Theoretical Causes of the American Revolution - Literature review Example

Word Count=2686 Theoretical Causes of the American Revolution Just before and during the time that the French and Indian War was going on, Britain abandoned its American colonies to run the affairs of their nation without any form of outside interference. With enough independence to do as they pleased, the North American settlers sought for unique forms of administration to equal their new found distinctiveness as Americans. They also created representative governments as well as democratic city meetings, which they used to deliberate on their own affairs. In addition to this, the colonies also enjoyed various privileges such as local administrations and trials by jury in which those accused were deemed innocent until they proven guilty. According to historian Jonathan Crider (317), although American shipping was in theory under control of the Navigation Act, it operated independently from the big American fleet for more than a century. Finally, the assurance of an extensive, free continent gave all the settlers a sense of independence and the ability to begin afresh in the new world that had been created for them. As historian Jean Lee points out, after the end of the French and Indian War, Britain ended the era of abandonment and in an endeavor to replenish its sapped treasury introduced hefty taxes on the Americans and stiffened laws in the colonies (255). Over the years, Americans ad been banned from circulating any form of currency and they were also forced to provide housing to serving British troops. Ferguson (475) notes that the Americans were also forced to adhere to restrictive shipping policies and compelled to pay meaningless taxes. Those who failed to comply with these rules were brought before a British judge and charged without the privilege of a jury. At first, Americans reacted to this treatment with shock and soon this turned in to indignation which brought with it the desire for rebellion. In a span of twelve years- from the time the Indian War ended in 1763 to the time that the Revolutionary War broke out in 1775- the colonists transformed from adhering to King George III to showing absolute rebellion towards the British Crown (Lee 255). As Jean Lee points out, the American Revolution had far-reaching effects for the American colonists and for the rest of the world as well. The colonist’s rejection of the monarch’s rule was an unprecedented move. The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson presented a strong and concise case for the American rebellion against a dictatorial administration. From the time that his declaration was penned, many groups fighting for their freedom have used it as a model to guide their struggle (257). In the last few decades, there have been numerous political theories given on the origin of the American Revolution. This paper examines the theoretical perspectives of Crane Brinton, James DeFronzo, and Tedd Gurr and how their theories can be used to explain the American Revolution. Crane Brinton’s Theory of Revolution In his book titled Anatomy of Revolution, Crane Brinton identifies and describes revolution as a fever. For this reason, revolution is not positive but it is rather something that needs to be dreaded and immediately treated if at all it happens and this is because no one wants to run a fever. However, Brinton continues to point out that both fever and revolutions are good things for the organism that lives through the fever and for the society since revolutions destroys bad people and abolishes ineffective institutions. To make his description better understood, Brinton splits the revolution in to three categories namely the signs, the fever itself, which is the management of the revolution, and the break of the fever, which is the time when things normalize (18). According to Brinton, signs can adopt various forms- economic challenges, government’s incompetence, the rise of the revolutionaries, and the toppling of the old regime. The last form is the breakup of the revolutionaries’ alliance. He points out that at the early stages of the revolution, the moderates grab power but the radicals soon snatch it from them. This is then followed by the break of the fever and this marks the end/death of the revolution. Just like a fever, nothing can be done about revolutionaries apart from leaving the fever (revolution) to subside on its own (22). In his opinion, Crane Brinton sees the American Revolution as a perfect example of such kind of a revolution since the mission of the revolutionaries was not to topple the existing regime but rather to seek independence for the English North American colonies (32). In the American Revolution, there were economic challenges since America refused to pay taxes to Britain and the second symptom that Brinton notes is the inefficiency of the British government. In a large way, the American Revolution is seen to have come about because of practical limitations of the British political scene in 1776, 1770 and 1775. These limitations made it impossible to implement any policies that would match the demands made by the colonies. In what Brinton sees as the end of the fever, America came out of the Revolution with better and a more centralized government. The last symptom was the rise to power of the revolutionaries and these were mostly comprised of the army and other elements that supported the revolution (33). According to historical analyst Jack Goldstone, the traders became the first organizers of opposition to the crown. In the late 1700s, most of the American society was comprised of rural people and not urban. This means that the strength of the revolutionary movement lay with the murdered people in the rural areas and the majority of these were ordinary country folk. However, there is still some confusion to this since there are those who claim that the revolution started with the aristocrats before it spread to the peasants. The revolution was successful in that it helped in removing British rule from the colonies even though such rule continued in other places (110). James DeFronzo on Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements In his book titled Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements, sociologist James DeFronzo gives a deep analysis that can be used to understand revolutions and help in relating it to the American Revolution. In this analysis, DeFronzo has used case studies of revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and South Africa. After carefully analyzing these case studies, DeFronzo concludes that nationalism is a unifying factor in all of them. DeFronzo observes that mass dissent, leader’s dissent, uniting motive, national crisis, and world tolerance are all factors that bring about revolutions (201). According to DeFronzo, revolution comes about as a reaction to a change in standards in nearly all the aspects of social life within a certain system. In most cases, this comes about when the people feel that the society has failed to reach certain ideals that they expect. This usually happens at a time when social stratification is at its worst and the people are widely marginalized. According to DeFronzo, the expectations that people feel are not being met might be real or unreal but this does not stop them from revolting as long as they feel that this is the only way to get the attention of the administration (204). According to DeFronzo, the masses dissent comes when people are frustrated, and even though they are aware of this fact, they are unable to ascertain the cause of their frustration. When this happens, a certain group of people or individual emerges and begins questioning certain principles that have been in existence in the society. This questioning group finally leads a revolt and out of a desire to vent their frustration, the people follow them either consciously or blindly. The American Revolution resembles the theoretical perspectives given by DeFronzo but sharply differs from it in other aspects. On the facet of mass dissent, it is clear that the masses in the colonies dissented against the British rule and this led to a revolution. However, this revolution did not have a clear leader since the people rose enmasse and marched into the revolution. However, the nature of the revolution matches his argument that revolutions come about when there is a uniting motive. In the case of the Americans, the motive was the increased taxes as well as the unreasonable shipping regulations that Britain wanted to impose on them (DeFronzo 211). This view is sported by Stephen Sanderson who claims that for years the colonies had a free hand in the operation of their ships and the attempt by Britain to control them must have been a source of frustration for them. In addition to this, the many years of being given a free hand in the running of their affairs gave them a sense of ownership and the attempt to change this structure was met by resistance (118). Ted Gurr on Why Men Rebel Another political theory that can be used to explain the American Revolution is the one proposed by Tedd Gurr in his book Why Men Rebel. According to Gurr, men usually have ambitions that go beyond their social means and often get angry when they realize that those means are inadequate and they are not quick to accept limitations. According to this author, wherever people get the feeling that what they are offered is not exactly what they should be getting, they get frustrated and this frustration leads to aggression. This ultimately leads to relative depravation, which in this case refers to the tension between an individual’s actual state, and what they believe they should be able to achieve. The greatness and extent of relative deprivation powerfully establishes the prospective/ideals for mutual violence. After a thorough analysis of people’s psychology, Gurr concludes that frustration builds the capacity for violence among people. Although greed at times drives violence, frustration is the biggest motivation. According to Gurr’s explanation, the more prolonged the frustration, the higher the possibility of aggression (22). Although Gurr acknowledges that removing ones frustrations at times makes things worse, he is quick to point out that people act out of their frustration only when they are convinced that they have a chance of easing some of their dissatisfaction through violence. He qualifies this statement by claiming that frustrated people are more likely to be drawn to arguments of violence and as such, sensation throws off any sort of reasoning thus rendering their actions irrational. To some extent, Gurr’s analogy fits the American Revolution but then fails in some fundamental aspects. While it is true that the people were led to violence because of being frustrated by the British rule, the frustration was not prolonged. In addition to this, Gurr’s theory points out that the intensity and magnitude of relative deprivation strongly forms the basis for collective violence. To some extent this is true because the colonies were opposed to the idea of heavy taxes being imposed on them while they were not getting the services that they felt they deserved from the administration (30). This explanation effectively leads to the conclusion that Tedd Gurr’s theoretical perspective is not the best in the explanation of why the American Revolution took place. The Best-Suited Theoretical Explanation After examining the three theoretical perspectives, the one that comes out as the most probable cause of the American Revolution is the one by Crane Brinton. In the case of the American Revolution, America can be said to have been financially sound during the period that Britain had abandoned it. After the end of the Indian and France War, Britain needed to raise funds urgently to support its nearly dry coffers and this saw them coming up with unreasonable taxation laws in all their colonies. This is what triggered the rebellion and as such it perfectly fits the analogy given by Brinton on the possible causes of revolutions. Like in Brinton’s theory, the American Revolution did not have any clear organizers but it was rather made possible by various groups who felt aggrieved by the new taxation. This fact also fits the definition of Crane Brinton on the causes of Revolution and as such it can be used to explain the American Revolution. Another symptom that qualifies the Britons theory is the incompetency of the British government and administration in running the affairs of the colonies. For a long time, the British government had given the colonies a free hand to operate as they concentrated on the French and the Indian Wars. Just like in the case of a real fever, America came out of the Revolution with better and a more centralized government. Another symptom that qualifies Brinton’s theory was the rise of the revolutionaries. Although this is still a subject of debate, it is largely agreed that the army as well as other individuals that supported the Revolutionary War were the first to oppose the British government regulations (Teed 170). Just like Brinton puts it in his theory, the patriots knew exactly what they wanted and this was to be independent from Britain. This Revolution can be said to have been successful according to Brinton’s theory since it led to the overthrow of the old regime. Although the British government continued to be in place and is still in existence today, the main objective of removing it from the colonies was achieved. Perhaps the only thing that disqualifies Brinton’s theory is that once the moderates seize power, the moderates soon replace them. In the case of the American Revolution, this did not happen since George Washington who is often referred to as the leader of the Revolution went on to become the first president of America. Although the other two theoretical perspectives can be used to explain the American Revolution, they are deficient in far too many areas thus making them ineffective in explaining the revolution (Teed 175). Why the American Revolution occurred and Why it Succeeded Although there are many reasons why the American Revolution happened, the most probable causes were an attempt to safeguard the colonial legislature and the travel restrictions that were imposed on the Americans by British. After being left on their own for long, the colonies had set up their own legislative courts that could only prove one guilty after a fair hearing by a jury. However, the British seeking to take control of the colonies after the French and the Indian Wars abolished the judicial courts and imposed heavy taxes on all the colonies. Anyone who failed to adhere to the new rules was brought before a British court with a British judge and without the privilege of having a jury. In Addition to this, the people felt that they were not getting enough services despite being heavily taxed. For a long time, the colonists had been allowed to operate their ships independently but suddenly they were denied this privilege. Given that this was the only freedom that the colonies had, they reacted to the taking away of their freedom by rebelling. Simply put, the colonies believed that they were not getting what they deserved from their taxation and they believed that if they rebelled they could get more than what they were currently getting. This sense of dissatisfaction and the clamor for more was what triggered the Revolution (Humphrey 78). In essence, many factors and elements contributed to the success as well as growth of the American Revolution. However, the most central of them all was that majority of the British people did not support the prospect of another war. Coming immediately after the French and the Indian War, the British public coffers had been depleted and the people were heavily taxed to support the new administration. To them, joining another war was unnecessary and as such, they failed to support it. This lack of support strengthened the colonies in their opposition to the new taxes and regulations by the British administration. In addition to this, the earlier neglect by Britain had given the colonies an opportunity to organize themselves, this had enabled the rulers to get closer to the people, and as such, the masses felt that they owed allegiance to this new group and not to Britain. This made it easy for them to rebel (Humphrey 80). Works Cited Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy of Revolution, edited. Vintage Books, 2008. 10-110. Print. Crider, Jonathan. De Bows Revolution: The Memory of the American Revolution in the Politics of the Sectional Crisis, 1850-1861. American Nineteenth Century History (2009), 317–332. Print. DeFronzo, James. Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements. Westview Press, 2011. 200-270. Print. Ferguson, Robert. The Commonalities of Common Sense. The William and Mary Quarterly, 2000, 57, (3): 465–504. Goldstone, Jack. Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies. Cengage Learning, 2002. 120-132. Print. Gurr, Tedd. Why Men Rebel. Paradigm Publishers, 2011. 22-50. Print. Humphrey, Carol. The American Revolution and the Press: The Promise of Independence. Northwestern University Press, 2013. 78-100. Print. Lee, Jean. Historical Memory, Sectional Strife, and the American Mecca: Mount Vernon, 1783-1853. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (2001), 109, 3: 255-300. Print. Sanderson, Stephen. Revolutions: A Worldwide Introduction to Political and Social Change. Paradigm Publishers, 2010. 188-200. Print. Teed, Paul. Brave Mans Child: Theodore Parker and the Memory of the American Revolution. Historical Journal of Massachusetts (2001) 29, 2: 170-191. Print. Read More