The radicalism of the American Revolution

Radicalism - American Revolution

The colonial period in American history is a varied and interesting one. Indeed, there were so many tiers and sections in society that issues of equality, hierarchy, opportunity and oppression often ran parallel and were difficult to distinguish from each other. It is little wonder then that there are many disagreements among critics as to how exactly these different issues manifested themselves in the society of the time. From this disagreement, one could conclude that all four elements were indeed present in the society of the time, and that the manifestation of each depended on the perspective one would choose to take at any particular time.

Zuckerman, for example, cites various examples of critics who identify deference as it manifested itself in Colonial America. Some hold that deference was manifest as a remnant of the British society from which the Americans emerged. While in some cases it occurred parallel to British deference, i.e. towards persons with great wealth as having a higher status in society. Other forms of deference occurred towards persons with large amounts of property, or in the complex relationship between obligation and dependence. A servant for example would defer towards his or her employer. The final form of deference as cited by Zuckerman occurred between the general population towards those perceived to occupy an important position. This deference is a choice exercised by persons who perceived themselves as obliged to do so.

Zuckerman goes on to refute this claim towards deference during Colonial times. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that persons who were assured of deference in England, had no such claim in the United States. A particular example of this is social authorities and lawmakers. Indeed, this is one area, according to Zuckerman, in which the new democracy most particularly manifested itself. Indeed, the voice of the people carried much more weight than the authority of lawmakers, bosses and the like. According to Zuckerman, authorities were obliged to adhere to the will of the people, or face dismissal. Justices of the peace and sheriffs for example had to keep pace with the preferences of the people. These authorities therefore had not claim to deference.

According to Zuckerman, the clergy were also not entitled to the same respect as the case would have been in England. They, as the sheriff and the justice of the peace, were obliged to provide the people with a message they wanted. In social settings they were also not particularly respected. This is a manifestation of the budding equality in the country. The general rules of deference no longer held. Persons immigrating from other countries came to the United States for the opportunities it offered. According to Zuckerman, even servants were more prosperous in the United States than they were as business or landowners in their own countries, as the author demonstrates with the anecdote of John Harrower.

Zuckerman therefore generally holds that the equality during colonial times was much more prominent than any shows of deference or respect for social or professional position, or towards persons with great wealth. Indeed, even in wealth people were not set as far apart in terms of rich and poor as in established countries. The United States was a newly incepted country, with opportunities that were free for all. In this, all citizens saw themselves as more or less equal to other citizens. People had many more rights than they did at the same social levels as they would have had in their home countries. This element of American democracy is what drew many immigrants.

Immigration also provided the United States with its unique ethnic composition. This is one of the manifestations of American life that provided the country with its reputation for equality and democracy. The increasing immigration numbers to the country during the Colonial years is a further testament to this.

Zuckerman therefore seems to be of the opinion that the Revolution was simply a manifestation of already-existing paradigms of equality in society. Hierarchy, according to the author, was practically non-existent during the time, and therefore the Revolution was both inevitable and merely a formality to establish what was already present in society.

According to Aaron S. Fogleman, critics such as Zuckerman do not take into account the various levels of servitude that existed in the United States particularly after the inception of slaves from Africa. Some servants had the freedom to, as Zuckerman claims, move from employer to employer, or to make demands for rights and better conditions. Slaves were not in such a position, and often lived their entire lives in bondage to cruel masters and terrible conditions. Furthermore, in contrast to immigrants who left their home countries by choice, African slaves were kidnapped from their homes against their will. In these cases, there was indeed a definite hierarchy in the country.

Doerflinger turns the focus to the economy of the country at the time. According to the author, business people at the time were more individually focused on making use of the opportunities offered by the new country than on freeing themselves from England. Indeed, business people did very little to incite revolution. In this way, the paradigm of the economic world was much different from the social.

In terms of hierarchy, it seems not to have been greatly manifested in the American economy. Business people were free to conduct their dealings as they saw fit. They were on equal footing, and needed to depend only upon their business sense and the demand and supply of their products in order to make a success of their labor. The economic sector then was probably the least hierarchical of American systems at the time. The basic lack of drive to incite social change can therefore be ascribed to the freedom of business people to make money in whichever way they chose to do so. Indeed, Doerflinger's description of the various opportunities open to business people indicates that the economic sector was open even to what at the time was regarded as the oppressor, namely England. Hence the paradigms of complete equality seems to have existed in the economic sector long before it did in the other sectors of society. The economic sector might then be said to have pioneered the democracy, equality and opportunity that the country had already become known for at the time.

If the later manifestations of capitalism are considered, it also appears that the economic conditions until 1776 paved the way for the equality that would be an accepted part of society at a much later time. It is therefore ironic that this sector played a very small part in the revolution itself. Instead, it evolved as an ideal of the society of the future.

In summary, the specific manifestation of equality and freedom, and of oppression and opportunity cannot be delineated in simple terms. These concepts as they existed during the Colonial years can also not be described by considering a single set of circumstances or group of people. In conclusion, it is therefore impossible to say that any of these elements did not exist during the society of the time, or that they played no part whatsoever in the Revolution. Indeed, the Revolution was a convergence of the existing paradigms of oppression and freedom, hierarchy and opportunity.