American conservatives tend to take the “Neo-Whig” perspective on the American Revolution, that it was mainly conservative in nature, aimed at preserving and restoring the traditional rights of Englishmen again the encroaching actions of Parliament. They would point, for example, to the Bill of Rights and its antecedents in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and in English common law. They would also cite Jefferson’s A Summary View of the Rights of British America.
But let’s not forget that American and Americans already existed in this land for over 150 years before the Revolution. As a society they had already developed in a different direction, in many ways more free, than in England. So things like religious freedom, a wider franchise, town government with locally elected leaders, free trade, etc., all pre-dated the Revolution. In that sense, the Revolution was aimed at preserving the freedoms that they had already achieved against increasing encroachment from England. In other words, it was conservative.
That said, it is also undeniable that there were some real radicals involved as well. Thomas Paine is a prime example of that. But if you look at the actual results of Independence, say at state constitutions written in 1776, and you see almost no innovation beyond what were considered pre-existing rights of Englishmen. There was no lurch forward. The constitutions codified what everyone already understood.
Read other related questions on Quora:
- If there had never been an American Revolution, and the US had continued to be under British rule, until such time that it slowly became independent, like Canada, what do you feel would be different about the US now?
- Why didn't Canada come under US rule during the American Revolution?
- Why is the American Revolution called a conservative movement?
from Quora http://ift.tt/2fGk7mb
No comments:
Post a Comment