“THE TURMOIL OF A REBELLIOUS PEOPLE” (175) What a horrible movie title! Think about it. I could make a bunch of bad movie jokes here, but I won’t. This will be a brief blog post tonight. Here’s where we’ll begin: “Groups emerged—slaves, urban laboring people, backcountry farmers, evangelicals, women—whose enunciated goals were sometimes only loosely connected to the struggle with England. The stridency and potential power of these groups frightened many in the upper class. Losing control of the protests they had initially led, many would abandon the resistance movement.” This is what its about: power. Its easy to forget that there’s a reciprocal relationship here, when power is so one sided – but that’s how it is. Let’s consider what this means for the colonies in rebellion.
URBAN PEOPLE (178) Artisans… know who they are? They’re the ones with skilled trades, not people who paint pictures. You text states that “By 1772, they were filling elected municipal positions and insisting on their right to participate equally with their social superiors in nominating assemblymen and other important officeholders. They also began lobbying for reform laws, calling for elected representatives to be more accountable to their constituents.” This is some serious doo-doo. Look what’s happening. It isn’t just political ideals that people are beginning to feel revolutionary about – it’s economic and social ones too. They use their political power to seize create conditions for economic rights. This is one of the dangers of internal revolution that the conservatives of the Constitutional Convention sought to quell. That’s why there was no mention of economic rights there and no Bill of Rights in the initial draft. Fear the poor! They might rise. In a few years this would be the case in France. The ‘founders’ didn’t want it to be the case in America. This is also the thesis of Charles Beard’s Economic Interpretation of the Constitution – written in the Progressive Age.
PATRIOT WOMEN (179) Notice here in your text that women who are patriotic are supporting the men? Hm. Your text mentions that women were beginning to question their place in society, but it doesn’t state who, when, where, or how. No evidence is given. This is bad practice in writing history texts.
PROTESTING FARMERS (180) Look back to last night’s text blog and you’ll see the Regulators. If you read closely, you’ll notice that this is a struggle that doesn’t really have much to do with the English. It’s about class interests between the rich plantation owners and the poor farmers. It’s also similar to Shays’ Rebellion in 1786 (probably the most important class revolt in US History). What does this mean for the revolution? Is there an implicit association between the rich and the British? Is the American Revolution a rich man’s war (merchants) and a poor man’s fight (farmer soldiers)? What do you think? Also, what does this mean for the ideology of representative democracy?
About Administrator
