Was the American Revolution really Revolutionary?

[αяgуяσѕ]

Ok I came across this in one of my essays I had to write.
I would like to know your guy's opinion on if the American Revolution was really a Revolution.

If you say Yes or No, I would like to hear why it is and why it isn't.
It can include some good facts or it can include very little detailed facts.

So lets begin.

[Aborted]

​Of course it was a revolution, what else could it possibly be classified as?

[αяgуяσѕ]

​Of course it was a revolution, what else could it possibly be classified as?

War of Independence.
I said to tell why you think it was or wasn't.
This is one of the reason why people don't think the Revolution was really Revolutionary since all we did was kick out the British and have Rich White Elites take over.
There was some minor things, but not a whole lot changed.
We stayed with the same system as the British, hell the British abolished slavery faster then we did and we wrote the constitution stating that all men are equal yet we were hypocritical about it.

[Aborted]

War of Independence.
I said to tell why you think it was or wasn't.
This is one of the reason why people don't think the Revolution was really Revolutionary since all we did was kick out the British and have Rich White Elites take over.
There was some minor things, but not a whole lot changed.
We stayed with the same system as the British, hell the British abolished slavery faster then we did and we wrote the constitution stating that all men are equal yet we were hypocritical about it.

"A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time."

Monarchy ---> Constitutional Republic = Revolution

​Societal discrepancies aside, it was still a revolution.

[monkkiller]

Its often said that to the British it was a civil war. But the war was a revolution regardless and it meats the exact definition. "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system."

[αяgуяσѕ]

Its often said that to the British it was a civil war. But the war was a revolution regardless and it meats the exact definition. "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system."

Yes that is only 1 type of change.
But for the history of it it has to have change in more then just one.
So it wasn't truly revolutionary, but revolution.
In fact it wasn't a true revolution. The reason being is that a TRUE revolution allows 1.Social, 2.Political, and 3. Economic change to occur.

in society nothing changed only the elite got more powerful for they drove the revolution forward and were put into a position of more power after the revolution.
Economical nothing change either (no radical restructuring), since those in power after the revolution only lowered the high taxes that the British had imposed on the country
--Hence the economic system of capitalism remained in use from pre-revolution to post-revolution
its partial revolution.

The thing is people will debate over it.

But take a look at what a Social movement is - "are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change."
-wikipedia

"A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time."

Monarchy ---> Constitutional Republic = Revolution

​Societal discrepancies aside, it was still a revolution.

Here is the issue we never destroyed the British's Government we merely separated from them.
Now look at France that is a true Revolution.

[Aborted]

Yes that is only 1 type of change.
But for the history of it it has to have change in more then just one.
So it wasn't truly revolutionary, but revolution.
In fact it wasn't a true revolution. The reason being is that a TRUE revolution allows 1.Social, 2.Political, and 3. Economic change to occur.

in society nothing changed only the elite got more powerful for they drove the revolution forward and were put into a position of more power after the revolution.
Economical nothing change either (no radical restructuring), since those in power after the revolution only lowered the high taxes that the British had imposed on the country
--Hence the economic system of capitalism remained in use from pre-revolution to post-revolution
its partial revolution.

The thing is people will debate over it.

But take a look at what a Social movement is - "are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change."
-wikipedia



Here is the issue we never destroyed the British's Government we merely separated from them.
Now look at France that is a true Revolution.

Destruction isn't necessary.
​The colonies went from a Monarchy to Republic, that's a revolution.

[αяgуяσѕ]

Destruction isn't necessary.
​The colonies went from a Monarchy to Republic, that's a revolution.

Then it would be a Social Movement instead.

[Lehsyrus]

Let's make this simple. The colonists revolted against British rule. You can't say the colonists went to war with Britain, because they were not their own sovereign. You can not simply say they battled the British, as there were multiple battles. You can not say it was a civil war, because the land that was occupied did not specifically belong to the British, it was "claimed" by the British, as well if it were a civil war then Britain would be split into states owned by the United States.

The colonists revolted against Britain for their freedom. It was a revolution because the people who revolted succeeded in their revolt.

[αяgуяσѕ]

Let's make this simple. The colonists revolted against British rule. You can't say the colonists went to war with Britain, because they were not their own sovereign. You can not simply say they battled the British, as there were multiple battles. You can not say it was a civil war, because the land that was occupied did not specifically belong to the British, it was "claimed" by the British, as well if it were a civil war then Britain would be split into states owned by the United States.

The colonists revolted against Britain for their freedom. It was a revolution because the people who revolted succeeded in their revolt.

A revolt wouldn't be considered a revolution in this case.
Since we would say people who revolted against the Catholics.
Which it was called the protestant revolt and not the protestant revolution.

So as I said above it would be a Social Movement since they just resisted the King in British.

[Lehsyrus]

A revolt wouldn't be considered a revolution in this case.
Since we would say people who revolted against the Catholics.
Which it was called the protestant revolt and not the protestant revolution.

So as I said above it would be a Social Movement since they just resisted the King in British.

They didn't just resist, they succeeded in overthrowing the British rule and completely changing their society and the way it works. Hence, revolution. It wasn't a simple "we don't like you, so suck it", it was a "we don't like you, so we're going to make a change". There is a massive difference.

[αяgуяσѕ]

They didn't just resist, they succeeded in overthrowing the British rule and completely changing their society and the way it works. Hence, revolution. It wasn't a simple "we don't like you, so suck it", it was a "we don't like you, so we're going to make a change". There is a massive difference.

But they really didn't change the society.
What History says was that all they mainly did was change their type of government from a Monarchy to a Democracy owned by White Elites.
The Social class didn't change nor did the Economy.

[Lehsyrus]

But they really didn't change the society.
What History says was that all they mainly did was change their type of government from a Monarchy to a Democracy owned by White Elites.
The Social class didn't change nor did the Economy.

Au contrair. The economy did change, and quite drastically. The majority of all exports from the colonies, if not all, were taxes to Britain. The social classes were nonexistent, there were colonists and then there were British army. Some colonists may have had more land to work with, but all of the colonists had the ability to expand wherever they saw fit. The only ruling holding them down were the British. The British, up until that point, had very successfully created colonies in many different locations. America, as a band of colonists that were underpowered, out numbered, and out gunned, defeating the worlds only super power in that day and age, is considered a revolution, as the ones being oppressed successfully revolted against the super power oppressing them and established an independent geographical location under the name of the people who had won. That's a revolution. Everything changed. Position of power, economic state (no longer having their exports raped by taxes is a pretty large alteration to the economy), and quality of life.

[αяgуяσѕ]

Au contrair. The economy did change, and quite drastically. The majority of all exports from the colonies, if not all, were taxes to Britain. The social classes were nonexistent, there were colonists and then there were British army. Some colonists may have had more land to work with, but all of the colonists had the ability to expand wherever they saw fit. The only ruling holding them down were the British. The British, up until that point, had very successfully created colonies in many different locations. America, as a band of colonists that were underpowered, out numbered, and out gunned, defeating the worlds only super power in that day and age, is considered a revolution, as the ones being oppressed successfully revolted against the super power oppressing them and established an independent geographical location under the name of the people who had won. That's a revolution. Everything changed. Position of power, economic state (no longer having their exports raped by taxes is a pretty large alteration to the economy), and quality of life.

You are wrong again.
The capita debt doubled during the 1664 and 1776.
Lets not forget most of the Colonist products where from British.

[Lehsyrus]

You are wrong again.
The capita debt doubled during the 1664 and 1776.
Lets not forget most of the Colonist products where from British.

We accumulated the debt because of the war itself, Andrew Jackson was able to eliminate all of our debt, yet after his term it accumulated once more. This does not make me wrong, as I never said America's debt was diminished. I said the quality of life, and the economic domain improved. America could not have debt before the Revolutionary war as it was owned by Britain, and Britain's debt would have been America's debt. However, once America was liberated from British rule and established itself, it could then be considered to have it's ow debt. Are you even reading everything other than what you want to hear? Because all of my information comes from the Bureau of Public Records. Pretty simple to look up.