Many theories about revolution have been put forth, but they do not always explain what happened in America. For example, it is assumed that a necessary ingredient of revolution is widespread discontent, yet the average American was in general as well off as anyone in the world at that time. It may also be argued that the American colonists were behaving like spoiled children, unable to grasp their responsibilities as citizens of a supposedly benevolent empire. To be sure, many colonists felt that they were being treated badly by their home government, but it is not always clear to what extent wrongs are real or perceived. In the end, it probably does not matter; the Americans had come to see the British as oppressors ready to curb their rights and plunder their pocketbooks. Once that feeling was extant, it would have taken considerable generosity of spirit by Crown and Parliament to reverse the trend. Crown and Parliament were in no mood for that, despite warnings by men such as Edmund Burke who were sympathetic to the American cause.
It is interesting to note that four major revolutions (the English, American, French, and Russian) all began with government trying to get more money out of the people.
Viewing all revolutionary leaders as "wild-eyed radicals" is a cliche. Many American leaders were almost boring in their lack of revolutionary passion. Washington was a very nonrevolutionary figure, one of the least radical Americans, yet he was technically guilty of treason. The rank-and-file soldiers who fought with Washington generally came from the working classes. The most passionate patriots, men such as Patrick Henry of Virginia, used rhetoric to advance the revolutionary cause, generally with significant success. (See Henry's "Liberty or Death" speech.)
The real causes of the American Revolution involved a number of attitudes. The colonists had developed a sense of national identity; their isolation from the mother country during the colonial period developed a spirit of common interest, though it had been slow in developing. Once the Revolution began, however, Benjamin Franklin expressed their situation as follows: "We had best hang together, or we shall surely hang separately." An additional factor was that for the discontent that did exist, there was no easy avenue for redress of grievances.
In many ways the British had no one to blame but themselves; their governance of the colonies was an unending stream of insensitivity and inflexibility: One real cause of the war was "imperial mismanagement"—they failed to consult the colonists on almost all major policy issues, feeling that what was good for the Empire was good for all its parts, all the while treating the colonies as "dependent children." Connected to this failure was the British idea of "virtual representation," which the colonists rejected.
One question has always intrigued historians: whether the American Revolution was a real revolution or a conservative reaction to changing circumstances. It has been noted that the Revolution did not change the essential social, economic, or power structure of the colonies. In contrast to the notion of a conservative revolution, however, historian Gordon Wood, in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, a relatively recent book (mentioned above), makes a number of interesting points. Noting that the American Revolution was long considered "conservative," he argues that when viewed in terms of social change, the American revolution was "as radical as any in history." The American Revolution forever redefined the relationship between a government and its people.
The real key to the idea of revolution (in the opinion of this writer) is that prior to the American Revolution, the responsibility for honest, virtuous, or just plain good government resided in the hands of the power structure—the Crown and the aristocracy. From 1776 onward, that responsibility lay in the hands of the American people. Thomas Paine made that point most eloquently in Common Sense.
World History
