Luke Losoya
October 19, 2017
HIST 1301-079
Professor Jonathan A Lee
Causes of the Revolution from Two Contradictive Historians
The American Revolution was a unique phenomenon. Many people from complete opposite ends of colonial societies united to gain independence from the sovereign Great Britain, who during the time was the military and economic powerhouse of the world. Historians often find themselves disagreeing over the causes that joined colonial forces together. Gary Nash and Bernard Bailyn are two historians who view the American Revolution from two opposite ends of the spectrum. On the one hand Nash focuses on socio-economic conditions as the main cause of the revolution. On the other hand, Bailyn focuses on ideological influences as the main cause of the revolution. After analyzing the two primary sources, “Letter from a Farmer in Pennsylvania” by John Dickinson and “Letter to the Lords of Trade” by Governor Francis Bernard, a conclusion can be made that the evidence from these sources supports Bailyn’s argument more so than Nash’s.
Bernard Bailyn’s excerpt argues the sole fact that …show more content…
Nash published his excerpt with a goal of creating a connection with the middle and lower class, a viewpoint sadly neglected in historical events. In his excerpt we are introduced to accounts from the common people, with an intent to prove that financial differences did in fact play a role in the American Revolution. Nash believed that the revolution was solely based on the colonial economy, including poverty, wages or spending, etcetera, and the social displacement between the colonies of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He challenges the notion that “the predicament of poverty and social unrest was largely unknown in the American Colonies.” (Nash, 3) Nash argues that this economic gap led to the public protests and riots, due to political awareness and
October 19, 2017
HIST 1301-079
Professor Jonathan A Lee
Causes of the Revolution from Two Contradictive Historians
The American Revolution was a unique phenomenon. Many people from complete opposite ends of colonial societies united to gain independence from the sovereign Great Britain, who during the time was the military and economic powerhouse of the world. Historians often find themselves disagreeing over the causes that joined colonial forces together. Gary Nash and Bernard Bailyn are two historians who view the American Revolution from two opposite ends of the spectrum. On the one hand Nash focuses on socio-economic conditions as the main cause of the revolution. On the other hand, Bailyn focuses on ideological influences as the main cause of the revolution. After analyzing the two primary sources, “Letter from a Farmer in Pennsylvania” by John Dickinson and “Letter to the Lords of Trade” by Governor Francis Bernard, a conclusion can be made that the evidence from these sources supports Bailyn’s argument more so than Nash’s.
Bernard Bailyn’s excerpt argues the sole fact that …show more content…
Nash published his excerpt with a goal of creating a connection with the middle and lower class, a viewpoint sadly neglected in historical events. In his excerpt we are introduced to accounts from the common people, with an intent to prove that financial differences did in fact play a role in the American Revolution. Nash believed that the revolution was solely based on the colonial economy, including poverty, wages or spending, etcetera, and the social displacement between the colonies of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He challenges the notion that “the predicament of poverty and social unrest was largely unknown in the American Colonies.” (Nash, 3) Nash argues that this economic gap led to the public protests and riots, due to political awareness and