The concept that the American Revolution may have had economic-social roots is hardly a new theory. It has existed in an unrefined form since the time of the Revolution, and in the first quarter of the 20^th century several scholars tried to explain the social-economic roots of the Revolution. In their examination of their different facets of the internal political sphere of the American colonies between 1760 and 1795, they realized that there were severe economic and social aggressions that characterized the American Revolution at nearly every level of its development. This means that the American Revolution was not just a struggle to gain independence from Great Britain but it was rather a social struggle by individuals in the lower economic group against the special favors and political dominance of the old colonial nobility^[1].

The most notable support for the social-economic roots of the American Revolution is found in Richard L. Bushman’s thesis on From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765, which is basically a case study of the different challenges that were created by the fast economic and demographic expansion of that colony^[2]. According to Bushman’s theory, there were numerous factors that merged to keep the colonial society in a condition of continual and riveting rot. This condition kept on growing in the period just before the Revolution. Key among these developments was the unique growth of the economy with a resultant rise in economic opportunity and increase. Despite the unprecedented economic growth, this period was also characterized by a spiritual upheaval popularly known as the Great Awakening and the development of towns and cities with lifestyles and social dynamics that set them apart from the rest of the existent societies in colonial America. This period was also characterized by the rise of a scenario where some people became increasingly rich while others were living in abject poverty. This upper faction of the society was ruthless in its pursuit for land, wealth, class, and dominance^[3].

According to some experts^[4][5], the relocation of individuals from the older communities to newly established locations highly destabilized the bonds of authority or society. The extreme high levels of social mobility posed a threat to the reputation of traditional leaders by demoting their status and presenting them with incessant challenges to their domination of social and political authority. Within this same period, their unwillingness to share power with the new breed brought about acute class discrepancies in which the new breed had resources, which was traditionally seen as an attribute of leadership status in the status. However, the political power was only available to the traditional class and this posed a challenge. To the conventional elite, the shift towards a more broad leadership organization was rather quick while to the new breed of men it appeared to be too slow. In addition to this, as new men put the conventional leaders into the spotlight or as the existing leaders broke up due to the political rivalry, the political and social standing of the leaders as well as its internal structure was gravely destabilized. Apart from this, the rise of new settlement places put a strain on the existing administrative structures at all levels as the traditional centers of power sought to spread their power of far places with monetary interests, social and political leanings. These strains in various colonies led to the disintegration of government or in open regional rebellion^[6].

In the mid part of the eighteenth century, the new social class had given rise to a new for of militant evangelicalism that was calling for the discard of the conventional social as well as religious order and specifically for the separation of the state and church. The quick urbanization also presented led to the urban-rural dichotomy in numerous colonies. The crowding together of people who had not been absorbed and often time’s emaciated people led to the formation of an intraurban class and thus rivalries within the newly formed cities. While the earlier societies were unified, the emerging social groups formed new classes where people were grouped according to what they owned. Finally, the desire by varying groups to sharpen their social and economic cravings, the unprecedented abundance of the American environment appeared to have created, in direct contravention of acquired norms, a disconcerting rise in various forms of self-gratifying and anomic character and a consequent drop in ethical standards and dedication to the societal good. What was even hazardous, at least in some places, was that this emergent behavior appeared to be getting public approval, therefore putting at risk the normative unity of colonial society^[7].

While the first hypothesis stresses that the unsettled and chaotic state of colonial society during the middle part of the 18^th century led to the American Revolution, there is a second which states that the society during this period was more settled. Some literature points out that during the years just before the Revolution, the economic prosperity was declining and the social structure was losing its openness in the older settled communities due overpopulation that had been brought about by the lack of land, rising social stratification, and an higher placement of wealth in the hands of the upper classes, as well as a rising number of poor people in the society. It is pointed out that all these happenings brought about deep disappointments for those who found it hard to get opportunities thus dimming their prospects in life. The consequent result was that this brought to the fore the hitherto underlying tensions between those who were privileged and the unprivileged, as well as those with land and those without land. Although there are not many studies that seek to explain whether these tendencies were widespread or not, Jackson Turner Main in his more encompassing examination The Social Structure of Evolutionary America has indicated the existence of a broad “long-term tendency……toward greater inequality, with more pronounced class differences in all the colonies just before the pre-Revolutionary disturbances.”^[8]

Although more research is required to determine the truth about these two hypotheses, the thing that comes out clearly is that both of them point out to disturbances in the social-economic state of the colonies which finally culminated into the Revolution. Whether the rapid change or the people’s frustrations led to the Revolution, the reality is that the social order and economic state of the colonies was an important ingredient towards the Revolution. Despite this obvious causes, students of Revolution have brought up questions on the validity of these two hypotheses and if they really led to the Revolution. In most cases, these students indicate that the internal social changes were limited and therefore not sufficient to bring about a Revolution. However, research has indicated that the limited nature of the internal social transformations that were brought about by the Revolution is not direct translation that the various facets of strain had not resultant association to the Revolution. According to some researchers, the fact social and economic environment has a significant bearing upon political events is a cliché, and because these elements were all present to some degree in the colonial society at the time the Revolution took place leads to the safe conclusion that they had some level of involvement into the Revolution^[9].

Ideally, there is overwhelming evidence that the level of strain was so great and the frustration so great that people were willing to do everything possible to get what they desired. The intensity and extensiveness of these strains were so severe within the colonial society to an extent that it leaned towards a revolution. This happened by either creating a social crisis that spread across all the segments of spheres of colonial life or an intricate massive amount of interconnected local, team, and personal crises that came together to form an acute disruption in numerous key areas of the colonial society. In addition to this, the Great Awakening of the mid eighteenth century must have prepared the colonists academically and psychologically for the denunciation of British authority after 1760 by querying or else failing to honor the authority of the conventional religious, social and political bodies and elites. These events finally led to the Revolution that accorded the American people their independence^[10].

Conclusion

The American Revolution was not merely the struggle for independence but rather the result of a social-economic effect that took place in the first half of the eighteenth century. During this period, there was an unprecedented economic growth which had given rise to a new social class that challenged the colonial government. Although Revolution students have questioned the validity of these claims, there is no denying that the economic and demographic growth, as well as the social agitation of the society against the traditional elites through the first half of the eighteenth century brought about heightened economic and social expectations in the remainder of the society which were consequently disappointed by the sharp fall in opportunities that had started in the middle of the century. This agitation ultimately led to the American Revolution.

Bibliography

Bushman, Richard. From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 190-1765. (Cambridge: Mass, 1967), 105-109.

Davies, James. Toward a Theory of Revolution. American Sociological Review 26 no. 3, (2010): 5-19

Gurr, Tedd. Why Men Rebel. (Princeton, 2011), 66-75.

Main, Jackson. The Social Structure of Evolutionary America. (Princeton, 2005), 25-35.

Wood, Gordon. Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution. William and Mary Quarterly 23 (2010), 106-115.

[1]Tedd Gurr. Why Men Rebel. (Princeton, 2011), 66-75.

[2]Richard Bushman. From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut,

190-1765. (Cambridge: Mass, 1967), 105-109.

[3] Tedd 67

[4] Ibid, 69

[5] Richard, 108

[6]Jackson Main. The Social Structure of Evolutionary America. (Princeton, 2005), 25-35.

[7] Ibid 27

[8] Main, 30

[9]James, Davies. Toward a Theory of Revolution. American Sociological Review 26 no. 3, (2010), 5-19

[10]Gordon Wood. Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution. William and Mary Quarterly 23 (2010), 106-115.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW