The Third Revolution in America

    There is a recurring trend of revolutionary periods in the United States, radical politics. The pulling of citizens to the far left or right while the moderate middle ground dissipates under a silent population.  Sure, the left and right wings of American politics are vocal, but rarely do they constitute majorities that elicit action in American society.

Americans have witnessed two revolutionary attempts; one a success and one a failure.  Are we seeing the beginnings of a third?

   Americans have witnessed two revolutionary attempts; one a success, one a failure.  Are we seeing the beginnings of a third? 

    The first, a successful Revolution of the British North American Colonies gaining their independence from King George III and Great Britain, is often unjustly and inaccurately presented to our populace.

    I am sure your high school history courses explained the American Revolution as an inevitable conflict sparked by unfair taxes waged against an under-represented, defenseless population.  I am sure they also projected the colonists as outsiders from traditional British subjects.  As a proud country, it would be hard to look at our founding generation as a population of “quarrelsome, litigious, [and] divisive” subjects of the crown.[1]  In fact, the colonists were a stubborn population.  They fought among each other and sued each other for petty reasons… sound familiar?

    The colonists also felt themselves to be more British than British subjects living in the motherland.  The late Edmund Morgan, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, describes the colonists as maintaining “that they were preserving the true tradition of English history, a tradition that had been upset by forces of darkness and corruption in England itself”, even throughout the fighting of the Revolutionary War.[2] Basically, even while fighting against the British, they felt they were portraying the true traditions and virtues of the British Empire.

    The true reasoning behind independence was stubbornness and a fundamental resentment of authority throughout the colonies.  Whether it was British Parliament or their own Colonial Governments, the colonial population did not want to be told what to do.

John Adams
2nd President

    John Adams, while defending British soldiers charged in the events of the Boston Massacre, argued that “facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”.  Let’s take his advice and look at the facts.

·         The Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War) doubled the National Debt of Great Britain.

·         Colonists paid less in taxes than British citizens living in England at a ratio of about 26:1.

·         Parliament spent more money on collecting taxes in the North American Colonies than revenue created from their taxes.

·         Colonists felt misrepresented by their own Colonial Assemblies.

·         Taxes enacted by Parliament were to pay for the increased presence of British Troops protecting the Proclamation Line of 1763. (The British would use taxes from the colonists to protect the colonists).

·         The First Great Awakening and a focus on personal relationships with religion sparked a colonial resentment toward authority. (The colonists did not want to be told what to do, by any authority)

·         The Tea Act (1773) was projected as a win-win situation by Parliament; the colonists would get tea at a cheaper cost and the struggling East India Trading Company would come out of its economic funk.

    In short, the colonists wanted to have all the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the British Empire but did not want to be told what to do or pay taxes, for any reason. 

    You can argue reasons for the actual military action to take place in the Revolutionary War, but one thing that was evident was a pulling of political ideologies to radical opposition from one another.  Radical revolutionaries, like Patrick Henry, represented what Joseph Galloway, a former member of the First Continental Congress, estimated as less than one-fifth of the American population while over two-thirds preferred a continued union with Great Britain.  The attitude of with us or against us was prevalent throughout the colonies; the loyalists versus the revolutionaries, a moderate opinion would not be accepted.

How can such a minority elicit action among the masses?

What political, social, or cultural climate must exist in a population to pull citizens to extreme ends of the political realm?

What occurs in a society to put political outsiders or radicals to the forefront of leadership and power in that society?

    These questions are not only important to analyze while looking at our past, but also in what lies ahead for us in the near future or even our present time.  The Revolutionary Era of the United States depicts heroes, patriots, enemies, and brilliant minds, all with radical, stubborn opinions.  The radicalism of both sides sparked the fire of revolution.  After the colonists achieved their independence, and corrected the Articles of Confederation, the United States, with the exception of the War of 1812, went through a relatively smooth period.  That is until an institution that was operating under the radar began to increase a rift between opposing sides.  Slavery and the stubbornness of states to operate, without being told what to do, led to a second revolutionary era in the United States.

[1] Edmund Morgan, The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89, 5.[2] Ibid, 7.