According to Gary B. Nash’s, The Unknown American Revolution, how does broadening the story to include non-elite people change our understanding of the American revolution?
Including non-elite people in the comprehension of the revolution has revealed a new perspective on this historical event. Previously, the history was too neat and accurate, and it strived to conceal the actual core of this occurrence. That is to say, it was the ordinary people who played a major part in the clash of non-elite representatives and the elite at that time. In particular, this inclusion displays the revolutionary incentives that were emerging among the citizens. In terms of the reading section, the broadened context implied the revelation of the perspective of slaves, indigenous population, females, and the countryside residents and their strivings for equality and independence. Moreover, this political understanding of the American Revolution (in terms of the non-elite population) implies insights into the event from the bottom up. That is to say, the ordinary citizens who were fighting for their independence were rather radical. It means that the residents were in constant pursuit of their interests. In that matter, the elite was against equal rights and is intended to remain the ruling class in the country. For that reason, the strivings of ordinary people turned them into revolutionaries.
Was there a contradiction in fighting for unalienable rights when not everyone’s rights were taken into consideration?
It can be assumed that there was an evident contradiction in fighting for the unalienable rights because it was aimed at securing the rights of particular groups, thus, turning them into privileges since the rights of some citizens were not considered. As Nash puts it, the reluctance to confront slave owners was a direct violation of revolutionary principles. Even though unalienable rights allude to equal protection of all the people in the country, the new system of government excluded the enslaved people from it.
If you had been a wealthy citizen in Massachusetts in 1776, would you have remained loyal to the king? Why or Why not?
If I were a wealthy citizen in Massachusetts in 1776, I would not have acknowledged my loyalty to the king because it would mean that I support the government in its need for moral acquittal for subordination and ruling. At that time, the population was forced to comply both by force and persuasion, and remaining loyal would imply the support for submission. Nevertheless, the most important reason is that loyalty to the king would evidence that I do not understand the need and importance of independence.
What five important points stood out to you from the video, The Coming Of Independence? Why did you find them significant?
The five main points I was able to draw from the episode is that the initial reason for the clash of colonists was the lack of agreement over the taxes. Besides, there were various reasons for the American population to join loyalists. Some people did not believe that independence would bring anything good for the country, some of the African-American population representatives did it to escape from slavery, and some people did it since they did not think the population was strong enough to win sovereignty. Further, another conclusion is that ordinary people composed the main force in the conflict. Whereas, the majority of wealthy people remained passive. Finally, sovereignty was pronounced only in the Declaration of Independence (Miller, Maier, and Martin). These points reveal that the independence of states was a long and multifaceted process due to the reluctance of influential people to contribute to this process.
What do you think were the founding fathers’ motives for creating the Constitution?
It can be assumed that the founding fathers’ motives for creating the Constitution were various. Firstly, they wanted to create and reinforce a system of government in which citizens’ rights would have greater weight than the State body. Moreover, they were driven by the need to set particular limits to the power that the government had. Nevertheless, the initial motive had a financial pretext. They wanted to establish specific taxation guidelines that would justify the flows of money from the taxpayers to the state.
Work Cited
Miller, Donald, Pauline Maier, and Waldo Martin. “Program 4: The Coming of Independence.” Learner, 2000, Web.