"American Revolutions" Topic

"Most previous books on the revolution, especially popular histories, focus obsessively on the national story of the United States, on the development of its republican institutions at the national level. That approach demotes neighboring empires and native peoples to bit players and minor obstacles to inevitable American expansion. Canada, Spanish America, and the West Indies appear prominently in recent histories of colonial America, but they virtually vanish when historians turn to the subsequent revolution and early republic. American Revolutions attempts to balance attention to the larger context while covering the major story on that bigger stage in the period 1750-1800: the creation of the United States and the acceleration of its growth.

The inclusion of the enslaved and Native peoples also highlights the divisive nature of the revolution, which breaks with the tradition of casting the American Revolution as the polar opposite of other, bloodier revolutions elsewhere. In a stark dichotomy advanced during the Cold War, the American Revolution was the good, orderly, restrained, and successful revolution – defined in contrast to the French, Russian, or Chinese revolutions…"

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

One of my favourite authors these days.

All things are a matter of degree. Compared to the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, the American revolution was less bloody.
But that does not mean it was bloodless. The internecine warfare in NJ and the Carolinas did pit neighbor and against neighbor, and much killing was tit for tat.

But compared to France's reign of terror or Russia's routine shooting of opponents by both sides?

Nevertheless, the book looks interesting. I'll likely read it.

We must distinguish between deaths in war and political executions. The Revolutionary War was bloody. However, while treatment of Loyalists was often harsh, nothing like the Reign of Terror was even close to happening.

Glad you like it boys!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand