Generations of scholars have put forward a hypothesis that the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. On the surface, this hypothesis seems plausible. After all, the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia created a model of government that was very similar to the English model, a model of branches of government that had checks and balances over one another. Gary Nash's book, the Unknown American Revolution, collects and reveals information about a revolution that was truly radical -- a revolution that I had never seen revealed in any classroom, in spite of being exposed to a fair bit of liberal arts education.
Although Nash doesn't make an explicit comparison, the U.S. Constitution of 1787 was quite conservative compared to the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776, a constitution that called for a broader franchise and government by a unicameral legislature. Elites were snubbed in this state constitution, a constitution that created a government without an executive branch or a upper house of the legislature. Up and down the seaboard, radicals argued for state constitutions such as these, although, in most cases, they had to compromise with conservatives and moneyed interests and produce more moderate governing institutions.
Nash paints a fascinating picture of angry farmers and "leather aprons" tearing down sumptuous mansions of abusive governing elites and staging jailbreaks for unjustly imprisoned leaders; Black slaves joining both sides in the conflict in a revolutionary attempt to secure their own freedom and abolish slavery; and itinerant frontier preachers challenging the established church in defense of Christ's Poor. He establishes a continuity of mob violence from the Carolina Regulator Movement to the violent reactions to the Stamp Act, all the way through Shays Rebellion of 1786. Nash's portrayal of Shays Rebellion as a continuation of the disaffection of the poor makes more sense than the traditional portrayal of Shays Rebellion as an aberration demonstrating the weakness of government under the Articles of Confederation.
Indeed, Nash's defense of mob violence as something focused and purposeful (as opposed to random and mindless) is bound to generate some controversy. Professor Nash takes up the position that a law that is unjust is no law at all, and that mobs are not unthinking masses. Is mob violence democratic? Can a mob make a reasoned decision on whether a law is just or unjust? Nash seems to think so. A little scary, since this line of reasoning could be used to justify riots, wilfull destruction of property, and lynchings.
The genius of Professor Nash's book is his ability to separate the War of Independence from the American Revolution. Separating from Britain is one matter, revolutions are another. How much did American society change in the American Revolution? More than meets the eye, argues Nash. The fledgling United States might have failed to abolish slavery, but the contradiction between the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and holding people in bondage was placed firmly on center stage. Slavery WAS abolished north of the Mason-Dixon line, and the institution drew harsh condemnations even from slaveholders such as Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Radical government may have been replaced with more moderate government, but never again could wealthy elites contemptuously ingnore the political aspirations of the masses or publicly label them as "rabble."
Although the Unknown American Revolution is long and seems to ramble in some places, this book effectively challenges some myths in the account of the revolution. This is a good popular history of the American Revolution.
less
0 comments
Post a comment