Članci

Američka revolucija: jedna riječ

Američka revolucija: jedna riječ



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


OTVORNICA I AMERIČKA REVOLUCIJA

[Odmaram se nekoliko tjedana, a budući da se četvrti srpanj brzo približava, ponovno objavljujem malo revidirane verzije nekih od mojih omiljenih prošlih eseja o američkom utemeljenju. S politički nastrojenim evangelicima poput Davida Bartona i Dana Fishera koji su hvalili ulogu propovjednika u podupiranju američke neovisnosti 1776., smatrao sam da je dobra ideja ponovno proučiti sustavno proučavanje Jamesa Byrda o tome kako su se domoljubi pozivali na Sveto pismo tijekom Revolucije. Dok Barton, Fisher i dr. Tvrde da je Biblija oblikovala kolonijalne pastire i politiku, Byrd nalazi dokaze koji ukazuju na to da je suprotno barem jednako vrijedilo.]

James P. Byrd, Sveto pismo, Sveti rat: Biblija i američka revolucija (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.).

Povijest Američke revolucije prije svega je priča o nacionalnim počecima, a priče o počecima su priče koje objašnjavaju. Način na koji razumijemo svoje podrijetlo odražava naš osjećaj identiteta kao naroda. Gledamo u prošlost ne samo da bismo razumjeli tko smo, već i da bismo opravdali ono što želimo postati. I tako, kao nacija podijeljena oko odgovarajućeg mjesta vjerskog uvjerenja na suvremenom javnom trgu, prirodno raspravljamo o mjestu vjerskog uvjerenja u američkom utemeljenju.

Izvan akademije, veći dio te rasprave usredotočio se na pojednostavljeno pitanje da-ili-ne: je li vjersko uvjerenje igralo važnu ulogu u američkom utemeljenju? To ima smisla ako je primarni motiv osvajanje bodova u kulturnim ratovima, miniranje prošlosti za streljivo koje će se koristiti protiv sekularista koji poriču da su Sjedinjene Države osnovane kao kršćanska zemlja. Međutim, postoji problem s pristupom povijesti kao streljiva. To je dobro za razbijanje protivnika, ali pozitivno obeshrabruje trajno moralno promišljanje, vrstu razgovora s prošlošću koja može prodrijeti u srce pa čak i promijeniti tko smo.

Nasuprot tome, knjige poput Sveto Pismo, Sveti rat imaju potencijal duboko nas izazvati. Doduše, autor James Byrd nenamjerno nudi municiju čitateljima koji ubiru trešnje za kršćansko utemeljenje. On zapravo tvrdi da su propovijedi bile utjecajnije od političkih pamfleta u izgradnji narodne potpore neovisnosti i nedvosmisleno inzistira na tome da su “propovjednici bili najuporniji branitelji stvari Amerike”. Pa ipak, pitanje koje ga doista zanima nije da li religija je imala važnu ulogu u američkom utemeljenju, ali kako da je to učinio. Točnije, želi razumjeti kako su kolonisti koristili Bibliju u odgovoru na američku revoluciju.

U tom cilju, Byrd je otišao u potragu za izvornim kolonijalnim izvorima koji su se bavili temom rata pozivajući se na sveto pismo. Na kraju je identificirao 543 kolonijalna spisa (od kojih je velika većina bila propovijedi) i sustavno analizirao više od 17 000 biblijskih citata koje su oni sadržavali. Rezultat je daleko najopsežnija analiza ikad poduzeta o tome kako su "revolucionarni Amerikanci branili svoja domoljubna uvjerenja kroz sveto pismo, koje su tekstove citirali i kako su ih koristili".

Byrd svoje zaključke iznosi u pet tematskih poglavlja, od kojih svako ističe zajednički svetopisamski argument u prilog revolucije. Amerikanci su u Svetom pismu pronašli "ogroman skup ratnih priča" relevantnih za njihovu vlastitu borbu s Engleskom. Iz Starog zavjeta ministri su crpili inspiraciju posebno iz priče o egzodusu Izraelaca iz Egipta (Izlazak 14-15), iz Pjesme o Deborah u Sucima 5 i iz primjera Davida, čovjeka rata koji je također bio "Čovjek po Božjem srcu." Ministri su analogno čitali svaku od ovih priča i iz njih izvukli pouke. Ropstvo Izraelaca u Egiptu nalikovalo je na njihovo vlastito ropstvo britanskoj tiraniji, isto tako i za potčinjavanje Izraelaca stoljećima kasnije Jabinu, kralju Kanaana. Nadmetanje između Davida i Golijata na sličan je način nagovijestilo pravednu borbu kolonista s moćnim, ali arogantnim britanskim carstvom. (To što je David postao kralj bila je činjenica koju nije potrebno naglašavati.)

Domoljubnim ministrima koji su ih proglasili s propovjedaonice lekcije ugrađene u ove priče bile su neosporne. Bog se zalagao za nezavisnost. Ratnik koji je oslobodio svoj narod putem rata, Gospodin je jasno sankcionirao nasilje u potrazi za slobodom. Nadalje, on bi intervenirao u njihovo ime, a s Bogom na njihovoj strani, loše obučeni i loše opremljeni domoljubi pobijedili bi. To je značilo da je lojalnost pobuna protiv Boga, a pacifizam "grešni kukavičluk". Nije li anđeo Gospodnji prokleo stanovnike Meroza jer nisu došli „u pomoć Gospodnjoj protiv silnih“ (Suci 5:23)? Nije li prorok Jeremiah zagrmio: “Proklet bio tko čuva mač svoj od krvi” (Jer. 48:10)?

Da bi biblijski argument u prilog Revolucije uspio, naravno, ministri domoljubi znali su da moraju potkrijepiti te argumente potporom iz Novog zavjeta. Ovo nije bio jednostavan zadatak, jer se činilo da su i apostoli Petar i Pavao osudili pobunu i poučili pokornost vladara kao kršćansku dužnost. Pavao je naredio crkvi u Rimu da "podliježe vladajućim vlastima" (Rimljanima 13: 1) Petar je naredio kršćanima da "poštuju kralja" (1. Petrova 2: 17b). Činilo se da niti opomene ne ostavljaju puno prostora za pravedan otpor građanskim vlastima.

Zagovornici neovisnosti usprotivili su se, međutim, da su ti odlomci samo nalagali poslušnost vladarima koji su bili Božji službenici "za dobro", a budući da je sloboda bila očito dobra, apostoli nikako nisu mogli pozivati ​​na pokornost tiranima. Uvjeravali su svoja stada, nadalje, opetovano citirajući jedno od rijetkih nedvosmislenih priznanja slobode u Novom zavjetu. "Stojte čvrsto", savjetovao je Pavao crkve u Galaciji, "u slobodi kojom nas je Krist oslobodio" (Gal 5: 1). Sloboda koju je Pavao imao na umu bila je građanska i vjerska, ustrajali su ministri, što je značilo da odbijanje da „čvrsto stoje“ s domoljubnim ciljem nije ništa manje nego „grijeh protiv izričite Božje zapovijedi“.

Tri sveobuhvatna obrasca proizlaze iz Byrdove studije koja bi trebala uznemiriti kršćanske čitatelje. Prvo, utjecaj političke ideologije i povijesnih okolnosti u oblikovanju kolonističkog tumačenja Svetog pisma je upečatljiv. Slijedeći svoje korijene, uvjerenje kolonista da je građanska sloboda pravo od Boga duguje više prosvjetiteljstvu nego ortodoksnom kršćanskom učenju, a ipak je vjerovanje snažno informiralo kako kolonisti razumiju Riječ Božju. Čitajući sveto pismo kroz prizmu republikanske ideologije, otkrili su "domoljubnu Bibliju" savršenu za promicanje "domoljubne revnosti".

Drugo, uznemirujuća je spremnost s kojom su kršćanski zagovornici neovisnosti posvetili nasilje. "Kolonijalni propovjednici nisu bježali od biblijskog nasilja", otkriva Byrd. "Prihvatili su ga, gotovo ga proslavili, čak i u njegovim najživopisnijim oblicima."

Treće, i najzloslutnije, dokazi upućuju na to da se način na koji su domoljubni ministri prikazali vojni sukob s Britanijom brzo pretvorio iz pukog "pravednog rata" - rata nastalog iz moralno obrambene svrhe i vođenog prema moralnim kriterijima - u "sveto" ili "sveti rat" - borbu "izvršenu božanskom osvetom nad sotoninim slugama". Domoljublje i kršćanstvo postali su nerazdvojni, gotovo nerazlučivi.

Byrd piše suzdržano i nudi malo komentara o svojim nalazima, no implikacije za američke kršćane su otrežnjujuće i ulozi su veliki. Kao što je Byrd priznao u svom zaključku, s vremenom su Sjedinjene Američke Države „počele definirati sebe i svoju sudbinu u velikoj mjeri kroz pravdu i svetost svojih ratova“. Američki su kršćani odigrali važnu ulogu u tom procesu nacionalnog samoodređenja, prečesto posvećujući vojne sukobe nacije kao svete borbe.

Povjesničar Mark Noll žalio je kako su u vrijeme Američke revolucije "misli i aktivnosti američkih crkava slijedili misli i aktivnosti američke nacije", a ne obrnuto. S mukotrpnom temeljitošću, James Byrd potvrđuje taj zaključak, pokazujući da je obrazac čak definirao kako su kršćani iz revolucionarnog doba čitali svoju Bibliju i mislili


Brušena povijest

Tečaj će se osvrnuti na to kako smo došli do republike Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i što je oblikovalo temeljna uvjerenja, vrijednosti i institucije koje su stvorile novu republiku i ostale bitne za razumijevanje SAD -a danas. Je li Američka revolucija bila prva svjetska revolucija ili je to bila samo uspješna kolonijalna pobuna?

  • Uvod u svijet 18. stoljeća
  • Uzroci napetosti između 13 američkih kolonija i britanske vlade
  • Razlozi zbog kojih je najveće svjetsko carstvo u to vrijeme izgubilo svoje američke kolonije
  • Stvaranje nove republike i nove nacije
  • Povijesna rasprava o uzrocima, prirodi, ishodima i važnosti američke revolucije

Kliknite na ovu vezu za pregled knjiga Knjige u državnoj biblioteci

Za posjet drugim stranicama o američkoj revoluciji samo kliknite na crvene podnaslove koji se nalaze u desnom stupcu.

Podijeli ovo:

Kao ovo:


Američka revolucija

Poglavlje 1. Uvod: Je li rat dio američke revolucije? [00:00:00]

Profesorica Joanne Freeman: Sada, ja ’m promatram sva ova lica i pretpostavljam da su mnogi od vas vjerojatno stigli ovamo s nekim unaprijed stvorenim predodžbama o američkoj revoluciji. Ja ’m pretpostavljam da barem neki od vas sjede tamo i duboko u mislima razmišljate - Deklaracija neovisnosti, hrpa bitaka, George Washington, ubačeno malo Paula Reverea - i sve to stvari će se pojaviti tijekom, ali očito je da je prava američka revolucija puno složenija od toga. To je više od niza imena i dokumenata i bitaka, a zapravo na mnogo načina američka revolucija nije bio samo rat. Ako biste se vratili u sredinu osamnaestog stoljeća, vratili se u razdoblje revolucije ili možda neposredno nakon nje, i pitali ljude kako razumiju što se događa, mnogi od njih će vam reći da je rat zapravo bio tek manji dio američke revolucije. Neki bi vam rekli da rat uopće nije bila američka revolucija i vidjet ćete - napomenuo bih da je nastavni plan konačno dostupan na mreži pa je tu za vas, ali vidjet ćete kad pogledate nastavni plan da na samom početku postoje dva citata i želim ih pročitati ovdje jer oni jako dobro naglašavaju ovo.

Dakle, prvi citat je iz pisma Johna Adamsa koji je pisao Thomasu Jeffersonu 1815. godine, a on je čuo za pokušaj pisanja povijesti američke revolucije, pa ovo Adams ima reći o tome. „Što se tiče povijesti Revolucije, moje ideje mogu biti osebujne, možda jedinstvene, ali što podrazumijevamo pod Revolucijom? Rat? To nije bio dio revolucije. " Postoji trenutak u kojem idete "Huh?" “To je bio samo njegov učinak i posljedica. Revolucija je bila u svijesti ljudi, a to se događalo od 1760. do 1775. godine, tijekom petnaest godina prije nego što je u Lexingtonu iscurena kap krvi. ”

U redu. Dakle, imamo Johna Adamsa koji kaže da rat zapravo nije bio dio revolucije. To je prilično poznat citat, ali to je prilično zanimljiva izjava. Sada želim spomenuti ovdje, a vrlo rano tijekom tečaja, učinilo mi se da sam vam se svidio da volite Johna Adamsa, a ja ću za nekoliko minuta govoriti više o Johnu Adamsu, ali ovdje ću spomenuti budući da sam #8217ovo ste pročitali taj citat ako ste na kraju polugodišta odlučili da ćete##samo umrijeti od čitanja pošte mrtvih ljudi, što u osnovi povjesničari zarađuju za život, veliki svezak za čitanje zapravo su pisma koja su poslali Jefferson i Adams naprijed -natrag jedno drugom tijekom svog života. Svi su oni sastavljeni u jedan svezak, a najbolji dio tog sveska je krajnji dio, slova kojima su ti momci u starosti pisali jedni drugima. Dakle, imate ove dvije osnivačke figure, bivše predsjednike, i oni su u osnovi samo dopustili da se to iscrta u ovim slovima. Oni pričaju o svemu. Govore o svim stvarima o kojima vjerojatno ne biste normalno govorili: religiji, politici, koga mrze, tko im se sviđa, što misle o revoluciji, što misle o vlastitom predsjedništvu, što misle o drugim predsjedništvom, prvih deset osnivača. Zapravo, postoji mali odjeljak, iako mislim da su to tri najbolja sprovoda osnivača, ali to je čudan, jako zanimljiv niz stvari i to je samo ovo dvoje ljudi jako uzbuđeno zbog činjenice da su ’ve u mirovini i sve što sada trebaju učiniti je pisati jedno drugome i zaista se bolje upoznati. Dakle, to je sjajan volumen. Uređuje Lester Cappon. Prezime je C-a-p-p-o-n ako vas zanima#8217.

U redu. Dakle, ovaj citat koji sam vam upravo pročitao zapravo je iz te serije pisama, Adams koji kaže da rat nije bio dio revolucije. Adams ipak kaže: "Pa, možda su moje ideje pomalo čudne", ali on nije jedini koji izbacuje takvu misao. Dakle, ovdje je Benjamin Rush, za kojeg pretpostavljam da bi se na neki način moglo reći da je bio liječnik zvijezdama. On je zapravo bio taj poznati liječnik iz revolucionarnog i ranog nacionalnog razdoblja i imao je mnogo visokopozicioniranih političkih prijatelja. Pa ovdje Benjamin Rush iz 1787. godine piše: „Nema ništa uobičajenije nego pomiješati uvjete američke revolucije s onima iz kasnog američkog rata. Američki rat je završio, ali to nije daleko od američke revolucije. Naprotiv, ništa osim prvog čina ove velike drame nije zatvoreno. ” Dakle, imate Benjamina Rusha koji je rekao tom dječaku, ovo je čest problem. Mnogi ljudi miješaju američku revoluciju s američkim ratom i oni nisu samo jedno te isto. Rat je završio. Revolucija se nastavlja, a Rush to govori čak i 1787. godine. Četiri godine nakon sporazuma kojim je okončan rat, mi idemo na teritorij Ustava, a na Rush se revolucija nastavlja.

Dakle, što ti ljudi misle? Pa, djelomično, izražavaju dio onoga što će ova klasa istraživati. Oni u osnovi sugeriraju da je američka revolucija predstavljala ogromnu promjenu mišljenja kao lojalnih britanskih kolonista - zar ne? -dugogodišnji odani britanski kolonisti, postupno su se pretvarali u ljute revolucionare i na kraju u Amerikance. Kao što John Adams sugerira, počeci ove transformacije prethode stvarnim borbama, a kao što sugerira Benjamin Rush, to se ne završava tek kad potpišete mirovni sporazum. Dakle, kad stvari promatrate s ovog širokog gledišta, Revolucija zapravo postaje početak razdoblja u kojem se američka nacija doista izmišljala, a ovo je doista dramatična vrsta izuma. Vi imate - U određenom smislu, mi smo u ovom trenutku samo mali pipsqueaks, pa imate ove male pipsqueaks i oni zapravo govore: „U redu. Odbacujemo monarhiju. Mi ćemo se okrenuti demokratskoj republici. " Oni govore: "Da. Pa, znamo da su moći oduvijek u carskom središtu. Mi ćemo tome okrenuti leđa i uvući snagu na ono što je u osnovi na marginama britanskog carstva. ” Odbijaju se od pretpostavke da je nekolicina na vlasti i govore: "Pa, što ako pokušamo staviti mnoge na vlast?"

To su prilično dramatične promjene i to nisu naravno samo#8217t promjene. Ljudi - Kolonisti su o sebi počeli razmišljati drugačije. Zbilja je lako podcijeniti stupanj u kojem su pojedine kolonije u to vrijeme zaista bile poput malih nezavisnih kolonija nacionalnih država. Nisu bili ujedinjeni ni u jednom smislu tog pojma. Nije postojala tradicija da kolonije mogu međusobno komunicirati. Zapravo je na neki način bilo lakše komunicirati s matičnom zemljom nego dobivati ​​neke vrste vijesti uz Atlantsku obalu. Kolonisti su često znali više o matičnoj zemlji nego što su znali o ljudima iz drugih kolonija. Oni - Kad pogledate korespondenciju iz tog razdoblja, ljudi često spominju - Sjevernjaci će se odnositi prema južnjacima kao da su oni ljudi iz čudne, vanzemaljske zemlje koji imaju čudne naglaske. Teško je znati što govore da se tako čudno oblače. Nevjerojatno je razmišljati o razlikama, stupnju do kojeg su kolonije zaista stajale same u ovom vremenskom razdoblju. I ta ideja, da doista nema gotovo nikakvog razloga pretpostaviti da bi se te kolonije mogle spojiti, da će se prilično dogoditi na prva dva ili tri predavanja tečaja. Ono o čemu govorimo je da pokušavamo steći osjećaj o tome tko su ti kolonisti i kako su na kraju krenuli u revoluciju. Tako se ta raštrkana skupina neovisnih kolonista postupno okupljala i formirala jednu ujedinjenu naciju, ne cilj nego ishod.

S obzirom na sve što sam upravo rekao, možete vidjeti zašto je ideja da bi moglo postojati ujedinjena nacija zapravo prilično veliko iznenađenje. Možete vidjeti zašto je mnogo ljudi pretpostavilo da to nikada neće uspjeti. Zapravo možete i pretpostaviti zašto se mnogima to čak i nije svidjelo kao ideja, pa čak možete vidjeti zašto nakon što je Ustav stupio na snagu i kada je vlada krenula, čak ni tada ljudi jednostavno nisu bili sigurni u to išao na posao. Oni su stvarno - Oni su to nazivali eksperimentom, na što su oni zaista gledali. I nevjerojatno je kad pogledate pisma iz 1790 -ih i vidjet ćete ove male odbačene komentare poput "Ako ova vlada potraje više od pet godina, evo što mislim da bismo trebali učiniti." U redu, tu-To je potpuno čudan način razmišljanja i ne pretpostavljamo da postoji, ali ovo je eksperiment s velikim ulozima.

Poglavlje 2. Materijali za čitanje tečaja [00:08:25]

Dakle, ova će klasa istražiti ovaj veliki pomak u razmišljanju, a rat će biti u središtu te promjene, a to će učiniti s gledišta sudionika. To će se zaista boriti s tim kako su stvari tada imale smisla za ljude koji su bili tamo. A ja ću u to više ući za minutu ili dvije.

Želim samo na sekundu razgovarati o tome kako je tečaj organiziran, a na minutu ili dvije o nekim lektirama za tečaj. Tečaj je djelomično kronološki, a dijelom tematski, pa nastavljamo dalje, pratimo naraciju događaja o tome kako su se stvari razvijale, sva ta gadna djela, ljudi koji se bune, vode rat, pokušavaju smisliti što učiniti nakon rata. Pratimo takvu putanju, ali ćemo se i mi s vremena na vrijeme odmaknuti i pogledati široku sliku, tako da nećemo samo pratiti događaje koje ćemo događaje uvijek stavljati u kontekst.

I čitanja za tečaj idu u tom istom smjeru. Mi ćemo čitati Gordona Wooda#8217 Radikalizam američke revolucije, što je uistinu sjajan pregled ovog vremenskog razdoblja i također predstavlja argument, očito kao što se iz naslova moglo zaključiti, da je Revolucija doista bila radikalna. Neki se ljudi slažu s tim, a neki se ne slažu, a zapravo je jedan od odjeljaka za raspravu usmjeren na raspravu o toj samoj ideji, a do kraja tečaja vjerojatno ćete imati neke prilično snažne ideje koje se ne moraju nužno složiti s mojima, ali na temelju onoga što čitali ste i ono što sam ja rekao i što ste mislili, vjerojatno ćete imati neke snažne ideje o tome koliko je američka revolucija bila radikalna.

Mi ćemo čitati Roberta Grossa Minutemen i njihov svijet, što možete čuti u skladu je s onim što sam upravo govorio. Stvarno vam daje osjećaj kako je tada izgledalo ljudima koji su završili s borbama u Lexingtonu i Concordu.

Mi ćemo čitati Bernarda Bailyna Lica revolucije, koja uključuje niz poglavlja o različitim ljudima koji su imali veliku ulogu u Revoluciji, kao i poglavlja o idealima i ideologiji ili u osnovi logici američke neovisnosti, a Bailyn je doista poznat kao ... Napisao je ovu nevjerojatnu knjigu o ideologiji Američke revolucije, i onome što ćete čitati, on je u osnovi uzeo veliki, mesnati dio iz te knjige, dio na koji se svi doista usredotočuju, i stavio ga u ovu knjigu, Lica revolucije, pa ćemo to čitati, kao i dio lektire za tečaj.

Mi ćemo također čitati Raya Raphaela Narodna povijest američke revolucije, što čini upravo ono što bi naslov sugerirao. Jeste - Gleda kako su različite vrste ljudi, Indijanci, prosječni pobunjenici, Afroamerikanci, lojalisti, žene, kako su svi ti različiti ljudi različitih tipova doživjeli Revoluciju.

A zatim ćemo osim čitanja povijesnih stipendija čitati i dio literature tog razdoblja. Čitat ćemo Thomasa Painea#8217 Zdrav razum, koju volim. Koliko vas je pročitalo Zdrav razumprije? Dobar broj vas, ne - da, neki od vas. volim Zdrav razum. Mislim da je to nevjerojatan spis i mislim da ćete, kad ga pročitate za ovaj tečaj, osjetiti zašto je u to vrijeme imao tako veliki utjecaj.

Pročitat ćemo neke eseje iz Federalist koju su napisali Alexander Hamilton i James Madison i John Jay, ali nećemo ih čitati kao - Možda ste ih već čitali. Možda ste se susreli Federalisteseji kao veliki izvor autoriteta o Ustavu. Pravo? Kako ne bi bilo tako kada imate momke tipa osnivača koji govore o Ustavu, a oni su bili na konvenciji? Pa, stvar je u tome Federalist eseji nisu bili namjera da budu objektivan dokument. Oni su zapravo stvarno subjektivni, a mi ćemo ih na ovom tečaju gledati kao ono što su napisani, što je zaista veliki komercijalni oglas za ovaj novi eksperimentalni Ustav. Oni su zapravo pokušavali prodati ljude na ideji, pa ćemo, kao što ćemo vidjeti kad ovo pročitamo za ovaj tečaj, imati stvari koje su možda malo pretjerane i stvari koje možda nisu ’t pričalo se vrlo detaljno i o jednoj ili dvije stvari koje vjerojatno nisu istinite, ali bile su dobre. Pravo? Ovi momci govore: “Zaista mislim da je ovaj Ustav pravi put. Dopustite mi da kažem nešto što će vas zaista smiriti kako bismo mogli nastaviti s ovim eksperimentom. "

I naravno da ćemo čitati Deklaraciju o neovisnosti. Čitat ćemo Ustav. Čitat ćemo mnogo dokumenata i pisama i drugih vrsta raznovrsnih predmeta koji će nam zaista dati osjećaj o tom razdoblju, a u jednom trenutku ću čak donijeti novine iz tog razdoblja kako bismo mogli zapravo pogledajte to i osjetite kako ljudi u tom trenutku primaju vijesti o ratu. Mnogo tih dokumenata ćemo izvući iz knjige pod nazivom Veliki problemi u doba američke revolucije, i to je lijepa zbirka primarnih dokumenata i eseja o vrstama srodnih tema. Uvijek me nasmije kad izgovorim taj naslov jer je to dio niza knjiga, a knjige su Veliki problemi u revoluciji, veliki problemi u ranom nacionalnom razdoblju, veliki problemi u građanskom ratu, pa se u osnovi čini da je cijela američka povijest veliki problem, (smijeh) što - Nekako mi daje pauzu, ali unatoč tome, to je lijepa zbirka stvari i to ćemo koristiti za razred.

Poglavlje 3. Freeman ’s Savjeti jedan i dva: činjenice i značenja [00:13:45]

Dakle, to vam daje osjećaj o tome kako će tečaj teći i što će ova čitanja učiniti, što me dovodi do dijela predavanja koji ću nazvati Freeman & Top 8 savjeta za proučavanje američke revolucije , i želim objasniti prije nego što uđem u njih na što vraga mislim. U osnovi, dok sam pripremao ovo predavanje i razmišljao u sebi o čemu želim da znate odmah na početku prije nego što uopće počnemo govoriti o samoj revoluciji. I završio sam s popisom stvari koje dok govorim o njima ovdje mogu izgledati očite, ali što više pričam o njima, mislim da se manje očite pojavljuju, a one su zapravo stvarno važne za uzeti u obzir na tečaju koji bavi se nečim poput osnivanja Amerike. Ima puno toga u tome. Samo taj izraz. Razmislite samo o frazi - zar ne? - "Oci utemeljitelji", "Razdoblje osnivanja." Možete vidjeti samo velika slova. [smijeh] Ne morate čak ni to morati vidjeti u pisanom obliku. U vašem umu, uvijek je napisano velikim slovima. Pretpostavljamo mnogo toga o ovom vremenskom razdoblju, a ono je svojevrsno ikonično razdoblje kada razmišljate o američkoj povijesti.

Za nas je mnogo ljudi i događaja u ovom vremenskom razdoblju i dokumenti ovog vremenskog razdoblja na neki način ono što Amerika čini, što je i razumljivo, ali da bismo razmišljali o razdoblju utemeljenja kao povjesničari, moramo razmišljati drugačije. Moramo biti svjesni svih tih pretpostavki, sve one kulturne prtljage koju donosimo kada gledamo nešto poput Američke revolucije, moramo ih biti svjesni, a zatim ih moramo zaobići kako bismo mogu zaista početi razumijevati ljude i događaje u Revoluciji kakvi su oni bili. I tako sam došao do Freemanovih pet najboljih savjeta za proučavanje američke revolucije pet stvari koje biste trebali imati na umu prilikom proučavanja ovog razdoblja, pet stvari koje će očito biti korisno zapamtiti tijekom cijelog tečaja, u osnovi sve one su usmjerene na samo istresanje pretpostavki iz nas. I prvi savjet je zapravo zaista povezan s tom točkom.

Prvi savjet je: Izbjegavajte zastrašujući balon činjenica o Revolucionarnom ratu. I time želim reći da ćete sjediti ovdje i tijekom semestra ćete čuti#poznata imena i događaje, Bostonsku čajanku, George Washington, najveće hitove Revolucije, stvari koje znate i volite i naučili ste u srednjoj školi. Svi će oni biti ovdje i čuti sve ove voljene najveće hitove, možda ćete doći u iskušenje da se nekako smjestite na svoje mjesto i zanesete se zajedno sa sretnim, poznatim događajima. Aaah, priča o američkoj revoluciji Volim priču o američkoj revoluciji. Pa, volim priču o američkoj revoluciji, ali postoji i druga priča o američkoj revoluciji pored svih ovih imena, činjenica i datuma s kojima ste vjerojatno došli ovdje u glavi. To je zaista dobra dramatična priča, ali nije niz činjenica, pa stoga činjenica dolazi do mjehurića. To nije mjehurić činjenica. Revolucija je očito puno više od toga i morate nekako biti svjesni te činjenice, a zatim si dopustiti da se odmaknete i sagledate širu sliku. A John Adams i Benjamin Rush i drugi poput njih prvi bi vam rekli činjenice u određenom smislu su najmanje od svega toga.

Tako da se ’s - Savjet broj jedan ne smije izgubiti u strašnom balonu činjenica o Revolucionarnom ratu, za koji moram reći da me tjera na razmišljanje o prvom podučavanju ovog tečaja. Ja sam zapravo bio potpuno novi profesor i tek sam došao na Yale, to je bio moj prvi tečaj i to je bilo moje prvo predavanje na prvom tečaju, a ja sam ’m [prekid zvuka] zapravo bio u Hall of Connecticut, što je za one vas koji ne znate, datira iz razdoblja o kojem se govori na ovom tečaju i koji je bio Nathan Hale ’s - u biti njegov dom. Pa tu sam. Ja sam#8217m potpuno novi profesor na Yaleu i#8217m predajem tečaj o Revoluciji i njoj u zgradi koja datira iz Revolucije, tako da imam ’m nekakav "wow" trenutak Yalea kakav jest, i S ’m dalje, držim predavanja i#8217m sam jako uzbuđen. Dajem ih otprilike tri, a netko digne ruku nakon otprilike tri predavanja i imaju nekako zagonetan izraz lica. Rekao sam da?" A on kaže: „Oprostite, profesore Freeman. Što bismo trebali zapamtiti? Gdje su činjenice i datumi? " [smijeh] Dakle, kao novi profesor moj prvi impuls bio je: Dovraga! Zaboravio sam činjenice i datume. [smijeh] Pogriješio sam. [smijeh] No, činjenica je da oni nisu zvijezda emisije. Zasigurno datumi nisu zvijezda emisije. Postoje datumi koje ćete morati zapamtiti pa nemojte misliti da je Easy Street tamo datum koji ne moram znati. Bit će nekih datuma, ali ovo nije priča o datumima. To je očito nešto mnogo zanimljivije i puno šire od toga. U redu. Izbjegnite mjehurić činjenica.

Drugi savjet: Razmislite o značenju riječi. S jedne strane, ovo se može činiti doista očitim i možda sjedite ovdje i razmišljate o, super, ovo će biti semestar Freemana koji kaže: „Što znači revolucija? Što znači rat? ", Što bi bio zaista, jako, jako dug semestar, a to bi zapravo moglo biti - Možda bi čak moglo doći do točke u kojoj ću ’ reći:" Što znači revolucija? " Čak sam nekako, već sam rekao, ali to nije ono što mislim kad kažem razmišljati o značenju riječi. Ovdje zaista želim paziti što pretpostavljate o riječima jer ono što vam se sada čini očitim u značenju vjerojatno je značilo nešto stvarno drugačije 1776. ili 1787. godine, a ja želim pogledati jedan primjer jer je zaista upečatljiv i to & #8217s riječ je "demokracija". U redu. Dakle, sjediti ovdje u ovoj prostoriji, po našim standardima, demokracija je dobra stvar. Pravo? Demokracija je dobra stvar. Povremeno kao profesor kažete nešto, a zatim s užasom razmišljate o tome kako će to izgledati u vašim bilješkama. Tako ćete imati sve ove bilješke, a onda će reći "demokracija je dobra stvar", (smijeh) - zaista sofisticiran razred koji mi predajemo ovdje na Yaleu. Ali nama je to dobro, a ljudima u generaciji osnivača ne toliko. Nisu bili tako sigurni u to. To them the word “democracy” signaled a kind of government in which every single person participated personally, not a government based on representation. We’re talking mass politics, in the minds of most people in the founding generation just the definition of what chaos was.

So just listen to a sentence in one of the last letters written by Alexander Hamilton, 1804, the night before his duel with Aaron Burr. So he’s sort of speaking to posterity in case he should die and this is what he writes in this letter. “I will here express but one sentiment, which is that the dismemberment of our empire” — I love the fact that America’s an empire in 1804 — “will be a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages without any counterbalancing good, administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy.” U redu. Our real disease is democracy, Alexander Hamilton.

Now admittedly, Hamilton might not be the shining example of the point I’m trying to make here because he’s not exactly Mr. Democracy so you wouldn’t really expect him to be clapping his hands for it. But now listen to Thomas Jefferson, who maybe you would brand Mr. Democracy. So Jefferson in 1816 is chatting away with someone in a letter about what America’s trying to do and whether America’s actually achieving it, and he says, ‘Actually, democracy is pretty impractical.’ He can imagine it in a town but outside of one town it just won’t work again, really clear. Their sense of what that word means is really different from our sense of what that word means. Now Jefferson immediately goes on to add that democratical — a democratical but representative government is a good thing. Pravo? A democracy, not so much, but democratical, which is a great — In the eighteenth century they were always adding “ical” on to the end of things, which could end perfectly happily with a “c.” [laughs] This is a great eighteenth-century-sounding word, “democratical.” A democratical representative government is a good thing, but democracy not.

So the moral of this story is don’t fall in to what I call ‘democraspeak.’ Don’t write papers where you toss around terms like “democracy,” “liberty,” “freedom,” without really thinking about what you mean and what they meant. As Americans we’re used to tossing those words around, but to early Americans, if you think about it, to early American slave holders, words like “liberty,” other such words, have a much more complicated meaning.

Chapter 4. Freeman’s Tip Three: The Founders Were Human, Too [00:22:14]

So tip number two: Think about the meaning of words. Which brings us to tip number three: Remember that Founders were people. Now as I was writing this I thought oh, that’s another one of those things I don’t want to see in people’s notes: [laughs] Democracy is good, Founders are people. [laughs] Such a highfalutin’ course I’m teaching here. Again it sounds really obvious, but what I really mean here is we tend to forget this pretty simple fact.

We forget that the Founders were people. We assume that they were these all-knowing demigods who were sort of calmly walking their way through the creation of a new model nation. We kind of deify them. We put them up on this sort of — aah — founder mountaintop of American history, and it’s — really it’s easy to do. Sometimes just listening to their words or reading their words would inspire you to want to do that. Here is a random phrase. I thought what could I write here that would be sort of inspiring Founder talk and this was the one — two sentences that I came up with just because they always stick in my mind because they sound kind of amazing. This is actually Thomas Paine, Common Sense. In the middle of it he writes, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again. The birthday of a new world is at hand.”

U redu. That’s really — That’s inspiring stuff. That’s fine writing, but that’s inspiring talk and it’s supposed to be obviously because Paine’s trying to convince people that independence is a really good idea, but these kinds of words, this sort of glorious rhetoric, shouldn’t block out the simple fact that the Founders were people. They were regular human beings. They were well educated, they were thoughtful, they were sometimes well-meaning, they were sometimes hard-working, maybe sometimes not so much, they were people aiming high, they were people who did feel responsible to posterity, but still they were people.

And to me this is one of the really exciting things about history generally and about this time period specifically. We’re talking about people trying to figure things out. We’re talking about the most basic things about America — right? — its existence, [laughs] that it is a nation, that it has a constitution, and we’re looking at people trying to figure out how all that stuff is going to be created and how it’s going to work. These are people who are scared. These are people who make dumb mistakes on occasion. They’re figuring it out as they go.

The history of this period is a history of decisions of various kinds, and these were hard decisions and they were being made by people who did not know the answers. They’re making it up as they go along. I think that’s just fascinating when you just read their correspondence and get a sense of how much they’re really in the dark. There’s — Actually, when you read letters from the period, a lot of them say the same thing right when the government launches. I think George Washington and James Madison and a Pennsylvania senator almost say the exact same thing. It’s almost like they went in to a room and said, “So how will we express being scared at this moment? Aah, here’s a good sentence.” They all say basically, “I feel like I’m walking on hollow ground. I feel like the ground’s going to break beneath my feet.” They’ve just launched this Constitution and they all are sort of standing there on the national stage thinking, what if this all explodes? Do we actually know what we’re doing? That’s a really fascinating part of this period to me.

Now of course sometimes people did try to figure out the answers in a wonderful sort of Enlightenment way, and my favorite example of this is James Madison who prepared himself ultimately for the Constitutional Convention by studying all governments across all time. [laughs] Can you imagine? Well, I’d better go study all of government ever [laughter] to get ready for this convention, but he does. It’s a great sort of Enlightenment thing to do. He’s thinking I will now discover the eternal pattern of politics and he’s thinking if I can do that then I can reach for the best, I can avoid the worst, and whatever we’re going to do when we make a new government maybe we’re going to actually do something better than what’s come before. So there’s a logic to it as ambitious as it is there’s a logic. And he was serious about it so it wasn’t even just I wonder what happens if I read a lot about government. He actually was serious about it. He even made a kind of a little chart in which he listed the governments and then listed pros and cons. You know, like what did I think of Sparta? He’s sort of [laughter] amazing, across all time, so I love the fact that he did that Founder-like thing to do, but there you see a person, a really intellectually ambitious person, trying to figure things out like how do we know what to make? [laughs] What’s this constitution supposed to look like? How are we going to figure that out? U redu. I’ll just study all of government and let you know.

So when we talk about the American Revolution we’re talking about people and this course takes this idea really seriously. Part of what we’re going to be doing over the course of the semester is looking at the Revolution from the vantage point of participants, trying to see how people at the time understood the events unfolding around them. How did the colonists understand themselves as British subjects? How did they feel about the British empire or about the King or about Parliament? How did they come to put American-ness in the foreground? How did rebelling against their own country make sense?

And that’s something I think we also tend to forget about the Revolution. We think of it as our war it’s us against them and them equals the British, but of course we were the British. So it’s something that you don’t think about but people at the time, certainly in the 1790s, people referred to this as “the Civil War” because that’s what it was. It’s just not the way we happen to think about it because in our mind we’ve already traveled down the road and we’re already “us” but in their mind it was in a sense brother against brother it was us against us. So we’re going to try to keep that sort of thing in mind as we explore how the events of this time made sense at that time. And I will say here we are not going to forget about the British so we’re not going to have a patriot-centric course. The British have a logic to what they’re doing, whether they’re making policy or whether they’re fighting battles, and we will definitely look at the logic of what the British are doing as well as what the colonists are doing.

Now I will admit right here up front that I will be offering you a sampling of really arrogant British quotes about crude colonists, and I’m doing that partly because there’s just so many good, really arrogant quotes about [laughs] American colonists that I can’t resist sprinkling them through my lectures and I can’t resist that so much that I have two here that I just randomly added in because I have a reason to and so I will. But it’s just — it gives you a sense of how at least some of the British were thinking and looking at really these little upstarts on the margins of empire. So random arrogant British quote number one, and this is from a customs official: “American colonists are a most rude, depraved, degenerate race, and it is a mortification to us that they speak English and can trace themselves from that stock.” [laughter] Wow. [laughter] Just — Even English is a problem. That’s a statement.

U redu. Arrogant quote number two, and this one I picked just because it’s about George Washington, and it’s hard to imagine people saying something arrogant about George Washington who seems to be Mr. Symbol of Authority, but here’s another British official who met with George Washington and then wrote back home about what he thought. And he says, “Somehow, and I can’t imagine how, he’s learned the basics of how to behave in a court society.” It’s like, ‘ooh.’ [laughter] That must have been a really fun interview, too, if that’s the attitude this guy had. So there’ll be a sprinkling of that because at dramatic moments in the war there’s always someone who steps forward and offers that point of view.

That said, we are going to do justice to the British side of the dispute, to the logic behind the policy that they were making, because it’s not as though they make a bunch of dumb policies that make absolutely no sense and we’re righteously outraged and then there’s a war. Their policies made sense to them. They didn’t happen to always make sense to the colonists but they made sense to them, and the same thing goes with British battle plans which, looking back in the long view of time when we start talking about them, might seem a little goofy but there’s actually a lot of logic for what they were trying to do when they were attacking the colonies.

Oh, and I will also mention — I guess I probably don’t have time to talk about it now. When I was preparing this lecture, casting around, trying to figure out what will I put in the lecture, I don’t know how I came across it but I discovered the Battle of New Haven. Did anyone know about the Battle of New Haven? Because I did not know. And I know there’s hostilities around — and I don’t know if there’s Yale lore that of course you’re all sitting there saying, “Well, of course we all know about the Battle of New Haven,” [laughter] but I — [laughter] I’m the only one who doesn’t know about the Battle of New Haven, but it’s — actually it’s a good story. I’m not going to tell it now. I’m going to leave you in suspense. It will appear when we start getting in to the fighting of the Revolution, but let me just give you the sneak preview, which is it does involve the president [correction: a professor] of Yale College with a gun in his hand running to fight the British, so it’s [laughter] a Yale moment that we have, so I will talk about the Battle of New Haven.

U redu. So we aren’t going to be looking at a story of good guys versus bad guys. We will be reconstructing opposing points of view, trying to figure out how those points of view made sense and then obviously we’ll be able to step back and say, “What happens when you put those two opposing points of view in contact with each other?”

Chapter 5. Freeman’s Tip Four: The Other Revolutionaries [00:31:44]

So tip three: Founders are people. Which brings us to tip four: We’re not just talking about Founders. The Revolution was not just a quiet conversation between a bunch of guys wearing wigs and knee britches. Pravo? We sort of have this image that the Revolution is guys in short pants with wigs in a room doing this. [poses] No. [laughter] That’s the entire founding I think in our minds sort of. I’ll say that right. So that’s not the Revolution. Pravo? That’s not what happened. We’re talking about a revolution, a popular uprising by vast numbers of colonists fought on American ground by Americans of all kinds, and it meant different things to different kinds of people. This is not to say that the Founders aren’t important, far from it, and as you will gather very quickly in this course I love these guys. Pravo? I love talking about these guys, I love writing about these guys, so I’m certainly not saying, “Who cares about Founders?”

But what I am saying is that they’re not the only ones who mattered. They didn’t have their own revolution while everybody else watched. We’re talking about a popular revolution grounded on the ideas and actions of people throughout many different levels of society. Now somewhat conversely this brings us to John Adams. As I promised at the beginning, John Adams is coming and here’s John Adams. You’ll be hearing from him more than once this semester and actually you already heard from him once so I can promise that that’s true. This isn’t because I think that John Adams is the most important figure from the period. It’s not because I think that he’s always right. In fact, the reason I quote him a lot is he’s a brilliant, blunt, really direct commentator with — and this is all-important you almost need a drum roll here — he has a sense of humor. John Adams has a sense of humor. It’s not every day that you find a Founder with a sense of humor. [laughs] I can vouch. There aren’t a lot of chuckling Founders. Certainly on paper there’s not a lot of chuckling going on among the Founders. Probably in person there was, but on paper not a lot of them commit humor to paper and John Adams does. He’s even self-deprecating sometimes, which — Nobody wants to be self-deprecating on paper when they know that they’re going to be a Founder, but John Adams sometimes is, and I’m going to offer one little, tiny dumb example, the first thing that popped in to my mind when I thought, ‘well, what am I going to say to show John Adams’ sense of humor?’

So this is actually from that same series of letters in their old age when they’re writing back and forth to each other. So Adams is writing to Jefferson and he signs his letter with this: “John Adams in the eighty-ninth year of his age, too fat to last much longer,” [laughter] which is not typical Founder talk. [laughs] George Washington is not signing his letters that way but Adams commits that sort of stuff to paper. What that means is not only is he blunt, direct, and intelligent but he also even gets to be humorous as well. So in Adams we have this sort of cantankerous, sometimes bemused, more often irritated, occasionally self-aware, sometimes really not, stubborn, book-steeped, event-experiencing, action-taking tour guide. He’s not going to be there all the time. There are going to be long stretches of the course where we don’t find John Adams but he’s definitely going to make repeat appearances, and in the middle of the course he’ll even get to tell a really good story which he actually basically wrote down and said, “Let me tell you this story.” So that’s — As a historian, what’s better than historical characters doing exactly what you want them to do? ‘Here’s a cool story on the Revolution. You can quote it in your lecture courses.’ [laughter]

Oh, and this actually makes me think of another John Adams-related thing before I get to tip number five, which I will get to. Partly I’m curious about this and partly I want to mention something. How many of you saw the HBO mini-series on John Adams? Okay, a goodly number of you. I mention that for a specific reason. Now I will say I of course watched it and the period when it was airing was a really interesting period for me because as an eighteenth-century historian this may be the only time I’ve ever been culturally relevant to popular culture. [laughter] I was like: it’s my moment. Pravo? People are coming up to me and saying, “I’ve got a question about John Adams.” Wow. [laughter] This is great. So it was an interesting moment when people actually were thinking about John Adams, and I will say also I watched it with a few historians and we were prepared to throw popcorn at the screen and we ended up pretty much liking it and we were surprised. About halfway through we all looked at each other and said, “It’s actually pretty good.” So I don’t — I mean, of course there are always things that any kind of TV or movie production about history gets wrong, so I won’t say that there’s nothing wrong in it.

However, there is one thing that is wrong and I’m going to mention it because if you have pictures in your mind from the mini-series as you sit here in this course it could be a bad thing to think that they are accurate, and what I’m talking about is actually the — I think it’s the first episode. It is of course the first episode, and that’s the episode where the Revolution is beginning and you see people milling about sort of with fists. Pravo? That represents the Revolution. You see the beginning of the Revolution. The bizarre thing about the way that they depict it is apparently according to the producers of this mini-series, if there was something happening in the early stages of the Revolution, John Adams apparently was there. Boy, they’re shooting at Lexington and Concord. Adams races across the countryside [laughter] to get to Lexington and Concord. Boston Massacre — John Adams staring at the — [laughter] Well, the idea is really that John Adams somehow is never off his horse, riding around Massachusetts trying to be an eyewitness to every [laughter] historical event. Now I understand that probably the people who made this thought: how the heck are we going to communicate Boston Massacre, Lexington and Concord? This is a film about Adams and we can’t say, “Put Adams over here while we now turn to random people on a field shooting.” [laughter] So I understand narrative-wise why they needed to do this, but Adams was not at every historical event [laughs] in the Revolutionary War. He was at many and he definitely had an insider’s view of the Boston Massacre, but he was not everywhere in Massachusetts.

Chapter 6. Freeman’s Tip Five and Conclusion [00:37:48]

U redu. That oddly enough brings me to tip number five in the Freeman Guide, and tip number five is: remember contingency. Again, an obvious thing but something we don’t think about. People at the time didn’t know what was going to happen, so Adams could not race to places where he didn’t know the things that happened yet: “Something might be happening at Lexington.” People didn’t know what was going to happen.

Think for a moment about all of the things that we assume about the Revolution. We assume that the colonists were right and that the British were wrong. We assume that a Revolution was inevitable. We assume that there was broad agreement at any one time about what should be done. Pravo? Of course we need to declare independence. Of course the colonists are going to win the war. Of course there should be a national union. Those are all the sorts of things that I think we do assume and that’s a lot of assumptions that’s a lot of “of courses,” but in fact it’s important to remember that people didn’t know what was going to happen.

You really need to allow for contingency because literally what they assumed was: anything can happen. Anything can happen. Again one of the things that I love about this time period is that the emotions are so heightened. If you’re in an atmosphere where everything’s up in the air and you’re in the middle of a revolution or you’re trying to create a government and you literally don’t know what’s coming next and anything can happen, ‘maybe I’ll get hanged by the king, maybe I’ll get shot going home, maybe America will hate the Constitution so much they will throw rocks at my head.’ I mean, I don’t know what they were thinking — ‘maybe the Constitution will last four days and then collapse.’ Whatever they’re thinking, the fact is because they literally think anything can happen, anything could fall apart at any second, the emotions are really raised and it’s why a lot of the rhetoric in this period is so extreme. It’s not that these guys are trying to be dramatic. They actually are dramatic they’re feeling that this is a dramatic kind of a moment, and I don’t think you get that sense, I don’t think you get that idea unless you remind yourself about contingency, about the fact that there are no predetermined outcomes and that anything can happen. I think particularly when you’re studying a revolution it’s really important to remember contingency, and we will discover what contingency means in this time period over the course of the semester. And I will end there. I will see many of you perhaps on Thursday. I will probably know next week better about the reality of when we’ll be meeting for discussion sections.


American Revolution: One Word - HISTORY

Članci Konfederacije - An agreement between the thirteen colonies to form a single government under the United States of America. It served as the country's first constitution.

Bayonet - A blade attached to the end of a musket.

Povelja o pravima - The first ten amendments to the Constitution that guaranteed the rights of the individual.

Colony - An area of land that is under the control of a country, but not fully part of the country.

Konfederacija - The group of thirteen states that united together.

Ustav - A set of documents and laws that define the government of a country.

Continental Congress - A group of delegates from each colony or state. It became the first governing body of the United States of America.

Continental army - The official army of the United States that was established by the Continental Congress.

Declaration of Independence - A document which announced that the American colonies now considered themselves independent states and they would no longer answer to the authority of Great Britain.

Democracy - A type of government that is ruled directly by the people.

Federalist - A person who supported the adoption of the Constitution.

Garnizon - A military force that is set to defend a fort or city.

Haversack - A type of bag or pack that soldiers used to carry their food.

Hessi - Soldiers from the German land of Hesse who came to fight in America.

Legislature - A branch of government that has the power to make laws.

Loyalist - A person in America who stayed loyal to Britain and the king.

Militia - Citizens who were prepared to fight. They held drills a few times a year and had their own weapons and gear.

Minutemen - Part of the Massachusetts militia that was prepared to fight at a moment's notice.

Monarchy - A government where the power and laws are made by a single person called a monarch or king.

Musket - A smooth bore gun with a long barrel that fired lead balls.

Parlament - The main governing body of the British government.

Domoljub - An American that wanted independence from Britain.

Powder horn - A hollowed out horn with a cap used to carry gunpowder.

Ramrod - A long thin rod that pushed gunpowder down the barrel of a musket.

Redcoat - A nickname for the British soldiers taken from their bright red uniforms. They were also called lobster backs.

Regulars - A name that referred to British soldiers during the Revolutionary War.

Republic - A type of democratic government where people elect officials to represent them.

Revolution - The overthrow of a government to establish a new system.

Sons of Liberty - A group of patriots organized by Samuel Adams to protest the Stamp Act and other actions of the British government.

Zakon o pečatu - A tax placed on the American colonies by the British government. It taxed all sorts of paper documents including newspapers, magazines, and legal documents.

Tory - Another name for loyalists who supported the British government.

Treaty of Paris - A treaty signed by both the United States and Britain that ended the Revolutionary War.

Volley - When a large number of muskets is fired at once.

Whigs - Another name for the patriots who fought against the British government for independence.


Era of the American Revolution, 1763-1815

When British colonists in North America declared themselves independent from the British Crown in 1776, they affected the most successful revolution in modern history. To this day, historians continue to try to make sense of their actions. In this hands-on, project-based course we will use digital tools and sources to conduct research on primary sources, analyze and interpret our findings, and communicate our results. Shepherd University students will use digital aproaches to analyze and interpret primary source material documenting the American Revolution in Maryland. They will hear lectures, engage in discussions, and participate on group projects in this innovative digital history class.

The course moves chronologically and thematically through life and events in America from 1763 to 1815. We will explore the question of political mobilization, focusing on the period from the Stamp Act crisis in March 1765 through the declaration of American independence in July 1776. Text mining writings of the period will help us better appreciate the importance of the spoken and written word to revolutionary upheaval. Digital mapping will help us explore on the ground a war that offered the promise of new opportunities for freedom, as well as the subsequent ways the creation of a new political order did not come easily. Finally, we will turn to the consequences of the Revolution, at home and abroad, by digitally reconstructing the losses sustained by a few of the 100,000 Loyalists who fled the new United States.


The American Revolution Essay

The American Revolution was the war between the British Crown and American colonies, which led to the formation of the independent United States. The American Revolution was an attempt to rewrite the norms of a daily life and to break away from monarchial system that guided both personal and political behavior. The beginning of the American Revolution can be traced back to the 1763 when the British Government began to reassert control over its American colonies. During this period, the British government was fighting to protect its colonies from its French and Native enemies.

We will write a custom Essay on The American Revolution specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page

301 certified writers online

As a result, British Government Pursued policies of the kind embodied in the proclamation of the 1763 and the Quebec act that gave Quebec the right to many Indian lands claimed by the American colonists to ensure future domestic tranquility (Sidney 54). Besides the Quebec act, The British Government also began to institute new taxes and enforce old ones in order to pay for its wartime expenses.

Many colonists opposed the new policies implemented by the British government as they felt that the British government was taking away their right and powers. This paper seeks to discuss the key rights and powers that the American believed were being taken way by the British Crown. The paper will also provide the evidences the colonist had to support their beliefs.


Facts and Printables About the American Revolution

On April 18, 1775, Paul Revere rode horseback from Boston to Lexington and Concord shouting the warning that the British soldiers were coming.

The Minutemen were trained as Patriot soldiers and were prepared for the announcement. Captain John Parker was firm with his men."Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

The British soldiers approached Lexington on April 19 to seize ammunition but were met with 77 armed Minutemen. They exchanged gunfire and the Revolutionary War had begun. The first gunshot is referred to as the "shot heard 'round the world."

There was no single event that caused the war, but rather a series of events that led to the American Revolution.

The war was the culmination of years of discontent about the way the American colonies were treated by the British government.

Not all colonists were in favor of declaring independence from Great Britain. Those opposed were referred to as Loyalists or Tories. Those in favor of independence were called Patriots or Whigs.

One of the major events leading up to the American Revolution was the Boston Massacre. Five colonists were killed in the skirmish. John Adams, who would go on to become the 2nd President of the United States, was a lawyer in Boston at the time. He represented the British soldiers charged with firing the shots.

Other famous Americans associated with the Revolutionary War include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin.

The American Revolution would last 7 years and cost the lives of over 4,000 colonists.


Impact of the American Revolution on world history

The American Revolution had a major impact on world history. The British and American colonies were a major contributor to the American Revolution. The Americans fighting for independence definitely caused an interest from Europe’s most powerful colonials in charge. This type of conflict was a determine fate of some North American colonies, but also balance some colonial powers throughout the world. Some colonies were not satisfied with the British, and Europeans connection to the American Revolution came at the end of a century filled with rivalry.
The American Revolution was only the beginning in the transformation of the American social life. John Adams was right in 1776 when he claimed that members of the Continental Congress were in favor of modifying rather than destroying political institutions (Reich p.289). A series of actions made by the British pushed the colonists over and towards independence. The war made some people feel like they had a role in society while others like the slaves seen no change.
The American Revolution had many causes with long term social, economic and political changes in the colonies. There were many conflicts between government and the colonists that began with the Stamp Act in 1765 and then an outbreak with the war in 1775 and the Declaration of Independence.
The American Revolution had a few

Secondly, American independence signified the creation of a new nation-state and a new player on the world political/economic scene. With its history of European ties, an independent America was sure to become a key political and economic player in European affairs. As the United States grew in the following centuries, its importance to Europe also grew. Today, the United States is one of Europe’s greatest economic and political allies.

Je li to pitanje koje ste tražili? Ako je tako, naručite ovdje započeti!


How Did the American Revolution Change America?

The American Revolution changed America, because it led to the establishment of an independent nation. In addition, after the American Revolution began, several important documents were drafted, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These documents outlined Constitutional rights and laid the foundation for a democratic government. The US was also able to establish its own laws and regulations after the American Revolution.

After the first American colonies were established, Britain began to impose strict taxes and regulations on colonists. Growing discontent led to the Revolutionary War, which resulted in America gaining independence. Although taxation without representation was a major cause of the American Revolution, many colonists fought for religious freedom and constitutional rights.

The American Revolution produced a new outlook among colonists. Since the nation had won independence, certain groups began to fight for individual independence. For example, after the Revolution, the Abolitionist Movement began, and people organized to protest slavery.

The Revolution also impacted the way the government was established. To avoid the type of control exerted by Britain, a democratic government was created with the intention of limiting the government's size and powers. The sentiments of the American Revolution are still evident today. Individuals continue to question the extent of governmental control and constitutional rights.


Gledaj video: SUD DONEO PRESUDU - GEJTS, SOROŠ I ROKFELER KRIVI ZA KORONU? (Kolovoz 2022).