Merriam Webster defines a revolution as “a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.” Using this definition, the American Revolution was not a revolution. While the period of the revolutionary war can be definitively stated as 1775-1783, the shift in political and social ideologies began as early as 1763 with the end of the French and Indian War and stretch as far as 1815 when the Treaty of Ghent was ratified. This 52-Year time period can hardly be classified as sudden, especially in comparison to other revolutions such as the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution. By comparison, the American “Revolution” better fits the definition of an evolution, which is defined by the same source as “a process of slow
…show more content…
Documents such as the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution set precedents for legislation that the United States and countries around the world would follow in attempts to establish effective and efficient governments. The U.S. Constitution served as inspiration and a template for progress toward constitutionalism and democracy(AEI). The French Revolution and the decolonization of Southeast Asian countries led to the adoption of constitutions that mirrored that of the United states “whether consciously or unconsciously,” and these countries “adopted many important concepts from the U.S. constitution such as: the separation of powers into three branches of government, the principle of federalism, and the supremacy of the constitution.” (La) However, simply the presence and importance of change that occurred does not justify the use of the term revolution. The changes would have to be sudden, extreme, or complete in order to fulfill the definition of revolution which I argue against in the remaining …show more content…
Just because the colonists fought for their independence between 1775 and 1783 does not prove a revolution took place. In fact, the very act of a war provides more evidence of an insurrection rather than a revolution according to the ideas of philosopher Max Stirner. In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner writes, “Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions…a political or social act.” He claims insurrection “is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established” (Stirner). The colonists uprising was not done with the intentions of wholly reforming their social or political systems. Verily, the radicals perpetuating the idea of independence or the later ratification or the constitution were unsure of their ultimate goal and most “respected authorities” believed a republican government could not be successfully established (Ellis). However, they simply desired relief from Parliamentary Taxation without representation.
The American Revolution was not a revolution because it lacked components essential to the root of the word: immediacy, wholeness, and in many aspects, large degrees of change. The misconception that a war defines a revolution is refuted not only by definition, but by the philosophies
Documents such as the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution set precedents for legislation that the United States and countries around the world would follow in attempts to establish effective and efficient governments. The U.S. Constitution served as inspiration and a template for progress toward constitutionalism and democracy(AEI). The French Revolution and the decolonization of Southeast Asian countries led to the adoption of constitutions that mirrored that of the United states “whether consciously or unconsciously,” and these countries “adopted many important concepts from the U.S. constitution such as: the separation of powers into three branches of government, the principle of federalism, and the supremacy of the constitution.” (La) However, simply the presence and importance of change that occurred does not justify the use of the term revolution. The changes would have to be sudden, extreme, or complete in order to fulfill the definition of revolution which I argue against in the remaining …show more content…
Just because the colonists fought for their independence between 1775 and 1783 does not prove a revolution took place. In fact, the very act of a war provides more evidence of an insurrection rather than a revolution according to the ideas of philosopher Max Stirner. In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner writes, “Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions…a political or social act.” He claims insurrection “is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established” (Stirner). The colonists uprising was not done with the intentions of wholly reforming their social or political systems. Verily, the radicals perpetuating the idea of independence or the later ratification or the constitution were unsure of their ultimate goal and most “respected authorities” believed a republican government could not be successfully established (Ellis). However, they simply desired relief from Parliamentary Taxation without representation.
The American Revolution was not a revolution because it lacked components essential to the root of the word: immediacy, wholeness, and in many aspects, large degrees of change. The misconception that a war defines a revolution is refuted not only by definition, but by the philosophies