The American Revolution was a political revolution that separated England’s North American colonies

from Great Britain and led to the formation of the United States of America. Between the years 1763
and 1783, the American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain, waged a war of
liberation, transformed colonies into states and created a new nation. However, historians have been
largely divided over the nature of the American Revolution (1775-1783) and with that, even the term
“revolution” is put into question. In one interpretive camp are those who assert that the Revolution
was "the most radical and most far-reaching event in American history," while their opponents claim
that it was "culturally, politically, socially, and economically a conservative movement." In the
following paragraphs, we will attempt to examine the nature of the revolution by taking a look at its
causes and consequences. In course of that, we will also elucidate upon various historiographical
interpretations and perspectives on the same. However, before we go on to discuss the nature of the
revolution and through that attempt to answer the question as stated, we must firstly take a brief
look at the events preceding and during the revolution. Important events preceding and during the
Revolution Throughout the 18th century, the maturing British North American colonies inevitably
forged a distinct identity. They grew vastly in economic strength and cultural attainment; virtually all
had long years of self-government behind them. However, in the aftermath of the French and Indian
War, London saw a need for a new imperial design that would involve more centralized control,
spread the costs of empire more equitably, and speak to the interests of both French Canadians and
North American Indians. The colonies, on the other hand, long accustomed to a large measure of
independence, expected more, not less, freedom. And, with the French menace eliminated, they felt
far less need for a strong British presence. A scarcely comprehending Crown and Parliament on the
other side of the Atlantic found itself contending with colonists trained in self-government and
impatient with interference. The British government needed more money to support its growing
empire and faced growing taxpayer discontent at home. The replacement of the Molasses Act of
1733, which placed a prohibitive duty, or tax, on the import of rum and molasses from non-English
areas, with the Sugar Act of 1764 outlawed the importation of foreign rum. It also put a modest duty
on molasses from all sources and levied taxes on wines, silks, coffee, and a number of other luxury
items. Both the duty imposed by the Sugar Act and the measures to enforce it caused consternation
among New England merchants. They contended that payment of even the small duty imposed would
be ruinous to their businesses. Merchants, legislatures, and town meetings protested the law.
Colonial lawyers protested "taxation without representation," a slogan that was to persuade many
Americans they were being oppressed by the mother country. Later in 1764, Parliament enacted a
Currency Act "to prevent paper bills of credit hereafter issued in any of His Majesty's colonies from
being made legal tender." Since the colonies were a deficit trade area and were constantly short of
hard currency, this measure added a serious burden to the colonial economy. Equally objectionable
from the colonial viewpoint was the Quartering Act, passed in 1765, which required colonies to
provide royal troops with provisions and barracks. A general tax measure sparked the greatest
organized resistance. Known as the "Stamp Act," it required all newspapers, broadsides, pamphlets,
licenses, leases, and other legal documents to bear revenue stamps. Bearing equally on people who
did any kind of business, the Stamp Act aroused the hostility of the most powerful and articulate
groups in the American population: journalists, lawyers, clergymen, merchants and businessmen,
North and South, East and West. The issue thus drawn centred on the question of representation. The
colonists believed they could not be represented in Parliament unless they actually elected members
to the House of Commons. The American leaders argued that their only legal relations were with the
Crown. They asserted that the English Parliament had no more right to pass laws for the colonies than
any colonial legislature had the right to pass laws for England. The British Parliament rejected the
colonial contentions, yielding only in 1766. The year 1767 brought another series of measures that
stirred anew all the elements of discord. Charles Townshend, British Chancellor of the Exchequer,
attempted a new fiscal program in the face of continued discontent over high taxes at home. The
"Townshend Acts" were based on the premise that taxes imposed on goods imported by the colonies
were legal while internal taxes (like the Stamp Act) were not. The agitation following enactment of
the Townshend duties was less violent than that stirred by the Stamp Act, but it was nevertheless
strong, particularly in the cities of the Eastern seaboard. On March 5, 1770, antagonism between
citizens and British soldiers again flared into violence. Dubbed the "Boston Massacre," the incident
was dramatically pictured as proof of British heartlessness and tyranny. Faced with such opposition,
Parliament in 1770 opted for a strategic retreat and repealed all the Townshend duties except that on
tea. The Boston ‘Tea Party’ occurred on the night of December 16, 1773, when a band of men
disguised as Mohawk Indians and led by Samuel Adams of Massachusetts boarded three British ships
lying at anchor and dumped their tea cargo into Boston harbour also became a turning point.
Doubting their countrymen's commitment to principle, they feared that if the tea were landed,
colonists would actually purchase the tea and pay the tax. A crisis now confronted Britain. If the
destruction of the tea went unpunished, Parliament would admit to the world that it had no control
over the colonies. Thus, it responded with new laws that the colonists called the "Coercive" or
"Intolerable Acts". From then on, the spirit of the revolution brewed stronger and became
increasingly violent. The early stages of war, in 1775, can be best described as British military victories
and American moral triumphs. In June 1775, the colonists failed to prevail at Bunker Hill, but inflicted
heavy casualties on a vastly superior military force. A year later, in 1776, while the British occupied
New York, Washington led his army to two surprise victories at Trenton and Princeton that uplifted
the morale of the patriots. Regardless, by 1777 the British occupied Philadelphia, the seat of the
Continental Congress, and sent that body into hiding. The British also controlled New York City and
pretty much had their way in the waters along the Eastern Seaboard. I The Battle of Saratoga, in
northern New York, served as a critical turning point. The British attempt to capture the Hudson River
Valley ended with their surrender to General Horatio Gates in October. Washington, having lost
Philadelphia, led his troops to Valley Forge to spend the winter. In early 1778, the French agreed to
recognize American independence and formed a permanent alliance with the new nation. In October
1781, the war virtually came to an end when General Cornwallis was surrounded and forced to
surrender the British position at Yorktown, Virginia. Two years later, the Treaty of Paris made it
official: America was independent. Nature of the American Revolution – a historiographical overview
The American Revolution had a significance far beyond the North American continent. It attracted the
attention of a political intelligentsia throughout the European continent. We can especially note this
in the context of a worldwide bourgeoning of ideas of liberty and citizens’ rights. But the world and
especially, Europe had not yet moved to a stage wherein monarchies were completely overthrown.
Even the English Revolution had left England with a Constitutional monarchy along with the
Parliament. In the first century of the event, historians did not probe much into the revolutionary
nature of the Revolution. Some historians even argue that the Revolution was solely a colonial
rebellion aimed at achieving only the limited goal of independence from Britain. The general
assumption was that the main theme of the American Revolution was the “quest for liberty”. Here,
we may take note of the nationalist school of historiography led by George Barcroft to whom the
Revolution represented the phase of a master plan by God. To him, America synthesised the forces of
liberty and progress vis-à-vis Britain’s tyranny and reaction. The revolution is seen in terms of
hastening the advance of mankind towards a millennium of “everlasting peace”. He went on to add
that the Revolution was achieved within the colonies in “benign tranquillity” as all the colonies were
united in their spirit and determination. Barcroft’s interpretation of the American Revolution
remained the most dominant in the nineteenth century as it embodied the need of the time. Many of
the years between 1830s and 1870s, the nation was split by the bitter political battles of the
Jacksonian era and the brutal military conflict of the Civil War. Barcroft’s nationalistic representation
of a united struggle for liberty, no north or south. satisfied the intense desire of the American people
for a national history that would bind them together. However, by the end of the nineteenth century,
a reaction against Barcroft’s ultra-nationalist historiography came up. Between the 1890s and 1940s,
the scholars that revised Barcroft’s interpretations fell under two major schools: the Imperial School
and the Progressives. The Imperialists saw the revolution in terms of the political and constitutional
issues that surrounded it, while the Progressives held that the primary causes were social and
economic in nature. The imperial school was led by Geroge L. Beer, Charles M. Andrews and Lawrence
H. Gipson who believed that the American Revolution could not be viewed only from the narrow lens
of national history. To them, the dispute between the mother country and the colonies lay in the
constitutional issues between them as the colonies kept moving steadily in the direction of greater
self-government and the mother country moving more in the direction of control over her empire.
The Progressives took a different approach attempted to view the Revolution through the lenses of
class conflict and economic interests. They also denied the notion that ideas had any real causal
power and that the rhetoric of the revolutionaries was largely a cover for their own interests. In 1909,
Carl Becker proffered his “dual revolution thesis,” writing, “The first was the question of home rule;
the second was the question . . . of who should rule at home.” That is to say, Becker took the position
that the American Revolution should be considered not as one revolution but two. The first was an
external revolution—the colonial rebellion against Britain—caused by a clash of economic interests
between the colonies and mother country. The second was an internal revolution—a conflict between
America's social classes—to determine whether the upper or lower classes would rule once the British
departed. A few years later, Charles Beard published an extended essay––more ruminative than
researched––in which he argued that individual economic and class interests shaped the decisions
made by delegates to the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent ratification process. More
than any other single work written in the Populist-Progressive era, Beard's book caused Progressive
historians to view the period between the 1760s and the 1780s as one of continuous conflict between
social classes in America over economic matters. J. Franklin Jameson was another historian who
contributed greatly to the school as his basic premise was that the war was a social revolution. He
argued that the most salient feature of the American Revolution had not been the war for
independence from Great Britain; it was, rather, the struggle between aristocratic values and those of
the common people who tended toward a levelling democracy. American revolutionaries sought to
change their government, not their society, but in destroying monarchy and establishing republics,
they in fact changed their society profoundly. Jameson wrote, "The stream of revolution, once
started, could not be conned within narrow banks, but spread abroad upon the land? Jameson's book
was among the first to bring social analysis to the fore of American history. Examining the effects the
American Revolution had on business, intellectual and religious life,slavery, land ownership, and
interactions between members of different social classes, Jameson showed the extent of the social
reforms won at home during the war. By looking beyond the political and probing the social aspects of
this seminal event, Jameson forced a re-examination of revolution as a social phenomenon and, as
one reviewer put it, injected a "liberal spirit" into the study of American history. The interpretation
reached its apex in the work of Merrill Jensen, a second-generation Progressive, who argued that the
American Revolution was “an internal revolution carried on by the masses of the people against the
local aristocracy.” Progressives believed that the Revolution of 1776 was a radical, populist uprising
and that the Constitutional Convention represented the elites’ attempt at counterrevolution.
Interesting to note, regarding the imperialists and the progressives was that while the two groups had
varied interpretations of the causes and nature of the Revolution, they were often in agreement with
the conclusion that the movement was indeed a revolutionary one. In the 1940s and 1950s, in
reaction to the Progressives’ focus on conflict (and the rise of the Cold War), historians began looking
for commonalities or consensus in the past. Louis Hartz found a broad scale consensus among
colonists in the political philosophy of John Locke. Other consensus historians, like Daniel Boorstin,
stressed the conservative nature of the American Revolution. Meanwhile, a few historians took on
Progressive arguments directly including Forrest McDonald, who refuted Beard’s argument regarding
economic interest and the Constitution, while Robert Brown tried to dispel the Progressives’ class
conflict dynamic by arguing that a “middle-class democracy” had already existed before the
Revolution. In 1953, Edmund S. Morgan argued that colonists’ arguments about constitutionality were
not only genuine but that they were central to the Revolution. In a sense, Morgan’s work (as well as
that of Douglass Adair) signaled to early American historians that it was okay to take ideas seriously
(hence the somewhat derisive label, “neo-Whig”). One of the most definitive works of this new
ideological interpretation was Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American
Revolution (1967). Bailyn argued that colonists’ ideology had its origins in the so-called “radical Whig”
republican tradition in England, which instilled in them a strong fear of tyranny and conspiracies
against their liberty. This was meant to explain why colonists reacted as they did to Britain’s new
imperial policies during the 1760s. To Bailyn, the Revolution represented, above all, an intellectual
revolution—a radical change in the way most Americans looked upon themselves and their
institutions. The true revolution, he suggested, took place inside men's minds more than out in the
political or social arena. This "ideological" revolution constituted a complete transformation in the
image that the colonists had of themselves. Before the Revolution the Americans saw their
divergences from the norms of European society as shortcomings,- they felt a sense of inferiority
because they lacked a titled aristocracy, cosmopolitan culture, stratified society, and established
church along national lines. After the Revolution, on the other hand, they came to look upon these
differences as good, not bad; as virtues, not vices,- and as advantages rather than defects. These
differences, Americans; felt, would enable them to establish a republican government which would
correspond with their republican society. Bailyn and others’ focus on “republicanism” (which together
came to be known as the “republican synthesis”) was challenged by historians such as Joyce Appleby,
who argued that the liberalism of John Locke was at least as, if not more, fundamental to the
character of the Revolution. This “republicanism-liberalism” debate lasted for well over decade and,
at times, became quite heated. Exploring themes of social change, the influence of class and society
on revolution, and the ensuing generation gap in his book, The Radicalism of theAmerican Revolution,
Gordon Wood is another important figure in the historiography of the revolution. To him, the
American Revolution is radical and revolutionary as it was the first anti-colonial modern revolution
that replaced monarchy with a republic. In the eighteenth-century English-speaking world, monarchy
created a clear social structure, linking everyone to the classes above and below them in
measurements of freedom and servitude. This hereditary hierarchy assigned everyone a place from
birth and reinforced it with the education of the time. People were taught that all people are not
created equal; that poverty was virtuous for the common folk; and that it was important to be
industrious and not think about their lot in life. However, in the American colonies, more distant from
the British crown, people began thinking about these ways. They saw the aristocrats living on
unearned income. They grew tired of looking upward, begging for crumbs from those above them.
This growing sense of social equality sowed the seeds of republicanism in the nascent country.
Increased migration in the much larger land led to social bonds breaking down, as farm families
opened their ways to early industrialization. Society started to seem less ordained by God and more
controlled by man. The rulers’ sense of paternalism seemed more and more out of touch. As the
people on the ground ignored the propaganda of the leaders, they were able to see that the
dissatisfaction was actually the fault of the uncaring leadership. The concept of the country-colony
relationship seemed less ordained by nature and more a choice that must be consented to by both
sides. In 1763, when the British government taxed the colonists, it sent the anger over corruption in
the British crown to a new level. The revolutionaries began their war against the established powers,
seeking to destroy what they saw as the secret bonds of society—the use of family, blood, and
personal influence to overthrow merit. They sought to substitute the right to self-determination and
personal benevolence. They argued that people would find their best selves when freed of colonial
trappings. In the late 1960s and 1970s, “social history,” which focused on the lives of everyday
persons, became predominant. At the same time, the Civil Rights movement and the feminist
movement helped provide a spark for a new generation of historians to study the history of race and
slavery in early America, as well as women’s history. Around the same time, young historians––most
notably Jesse Lemisch and Staughton Lynd––involved in New Left politics engaged in this “history
from the bottom up” in an effort to recover the agency of labouring class colonists. Similarly, Mary
Beth Norton and Linda Kerber both published books in 1980 about the impact of the Revolution on
[Link] the 1980s and 1990s, there was a resurgence of interest in class conflict and economic
aspects of the Revolution. Neo-Progressive historians such as Gary Nash, Ed Countryman, and Woody
Holton have combined the issues of the Progressive interpretation with the social history’s concern
for non-elites. Nash is especially interesting in that he emphasises on popular behaviour and “ordinary
people in bold opposition to their superiors.” It is obvious that for him, economic reasons play the
most important role. On the other hand, Rhys Issac analysed the different ideologies at work before
and during the Revolution, in terms of the nature of authority customarily exercised by the educated
elite from the leadership was drawn, and in terms of the interaction of the leaders’ “higher” literary
culture with the more generally diffused forms of popular culture. Here, the Methodists and Baptists
of Virginia were especially examined as examples. While neo-Progressives continue to write
important works, in the last twenty years there has been no dominant school or interpretation that
has defined the study of the Revolution. Rather, there are many sub-fields such as imperial history,
Native American history, history of the West, and religion, which are producing exciting works that
are broadening our understanding of the Revolution and early America, in general. How revolutionary
was the revolution? What is clear when one looks at the American Revolution is that it was unlike the
ones that occurred in France in 1789 or in Russia in 1917 or in China in 1949 as it did not destroy the
institutional foundations of the old order or transfers power from a ruling elite to new social groups.
Nevertheless, the Revolution had momentous consequences. During the colonial era, the percentage
of white men who voted or participated in politics was low. There were no organized political parties,
and adult white men tended to defer to gentlemen. By the time the Revolution was over, ordinary
people had become much more heavily involved in the political process. The revolution also
profoundly altered social expectations. It led to demands that the vote be extended to a larger
proportion of the population and that public offices be elected by the people. During and after the
Revolution, smaller farmers, artisans, and laborers began increasingly to participate in state legislative
elections, and men claiming to represent their interests began to win office and wield power. Leaders
in the new state governments were less wealthy, more mobile, and less likely to be connected by
marriage and kinship than those before the Revolution. For the first time, state assemblies erected
galleries to allow the public to watch legislative debates. Above all, the Revolution popularized certain
radical ideals--especially a commitment to liberty, equality, government of the people, and rule of
law. However compromised in practice, these egalitarian ideals inspired a spirit of reform. Slavery, the
subordination of women, and religious intolerance--all became problems in a way that they had never
been before. The Revolution also set into motion larger changes in American life. It inspired
Americans to try to reconstruct their society in line with republican principles. The Revolution inspired
many Americans to question slavery and other forms of dependence, such as indentured servitude
and apprenticeship. By the early 19th century, the northern states had either abolished slavery or
adopted gradual emancipation plans. Meanwhile, white indentured servitude had virtually
disappeared. The Revolution was accompanied by dramatic changes in the lives of women. Before the
Revolution, many women were involved in campaigns to boycott British imports. During the conflict,
many women made items for the war effort and ran farms and businesses in the absence of their
husbands. After the Revolution, American women, for the first time, protested against male power
and demanded greater respect inside and outside the home. Lucy Knox, the wife of General Knox,
wrote her husband in 1777: "I hope you will not consider yourself as commander in chief of your own
house--but be convinced...that there is such a thing as equal command." After the Revolution, the first
feminist writers, such as Judith Sargent Murray, demanded equal rights for women. Yet despite this, it
is also important to note as highlighted by Sylvia Frey that women started off as actors, only to
become an audience as part of a new identity defined by men. Further, as noted by Francis Jennings,
while the Americans sought to build a nation for themselves based on the principles of liberty and
equality, they did so along with conquest, invasion and dispossession of Indian tribes and peoples.
The romantic idea of a revolution of the people is thus tainted by its multiplicity of variously
oppressed and exploited peoples. Conclusion Through a survey of the causes, events and
interpretations of the American Revolution, it is clear to us that there is no clear answer as to whether
it was indeed ‘the most complete, unexpected and revolutionary of any in the history of the nation’.
The multiplicity of perspectives goes to show the complexity of the revolution. With regard to its
nature, it definitely embodied a revolutionary agenda. What may be noted is that the American
Revolution set the stage for the creation of a powerful nation under the Constitution.

Effect and significance

The most outstanding achievement of the American Revolution was that the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA came into existence in place of the old colonies. It was also responsible indirectly for
the birth of CANADA and AUSTRALIA. But to arrive at a suitable conclusion of the above
mentioned question, changes brought about in political, social and economic spheres have to be
considered An outstanding achievement of the American Revolution lies in the fact that it was
the first successful struggle for freedom in modern history. More significantly, it became a role
model for all subsequent freedom movements in various parts of the world in the 19th and 20th
centuries. Interestingly enough the Indian freedom movement derived a lot of inspiration from
the personalities and events of the American war of Independence. The sacrifices of George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson very much inspired the Indian nationalist leaders The
American War of Independence can be regarded as the first successful democratic movement in
modern history. The victory of the American colonies not only meant the birth of a new nation
but it also implied the victory of the system of democracy. The popular will in making a
government was firmly established. The inhabitants of the American colonies struggled hard for
the success of democratic process. No other nation so early glorified the great principles of
democracy by putting them into practice as the Americans have done. The American Revolution
marked an outstanding triumph of the forces of anticolonialism. The British colonialism In the 13
American Colonies reflected an exploitative character. The colonies were meant to serve the
needs of the mother-country. They were considered as sources of raw materials and markets for
British goods. The colonies did not enjoy the right to sell their products. All the products of the
American colonies had to be sent to London from where they were distributed to various parts
of the world. In other words the British colonial interests guided the destiny of the trade and
commerce of American colonies. We must mention that the imperial hold was not always very
rigid due to the distance of the colonies from the mother-country thereby creating problems of
transport and communication. Yet the psychology of the mother-country very much reflected
the view that colonies were meant to be exploited and exacted as much as possible. As we have
seen, the Imperial parliament passed all legislations concerning .colonies and this very much hurt
the sentiments and feelings of the colonial people. For that reason the American war of
Independence assume the nature of an anti-colonial uprising. The American succeeded in
crushing British colonialism In the colonies. It Is a fitting tribute to the American Revolution that
all the anti-colonial movements In the 19th and 20th centuries regarded the revolution as the
most esteemed example of anti-colonialism.

Another highly precious legacy of the American Revolution was that it brought forth a written
constitution - the first of its kind in modern history. This would be the source of all powers,
position and functions of the various branches 01 the American government. The constitution
also became the custodian of Individual liberty, civil rights and the independence of the Judiciary.
One may say that the Englishmen also possessed a constitution but we must point out that 1\
was not a written constitution. It can only be regarded as a combination of acts and statutes
passed by Parliament from the 13th century to the present one. But the importance of the
American constitution lies in the fact that everything has been very elaborately and
comprehensively written. For this reason the constitution became the sources of all laws of the
land. Significantly enough it tremendously influenced the making of constitution in various parts
of the world till the present time. In the making of the Indian constitution some of the
remarkable features of the American constitution have been inserted. The American leader's
clearly stated that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and the constitution Is the best
custodian of the nation's as well as Individual's liberty. A significant result that followed from the
above-mentioned fact was the formation of a national government based on a written
constitution. The success of the Revolution had provided the people of the colonies the
opportunity to give legal form and expression to their political ideals as expressed in the
Declaration of Independence. Thus came the state constitutions, JAMES MADISON, the fourth U.
S. President, once said, "Nothing has exerted more admiration than the manner in which free
government have been established in America". He was hinting at the written constitution,
developed in America which was among the earliest in history. JOHN ADAMS, the second U.S.
President, wrote aptly, "in all free states, the constitution is final." Americans everywhere
demanded "a standing law to live by.' Within a year after the Declaration of Independence, ten
of 13 Colonies had drawn up a new constitution. After the recognition of their independence, the
13 colonies decided to frame a constitution which would bind them with a strong union. Their
representatives met at Philadelphia in May, 1787. It was an assemblage of experience, wisdom
and dedication. According 10 Prof. Beard, "never in the history of assemblies has there been a
convention of men richer in experience and in practical knowledge or endowed with profounder
Insight Into springs of human action and the Intimate essence of government. George
Washington, who was a revered hero after his triumphant conduct of the American army in the
war presided over this FEDERAL CONVENTION. The Ideas of John Lock and MONTESQUIEU very
much influenced the delegates in the framing of the constitution for the national government.
The new constitution was finally adopted on 21 June 1788. Washington, in accordance with the
constitution, was chosen President and assumed office on 30th April, 1789. It was the
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (4th July, 1776) that proclaimed the birth of a new nation. It
did more than that. It brought forth a philosophy of human freedom which would become in
subsequent period a dynamic force in the western world. Not only in the west, but in the rest of
the world it would be the Inspiring force and the guiding spirit of many freedom struggles. It was
a memorable document on individual liberty and equality, and a charter on human rights. II said:
'All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty and the present of happiness.' The documents adds that
the government was set up to secure these rights and that whenever government becomes
destructive of these ends, the people have right to change or abolish it, and to institute a new
government. It is clear that the source of inspiration for Thomas Jefferson and his
contemporaries had been the writings of English political philosophers, particularly JAMES
HARRINGTON'S OCEANIA and John Lock's classic work SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT. The
whig spirit of England after the Glorious Revolution (1688 – 89) had an impact on the American
leaders. The noteworthy point was the awakening consciousness of men that government should
exist for the people, not the people for the government. The Declaration was much more than a
public notice of separation. It instilled among the common-folks a sense of their own
importance, inspiring them to struggle for personal freedom, self-government and a dignified
place in society. The ideas of the Declaration brought the Revolution within the range of the
popular inspiration and strengthened it with the force of popular emotion. The Political changes
did not affect a vast section of the population. The loyalists of the British crown had to leave the
colonies and were forced to go and, settle in Canada and the governors had now no place left for
them in the colonies. These people accounted for a maximum of 20% of the population. For the
rest of the population, i.e., 80% of the masses, the, political changes had not much effect. They
continued as before. The political system also did not show a radical departure from the previous
existing system. The percentage of the voters increased as against the select few who had the
right to vote in the colonial system, but even after the revolution, many people, especially the
women did not enjoy the right to vote. Therefore, a movement which fails to bring the entire
population or people into focus can hardly claim its right to a revolution. Not much changes were
to be seen in the social sphere, too. The American Revolution did not bring about the end of class
distinction as had been in the case of French and Russian Revolutions. This' is evidenced by the
fact that even after the revolution, only a small group, though an increased number and voting
rights and other privileges. The structure of the society more or less remained unchanged save a
small section such as loyalists and the governors, who had to leave the colonies and more to
other places. As per the right of equality emphasised in the constitution, the institution of slavery
was abolished in theory but not in, practice. It was a development that paved the way for the
future American Civil War. The Position of women too remained unchanged and as before, they
hadn't voting rights. Before the revolution, the colonists had the feeling that the British Crown
was trying to Impose Anglicanism of the Church of England on them. After the revolution they
took steps to check this and worked towards Deanglicisation. Save this, not much is to be noticed
of the impact of the revolution in the social sphere. The American Revolution also did not have a
great impact in the financial sphere. The Revolution marked the end of the colonial system of
exploitation according to which the colonies existed for the mother country. The American
colonies could now manufacture items as they liked and enter into free competition. But it must
be borne in mind that a certain degree of freedom was enjoyed by the colonists even before the
revolution. The trade and navigation acts passed by the British, governments were never
enforced strictly. Moreover, the increased' freedom of trade benefitted only a small section
which went on becoming richer, while the, middle class remained unaffected by it. This led to the
widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. No doubt, the lands of the British Crown and
the loyalists were seized and redistributed among the landless people, but these lands were not
distributed uniformly among all the people and as such only a small section could reap the
harvest. Clearly, the principle of equality was no en creed in the economic set up after the
revolution. Thus, it is seen that the American Revolution could not bring about drastic changes as
was the case with the French and Russian Revolutions. It was a revolution in a limited sense. It
accentuated the pace of changes and reforms that were taking place. The colonists were the
inheritors of the British tradition of freedom, The Institutions in the colonies were based on the
model of England. As such, it were mainly the American settlers who brought about the
revolution. It was not a mass movement. Moreover there was no general discontent among the
colonists which is the characteristic of any revolution. The changes brought about cannot be
ascribed to this period alone and it continued even after the revolution. Above all, the changes,
brought about by the revolution were bound to take place, had the revolution taken place or not,
John Adams, the second President of U.S.A., in a reminisent Jetter written in his later years,
Viewed that the history of American Revolution began as early as 1629. He asserted that the
revolution had affected much before the war commenced. He added: "The Revolution was in the
minds and hearts of the people ……….. The principles and feelings which led the Americans to
rebel ought to be traced back for two hundred years; and sought in the history of the country
from the first plantation in America." forth a new society that was different in nature from the
continental society, The 13 American colonies combined to build up a society that possessed a
forward looking attitude, an Innovative mind and creative temperament. It was free from the
shackles of tradition and conservatism. It was liberal and progressive. This was the reason that
the American society moved forward rapidly. The social impediments like rigid class distinction
and subjection to social conservatism never bothered it. Social mobility was evident in this new
society right from the beginning. The value of a man in the society was determined not by his
birth or class but by his ability and achievements. People belonging to ordinary families had a
wide array of opportunities open to them. For this reason the American Society provided the
largest number of 'rags to riches' success stories. Opportunity for education was provided to all
the individuals irrespective of their class or family status. This was a period, we mean the late
18th and early 19th century, when the impact of the Industrial Revolution in Western Europe
was slowly entering into the newly built American society. This provided a grand opportunity for
the economic progress of the American society. 'Career open to talent' became the ideal mantra
of the American people. The work culture which made its appearance slowly became a strong
socio-economic force. Construction of roads, bridges and canals in right earnest. On the one
hand they attempted to unify the new nation and on the other they brought economic prosperity
to it. Mills and factories began to be built up and at the same time agriculture too received a
great boost. As the colonies possessed immensely vast natural resources the path of economic
progress was not very difficult to seek, thanks to the hard work, dedication and struggle of the
Americans.

Effect on BRITAIN

The American War of Independence had tremendous impact on Britain. Firstly, it marked the end
of the First British Empire and the birth of the Second British Empire. Leaving the American
colonies had been a sad experience for the British people as the separation of the colonies from
the mother-country was unbelievable to an Englishman. But it could not be checked due to the
wrong policies pursued by the Imperial government. In one way the loss of American colonies
proved to be a blessing in disguise for Brittan, It was a great lesson for the British authorities.
Negligence, sense of superiority and dominating altitude proved to be a curse for the British
people and politicians. They now worked hard to mend their ways. They launched upon the idea
of building up the second British Empire, colonisation became one of the means to attain it.
Attention was focused on Canada, New Zealand and Australian territories. An attitude of care
and attention was brought forth forwards these territories and dependencies. Attention was also
paid to consolidate the gains in India and to farther expand them. All these helped to lay a strong
foundation of the Second British Empire. Secondly, the Colonial Office was set up and a cabinet
minister in charge of colonies was appointed. The establishment of the Colonial office and the
appointment of the Secretary of State for Colonies had been an extremely significant
development. II showed the sense 01 responsibility and attention of the imperial authorities on
the colonies. The Second British Empire signaled the advent of the British Empire which by the
end of the 19th century would be so large as not to see the setting of the sun. Thirdly, a very
significant effect of the British failure in the American war was the fall of the personal rule of
George III. The English king set aside the cabinet system and established his authoritarian regime.
For some time it appeared that Parliament and cabinet ministers were run on his dictation. All
sorts of manipulations, were resorted to by the monarch to establish his personal rule in 1762
and it lasted somewhat till 1782. But the popular discontent reflected in John Dunning's (an
independent member) motion in the House of Commons that 'the power of the king has
increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished' was passed by the House. This dealt a severe
blow to the Georgian personal rule. Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])
lOMoARcPSD|31960551 Lastly, an outstanding achievement that followed the fall of George's
personal system was the restoration of the cabinet system and the principle of ministerial
responsibility. The lion's share of the credit must be given to William Pitt, the younger. King
George III appointed him as Prime Minister in order to perpetuate his personal rule. But Pitt, the
younger prove to be a highly competed Prime Minister, a great administrator and the most
venerable Tory leader. After three months in office as Premier, he called a General Election and
received an overwhelming mass mandate as the Prime Minister. The unprecedented victory
absolutely shattered the personal regime of George III. Effects on France The American War of
Independence also very much influenced the course of French history. Firstly, the French could
take pride in the fact that they settled the score with their arch-rival English by helping the
Americans of defeat the British forces. The French took revenge of the humiliating defeat and
loss of Canada at the hands of the British in the Seven Years' War (1756-63). This was indeed a
positive aspect. Secondly, the spirit and determination of the people of the American colonies
proved very inspiring to the French people. La Fayette the great French General, who
commanded the French troops in the colonies and trained the colonial troops spoke highly of the
struggle of the American people. He wrote several articles in the French news media that proved
inspiring to the French. They too determined to struggle against the authoritarian Old Regime
and to fight for parliamentary democratic system in France. Thus the American freedom struggle
somewhat prepared the ground of the French Revolution. Thirdly, another positive impact was
evident in the fact that on the model of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the French
Revolutionaries too brought out a same declaration during the course of the Revolution. The
Similar French Declaration clearly reflected the impact of the American Declaration and it also
enshrined the great ideals of individual liberty, parliamentary system, civil rights and social
justice. Lastly, the impact carried a negative aspect too. The financial and military assistance by
the French to the Americans was provided out of spirit of revenge on the British. The help proved
to be extremely costly to the French. It put unbearable pressure on the strained French
treasury. The national debt of France enhanced greatly. The French government never recovered
from this bankruptcy that augmented with every passing year eventually leading to the financial
crisis of1788-89 that drove France towards the Revolution.

HISTORIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

According to contemporary northern like Henry Wilson,
○ the Southern secessionists were men dedicated to the cause of the advancement
of slavery, regardless of the harm to the rest of the nation.
○ Hence to most of the Northern writers, the war resulted from a conspiracy of
slave owners committed to an immoral intuition and in response the north was
defending the union and the constitution against the unprovoked and immoral
aggression of the south.
○ On the other end of the hand , Southern Writers argued that the war was not a
moral conflict over the issue of slavery , but the basic cause of the war was the
unconstitutional and aggressive acts of the north which used its power for
political and economic gain and was determined to the destroy the south and its
institutions.
○ They argued that Abraham Lincoln and the republic party deliberately
provoked the conflict by their aggressive and unwarranted actions in 1860 and
1861, thereby forcing the south to defend the constitution as well as their rights.
● For these reasons the Southerners refused to accept the term Civil war or the War of
the Great Rebellion as both implied that the south was wrong and instead used terms
like ‘War Between the States.’
● At the same time a third group of contemporary scholars were developing the concept
of a ‘needless’ or ‘avoidable conflict’.
○ People like President James Buchanan who was critical of the activities of both
the north and the south argued that the cause of the civil war was to be found in
the long, active and persistent hostility of the abolitionist in one hand and on
the other hand the corresponding antagonism and violence with which the
advocates of slavery resisted these efforts and vindicated its preservation and
extension up till the period of secession.
○ To put it simply, such a view argued that there was no substantive issue
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
important enough in 11861 to necessitate a resort to arms; the war had been
brought on by extremists of both sides.
○ These three contemporary views on the causes of the civil war set the stage for the
historical debate that began at the end of the 19th century and continues till date.
NATIONALIST SCHOOL
● The first major attempts to explain the causes and nature of the civil war which was
free from the bias and bitterness of contemporary writers came from a generation of
historians who published extensively in the 1890’s.
● For them, unlike contemporary writers, the civil war was history rather than a part of
current events.
● The writings of these authors also need to be seen in the context of the growing tide of
American nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th century.
● It was also a period when politically both North and the South had come to a
conclusion that the war was a blessing in disguise resulting in phenomenal industrial
growth, and the intense sectional strife that had inhibited the growth of the nation at
large had been put to rest.
● It is in this context that the Nationalist School emerged that tried to provide a more
balanced and less partisan picture of the war, which for them cemented bonds of
American nationality.
Rhodes
● The most dominant Nationalist Interpretation was provided by James Ford Rhodes
whose multi volume history of the United States between 1850- 1877 became a classic.
○ According to him the civil war was an ‘irrepressible conflict’ between the North
and the South, and the South had been clearly in the wrong.
○ For him slavery was an immoral institution and the South had fought the war
to extend slavery.
○ However despite his northern sympathies, he modified considerably his own
partisan approach in his discussion of the south.
○ He argued that slavery had prospered because of technological progress and
the cotton gin had prevented the peaceful abolition of slavery.
○ Further he distinguished between the institution of slavery and individual slave
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
owners, thereby absolving the latter of any crime and insisted that they were
derserving of sympathy rather than censure.
● Rhodes' general approach was also followed by other nationalist historians, many of
whom were native southerners. In simplest terms, for the Nationalist school, the
causes of the war were less important than its result.
● Southern nationalist scholars emphasised nationalism, sectional conflict, and
integration of the south into national by virtue of which they were able to benefit from
industrialization and prosperity.
● They were never critical of the South, but they condemned slavery and secession,
However their condemnation of slavery did not rest on moral considerations based on
equality between blacks and whites, but instead they condemned the institution because
it had prevented the south from making progress in economic , cultural, social and
political life.
● Woodrow Wilson argued that that the South remained outside the spirit of
Nationalism, primarily because of slavery and consequently it developed differently
from the rest of the country which brought about differences which could not be resolved.
● Another prominent nationalist historian was Edward Channing who argued that two
distinct social organization represented by the agrarian slave economy of the South
and industrial wage system of the north had emerged which could not indefinitely live
side by side under the walls of one government.
● In a more general sense, The nationalist historians wrote about the civil war as an
irrepressible conflict.
● They approved the outcome of the war and felt that the growth of industry was a
significant development made possible by the
● The sectional approach to history that developed in the early part of the 20th century
reinforced this concept.
PROGRESSIVE SCHOOL
● By the early 20th century the dominance of the nationalist school of civil historiography
was challenged by the rising progressive school.
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
● They began to study American history in terms of conflict between democracy and
aristocracy and between the have nots and the haves in America.
Charles Beard
● Prominent among them include Charles M Beard, who emphasized on the emergence
of economic slavery in the post civil war period.
● According to Charles and Mary Beard, in their publication ‘The Rise of American
Civilization, 1927’, the resort to arms in 1861 precipitated by secession was merely a
façade for much more deeply rooted conflict.
● For then the Civil war was essentially a ‘Social War’ ending in the unquestioned
establishment of a new power in the government; where the capitalists, labourers,
and farmers in the North and the west drove from power in the national government
the planting aristocracy in the South.
● Such a social cataclysm, for them, was similar to the puritan and French revolution
and according to him can be termed as ‘The Second American Revolution’.
● Unlike the Nationalist Interpretation, The progressive school of historians condemned
the results of the civil war.
● They argued that as a consequence of the civil war between 1865 and 1900, the
American economy came to be dominated by ruthless and immoral capitalists who
thought of nothing but their own aggrandisement.
● According to Matthew Josephson, the post war period saw the rise of the ‘Robber
barons’ as the rich capitalist class exploited the poor masses for their own benefit.
● Such an interpretation of the civil war needs to be seen in the context of the demand by
the progressives for bringing about democratic reforms in the society; and the need to
provide a rationale for such an unjust society which influenced such an interpretation.
RADICAL ECONOMIC/ MARXIST
● A more radical economic interpretation of the civil war came about in the period of the
economic depression of the 1930’s which saw the emergence of a new group of
Marxian scholars who went far beyond the Beards in stressing the importance of
economic factors.
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
● However unlike the Beards, these new groups of Marxist Historians were not critical
of the results of the war.
● They argued that the war had destroyed the slave power and prepared the grounds for
the triumph of Capitalism which is a necessary concomitant to the inevitable triumph
of the Proletariat.
● They periodized American History within a Marxist framework and were convinced
that the end of the Capitalist system was fast approaching.
ROMANTIC
● At a period of time when the Nation was going through a phase of economic depression
and was dominated by the progressive and Marxist school of thought who were critical
of the economic policies of the state, and were fighting for more even distribution of
wealth, simultaneously two other schools of historical approach also arose.
● The first of these schools came out of the resurgence of native southerners in their own
section, which generally took the form of a loosely defined Romantic Movement.
● The Movement attempted to portray the Southern way of life as being far better
than the urbanised and industrialised way of life that seemed characteristic of 20th
century America.
● In the 1930’s, a symposium titled ‘I’ll take my stand’ was published by 12 southern
writers seeking to show the superiority of the agrarian south over the north.
● The Rise of Southern Nationalism in the 1930’s was however best mirrored in the
works of native historians like U.B Phillips, Charles W Ramsdell and Frank L. Owsley
set to portray the south in a much more sympathetic light which in a way resembled the
confederate accounts written in the 1860’s and 1870’s.
● In the most simplest terms, these scholars tended to idealise the South and its
institutions, while at the same time portraying the North in hostile and even ravage
terms.
● According to Owsley, the basic cause of the civil war was the egocentric sectionalism
in the north.
● He argued that the North destroyed the sectional balance of power by insisting on its
own dominance and it failed to respect the dignity and self respect of the people in the
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
other sections.
● He was particularly critical of the Abolitionists and accused them of provoking the
entire population of the north with lies. He denied that the slavery was the cause of
the war.
REVISIONIST
● The second dominant school of civil war historiography in the 1930’s was the
‘Revisionist School.’
● Their basic assumption was that war in general and the civil war in particular was
evil.
● Even more significant was their underlying belief that the war had been avoidable and
that there were genuine alternatives for political leaders on both sides.
● Hence for most Revisionist Historians, the Civil War was an avoidable and ‘repressible
conflict.’
● Although evident from the 1920’s and in the works of the biographers of Buchanan and
Douglas, the most mature formulation of the revisionist hypothesis was provided by
scholars like Avery Craven and James G Randall.
● For both Craven and Randall were convinced that the civil war was a repressible
conflict and the results of the war never approximated the supposedly noble conflicts
for which the war were fought.
● Both equated war with pathological emotions and irrationalism and therefore
explained the coming of the war in terms of the failure of the generation of the 1850’s
and 1860’s.
● For Craven,
○ sectional differences – economic, political or social cannot explain the causes of
the war as many other countries had pronounced sectional dissimilarities
without social strife.
○ He further argues that the sectional differences could have been solved through
political means but were magnified and emotionalized until they could no
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
longer be dealt with rational terms.
○ He further denies slavery as a cause of war, and blames false assumptions and
political leader on both sides for molding antagonistic public opinions.
● Similarly Randall
○ rejected the approach that romanticised war.
○ For him also the war was a ‘needless one’ and the nation could have continued
and slavery abolished with the war if not for the mistakes of the blundering
generation.
○ Such an interpretation needs to be seen in the background of the enormous
destruction caused in the aftermath of the First World War and the many
political benefits that war failed to achieve which eventually led to the rise of
totalitarian and fascist regimes.
Arthur M Schlesinger
● Though this approach of understanding the civil war remained dominant throughout the
1940’s and 1950’s, several scholars like Samuel Elliot Morrison began to challenge its
basic premises.
● A group of scholars argue that though war could never be good in themselves, sometimes
not going to war in certain cases was a far greater evil.
● However the criticism of Anti war historians were most cogently put in an influential
article by Arthur M Schlesinger.
● He was particularly hostile to the revisionist thesis.
● He criticised the revisionist historians by arguing that if war could have been avoided,
what alternative course American leaders should have followed.
● According to him, there were three other alternatives;
○ South might have abolished slavery all by itself,
○ slavery might have died because it was economically unsound,
○ or that North might have offered some form of emancipated compensation.
● However, according to him either all three were unattainable or inadequate.
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
● He blamed revisionist historians and argued that revisionism is connected with the
modern tendency to seek in optimistic sentimentalism an escape from the severe
demands of moral decision.
COMBINED
● At the same time a shift in historiography was evident from the works of a new group of
schools led by scholars like Allan Nevis who combined elements from both the
Nationalist and revisionist traditions.
● Conceding that economic factors were important in the coming of the war, he
nevertheless rejected an economic interpretation. \
● He argues that the civil war should have been avoidable, but the problem of slavery
with its complementary problem of race adjustment involved basic differences
between North and the South
● Given the refusal of the south to take some step in the direction of ending slavery, the
war became inevitable.
NEW POLITICAL HISTORY
● It was in the 1960’s that the traditional approaches and questions began to be
undermined and there was a shift from the somewhat static concept of framework.
● The rise of the ‘new political history’ deemphasized the issue of slavery In terms of its
relationship to the totality of American society.
● Hence with this new approach, the problem of slavery in these territories, though by no
means ignored, lost its central position as historians began to study social, cultural,
ethnic and religious cleavages, voting behavior, voter participation and political
ideology.
● For Instance, Joel H Sibley insisted that competing ethnic, religious, and cultural
traditions and groups were central to political developments in the 1840’s and 1850’s,
● sectional disputes over slavery occupied a distinctively subordinate position.
● To elaborate, he argued that antebellum politics revolved around native and
immigrants, as well as protestant and catholic struggles and over the consumption of
liquor which was more significant than the sectional conflict over slavery.
● According to Lee Benson, the Ethno-cultural concerns transcended differences
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
between classes and sections.
● Michael F Holt combined a behavioural theory with an ideological analysis.
● Though he conceded that the sectional conflict over slavery was crucial, he de
emphasized the conflict over the institution of slavery and argued that most Americans
were preoccupied with their republican ideology and alleged threats to its survival.
● Several other scholars in recent historiography have also enhanced our understanding of
the civil war. A number of recent studies have also demonstrated that sectional
antagonisms were exacerbated.
● James L Huston attempted to demonstrate how economic difficulties reinforced
sectional conflicts.
● Mark W summers argued that the Republican Party exploited the fears that a ‘slave
power conspiracy’ was bent on destroying representative democratic institutions,
thus using it as a political tool to strengthen its appeal in the northern electorates.
● Kenneth M Stampp on the other hand emphasised the rigidity and ineptitude of
President James Buchanan which was responsible for intensifying the sectional
conflict.
CONCLUSION
● Though the debate on the causes of the civil war remains inconclusive, the traditional
view that slavery somehow was central to the coming of war has persisted in various
forms.
● In one of the most recent works on the Civil War, Eric Foner has argued that it was
regarding the question of extension of slavery in the newly occupied territories that
became the major source of contestation between the North and the South.
● He has further argued that the causes of the civil war cannot be isolated from the nature
of the American political system and the social and economic values that became the
foundation of competing ideologies.
● The civil war, concludes Foner, however accomplished the goal originally envisioned
by the founding fathers of the constitution; i.e. the creation of a single nation.
● To conclude it can be said that though the debate on the causes of the Civil War
Downloaded by Diya singh (singhdiya211217@[Link])lOMoARcPSD|31960551
remains a highly contested one till date, it is now generally accepted by most scholars
that it was a highly complex one and it will be inadequate to single out a particular
factor.
● It is also now generally accepted that it was a watershed moment in the history of US
that led to the creation of a single unified nation that paved the way for its unhindered
progress and prosperity in the subsequent decades.