believed that they deserved the freedom of representation, the freedom to choose their own leaders and the freedom to speak out when they no longer thought their leaders were working in their best interest. Many of these same ideas are echoed in the modern day revolutions we heard about this week and I believe that this revolutionary spirit of change is the true determinant of a revolution and America did meet this requirement.
You both raise some very good points. I agree with Sara heavily that as Americans we think of our revolution as almost the "gold standard" against which all revolutions should be judged. I'm beginning to feel like it is comparing apples and oranges. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the panel last week but in my research I couldn't help but see several differences between the current revolutions in the Middle East and the American Revolution in the late 18th century.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of these distinctions that I believe plays a large role is time. As we've moved throughout the semester it has become obvious to me that we base much of our knowledge on the time frame of the evidence submitted. Arendt used historical evidence as her basis of conclusion; the panelists are using first-hand accounts. I wonder if we were to go back in time to the actual days of revolution in the colonies, would the people that we now credit the revolution to be the most significant power players? History seems to say so but Kate Rooney had a great comment a few weeks ago when she asked if history itself is a pseudo-science we take as fact. If we moved into the future would children of the Arab Spring find leaders who were present during these past few years and give them more credit than is worthy?
I guess what I'm trying to suggest is that there are several stark differences between the American Revolution and the ones that we are currently studying, but those differences could be caused by generations of history being altered and not systematic differences between the revolutionary people and settings themselves.