Radicals+Versus+Conservatives

L.M. - As is currently a common generalism, America today marvels that the Revolution and its democracy were some sort of a descencion of heavenly ideals upon the face of the Earth. We view the creation of a democratic federal government as springing from an almost supernatural accord of individuals who held the same values of individual freedoms. In fact, as Merrill Jensen argues, the creation of the type of nationalized democracy we have today arose from a raging competition amongst those revolutionaries who were radical and those that were Conservative.

As Jensen describes, the Radicals of the early revolutionary era were those Americans that were so outraged with British rule that they opposed every aspect of a central government. To create a national government from their viewpoint was the antithesis of everything the blood of their brothers and sons had been spilt for during the war. Having a larger following directly after the fires of the revolutionary passion had just rendered the British to ashes in 1783, the Radicals established as minimal centrality as was plausible; they created their complete freedom through the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation severely limited any power the central government had, and placed the emphasis of rule in the hands of the individual states. When popular support grew for the Conservatives, the Radical’s Articles of Confederation quickly were undone.

The story of American Conservatism is significantly more complicated than the tale of revolutionary Radicals. Starting before 1763, the conservative ideas had the respect of most of the crown-loyal, aristocracy of wealth. The land owning conservative class believed a larger central government was necessary for the protection of their wealth and property. Thus, when sentiments of breaking away swept the nation, a large part of the conservative class remained loyal to the British. However, there was a significant portion of these wealthier Americans who were inspired to raise the standard of independence. Among their ranks were John Adams, John Dickenson, and others.

Uniquely, it was the Radical movement that drew enough popular energy to fight the British Empire, but after the war’s end the need for extremism was naturally quelled by the lack of a common enemy. Eventually, it was the Conservatives which remade the majority. As the Conservatives became viewed more and more as the force of wisdom behind American government, they drew the representation in Congress necessary to remake the federal government in light of their own interests. Thus, the Constitution – which created a much larger central government – was ratified by the newer conservative Congress who wanted a larger “political interpretation of their favored position.” Thus, the halo that adorns the constitution as the document that truly freed American was in reality a result of post-revolutionary political shifting.

** this is the best entry I have read yet -- you are on the right track -- just beef up your arguments and you will have it nailed **
ADB – Today, the distinctions between the American conservatives and liberals are well-realized: one area encompassing many issues is that of government regulation, including taxation, businesses, and a host of other matters. Conservatives generally desire less regulation from the federal government; liberals usually encourage it. However, if one looks back into America’s colonial history, it is clear that this was not always the case. Prior to the United States’ founding, the conservatives and liberals were different entities entirely. Before continuing, it must be noted that, while the general belief is that the revolutionaries were the colonial liberals, and the loyalists were the colonial conservatives, these are not absolute judgments; there was a mixture of ideals on both sides of the aisle. The conservatives of colonial America were quite different from their modern day counterparts. For one, they were the primary groups that controlled the colonies’ governments prior to 1776. As the colonial border inched westward, these wealthy men (merchants in the North, planters in the South) saw potential blockage in their government control in the form of non-landowning persons. The conservatives collaborated with Great Britain to put through property requirements for voting rights, as well as entrance into government office (which had even higher requirements). This quelled any political aspirations (real or imagined) the lower classes may have had, and established powerful, oligarchical groups that controlled the colonial governments. These “old conservatives” differ greatly from the modern ones, who value limited government and equal rights for //all// people, regardless of class. Though the Declaration and Constitution were not yet created, the ideals of the American revolutionaries, who were considered //liberals//, align more with modern American conservatism than the “conservatism” of colonial America, which could better be defined as Aristotelian oligarchy. The revolutionaries of the colonial era, the conservatives’ opposition, were the farmers and other proletarians which made up the majority of the population. With the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, Britain was in control of the colonies, thus opening the chapter of the Revolution. Though the poor classes had little power to initially fight back against the conservatives’ limiting measures, several effective leaders did emerge, and support for the revolutionaries did grow. Britain began its unrepresented taxation of its new colonies to pay off its debt to the French after the 1763 Treaty of Paris; this spurred the colonies (specifically the revolutionaries, or the “liberals”) to desire a complete split with all international entanglements. As the conservatives began to see the revolutionaries’ influence grow, they began to differ amongst themselves whether liberation from Britain was a good idea; some did not want the secession to occur at all, while others were not as inclined, as long as “home rule” legislation would be in place. However, by still siding with the revolutionaries, they made a fatal mistake, and forced themselves to choose between the U.S. and Britain. Some became “Tories”, while others reluctantly joined the “radicals”. Overall, the differences between the colonial conservatives and liberals and their modern counterparts are rather ironic, as well as paradoxical. They seem to swap ideas completely: the conservatives of the colonial era supported big government regulation and control, as well as unrepresented taxation. This greatly conflicts with today’s conservatives, whose ideals adhere to the exact opposite. Concordantly, the old liberals’ ideals and the current liberals have also seemed to have done a complete switch. While modern American liberals don’t believe in taxation without representation, they do generally support bigger government regulation. Looking at it a different way, both sides of the aisle have shifted to the “right” one place: the “old liberals” have shifted into today’s conservatives, and the, so to speak, “ultra-conservatives” (which is a misnomer if taken in modern context) are now today’s liberals. This article is also a revelation into America’s past. Usually, the lines are just drawn as loyalists and revolutionaries, which gives the impression that these were, respectively, exclusively conservatives and “radicals”. However, as it has been shown, the distinction is not so black and white; some on both sides switched, and convictions, especially on the conservative end, about their ideals were not concrete either.

almost as good as the one above but leans toward contrast and some compare/contrast which throws you off somewhat-- keep up the good work -- you are very very close


 * week 2xx**

AMB-- Today, most people think of the American Revolution as a war between the British and the American colonists. However, the Revolution had its roots in not only oppression from the British, but also from the colonial elite. Before the Revolution, the wealthy merchants and planters had complete control over the local governments, allowing them to set up means of retaining their own power, namely property qualifications to be able to vote. This gave them the ability to disregard popular demands. Soon, discontent began to grow out of the oppression of the local government, and some people wanted change. These were the Radicals, or those who wanted to change the social structure of the colonies. They wanted the same rights as the merchant aristocracy, or Conservatives--those that wanted the social structure to remain the same. Meanwhile, the British were ending their tradition of salutary neglect, and were beginning to impose taxes. This instigated rebellions that the Radicals soon skillfully turned towards a change in social order, for “taxation without representation” also referred to the colonial aristocracy. They fought hard for independence because independence from England would give way to social restructuring. Conservatives knew this, and many became loyalists because it would protect their social status. After the colonies gained independence, they needed to form a system of government. The Radicals hoped for a more democratic form of government. One of their most important ideals was that issues would be put to a vote that was decided by majority-rule. This was a significant departure from the previous system, in which the government was in the hands of the wealthy. The Conservatives realized that their power would soon dissipate, so they proposed a national government with a system of checks and balances, hoping to regain some of their power. Today, our government retains aspects of both of these political ideals. There are many ideas of what the American Revolution actually meant (as is supported by //Founding Brothers//). While it did represent America’s independence from England, it also marked the independence of the middle and lower classes from oppression by the upper class. summarized not analyzed -- weak reference to FB does not help