Readers of early American history blogs will undoubtedly have come across the recent kerfuffle regarding the divide between academic and public historians of the American Revolution, which stemmed from a series of posts by Peter Feinman assessing the conference. Much of the debate has centered around this post, in which Feinman chided academic historians for their failure to answer the question: “Was the American Revolution a good thing?” Roy Rogers posted an excellent response to this here last week; J.L. Bell at Boston 1775 had other reflections on Monday (and is continuing to address the topic in other posts).
I hope I don’t seem like I’m flogging a dead horse in addressing the topic myself. After all, as Bell pointed out, the question itself is a terrible one—something akin to a cross between 1066 and All That and a “Daily Show” parody of “Crossfire”:
But as Alexandra M. noted in the comments to Roy’s post,
“I think we should have a stronger answer for the question of “was the revolution good or bad”—and questions like it that ask for value judgments and assume certain things about the politics of academics—than “some of both,” one that brings out the excitement of ambiguity that Jonathan Wilson mentioned in his comment and the importance of complexity mentioned in the article.”
I agree. The question of the Revolution being good or bad may not be an especially interesting question. But it’s a question that is far from unfamiliar to those working in the field. Worse still, refusing to engage the question leaves many to think that the answer must be that “academics think the Revolution was a bad thing,” and use silence or failure to engage as a means of delegitimizing academic study of the Revolution. That paves the way for the David Bartons, Glenn Becks, and Michael Moores of the world to hijack history for their own political agendas, rather than using careful engagement with the past to inform society more productively.
To kick things off, here’s my answer to the question: Yes. I do think the Revolution was a good thing. It was the result of a remarkable effort to co-ordinate and mobilize ordinary citizens across a wide area. It developed a system of governmental and quasi-governmental systems that allowed ordinary citizens to gain much greater control of the political process than existed before the Revolution. Those were definitely positive outcomes.
But the American Revolution was a messy, violent and complicated event. It was not a “good thing” because America possessed visionary leadership and noble ideals unparalleled in human history. It was a good thing in spite of the fact that there were violent disagreements; in spite of the fact that many arguments were resolved through force and not through reason. It succeeded because there was a shared commitment to working things out in some way; and it worked because ordinary citizens were able to use the control of the political structures in a way that gave them at least some perceived control over the outcomes that affected their lives.
That is, no doubt, a contentious answer. There would be important caveats—there were people who lost out, and badly, as a result of the Revolution. And the benefits that came to America were paid for with great upheaval, turmoil, and loss, even for those who might be considered beneficiaries in the long term. But I want to leave that answer aside for the moment, because I see it as a starting point for a broader discussion about how we consider history.
I might well follow up the answer I outlined above by saying there are many historians working on the same period who would disagree with me, and who have well-constructed, heavily-sourced arguments to back their side of the story up. And one of the reasons for the continued vitality of scholarship in the American Revolution is that I don’t think there is a scholarly consensus that the Revolution was a good or a bad thing.
This is wonderful for our field. It means that there is a real tension at the heart of academic debates. Contrast that with other fields where a belief in the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ nature of the events under examination is prevalent, if unspoken. Just as the Revolution became so politically productive because of the intensity of the conflict, so historians should embrace conflict over this question as a means of exploring what is most important in assessing the foundation of the American state. History is most useful when there’s a sense that there’s something at stake.
That is at least something implied by the “good or bad” question, no matter how imperfectly framed it may be. It implies that history matters, that our understanding of the past shapes the possibilities of the present and can inform the development of the future. We should therefore see it as a gateway question—a question that, if engaged properly, can guide us to much better questions about the revolution.
Simply defining the terms “good” and “bad” with greater clarity would be a start. But there are all sorts of other implied questions, too, which would encourage a much more complicated narrative. What are the aims and goals of the Revolution? Who would benefit from those goals? Who would not? How are those goals to be achieved? How successfully were those goals achieved? Why were they—or why weren’t they?
As historians, we should be prepared to put our cards on the table openly as to why we’re writing on our specific topics. Historians have fought battles over the meaning of the Revolution ever since the last battle ended, and the politicization shows no signs of abating any time soon. That sense of tension, of conflict, is what gives the field its vibrancy. And so we should embrace people questioning why we’ve devoted our lives to studying the revolution—and then turn the tables back on the questioners, asking them why they are prepared to settle for normative labels rather than fuller consideration of America’s Revolutionary settlement. We need to take the heat of the “good or bad” question, and turn it into a light that shines on the entire Revolutionary era. Both its most gleaming and darkest corners.
It was a question that Americans living in that period all had to answer for themselves, and they couldn’t really give a “on the one hand, on the other” sort of answer. Many were forced to choose sides for one reason or another. It doesn’t seem terribly burdensome to me for a historian with the benefit of hindsight to have given a well reasoned answer one way or another.
1. It seems to me that the question facing the conference and the field, despite whatever that one guy said once during question time, is not whether the american revolution is a good thing or bad thing, but whether its much of a profoundly significant thing at all, or if so on what terms.
2. I don’t see what’s “at stake.” I agree that something could or should be…
3. How exciting is all of this ambiguity, really?
Matt – thanks for your questions.
1. You may well be right on this. But I think that the ‘good or bad’ question is implicit in what you said. If it wasn’t a profoundly significant thing, then it’s not useful for particularly detailed study, except for maybe debunking myths.
The ‘on what terms’ question is a valuable one, for sure – one that I thought I was getting at in my answer to the ‘good or bad’ question.
2. To give just one example – One of the key questions at stake is whether we should understand the Revolution as a global or an American experience. That surely has implications for all sorts of policy questions today?
3. Perhaps I’m just naturally conditioned to embrace debating and ambiguity. But I think that where there is real conflict between historians working in a field, it is generally productive of better history (at least where it doesn’t degenerate into name-calling). It’s the principle that even if you can’t get your opponents to agree with you, the process of debate forces refinement and closer definition of terms than would happen to those speaking to an echo chamber (of course, some of those nuances are hard to convey in a blog post).
There can be no question that the American Revolution was a global event. It would not have occurred had it not been for global events in the way that it did. It would not have turned out the way it did without global events affecting the outcome. The more I examine the Revolution the more I see it cast in the Atlantic World history theme. I think many of the men and women of that era understood they lived in a world much broader than the one they themselves experienced on a daily basis.
ok i like your last name (:
Your statement, “That paves the way for the David Bartons, Glenn Becks, and Michael Moores of the world to hijack history for their own political agendas, rather than using careful engagement with the past to inform society more productively,” makes me laugh but also brings a modicum of hope. Having sat through a year-long history program which was heavily saturated with the professor’s particular political and social agenda, I can understand why the Glen Becks of the world have an appeal. That you appear to recognize this, brings hope.
The problem with the qualified triumphalism offered above is that, like all triumphalism, it functions to justify rather than elucidate. Thus, the revolution was good in the long term, even if some groups “lost out.” Despite the costs, all was for the best.
Just because something is enduring or successful, however, does not make it good. Not only does this do a profound injustice to the losers, it implies that their sacrifices were necessary to reach the “good” state of affairs we enjoy today.
The key question not being asked here is: good for whom?
Pingback: General Committee
I really dont know what side to take honestly i’d pick good. 🙂
A better question would be, was the American Rebellion necessary? Given that very few British colonies are still under British jurisdiction (the occupation of Northern Ireland being the only notable exception) it would seem that it was not. A United States peacefully given autonomy might have merged with Canada, perhaps losing Alaska and the Southwest in the process (an independent Texas may or may not have survived).
hOlA sOy DoRa
I would like to know from a professional expert on the American Revolution the following question:
What would the scenario be like (in brief summary) if the war was fought today, in the 21st century.
Most Americans today understand that it was a clear-cut, “good thing” for the Vietnamese to resist the Americans’ war to replace the French as their imperial masters. Most Americans understand that it was similarly a “good thing” for the Algerians to make war to throw out the French colonizers. However, in evaluating our own country’s struggle against Britain’s imperial dictatorship, according to contemporary American academic historians, suddenly we enter a strange land of complicated ambiguities and conflicting purposes where, mysteriously, each side is right, in their own way, for their own reasons . . . Right.
The real reason contemporary American historians are no longer willing to praise our War for Independence, or condemn the British Empire’s war to retain her American colonies, is because the United States has now herself become the replacement and continuation of Britain’s world Empire. It is not an accident that the 1619 Project, designed to debunk the revolutionary war, was sponsored by the New York Times, the leading organ of US imperialism and advocate of US military intervention globally. Thus the great sympathy for Britain’s Empire and hostility to those revolutionary Americans who overthrew it.