riotbeard

I have thought about this question a lot, and I personally don't think the American Revolution was in fact a revolution. I think of revolution as being defined by violent change, but in fact, the American Revolution was an attempt to maintain the political autonomy the colonies were used to. Not until the constitution convention were any substantial changes to the political society made, and even those more acted to replace the role fo the British Government while precluding the intrusions of "unfair" taxation taken in the era after the French and Indian war. What are your guys thoughts?

hiplikebrando

PIG does a good job of explaining this one. It makes the claim that there really wasn't a revolution by radical founding fathers, but of conservative people who wanted to maintain, as riotbeard said, their usual way of life(autonomy), that was being threatened by an outside force.

Edgewaters

The US may have been somewhat autonomous, but it wasn't sovereign, and it certainly wasn't a republic. Installing a new political regime (the republic) and declaring sovereignty is definately a revolution.

The dictionary definition of a revolution is, "a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed". I can't see how it can be argued that this didn't happen.

It's right there on the US currency, "Novus Ordo Seclorum", a new order for the ages.

sylla1

A conservative revolution is still a revolution.

David Vagamundo

By sheer coincidence, I was thinking about this this morning. Isn't the usual revolution where a country suddenly overturns its own government--e.g. France, Russia? The US just threw a colonialist power out. E.g. In Mexico, the "Revolution" is usually the name for the early 20th Century revolt against Diaz, and the out-break of anti-Spanish sentiment in the early 19th C. the "Insurgency."

But (and this is a huge but), the American Revolution has always been called a revolution, so it has to be one, right?

Toltec

This is simply a question of semantics, what do you define a revolution as?

It wasn't a revolution in the same sense as the British, French or Russian Revolutions.

However it is a revolution similar to the Southern Revolution (American Civil War), Tamil Tigers Revolution and current Palestinian Revolution.

riotbeard

I think of it as more secession or throwing a colonial power. The local power structure really didn't change until the constitutional convention which was a not a part of the "revolution". There was no violent change that marks most revolution.

tjadams

Yes, it was a revolution.

Cicero

I think that the American Revolution qualifies in the sense that the British Constitution no longer applied on the former American Colonies. The set up their own Constitution and went their own way irrespective of the wishes of the Crown and Parliament.

corrocamino

What the hell -- let's call it apotheosis.