The American Revolution is often viewed by historians as a radical transformation of society on a similar level as that of the French Revolution. However, when looking at the American Revolution from a more insightful and factual viewpoint, it was a revolution that hardly resembles the concept of the word as it has come to be known. The American Revolution had no similar passion to other revolutions because it cannot be categorized with the traditional image of revolution, “angry, passionate, reckless, maybe even bloodthirsty for the sake of a cause” (Wood 3). The American Revolution did not embody similar methods to our idea of most historic revolutions either, for in comparison the methods employed by the inhabitants of the colonies were almost sophisticated and intellectual to traditional ones, “They made speeches, not bombs; they wrote learned pamphlets not manifestos. They were not abstract theorists and they were not social reformers. They did not kill one another; they did not devour themselves. There was no reign of terror and no reluctant dictator” (Wood 3).
The American Revolution does not seem radical poised beside traditional radical revolutions also because the catalysts for the revolution were not similar to traditional ones like social wrongs, class conflicts, impoverishment or great disparity between the wealthy and the poor. In fact, when one examines the pre-existing conditions in the colonies prior to the revolution one might very well wonder why the colonials were prompted to revolt in the first place for they were surely one of the most well-off societies in the world at the time. They were not oppressed in any fashion and they enjoyed a prosperous society unburdened by the feudal and monarchial “headaches” which they had endured in England. Yet, Wood (4) makes a good point when he argues that even though the colonies did not represent a si
...