|
The American Colonies had been more or less Independent since the Start of the English Civil war in 1640 (The English Civil War was more a Revolution then Civil War and ended up with Cromwell as Dictator). Now Ne York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Carolinas and Georgia were all founded AFTER the English Civil War and the Restoration, but all along lines already established either in New England or Virginia, both which had been on their own from 1640 onward.
In many ways, the US Revolution was like the Spanish Amanda of the 1500s, an effort by a former ally, to force an old ally back into the alliance (Spain and England had been long allies against France during the Middle ages, much like Scotland and France were allied with each other against England during the same time period). The American Colonies had always had diverse interest from England starting in the 1600s, during the French and Indian wars of the 1750s many American ships supplies grain and other food items to French sugar islands in the West Indies, something England opposed. The American Colonies supported England do to fear of a French invasion from Quebec, once the French were driven out of Canada, the French threat disappeared and the diversion of interest of the what became the US and England diverged severely. Thus come the 1700s it was clear the US wanted to be free of English interference, while England viewed the Colonies as a source of Revenue given England's continued problems with France. Thus the American Revolution can be viewed as more an invasion of America by Britain in an effort to keep America from going on it own way, then an attempt by Americans to change their form of Government. A change in the form of government had to occur do to the act of Invasion, and the Declaration of Independence but this was more an evolution then a revolution (i.e. the Government changed do to a change in circumstance NOT do to a revolt of the people against the Government).
In this regard, i.e evolution not revolution the American revolution is different from the English Civil War and the Subsequent French Revolution (Both of which ended in Dictatorships). What became the US was fundamentally the same government in 1783 it had been in 1774, only the outer form of government was different (The 13 colonies viewed each other as one country under the Article of Confederation, and later the Constitution not 13 independent states as was the case in 1774, but even before 1774 the Colonies often worked together for the common good, so that was not much of change either).
In such non-marxist revolution, like the American Revolution, you do NOT have a radical change of Government that has to revert of force to rule given the radical changes a true revolution brings on. When you have to have a HUGE change in Government, then dictatorship occurs, either to stop the changes or to force the changes (And often both as in the case of the French Revolution where Napoleon's Dictatorship permitted him to force through reforms such as division of lands for the peasants, that Napoleon favored, and stopping changes that lead to opposition to what progressive changes actually being implemented, in the case of Napoleon Restoration of Order and much of the land to the old ruling Aristocracy). In the English Civil War, a similar situation took place, you had radical changes in Government, the King was executed and Parliament dis banned, but force was retained so the raising upper middle class could grab most of the lands.
When the Soviet Union Collapse, most of Eastern Europe just dismissed the Communists that had been ruling them, the structure of Government stayed roughly the same (Less Government ownership of things, but universal health care was preserved, through poorly funded). The same thing with South Africa, the basic form of Government stayed the same, you had a Black man in charge but no one replaced the judges wholesale, nor any other set of bureaucrats (Even the Army in both Eastern Europe and South Africa stayed roughly the same, through non-whites could finally become officers and senior officers in the South African Army for the first time). Notice in both situations, no radical change was being proposed as to ownership of land and what was being sold off was viewed as unprofitable in the first place.
Just an observation, that a "Revolution" whose aim is to STOP change (As the American Revolution as, as Britain wanted to make the American Colonies more in line with Britain's overall world view) tend NOT to end in Dictatorship, while "Revolution" to make radical change ends in Dictatorship as the unintended consequences of those changes came home to roost (People will fight harder to stop a change that affects them personally, then to fight FOR a change that may help themselves of others, thus opposition to change will slowly gain strength while support for change will slowly die out, leading to dictatorship by those people who want change at all costs). This is the best explanation of why some revolutions end in Dictatorships and others end up in democracies. The difference is the revolution to make radical changes or to set up a system for slow gradual changes? If the later, the country will end up as a Democrat, if the former it will end up in dictator ship do to drop in support for changes as more and more radical changes are implemented.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
