What do you think?
American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement
Written when political and military history dominated the discipline, J. Franklin Jameson's The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement was a pioneering work. Based on a series of four lectures he gave at Princeton University in 1925, the short book argued that the most salient feature of the American Revolution had not been the war for independence from Great Britain; it was, rather, the struggle between aristocratic values and those of the common people who tended toward a leveling democracy. American revolutionaries sought to change their government, not their society, but in destroying monarchy and establishing republics, they in fact changed their society profoundly. Jameson wrote, "The stream of revolution, once started, could not be con.ned within narrow banks, but spread abroad upon the land.?
Jameson's book was among the first to bring social analysis to the fore of American history. Examining the effects the American Revolution had on business, intellectual and religious life, slavery, land ownership, and interactions between members of different social classes, Jameson showed the extent of the social reforms won at home during the war. By looking beyond the political and probing the social aspects of this seminal event, Jameson forced a reexamination of revolution as a social phenomenon and, as one reviewer put it, injected a "liberal spirit" into the study of American history. Still in print after nearly eighty years, the book is a classic of American historiography.
Jameson's book was among the first to bring social analysis to the fore of American history. Examining the effects the American Revolution had on business, intellectual and religious life, slavery, land ownership, and interactions between members of different social classes, Jameson showed the extent of the social reforms won at home during the war. By looking beyond the political and probing the social aspects of this seminal event, Jameson forced a reexamination of revolution as a social phenomenon and, as one reviewer put it, injected a "liberal spirit" into the study of American history. Still in print after nearly eighty years, the book is a classic of American historiography.
120 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1940
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 28, 2021
Jameson advances a thesis of the American Revolution as a social revolution that overthrew the English-imposed aristocracy utilizing traditions and institution of economic and political democracy. However, he not only ignores the plight of American Indians, he repeatedly refers to settlers in a racialized way, an "Anglo-Saxon" nature or character. His defense of the Revolution in terms of advancing anti-slavery is laughable: anti-slavery sentiment was not the same as abolitionist, and the uncomfortable contradiction between Enlightenment principles and enslavement led to little except for bans on slavery in the North, where it was no longer necessary, cessation of importation (itself a boon to Border States that specialized in shipping the enslaved South), and lessening of manumission restrictions in the South that were promptly reimposed in later years. Jameson contradicts himself in several places in terms of straddling the line between Great Man Theory, speaking of "honor to the heroes" whilst attempting to emphasize the role of the "plain folk."
August 28, 2012
A trail blazed in the wilderness can, if it leads nowhere, succumb again to the wilderness. Or, if it leads down a path many will want to trudge and traverse, be pounded so flat, smooth, and featureless that neither the trail nor the wilderness remain to be discovered. Jameson's book is like the second kind of trail, and he like the second kind of trailblazer, one who dug a well that now flows so freely its waters can never be traced again to their source.
That is what happens when three generations of historians rush after to dig and blaze in their turn. So now it seems absurd even to think that the American Revolution was merely a political and military event. Yet in 1925 when Jameson delivered these lectures that was the dominant view of the Revolution, within the academy and outside it. Jameson's counterclaim was simply that the Revolution had profound social, economic, and cultural consequences. He never is so bold as to claim that the Revolution was just as much a "revolution" as its French and Russian (China hadn't happened yet) counterparts. But that is what he means. Or as he says:
"The stream of revolution, once started, could not be confined within narrow banks, but spread abroad upon the land. Many economic desires, many social aspirations were set free by the political struggle, any aspects of colonial society profoundly altered by the forces set loose. The relations of social classes to each other, the institution of slavery, the system of land-holding, the course of business, the forms and spirit of the intellectual and religious life, all felt the transforming hand of revolution, all emerged from under it in shapes advanced many degrees nearer to those we know" (9).
In the four lectures, Jameson elaborates his argument with regard to various aspects of American society: the growth of anti-slavery sentiment, the reorganization of America's religious establishments, the growth of trade, commerce, and industry, the demise of feudal systems of land tenure, the expansion of the franchise (something already widespread as it turns out, contrary to Jameson's assertions), and so forth. Jameson's most controversial claim is likely that "political democracy came to the United States as a result of economic democracy," that is, the path to the political revolution was paved by the advanced state of economic equality and opportunity in the colonies (27). It does not seem so shocking now to assert such a view when so often we now regard political and economic democracy as symbiotic, even identical.
If there is one real criticism that can be applied from a contemporary point of view, it is that Jameson's argument is impressionistic. He raises a point (say, the re-organization of America's churches after the Revolution), offers a few examples, and moves on. Any one of the topics he broaches could have - and has had - a whole shelf of books and articles devoted to it. Indeed, it is because the process of expatiating upon Jameson's thesis has produced enough material to fill several libraries, that it has been transformed from a dramatic feature on the landscape, to the landscape itself.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
That is what happens when three generations of historians rush after to dig and blaze in their turn. So now it seems absurd even to think that the American Revolution was merely a political and military event. Yet in 1925 when Jameson delivered these lectures that was the dominant view of the Revolution, within the academy and outside it. Jameson's counterclaim was simply that the Revolution had profound social, economic, and cultural consequences. He never is so bold as to claim that the Revolution was just as much a "revolution" as its French and Russian (China hadn't happened yet) counterparts. But that is what he means. Or as he says:
"The stream of revolution, once started, could not be confined within narrow banks, but spread abroad upon the land. Many economic desires, many social aspirations were set free by the political struggle, any aspects of colonial society profoundly altered by the forces set loose. The relations of social classes to each other, the institution of slavery, the system of land-holding, the course of business, the forms and spirit of the intellectual and religious life, all felt the transforming hand of revolution, all emerged from under it in shapes advanced many degrees nearer to those we know" (9).
In the four lectures, Jameson elaborates his argument with regard to various aspects of American society: the growth of anti-slavery sentiment, the reorganization of America's religious establishments, the growth of trade, commerce, and industry, the demise of feudal systems of land tenure, the expansion of the franchise (something already widespread as it turns out, contrary to Jameson's assertions), and so forth. Jameson's most controversial claim is likely that "political democracy came to the United States as a result of economic democracy," that is, the path to the political revolution was paved by the advanced state of economic equality and opportunity in the colonies (27). It does not seem so shocking now to assert such a view when so often we now regard political and economic democracy as symbiotic, even identical.
If there is one real criticism that can be applied from a contemporary point of view, it is that Jameson's argument is impressionistic. He raises a point (say, the re-organization of America's churches after the Revolution), offers a few examples, and moves on. Any one of the topics he broaches could have - and has had - a whole shelf of books and articles devoted to it. Indeed, it is because the process of expatiating upon Jameson's thesis has produced enough material to fill several libraries, that it has been transformed from a dramatic feature on the landscape, to the landscape itself.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
March 13, 2013
My favorite part of this book was when Megatron and Optimus Prime killed everyone from Twilight. I thought it was funny when they made a Tuduckin by shoving Bella inside Edward and both of them inside Jacob and then shooting them with a photon plasma blast. I didn't get the part about the Chipmunk versus Smurf war, but was happy when Scooby Doo ate them all. Good dog.
February 18, 2024
Most people do not think of the American Revolution as being anywhere near as radical as the French, Russian, or Chinese Revolutions; but Jameson shows how colonial society was turned upside-down by the war. In four chapters focusing on status, land, industry, and intellectual thought, Jameson shows how the American Revolution was just as society altering as other revolutions, if not as bloody.
The first three chapters show the most profound changes in colonial society. Jameson argues that the colonial world was focused on raw materials provided chiefly from the Southern states. The vast majority of Americans were rural and oriented towards local agriculture. British supervision focused on limiting the growth of American industry and commerce to maintain British markets for manufactured goods. Jameson argues that most Americans were comfortable with the status quo and unenthusiastic for revolution.
The revolution was sparked by extremist intellectuals, lawyers, and aspiring industrialists who wanted to expand their influence and trade. Jameson's contention that these were the fringe members of society may not be as accurate and as simple as he intended. The revolutionaries were the leaders in Congress, so Jameson's contention that they were the fringe is suspect. What is more, many of them were landed aristocrats whom Jameson argues were the people who benefited the most from British rule. The seeming contradiction goes to the heart of his argument that the revolution was inspired and led by a small group of fringe extremists.
On the contrary, he demonstrates that there were thousands of Tories who willingly left for Britain instead of remaining in the colonies. Most of the departed Tories owned land and business which the new regime quickly usurped. James aptly demonstrates how the states seized Tory land and redistributed it to the veterans. The colonial era British rule for blocking colonization west of the Appalachians was widely known to be loosely enforced. However, the end of British rule openly threw the policy out the window as states, settlers, and veterans claimed, redistributed, and seized vast amounts of land to reward followers of the new regime.
The chapter on land focused on the soldiers. Jameson argues that the Continental Army and guerilla supporters consisted of a small percentage of the people - again his argument fixates on the lethargic and somewhat unwilling colonial population going along with the war. He compares the size of the army to those of the Civil War and select other wars to reinforce his central assertion of an apathetic public. A bit more interesting is that the number of navy men, privateers, and seamen supporting the American cause were just as numerous as the army and possibly more successful. Jameson argues that shipbuilders, privateers, and sympathizers wrecked havoc on British commerce all along the Atlantic World. The lectures / chapters are too short to be conclusive, but it is an aspect of the war not covered in American textbooks.
The final chapter on intellectual thought is a mish-mash of thoughts, the largest focusing on religion. The British strongly supported the Church of England while generally being tolerant of other Christian denominations. There was not a terror of support or persecution; but a strong preference for loyalist administrators. Some colonies enforced Christian public officials; but these laws were quickly replaced with a far more open and tolerant view of religious identity. Jameson spends a lot of time discussing the different denominations and arguing which denominations supported the revolution more ardently than other denominations. The importance of such distinction probably goes toward the basic idea of religious toleration. But Jameson stops short of theological arguments supporting revolution.
The lectures were given in 1925, so Jameson offers cursory thoughts on Indians and slaves. He halfheartedly argues that the ideals of Enlightenment made American slavery more tolerable than previous versions of slavery is weak and unconvincing. These brief passages clearly show that he lacks the enthusiasm for discussing either demographic. He does not argue how the Rights of Man apply only to free men and not slaves or indentured servants.
Overall, the four lectures are interesting and informative. The central thesis that Americans were overwhelmingly uncommitted to revolution is not convincing. But James makes a clear argument for his thesis. His data and simplification are solid and he clearly knows the material. Readers will learn something from the book that is glossed over in modern writings. His focus on society and social changes is a refreshing look from vague ideas of freedom, tyranny, and military action.
The first three chapters show the most profound changes in colonial society. Jameson argues that the colonial world was focused on raw materials provided chiefly from the Southern states. The vast majority of Americans were rural and oriented towards local agriculture. British supervision focused on limiting the growth of American industry and commerce to maintain British markets for manufactured goods. Jameson argues that most Americans were comfortable with the status quo and unenthusiastic for revolution.
The revolution was sparked by extremist intellectuals, lawyers, and aspiring industrialists who wanted to expand their influence and trade. Jameson's contention that these were the fringe members of society may not be as accurate and as simple as he intended. The revolutionaries were the leaders in Congress, so Jameson's contention that they were the fringe is suspect. What is more, many of them were landed aristocrats whom Jameson argues were the people who benefited the most from British rule. The seeming contradiction goes to the heart of his argument that the revolution was inspired and led by a small group of fringe extremists.
On the contrary, he demonstrates that there were thousands of Tories who willingly left for Britain instead of remaining in the colonies. Most of the departed Tories owned land and business which the new regime quickly usurped. James aptly demonstrates how the states seized Tory land and redistributed it to the veterans. The colonial era British rule for blocking colonization west of the Appalachians was widely known to be loosely enforced. However, the end of British rule openly threw the policy out the window as states, settlers, and veterans claimed, redistributed, and seized vast amounts of land to reward followers of the new regime.
The chapter on land focused on the soldiers. Jameson argues that the Continental Army and guerilla supporters consisted of a small percentage of the people - again his argument fixates on the lethargic and somewhat unwilling colonial population going along with the war. He compares the size of the army to those of the Civil War and select other wars to reinforce his central assertion of an apathetic public. A bit more interesting is that the number of navy men, privateers, and seamen supporting the American cause were just as numerous as the army and possibly more successful. Jameson argues that shipbuilders, privateers, and sympathizers wrecked havoc on British commerce all along the Atlantic World. The lectures / chapters are too short to be conclusive, but it is an aspect of the war not covered in American textbooks.
The final chapter on intellectual thought is a mish-mash of thoughts, the largest focusing on religion. The British strongly supported the Church of England while generally being tolerant of other Christian denominations. There was not a terror of support or persecution; but a strong preference for loyalist administrators. Some colonies enforced Christian public officials; but these laws were quickly replaced with a far more open and tolerant view of religious identity. Jameson spends a lot of time discussing the different denominations and arguing which denominations supported the revolution more ardently than other denominations. The importance of such distinction probably goes toward the basic idea of religious toleration. But Jameson stops short of theological arguments supporting revolution.
The lectures were given in 1925, so Jameson offers cursory thoughts on Indians and slaves. He halfheartedly argues that the ideals of Enlightenment made American slavery more tolerable than previous versions of slavery is weak and unconvincing. These brief passages clearly show that he lacks the enthusiasm for discussing either demographic. He does not argue how the Rights of Man apply only to free men and not slaves or indentured servants.
Overall, the four lectures are interesting and informative. The central thesis that Americans were overwhelmingly uncommitted to revolution is not convincing. But James makes a clear argument for his thesis. His data and simplification are solid and he clearly knows the material. Readers will learn something from the book that is glossed over in modern writings. His focus on society and social changes is a refreshing look from vague ideas of freedom, tyranny, and military action.
February 25, 2021
I read this book as part of my work putting together a 1200-word essay on revolution from a sociological perspective. This book satisfied that requirement and opened my mind to the reasons revolution occurred in the early America, and the end result which impacted politics, religion, manufacturing and business, and education. Well done!
May 11, 2021
In 2021, this is not the easiest read in the world, but it does offer merit and value to anybody with an interest in the American Revolution.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews