At the end of the English civil war (aka the English revolution) the king was ultimately deposed and Oliver Cromwell became lord protector:
The title passed (chaotically without much preparation) to his son (who was a failure and the result was the restoration of the monarchy). At no point as far as I know (even among the “extremists” in movements like the Levelers who were never close to gaining power) was the idea of a democratically elected leader seriously considered. Even though any educated person was familiar with concept from classical times (Greece and Rome).
A hundred years later after the English colonists gained independence from the King, democracy of some kind was the only form of government serious considered: Constitutional Convention (United States) - Wikipedia)
What changed in society between the two revolutions that made this the case?
My WAG? Religion. The Civil War was as much a religious war as it was a revolution, and religious fanatics are not known to be supporters of democracy.
The colonies had some experience is self-government (i.e., the colonial legislatures) and since they had overthrown a king, they didn’t particularly want a new on in his place.
There were those who considered the option, but the obvious choice for the role – George Washington – was dead set against it. And it wasn’t completely out of the question – the “natural born citizen” requirement for president was mostly to prevent a European prince from coming over, getting elected president, and then ruling as a king.
The Civil War brought Parliament into near equal standing with the Monarchy; the Glorious Revolution brought about its supremacy.
You also have to consider how the evolution of Presbyterianism (helped by the Civil War) drove the emerging Scottish enlightenment which produced Adam Smith and David Hume and then throw in John Locke down in England and you have the foundations of the American Republic.
Which they specifically built as a republic and not a democracy.
Both revolutions were essentially conservative (i.e., established classes feeling their entrenched rights and privileges were being infringed from above - with the particular religious angle, in Charles I’s case), rather than uprisings of the longterm oppressed.
But in the case of the English Civil War, Parliament was also anxious not to risk having their rights and privileges infringed upon from below by extending the franchise (as their soldiers not unreasonably thought they were entitled to). Democracy was proposed - see the Putney Debates and the Agreement of the People, for example. But Cromwell and the other Parliamentarians resisted on the grounds that if the vote were extended to people without property (and therefore ties to a particular community), it would lead to what they saw as chaos “like the Switzerland country”.
How soon did the US move to near-universal adult (male only in those days) suffrage?
Plus, they also had to contend with the fear of continuing royalist support across the country, drawing on support from Catholic France and Ireland (don’t forget that there were, in effect three civil wars, with Charles I having a second go, which led to his execution, and Charles II launching a third from Scotland). Avoiding free elections, and excluding from Parliament those who, in their view, could not be relied upon, eventually reduced Parliament to a meaningless Rump (as it was known), hence handing everything over to Cromwell as Lord Protector (vaguely modelled, perhaps, on the Dutch Statthouder). Whereas the US Loyalists simply left.
While i think your overall question about changes between the 17th and 18th century is worthwhile, the devil is often in the details.
Plenty of Americans at the end of the Revolutionary war were explicitly opposed to democracy; they preferred a republican idea of government, with representation and without a monarch, but also without the broad participation that we think of as standard today.
Many American states in the early years of the republic had property qualifications for voting. Of course, the relatively wide distribution of land ownership in America meant that a considerable proportion of the population could vote, but even leaving aside issues of race and sex, voting still wasn’t open to all.
Even more interesting are some of the debates over democracy that occurred during the early decades of the nineteenth century. Plenty of Americans were aghast at the idea of allowing broad suffrage, with some arguing explicitly about the dangers of allowing propertyless men to vote. When New York held a constitutional convention to address some of these issues, quite a few people argued that the only true virtue resided in those who tilled their own land, and there were strong warnings about the consequences of allowing the growing, landless working class of New York City to have the vote.
Even after the rise of Jacksonian democracy, there were frequent portrayals of Jackson and other democratically-inclined politicians as demagogues who manipulated the masses for their own ends. The public turmoil of Jacksonian-era politics was, for some critics, clear evidence that universal (white manhood) suffrage was a really bad idea.
The basis for rule of the nobility is the concept that there are intrinsic differences between people and some people are good, honorable, and blessed, while others are mere villeins.
The Enlightenment thinkers began the path towards tossing that sort of thinking aside and instead thinking that all mankind is created equal, that there’s value to each and every life, and subsequently a moral government would be one which is by and for the people. There’s currently a GD thread about this, but likely this branch of thinking came about for the same reasons as Deism - if there’s a big, uncaring creator and we’re all just generated via random processes, then there’s no claim for greater or lesser people on the Earth. We’re just stuck here, trying to make do, and each with equal rights to do so.
The reason that the English revolution is often not called a revolution is that a great many of the so-called revolutionaries didn’t seek to overturn the old order, but rather to curb the powers of the king whom they saw as trying to overturn the English constitution by assuming absolutist powers. With the execution of the king though, England was thrown into constitutional crisis.
When seeking to build a government to replace the former government, a big problem was there were many institutions and factions with very disparate ideas about the way forward, but none had ultimate control of government. Cromwell as a member of Parliament, puritan and most importantly as leader of the army straddled several of these disparate parties and, as a pragmatic and decisive leader, was able to assume a quasi-monarchical position which was in some ways more absolutist than Charles I. It must be said that Cromwell never sought to set himself up as a direct replacement for Charles, but he recognized fairly early that setting himself up as king in all but name was the most effective solution to England’s constitutional crisis.
Considering the fact (among others) that the franchise was limited to white, male landowners 21 or older, the OP is asking the wrong question.
This modern obsession with democracy is bizarre. Democracy is NOT something that is in any way desirable – it is no more than mob rule with a veneer of civilization.
It’s already been pointed out, but the Founders sought a republic. A republic has been called the “Golden Mean.” It takes the idea of a single leader from monarchy–the President; it takes the idea of a ruling group from oligarchy–the Congress; and it takes the idea of the sovereignty of the people from democracy.
Many people have bewailed the fact that the Electoral College is undemocratic. That’s precisely the point! It was designed that way for a reason.
If I had the power, every person who referred to the US as a “democracy” would be publicly flogged until that nonsense died out.
That, and to ensure that each state is counted as an entity in the election. The country was founded by self-governed colonies, and our first attempt was actually a confederacy of states until that experiment had problems and we created a constitution that established a central government. But even then the states wanted to be represented when electing that central government.
If we elected via a general election only, many parts of the country would be ignored in campaigns. With the current system you’d better cater to as much of the country as you can. You never know if ignoring Rhode Island might be the difference come Election Day.
The American Revolution was unusual in not devouring its own children. If it had followed the same path as the more-or-less contemporaneous French Revolution then George Washington and Ben Franklin and John Adams would have ended up executing each other as traitors. And this has been the more common path down the ages.
That’s just a semantic nit-pick. Yes technically the US is not a democracy. In the same way as a myriad is exactly 10000 of something.
In modern English a “democracy” is a country where the leaders are chosen for a fixed term by an electorate of most of the populace in a fair election. That may not be technically correct, but it is what almost everyone means when they use the term.
Bloody hell, I’m a Brit and even I’ve followed enough US elections to know that’s balls. It’s precisely the Electoral College that means presidential candidates can pretty much ignore some 35-40 of the states and consequently some 80-odd percent of the voters.
Rhode Island… RHODE ISLAND???
Or are you secretly hoping all the Republican candidates are feverishly monitoring the SDMB for election-winning tips? If so… never mind, forget I said anything. And Donald, if you’re listening, for God’s sake don’t ignore Rhode Island!
I was speaking hypothetically for the most part. It’s one of the reasons why we have that system. In reality their campaigning is more focused and strategic. Swing states are given a lot of attention, while candidates will spend less time with a state that they are unlikely to win.
But a tiny state like Rhode Island has a larger percentage of electoral votes than popular votes. And in practice, on Election Day we do look to see what states are won compared to how many people voted for a particular candidate.
Maybe in a different time we would have people look at a state like Rhode Island rather than a state like Florida or Ohio as being key to winning. Who knows.
Technically speaking, that chart is incorrect. Getting rid of the electoral vote still wouldn’t make the country a Democracy. It would just be a more Democratic, Democratic Republic. The actual law making and voting would still be done by elected representatives.
On the other hand, I don’t think this really has much to do with the OP’s question…
Besides The word democracy like most other words has many different but related meanings. The word democracy is mainly used to systems that elect people to represent them in government. To say we don’t live in a democracy is to ignore the main use of the word democracy.
Three very short reasons I didn’t see mentioned yet:
There’s a bloody ocean between North America and England. Bit of a bother to send troops over. Stretches supply lines and complicates communication. Between parts of Great Britain and London … not so much. Makes throwing off the yoke of oppression easier, especially if you’ve got help from a more proximally located power (<cough> France) that is also an enemy of the guys you’re fighting.
The leaders of the revolutions had completely different ideals. The Americans were led by people who were, frankly, so ultra-liberal that they were considered borderline batshit; think hippies in wigs and breeches telling everyone that near anarchy would be, like, really cool, man. Even though they were actually part of the establishment, they went out of their way to live up to their ideals by giving away a shitload more power than any other political upheaval in history. The people overthrowing the monarchy in GB were nobility and landowners; IOW, The Man fighting against the Establishment to keep more of the cookies for themselves.
Totally different time, society, set of circumstances. The previous British revolution more or less set the stage for a later colonial revolution to be successful. There were subsequent events from making parliament stronger vs. the crown, from actually deposing a reigning king without immediately putting a competing noble line with claim to the throne in place, and from the erosion of church control under a protestant lord protector that made the later American revolution conceptually more realistic. IOW, it set some precedents that led the way to a more radical departure than had been previously thought possible.
A related point to consider is: why did the French Revolution lead to a bloody interregnum and political infighting, when the aftermath of the American Revolution about a decade earlier had gone relatively smoothly?
Precisely. It wasn’t a revolution, and isn’t called such. It is the English Civil War, a war between Parliament and the King, not a revolution by the common man.
(a) The French, on the whole, place a greater weight on being correct in theory rather than empirical practice, so ideological purity was a matter of life and death
But, more seriously,
(b) The French revolutionary government faced an alliance of enemies wanting the revolution to fail, both within and outwith the country. Anyone might be an enemy.
The American loyalists left for Canada or elsewhere; nobody other than Britain would have wanted to try to occupy and overthrow the revolution.