American Revolution (1765 /1783)

The American Revolution is one of the most important events in the

American history. Americans created a new nation after a long debate for
the American Independence.
But scholars disagree upon using the notion of Revolution
1/ The historical overview of the American Revolution
2/ The historical and intellectual context of the American Revolution
-The Renaissance
-The Age of Exploration
-The Protestant Reformation
-The scientific Revolution (as an event)
- The Enlightenment
3/ Early Histories
-The Greek Revolution
-Roman Historiography
-Christian historiography
-Muslim Historiography
4/ Modern history (1400-1800)
-Renaissance historians
-Scientific Revolution (historicism)
5/ The 19th C European history
-Idealism
-Marxism
-Empiricism
-Romanticism
6/ American History in the 19th C
-Romanticism
1

-Nationalism
- Professionalization (discipline)
7/ American History in the 20th C:
-Conflict and Consensus in the American History
- Relativism
- Pragmatism
- Progressivism

- Marxism
- The French Annals
- The New left

-New Social History

- Cultural History

The American Revolution

The American Revolution (happened in a period of two decades 1765 and 1783), is not a
single event that happened. There were causes and consequences due to this event: the
intellectual context surrounding the revolution and how this affected it and how American
historians view it. We cant understand the interpretation of the American Revolution without
understanding the intellectual circumstances (context) related to that event.
2

The period between 1400 and 1800 witnessed revolutionary developments both in the history
of European and American and also helped to create a modern sense of history.
Both European and American perspectives were shaped by this revolution (scientific
revolution, enlightenment) during that period. They went to include revolution and the age of
exploration, Protestant reformation, and scientific revolution. There were certain changes from
one state to another. They gave historiography a modern sense.
These developments shaped their thoughts
There is a comparison between:
Earlier historians:
- Knowledge was revealed by divine authority, the historical agent is God
i.e. the status of church/ God as the source of knowledge
Knowledge is revealed by historical agent who is supernatural. It is something we dont know
(whos and what is the force that changes the history). History is changed because of that
force. The force is beyond ones control, it is divine, Gods religion.
-Human nature is unchanged and eternal stability and predictability
-History is cyclical: once you have the same circumstances, the same events will happen and
repeat themselves.
- The providential philosophy of history implies that destiny is a driving force for human
change.
Modernist historians
-The basis for knowledge is not divinity. It is secular scientific authority the historical agent
changes from the divine / God to man.
-History is universal it emphasizes human development and change over time
- History is not cyclical. It travels in a linear trajectory of progress from primitive (to justify
colonization, colonial mission is civilizing) to civilization from an ancient age to a modern
age.
-They emphasized human reason and empirical methods of inquiry
These broad changes from earlier history to modern history led the ground for an
independent discipline of history to emerge.
Different interpretations of the these facts (dates, events), how American historians interpreted
the American history?
3

Each generation of historians came up with new interpretations concerning the American
Revolution.

American Revolution

It happened into a period of two decades

Cost

Taxation

Protest

Confrontation

If we explain the causes of the American Revolution as such it will be

considered as an oversimplification of the American Revolution.
Before and during the French and Indian war, from about 1650 to 1763,
Britain essentially left its American colonies to run themselves in an age of
salutary neglect. Given relative freedom to do as they pleased, the North
American settlers turned to unique forms of government to match their
developing new identity as Americans. They established representative
legislatures and democratic town meetings. They also enjoyed such rights
as local judiciaries and trials by jury in which defendants were assumed
innocent until proven guilty. American shipping, although theoretically
regulated by the Navigation Act, functioned apart from the mighty British
fleet for more than a hundred years. Finally, the promise of an expansive,
untamed continent gave all settlers a sense of freedom and the ability to
start fresh in the new world.
4

As the American 13 colonies were growing in population and wealth, the

British governments interests in them were increasing. But Britain was
concerned about their openness to attack. American colonies were
threatened from the 3 sides by British traditional enemies: France, Spain
and Italy. Both Britain and the American colonies felt that France is the
most threatening part.
Britain and France were long-lasting enemies as each of them is trying
to expand over the other.
1689-1763: Motivated by a desire and a need to expand their empires, the
two countries (i.e. Britain & France) went into war 4 times and the last one
was the 7 years war known in America as French/Indian war in which
France was defeated. In 1763, France gave up all of its lands and territories
to America and hence the size of the American territories was doubled.
This led to two problems:
1. Most of the colonists wanted to move westward and got into conflicts
with Indian tribes. This eventually led to an Indian uprising which the
American government had to crash.
2. Great Britain was engaged in war (from 1754 to 1763) for colonial
dominance in North America. British officials tried to rally public
opinion for the war at the Albany Congress in 1754 but mastered only
half-hearted support throughout the colonies. Nevertheless, American
colonists dutifully fought alongside British soldiers while the French
allied themselves with several Native American tribes (hence the
name French/Indian war). This war ended after the British captured
most of Frances major cities and forts in Canada and the Ohio valley.
All of these have cost

to meet these costs GB forced taxes.

People were not happy with spending their money for the sake of North
American colonies. British officials claimed that Americans must share in
the burden of support for their defense. The French and Indian war also
motivated Parliament to end the age of salutary neglect. Prime Minister
George Grenville began enforcing the ancient Navigation Acts. In 1764,
Parliament passed what is called The Sugar Act which placed duties on
sugar imported into the colonies from the West India. A year later, he
passed The Stamp Act, which placed a tax on printed materials.
In 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act. This act required that
American colonies should provide shelter and other support for the British
troops which were stationed in American colonies (New York).
5

Americans resented this act because of the extra taxes imposed on them.
Americans throughout the 13 colonies cried out Taxation without
representation. The colonists resented the Stamp Act and they decided
not to buy any product. The Stamp Act was rejected and there was protest
everywhere and they decided to boycott the British goods.
Several colonial leaders convened the Stamp Act Congress in New York to
petition Parliament and King George to repeal the tax.
In 1766, Parliament bowed to public pressure and replaced the Stamp Act.
But it quickly passed the Declaratory Act which stipulated that Parliament
reserved the right to tax the colonies anytime it chose. It was a way to the
British government to assert (express) its authority, to show that the
British government yielded to the needs/ desires of territories.
In 1767, the Townshend Acts were passed which levied another series of
taxes on lead, paints, and tea known as the Townshend Duties. In the same
series, Britain passed the Suspension Act which suspended the New York
assembly for not enforcing the Quartering Act.
To prevent violent protests, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson
requested assistance from the British governor army and in 1768, four
thousands red coasts landed in the city to help maintain order.
Nevertheless, on March 5, 1770, an angry mob clashed with several British
troops. Five colonists died and news of The Boston Massacre quickly
spread throughout the colonies.
In 1773, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act granting the financially
troubled British East Indian Company a trade monopoly on tea exported to
the American colonies.
The colonies protested. Tea agents resigned or canceled orders and
merchants refused consignments in response to the unpopular act.
Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts, determined to uphold the law,
ordered that three ships arriving in Boston harbor should be allowed to
deposit their cargoes and that appropriate payments should be made for
the goods. On the night of December 16, 1773, while the ships lingered in
the harbor, sixty men boarded the ships, disguised as Native Americans
and dumped the entire shipment of tea into the harbor. That event is now
famously known as the Boston Tea Party.
In January 1774, the British Parliament reacted by passing The Coercive
Act, known as the Intolerable Acts in America, which shut down Boston
Harbor until the British East India Company had been fully reimbursed for
6

the tea destroyed in the Boston Tea Party. Americans throughout the
colonies sent food and supplies to Boston via land to prevent death from
hunger and cold in the bitter New England winter.
Parliament also passed the Quebec Act at the same time, which granted
more rights to French Canadian Catholics and extended French Canadian
territory south to the western borders of New York and Pennsylvania.
Westward settlements were outlawed. Troops were allowed to be stationed
in colonial homes. Prominent colonials reacted by establishing the First
Continental Congress in autumn of 1774 in Philadelphia which denounced
the Intolerable Act. They once again petitioned Parliament, King George
and the British people to repeal the acts and restore friendly relations. For
additional motivation, they also decided to institute a boycott, or ban of all
British goods in the colonies.
On April 19, 1775, part of the British occupation force in Boston marched to
the nearby town of Concord, Massachusetts, to seize a colonial militia
arsenal. Militiamen of Lexington and Concord intercepted them and
attacked. As a result of this there was a kind of confrontation between
colonists and troops.
The first shot, the so-called shot heard round the world made famous by
the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson- was one of many that hounded the British
and forced them to retreat to Boston. Thousands of militiamen from nearby
colonies flocked to Boston to assist.
In the meantime, American leaders established the Second Continental
Congress to discuss options. In one final attempt for peaceful
reconciliation, the Olive Branch Petition, they professed their love and
loyalty to King George and begged him to address their grievances. The
king rejected the petition and formally declared that the colonies were in a
state of rebellion in 1775.
The Second continental Congress chose General George Washington to
command the militiamen besieging Boston in the North. They also
appropriated money for a small navy and for transforming the
undisciplined militias into the professional Continental Army.
Encouraged by a strong colonial campaign in which the British scored only
narrow victories, many colonists began to advocate total independence as
opposed to having full rights within the British Empire. The next year, the
Congress voted on July 2, 1776, to declare their independence. Thomas
7

Jefferson, a young lawyer from Virginia, drafted the Declaration of

Independence and presented it in a nice way. The United States was born.
The United States becomes a Nation. They had to make a choice. They
were divided into patriots and loyalists to the king of Britain. For them,
they would find justice when appealing to the king.
For some historians, Americans who tried to avoid (provide) the separation
between colonists and the mother land sent a petition to the king asking
him to repel the Coercive Act, but the king was not reactive. The British
Parliament issued an order that the British navy can seize and this was
seen as a declaration of war.
So the war started in 1775 because of tension that was building up on
around the years because of taxation. In other words, it started as taxation
and ended up as a balance of power. Americans declared their
independence.
The main causes of the American Revolution
Britain wanted to raise money and control the colonies because Britain
faced economic problems due to the successive wars that Britain has with
France. Britain imposed taxes these were causes contributing to the war.
This leads to the Boston Tea Party: The Boston Tea Party
Protests
Militias
British passed the coercive act
Effects:
-Independence was declared: Washington becomes a leader
-India declared
-Continental army + navy arsenal was formed

Long term effects:

- The USA becomes a nation
- The US becomes a large territory
- A democracy is born
8

- America inspired other revolution

The American Revolution can be seen as a fight against cost. They were
taxed in a Parliament in which they were not represented. The British
Parliament kept acting in order to control the colonies and the American
reacted to show that they have some kind of autonomy.
How American historians interpreted American Revolution?
Some of them are Radical Revolutionists
Others are Moderate
Each generation of historians will come up with a new interpretation of
American Revolution. Each generation belonged to a particular school of
thoughts which are related to intellectual and scientific developments
which were taking place at that time.
We try to understand the different concepts related to the evolution: The
Renaissance, Age of exploration, Protestant Reformation, scientific
Revolution, Enlightenment
It is within this context that historians will deal with the American
Revolution.

The intellectual context

Renaissance and its relation to the American Revolution
The intellectual evolution
Renaissance: The rebirth of classical values (1300-1600)
A return of classical values related to Greek and Roman civilization.
Before the Renaissance, there is an age known as the Middle Ages.
The rise of the Muslim civilization coincided with the Middle ages.
There is a move from a vision of the world related to divinity to another
view in which humanity is the center of attention.
Historically speaking, we are moving from the Middle ages to Renaissance.
Intellectually speaking, we are moving from romanticism to a vision based
on reason, scientific.
Renaissance (1300-1600)
The Renaissance was a great cultural movement started in Italy and spread
to other European countries (England, France) in the late 15 th C and ended
in 16th C.
During Renaissance, many Europeans scholars studied the knowledge and
arts of ancient Greece and Rome. For them ancient civilization were the
source of reason and wisdom. They wanted to recapture the spirit of
Roman and Greek Cultures in their own literary, philosophical and artistic
works. The culture of Greece and Rome are often called Classic antiquity.
The Renaissance represented a rebirth of these cultures (the revival of
these cultures, revival of antiquity or learning).
During the Middle ages, knowledge had no place, rather theology and
church dominated all aspects of knowledge. The Renaissance marked the
end of the Middle Ages.
10

Many Renaissance philosophers rejected the Middle age philosophy and

thoughts. Many Renaissance leaders/philosophers rejected many of the
attitudes and principles (philosophy) of the Middle ages.
The role of man in the Middle ages
Everything related to man is confined to divinity. Philosophers believe that
mans chief responsibility was to pray to God and to save his soul because
they thought that society at that time was filled with evil temptations.
Renaissance thinkers, however, emphasized mans centrality and his
responsibility and duty towards his society.
A shift from man being passive to man being active, from being
receptive to being reactive and the agent of change.
A change in the notion of agency, it is not God who is the agent of
change it is rather Man.
Shift: a change in the notion of agency
Passive man
man

active

Society can render an individual evil

them
God is the agent of every change
agent

society can civilize

Man is the

During the Middle Ages, theology was the main branch of study. However,
during the Renaissance period, the study of humanity was given much
importance .i.e. Renaissance thinkers paid great interest to the study of
humanity (realistic representation of man). The first accomplishment of
renaissance was this move from theology to humanity.
For centuries, most scholars and philosophers believe that the modern era
of human history began with the Renaissance. Humanism becomes the
most significant intellectual movement in the Renaissance period. This
doesnt mean that there is a cut between Middle ages and Renaissance.
The concern about religion was still there. Philosophers were not 100%
secular. The church started to lose its influence but it was still there. After
the Renaissance there was the Enlightenment period.

The Enlightenment period (1600s)

11

It is called the age of reason, the age of rationalism. It was marked by 3 big
principles:
1. The worship of reason
2. The orderliness of nature
3. Deism
1. The worship of reason:
During that period, philosophers emphasized the use of reason as the best
method of learning the truth. The first major philosophers were mainly
French Jean Jacque Rousseau, Voltaire, Descartes (German) and the English
philosopher Jean Look. They relied heavily on scientific method with its
emphasis on experimentation and observation (careful perception) to
reach the truth.
Reason
Through the scientific method (means of
experimentation and visual observation)

leads to Truth
For the age of reason philosophers, humans have a unique function
simply because they can reason. For them, all the accomplishments of
science are credited to reason. For them, reason contradicts superstition,
ignorance, uncritical acceptance of the authority of theology. All of these
dominated the Middle ages. Thats why they blamed people of authority/
the leaders of Middle ages for keeping people in ignorance in order to
protect their own interests (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church)
For them, reason relies on the scientific method .i.e. experimentation+
visual perception leads to truth

The age of reason was a turning point in the American historiography:

Superstition gave way to reason
Divine right .to secularism
Metaphysics .to scientific account
12

 Thats why it was called the age of reason (the worship of reason)
Philosophers of Enlightenment used reason in order to explore issues in
politics, education, law, philosophy. Their arguments were based on
reasoning/ argumentation in their attack of tyranny, social injustice and
ignorance. Many of their ideas contributed to the outbreak of both the
French and American Revolutions in the late 17th c.
Reason led to the notion of commonsense / good sense because these
philosophers believe that each person has a rational will which makes it
possible for him to carry out his own plan. They contrasted it with animals
(their behavior is predictable: when they are angry for example they
fight) which are slaves to their emotions. People can figure out the best
course of action when they are afraid, angry, and hungry because they
have rational will, they can reason. They have common sense/ good sense.
They emphasized the role of education in acquiring good sense, a good
method of reasoning.
John Locke:
1.According to John Locke, reason is the candle of the Lord set up by
himself in mens mind and must be our last judge and guide in every
thing. Locke believes that man must use reason to form a state that
protects his social civility, life, liberty, for building a civil society, a
government that protects peoples life, liberty and freedom. These 3
words/principles are used in the declaration of Independence of America.
Anyone can reason provided the capacity of reasoning which is allowed to
develop through education. He emphasized the importance of education
that allows man to tolerate conflicting ideas and enables him to speak.

2. The Orderliness of Nature:

The 2nd principle emphasized by philosophers was the orderliness of
nature. Nature is very well established and ordered. There is no
intervention of God in nature. Everything in the universe behaves
according to a few simple laws that can be explained mathematically. For
them, mathematics is the order. The centrality of man: the truth is there
and it is up to men to discover it through reason, physical laws,
mathematics.

13

Some historians adopted this approach (truth is absolute, empiricist) and

others debated and criticized it and said that truth is relative (postmodernist/ the Relativists).
One of the impressive laws at that time was Newtons law of gravity.
Gravity is there (= The truth is there). This is applicable to human nature.
Human nature is well-ordered as the physical universe.
This leads to the predictability of the future / history is cyclical.
Montesquieu thought that a science of human nature was possible. He was
the first philosopher who tries to formulate the basic uniformity of all
human behaviour. Because human history is predictable, it can be
repeated. i.e the circumstances/events can be repeated in the future.
One of his ideas was the notion of climate. He believes that climate has an
important impact on human beings in justifying a certain conduct by
colonial forces .i.e. different kinds of governments are appropriate for
people who live in different parts of the world = the best government for
each nation could be planned by considering the countrys climate. This
will be used later on by colonists. This means that the best government or
each nation could be planned according to the countrys climate .e.g. Free
democratic governments are possible in Northern Latitudes because
people in these areas are more vigorous , have a greater share of
frankness and sincerity but he said that the only workable form of
government in hot climate is despotism. According to these philosophers,
since the universe is ordered, events are predictable.

3. Deism
These philosophers thought that God created the universe and stepped
aside. The universe can be understood by the human mind. God created a
universe ideally adjusted to the reasoning powers of man. Through
reasoning man can figure out the best course of action (centrality of man).
After God has created the universe, he left it strictly alone. This theory
deism ruled out the possibility of miracles. God regulates nature so that
it proceeds mechanically. This means that future events are fully
predictable on the basis of earlier events. These philosophers like to think
of universe as a clock which keeps perfect time because it was designed
by a super clock designer/ maker.
14

They (philosophers like Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau) go back to God

in their analysis of things although they initiated secularism. They did not
cut themselves from divinity. This shows a movement from one vision to
another ( God is not responsible for the universe) but there was no strict
cut : it was a process of evolution. They did not detach themselves
completely from divinity.
All of these led to formulate the idea of human dignity and worth , since
man is central. This started in France, there was a number of philosophers
called les philosophes. It was these philosophers who greatly influenced
leaders of French revolution and together with Jean Locke influenced
American Revolution.
Centrality of men led philosophers like John Locke to formulate ideals
which influenced the American Revolution.
In the American revolution, there was all the time a reference to the
intellectual content. The first thing they did in America was to build the
intellect by providing area for schools to develop. They believe that the
reasoning capacity can evolve through education.
One of the first steps in the formation of the United States that was based
upon Enlightenment ideals was the creation of the Declaration of
Independence. This sought to promise personal freedom to all citizens and
this was to be guaranteed by means of a new form of government, one
that was based on the peoples right to have a say in their government.
The Enlightenment also helped to shape the colonies in terms of religion.
Although during the Enlightenment there was a very secular focus, in
America this was not the case. The colonies were still very religious but
they used the ideas of their freedom to choose (that were derived from the
Enlightenment). Instead of being tied to one religious authority, there were
many choices in the colonies and people had a right to choose how to
establish and maintain their connection to God.
Newtons scientific revolution changed the way that people thought about
the universe, leading them to question the relationship between people
and their rulers helping to light the fuse to the American Revolution of
1776.
Newton created a mathematical theory that allows us to predict how the
moon goes around the earth and how apples fall from trees. He showed
that there are natural laws that rule our universe.

15

Seeing this amazing success, the philosophers of Newtons day asked: If

there are natural laws for how planets move, shouldnt there be natural
laws for how people should act as well? And if so, what are these natural
laws?
Perhaps the most important philosophers to consider this question was the
English man John Locke.
The political theory of John Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) wrote a book called the Two Treatises of
Government. In this book, he refuted the ideas of divinity and he uses
biblical sources to prove that God did not mark anyone to rule.
The first Treatise is a criticism of Robert Filmers Patriarcha, which argues in
support of the divine right of kings. According to Locke, Filmer can not be
correct because his theory holds that every man is born a slave to the
natural born kings. Locke refuses to accept such a theory because of his
belief in reason and in the ability of every man to virtuously govern himself
according to Gods law. The Second Treatise is Lockes proposed solution to
the political upheaval in England and in other modern countries. This text
laid the foundation for modern forms of democracy and for the Constitution
of the United States.
The Second Treatise consists of a short preface and nineteen chapters. In
Chapter 1, Locke defines political power as the right to make laws for the
protection and regulation of property. In this view, these laws only work
because the people accept them and because they are for the public good.
In chapter 2, Locke claims that all men are originally in a state of nature.
In chapter 3 and 4, Locke outlines the differences between the state of
nature and the state of war. The state of nature involves people living
together, governed by reason, without need of a common superior. The
state of war occurs when people exert unwelcome force on other people,
interfering with their own natural rights and freedom, without common
authority.
Before Locke, there was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes concludes that natural
man, in order to preserve life, must seek peace. Natural law demands that
we seek peace because to seek peace is to fulfill our natural right to
defend ourselves. Unlike a civil law, which must be written down and
publicized in order to be known, a law of nature is natural and inherently
known by all because it can be deduced by innate mental faculties (reason,
philosophy). There is no common superior to enforce the law of reason.
16

Each individual is forced to work out his/her own interpretation of reason.

People agree that the law of reason should be given to the community.
According to Locke, the state of nature is the natural condition of mankind.
It is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct ones life as one
best sees fit, free from the interference of others. Persons are assumed to
be equal to one another in such a state and therefore equally capable of
discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. Locke differed from
Hobbes who sees the state of nature as a state of war which could be
ended only if individuals agreed in a social contract, to give their liberty
into the hands of a sovereign, who was thenceforward absolute, on the
sole condition that their lives were safeguarded by sovereign power.
The most direct reading of Lockes political philosophy finds the concept of
consent playing a central role.
From this natural state of freedom and independence, Locke stresses
individual consent as the mechanism by which politics, societies are
created and individuals join those societies. While there are of course some
general obligations and rights that all people have from the law of nature,
special obligations come about only when we voluntarily undertake them.
Locke clearly states that one can only become a full member of society by
an act of express consent.
The members of the community must agree with a majority vote to set up
government institution or mainly legislatures. The owners of properties
must agree either personally or through their representatives whatever
taxes should be imposed on people.
Legislative power made by the consent of the majority became the
supreme power. No one can be deprived of his property without the
consent of people or their representatives. The legislature is but a
delegated power to the people. Behind the supreme power of legislation,
there is the superior power of the people. It is because of these ideas
Locke was considered as the early theorist of democracy.
The question is what if the government does not respect the laws?
Here comes Lockes theory of resistance. John Locke treats the legislators
who violate the natural rights as no more than thieves.
It is upon the first treaty that Locke builds his second treaty which is very
important. It starts with the state of nature that is a hypothesis that says
that man used to live in a state of nature and it is for this that all
Commonwealth spread.
17

In a state of nature people lived in peaceful condition.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a book called Leviathan. With Hobbes man used to
live in a war against nature. However, Lockes nature is different, it has a
social character. Man lives in nature according to the law of nature which is
reason which teaches them that no one ought to harm others in their lives,
health, liberty and property. There may be war or violence only when the
man abandoned the law of reason.
Yet, in a state of nature there is no common superior to enforce the law of
reason. This means that each individual is forced to work out his
interpretation of the law of reason.
The inevitable result of this is confusion. So in Lockes state of nature
peace is precarious because there is no common superior to enforce the
law of reason: men are equal and each one has the right to interpret the
law of reason.
This situation led to the creation of civil society which is instituted as a
way of remedy for the inconveniences of the state: war, confusion
A civil society is given into effect through a contract in which each
individual agrees to give the community the natural right of enforcing the
law of reason. Even with Hobbes there is a contract but everyone agrees to
give the right of enforcing the law of nature to a leviathan: to a superior
relationship between the government and subjects.
This contract has 3 stages:
1. Men must agree unanimously to come together as a community and
pour their natural power so the community upholds the rights of the
individuals.
2. The members of the community must agree by a majority vote to set
up institutions and especially the legislative institutions.
3. For the majority, the owners of properties in society must agree either
personally or through a representative to whatever taxes should be
imposed on people.
Contract
Community

majority

property

Legislation

18

 This legislative power made by the consent of the majority becomes a

supreme power in the Commonwealth. It must be exercised for the good of
the subjects and it should establish justice by law. No one can be deprived
of his property or be taxed without the consent of people. The legislator is
but a delegated power for the people. People gave the government
whatever power and they can dispose of it. The government is in a nature
of trust and it embraces only the powers that were transferred to it and
these powers are mainly to enforce the power of reason and to protect
peoples liberty. Behind the supreme power of the legislator ,there is the
supreme power of people.
It is because of these ideas, John Locke is considered as an early
theorist of democracy, separation of powers and the power of law.
What if the government abuses power and does not respect the contract?
Lockes theory of resistance.
John Locke treats the legislators/ government officials who exeeds their
powers and violate the natural right of people as no more than thieves. For
him they put themselves in a state of war with those who supposed to be
subjects to them.Those subjects have the right to resist them with violence
if necessary. This reasoning is used in the American Revolution and the
Declaration of Independence (Liberty/pursuit of happiness /property). It is
the right of the people to remove this government and come up with
another one.
Many of Lockes contemporaries criticized him because if one day a
community establishes a government and on the other day resist it
(because the government did not abide by the laws of the contract) then it
will lead to anarchy/ confusion.
Locke made two replies:
-1- Tyrants would not be resisted unless their abuses affect the majority of
people,
-2- and his second reason is that if resistance is occasioned the blame
should not lie with subjects who acted to protect their liberty but rather
with the government which occasioned it even if resistance leads to chaos.
This reply, Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues, used: they were
patriots but they faced the abuses of the British government (taxes etc). In
this situation, political authority shifts from the government and the
officials and reverts back to the community during the first stage of the
19

contract. Therefore the people recover their original freedom to set up new
political institutions as they see fit.(people are individuals not a
community, they agreed to be a community)
So resistance leads to Revolution and the community is supreme.
Revolution is the act of the major portion of the people whose consent
must be obtained for the dissolution of the government. It is very
important that government might be dissolved while society remains
intact. This means that people themselves represent a power superior to
government and this means that society/ community/people are superior
to government. This idea had a great weight in the convention which
assembled at Philadelphia in 1787, in which delegates from 12 of the 13
states met at the Constitutional Convention to frame the constitution of
the US.
For John Locke, the sovereignty exists in the community as a whole
because it is the original and supreme power that defends the rights of
people.
John Locke conceives of democracy as a spirit/state of mind/culture rather
than as a form of government. The rulers are the trusties of the people
who delegate their powers to them.
There is the political side but also the economic side. So John Locke is not
only seen as the founder of democracy but also as the theorist of
liberalism. John Locke believes that Man has natural rights and the most
important rightis that of property. In the state of nature, Locke assumes
that there is sufficient land for all. If in due course all of the earth comes to
be owned by someone, then there is a private property (when you have a
piece of land and you labor it , it becomes yours). Tis recognition of private
property will prevent oncoming generations from owning lands and from
preserving/ sustaining themselves and this is contrary to the fundamental
law of nature/ reason. The question is: how is then the fundamental law of
reason to be satisfied in this new context?
John Locke believes that when the enough and as good proviso(
individuals have a right to homestead private property from nature by
working on it, thus converting common property into private property =
there is enough land) is no longer satisfied, civil society will begin. When
civil society is formed , the appropriate property arrangement will be made
by concent by representatives of the civil society. The decisions will be
made by the representatives of the civil society. Locke included this in his
contract and it is the third angle.
20

According to Locke, the individuals holding property is a matter of natural

right. This right has priority over any civil. It is before the civil society.
These rights must be protected. Any expropriation by the authority is a
violation of the individuals natural rights. The government/ state does not
have the right to arbitrarily take peoples property and then people have
the right to overthrow the government (the right to rebel).
A government provides grounds for rebellion if it acts other than to further
the public or common good. Locke here seems not so much to be
defending the property of the rich against the poor but rather defending
individual property against possible government encroachment. Property is
at the heart of his political theory. So his chapter on property is integrated
within the main thesis of the second treaty of government. His main thesis
is the essentially limited nature of the political authority. One of the
justification of the civil society is the preservation of property and one of
the justification of rebellion is the insecurity of property.
resistence

property

civil society

John Locke used insecurity of property in an extended meaning: it means

anything a person has, ie, a right over himself , over his liberty as well as
over the material positions
Was Locke starting a capitalist society?
Property is at heart of John Lockes political theory. The government is
limited in scope and the preservation of man is the end of any legitimate
civil society. Locke imposed restrictions on ownership. Man has a right to
private property as much as he can produce and consume. To become a
capitalist, man has to produce more than he can consume and to exchange
the surplus of money: by that money (gold or silver), he can buy more
lands and hire more workers and when you hire more more workers , the
labour of these workers becomes yours and therefore you can sell it
(labour + food), and the cycle is repeated again and again.
So here property will become unequal as accumulation increases. All
depends on the livelihood of those who have property. The inequality of
wealth will lead to the inequality of power and rights and the perversion of
justice. In the third treaty of the contract, those who have
property/accumulate property will legislate especially in taxes.
But one of the leftist philosophers, C.B. Macpherson, interpreted Lockes
law of property. According to Macpherson, John Locke believes landless

21

men are not wholly rational and therefore they do not have full rational
rights.
If you can not have more money, you are not fully rational and therefore
their consent is not needed to set up a government among men. These
people are just commodities for sale (= to produce more so that wealthy
people can accumulate more gold and silver). If you are poor, its your fault
and this idea is held by the Republicans in the US these days. Those with
the capacity to accumulate property can legislate.
For Locke, rational people can legislate and determine what shall be done
(leftist historians theorized for capitalism). Although Lockes theory was
revolutionary, it is not intended to represent a revolutionary stance with
regard to inequality of wealth because he was seeking the support of the
Whig merchants for his policy. He did not intend to mean that political
equality (equal rights, to be protected by the government, the right to vote
a legislative body, to have property, all individuals are equal before the
law, civil society should be protected) means economic equality. Locke is
considered the theorist of liberalism. Liberalism is deemed by scholarly
consensus to have dominated the political thought of the American
revolution and historians proclaimed the great Mr. Locke Americas
philosopher as the revolutions guide and prophet. So from this
perspective, Lockes two treatises of government look like the text book of
the American revolution and the source from which Americans drew the
principles of 1776
Lockes political thought had thoroughly dominated the political philosophy
of American Revolution.
One American historian called Louis Hartz, in his classic study The Liberal
Tradition in America, extended the Lockean intellectual impact beyond
the revolutionary period to the whole of America s political thought and
behaviour. He believed in the profound impact that Locke had on
Americans not only before but also after revolution.
The Lockean model (dominated the scene until 1960s) was challenged in
the late 1960s when a historical shift away from Locke was initiated
leading to a new interpretive paradigm which highlights Lockes negligible
influence upon American political thought before 1966.
One of these historians is John Dunn. He wrote influential essay only in
few cases could the revolution possibly have been in any sense about the 2
treatises of government of John Locke.
We can see here a demotion of John Locke (reduction in status). This
demotion was taken to the extreme by different scholars who questioned
22

not only the extent but also the nature of relations between Lockes
thought and American Revolution.
J.G.A Pocock ( a historian and a pioneer in the study of the American
thought) one of the founders of the Revisionist movement suggests that
Locke should be counted by the enemies of revolutionary thought because
the principles of liberalism are inconsistent with the principles of the
revolution 1776.
Pocock and Macpherson are leftists. The Revisionist movement is
dominated by leftist historians and philosophers.
Locke is the initiator of Liberalism and its normal that he fell under attack
by the Revisionists. In the 1960s the American Revolution thought has
shifted with Lockean Liberal thought. The Revisionist historiography has
converted the intellectual guide and prophet into the revolution enemy. We
can see that historiography was explained through the Lockean model.
A new interpretative paradigm Pocock and Bernard Bailign
Both of them were considered hostile to liberalism and came up with a new
thesis :The Republican Synthesis/ Hypothesis
It proclaims that the Revolutionists fought for virtue sake and not for
commerce. The Revolution was not the result of pure economic interest but
of values, virtues and ideals.
The Republican Revisionism destroyed (debunked) the monolithic Lockean
model. They deny the historical significance of Lockes Liberalism and to
cast it into an anti-revolutionary line.
These pioneers, while at the same time proclaiming the decisive
importance of the Republican sources in the formation of the American
revolutionary thought, stressed American values and citizenship and not
the economic interests. But it can be shown that in relation to the most
crucial issues in the Anglo-American dispute/ war, the economic and
political interests are there: religious liberty, the ultimate sovereignty of
people, limits of civil authority and there is a question of taxation without
representation. The historical textual evidence testifies consistently and
often explicitly to this through the use of the language of Locke on
government.
So the historical textual evidence is there to support the idea that Locke is
present in every forceful manner. The revolutionary writings do not support
the claims of the Republicans.
23

A series of essays published in the 18 th century about England that

presented a vision of society based on value, citizenship and participation
written by 2 British writers John Trencherd and Thomas Gordon entitled
Catos letters.
Cato was a Roman leader who lived a long time foe of Julius Caesar.
These letters are called after Cato because he is known for his high moral
integrity.
1. The vision portrayed in Catos Letters Vs. the vision portrayed in the
two treaties of Locke
The main issues that are mentioned are social, economic, political. Catos
Letters highlight the civic humans. They highlight also ideals of citizenship.
They also highlight virtue and participation of individuals in governing the
country. The Lockean Model as shown in the 2 treaties is considered liberal.
There are temptations of self-interest. His theory is built on the state of
nature. The motive is the preservation of Man. The fact that all people are
equal leads to conflicts and a great deal of self-interest.
This is based on his theory of property
He was advocating accumulation of wealth and considered that labour
changed from being common to being private (Liberalism)
Self-interest Capital Accumulation
But many of those who supported the idea said that Catos Letter raise
suspicion that this would lead to establishing a Leviathan (dictatorship) a
title of a book written by Thomas Hobbes. He borrowed this title from the
Bible. Just like Locke he believes in the state of Nature. Men are not good
but chiefly biased by desire and selfishness The war of all against all,
and in order to move away, people must agree among themselves to put
on top a Leviathan to give power not to community but to a ruler and his
authority should not be questioned because questioning it would lead to
war ( the atrocities of the civil war).
The war was a result of questioning the kings authority. It might lead to a
Leviathan, Dictatorship.
The 2 treaties founded a city state, a democratic state, a policy.
From the 1960s, disagreement began among historians about the work
influencing the American Revolution. Clinton Rossiter was a US historian, a
political scientist who wrote the following No one can spend time on the
24

newspapers, library inventories and pamphlets of colonial America

without realizing that Catos Letters rather than John Lockes civil
government was the most popular quotable estimeable source of political
ideas in the colonial period.
Parallels between Catos Letters and the two treaties of Locke.
Any interpretation is based on an intellectual work.
Leviathan was a dictatorship based on the participation/consent of people
to put on top a ruler of authority. The meaning of Leviathan in American
concept was economic not polical: when you dont have the initiative
especially economically, uniformity among people is not achieved.

The Scientific Revolution

(Te late 1600-Early 1700)

Scholars and scientists increasingly realized the importance of

experimentation and mathematics to scientific advances. The realization
helped think about the scientific Revolution. One of the main figures of the
Scientific Revolution was Galileo.
He used observations and mathematical analyses and his purpose is to
look for cause and effect relationship among natural events.
History was based on cause and effect and experimentation. After him
there was Francis Bacon who viewed experience as the most important
source of knowledge. These principles are important because it helps
moving from God being the agent of change to reason being the agent of
change. A movement from providential to reasonable change explained in
terms of cause and effect relationship: by collecting all observable facts of
nature, we can find explanation of these events.
Another figure also is Isaac Newton. He founded a law of
gravitation and laid the foundation for Modern study of optics.

universal

In addition to scientific discoveries, there was the philosophy and methods

of science. One of the major philosophers was Ren Descartes who
proposed that Mathematics is the model that all other sciences would
follow. Mathematics yielded absolutely certain conclusions because the
25

Mathematical process starts with simple, self-evident truths and then used
logic to move step by step to other truths. According to him one truth leads
to another through logic. So getting to the truth is an accumulative result.
(For Descartes mathematics is the mother of all sciences).
Like any innovation/ new idea, this was resisted by theologians (religious
people. But scientists believed that the scientific Revolution helped relieve
the wonderers of Gods creation. For them, science does not negate God
but help reveal Gods power. But many others were upset by the
development of scientific law because for them scientific law would
govern the universe without divine assistance from God.
Another movement during the period:

The Reformation
The Reformation was a religious movement that took place in 1500s. It led
to Protestantism. It had a tremendous impact on social and economic life.
The influences are still felt today. This Movement began in 1517 by a
German monk Martin Luther. He started this movement by protesting
certain practices of the Roman Catholic church and around 40 years later,
Protestantism started to emerge.
Before the Reformation, Europe was held together/ unified by the
universalism of the Catholic church and also by the claim that the Holy
Roman Emperor was a supreme leader/ ruler. After the reformation, there
were many Protestant churches that were competing with the Catholic
church and with one another and Europe cant be held together by religion
but entered in war because of competing churches (England, Spain..) and
this led to the emergence of powerful European forces.
The causes of the Reformation:
Religious causes: due to the serious abuses in the church, there were
corrupt financial practices and this led to tension between common men
and their church leaders.
Cultural causes related to the Renaissance. There were a cultural
movement as an increasing number of people gained education and
returned to Classics. Renaissance led to raising awareness that there was a
shift in church to bad or corrupt practices.

26

There were also political causes: kings were becoming more and more
absolutists. The king rules by divine right. They regarded the Pope in Rome
as a political leader of a foreign country (the unity of Europe held thanks to
the Pope) and they started to resist his influence in their countries.
Everything is moved by this change
John Calvin ( from Switzerland) an influential French theologian and
pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principle figure in the
development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism.
King Henry the eight of England he is known for his role in the
separation of the church of England from the Roman Catholic church. He
formed The Anglican church (Protestantism) and the King of England is the
head of the Anglican church up today. The British wanted to be unique and
call their church Anglican
Tension between the Catholic Church (the Vaticans) Anglicans
(Protestants)
What is important here is the decline of divinity and the rise of wisdomreason. The individual gained more weight as a result of the decline of
divinity.

27

Greek Revolution
Herodotus (485 BC) was a Greek historian widely referred to as the father
of History). He attempted to study the world through observable evidence
and experience. And as a consequence, the primary corner stone was
observable forces: human activities & culture. So, he was interested in I
witness accounts and he was not interested only in describing what
happened but also why things have happened which is the reason why we
study history. So his methods of applying evidence and studying history
became the foundation for history as it was practiced.
Another Greek philosopher: Thucydide (460-400 BC). He had been webbed
the father of scientific history because of his strict standards of
evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect without
reference to intervention by the gods as outlined in his introduction to his
work. He studied the actions of Men as opposed to supernatural forces.
And he used credible, observable evidence to establish factual account for
the past.
For Thucydide, political forces are more important than cultural forces to
be studied and used as materials to study history.
Cultural forces are not the driving forces for history. For him, the main
reason for studying the past was speculative. Understanding political
events, causes of wars are very important because these information will
be used to explain further the future events, to make future policies.
The use of what happened in the past to serve as a lesson for the
present and the future. He emphasized the cause and effect. His emphasis
on cause and effect, political forces and observable data influenced later
on history.
Aristotle criticized him the way he viewed history as being the more
recitation of facts and he considered mythopoetic stories to be more
important because they were imaginative and creative and they contained
deeper insight to the church than factual account of the past. It affected
modern history that believed that fiction is as important as facts. History is
also imaginative because it relied on the unobservable of the past, as it
makes a correlation between fiction and reality.
Another branch of Greek philosophers were skeptics who went even further
because they claimed that since all knowledge is the perception of the
individual so no one truth about anything could be found.
28

According to skeptics,
mythopoetic history.

scientific

history

is

no

more

factual

than

Greek philosophers moved beyond merely acceptation of tradition and

knowledge as truth and began to use logic and reason to explain the
universe.

The Roman Historiography

Roman history focused more on Romes rise to power attributing this to the
quality of political leaders to fair policies and to strong political institutions
but also to fate.
Polybius (200 BC) directly connected the Greek tradition to the Roman
history.
29

Tacitus (120-56 BC).He advocated the strict observance of objectivity in his

interpretation of history. His motto was writing without hatred or political
bias. Roman historians focused mainly on political policies and on the use
of I witness account and speeches as their evidence. Their evidence on
fortune set them from Greek tradition. They did not give specific agencies
to specific Gods but they consider fate which is not observable as an
explanation of events.
Christian historians
They viewed fate and destiny as a driving force for historical change. They
continued to emphasize the influence of religion specifically the power of
Christian God. One of the most important Christian philosophers is
Augustine of Hippo (354-430). He has led to the development of neutral
view. This knowledge spread across America and Europe during the 18 th
century.
Francis Bacon / Jean Bodin (16th, 17th c)
The deductive reasoning of the Aristotelian philosophy which relied too
much on reason and logic, did not please these two philosophers. Bacon
believed that more accurate method of reasoning would be inductive. He
emphasized the inductive method which relies on data and evidence. He
claimed that historians should observe data and evidence first then derive
a hypothesis. He advocates experimental philosophy and empiricism. All
knowledge must be subjected to experimentation based on evidence to
prove its validity. This inductive method advocates observation of data
Complementation of data Conclusion to make generalization.
Bodin wrote specifically on the topic of history, his book entitled The
Method for the easy understanding of History. This book helped to
secularize the history of mankind. Throughout his book he urged historians
first to avoid prejudices, to maintain detachment, to stick to facts and to
be aware of the historical context of historians from the past. He was
paving the way for historicism Vico s historicism.
These rules for the practice of history were central to shaping history about
maintaining objectivity and critically analyzing sources o information.
Vico: The father of historicism
Vico investigated history for its own sake attempting to understand
historical events on their own, within the context of their own worldview.
The past is not understandable unless you understand the culture of past
people. He wrote New Science and claimed that he had discovered the key
30

to history which human nature and culture changed and developed over
time, the mental world of earlier people differ subsequently from people
coming after them. In order to understand the past, they must first
understand the meaning of the language they used. So the past is the
world to be studied on its own terms. This is called historicism which is a
basic concept in Western Historiography.
Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called the city of God. He describes
history as a recurrent conflict between the city and God. God is scared and
the city of the world is profane. For him history is cyclical. He imagined
supernatural forces which are mainly God and Satan as primary agents of
history. History is moved through this conflict. He was influential during the
middle ages. The Greek Roman tradition remained strong especially in
Bezantine and Islamic Empire. Bizantine historians continued Greek
tradition by observable data and evidence. But in the Middle East and
North Africa, Islam replaced Christianity and Muslim historians did not
emphasize God as the primary agent of history.
Muslim historians
Muslim historians stressed human agency in the rise and fall of civilization.
Ibn khaldoon (1442-1395 BC) studied secular events and emphasized
human agency as the true force behind history.

The Evolution of Modern History

The American politician Machiavelli believed that politicians should
understand former histories and the history of previous leaders so that
they use these leaders as models.
His approach to history was specifically speculative, powerful and strong.
Knowledgeable men according to him are the driving forces and the agents
of change of any history. Machiavelli omitted any mention of God. He
strongly reshaped history as a secular subject. History is not about cause
and effect. It is a series of ups and downs. It is really easy to predict future
historical events. He was part of that trend emphasizing reason.
In USA, in that period, most American historians were local historians in
specific towns of history. American history started as a local history, so
they were coloured by the experience of their authors and by protestant
Euro-centric perspective. His histories relied on the memories of their
writers. They used little evidence too. Early American histories were more
similar to primary sources than to our current history.
31

During the scientific revolution, historians continued a Greco-Roman

tradition. They criticized that Greco-Roman tradition and added to the
knowledge of these classical historians. There is a break from the
classicism of the Renaissance.
The main concept that the Enlightenment has added is the notion of
progress, that is , Enlightenment philosophers believed that civilization
relied on each scientific innovation. The past is a long strain of
advancement toward the present day.
Another feature is incredible optimism . They believed that they have
reached the peak of civilization and they would continue to progress
forever.
This view is Euro-centric par excellence in that they believed that Eurocentric civilization was mostly advanced in the entire world because it had
moved beyond superstition and ignorance into a period of truth and
progress based on rationalism and science. This means that all histories
were relative to the achievement of the 18 th century Europe in a linear
fashion. For them, Enlightened Europe was the pinnacle of advancement.
Machiavelli was one of the Renaissance historians. His philosophy of
history was explicitly speculative. Understanding of the past to improve
the present. His focus is on politicians as the driving force of change.
Machiavelli omits any mention on God in his world. He in a way continued
the Greek and Roman tradition. He strongly reshaped history as a secular
subject. History according to Machiavelli is a series of ups and downs.
Still in that period in America, most historians were local. Histories of
specific towns and colonies started as a local history and as such they
were coloured with the experiences of their authors and also with the
Protestant Eurocentric expansions.
These histories relied on the memories of their writers. They used little
evidence other than the memories of their authors. These histories were
more similar to handbooks as we currently practice it.
There was a state of local history, history that is based more on the
memory rather than on the past.
The Scientific Revolution
The historians continued Greco-Roman tradition. They critiqued that GrecoRoman tradition and added to the choices of political historians. They did
not only continued but also added to it Development of newer
32

philosophers led to the development of newer philosophies coincided with

the Revolution and Reformation period. This period spread across Europe
and America in the late 17th century.
Francis Bacon and Jean Bodin became disillusioned with the limitations of
the Aristotelian philosophy which relied too much on reason and logic to
support their conclusions.
Bacon believed that a more accurate method of reasoning would not be
deductive, it would be inductive. It is a way of reasoning that relies first on
data and evidence.
A general premise of theory. So the major contribution of Bacon was his
advocacy of what is called experimental.
A compilation of data and then a generalization and conclusion from
that data.
Bacon as a philosopher applied this to history. Bodin wrote specifically on
the topic of history and he wrote a book The Method For the Easy
Understanding of History: the history of secularizing the history of
mankind. He urged historians first to avoid prejudice, to maintain
detachment, to stick to facts and to be aware of the historical context of
historians from the past these are Bodins rules
Paving the way for the historian Vico, the father of historicism
According to Vico the past is different. You can not understand the past if
you dont have a culture of that past. He claimed to have discovered the
key to history. Human nature and culture change and develop overtime.
This means that the mental world of earlier people differed subsequently
from people who came after that.
These historians must first understand the ways how these people think.
They must understand the meaning of the language they use. So it is this
idea that the world is a different world to be studied based on the context.
this is historicism: a crucial concept in Western historiography. There
were deviations for secularism because Vico believed that history is
shaped around 3 ages:
The age of God and Giants: Everything was commanded by auspices and
oracles which are the oldest institutions in profane history.
The age of heroes: they reigned everywhere in
Commonwealths on account of a certain superiority of nature.

aristocratic
33

The age of Men: in which all men recognized themselves as equal in

human nature and therefore they have established the popular
commonwealths and then the monarchies, both of which are forms of
Roman government.
In the age of God and Giants people had to obey a small elite. They are the
important elites that changed the world.
The age of men is characterized by civil wars, and therefore it will lead to
God and Giants again
This is based on cause and effect relationships
The main concept of Enlightenment historians was the idea of progress. So
Enlightenment historians added the crucial idea of progress. These
historians believed that civilization developed with each scientific
innovation. The past is considered by these Enlightenment historians as a
long string of advancements towards the present day. It is not a question
of cyclical history. It is rather that history must be seen in terms of
progress.
Another important feature was their incredible optimism of the intellectuals
of the day, that is their belief that they had reached the height of
civilization and they would continue to progress forever.
This view of history is Eurocentric par excellence that they believed that
European civilization was the most advanced in the entire world because it
has moved beyond superstition and ignorance into a period of truth and
progress based on rationalism and science. It means for them that all
cultures of the world were relative to the achievements of the 18th century
Europe in a linear way. The 18th century Europe was the pinnacle for
advancement and everything else is less advanced or inferior. The linear
tense of history will dominate for so long. These ideas will impact the
policies that will be adopted by European powers. Colonialism was founded
on the ideas of Eurocentrism on the linear sense of time. All of this will be
consolidated by literary history which led Edward Said to theorize for the
Eurocentric approach of the world.
Another philosopher and historian Voltaire like Machiavelli he believed in
the speculative purpose of history. According to Voltaire, the over pattern
of history was a battle between truth and error. Humans develop
intellectual innovations with which to overcome errors to achieve progress.
Other historians discarded other ideas of progress. Herbert, an organicist
view of historical change, believed that history is like a living organism. It
34

will develop and then will die. For him, instead of progress, history was
governed by cycles that repeat themselves. He also believed that all
cultures needed attention and they had to be studied and as a result we
should not judge the past by the present day as
standards by a
supposedly set of universal values. You can not judge the past to different
universal views (very dissimilar to Eurocentrism).
to inspire many historians to see human history not as a linear
progression but as a succession of distinct civilization. So human history is
not the progress towards which human civilization reached the peak. It is a
succession of distinct and heterogeneous philosophies impacted much on
the 20th century history.
Another historian David Hume also rejected the progressive view of history
and wanted historians to apply Bacons empirical method sticking strictly
to the facts as expressed in document and as a form of observable method
uncovering the truth as they saw it. One important political result of the
Enlightenment ideas was the American Revolution. Because of that many
historians have analyzed the American Revolution within Enlightenment
framework.
Those who approved on social changes of America were called the Whigs
who described the Revolution as a natural result of progress of the right of
freedom of men. Those who opposed the revolution were called the
Tories and the Tories described the revolution as irrational unfortunate
mistake and one important Irish philosopher and interpretation Edmund
Burk . He was the one who wrote The Standard Whig Interpretation of the
American Revolution During and After the War.
Burkes interpretations were extremely popular among American historians
who appreciated very much these positive views of events.
But the 1st American history was written in 1789 by a Revolution war hero
David Ramsay. He wrote a book History of the American Revolution. His
book appeared as part of a great literary and cultural effort to shape the
national identity of America at that time. He plagiarized Burkes account
for revolution. Ramsay led the way for the nationalist histories of the US
based on long hold beliefs in democracy and liberty as being unique to the
US.
Mercy Otis Warrens book History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of
American Revolution . Her view was among the most well documented and
thoroughly argued. She was a witness of the Revolution. She had access to
the major leaders and documents of the revolution. What is interesting is
35

that she infused her account with her own observation and her opinions
about the events. They were supported by well documented data. She
gave historical data. This book is made of 31 chapters. She covers blow by
blow the historical events of the American Revolution.
The Revolution was thought to establish a Republican system to bring
liberty to people. And the victory of the Americans was a proof of the logic
of popularity of the American colonists at that time.
She came up with another idea: the constitution weakened the Republic
and made it vulnerable to military and monarchical tyranny. There were
other versions that are considered mainly patriotic versions. These
patriotic versions portrayed the constitution, the 1 st presidents, the leaders
in a very positive way.
1400 1800: this period witnessed a revolutionary development. The
history of European and American thought here is a hope to create a more
modern sense of history. This takes us back to the age of Renaissance, the
Enlightenment, and Scientific Revolution.
All of these shaped American and European perspective of their past.
Earlier perspective had presented historical knowledge as revealed by
divine authority whereas modernity sees scientific authority as the basis of
the knowledge of the past.
They viewed human nature as unchanging and eternal, whereas Modernist
historiography starting with Vico argued for a universal history
emphasizing Ruman development and change over time. Many
Enlightenment historians added to that and they argued that human
development traveled in a linear trajectory of progress from primitive to
civilized, from ancient ages to the present modern age. This idea led to
Eurocentrism.
This affected a lot their policy and most importantly they began to
emphasize human reason and the empirical method of enquiring from
divinity to secularism, from superstition to reason, from deduction to
induction. This brought changes and laid the ground work for the
independent aspect/discipline of history which would emerge in the 19 th
century.
From 1400 to the 18th century, there was a change in ideas = a revolution
in ideas took place before the political revolution. Before the French
Revolution, there was the intellectual revolution. Because all European and

36

American policies were perceived by an intellectual preparation A linear

trajectory of progress in the 19th century European historiography.
Colonialism , for example, was seen as a result of the intellectual
preparation and the linear trajectory of progress from primitive (they) to
the civilized(we) and different empires were formed. The same for
imperialism, war on terror which is reinforced by intellectual and mainly
informational revolution which helped them to see specific cultures as
violent and need to be tamed.
The Renaissance mainly in art: return to classicism.
19th century European historiography:
These schools emerged because historians became more prestigious in
academia. Different schools of thoughts revolve around major theories and
philosophers and the four of the first influential theories that shaped
American historiography in the 19th century are idealism ,Marxism ,
Empiricism, and Romanticism. And of these 4, Empiricism was the most
influential in creating the framework of modern notion of history.
1. Idealism:
It implies that in history the focus was the abstract universal patterns
and changes in ideas over time and most of the enlightenment historical
theories were idealistic. They focused on abstract patterns, and because
19th century philosophers were very much inspired and influenced by
Enlightenment historians, they are considered as idealists.
Some of these theories continued to see God or providence as the
central historical agent and progress as the primary pattern in world
history (there is a pattern that reflects a linear trajectory of progress:no
cut between past and present) while others took a more secular path
looking for more observable sources/ faces of change, and questioning
whether any pattern of history exists at all.
During the 19th century, many historians continued to be idealists.
Hegel (most influencial German idealist) agreed with the Enlightenment
concept of progress in history. According to him, history is unfolded in a
sort of a divine dialectic.
All things in nature give rise to their opposite .i.e. Day give rise to Night
and vise versa.

37

According to him, ideas are similar to nature. An idea called Thesis gives
rise to Antithesis and this Antithesis led to another Synthesis and this
Synthesis becomes a Thesis.
Thesis

Anti-thesis

Synthesis
Thesis

Antithesis
Synthesis

For him, thanks to God /providence there is this dialectic relation and he
applied it to ideas. An idea or thesis in society leading naturally to an
opposing force to challenge the idea and the debate between the two give
rise to synthesis which takes ideas from both and become a thesis.
The synthesis joins ideas from both sides. From the one side, it is an
observable natural phenomenon, but at the same time, it comes from
providence. Experimentation and at the same time Providence.
This is idealism. Everything is explained of abstract universal ideas. The
Enlightenment was idealistic.
2. Marxsim
Carl Marx (18thC), the most famous student of Hegel. Marx himself used the
idea of dialectical change in his own theory. He developed a new
philosophy called historical Materialism taken from dialectic materialism.
He believes that real, concrete, observable things should be at the heart of
understanding the world. He began his history of capitalism by
investigating the material conditions of human beings in the past.
He first investigated how people obtained the basic necessities to live
(what work they did to live), and how to produce these basic necessities
(means of production).
And he came up to the conclusion that each mans relationship to his
societys mode of production shaped his life/ the way he lives. For
example, of the mode of production is industrial then the mens
relationship to this mode is a worker and industry. So, he will belong to a
specific socio-economic class which is the working class and this will shape
the rest o his existence: access to education, political power, material
possession, values, behavior
38

In a way Marx is adopting deterministic approach. According to Marx, there

are two classes, the Bourgeoisie (middle class entrepreneurs who control
and own the means of production) and the working class. Those whose
relationship to the mode of production is of dominance have greater
access to to means of production, education, political power than the
working class whose relationship to the mode of production is of
dependence Material production have always shaped life and this is the
essence of Historical Materialism. That will lead to class struggle.
So all these ideas of human societies, which Marx called superstructures
(politics, morality, education), are determined by socio-economic
structures. Since economic structures change over time, then they will
cause changes in the superstructure making history in progress. And
because the socio-economic structures change, ideas change overtime
causing superstructure to change and historical progress occurs in
dialectical way through class struggle. So, the ideas are determined by the
socio-economic structure.
Marx defined 3 main eras in human history:
-Ancient society
-Feudal society
-Capitalist and Modern society
Each era is defined by its mode of production. Each evolved to the next
through class struggle. This progress is dialectical because human beings
continually challenge their situation leading to different ones. Humans
continually challenged the ideas and forms which came before, revised
them and synthesized new ideas. They continually change the mode of
production and ideas. This trouble would continue until in the final stage
the working class/proletaria rose up in revolution to eliminate the Middle
class entrepreneurs and establish an egalitarian society and social,
economic and political order. This is the 4 th stage of socialism which is
communism, and of course before that the working class had to develop
class consciousness and to be awre of their oppression in order to make
that historical change happen.
3.Empiricism:
Empicist view of historiography dominated by observable evidence
(Humes).

39

Other philosophers : Auguste Comte was a 19 th century French

philosopher and a sociologist whose work influenced many academic
fields and 19th century politics as well.
He built upon empiricist ideas to form a new theory: the concept of
Positivism. According to him, human knowledge developed through 3
stages:
1. Theological stage in relation to region (Nature is explained in terms
of divinities or spirit)
2. Metaphysical stage
3. Positive stage (scientific principles)
In the positive stage, all human knowledge will be based on empirical
truth rather than superstition and prejudice. As a result, he asserts that
scientists and historians should be objective .i.e. they should separate
themselves from their own bias, perspectives and emotions in the study
of their subject.
In this way according to Comte, historians could derive truth from pure
facts. Comte, a mathematician, applies the rules of mathematics on human
facts.
By the end of the 19th century, historians, social scientists, politicians,
social theorists mainly Herbert Spencer had developed what came to be
known as Social Darwinism (which was used to justify certain practices)
arguing that some human societies were more evolved more than others
and despite little biological evidence to prove social Darwinism. There is no
empirical evidence that justifies/supports social Darwinism.
Despite this, the period from the late 19 th century to the early 20th century
became infused with these racist, elitist and sexist concepts.
Leopold Von Ranke was a late 19th century German historian who
emphasized source based history and narrative history.
Ranke had tremendous faith in historians to find a truth about the past and
to see the past as it essentially was. His method of reconstructing the
past included exhaustive research and critical analysis of primary sources.
He also emphasized disciplined objectivity in interpretations and he linked
them to gifted historical intuition to draw out the essence o the meaning
behind the fact.( he linked both empiricism and historical method based on
objective data).
40

Rankes approach has been turned a historicist but in a slightly different

way than earlier historicists.
Hermeneutics is the theory of studying each period as having its own
knowledge system.
Neo historicists: Each period has its own system of knowledge as its
called by Foucault who came with the notion of the archeology of
knowledge. i.e. a historian is like an archeologist who builds knowledge
about a period through fragments (accumulation of data).
Historicity is based on 2 major ideas:
1. History should be understood and interpreted in its own term
2. The centrality of the context, what is called hermeneutic. i.e. a text can
not be literally understood I we do not go to the context
In one way, Ranke agreed with Vico that the past must be understood in its
own terms. But rather than focusing on universal truth and general
patterns in the past, Ranke emphasized specific events and their individual
nature. Because historicists believe that history is cyclical, Ranke believes
that every single detail matters. His concept of the otherness of the past
was strongly influenced by his belief that each historical age and each
culture had its own spirit of the age which manifested itself in specific,
political, religious and cultural institutions and events. And in order to
reconstruct the spirit of the age (past), historians needed to become
objective observers understanding the past within its own context and
standards rather than anachronistically (study the past with todays ideas)
through the lenses of present day values, ideas and opinions.
History according to Ranke should be studied to gain this understanding of
this past cultures for their own sake rather than for some speculative
reason (studying the past to understand the present and to learn lessons)
Although Ranke was aware that the historians imagination played a role in
organizing and interpreting the primary sources, he stressed the scientific
fact based on nature of his work and the empirical method as the crucial
difference between history(as a discipline = a fact based nature of telling
history) and other stories (telling stories).
Hence the difference between history as a discipline and telling a story
Johann Gustav Droysen was a German (19thC) historian. He criticized
Rankes method as being too simplistic and concerned only with verifying
on checking the authenticity of a historical document. Therefore, Droysen
41

was more hermeneutical (i.e. it is impossible to provide a literal

interpretation of a text = a text can not be understood without reference to
its context, cultural environment to the language in which that text was
formulated in a particular time in the past) in his approach.
Hermeneutics: context including language because words have multiple
meaning according to context and historical period.
Droysen was more hermeneutical in that he attempted to understand the
true meaning of a text as its authors had intended it by interpreting the
text in terms of its historical and literary context.
So for Droysen, understanding the deeper meaning of text was central to
the scientific study of history. This understanding can only be achieved if
historians can place themselves in the mental world of the past.
Historians must understand the world view of past actors in order to
understand them and how they react inside the context.

4.Romanticism
It could be considered as a reaction to the cold and clinical approach of the
Enlightenment rationalism.
A romanticist admitted the importance of empiricism. He understood the
benefits of empirical evidence in historicism but believed that history
should express more emotions and creativity and this purpose suited
political nationalists because they seek to use emotional appeal to foster
patriotism toward the nation state. So by providing a common glorious
past of Romantic heroes, history played a crucial role in unifying diverse
ethnic groups in each nation and gaining loyalty to newly formed
Republicans and Democratic governments. One essential part of gaining
this loyalty was to prove the historical legitimacy of the new forms of
government, the flaws of other forms of government and the superiority of
their nation state as compared with others. This concept of Romanticism
played a major role in the study of history because European and American
governments funded history departments to promote Nationalist history
( useful to guarantee loyalty to successive governments). This helped
history as a profession (formed a prestige and the growth of historical
profession).
These Romantic Nationalist historians illustrated the perfect characteristics
for all citizens to emulate (follow). Nationalist history focused on the
42

idealized traits/ characteristics for all citizens to follow and focused on the
great mass of history rather than strictly on politics or government
institutions.
Therefore, during the 19th century, history led to the emergence of these 4
concepts: Idealism, Imperialism, Marxism and Romanticism. In America,
the major concepts that were used: Romanticism and Nationalism

Romanticism and Nationalism

Two of the most popular American historians of the 19 th C are George

Bancroft and Francis Parkman. They published popular histories which
described the dramatic and heroic efforts of European Americans ( the
elicist, racist interpretation) to advance justice and liberty. These are called
the Drum and bugle histories . The Drum and bugle histories were
extremely popular and in a way fired the American imagination about its
heroic and Romantic past.
Bancroft particularly his romantic traditional approach was tremendously
appealing to American public caught up in the wave of nationalism
dominating public discourse in 19 th C and at this center of this was the
American Revolution. Because the American Revolution is the central story
of the birth of the United States, so many stories about the Americans
Revolution with all their heroes and battles became part of the foundation
of Americas national philosophy (mythology) and a favored topic of
nationalist consensus historians.
Nationalist consensus historians: mainly Romantic and Nationalists
The central story of the 19 th C was the American Revolution because it is
the story of the birth of America.

43

Professionalization

( another concept in the American revolution)

On the one hand, we have the Romantic interpretation of American
Revolution/ Romantic nationalist history, on the other hand, we have
professionalization. University trend historians wished to establish history
as a scientific discipline independent from literature, rhetoric or theoretical
philosophy.
One of the most important institutions to promote professionalization
history was the American historical Association founded in 1884 and the
majority of its members sought legitimacy in Academia by emphasizing a
number of standards:
1. Objectivity
2. Research and documentation
3. The scientific method of historical profession
This American association has a committee called the Committee of Seven.
It created a national program to reform history curriculum along the lines
of Rankes scientific analysis of documents. Therefore, Rankes brand of
history is his emphasis on objective analysis of primary sources and the
primacy of political subjects. This brand would dominate the historical
profession in the US for many generations. This association prompted
national political history focusing on universal institutions and trends
rather than on local or regional politics.
For the association, personal, regional and local history was considered
irrelevant to the higher prospects / goals of the country.

44

Eurocentric

Frontier Thesis

Social Darwinism
Inevitabilist theory
Biased accounts of US history
Racist assumptions in history
During this time a number of theories were emphasized by the American
history:
-Eurocentrism
-The Frontier Thesis
-Social Darwinism.
-The inevitabilist Theory
-Biased account of US history
-Racist Assumptions in history
Because of sexism and racism in America at that time, most professional
historians at that time were Euro-Americans, middle-class and male.
Professional historians wanted and strive to achieve high standards of
scientific objectivity in order to distinguish themselves from amateur
historians. One of them is Herbert Baxter Adams (19thc) who was one of
the founders of the American historical associations. He was known for
bringing Rankean methods to American history and he developed what he
called the Teutonic Germ Theory. In his theory, he claimed that democracy
originated among the Teutonic tribes in Ancient Germany and they brought
their ideas with them to Britain when they conquer and exterminated the
racially inferior Celtic Britain and from there English colonists brought them
to the Americans after having conquered and exterminated the racially
inferior Indians. For him, the Eurocentric approach serves as an
explanation for the development of democratic institutions in England and
America. According to Adams, American political institutions were the
product of natural progress and evolution from the primitive people (Celtic)
to the most developed people (the European) and the American Revolution
brought about through a process / a progress from the primitive to the
most developed. The idea of evolutional progress dominated American
45

political thinking through the middle of the 20 th c (= from the mid 18th C to
the 20th C; Romanticism and the theory of progress and evolution
dominated the scene). But over the years, a number of historians added
more twist (things) to this narrative, refining it in a way that led to another
theory and one of the most important contributions to the narrative of the
American history was the Frontier Thesis developed by Frederick Jackson
Turner. According to him, the American sense of democracy was shaped
less by its European heritage and more by its struggle to conquer the
Western frontier. The American frontiersmen conquered the Western
frontiers using courage, cunning, physical strength and shaped a new
American character giving its political institutions a distractive flavor of
democracy. Turners main idea is that Americans were exceptional
(American exceptionalism) (= Americans shaped the American political
institutions) and he emphasized the struggle and conflict rather than
consensus (=Romanticism) and also emphasized the agency of
environmental and socio-economic forces as opposed to great men in
changing history.
Romantic nationalist consensual approach emphasized men as a historical
agent: the exceptionalism of men: great leaders, founding fathers, writers
of constitution etc Turner emphasized conflict as a historical agency
related to environmental socio-economic forces .
Environmental socio-economic forces = the difference between social
classes based on economy: Turner is the father of the new left in the
1960s. The Revisionists emphasized change of history as based on
economic interests.
Many historians viewed Turners thesis as Americas historiographical
independence from Europe and this thesis became the dominant
explanation of the origins of the American political institutions. (Locke and
his influence on the political ideas + Platos letters + Turners thesis who
put emphasis on environmental socio-economic string of the American
character). There is a progress and evolution that is worked about
according to the American character.
Underlying both theories (the Eurocentricism and the Frontier Thesis) were
both a strong strain of social Darwinism. American historians drew from /
were inspired by the Enlightenment modernism and social Darwinism
concept and explained the European conquest and enslavement of the
American Indians and Africans as the march of progress: that is the logical
result of the superior civilized nation dominating the inferior savage
societies: so the Frontier Thesis (= the superiority of America came into
46

being through cunning, courage..) is not very different from Eurocentrism

(= superiority of Europe)
Many used the Darwinism Thesis to explain savagery as being a march of
progress and here there is a change because God / Providence and the
natural selection are the agents of change and they ordained that
European civilization / European destiny is to control this other primitive
societies and this explains the Inevitabilist Thesis by Bancroft who thought
those who populated America were uncivilized and ignorant of civilization
and have hereditary idleness.
Another historian Francis Parkman describes American Indians as brave
and free but jealous, sinister, wild and envious, and although there was a
lack of evidence to support this racist assumptions, these stereotypes
pervaded the American history until the 1960s.
To end this part, this racist Inevitabilist Theory dominates professional
historiography in the US from its birth to the middle of the 20 th C.
The 2 major ideas of historiography from the 19 th C to mid-20th C:
1) The Romantic nationalist consensual approach to American history
2) The Inevitabilism: and the ideas underneath :Eurocentrism, Frontier
ideas, Social Darwinism
(Identify the ideas and what they say and who says them)
1+2 are mainly present in the 19 th C and in the 20th C. There was
alternation between the new left 2 and the conservative 1.
1+2 = the ideas are there but the names changes.
Eurocentrism and Frontier Thesis (= when a primitive society is civilized by
civilized one) are constructs by Social Darwinism:
Starting from the 19th C up the 20th C:
-The Lockean Model vs. the Republicans
-The Romantic National consensual interpretation
Revolution = the patriotic version of US history.

of

the

American

-The Inevitabilistic interpretation of the American history

-The Moderate vs. Radical interpretation of the American history
The American history was based on the accounts of European American
middle class male historians. But there were some outspoken historians
47

that emerged / disseminate from male consensus in the 19 th C: Helen Hunt

Jackson. She argued that European American domination was not
inevitable and God ordained and shared through her works that the
conquest (American or west frontier) was the result of genocidal policies
(men killing Indians) and the dishonest actions of immoral men. African
American writers also ejected the Inevitabilist Thesis of the European
domination and here a number of names: George Washington Williams;
Booker T. Washington and also W.E.B Dubois. All these published histories
of slavery and reconstruction from their own perspective and as opposed
to others who saw African American as inferior and savage. They reflected
the intelligence and courage of African Americans as they struggled to
overcome the savage and cruelty of slavery and racism. These descending
historians presented evidence to support their arguments but they were
criticized by contemporary professional historians for their lack of
objectivity in the subject.
The Moderate vs. Radical interpretation of the American Revolution:
The American Revolution: is it a historical event?
The American Revolution is the single most important event in America.
Within a period of 20 years, Americans declared their independence. They
waged a war of liberation/ Independence, they transformed a colony into a
state and they created a new nation these are historical facts.
But scholars / historians disagree about using the term revolutionary to
describe what happened and whether it is new or different.
Some historians say that the Revolution was aimed at achieving the limited
goal of getting independence from Britain. For them, the American colonial
society was democratic and there was a consensus among Americans to
keep things as they were once the break with England was accomplished.
Other historians believe that the Revolution was accompanied by violent
upheaval that is class conflict.
Conflict + social upheaval radical lower classes sought to gain a greater
degree of democracy in the democratic era in what had been a basically
undemocratic society (radical change) which is different from moderate
change.
A debate: some interpret the American Revolution from consensual
(Conservative ) point of view and others from class and conflict / social
upheaval: from the beginning, the ideas are the same but the names
changes.
48

Was the revolution revolutionary or not?

The result of social conflict
The result of consensus among Americans to keep things as they were
From the mid 19th C, scholars reflected on one of the underlying
assumptions of that era: This assumption was American history was all
about the quest for liberty (enlightenment) and within this context the
Revolution was inevitably seen as a struggle of liberty vs. tyranny between
America and Britain.
One of the most prominent of this view was George Bancroft. He sets forth
his thesis in his ten-volume book History of the United States published in
the 1830s (10 volumes). According to Bancroft, the Revolution represented
one phase of a master planned by God for the march of all mankind toward
a golden age of greater human freedom (the Americans are in the phase of
struggle between themselves and the British for freedom). According to
him, the Revolution was radical in its character because it hastened the
advance of human beings towards a millennium of over lasting peace: men
were under tyrannical rule and because of the Revolution, they moved
towards the spirit of freedom.
In the 19th C, Americans needed a national historian who would narrate the
Revolution as a patriotic epic and Bancroft fulfilled this task. This need for
a national history stemmed from two major reasons:
-There was a need to stick to this tough Britain/American relationship
-The 19th C was a turbulent period for Americans who were divided by
bitter politics during the Jacksonian era in addition to the Civil War. Thus
Americans needed a history to make them stick together. Bancroft
reminded Americans that they had once fought as a united people to
achieve independence.
Around the turn of the 20 th C, a reaction was set against Bancroft ultrapatriotic interpretation. Politics change during the 20 th C. There was a kind
of rapprochement between the US and Britain. Thus there was a tendency
to view these past relations between the 2 countries in a more favorable
light.
As a result, there are movements which come into existence which are:
Populism and Progressivism.
Populism is a popular reaction against the concentration of power and
wealth in the hands of the relatively small number of leaders. It influenced
49

some historians to view the Revolution as an uprising by the lower classes

against the control of the upper-class. The Revolution was the result of one
class repressing another.
Progressive historians emphasized the growing economic split caused
because the competition between the colonies and the mother land.
Progressive historians Carl Becker, Charles Beard, Arthur Schlesinger and
Franklin Jameson stressed class conflict in colonial America in part because
they saw their own era in terms of a struggle between the people to free
themselves from the shackles of the large corporate monopoly of the
Monarch. They insisted that political and constitutional ideas have an
economic basis (The left/Marxism).
For Carl Becker, he interpreted the Revolution in the following way: The
American Revolution should be considered not as one revolution but rather
as two:
-The 1st Revolution was an external Revolution. i.e. a Revolution against
Britain. The 1st Revolution was caused by a clash of interests between the
colonies and the mother country.
-The 2nd Revolution was an internal Revolution. It means a conflict among
Americas social classes and this conflict is supposed to determine who
would rule once the British left. Becker sums up his thesis of dual
Revolutions in his book The History of Political Parties in the Province of
New York.
He says this in a memorable phrase that New York politics prior to the
Revolution revolved around 2 questions: the question of home rule and
the question of who should rule at home. (i.e. which social class).
Home rule =independence
Other Progressive historians Schlesinger and Beard emphasized on
economic interpretation of the Revolution. Schlesinger wrote a book
entitled The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution and this book
contunied in the veins of Beards famous work entitled An Economic
Interpretation of the Constitution. Schlesinger noted that the usually
conservative merchant class played a leading role in bringing on the
Revolution.
The interpretation is still based on class conflict because according to him,
the merchant class was dissatisfied with the British rule because they
suffered as a result of this strict treatment policies of imperial control
imposed by the mother country after the French and Indian war.
50

But merchants resistance against the mother country grew less intense
after the 1770 because / for fear that their position and property would be
threatened by the more radical lower classes. Merchants considered the
more radical lower classes who are their natural enemies in society thus
they should not gain the upper hand.
According to Schlesinger, the merchant class later became a potent factor
in the conservative counter Revolution that led to the establishment of US
constitution. For him, the constitution was the anti-thesis of the
Revolution. His claim is related to his own interpretation of what the
Revolution is: for him, the Revolution is the result of conflict whereas the
constitution is the result of consensus among Americans (a consentual
doctrine that organized political and economic life without talking about
clashes between social classes) . Thus for him, the constitution is
somewhat artificial.
For him, there should not be a constitution and life should be due to the
dynamics of history and built on the struggle of social classes (Marxism):
when the working classes develop consciousness and revolt against the
owners of the means of production and establish an egalitarian society and
here they reach the end of history.
After WW, there was another group of historians who challenged the
Progressive. Unlike the Progressive, the Consensus historians believe that
American society was essentially democratic during colonial period. For
them, most colonists possessed enough land to meet the necessary
qualification for voting. Colonial society was characterized by a high
degree of social mobility. Then the common man in the colonial era was
satisfied with his fate and felt no urge to participate in class conflict in
order to achieve greater degree of democracy. Consensus historians
argued that Americans fought the Revolution to preserve a social order
that was already democratic. So when the British , after the 1763, issued
many reforms and taxes. These reforms threatened to upset ( merchants
go bankrupt) the coexisting social orders in America. When they started,
the colonies rose up and rebelled against Britain. In the struggle between
the colonies and the mother country, the Americans emerge as the
conservatives because they want to keep things as they were before 1763.
Thats why, Consensus historians are conservative historians. According to
them, the Revolution was the result of the conservative efforts.
The Consensus interpretation of the Revolution that arose after the 1945
reflected the conservative climate of opinions that prevailed the US after
the Cold War.
51

The Cold War made some Americans increasingly preoccupied with the
problem of national security. That period was a period of insecurity at all
levels (psychological, military, social etc..)
Consensus historians led by Daniel Boorstin and Robert Brown played down
any possible differences among Americans in order to present an image of
strong and united nation. For Daniel Boorstin, the Revolution was
conservative on the imperial as well as the local levels because Americans
were fighting to retain rights and liberties granted to them under the
British constitution.
In his book The Genius of American Politics , he argued that Americans
resisted British changes after the 7 years war because they were contrary
to the ideals /spirit and liberties of the British constitution.
For him, in refusing to accept the principle of no taxation without
representation the patriots (=Americans) were insisting upon an old
right/liberty (i.e. the right to be represented in order to be taxed) not a new
one.
Major parts of this course
1.Historical Context of the American Revolution
2.Intellectual context: Renaissance, Enlightenment and the
new concepts that come into being
3. Different interpretations:
(a) Lokean vs. Republican Model in the interpretation of the
American revolution
(b) Patriotic version of US history in the 19 th C this is
related to the need for national unification e.g. National
Consensal version
( c ) The radical vs. Moderate interpretation of American
revolution

52

To what extent was the revolution Revolutionary?

1st perspective: The ultra Patriotic interpretation of the American revolution
(one of the major figures is Bancroft)
Their interpretation dominated the understanding during the 19 th . The
reolution was essentially radical .i.e. The making of the reolution was to
advance liberty / democracy .
2nd interpretation: Progressive/ Populist perspective in nature:
The revolution is a result of class struggle. This perspective is a reaction to
the 1st perspective.
3rd perspective: Challenges the progressive interpretation of American
Revolution, it is the consensual interpretation of American revolution
American revolution broke out because colonists wanted to preserve an
already democratic order. The British tried to alter that already democratic
order. This is in itself a conservative interpretation of American revolution.
Subsequent interpretation dominated the history of American revolution
from the American revolution to 1960. A group of historians who called
themselves the intellectuals challenged the consensual interpretation of
American revolution . The intellectual historians are mainly :
(1)Neo-progressivism
(2)New Left historians
(3) The Loyalists
The Intellectual historians saw the revolution as a radical rather than
conservative movement. All of these schools came under the Radical vs.
Moderate interpretation of the revolution.
The 3 groups used different approaches to look for the social and economic
origins of the revolutionary movement. Why are these 3 groups of
historians called Intellectual historians? Because they reacted against the
progressive and the consensus historians
This trend towards greater emphasis upon intellectual history was in part a
reaction against progressive historians because progressives have
generally shown a deep disgust of ideas as determining forces in history.
The driving forces of history are material/ economy not ideology.
Progressive historians are strongly influenced by the ideas of Freud and
Marx. Therefore, they look upon ideas as emerging from material
53

conditions or psychological predispositions. Ideas themselves are the result

of material, economic and psychological and both of them motivated
human behavior. For them, historians should persue the material basis for
ideas rather than ideas themselves.
One of the key figures is Bernard Bailyn who rejected the fact that
historians should look for the material causes behind the idea rather than
the idea and he saw the revolution as a radical intellectual movement. In
his book, the ideological orders of the American revolution , Bernard Bailyn
took the position that ideas which were expressed in different pamphlet
literature and memories before Revolution were its major determinants .
He discourged the economic factors, class struggle and focus on the fact
that the revolution broke out because of idea that were expressed in
pamphlet literature. Bailyn argued that a full-fledged theory of politics lay
at the heart of the American revolutionary ideology. According to him, an
ideology that came to be called Republicanism. (Republicanism emerged in
the 1960s , the major work that theorize for that revolution was Bailyn).
Republicanism, according to him whose roots could be traced back to the
anti-authoritarian or opposition Whig party Tradition in England. Man had a
natural lust for power and power by its very nature was a corrupting force
and could be obtained only by depriving others of their liberty. To protect
liberty against the corrupted force of powers all elements of the body
politics (3 branches of government, this takes us back to Montesque) has
to be balanced against each others to prevent one form/ element against
gaining dominance over the other. The best solution was a balanced
constitution but the negative influence of power was such that no system
of government what so ever could be safe or stable for long.
Power is a corrupted force , we need a system o force
Power could be set up only by taking others liberty
Thatswhy Republicans is the disinterestic desire of people to profit.
Repblicanism is based on universal values: the notion of citizenship and
disinterestic where no one interests come first.
The colonists according to him were convinced that there was a plot
against liberty in England and America.
In England, it was the kings ministries who were conspiring against liberty.
They reserved the prerogatives of the king. They systematically
encroached upon the independence of the commons and the upset the
balance of the British constitutions n their attempt to gain power and
wealth . America for them represented the last bastion for the defense of
54

English liberty and freedom of all manind. For them, the conspiracy
succeeded in England but not in America. Gordon Wood extended this
argument . He wrote a book entitled the creation of the American
Revolution in which he explained how the colonists untie authoritarian
tradition was transferred after independence into a distinctive American
Republican ideology.
The work of Baylin and Wood gave rise to what become known as the
Republicanism. Both of them with the addition of Lock who wrote a book
entitled the Michiavellian moments claimed that this Republican ideology
dominated the political culture throughout Amrican history from 1760 to
civil war. Th Republican synthesis moved from John Lock s thought on
natural rights from the centre of revolutionary thought and replaced it with
the Republicans ideas of citizens acting with this disinterested virtue
working for common good (the main thesis of Republican historians). This
lust for power is so strong that no form of government can prevent it the
only solution to this is citizens. Those historians relied heavily on the
classical Republican tradition which emphasized citizenship and public
participation and these ideas have roots stretching back to antiquity and
Renaissance?
(For so long the Lockean political theory dominated the American scene.
Those citizens acted with disinterested virtue. It is the Republican value. It
is the Americans who ignite the revolution. The Lockean until the 1960S
vs Republican)
Pockock himself declared the Revolution was the last great act of the
Renaissance. Ideas of Republicanism proved to be most effective, the
most widely accepted in the interpretation of the American revolution
between the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s. Meanwhile a reaction against
the Republican synthesis started in the 1970S and 1980s from various
groups of historians mainly Bailyn and Pocok (who reinterpreted the
American revolution) were subjects to Revisionists attacks.
Bailyn was criticzed because he seemed to suggest that there was an
ideological consensus among American Whigs and they all held the same
Republican ideas in common. These historians / scholars pointed out that
this was simplistic and that there were other ideologies at work such as
Evangelical Protestansism (= Christian fundamentals) + biased
perspectives, different political orientations and that Americans political
culture was diverse. Supporters of Republican synthesis were criticized for
not taking into accounts a discussion of the various theories of the
political economies including the Lokean Liberalism which were very
55

important to those of the revolutionary generations. (other ideologies:

religion, class, different political tendencies).
Rhys Tsaac undermined the idea of an ideological consensus . He is one of
those who criticized the Republican synthesis by analyzing different
powerful religious ideologies which were at work before , during and after
the revolution and in the example of pre-revolutionaryVirginia he focused
on Virginia as a case study and he showed that deep ideological
differences existed for example between the Anglican (= British Protestant
church) and the Baptists. For him, these two religious groups contrasted 2
religious subcultures which are the tradition-oriented Anglicans who
represented the established order and the Homo Baptists who challenged
the ruling Anglican establishment. He not only destroyed the idea of a
possible ideological consensus but also showed that by omitting /
discarding serious discussions of religious beliefs. Bailyn and Wood had
overlooked the important role religion played in the formation of political
beliefs during the revolution. The purpose : there was no ideological
consensus as presented by Wood.
(for intellectual historians, demonstrated in their writings that there is an
ideological consensus)

56