American History

Most people would agree that the American Revolution was a turning point in American history.  Commonly taught as a war to gain independence from the rule of the English, many would not look further, but the reality is that the Revolution was a war, but was not as life-changing as many assume.  In articles by William Nelson and Roy Lokken, the real views of the revolution seem to come forward through their analysis of the events and the works of historians.  Looking beneath the obvious and comparing the thoughts of past and current historians, both articles show a new way of looking and understanding the American Revolution.  While they agree that the underlying revolt was less a revolt and more a separation, they take different views as to the political ideology of the time and the political theories and leaders that evolved before, during and after the revolution.  The fact is that the revolution really was about separation from England, but it was not about changing government.  The colonists had their own way of doing things and they wanted to keep their ways rather than have Parliament have sovereignty.  This was the basis for the American Revolution and this is where the historians need to first look and then decided how and why the time was ripe for the revolution.

William Nelson in his Revolutionary Character of the American Revolution uses the past and present historians to really distinguish the political thoughts or lack thereof in relation to the American Revolution.  His belief is that the leaders really did not have political theories that were different from those in England other than the liberty of the individual.  The institutions, such as the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government coincided with the parliament, King, and House of Commons in England.  The Constitution was set up in the same way as the English, but with more checks and balances and an elected president rather than a King.  Nelson goes on to say that some theorists believe that the political theories changed between 1765 and 1776, but in reality there was no change.  The individualism and the rule of the citizens were the only differences, and the reasons these ideas held was because that was the way the colonies governments were already established.  The only thing the Constitution did was provide checks and balances between the federal and state government.  In essence, Nelson states that there was not any real major change in political ideology and institutions other than giving the people more power to elect their officials rather than have the officials on a hereditary basis.

Roy Lokkens article The Political Theory of the American Revolution Changing Interpretations focuses on the fact that the political ideologies and theories changed before, during and after the American Revolution.  Lokken agrees that the Constitution and political institutions were very similar to England he expresses a more revolutionary feel to the separation.  While the revolution was conservative in respect to revolutions in Europe, the basic concept was that the colonists did not want to have the British parliament making them pay taxes.  They believed the parliament could control commerce, but that they were not the sovereign and would not rule the colonies.  At this point, during the revolution, the colonists looked at the collective and the public rather than the individual.  This focus lasted until the Declaration of Independence was written.  By 1776, the belief system had changed from the collective to the individual.  So instead of worrying about the community and state first, the citizens began to think of themselves first and then the state.  Lokken explains that this concept changed when the people decided that a centralized church was not what they wanted and therefore the views changed to be more individual and secular than religious and collective.  He believed there were definite changes in the ideologies and the revolutionary character of the American Revolution.

While Nelson believes that the American Revolution was only a momentary stand off based on the fact, that the colonists did not want to be ruled by the Parliament, but by the government established in the colonies that was based on the governmental structure of the English government (1003).  Lokken, however, believes that the concepts of the government changed at the time of the Revolution as well as in the present as historians compare the revolution to the situations of the present day (95).  In truth, both give only an abstract idea as to possibilities of the reasons for and the reactions to the American Revolution.  Their strengths are in the use of the histories from the time of the revolution through the present.  Unfortunately, they use many of the same sources and yet come up with different theories about the revolution and what it really meant to the colonists.  Based on the reading, Nelson provides a sounder evidentiary article even though he uses the many of the same sources.  He explains why he believes in the idea that the revolution was just a reaction and need to be separated from England.  Lokken does not give as much in the way of evidence.  He tends to jump around more and is less analytical and logical in his writing. The fact that Nelson is more logical in his evidence leads me to prefer his theory to Lokken.