was the american revolution radical or conservative essay

Was the American Revolution Radical?

[Chapter 80, “Was the American Revolution Radical?,” from Murray N. Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty , vol. 4, The Revolutionary War, 1775–1784 .]

Especially since the early 1950s, America has been concerned with opposing revolutions throughout the world; in the process, it has generated a historiography that denies its own revolutionary past. This neoconservative view of the American Revolution, echoing the reactionary writer in the pay of the Austrian and English governments of the early nineteenth century, Friedrich von Gentz, tries to isolate the American Revolution from all the revolutions in the western world that preceded it and followed it. The American Revolution, this view holds, was unique; it alone of all modern revolutions was not really revolutionary; instead, it was moderate, conservative, dedicated only to preserving existing institutions from British aggrandizement. Furthermore, like all else in America, it was marvelously harmonious and consensual. Unlike the wicked French and other revolutions in Europe, the American Revolution, then, did not upset or change anything. It was therefore not really a revolution at all; certainly, it was not radical.

Now this view, in the first place, displays an extreme naiveté on the nature of revolution. No revolution has ever sprung forth, fully blown and fully armed like Athena, from the brow of existing society; no revolution has ever emerged from a vacuum. No revolution has ever been born out of ideas alone, but only from a long chain of abuses and a long history of preparation, ideological and institutional. And no revolution, even the most radical, from the English Revolution of the seventeenth century to the many Third World revolutions of the twentieth, has ever come into being except in reaction to increased oppression by the existing State apparatus. All revolution is in that sense a reaction against worsening oppression; and in that sense, all revolutions may be called “conservative”; but that would make hash out of the meaning of ideological concepts. If the French and Russian revolutions may be called “conservative” then so might the American, This same process was at work in Bacon’s Rebellion of the late seventeenth century and the American Revolution of the late eighteenth. As the Declaration of Independence (a good source for understanding the Revolution) rightly emphasized:

Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government. ...

It takes such a long train of abuses to persuade the mass of people to throw off their habitual customs and loyalties and to make revolution; hence the absurdity of singling out the American Revolution as “conservative” in that sense. Indeed, this very breakthrough against existing habits, the very act of revolution, is therefore ipso facto an extraordinarily radical act. All mass revolutions, indeed all revolutions as distinguished from mere coup d’états, by bringing the masses into violent action are therefore per se highly radical events. All revolutions are therefore radical.

But the deep-seated radicalism of the American Revolution goes far beyond this. It was inextricably linked both to the radical revolutions that went before and to the ones, particularly the French, that succeeded it. From the researches of Caroline Robbins and Bernard Bailyn, we have come to see the indispensable linkage of radical ideology in a straight line from the English republican revolutionaries of the seventeenth century through the commonwealthmen of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to the French and to the American revolutionaries. And this ideology of natural rights and individual liberty was to its very marrow revolutionary. As Lord Acton stressed of radical liberalism, in setting up “what ought to be” as a rigorous guidepost for judging “what is,” it virtually raised thereby a standard of revolution.

The Americans had always been intractable, rebellious, impatient of oppression, as witness the numerous rebellions of the late seventeenth century; they also had their own individualist and libertarian heritage, their Ann Hutchinsons and Rhode Island quasi anarchists, some directly linked with the left wing of the English Revolution. Now, strengthened and guided by the developed libertarian natural rights ideology of the eighteenth century, and reacting to aggrandizement of the British imperial state in the economic, constitutional, and religious spheres, the Americans, in escalated and radicalized confrontations with Great Britain, had made and won their Revolution. By doing so, this revolution, based on the growing libertarian idea pervading enlightened opinion in Europe, itself gave immeasurable impetus to the liberal revolutionary movement throughout the Old World, for here was a living example of a liberal revolution that had taken its daring chance, against all odds and against the mightiest state in the world, and had actually succeeded. Here, indeed, was a beacon light to all the oppressed peoples of the world!

The American Revolution was radical in many other ways as well. It was the first successful war of national liberation against western imperialism. A people’s war, waged by the majority of Americans having the courage and the zeal to rise up against constituted “legitimate” government, actually threw off their “sovereign.” A revolutionary war led by “fanatics” and zealots rejected the siren calls of compromise and easy adjustment to the existing system. As a people’s war, it was victorious to the extent that guerrilla strategy and tactics were employed against the far more heavily armed and better trained British army—a strategy and tactics of protracted conflict resting precisely on mass support. The tactics of harassment, mobility, surprise, and the wearing down and cutting off of supplies finally resulted in the encirclement of the enemy. Considering that the theory of guerrilla revolution had not yet been developed, it was remarkable that the Americans had the courage and initiative to employ it. As it was, all their victories were based on guerrilla-type concepts of revolutionary war, while all the American defeats came from stubborn insistence by such men as Washington on a conventional European type of open military confrontation.

Also, as in any people’s war, the American Revolution did inevitably rend society in two. The Revolution was not a peaceful emanation of an American “consensus”; on the contrary, as we have seen, it was a civil war resulting in permanent expulsion of 100,000 Tories from the United States. Tories were hunted, persecuted, their property confiscated, and themselves sometimes killed; what could be more radical than that? Thus, the French Revolution was, as in so many other things, foreshadowed by the American. The inner contradiction of the goal of liberty and the struggle against the Tories during the Revolution showed that revolutions will be tempted to betray their own principles in the heat of battle. The American Revolution also prefigured the misguided use of paper money inflation, and of severe price and wage controls which proved equally unworkable in America and in France. And, as constituted government was either ignored or overthrown, Americans found recourse in new quasi-anarchistic forms of government: spontaneous local committees. Indeed, the new state and eventual federal governments often emerged out of federations and alliances of local and county committees. Here again, “committees of inspection,” “committees of public safety,” etc., prefigured the French and other revolutionary paths. What this meant, as was most clearly illustrated in Pennsylvania, was the revolutionary innovation of parallel institutions, of dual power, that challenged and eventually simply replaced old and established governmental forms. Nothing in all of this picture of the American Revolution could have been more radical, more truly revolutionary.

But, it may be claimed, this was after all only an external revolution; even if the American Revolution was radical, it was only a radicalism directed against Great Britain. There was no radical upheaval at home, no “internal revolution.” Again, this view betrays a highly naive concept of revolution and of wars of national liberation. While the focus of the upheaval was, of course, Great Britain, the inevitable indirect consequence was radical change within the United States. In the first and most obvious place, the success of the revolution meant inevitably the overturn and displacement of the Tory elites, particularly of those internal oligarchs and members of governors’ councils who had been created and propped up by the British government. The freeing of trade and manufacture from British imperial shackles again meant a displacement of Tory favorites from positions of economic privilege. The confiscation of Tory estates, especially in feudalism-ridden New York state, had a sharply democratizing and liberalizing effect on the structure of land tenure in the United States. This process was also greatly advanced by the inevitable dispossession of the vast British proprietary landed estates in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. The freakish acquisition of the territory west of the Appalachians by the peace treaty also opened vast quantities of virgin land to further liberalize the land structure, provided that the speculative land companies, as it increasingly appeared, would be kept at bay. Revolution also brought an inevitable upsurge of religious liberty with the freeing of many of the states, especially in the South, from the British-imposed Anglican establishment.

With these radical internal processes inevitably launched by the fact of revolution against Great Britain, it is also not surprising that this internal revolutionary course would go further. To the attack on feudalism was added a drive against the remnants of entail and primogeniture; from the ideology of individual liberty—and from British participation in the slave trade—came a general attack on that trade, and, in the North, a successful governmental drive against slavery itself.

Another inevitable corollary of the Revolution, and one easily overlooked, was that the very fact of revolution—aside from Connecticut and Rhode Island where no British government had existed before—necessarily dispossessed existing internal rule. Hence the sudden smashing of that rule inevitably threw government back into a fragmented, local, quasianarchistic form. When we consider also that the Revolution was consciously and radically directed against taxes and against central government power, the inevitable thrust of the Revolution for a radical transformation toward liberty becomes crystal clear. It is then not surprising that the thirteen revolted colonies were separate and decentralized, and that for several years even the separate state governments could not dare to impose taxes upon the populace. Furthermore, since royal control in the colonies had meant executive, judicial, and upper house control by royal appointees, the libertarian thrust of the Revolution was inevitably against these instruments of oligarchy and in favor of democratic forms responsive to, and easily checked by, the people. It is not a coincidence that the states where this type of internal revolution against oligarchy proceeded the furthest were the ones where the oligarchy was most reluctant to break with Great Britain. Hence, in Pennsylvania, the radical drive for independence meant that the reluctant oligarchy had to be pushed aside, and the process of that pushing led to the most liberal and most democratic constitution of all the states. (A highly liberal and democratic constitution also resulted from Vermont’s necessity for rebelling internally against New York and New Hampshire’s imperialism over Vermont’s land.) On the other hand, Rhode Island and Connecticut, where no internal British rule existed, experienced no such internal cataclysm. Internal revolution was therefore a derivative of the external, but it happened nevertheless. Because of these inevitable internal libertarian effects, the drive for restoration of central government through taxation and mercantilism had to be a conscious and determined project on the part of conservatives—a drive against the natural consequences of the Revolution.

Since the Revolution was a people’s war, the extent of mass participation in the militia and committees led necessarily to a democratizing of suffrage in the new governments. Furthermore, the principle of “no taxation without representation” could readily be applied internally as could British restrictions upon the principle of one man, one vote. While recent researches have shown that colonial suffrage requirements were far more liberal than had been realized, it is still true that suffrage was significantly widened by the Revolution in half the states. This widening was helped everywhere by the depreciation of the monetary unit (and hence of existing property requirements) entailed by the inflation that helped finance the war. Chilton Williamson, the most thorough and judicious of recent historians of American suffrage, has concluded that

the Revolution probably operated to increase the size of that majority of adult males which had, generally speaking, been able to meet the old property and freehold tests before 1776. ... The increase in the number of voters was probably not so significant as the fact that the Revolution had made explicit the basic idea that voting had little or nothing to do with real property and that this idea should be reflected accurately in the law. ... The changes in suffrage made during the Revolution were the most important in the entire history of American suffrage reform. In retrospect it is clear that they committed the country to a democratic suffrage. *

While many of the state constitutions, under the influence of conservative theorists, turned out to be conservative reactions against initial revolutionary conditions, the very act of making them was radical and revolutionary, for they meant that what the radical and Enlightenment thinkers had said was really true: men did not have to submit blindly to habit, to custom, to irrational “prescription.” After violently throwing off their prescribed government, they could sit down and consciously make over their polity by the use of reason. Here was radicalism indeed. Furthermore, in the Bills of Rights, the framers added a significant and consciously libertarian attempt to prevent government from invading the natural rights of the individual, rights which they had learned about from the great English libertarian tradition of the past century.

For all these reasons, for its mass violence, and for its libertarian goals, the American Revolution was ineluctably radical. Not the least demonstration of its radicalism was the impact of this revolution in inspiring and generating the admittedly radical revolutions in Europe, an international impact that has been most thoroughly studied by Robert Palmer and Jacques Godechot. Palmer has eloquently summed up the meaning that the American Revolution had for Europe:

The American Revolution coincided with the climax of the Age of Enlightenment. It was itself, in some degree, the product of this age. There were many in Europe, as there were in America, who saw in the American Revolution a lesson and an encouragement for mankind. It proved that the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment might be put into practice. It showed, or was assumed to show, that ideas of the rights of man and the social contract, of liberty and equality, of responsible citizenship and popular sovereignty, of religious freedom, freedom of thought and speech, separation of powers and deliberately contrived written constitutions, need not remain in the realm of speculation, among the writers of books; but could be made the actual fabric of public life among real people, in this world, now. **

• * Chilton Williamson, American Suffrage from Property in Democracy, 1760–1860 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press), pp. 111–12, 115–16.
• ** Robert Palmer, The Age of Democratic Revolution I: The Challenge (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1959), pp. 239–40.

The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. 

Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.

PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED J. Edgar Hoover’s 50-Year Career of Blackmail, Entrapment, and Taking Down Communist Spies

The Encyclopedia: One Book’s Quest to Hold the Sum of All Knowledge PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED

Radical or Conservative American Revolution

Was it a radical or conservative American Revolution? More specifically, how do we understand the political nature of 1776?

When most people think of the causes that led to the American War for Independence, they think of the phrase “no taxation without representation.” This principle played a role, but it was only part of a much larger constitutional struggle in favor of the limited government. The Americans who protested against British encroachments on colonial liberties wanted to preserve their traditional rights. They were not revolutionaries seeking the radical restructuring of society.

Radical or Conservative American Revolution?

Colonial spokesmen possessed a breathtaking command of British history and law. They used the word “innovation” pejoratively, as in John Adams’s Braintree Instructions of 1765 that held that Parliament’s new taxes were an unconstitutional innovation. They were well aware of the celebrated British documents to which they could appeal in their defense, particularly the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), and the Bill of Rights (1689).

The controversy surrounding the Stamp Act of 1765 is instructive. Designed as a revenue measure for the British government, the Act required that a wide variety of paper products in the colonies—from legal deeds to newspapers, from tavern licenses to wills—bear revenue stamps, indicating in each case that this new tax had been paid. From the American point of view, such taxation without consent was an intolerable novelty.

Among the great heroes of the Stamp Act crisis was Virginia’s Patrick Henry . Henry proposed to the colony’s legislature the Virginia Resolves, a list of seven resolutions outlining the colonial position on the Stamp Act.

The first two were tame enough, insisting that the colonists possessed all the rights of Englishmen. The third proclaimed the principle of colonial self-taxation as essential to the British constitution. The fourth contended that the colony had the right, in its internal matters, to be governed solely by-laws passed by its own legislature and approved by the royal governor. The fifth was a more confrontational way of wording the third, stating that the “General Assembly of this colony have the only and sole exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony,” and that any attempt to repose such power elsewhere must undermine both colonial and British freedom. The sixth simply drew the logical conclusion of the fourth, arguing that the colonies were not required to obey laws that had not been approved by their own legislature; the Stamp Act was one such law. The seventh ended the resolves on a dramatic note: anyone who denied the principle that the colonies were subject only to legislation passed by their own legislatures was a traitor to Virginia.

Additional Resources About Revolution and Colonies

What is federalism and how does it work, fun facts about george washington, what was the american revolution, benjamin franklin’s inventions.

Cite This Article

• How Much Can One Individual Alter History? More and Less...
• Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? We Have Some Answers
• Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb
• Is Russia Communist Today? Find Out Here!
• Phonetic Alphabet: How Soldiers Communicated
• How Many Americans Died in WW2? Here Is A Breakdown

Free Samples and Examples of Essays, Homeworks and any Papers

• Absolutely free
• Perfect homeworks
• Fast relevant search
• No registration and Anonymous

The American Revolution. Argument on radical or conservative movement

Filed Under: Essays Tagged With: History: American

The American Revolution

Argument on radical or conservative movement

The 13 American colonies revolted against their British rulers in

1775. The war began on April 19, when British soldiers fired on the

Minutemen of Lexington, Mass. The fighting ended with the surrender of the

British at Yorktown on Oct. 19, 1781. In 1783 Great Britain signed a

formal treaty recognizing the independence of the colonies.

Through the hardships of life in a wild, new land, the American

settlers gained strength and a firm belief in the rights and liberties of

the individual man. They revolted because England interfered with their

trade and industry, demanded unjust taxes, and sent British troops to

compel obedience. At first they fought only for their rights. After a year

of war they fought for a radical change in American life.

Ever since the beginnings of settlement, England and America had

been growing apart. In 1774, England was still an aristocracy, ruled by

men born and bred to a high station in life. Their society was one of

culture and refinement. The common people, deprived of abundant

The Essay on How Did Population, Economics, Disease, Religion, and Climate Impact Ways of Life for Americans in New England and South America?

If a foreigner asked an early American what life was like in America, the answer would depend greatly on where a person lived in the country. That was just as true in the 1700s as it is today. Overall, America’s colonial population increased from about 250,000 in 1690 to 2.5 million in 1754, fueled by natural increase and political turmoil in Europe. Poor Scots-Irish immigrants settled in ...

opportunity at home, accepted a position of dependence. They regarded hard

work, deference to superiors, and submission to rulers as their way of

life. But in America things had taken a different turn. The tone of

society was essentially democratic. There were no lords or hereditary

offices. The Americans did not like to look up to superiors, nor were

their leaders set apart by privileges of birth and inherited wealth. The

opportunities of the New World made men enterprising, energetic, and

aggressive. Restraints were few, custom counted for little, and rank for

less. Between these two societies there could not be much in common. With

such opposing viewpoints and extreme change in social and economic

structure, America began to yearn for independence and self-rule, and

break away from the rule of Imperial Britain.

The many taxes imposed on the colonies by English leaders also

created great conflict between the two sides. American colonist felt that

they were not represented in Parliament and therefore could not tax its

people. But Parliament felt that they looked out for the best interest of

the entire empire, therefore had the right to enact legislation. This

caused political unrest and uprisings within the colonies. Protest took

the form of newspapers, sermons, and pamphlets. Riots and events such as

the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party began to show the colonist

distrust of British rulers. With tensions rising between the factions, the

Americans were opting for a drastic change in the system.

When America finally decides to declare its independence and go to

war, it is a sign of radical action. Britains’ army was four times as big

and consisted of well trained and experienced soldiers. Americans, on the

other hand, had soldiers who were poorly trained and equipped. There was

The Essay on How American politics was changed by Andrew Jackson.

The first paragraph contains the essay instructions.During the Jacksonian Period, American politics were altered. What were the most significant changes from previous policies? What were the long-term implications of the new political methodology? Were the long-term results beneficial or detrimental to the quality of government? Why? What was the role of Andrew Jackson in this process? As a ...

no central system of housing, paying, or feeding of the troops, and

supplies of gunpowder and clothing were inadequate. Add to that, the

jealousy and strife within the colonies itself. It seemed highly unlikely

that America would win its independence. But the Americans had something

the British did not. It was the desire to advance their political beliefs.

Such beliefs rarely mattered to the Europeans. Americans took a courageous

stand and were willing to go through war and bloodshed in order to change

the rule of the nation.

When America voted for independence in 1776, a stupendous task

faced the patriots. They had to improvise an army and a new government at

the same time, to meet unusual situations arising daily, to find trusted

leaders, and to get 13 proud states to work for the common cause. And all

this had to be done with little preparation, at a time when the menace of

defeat and reprisals for rebellion and treason cast dark shadows over the

land. It was the brave risk taking and decision making of the colonist

that shaped the radical movement known as the American Revolution.

Similar Papers

African american americans british black.

... British East India Company a monopoly over all tea sold in American colonies. 13) In December 1773, Boston's radical ... war. III. African American s in the War for Independence. ... in central North America. 6) France and ... natural rights to life, liberty and ...

Upper Canada War American British

... under British institutions than they would be under American rule. The ... the peace treaty reached America. As this expedition had ... colony faced a long open frontier with the Americans. Each side raided the other throughout the war but the Americans ...

America Was Wrong To Enter World War Ii

... entered the war. The American deaths on the Lusitania, Sussex, and Arabic only coincided with attacks on the British by the Germans. America lost ... that costs us much in the way or money and lives, and has plunged us deeper into debt each time and ...

The Change Of American Lives In Support Of The Second World War

... changes in American lives in support the Second World War. When the then president Franklin D Roosevelt declared war on Japan, the Americans lives changed ... in the Western coastal regions of the States. The rule of the day was that the rich get richer ...

America Is Not Serious About Fighting War on Terrorism

... the government treated Americans as victims rather than soldiers in the war on terror.” ... to disprove his "null hypothesis" -that America IS doing enough ( see http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-N/null_hypothesis.html ...

United States American One America

... In the Declaration of Independence, one of the fundamental document from which the principles of America are based upon declares ... the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the foundation of all American ideals. One possible ...