More Than a Dual Revolution

More Than a Dual Revolution

John Northcutt

University of Indianapolis

If one is to consider the true nature of the American Revolution, it is incumbent upon him to determine what is different after 1776; not merely politically different, but socially, economically, culturally, and perhaps even spiritually. Did the revolution truly change everything, or was it merely a struggle for political independence of one group from another? Was the world changing anyway, and was the revolution simply a symptom of that change? Or, did everything change because of the American Revolution? These questions have been in existence nearly since the revolution itself. Quite obviously, 1700 is different from 1800, and this would have been true regardless of whether or not one lived in the United States. Would the world of an 1800 British Colonial America have looked immensely unlike the United States of American in 1800? Certainly there would have been cultural and social changes that would have taken place regardless of the politics. Would they have been the same social and cultural changes? There is, of course, no way to know what would have happened if... What is known is that everything did change dramatically. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? No. Everything was connected. The American Revolution was much more than a struggle for political independence. It was a statement to the world that the order of things had changed. Liberty is the central theme, and the theme endures whether the discussion is politics, religion, economics, or social order.

Much of how things changed can be seen in a quick overview of the two worlds, pre- and post-revolutionary America. The colonies, in the early 18th century, were a place of destiny. There seemed a sense that something more was to come. Certainly the tried and true order of things was still accepted by most, but not withstanding obvious difficulties, the colonies were becoming more populous and more fruitful. The Americans of this time were from varied backgrounds and of different cultural and especially religious schools of thought. However, there was a common sense that the world was supposed to progress. Author Robert Middlekauff, in The Glorious Cause, attempts to provide insight to the colonial mind of the time. He writes,

"Almost all Americans-from the Calvinists in New England searching Scripture for the will of God to the rationalists in Virginia studying the divine mechanics in nature-agreed that all things fell within the providential design (Middlekauff, 1982)."

There existed a natural order of things. A great many of these things had been accepted for countless centuries. God's design, for one thing, meant that at home, the father ruled. This "patriarchal household economy" is described in a series of lectures by Dr. A. James Fuller, Associate Professor of History at the University of Indianapolis. In Colonial America, the man of the house retained all the legal rights of practically anyone associated with the family. Wives and daughters, for example, had no real voice in such practicalities as business, politics, courtship, and marriage (Fuller, 2012). This structure would seem almost foreign today, but as part of the grand nature of the world at the time, it was accepted. It was God given. So, it seems, was the existence of a king. In Middlekauff's words, "The order that began with the divine and expressed itself in the lives of a people embraced their government." He goes on to explain that although no one at this time felt the monarch was to be deified, it remains accepted that royal authority "had the sanction of the Lord (Middlekauff, 1982)."

For most at this time, there seemed to be many accepted ideals. Certainly, however, lives were different in different colonies, or regions. In Dr. Fuller's lecture, he uses Virginia and Massachusetts as representations of southern versus New England standards. In Virginia, progress had followed a "developmental model." From a dangerous land of disease, economic chaos, and short life expectancy, the now "royal" colony has, by the mid-18th Century, developed into land run by, and in a sense, for, the gentlemen. The upper class society controls everything in Virginia at this time. They ran the churches, the legislative and legal offices, and even seemed to lord over the common men and women due to a developed system of patronage, persuasion, and even simple exercise of what they saw as their birthright. By the dawn of revolution, the "gentry" were firmly in control of all aspects of life in Virginia. This, of course, is how this class of near aristocrats, and by this time everyone else, simply understood the nature of the world (Fuller, 2012).

Massachusetts had developed differently. Largely Puritanical, the residents of the New England colony had been struggling mightily for the last century prior to the revolution to find a balance between their religious life and their economic progress. With no staple crop, like Virginia's tobacco, New Englanders had more or less stumbled upon a diverse economic model. Many different trades and vocations existed, and there were certainly attempts to capitalize on such endeavors as the lumber business. Nothing specific to the entire region had been sustainable, and a great many of the men with power emerged from a class of merchants. The initial plan for the Massachusetts Bay Colony was for it to be a unique, idealistic, society. The continual struggle to keep the Calvinist belief and to prosper in the real world shaped the lives of these people. For them, the hand of God lay upon every detail of life. Catastrophe was followed by spiritual renewal. Back and forth between church and industry the cycle continued. Make money - drift away from God. Decline to a certain point - return to the faith (Fuller, 2012). Things were supposed to be a certain way, and even though Godliness seemed to come and go, by the early