It's not, just different cooking. Our own revolution has the seeds of our current problem, but at least ours wasn't rabidly anti-religious in its content. It's become that, now, but it took as long as it did due to that critical difference from the French (actual) revolution.
It's not, just different cooking. Our own revolution has the seeds of our current problem, but at least ours wasn't rabidly anti-religious in its content. It's become that, now, but it took as long as it did due to that critical difference from the French (actual) revolution.
Sorry. I don't buy that. Just want to get on the record with it. Strictly on prudential grounds it's poison right now, but it doesn't work conceptually either.
No, when subordinate political entities overthrow the rule of an established monarchy, and establish a new government, it is a revolution. Even the governance of those newly independent states changed substantially, although some changes too a decade or two, and some critical points were not resolved for four score and seven years. Your change of nomenclature assumes that its not a revolution unless there are tremendous excesses of blood running in the streets.
I am assuming that a revolution involves substantial change, or an attempt thereat, to the society itself, not merely an exchange in ruling class by force.
Glad to see you are well enough to respond so quickly. (I wasn't aware of your illness when I offered the first comment). I assert that the American Revolution involved substantial change, and that a change in ruling class does constitute a revolution.
No - the Norman Conquest it was a person who had a claim to the throne overthrowing another person who had a claim to the throne. The throne itself was still the seat of rule.
Revolution is when forces from within a country - not from outside - completely change the government by an act of force (in our case the Revolutionary War.) The Hungarian Revolution lasted only days, then the Soviet tanks came and the old government was restored. It does not matter that people were not beheaded or killed for not being loyal to the American Revolution, which succeeded. Many loyalists (to the throne) fled to Canada, of course, and yes, some loyalists suffered a lot, but it was not like France. Why not? Because we were British. Such a thing a mass execution French-style, a reign of terror, is/was not part of British culture. Britain is/was special.
The vast majority of the land went from Saxon ownership to Norman ownership. Saxon England was largely made into serfs working and obeying the Normans.
Until the 18th century radical reform, including the Reformation, billed itself as a return to The Good Old Way. The idea of a better future seems to have been an invention of of the late Age of Reason.
Yes. The "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89 was defended as a reversion to "the good old days" of several centuries previously; "good old days" which were never specifically identified, but hinted at as the mid 14th century.
Dynasties and dynastic factional battles were part and parcel of the emerging feudal order, as they had been in the later Roman Empire, which legions enthroned their preferred champions rather than accept the will of the Roman Senate. So all in all, I would not consider the Norman Conquest to constitute a change in the status quo. It has often been written up by historians as a turning point in British history. It did bring a more clearly defined feudalism to England. But as noted in other comments, William had a plausible dynastic claim to the throne. The most revolutionary aspect of the way he asserted those rights is that he had a largely foreign army while Harold had the support of the traditional Saxon establishment. Because William had promised land to his adherents, a lot of Saxon lords were displaced and a lot of French-speaking foreign lords were established. But this too is part of the feudal order -- the kings, when powerful enough to do so, dispossessed traitors, or adherents of rival claimants, and granted lands to their loyal retainers. When less powerful, kings dispossessed even favorites who had run afoul of lords more powerful in practice than the king, while granting lands to those who could browbeat the crown for them. Business as usual.
In many ways, the American Revolution was conservative. The Crown and Parliament encroached on many Colonial prerogatives. The British decision to limit Colonial expansion westwards had a lot to do with the revolution.
Yes, and rich Americans who wanted to get richer :) Such is war, so many times.
I know there were true patriots but men and their sons dying to stop tax, and stop harboring soldiers and to move over mountains? Dying over eight deaths at Lexington? People were inflamed by those who stood to benefit is what I have heard. But I agree forbidding westward expansion was the worst thing among grievances other than deaths at Lexington.
(Don't mind me too much - you know I wish I could be English. But I'd not have been traitor to those around me if I'd been in the American Revolution.)
Actually most of the founders were worse off materially and otherwise post Yorktown. Many had substantial Royal commissions, obviously forfeited when they joined in revolting against the British. I can attest to this personally with several of my own and my husband's ancestors, among whom are members of the first Supreme Court and signers.
And, despite the propaganda of current "elites" it wasn't that long ago that we were far less corrupt and those in charge did not get rich from office. The percentage of corrupt politicians has skyrocketed along with the rise in the federal budget.
You are right about many of the signers. I did not mean the signers. I meant people with business interests who would profit. I was told this by the best USA guide I'd ever had- he had academic qualification as well as guiding - at the historic site where Washington crossed the Delaware. It rang true. But I should have couched it as "I've heard from a source think reliable... rather than just "rich Americans...such is war". - It just made sense to me, war being in the interests of many rich people (not all).
I might be overdoing this I know people fought after heaving about Lexington, or feeling angry about taxes, or various reasons. I think they were "enflamed". But I agree it is complex.
OK, here for instance is just one case, but it could represent the type of thing that went on. Robert Morris, shipping line owner, the "financier of the American Revolution":
<<<"The Willing Morris & Company became quite successful because of several methods that saw them monopolize the industry. Willing and Morris sought to insure other cargo vessels and aggressively pursued trade with the Mediterranean and India. The combined effects opened new markets to Philadelphia and North America while simultaneously making both men very wealthy. .....He opposed the Stamp Act of 1765 and the following measures of Parliament that continued to levy a burden upon American shipping vessels. When the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774, Morris was not elected as a delegate but held court with many of the arriving members who sought his counsel and opinion on how to navigate petitioning for a repeal of the Intolerable Acts. However, Morris was appointed to the Committee of Safety by the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly in 1775 following the outbreak of the American Revolution in Massachusetts. ">>>
After the Revolution he was still doing very well financially. I did not read the whole thing. It is a complex case - he really wanted to negotiate with the King at first, and really not wrong to want to stop a tax that is hurting your business, but it is one example of a rich person with influence.
In many ways it was. William Hogeland's "Autumn of the Black Snake" is mostly about the newly established United States's first war against the Shawnee and their allies, but, it goes way back and details the land claims of various Virginia patricians, including George Washington, and how the British government's determination to reorganize certain western territories and issue new land grants motivated Mason, Lee, et al. to form a firm alliance with Samuel Adams of Massachusetts. Revolutions always have venal and self-serving motives. But, the logic of the revolution, not only the rhetoric but the classes of people who had to be mobilized to give it substance, resulted in truly revolutionary changes that may not have been originally intended.
It's not, just different cooking. Our own revolution has the seeds of our current problem, but at least ours wasn't rabidly anti-religious in its content. It's become that, now, but it took as long as it did due to that critical difference from the French (actual) revolution.
Sorry. I don't buy that. Just want to get on the record with it. Strictly on prudential grounds it's poison right now, but it doesn't work conceptually either.
The American Revolution is one of the very few that didn't start with luridly utopian goals, or run out of control. It had a very limited objective
and with that achieved that was the end of it. It probably shouldn't even be called a "revolution"
"The American Rebellion" is the correct term.
Not strongly disagreeing, but "Novus Ordo Seclorum?"
No, when subordinate political entities overthrow the rule of an established monarchy, and establish a new government, it is a revolution. Even the governance of those newly independent states changed substantially, although some changes too a decade or two, and some critical points were not resolved for four score and seven years. Your change of nomenclature assumes that its not a revolution unless there are tremendous excesses of blood running in the streets.
I am assuming that a revolution involves substantial change, or an attempt thereat, to the society itself, not merely an exchange in ruling class by force.
Glad to see you are well enough to respond so quickly. (I wasn't aware of your illness when I offered the first comment). I assert that the American Revolution involved substantial change, and that a change in ruling class does constitute a revolution.
So the Norman Conquest was also a revolution? That actually did occasion some cultural changes too- the English language still retains the results.
True. In many ways, it was a more complete revolution than almost any other.
No - the Norman Conquest it was a person who had a claim to the throne overthrowing another person who had a claim to the throne. The throne itself was still the seat of rule.
Revolution is when forces from within a country - not from outside - completely change the government by an act of force (in our case the Revolutionary War.) The Hungarian Revolution lasted only days, then the Soviet tanks came and the old government was restored. It does not matter that people were not beheaded or killed for not being loyal to the American Revolution, which succeeded. Many loyalists (to the throne) fled to Canada, of course, and yes, some loyalists suffered a lot, but it was not like France. Why not? Because we were British. Such a thing a mass execution French-style, a reign of terror, is/was not part of British culture. Britain is/was special.
"a mass execution French-style, a reign of terror, is/was not part of British culture"
except in 1549 and 1569 (and change "British" to "English")
The vast majority of the land went from Saxon ownership to Norman ownership. Saxon England was largely made into serfs working and obeying the Normans.
It had revolutionary consequences, but could not be seen as a revolution in 1067 (sort of like 1689).
Until the 18th century radical reform, including the Reformation, billed itself as a return to The Good Old Way. The idea of a better future seems to have been an invention of of the late Age of Reason.
Yes. The "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89 was defended as a reversion to "the good old days" of several centuries previously; "good old days" which were never specifically identified, but hinted at as the mid 14th century.
Dynasties and dynastic factional battles were part and parcel of the emerging feudal order, as they had been in the later Roman Empire, which legions enthroned their preferred champions rather than accept the will of the Roman Senate. So all in all, I would not consider the Norman Conquest to constitute a change in the status quo. It has often been written up by historians as a turning point in British history. It did bring a more clearly defined feudalism to England. But as noted in other comments, William had a plausible dynastic claim to the throne. The most revolutionary aspect of the way he asserted those rights is that he had a largely foreign army while Harold had the support of the traditional Saxon establishment. Because William had promised land to his adherents, a lot of Saxon lords were displaced and a lot of French-speaking foreign lords were established. But this too is part of the feudal order -- the kings, when powerful enough to do so, dispossessed traitors, or adherents of rival claimants, and granted lands to their loyal retainers. When less powerful, kings dispossessed even favorites who had run afoul of lords more powerful in practice than the king, while granting lands to those who could browbeat the crown for them. Business as usual.
To a large degree, yes it was.
In many ways, the American Revolution was conservative. The Crown and Parliament encroached on many Colonial prerogatives. The British decision to limit Colonial expansion westwards had a lot to do with the revolution.
Yes, and rich Americans who wanted to get richer :) Such is war, so many times.
I know there were true patriots but men and their sons dying to stop tax, and stop harboring soldiers and to move over mountains? Dying over eight deaths at Lexington? People were inflamed by those who stood to benefit is what I have heard. But I agree forbidding westward expansion was the worst thing among grievances other than deaths at Lexington.
(Don't mind me too much - you know I wish I could be English. But I'd not have been traitor to those around me if I'd been in the American Revolution.)
Actually most of the founders were worse off materially and otherwise post Yorktown. Many had substantial Royal commissions, obviously forfeited when they joined in revolting against the British. I can attest to this personally with several of my own and my husband's ancestors, among whom are members of the first Supreme Court and signers.
And, despite the propaganda of current "elites" it wasn't that long ago that we were far less corrupt and those in charge did not get rich from office. The percentage of corrupt politicians has skyrocketed along with the rise in the federal budget.
You are right about many of the signers. I did not mean the signers. I meant people with business interests who would profit. I was told this by the best USA guide I'd ever had- he had academic qualification as well as guiding - at the historic site where Washington crossed the Delaware. It rang true. But I should have couched it as "I've heard from a source think reliable... rather than just "rich Americans...such is war". - It just made sense to me, war being in the interests of many rich people (not all).
Well I"d like to see your source's bibliography. The story of the founding is far more complex than that simple statement.
Thanks for responding
I might be overdoing this I know people fought after heaving about Lexington, or feeling angry about taxes, or various reasons. I think they were "enflamed". But I agree it is complex.
OK, here for instance is just one case, but it could represent the type of thing that went on. Robert Morris, shipping line owner, the "financier of the American Revolution":
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/robert-morris-financier-american-revolution
<<<"The Willing Morris & Company became quite successful because of several methods that saw them monopolize the industry. Willing and Morris sought to insure other cargo vessels and aggressively pursued trade with the Mediterranean and India. The combined effects opened new markets to Philadelphia and North America while simultaneously making both men very wealthy. .....He opposed the Stamp Act of 1765 and the following measures of Parliament that continued to levy a burden upon American shipping vessels. When the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774, Morris was not elected as a delegate but held court with many of the arriving members who sought his counsel and opinion on how to navigate petitioning for a repeal of the Intolerable Acts. However, Morris was appointed to the Committee of Safety by the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly in 1775 following the outbreak of the American Revolution in Massachusetts. ">>>
After the Revolution he was still doing very well financially. I did not read the whole thing. It is a complex case - he really wanted to negotiate with the King at first, and really not wrong to want to stop a tax that is hurting your business, but it is one example of a rich person with influence.
Yes I too would have been a royalist in that war and a rebel in the one that followed.
In many ways it was. William Hogeland's "Autumn of the Black Snake" is mostly about the newly established United States's first war against the Shawnee and their allies, but, it goes way back and details the land claims of various Virginia patricians, including George Washington, and how the British government's determination to reorganize certain western territories and issue new land grants motivated Mason, Lee, et al. to form a firm alliance with Samuel Adams of Massachusetts. Revolutions always have venal and self-serving motives. But, the logic of the revolution, not only the rhetoric but the classes of people who had to be mobilized to give it substance, resulted in truly revolutionary changes that may not have been originally intended.