128
T
his 1795 engraving of a Stamp Act protest delineates a class
division. The three British Tories—one suspended, two
sprawled below—are wealthy. The Patriots surrounding them
are not. Historian Carl Becker (1909) declared that the
Revolution was fought “not only about home rule but also
about who should rule at home.” In his view, the leaders of the
Revolution sought to defeat the rabble in Boston and New
York—the Patriots depicted here—as well as the Crown in
Britain. Arthur Schlesinger Sr. (1918) wrote that commercial
elites “instigated” popular opposition to British policies, grew
alarmed at the “engulfing tide of radicalism” that led to war, and
then turned against the farmers and workers who did most of
the fighting. Edmund Morgan, however, (1956) was among a
post-World War II generation that emphasized the consensual
foundations of American democracy. The Revolution did not
constitute a victory of the rich over the poor but “a union of
three million cantankerous colonists into a new nation.”
The consensual interpretation was undermined during
the 1960s from two separate directions. Bernard Bailyn
(1967) insisted that the American Revolution was ignited by
ideas, not by smoldering economic discontents. Eighteenth-
century English political theorists had warned against
monarchical threats to liberty. For American colonists, the
imposition of new taxes after 1763 confirmed such fears. As
Bailyn was advancing his ideological interpretation, social
historians during the tumultuous 1960s insisted that the
American nation from its beginnings had been deeply
divided. Gary B. Nash showed how declining opportunities
had radicalized urban workers. Other social historians found
yet other cleavages: Mary Beth Norton between men and
women; Sylvia R. Frey between masters and slaves; and Colin
Calloway between colonists and Indians.
DEBATING THE PAST
Was the American Revolution
Rooted in Class Struggle?
Source: Carl Becker, History of Political Parties in New York(1909); Arthur M.
Schlesinger Sr., The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution(1918);
Edmund Morgan, The Birth of the Republic(1956); Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological
Origins of the American Revolution(1967); Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible(1989);
Mary Beth Norton, Founding Mothers and Fathers(1996); Sylvia R. Frey, Water from
the Rock(1991); Colin Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country(1995).
■ ■ ■ ■ ■issues all the Americans were in agreement. They
hinted to the British representative, Richard Oswald,
that they would consider a separate peace if it were a
generous one and suggested that Great Britain would
be far better off with America, a nation that favored
free trade, in control of the trans-Appalachian region
than with a mercantilist power like Spain.
The British government reacted favorably, autho-
rizing Oswald “to treat with the Commissioners
appointed by the Colonys, under the title of Thirteen
United States.” Soon the Americans were deep in
negotiations with Oswald. They told Vergennes what
they were doing but did not discuss details.
By the end of November 1782 a preliminary treaty
had been signed. “His Britannic Majesty,” Article 1
began, “acknowledges the said United States... to be
free, sovereign and independent States.” Other terms
were equally in line with American hopes and objec-
tives. The boundaries of the nation were set at the
Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and 31° north lati-
tude (roughly the northern boundary of Florida, which
the British turned over to Spain).^2 Britain recognized
the right of Americans to take fish on the Grand Banks(^2) Much of this vast region, of course, was controlled not by the
British but by various Indian tribes.