Did American revolution had organized violence like reign of terror in France or Red terror in Russia?
Did American revolution had organized violence like reign of terror in France or Red terror in Russia?
Justin Murphy
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
John Fisher
Not on that level. Mostly there was organized protest though, for example during the buildup to the war whenever Britain would send new tax collectors the men of the town would assemble and systematically dismantle the building that the tax office was housed in down to the last brick.
A few times the tarring and feathering got a bit out of hand with drunken mobs and a couple guys got hurt but the only people really "terrorized" were the British officials.
Wyatt Scott
No because it wasn't really a revolution, just a war of secession. George Washington didn't aim to overthrow and kill the king in London,
Anthony Scott
Not really. It was an upperclass revolution. No reason to go chopping anyone's heads off.
John Cooper
Yes, it had. A lot of loyalists were killed or deported.
Gavin Moore
this is just not true. Many loyalists either went to Canada by their own volition or were left alone to grumble to themselves while no one else gave a shit.
Jack Cooper
America had the liberty of being left alone after the Revolution and the knowledge that they could count on all of Europe supporting them should the Brits try and come back.
Both Revolutionary France and Red Russia had powerful enemies a stones throw away from their borders planning on toppling them.
Imagine what it would have been like if France and Spain allied with the UK to overthrow the revolution
Gabriel King
this.
It could easily be argued that even during the conflict the American Revolution was relativelly less bloody than the French and Russian ones but after the war was over loyalists (who were many in america) mostly fled to loyal territories which reduced the threat of further reactionary conflict whereas in the two other revolutions, all revolutions of the middle class, the peasantry in the rural areas opposed the new regimes and when they rose up to fight the new establishment foreign countries often supported them.
The tyranny of France and Russia after the revolutions is horrible but i think they are justified in the same way we sympathize with a school bully when we find out his father beat him as an example. It's all a matter of circumstance.
Asher Martinez
These. The American "revolution" was a proxy war between Britain and France. Totally different situation from French and Russian revolutions.
Brody Garcia
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Proxy war implies France engineered the American independence movement. They definitely benefited from, although not in the long term as Britain quickly became the newly independent USA's biggest trading partner. I think calling it a proxy war downplays the effort led by the Patriots. They certainly weren't French agents.
Benjamin Reed
my ancestor was a patriot in North Carolina but his brother in law was a loyalist. One day a bunch of patriots attempted to lynch said brother in law in his front yard but was only spared because his wife said her brother, my ancestor, was off fighting the british and she was a patriot.
Alexander Anderson
closest parallel is the reconstruction era after the Civil war
Lincoln Hall
The same people were behind both French and Russian revolutions
Landon Lewis
Tarring and feathering is horribly disfiguring or even lethal, its no joke
Jackson Cox
there were attacks on loyalists mostly in the southern states but that reflected more of Vietcong tactics than reign of terror
Adam Murphy
>attacks on loyalists mostly in the southern states
you have a source on that?
Landon James
Yes. Bear in mind that before the revolution, the colonies were about 50/50 on the issue. Afterwards, the USA was 99%+ anti-monarchy. The American monarchists were either massacred or exiled to Canada.
en.wikipedia.org
William Evans
that is easily a possibility, i'd say the american revolution is what spawned the populist future communist revolutions due to it at heart being a conflict to give the peasant unrivalled authority. The diference would be that no revolution gave their lower class as much power as the american one which is likely why they didn't revolt against the newly established government.
Lucas Myers
The US barely had peasants.
A peasant is a farmer who doesn't own the land they work, and as a result of this owns virtually no possessions and lives hand to mouth at the mercy of whoever owns the land.
The US didn't have a preexisting nobility, and there was free land everywhere, so almost all of the population was smallholding farmers.
This is why America's experiment with democracy worked so much better than Latin America's, where the hacienda system of agriculture had taken hold and society was strictly divided between a tiny, incestuous land-owning class and an angry, desperate peasant class.
Lucas Torres
>Proxy war implies France engineered the American independence movement
Not really. In most proxy wars one or both sides are merely encpuraged and then propped up by a foreign power, not originated from them. And the French certainly did that, supporting the rebels as a means to open up another front in their global struggle against the British. Actually quite similar to various third world conflicts during the Cold War, with different sides supported by Americans vs. Soviets.
Jaxon Perry
>The US didn't have a preexisting nobility, and there was free land everywhere, so almost all of the population was smallholding farmers.
Oh right, i meant farmers, which is actually very diferent from peasants and easily makes the diference between american and otehr revs
Lucas Rodriguez
Do the founding fathers count as a vanguard?
Jayden Nelson
Peasants often own their property.
Jackson Reed
It depends on how hot the tar was...I don't see it having to be that hot to have feathers stick. What was the point of that anyway, to call them chickens or something?
Nicholas Johnson
>The diference would be that no revolution gave their lower class as much power as the american one which is likely why they didn't revolt against the newly established government.
life barely changed for the lower classes in the US after the revolution. The same people who were in charge before were still in charge. The spread of Democracy happened almost 50 years later.
Bentley Reed
It was just a way to publicly humiliate people.
Cooper Ward
No it wasnt. They used pine tar, not asphalt tar. Pine tar is at most hot bath water. It was just humiliation.
Jonathan Hernandez
English civil war
>ok lets have a civil discourse and reform by our totally stable government that we want stable
American revolution
>we don't want to revolution but those Anglos are being too eternal
French revolution
>we want revolution, but we still want a monarchy
Russian revolution
>REVOLUTION DOWN WITH MONARCHY WE DON'T GIVE A FUCK WE DON'T GIVE A FUCK
Luis Robinson