I've been doing some light reading on the American Revolution lately, specifically regarding American Creation and Founding Brothers both by Joseph Ellis. While along the way, I've laughed and argued with the author I feel that I should point something out. Something that in my very naive opinion should be pointed out regarding revolutions.
Inevitably, any tract published regarding the Revolution tends to mention other, messier, revolutions that succeeded it. The comparison is then made, from a 'bloodless' revolution in America to the Reign of Terror in France, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, etc. I think we look at things the wrong way, and we invariably compare apples to oranges. The American Revolution after all was not bloodless, it was a war of course, and it had its darker side. One man's patriot was a Tory's terrorist - and here I do not just refer to Colonial/Royal governors but printers and merchants as well. But, still, why is it that the American Revolution was apparently less bloody than its counterparts, even if you include the terrorism against loyalists? I tend to think that there are two reasons why it was different.
I. The American Revolution took place in America. Kind of a misnomer but it should be said. This was not a revolution against England in England, like the Russian, French and Chinese revolutions. Thus, the Americans could fight an invading army and not literally there brothers. It could be asked, what is the difference between a revolution and a civil war? The Russian, French and Chinese revolutions, I think, were bloodier because they were closer to a civil war than the American Revolution. We should compare ourselves to India pushing out the British, not the French pushing out the French.
II. The Americans were English citizens. Being under an English Empire resulted in being subject to English laws and victim or victor to English public opinion. To say we defeated the English is true. But only if you go so far as to say that they gave up. If the English meant to simply win like in a Continental War, and not keep the Colonies I believe the outcome would have been much different. Anyone who disagrees may wish to look to the next American war, the War of 1812. The only major victory the U.S. army received during the War of 1812 was with Jackson in New Orleans, after the war was technically over. They after all burned our capital, many would regard that as a total victory.
Now, I do believe that in furthering the rights of man and political thought the Americans accomplished a great deal. The Revolution was flawed certainly, but it produced some of the greatest thought and actions in American History and, arguably in history itself. The Americans in many ways did "begin the world over again." Ellis acknowledges elsewhere that the Americans had the benefit of locale in their early republic. Who we were governed by and where we were I think is incredibly important to why we 'won'.
