I know this is a huge question. Could anyone brief me?
Because the people who represented the ruling class were on the other side of the Atlantic?
Who said there wasn’t? Loyalists during and after the Revolution were treated pretty terribly…tarring and feathering, confiscation of property, blackmail, harassment, and even murder. There’s a reason Canada saw a large influx of population from the USA after the Treaty of Paris was signed.
That gets glossed over in primary and secondary school history classes…the Revolution is taught in the USA as an unobscured good thing, and that kind of treatment doesn’t look very good. I do remember tarring and feathering being mentioned in my high school history classes (mid- to late-80s), but mostly in a way that gave it an air of pranks and games.
One reason is that unlike France, the U.S. already had strong (for the period) democratic institutions in place before the Revolution.
And, aside from ‘nobody knows’, this is the best answer we seem to have: You can’t have a stable, successful democracy unless you already (almost) have a stable, successful democracy. In fact, if you look at Japan and (West) Germany, a democracy that wasn’t stable or successful can be repaired after a huge, destructive war. If you happen to be Japan or (West) Germany.
There are some things that are obviously going to seriously challenge a democracy, like having a section of your population that is systematically disenfranchised, not having any natural resources, or having a huge amount of natural resources, but political science is silent on the topic of things that are necessary and sufficient for creating a working government other than the above near-tautology.
It was not a class war like the French (1789) or Russian (1917) (and current Occupy) revolutions. In the 1770s wealthy “americans” also supported the revolution against England. Not really a revolution as such, it was a war for independence.
I agree the classes weren’t so defined. The ruling class was pretty much back in England. So if you divide people into two groups, the haves and have nots, the haves were in England.
The have nots, then divided themselves again. But the have nots in the soon to be USA, were not really interested in much more than a decent life.
This is why in the old days peasants easily switched from pagan to Christian, to Islam. They were at the bottom and there was not a strong nationalistic feeling yet. If you were a peasant it didn’t matter to you if you were a Christian and the Christian came and took everything you had in taxes or you were a Muslim and the Muslim rulers came and took everything you had in taxes.
Nationalism is an important part of a “terror reign” and it just started to have very strong roots after the French Revolution.
I think it’s funny how you guys are still trying to find explanations for why it didn’t happen, after jayjay already reminded you that it did in fact happen. Did you not read his post, or are you disputing it?
It’s a fair point, but the Reign of Terror implied way more than the initial executions, it involved political parties mass murdering each other and a brutal, repressive dictatorship that purged anybody suspected of dissent.
Comparatively, the U.S. was a fairly impressive democratic success from the start, Slavery and other troubles aside,. That’s a point that deserves to be discussed.
Disputing.
Because, by definition, **jayjay **did not answer the question. The question was about a REIGN of Terror; the key word being Reign, indicating an institutionalization of the terror. The reigns of terror, USSR/France were instutitionalized by the head(s) of the governments.
There **wasn’t **one in the US. A mob committing pranks, (yes, pranks, albeit vicious pranks) isn’t a Reign of anything.
hh
Also, the Terrors of the States that had them were put in place because there was a great danger of the new government being overthrown. Other nations were going to invade, huge sectors of the nation were against the Revolutions: Russian=Civil War, France=Invasion from Austria(?).
Not quite so in the US. Mostly, the citizens didn’t care too vigorously about what form of government they had. Or, if they were against the Revolution, they weren’t going/planning to do much about it.
hh
It didn’t happen. As has been said, the degree of retribution against the opposition to the American Revolution was not remotely on the scale of that experienced in France or in several 20th Century revolutions. In the American Revolution we are talking about a handful of deaths and economic and social harassment; in France we are talking about tens of thousands of summary executions plus many more killings of non-combatants in massacres throughout the country. Nothing comparable happened in America.
Besides, one defining characteristic of a revolutionary “reign of terror” is that it ultimately ends up consuming itself. The U.S. government remained stable throughout its formative years.
This is a large factor, though. Rather than forming a counter revolution, which may have led to brutal repression by the new regime if it wanted to stay in power, many of the Loyalists simply fled to Canada, which was still run by the British. There was a viable escape route for the malcontents.
I’ve heard it stated that before the revolution about 25% of the population favored independence, 25% favored remaining loyal and 50% didn’t care. It was a largely agrarian society. For a lot of people, it didn’t matter whether King George or George Washington was in charge, provided it didn’t interfere too much with their day-to-day lives.
There was no reign of terror because the revolutionaries were British.
the indians massacred a lot of the british and their families even after they surrendered.
Without disagreeing with several of the other points made, I would say that bardos has come closest: there was no “Revolution” in the sense of the overthrow of an entire form of society, including its government and its social rules. There was a much more modest (though significant) “revolution” of ideas among the electorate who chose to expand a form of government that they already had and then fought a war of independence (not a revolution) to more firmly establish it.
Why would that make any difference–aside from some legacy feelings to avoid repeating the terrors of the Roundheads and the Royals or the earlier Tudors from previous generations?
This is just silly.
More than a handful. The Revolution was a bloody civil war in the Carolina upcountry, with raids and reprisals between Tory and Revolutionary factions. That doesn’t get covered much in history classes.
Still, I wouldn’t compare it to the Reign of Terror, which was defined by class resentment.
I think the de facto self-rule was the biggest reason the transition after the revolution was mostly peaceful. Another contributing factor was that there was little poverty in the US like there was in France. The poor in the US often had land and if they didn’t, they could move further west and settle. After the French revolution there were still plenty of people with little to do.
Also, there was no power vacuum that needed to be fought over by rival parties. King George had little influence in the day-to-day running of the local governments and much of it continued as before. In France the downfall of the king left a sucking, gaping hole of power and different factions fought to fill it.
Lastly, I think some of the American revolutionaries were quality characters. If the French Revolution had had someone like George Washington, who the other parties could at worst grudgingly trust, then it might have turned out different.
i meant native americans, not the sub-continent. 