IN the early history writings of America, historians and politicians termed their struggle against Britain as a war of independence.
Later on, they changed it and started referring to it as the American Revolution. There is a sharp difference between these two terms: war of independence is fought against a foreign colonial power by a colonized country. The colony rebels against the colonial power and makes attempts to liberate itself from its clutches and become free and independent. Revolution, on the other hand, is an internal matter of a country and occurs as a result of division between the rich and the poor. Or some groups or sections of a society overthrow their government with the help of an armed struggle. Generally, it is bloody and not peaceful.
In case of independence from colonial rule, the colonized country may retain the colonial legacy, but in case of revolution, the past legacy is totally rejected and a new structure is shaped, incorporating revolutionary ideas.
Keeping in view this difference between independence and revolution, it is clear that the war of American colonies against England was not a revolution but a war of independence. The change in name is actually the result of the French Revolution that inspired Europeans and Americans by its results. The term ‘revolution’ became not only respectable but also romantic and to express readiness to bring about rapid changes in society.
American historians, having a deep sense of patriotism, glorify the war of independence and attribute their success as a victory of freedom over tyranny and injustice. Bancroft, the famous American historian, calls it the culmination of a long, divinely-inspired progress — the triumph of freedom and democracy. However, this view is challenged by Progressive historians who regard it as a social movement against the mother country and a protest of democrats against the elite class.
The common people who participated in the freedom movement and fought during the struggle against England, after independence, realized that what they hoped by liberation was not in their favour. The leaders who gathered to frame a Constitution for the new independent country were not friends of the people but belonged to the elite and rich classes solely interested in protecting and preserving their property and wealth.
This was evident from the absence of Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, whose writing created great political consciousness during the struggle against England; John Hancock, the revolutionary leader and Samuel Adam, an agitator. They were not invited to attend the convention. There were no delegates from the poor and unprivileged sections of society. The majority of the delegates were landowners, lawyers, businessmen, speculators, bankers and planters. These privileged and aristocrat people wanted a kind of constitution that could fulfil their dreams.
What these delegates expressed in the convention reflected their design for future America. For example, Charles Pinckney, a planter, suggested that only a person who possessed $100,000 should be eligible for the post of President. James Murry Mason, a lawyer, declared “We have been too democrat.... Let us beware of going too far to the opposite extreme.” All of them believed that the masses were nothing but ‘the dirty mob’. Therefore, they were afraid of the crowd and expressed it thus: “The crowd is beginning to think and reason. Poor reptiles! They warm themselves in the sun, and the next moment they will bite...the gentry is beginning to fear them.”
It was also believed that people were not fit for democracy. Jeremy Belknap, a clergyman from New England, wrote to his friend: “We should uphold as a principle the fact that the government derives from the people, but oblige the people to realize that they are not fit to govern themselves.”
The result of these ideas was that the new American Constitution was framed and drafted, keeping the interest of elite classes. It was a triumph of conservatism. That is why the liberal and progressive called it a ‘gilded trap’. It protected the private property and wealth of the rich classes. In the early draft there was no Bill of Rights. Later on, within two years, ten amendments were made which included freedom of worship, speech, press, assembly, petition, to bear arms, etc. Fernand Braudel, the French historian, comments that: “As for society, there was no question of abolishing privileges and certainly not those of property, which was sacrosanct; but care would be taken to ensure the road to privilege — i.e. wealth — was open to all. That, surely, would be easy in a vast and still ‘new’ country like America.”
As a result, the deprived, poor and unprivileged classes reacted. One manifestation of their reaction was Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-87. A group of farmers staged an armed revolt against the injustices of Massachusetts state government. The reason for their revolt was the imposition of war taxes on farmers. Their argument was that the wealthy people who had lent money to the state would be benefited, but the poor farmers would not be. The revolt reflected the sentiments of the poor farmers, small traders and common people who sacrificed and got nothing in the end as a result of independence. The Shays’ Revolt was crushed and the privileged classes stablized their hold over the government and its institutions.
The war of independence profited the propertied classes and not the common people. Political change merely replaced the local ruling class instead of a foreign one. The reward of independence was enjoyed by those who already had power and resources and resisted sharing these privileges with the ordinary people.
IN the early history writings of America, historians and politicians termed their struggle against Britain as a war of independence.
