This week, we covered the American Revolutionary period. To start things off tonight, I think that it would be good to concentrate for a moment on something Kelley brings up in his text. He mentions that "empiricism" became an intellectual trend in the colonies in the mid and latter half of the 1700s. How did this emphasis on reason and scientific inquiry effect key figures in the Revolution, from their thinking about politics to their ideals regarding faith?
14 comments:
Hey Mr. Davis. I'm not sure if this exactly answering the question, but the leaders of the revolution were quite well off and the ideas of the Enlightenment were mainly held to the upper class as they were able to get an education. So the leaders of the revolution maybe brought these ideas to the public.
Have we started yet? I was waiting to bounce off other comments, but I thought we were starting at 7:00.
Anyway...
I think that an emphasis on scientific inquiry could have been highly influential on the fact that many of the founding fathers were deists (believing that God created the universe with scientific laws that govern it, without any divine intervention). This could also have led to their acceptance in other religions, or at least not direct attacks there upon, in that they were willing to see that perhaps much of what the Catholic church, as well as the Anglican church, says is subject to questioning.
In other words, its hard to create a government based upon your religion when your religion is deism, in that deism is a difficult religion to enforce, as there is no reason to pray or act upon it because God will not intervene regardless of your position.
~Russ
Sorry folks, I was working off of Tyler's post, and saw that Russ signed on. Both of you have taken a different approach to answering the question, and you're both on the right track.
I would consider how important it was to the people we nowadays consider to be the "founding fathers" that logical reasoning and the scientific method could reveal substantial truths about the universe. Working off of this assumption, they could then consider that both religion (as Russ mentions, Deism, and also remember Unitarianism) and politics were subjects certainly worth tinkering with, and not solely for the Crown or the Church (Anglican or Catholic) to manage. This sort of thinking could help them explain why they thought it was reasonable to break away from the British Empire: governments could and should be perfected, and people were certainly capable of doing it on their own (as long as the people managing the republic were the landed or business elites that helped lead the charge).
Okay, let's see some questions from you guys.
I still think its interesting how it was never their intention to allow non-landholding persons to vote in their "free republic." I was once told that they were scared of the people they lorded over.
In a way I find the reasoning in this. If they let just anyone have the vote, then their power would be substantially decreased; as well as the fact that they would be subject to the laws that non-landholders wanted: Higher wages (no unions yet)?
Am I anywhere on the right track with this frame of mind, it seems plausible to me, but I'm not quite sure what the "peasant" population was thinking in this time period, except that they were suddenly not under the defense of a very nice military buffer against the natives or other nations.
Are we supposed to know of the decisive battles and such that took place in the Revolutionary War, because Kelley never seemed to talk about any of them.
Why was George Whitefield so successful in the colonies if he was an Anglican preaching Anglican doctrine in a more enthusiastic way?
Good question, Russ. I think that the founders were in the midst of a bold experiment, and when future generations look back on the founders' experience, I think most generations are a little guilty of asking a bit too much of them. I think the notion that the colonies could break away from the empire was radical in and of itself, and the founders had to think a bit conservatively, as in "Hey, if we actually pull this revolt off, how are we going to keep this boat afloat?" Their answer was to limit electoral politics to the elite and land owning men, because it was these people who literally had so much at stake in the colonies, and could be "trusted" to make the experiment work. From this vantage point, the consideration of say, freeing the slaves or worrying about a lasting peace with the Natives is secondary.
In other words, the founders were worried, and they were also ready to fill the power vacuum. Later, we'll learn how worried Madison was of "factions" erupting throughout the colonies that would disrupt republican government (basically forseeing political interests groups, party politics, and regional/single issue political action groups. He also wasn't sure if a country the size of the US could even operate as a republic and accurately represent people's interests.
As far as major battles go, you should know the basics--Lexington and Concord, Saratoga, and Yorktown. I'm not aware that the AP Exam actually will test you on these specifically--instead, they ordinarily ask questions about the intellectual foundation for the revolution and how the war was won (by attrition/with a French military alliance).
Other than Athens and Rome, had there been any other successful democratic movements in the world? I had always been under the impression that the American Colonies were the first to make that experiment successful in a long time. Locke's ideals obviously proved to be very influential to the colonial leaders. But this seems to be very little influence for an entire revolution. Usually the person with the idea was either the revolutionary leader or a high ranking member. Locke, of course, died 75 years before the revolution started. But were there members of the revolution who had a close contact with his students, as teachers or mentors? It just seems a bit odd to me that these colonists just decided that this was how they would run their government. A democracy (even a republic) is a difficult transition from a Monarchy. I would have thought that a limited Monarchy might have been a smarter next move if they were attempting to move slowly into giving the people more power.
Just out of curiosity (and I know it's a debated topic) how much influence do you think the English Crown's reassertion of Anglican dominance had on loyalty to England among the common folk? We've heard a lot about how this was really an "elite's war" (and this is probably true) but isn't there a case for general discontent as well?
Three comments to make:
A.) Tyler's comment
I think Whitfield and Edwards popularity comes down to the fact that they were an entertaining and thought-provoking reaction to the trend toward Deism and Unitarianism.
B.) Russ' comment
Recall this notion of salutary neglect. The colonists had essentially been left to much of their own devices, and the appeal of folks like Locke or Rousseau was far more relevant and sturdy in the "do it yourself" colonies. Locke may have been collecting dust on the shelf in London, but for colonists like Jefferson--who looked out on his plantation, and imagined an argarian promised land--Locke had it figured out for the get-go, hence Locke's curtain call in the Dec of Independence. I know it seems anachronistic, but remember, Marx was not a contemporary to the Leninists or Maoists either.
C.) Nick's comment
Sure, good point. This is the point I was hoping you would digest having read the excerpt from Gordon S. Wood. He is aware of the prominence of the educated landed and merchant elite--but he also believes that the historical records shows that if the elite had to twist some arms to promote a revolution, the arm twisting was nearly has difficult as folks like Zinn would suggest. Hence, I purposefully set Zinn against Wood for the class in hopes of gaining a more definitive understanding.
Sorry, that last comment to Norvis should read "NOT nearly as difficult"
Nick, I'm still here. We have time for about one more question, if folks have one.
Post a Comment