MerriII lensen
Radicals ys.Conservatives
The American Revolutionwas far more than a war betweenthe colonies
and Great Britain; it wasalsoa strugglebetweenthosewho enjoyedpolitical
privilegesand thosewho did not. Yet the conclusionswhich may be drawn
from the history of socialconflict within the coloniesand applied to such
mattersof mutual concernas the writing of a common constiiutionare seldom drawn and applied.Ordinarily the Revolutionis treatedas the end of
one ageand the beginningof another;a new countrywasborn; political parties spranginto being; political leaders,full of wisdom learnedduring the
Revolution,soughtto savethe new nation from the resultsof ignoranceand
inexperience.
So runs the story.
But the storyis true only in an externalsense.The basicsocialforcesin
coloniallife were not eliminatedby the Declarationof Independence.
There
wasno breakin the underlyingconflictbetweenparty and party representing
fundamentaldivisionsin Americansociety.Thosedivisionshad their rootsin
the veryfoundationof the colonies,and by the middle of the eighteenthcentury there had arisenbroadsocialgroupingsbasedon economicand political
conditions.More and more, wealth and political power were concentrated
along the coast,in the handsof plantersin the South and of merchantsin
the North. There were exceptions,of course,but by and large the colonial
governmentswere in the hands of the economicupper classes.
Exceedingly
consciousof its local rights, the ruling aristocracywas willing to use democraticargumentsto defeatthe centralizingpoliciesof Great Britain,but it had
no intention of widening the baseof political power within the coloniesto
accordwith the conclusionswhich could be, and were, drawn from those
From Menill /ensen, The Articles of Confederation. Copyright @ 1959, by The Regents
of the University of Wisconsin. Reprinted by permissionof the University of Wisconsin
Press.
72
arguments.On the co
numberof politicalnr
the coast,as the fronl
character,and as the 1
'
the ownersof propert
position"-that is, pol
programsof debtor ag
government,thev grad
property qualificatior
to th
disproportionate
the
and
for
suffrage
ol
the political ambition
clenialof proportiona
growingWest from c:
and primogenitureim
that Thomas fefferso
"l
the privilegesof an
But the econom
had not alwavsbeen
ginia and Man'land o
vote. The first serious
fragecame with the I
the significantacts ol
propertyqualificationr
poorerelementss?s s
coloniesby the end of
an integral part of th
tendencywasin the di
blies continuedto refx
the middle of the cent
economicand politid
legal means.This poli
demands,and n'hen s
lent outburst, it nas fr
of consti
characteristic
Oppositionto th
from the agrarianand
the colonial popuhtro
from their ranksnertrl
of the support for rerr
people,althougha srrr
largepropertyowners
-were dependenton
and socially.Agrarianr
vs.Conservatives73
Radicals
arguments.On the contrary,it had kept itself in power through the use of a
,r,imber of political weapons.As wealth accumulatedand concentratedalong
the coast,ai the frontier moved westwardand becamedebtor and alien in
character,and as the propertylesselement in the colonial towns grew larget,
"a
the ownersof propertydemanded political interpretationof their favored
economic
position"-that is, political supremacy-asa protectionagainst_the
ptogtr*r of debtor agrariansand the town poor. Encouragedby the British
they demandedgou.r.r*.nt, they graduallysecuredthe political safeguards
representation
and
in
government
for
participation
qualifications
property
qualifications
of
property
The
imposition
numbers.
to
their
dirpropottionate
quelled
for
office-effectively
qualifications
higher
even
and
of
foittte suffrage
the
and
population,
the
town
of
part
greater
of
the
the political ambitions
the
areas
prevented
newly
settled
the
to
clenialof proportionalrepresentation
of
entail
Laws
governments.
colonial
control
of
growingWest from capturing
and primogenitureinsuredthe economicbasisof colonialsociety,so much so
that Thomasfefiersonbelievedthat their abolition in Virginia would annul
"aristocracyof wealth."
the privilegesof an
aristocracy
which feffersonhoped to abolish
But the economic-political
of the American colonies.In early Virhad not alwaysbeen characteristic
ginia and Maryland everyfree man, whetherholding propertyor not, could
vote.The first seriousattempt to imposea propertyqualificationfor the suffragecamewith the Restorationand it met with bitter opposition.One of
the significantacts of Bacon'sAssemblyin 1676was the abolition of the
ptopetly qualificationimposedby the Berkeleyregirne.But the victory of the
pooterelementswas short-livedat best,and in Virginia, as elsewherein the
iolonies by the end of the seventeenthcentury,the propertyqualificationwas
an integralpart of the political system.During the eighteenthcentury the
and colonialassemtendencywasin the directionof everhigherqualifications,
West. By
the
expanding
to
representation
adequate
refuse
to
blies continued
wielded
population
the
colonial
minority
of
a
small
the middle of the century
by any
from
them
be
taken
not
could
which
economicand political powers
popular
the
most
of
ignore
to
able
oligarchy
was
Iegalmeans.This political
flare up in a viodemands,and when smolderingdiscontentdid occasionally
a
decreasingly
was
Thus democracy
lent outburst,it was forcibly suppressed.
colonies.
American
of' constitutionaldevelopmentin the
characteristic
Oppositionto the oligarchicalrule of the plantersand merchantscame
from the agrarianand proletarianelementswhich formedthe vastmaiorityof
the colonial population.Probablymost of them were politically inert, but
camesomeof the effectiveleadershipand much
from their ranksnevertheless
of the supportfor revolutionaryactivity after 1763.In the towns the poorer
people,althougha smallpart of the colonialpopulation,far outnumberedthe
Most of them-laborers,artisans,and small tradesmen
irtge property-owners.
-*.t.
on the wealthy merchants,who ruled them economically
d-ependent
and socially.Agrariandiscontent,too, wasthe product of local developments:
74
The AmericanRevolution
of exploitation by land speculators,"taxation without representation,"and the
denial of political privileges, economic benefits, and military assistance.The
farmer's desire for internal revolution had already been violently expressedin
Bacon's Rebellion and in the Regulator Movement, events widely separated
in time but similar in causeand consequence.
To a large extent, then, the party of colonial radicalism was composed
of the massesin the towns and on the frontier. In Charleston, Philadelphia,
New York, and Boston the radical parties were the foundation of the revolutionary movement in their towns and colonies.l It was they who provided the
organization for uniting the dispersedfarming population, which had not the
means of organizing,but which was more than ready to act and which became
the bulwark of the Revolution once it had started. Located at the center of
things, the town radicals were able to seize upon issuesas they arose and to
spreadpropagandaby means of circular letters, committees of correspondence,
and provincial congresses.They brought to a focus forces that would otherwise have spent themselves in sporadic outbursts easily suppressedby the
establishedorder.
Colonial radicalism did not become effective until after the French and
Indian War. Then, fostered by economic depressionand aided by the bungling policy of Great Britain and the desire of the local governing classesfor
independencewithin the empire, it became united in an effort to throw off its
local and international bonds. The discontented were given an opportunity to
exPresstheir discontent when the British government began to enforce restrictions upon the colonies after 1767. The colonial merchants used popular
demonstrations to give point to their more orderly protests against such
measuresas the Stamp Act, and it was only a step from such riots, incited and
controlled by the merchants, to the organization of radical parties bent on the
redressof local grievanceswhich were of far more concern to the massesthan
the more remote and lessobvious effects of British policy. Furthermore, there
arose,in each of the colonies,leadersof more than ordinary ability, men who
were able to create issueswhen none were furnished by Great Britain, and
r The terms "radical"and "conservative"
in this discussion
are not synonymous
with
"revolutionist"and ''loyalist."_
That they are not interchangeable
is o'bviotisfrom the
easilydemonstrable
fact that therewerein internalcolonialfotitics radicalswho became
loyalists,
andconservatives
who becamerevolutionists.
of the Revolutionis too oftenconfused
by the insistence
that all
. The interpretation
revolutionists
wereradicals.
Pro_bably
mostradicalswererevolutionists,
but a largenumber
of revolutionistswere not radicals.The conservatives
were those who-wh6ther they
desired independenss61 nof-wanted to maintain the aristocraticorder in the American
colonies and states.The radicals were those who wanted changesin the existing order,
changcswhiclr can be best describedas democratic,though the t-ermis necessarily
ielative.
By.and large-themajority of the colonial aristocrarywas opposedto independence.
_..
This attitude was due partly to training, paitly to self-interbst,and partlv-increasingly after
1774-to the fear that independencewould result in an internal?evoiution.The iadicals,
on the other hand, shifted from mere opposition to British measuresto a demand for
independenceas they.c3me-to-realizethaf only independencewould make possiblethe
internal revblution which radicalisinin the colonieshad come more and more to demand.
who seized on Bntrsh
aristocracy-too stronl
-under the guise oi a
tools at first, thc mas
became as much a sz
dence.
The Amerrcan R
the colonies,for the fr
was of brief duratrr.rn-|
cratic ideals and ttreori
American states. Ful6
in some states the cq
it. And once indeprri
ing, so far as thet cl
resulted from the rfl
democratization \ras I
participation of tlr rr
important, for thcr e
government s'as estctr
the radicals s'ho e'rcn
Articles of Confcdcrt
of the consenatrre rd
The consenatn(
be the result oi contu
they were not agrced
"nrlt
and the po\\'er to
to tighten the bondr I
to consolidatethe pu
Other consen"tt\ea, I
authoritv ovcr thc cd
country; what thcr da
the British Enrprre. C
it was fraught s rth d
thesb men bccanre lt
from the peoplc of th
and more for reconcrl
intention to enforct I
unavoidable error o{
They made thenrselrt
sist with arms thc Bri
When indcpend
forced to choose bct
"Toriesr" or "Lorald
own creation, fearfull'
Radicalsvs. Conservatives 75
who seized on British acts as heaven-sentopportunities to attack the local
aristocracy-too strongly entrenched to be overthrown on purely local issues
-under ihe guise of a patriotic defense of American liberties. Thus, used as
tools at first,1h. *mres were soon united under capable leadership in what
became as much a war against the colonial aristocracyas a war for independence.
The American Revolution thus marks the ascendancyof the radicals of
the colonies,for the first time effectively united. True, this radical ascendancy
was of brief duration, but while it lasted an attempt was made to write democratic idealsand theories of government into the laws and constitutions of the
American states. Fulfillment was not complete, for the past was strong and
in some states the conservativesretained their power and even strengthened
it. And once independence was won, the conservativessoon united in undoing, so far as thry could, such political and economic democracy as had
from the war. Nevertheless it is significant that the attempt at
r.*lt.d
democratization was made and that it was born of colonial conditions. The
participation of the radicals in the creation of a common government is alli*portart, for they as well as the conservativesbelieved that a centralized
gou.r.r-.nt was essentialto the maintenance of conservativerule. Naturally
lhe radicals who exercisedso much power in 1776 refused to set up in the
Articles of Confederation a government which would guarantee the position
of the conservativeinterests they sought to remove from Power.
The conservativesgradually became aware that internal revolution might
be the result of continued disputesbetween themselvesand Great Britain, but
"home rule"
they were not agreed on the measuresnecessaryto retain both
"rule
at home." Some of them, like foseph Galloway, sought
and the power to
to tighten the bonds between the colonies and the mother country and thus
to consolidatethe power and bulwark the position of the colonial aristocracv.
Other conservatives,like fohn Dickinson, denied that Parliament had any
authority over the colonies and cared little for a close tie with the mother
country; what they demanded was a status that was in effect home rule within
the British Empire. Complete independencewas to be avoided if possible,for
it was fraught with the danger of social revolution within the colonies. As
thesb -..r L..rme aware that conservativerule had as much or more to fear
from the people of the colonies as from British restrictions, they sought more
and more-foireconciliation with the mother country, in spite of her obvious
intention to enforce her laws by means of arms. But they made the fatal yet
unavoidable error of uniting with the radicals in meeting force with force.
They made themselvesbelieve that it was neither traitorous nor illegal to resist with arms the British measuresthey disliked.
When independencecould no longer be delayed,the conservativeswere
forced to choose between England and the United States. Some became
"Tories," or "Loyalists." Others, the victims of circumstancespartly of their
own creation, fearfully and reluctantly became revolutionists. But in so doing
76
The AmeficanRevolution
they did not throw awaytheir idealsof government.They were too cool, too
well versedin checkmatingradicalismand in administeringgovernmentsin
their own interest,to be misledby the democraticpropaganda-of
the radicals.
Not even fohn Adams, one of the few conservatives
who worked for independence,was willing to stomachthe ideasof Tom Painewherr it came to
the taskof forming governments
within the Americancolonies.
The continuedpresence
of groupsof conservatives
in all the states,weakenedthough they wereby the Revolution,is of profound importancein the
constitutionalhistoryof the United States.They appearedin strengthin the
first ContinentalCongress.In it their ideasand desireswere expresied.They
werestill powe{ui at the beginningof the secondContinentalCongtess,bui
graduallytheir hold wasweakenedby the growingrevolutionarymovementin
the variousstates.They werestrongenough,however,to obstructthe radical
in 1776until
Programduring 1775andto delaya declarationof independence
long after the radicalsbelievedthat independence
wasan accomplishedfact.
In the bitter controversies
which occurredthe conservatives
statedtheir ideas
of government.In its simplestform their objectionto independence
was that
it involved internal revolution.When forced to acceptindependence,
th6y
demandedthe creationof a centralgovernmentwhich would be a bulwart
againstinternal revolution,which would aid the merchant classes,which
would control Western lands,which would, in short,be a "national" government. In this they were opposedby the radicals,who createda "federal"
governmentin the Articlesof Confederationand who resistedthe effortsof
the conservatives
to shapethe characterof thoseArticleswhile they were in
processof writing and ratification.
It is againstsuch a backgroundof internal conflict that the Articles of
Confederationmust be considered.
Naturally any statementof the issuesor
principlesof the Revolution,howeverbroad the terminology,is likely to be
misleading,for, as fohn Adamswrote, "the principlesof the AmericanRevolution may be said to have been as variousas the thirteen statesthat went
through it, and in some sensealmost as diversifiedas the individualswho
acted in it." There are inconsistencies
and contradictionsthat cannot be
forced into a logical pattern. Generalizations
must thereforebe understood
as statementsof tendenciesand of presumedpredominancerather than as
unexceptionable
statementsof fact. Thus when the Revolutionis interpreted
in the following pagesas predominantlyan internal revolutioncarriedon by
the masses
of the peopleagainstthe local aristocracy,
it is not without recognition of the fact that there were aristocraticrevolutionistsand proletarian
loyalists;that probablythe majorityof the peopleweremore or lesslndifferent
to what wastaking place;and that British policy after 1767drovemany conservatives
into a war for independence.
Any interpretationof the AmericanRevolutionis subiectto such qualifications,discomfortingas it is to thosewho want complexitiesreducedto
simpleformulas.Any collectionof factsmust, however,be groupedarounda
thcxDc.ud prrdl
tbc.lmm
ncrnl
rtend ba ttc orl
thc rrtrel rtt,
ff
sJ rttnder hI
In rpfr d rLt
lutron 15 ewrrif
thrrtca frnd
strtutprpl hty
dt
pohtrczl end onrd
(bnfcdcrrtril
E
I
embodrmt r gr{
lndcpcndcoca
I
Thc Im:rrd H
.lhe
trtrckr "a C-a{
ieadcnhrpes e dl
\ ezlrsbefore thc fG{
thcl rorcEdrbc thc massesrn tte !
oi the stetesrc L1
force conoqsrnr.fl
nan'gorcmm
o{
\\lren rt c|
states,the ndnb {
Erperience hd t{I
fear the conccoq
phv taught thlt gsq
undemocrattcm rfl
of uncheckedpdt{
revolutionan'lctderr I
into an internatd
t
guidedand controlldl
fore, to turn to thc f
explanationof thc I
regarding the rs.-ohi
produced.
Pennsvlranraol
upon which the cq
ony were the racntpd
ruling classso oppor
political revolution ro
Radicals
vs.Conservatives77
theme,and particularlyis this true of a movementhavingso many aspectsas
the AmericanRevolution.Suchgroupingis unavoidableif one seeksto understand how the courseof events,how the courseof socialrevolutionwithin
the severalstates,often playeda far more important role in determiningpolitical attitudesthan did the more remotedangersof British policy.
In spite of the paradoxesinvolvedone may still maintain that the Revothough relatively,a democraticmovementwithin the
lution was essentially,
for the politicaland conthirteenAmericancolonies,and that its significance
stitutional history of the United Stateslay in its tendencyto elevatethe
political and economicstatusof the majority of the people.The Articles of
Confederationwere the constitutionalexpression
of this movementand the
embodimentin governmentalform of the philosophyof the Declarationof
Independence.
The Internal Revolution
The Articlesof Confederationwere written by men many of whom roseto
local political battlesfought in the
leadershipas a result of the tempestuous
yearsbeforethe Revolution.Most of thesenew leadersgainedpower because
they voicedthe animositiesand thus won the supportof the discontentedthe massesin the towns and the farmersof the back country-, who in most
of the stateswon the right to expressthemselvespolitically, or were able to
force concessions
where the conservativeelement remainedin control of the
new governmentscreated.
When it came to the formation of a common governmentfor all the
states,the radicalswere guidedby experienceand by certainpolitical ideas.
Experiencehad taught them to dislike the colonialgoverningclasses
and to
fear the concentrationof wealth and political power.Their political philosophy taught that governmentsexercisingpower over wide areaswere inherently
undemocraticin action.This distrustof the concentrationand centralization
of uncheckedpolitical authority was deepenedby the fact that most of the
local leaderswhom necessity
had forced
revolutionaryleaderswereessentially
into an internationalmovementfor independence
but who continuedto be
guidedand controlledby the exigencies
of local politics.It is necessary,
therefore, to turn to the revolutionaryhistory of the individual coloniesfor an
explanationof the many exceptionsone must make to any generalizations
regardingthe revolutionarymovementas a whole and the constitution it
produced.
Pennsylvania offers the clearest illustration of some of the basic issues
upon which the course of the American Revolution turned. In no other colony were the racial-political-economiclines so sharply drawn, nowhere was the
ruling class so opposed to change or to concession,and nowhere was the
political revolution so complete in 1776.
78
The AmericanRevolution
As the colonyhad grownin wealthand population,political control had
beenretainedby the three old countiesof Philadelphia,Bucks,and Chester,
and the city of Philadelphia.By the middle of the century an oligarchyof
Quakermerchantsand lawyerswas dictating most of the policiesof government. Their instrument was the colonial assembly,.
control of which they
retainedby denyingrepresentation
to the ever-growing
west.Even when new
countieswere created,they were madeso vast in extent and were allotted so
few representatives
in the Assemblythat the rule of the eastwas never endangered.In the eastitself the masseswere preventedfrom threateningoligarchicalrule by suffragelawswhich excludedall but a small minority of the
population.The right to vote was contingentupon the possession
of fifty
poundsin personalpropertyor a freehold.Neither waseasyto secure,at least
in the east.In Philadelphiain 1775 only 1-75of 3,412taxable males had
estateslargeenoughto give them the vote.
Opposition to the oligarchywas centeredin the Susquehanna
\zalley
and in the city of Philadelphia.The Susquehanna
Valley, peopledlargelyby
Scotch-Irishand Germans,wasseparated
from the eastby geography,
by economic interest,by race,and by religion. Its natural market was the city of
Baltimore,which veryearlyimprovedroadsto attractthe tradeof its northern
neighbors,while the Pennsylvania
Assemblyrefusedto build roadsor in any
way to tie the westto the east.
Aside from racial and religiousanimosities,the grievances
of the west
againstthe eastwere very specific.It carrieda burden of taxation without
adequaterepresentation,
which in 1771,when an excisetax on hard liquor was
instituted,wasopposedin a mannerpropheticof the later Whiskey Rebellion.
The Presbyterian
Scotch-Irishweredrivento desperation
by the refusalof the
war with the Indians.
QuakerAssemblyto aid them in their ever-continuing
The Proclamationline of 1763,which threatenedto dispossess
many westerners of landsalreadysettled,wasblamedon the Quakers.The pacifismof the
them of beingmoved
Quakermerchantsenragedfrontiersmen,who suspected
moreby a desireto maintainthe fur tradethan by humanitarianconcernover
the fate of the Indians.
The westernfarmer could meet the easternmerchanton terms of approximateequality only if he could secureadequaterepresentationin the
Assembly.This too was the demandof the populaceof Philadelphia,where
governmentwas in the hands of the samewealthy classas controlled the
colony.The sources
of urbandiscontentwereevenmore immediatethan those
of the west.All throughthe centurythe merchantshad tried by variousmeans
to overthrowthe systemof marketsand auctionsin order to get a monopoly
of the retail trade.Finally, in 1771,they deviseda schemewhich led to the
urost startlingoutburst of popular feeling that occurredbefore the Revolution. They agreedamong themselvesto buy from none but venduemasters
who would agreeto sell in largequantities.It was obviousthat to continue
in busi,ness
the venduemasterswould have to meet the demandsof the big
merchants. It rvas eq
large quantities and
had long shou'n a drs
'l'he
me
retail prices.
peddlers. Fishing rt
which the poor fclt t
it was natural that
attacked bv the nres!
The attenrpt of
from a proprictan tl
terians in both c?st I
Penn familv, thcr kn
place them entrreh l
inson led the proprE
who, oddlv enougtr.
agent of the oligarch
forces in the Pcnnsr
British pohcr t
Pennsylvania..\s rn
opposedto anv actr
or interfering s'rth tl
support of their rrgb
unrepresented claisc
garchy began to rcrl
anvil. This bccanre
developed q'herern t
sentation no longer I
a dominance in the r
they had had orer th
to meet and to rc-fus
gram and enabled th
fusing either to lcad
-6"
power in f une. I
write the most derrro
The conscnatn
son, and others. op1
wrecked the governm
tive in fighting the I
consideredsatisfacto
criticized as the \r'or
"checks
a system of
thin disguisefor thei
made some political
democratic governnx
vs.Conservatives79
Radicals
in
merchants.It was equallyobviousthat the poor could not afford to buy
from the merchants,who
largequantitiesand *ouid thus be forced to buy"reasonable"
profit in fixing
than
more
a
to
take
hrl to"g showna disposition
of wandering
activity
the
to
check
tried
likewise
retail prT..r. The meichants
a measure
restricted,
were
rivers
navigable
peddlers.Fishing rights in the
events
of
such
face
In
the
them.
at
directly
*t i.tt the poor f=ettto be aimed
bitterly
be
should
merchants
the
of
it was natural that the lawyer-agents
of the population.
attackedby the masses
The attempt of the Quakerelementin the eastto convertPennsylvania
from a proprietaryinto . .to*n colony was fought bitterly by the Presbyteriansi" U-ottteait and west.Though they had none too greata love for the
Penn family, they knew full well that the creationof a crown colony would
placethem entirelyat the mercyof the oligarchy.In this strugglefohn Dickir,ron led the proprietaryparty,which had the supportof the west.Franklin,
who, oddly ..rough, hai sinceacquireda reputationas a democrat,was the
agentof the oligarchyin England.A future loyalist,fosephGalloway,led its
Assembly.
forcesin the Pennsylvania
at
once the occasionand the excusefor action in
was
policy
British
colonies,the propertiedclasseswere strongly
other
in
the
As
Pennsylvania.
infringing_upon their local independence
Parliament
of
oppor.d to any acts
But the argumentsthey advancedin
trade.
of
oi lnterfering with the profits
weaponthat cut in favor of the
a
double-edged
supportof tf,eir rights were
By 1755 the oliself-government.
colonial
as
,rr,rfpr.r.nted clasiesas well
and the
hammer
the
between
caught
grt.hy began to realizethat it was
was
organization
revolutionary
a
anvil.-Thi becameincreasinglyclear as
reprecounty
and
franchise
developedwherein the old restrictionson the
gavethe west
sentationno longer
-theheld. The creationof a provincialcongress
colony and deprivedthe three old countiesof the hold
a clominancein
they had had overthe majorityof the others.Yet the old Assemblycontinued
that would haveweakenedthe radicalproto meet and to refuseconcessions
gram and enabledthe Assemblyto assumethe leadershipitself._By thus reiusing either to lead or to guide, the conservativeparty was thrown from
po*.i in fune, 1776.The radicalparty,temoorarilyunhampered,wasable to
write the most democraticconstitutionany Americanstatehas everhad.
led by famesWilson, Robert Morris, fohn DickinThe conservatives,
the new order so bitterly that they very nearly
opposed
son, and others,
of
wreckedthe government the stateand did in fact renderit largelyineffective in fighting the Revolution.The unicamerallegislature,which they had
so long as it had been in their own control, they now
consideredsatisfactory
criticizedas the *orti of all possibleforms of government.Their proposalof
"checksand balances"as the remedyfor all
ills was a
a systemof
P_olitical
they had
1779
By
state.
of
the
thin disguisefor their desireto regaincontrol
of a
control
their
minority
made rJ*. political gains,but sincethey were a
be
to
this
Recognizing
democraticgovern*etrt was bound to be precarious.
80
The AmericanRevolution
"nationalism"in
so,they turned moreand more to
the hope of gainingpower
and protection in another political sphere.They becamemore and more
insistentupon the creationof a "national" government.Their programinvolvedstrengtheningthe Articlesof Confederation,
but when this failed they
participated in a conservativepolitical revolution which ignored the legal
methodsof constitutionalchangeand createda governmentin harmonywith
conservativeideasand experience.. . .
The calling of the first a"",r"*td
Jo.,gresswrought a fundamental
changein the growingrevolutionarymovement.No longerwerethe scattered
revolutionaryforces,feedingupon the vacillationsof British policy and the
of local politics,the centerof tt e movement.When Congressoutexigencies
lined generalpolicieswhich achievedthe statusof law as a result of popular
support,it took the lead in the Revolution,although its effectiveness
as a
revolutionaryorganizationwas determinedultimately by the political character of the state organizationssending delegatesto it. As the local radical
partiesgainedpowerandsentradicalsto Congress,
it changedits policies.The
historyof thosechangingpoliciesis the historyof the outbreakof the American Revolution.
Wbme
Most narrativesof thc
seriesof pitched battk
conflict can more accn
profound consequence
through the Anrericanr
an invasionof epidemt
livestock, widespreadI
occasionalincidents o(
of warfare,Americansr
persecution,propertr ct
in areascontrolled br t
temporary.
The disruption d
aspcrtsr
seldom-studied
women,whosepresar (
realm.With their mea
time, white female Am
the midst of uartirne t
ing not only househol
they had formerlv bee
their ability to asume
Adapted. from Libeth's D
1750-1800 by Man Betb
by permissionof Little, Bru