Your opinions.... was the American revolution in fact a radical movement or a ci

Question: Your opinions!.!.!.!. was the American revolution in fact a radical movement or a civil war!? !?

your opinions!.!.!. please add detail to state why u think this!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

It was a radical movement, because so many people were tired of being oppresed, they stood up and did something about it!. The 13 colonies became one and united under the United States of America!. After years of oppresion the colonies finally banded together to push the British out of their lives and began being self sufficient!. A civil war would have been only between the colonies, this revolution was with an empirical power i!.e!. Britain!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Like any major change it can not be answered by simple either/or responses!. The American revolution actually started before 1750, possibly as early as 1730, when the goals of the colonies began to differ from England!. It continued until after 1820, possibly until 1839 when US/Canada border issues were resolved!. England was not happy with the US until about 1900!.

The major repression that England imposed on the colonies was banning settlement beyond the Appalachian mountains!. Taxes imposed on the colonies were no greater than those imposed on the rest for the British empire!.

It had characteristics of a civil!. First, Britain and the American colonies were one country!. Second many colonists (loyalists) support England!. About 20-25% supported the revolution (patriots) while about the same number were loyalists!. The majority did not support either side, or greatly care who won!. The simply wanted to pursue their life!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It was both: a revolution against the perceived tyranny of George III's advisors, and a civil war between the Patriots who wanted to separate and the Loyalists who remained loyal to the king!.

Many Americans did not want to separate at first from England!. There were many people who were undecided in the early years, but war has a way of polarizing groups!. An excellent book on the mindset of these Americans is "The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson" by Bernard Bailyn!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It was not a radical movement! Later, the government built up after the war was capable of providing radical change, but the revolution itself was not!. It was a conservative revolution, and in many ways, it really was a civil war!.

1!. What changed radically because of the revolution!? Not much!. The only people who had a political voice were white men who owned significant property, slavery still existed, women were still property, and the poor and middle class had no voice!. In short!.!.!.!.darned little!.

2!. Even up until the Declaration of Independence, more than a year into the war, most Colonists (even members of the Continental Army!) thought of themselves as loyal subjects of the King, but saw themselves at war with the ministries that theoretically serve the King!. Even the Declaration shows that this was a civil war, and that the colonists had finally, sadly, had to give up on the King and sever all ties with their mother country!.

3!. At least 20% of the Colonists stayed loyal to the British Crown throughout the war, and tens of thousands of those men served in Loyalist military units fighting against the Rebels!. Moreover, the war, most especially in the South, was a vicious conflict between and within families!. More than 30,000 Slaves fled their masters to join the British and gain their freedom, and fighting in the western reaches of the colonies was often neighbor against neighbor!.

4!. In the end, many tens of thousands of Loyalists fled when the British accepted defeat, most going to Canada (where they're usually termed the United Empire Loyalists), rather than staying in the former colonies and accepting the change in government!.

I think all of these points argue against the idea of a radical movement, and toward the idea of a civil war!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Like a previous poster said, it was technically a civil war, as it was British colonists rebelling against the British government, and you have to remember also that many colonists either passively or actively helped the English by providing materials or manpower, or they simply fled to Canada!.

As for it being radical!.!.!. in a way, I think it was!. The ideology behind it came directly from the Enlightenment, with its humanistic principles and such!. Of course, what it really came down to was a bunch of rich white guys whining about their taxes, which just goes to show that politics never change, but I really don't think it was that much of a radical movement!. The English incurred a huge amount of expenses after fighting the French and Indian War -- which was also for the colonists' benefit, I might add -- and when they raised taxes to help pay this debt, the colonists pouted like children and then threw a tantrum!. The English government tried to appease the colonists and still maintain some semblance of a balanced budget, and it just didn't work!. Had they played ball and cut the new taxes and increases imposed after the French and Indian War, I really think the colonists would have been satisfied with being just that: colonists!.

Hmm!. So I guess my answer is that it was more like a civil war than a radical movement!. You want radical, look ahead another decade and check out the French Revolution!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It was technically a civil war!. The colonists were under the control of King George and Britain!. Britain was under the control of King George!. The colonists were fighting against the British soldiers for freedom!. Since they were both British subjects then it was a civil war!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It was a junket: Spilling a few packets of tea overboard can not by any stretch of the imagination be called a revolution; certainly not a popular radical movement; not even a civil war: Just a lot of bored colonists having a go at a tea importer:Www@QuestionHome@Com