Patriot vs. Patriot: Social Conflict in Virginia and the Origins of the American Revolution

2000 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-256
Author(s):  
MICHAEL A. McDONNELL ◽  
WOODY HOLTON
Keyword(s):  
American Revolution ◽  
North American ◽  
Social Conflict ◽  
George Washington ◽  
Social Consensus ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
War Of Independence ◽  
Mount Vernon ◽  
Widespread Agreement ◽  
Northern County

Virginia, Britain's most populous and arguably most important North American colony, once seemed the perfect fit for the “consensus” interpretation of the War of Independence. Indeed, the percentage of white colonists who became loyalists was probably lower in Virginia than in any other rebelling colony. The widespread agreement on secession from Britain should not, however, be mistaken for social consensus. The reality was that revolutionary Virginia was frequently in turmoil. One of the most intriguing of the local insurrections broke out in the northern county of Loudoun just five months before the Declaration of Independence. In February 1776, the county erupted into a heated confrontation pitting gentlemen against their less wealthy neighbours. Lund Washington, who was managing Mount Vernon, warned his cousin, General George Washington, who was outside Boston training his fledgeling patriot army, that the “first Battle we have in this part of the Country will be in Loudon” – not against British soldiers, but against fellow patriots. Within a week, the revolutionary government in Williamsburg, the Committee of Safety, felt compelled to send troops to quell the disturbances. Yet, for months afterwards, gentry Virginians worried that their effort to suppress the rebellion had failed. In mid-May, Andrew Leitch told Leven Powell of Loudoun, “I really lament the torn and distracted condition of your County.” The “troublesome times,” as another gentleman called them, were slow to abate.

America as History

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Körner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Revolution ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
War Of Independence ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
History Of

This chapter examines early Italian writings on the history of the American War of Independence, including Carlo Botta's History of the War of Independence of the United States of America (1809), Carlo Giuseppe Londonio's three-volume Storia delle colonie inglesi (1812–1813), and Giuseppe Compagnoni's twenty-nine-volume Storia dell'America (1829). The chapter compares the context in which these works were created to the changing responses they generated during the later course of the Risorgimento. It also draws on these writings to discuss historiography as political thought, arguing that most Italian historians writing about the American Revolution presented the United States as a political reality far removed from European experiences. Even 500 years after the American Declaration of Independence, Italian references to the United States did not necessarily mean an open endorsement of popular sovereignty.

A Political Age

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Mitchell Sommers
Keyword(s):  
American Revolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Political Events ◽  
London Corresponding Society

This chapter places Ebenezer and Manoah Sibly in the dramatic political events of their day, especially the American and French Revolutions, and the Treason Trials of the 1790s. Ebenezer is frequently cited as a radical Whig, who opposed slavery and supported the American Revolution and other radical causes. Little is said about Manoah’s politics, other than that as a New Church minister, he was of necessity a loyalist. However, a close examination of Ebenezer’s writing, and especially the timing of the publication of his comments on the American and French Revolutions, reveals him as much more moderate than has been asserted, especially in discussions of his nativity for the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, Manoah’s work as shorthand taker for the London Corresponding Society and acceptance of Swedenborg’s dramatically radical theology reveal him as a profoundly radical thinker—and one who was moved to act on his convictions.

Conclusion: Legal and Constitutional Legacies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
American Revolution ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
War Of Independence ◽  
Military Life ◽  
American States ◽  
Historical Literature ◽  
British Military ◽  
Reign Of Terror ◽  
Property Destruction ◽  
The Revolution

The conclusion makes two arguments. First, it takes the position common in the historical literature that the American Revolution was a comparatively placid one, with few killings of civilians, little property destruction, and no reign of terror. It argues that the placidity was a consequence of legal continuity—the same courts, judges, and juries that had governed the colonies in 1770 in large part continued to govern the new American states in 1780. During the course of the War of Independence itself, legal and constitutional change occurred almost entirely at the top, and, except in the few places occupied by the British military, life went on largely as it always had. The conclusion also argues that old ideas of unwritten constitutionalism persisted during and after the Revolution, but that a new idea that constitutions should be written to avoid ambiguity emerged beside the old ideas.

scholarly journals Race and Politics in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 174-179
Author(s):  
Howard A. Palley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Black Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Pursuit Of Happiness ◽  
George Washington ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Chattel Slavery ◽  
Race And Politics ◽  
Inalienable Rights

Abstract The Declaration of Independence asserts that “All men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nevertheless, the United States, at its foundation has been faced with the contradiction of initially supporting chattel slavery --- a form of slavery that treated black slaves from Africa purely as a commercial commodity. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom had some discomfort with slavery, were slaveholders who both utilized slaves as a commodity. Article 1 of our Constitution initially treated black slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of apportioning representation in order to increase Southern representation in Congress. So initially the Constitution’s commitment to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” did not include the enslaved black population. This essay contends that the residue of this initial dilemma still affects our politics --- in a significant manner.

Sophistry, Security, and Socio-Political Structures in the American Revolution; or, Why Jamaica did not Rebel

1986 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. R. Clayton
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
British Empire ◽  
American Revolution ◽  
North American ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
American Colonies ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Mother Country ◽  
Political Structures

Britain's most important American colonies did not rebel in 1776. Thirteen provinces did declare their independence; but no fewer than nineteen colonies in the western hemisphere remained loyal to the mother country. Massachusetts and Virginia may have led the American revolution, but they had never been the leading colonies of the British empire. From the imperial standpoint, the significance of any of the thirteen provinces which rebelled was pale in comparison with that of Jamaica or Barbados. In the century before 1763 the recalcitrance of these two colonies had been more notorious than that of any mainland province and had actually inspired many of the imperial policies cited as long-term grievances by North American patriots in 1774. Real Whig ideology, which some historians have seen as the key to understanding the American revolution, was equally understood by Caribbean elites who, like the continental, had often proved extremely sensitive on questions of constitutional principle. Attacks of ‘frenzied rhetoric’ broke out in Jamaica in 1766 and Barbados in 1776. But these had nothing whatsoever to do with the Stamp Act or events in North America.

Relief in the Premises: Divorce as a Woman's Remedy in New York and Indiana, 1815–1870

1990 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norma Basch
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
American Revolution ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Domestic Affairs

When Thomas Jefferson assessed the pros and cons of legalizing divorce before the American Revolution, he came out firmly on the side of divorce. “No partnership,” he declared, in a rationale that prefigured the Declaration of Independence, “can oblige continuance in contradiction to its end and design.” Among the few misgivings he had, however, was the problem of dividing marital assets, and while he was convinced a man could get a wife at any age, he was concerned that a woman beyond a certain age would be unable to find a new partner. Yet he envisioned divorce as a remedy for women. A husband, he noted, had “many ways of rendering his domestic affairs agreeable, by Command or desertion,” whereas a wife was “confined & subject.” That he assessed divorce as a woman's remedy while representing a client intent on blocking a wife's separate maintenance is not without irony. Still, in a world where the repudiation of a spouse was a husband's prerogative, he believed that the freedom to divorce would restore “to women their natural right of equality.”

Las Damas de la Havana, el Precursor, and Francisco de Saavedra: A Note on Spanish Participation in the Battle of Yorktown

1980 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
American Revolution ◽  
George Washington ◽  
French Army ◽  
Continental Army ◽  
Foreign Intervention ◽  
English Colonies

As the American Revolution matured, foreign intervention on behalf of the Thirteen Colonies against Great Britain became increasingly important. Nowhere in that struggle was outside assistance more significant than at the seige of Yorktown during the autumn of 1781. It was here that a French army under the Count de Rochambeau and a French fleet under the Count de Grasse enabled George Washington to force the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. Historians have always recognized how crucial French participation was for this last important battle in the English colonies. Indeed, it would not have taken place without their aid. Yet there was another ally of the Continental army at Yorktown whose contribution has often been belittled or ignored. That ally was Spain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document