Historiography of the American Revolution So what? History is “a set of lies agreed upon by historians.” -bonaparte



Yüklə 413 Kb.
tarix01.08.2018
ölçüsü413 Kb.
#60557


HISTORIOGRAPHY of the American Revolution


So what?

  • History is “a set of lies agreed upon by historians.” -Bonaparte

  • We’re all historiographers—struggle for control of official memory.

  • Are the colonists “rebels”, “patriots”, “freedom fighters,” or “self-interested elites?”



Basic Interpretations of the American Revolution

  • Questions to ask:

  • Was it radical or conservative?

  • Was it economic?

  • Class struggle or fight for basic rights?



Patrician Historians(Whig View- 19th Century)

  • American Revolution was “a movement for liberty in opposition to British tyranny.”

  • Rooted for the Patriots throughout history

  • George Bancroft—History of the United States (1834-1874—10 vols.)



Whig Historians

  • Often inaccurate history--> concern is placed on creativity as opposed to history

  • 2nd half of 19th century- Bancroft

    • Revolution was progress of liberty over tyranny
    • Revolution was achieved with minimal bloodshed
      • Thomas Paine...a little too radical


Progressive Historians(early 1900s)

  • View: Not all about benevolence, consensus, and progress

    • Revolution was economic and factors of self-interest INSTEAD of patriotism and conscience
    • Society was undemocratic and divided by class conflict NOT consensus


Progressive School

  • Self-interests compelled Revolution: “Conflicts between merchants and farmers, easterners and westerners, city-dwellers and country folk, aristocrats and democrats, creditors and debtors” . . . “not so much home rule as who should rule at home.”

  • Charles A. Beard—An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913)

  • Arthur Meier Schlesinger—The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776 (1918)



Imperial School(early 1900s)

  • View: Navigation & mercantilist laws were not oppressive--> colonies flourished under this system

  • Charles McLean Andrews—The Colonial Background of the American Revolution (1924)

  • Source of Revolution was British political instability



Conservatives(mid-1900s)

  • View: Revolution was necessary to PROTECT not create something completely new

  • If it is about protection, what does that mean?

  • Not class conflict --> any riots occurred on the fringes of society



Conservatives

  • Most saw freedom infringed upon and wanted to separate

  • Not radical just REFORMED



Neo-Whig School(late 1900s- present)

  • View: Social and political upheaval generated by ideas

    • ideas are just as important as actions- pamphlets, broadsides
    • Social structure change-->talent and ability established social structure


Neo-Whigs

  • Revolution is radical --> step in progress of human civilization

  • How are they continuing the ideas of the whigs of the 19th century?

  • Bernard Bailyn—The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967)

  • Gordon S. Wood—The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (1969)



The New Left (late 1900s- present)

  • Despite a republican consensus, struggles between popular and elite forces drove the events of the era.

  • View: role of ordinary people in revolution

  • Who might these ordinary people be?

  • Enter Thomas Paine--> radical?



Radical Left

  • Howard Zinn

  • View: revolution was not the work of elites

    • rhetoric was a “recruiting slogan”
    • Constitution protected status quo not the empowering of Americans


Yüklə 413 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə