The American Revolution: Democracy And Monarchy

In regards to the American Revolution, the point that armed rebellion became inevitable arrived when after nearly five constant years of American colonist protesting. American 's had enough and needed to take a stand for the numerous inequalities they were forced to deal with. It was foreseeable that the American Revolution took place due to the unfair taxes that the British were giving Americans. Also, England was not allowing Americans their freedom, along with violence and the political dominance by the Parliament over the colonies by announcing the Stamp Act in 1765, which happened to nearly affect all Americans tremendously.

Between 1770 and 1776, resistance to imperial change turned into a full-on revolution. The American Revolution, also known as the Revolutionary War, was a time of revolting and political uprising, in which the 13 colonies separated from the British Empire, forming the independent nation known as the United States of America. Though the American Revolution began because the colonies wanted independence from Britain, many important historical events and revolts also lead to the tensions and resistance to what resulted in freedom and independence for the colonies from British rule. Events such as the Stamp and Sugar Acts, the Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Intolerable Acts, and the Continental Congress led to expanding tensions and soon to the outbreak of the American Revolution.

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

For a significant period of European history, there was a concerted push towards the establishment of absolute monarchy. The absolute monarchy was the apex of the pyramid of power and influence. Although the monarch claimed complete autocratic authority by virtue of blood, the monarchy was only fully secured by the presence of a supportive aristocracy and a stable, established church. This was a tripartite; the monarch, the aristocrat, and the church. Absolute monarchy is best exemplified in the reign of Louis XIV of France. Using the French as an example, and on the basis of the tripartite, one can begin to understand what led to the fall of absolute monarchy. It was a breakdown of the alliance between the monarchy and the aristocrats. The

The American Revolution (1775-1783) was a war between England and the colonies which were settled earlier by the English. There were many factors and events that led to the American Revolution. The Revolution was mainly an economic rebellion that was fueled by taxation without representation following the French and Indian War. The English Parliament was more often than not considered cruel and unfair by the colonists. With conflicts over trade, taxes and government representation, the colonies were at a starting line of a revolution that would later transform into the basis of the United States of America.

The American Revolution is typically looked at as a conservative movement, but it seems most of the actions taken were very radical. They were fighting to defend their rights, governed and natural. The American Revolution was as radical as any other revolution, in a special 18th century way, and this seems to hold true while looking at the new waves of thinking. It involves the Whigs and Tories, and while they are at opposite sides of the spectrum, they consecutively agreed to not address and higher-law principles so they would not have to rework their entire system.. The Revolution worked against this, and the parties chose to pretend it was not a serious movement and act, as they believed it would not take any effect. More people got involved and all aspects of life began to be questioned and revolutionized. The Revolution seems to be radical in a more definitive way as it caused segregation of beliefs, the Declaration of independence, and

Every 4th of July, Americans are told the story of the American Revolution. We remember the oppressed colonists fighting against the tyrannical King George III and the formidable red coats. Patriotic heroes are remembered, evil kings are cursed, and the liberties and freedoms won from the war are celebrated. Though America often likes to look back to the revolution, the question of just how much a revolution was the American Revolution is rarely asked. While the American revolution was not as radical of a revolution as we like to remember today, it still changed the political, social, and ideological aspects substantially of the thirteen colonies. Americans deservedly have to rite to remember the revolution, regardless to the fact of if there was true reason to start one, as a true full fledged revolution.

Taming Democracy: “The People,” the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution is a compelling book written by acclaimed professor and American historian Terry Bouton. Bouton effectively chronicles the tumultuous history of early American democracy during the latter half of the eighteenth century by focusing on Revolutionary Pennsylvania throughout his work. Bouton offers an innovative and controversial perspective to history scholars and amateur historians by arguing that the majority of Pennsylvania’s ordinary white male citizens were disillusioned by the version of democracy that transpired from the American Revolution. Bouton further asserts that the origins of non-elitist disillusionment began in 1776 when Pennsylvania’s revolutionaries waged a successful counter revolution against the state’s non-elites in an effort to control previously supported democratic ideologies, including wealth equality and a self-governing political system. Consequently, the gentry’s decision to radically refashion the Pennsylvania government and increase economic and political control throughout the state ultimately led to social upheaval and insurrections among the ordinary citizen population during the postwar decade.

In England, the nobles and commoners had established power through parliament. The monarchy run by Charles I was bound to fail because the government had no money, and therefore authority, when he refused to tax because the parliament would only let the monarch use the tax money if they could have representation in government. After having a long-lasting power-struggle that didn’t establish a proper relationship between the king and parliament, England needed a radical change of government that would stop the cycle. The English government didn’t establish a proper relationship between the king and the parliament, dating back to 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed: It limited the monarch’s power, but didn’t establish how much representation the parliament and king got in government. Parliament realized that they needed to strengthen their power by doing away with the monarch. In the French Wars of Religion, the Estates-General didn’t really meet and didn’t have much representation in government. Unlike the English, the idea of a body ruling was too radical, and the three aristocratic families sought to increase power by becoming new monarchs. They tried to gain power by becoming king or hoping that a weak monarch would allow them to

In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments.

During the fifteenth century in Europe, a new system of government known as absolute monarch in which all power in the country is consolidated under one ruler began to emerge and dominate countries throughout Europe. This replaced the old feudal system, in which power was fragmented between a large group of lords and vassals all fighting between each other. In Europe, powerful bureaucratic states began to form in France, England, and Spain, and later in Austria, Prussia, and Russia, as leaders solidified their power by raising taxes, strengthening the military, and declaring their superiority over the traditional nobility. This new style of governance was not warmly welcomed by everyone. The subjects under absolute rule had many grievances with their leaders. Because these grievances oftentimes led to social unrest, and eventually a new wave of liberalism on the continent, it is important to understand where rulers and their subjects disagreed about the role of an absolute monarch. These differences can be broken down into two key areas: the rights of citizens and the nature and use of absolute power.

Can you imagine America with a monarchy? Can you imagine America with a king? All the power possessed by a single individual. This means that there will be no voting on who should be a leader, but the power goes from one to the other by inheritance. There will be a king fulfilling his role as a supreme leader by surrounding himself with people who will help him govern. This is hard to imagine, but Enlightenment thinkers expressed their opinions on different questions related to this. The Enlightenment was an era from 1600 to 1800. It was a break from strictness of the Catholic Church and a period of intelligence and business growth in Europe. It grew out of the Renaissance, especially humanists. During this era, there were philosophers who were known as Enlightenment thinkers. They thought about two questions. First, are people naturally good or evil? Second, what type of government is best? Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman born in 1588, is one of the Enlightenment thinkers. Hobbes wrote The Leviathan, published in 1651, observing the violence and behavior of people near the end of the English Civil War. He believed that monarchy is the best government. John Locke, another Enlightenment thinker, is an Englishman born in 1632. Locke wrote Two Treatises of Government, published in 11689,expressing his opinions on the “state of nature” and types of government. He, on the other hand, believed that democracy is the best government. While Thomas Hobbes believed that people are

Throughout human history we have had government. Almost every civilization that humans have founded over the years has had some form of government. They include dictatorships, republics, oligarchies, and monarchies. Monarchies have been a common one through history. A monarchy is a form of government in which a country is ruled by a figured such as king or emperor. Since it was created many different forms of monarchy developed as different civilizations changed it to meet their needs. They changed the roles the ruler played in the government to the way the ruler was picked. Even though they changed much about it some civilizations used similar methods when it came to their version of the monarchy. So while some places the monarchies looked very different in other places they look very similar. This means that over the course of history from ancient civilizations to modern forms of monarchies there have been similarities.

One political system that showed some similarities to a monarchy is an aristocracy. This form of government is when the “best” (in ancient Greece’s case, aristocrats) rules (Brouwers, June 2015). This means that only a special

but nowadays the form of government most used to rule a country is democracy. In democracy people dont need to obey the superior social classes and the nation have the opportunity to vote in who will be the person that will control all economy of the country. Living in a democracy can be very good, we choose our leaders through voting and our rights are protected by the law but on the other hand it also have disadvantages: the leader may be involved in corruption and he is only intersted in vote bank politics and because of that an imbalance with the economy will be created but the big question here is which one is better, having a monarchy or a democracy?