American Revolution

American Revolution (1765 /1783)

The American Revolution is one of the most important events in the American history. Americans created a new nation after a long debate for the American Independence.

But scholars disagree upon using the notion of Revolution

1/ The historical overview of the American Revolution

2/ The historical and intellectual context of the American Revolution

-The Renaissance

-The Age of Exploration

-The Protestant Reformation

-The scientific Revolution (as an event)

- The Enlightenment

3/ Early Histories

-The Greek Revolution

-Roman Historiography

-Christian historiography

-Muslim Historiography

4/ Modern history (1400-1800)

-Renaissance historians

-Scientific Revolution (historicism)

5/ The 19th C European history

-Idealism

-Marxism

-Empiricism

-Romanticism

6/ American History in the 19th C

-Romanticism

-Nationalism

- Professionalization (discipline)

7/ American History in the 20th C:

-Conflict and Consensus in the American History

- Relativism

- Pragmatism- Progressivism

- Marxism

- The French Annals- The New left

-New Social History

- Cultural History

The American Revolution

The American Revolution (happened in a period of two decades 1765 and 1783), is not a single event that happened. There were causes and consequences due to this event: the intellectual context surrounding the revolution and how this affected it and how American historians view it. We cant understand the interpretation of the American Revolution without understanding the intellectual circumstances (context) related to that event.The period between 1400 and 1800 witnessed revolutionary developments both in the history of European and American and also helped to create a modern sense of history.Both European and American perspectives were shaped by this revolution (scientific revolution, enlightenment) during that period. They went to include revolution and the age of exploration, Protestant reformation, and scientific revolution. There were certain changes from one state to another. They gave historiography a modern sense.These developments shaped their thoughts

There is a comparison between:

Earlier historians:

- Knowledge was revealed by divine authority, the historical agent is Godi.e. the status of church/ God as the source of knowledge

Knowledge is revealed by historical agent who is supernatural. It is something we dont know (whos and what is the force that changes the history). History is changed because of that force. The force is beyond ones control, it is divine, Gods religion. -Human nature is unchanged and eternal stability and predictability

-History is cyclical: once you have the same circumstances, the same events will happen and repeat themselves.

- The providential philosophy of history implies that destiny is a driving force for human change.Modernist historians

-The basis for knowledge is not divinity. It is secular scientific authority the historical agent changes from the divine / God to man.

-History is universal it emphasizes human development and change over time

- History is not cyclical. It travels in a linear trajectory of progress from primitive (to justify colonization, colonial mission is civilizing) to civilization from an ancient age to a modern age.

-They emphasized human reason and empirical methods of inquiry

These broad changes from earlier history to modern history led the ground for an independent discipline of history to emerge.

Different interpretations of the these facts (dates, events), how American historians interpreted the American history?

Each generation of historians came up with new interpretations concerning the American Revolution. American Revolution

It happened into a period of two decades

Cost Taxation Protest Confrontation

If we explain the causes of the American Revolution as such it will be considered as an oversimplification of the American Revolution.Before and during the French and Indian war, from about 1650 to 1763, Britain essentially left its American colonies to run themselves in an age of salutary neglect. Given relative freedom to do as they pleased, the North American settlers turned to unique forms of government to match their developing new identity as Americans. They established representative legislatures and democratic town meetings. They also enjoyed such rights as local judiciaries and trials by jury in which defendants were assumed innocent until proven guilty. American shipping, although theoretically regulated by the Navigation Act, functioned apart from the mighty British fleet for more than a hundred years. Finally, the promise of an expansive, untamed continent gave all settlers a sense of freedom and the ability to start fresh in the new world.

As the American 13 colonies were growing in population and wealth, the British governments interests in them were increasing. But Britain was concerned about their openness to attack. American colonies were threatened from the 3 sides by British traditional enemies: France, Spain and Italy. Both Britain and the American colonies felt that France is the most threatening part.

Britain and France were long-lasting enemies as each of them is trying to expand over the other.

1689-1763: Motivated by a desire and a need to expand their empires, the two countries (i.e. Britain & France) went into war 4 times and the last one was the 7 years war known in America as French/Indian war in which France was defeated. In 1763, France gave up all of its lands and territories to America and hence the size of the American territories was doubled.This led to two problems:

1. Most of the colonists wanted to move westward and got into conflicts with Indian tribes. This eventually led to an Indian uprising which the American government had to crash.

2. Great Britain was engaged in war (from 1754 to 1763) for colonial dominance in North America. British officials tried to rally public opinion for the war at the Albany Congress in 1754 but mastered only half-hearted support throughout the colonies. Nevertheless, American colonists dutifully fought alongside British soldiers while the French allied themselves with several Native American tribes (hence the name French/Indian war). This war ended after the British captured most of Frances major cities and forts in Canada and the Ohio valley.

All of these have cost to meet these costs GB forced taxes.

People were not happy with spending their money for the sake of North American colonies. British officials claimed that Americans must share in the burden of support for their defense. The French and Indian war also motivated Parliament to end the age of salutary neglect. Prime Minister George Grenville began enforcing the ancient Navigation Acts. In 1764, Parliament passed what is called The Sugar Act which placed duties on sugar imported into the colonies from the West India. A year later, he passed The Stamp Act, which placed a tax on printed materials.

In 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act. This act required that American colonies should provide shelter and other support for the British troops which were stationed in American colonies (New York).

Americans resented this act because of the extra taxes imposed on them. Americans throughout the 13 colonies cried out Taxation without representation. The colonists resented the Stamp Act and they decided not to buy any product. The Stamp Act was rejected and there was protest everywhere and they decided to boycott the British goods.

Several colonial leaders convened the Stamp Act Congress in New York to petition Parliament and King George to repeal the tax. In 1766, Parliament bowed to public pressure and replaced the Stamp Act. But it quickly passed the Declaratory Act which stipulated that Parliament reserved the right to tax the colonies anytime it chose. It was a way to the British government to assert (express) its authority, to show that the British government yielded to the needs/ desires of territories.

In 1767, the Townshend Acts were passed which levied another series of taxes on lead, paints, and tea known as the Townshend Duties. In the same series, Britain passed the Suspension Act which suspended the New York assembly for not enforcing the Quartering Act.

To prevent violent protests, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson requested assistance from the British governor army and in 1768, four thousands red coasts landed in the city to help maintain order. Nevertheless, on March 5, 1770, an angry mob clashed with several British troops. Five colonists died and news of The Boston Massacre quickly spread throughout the colonies.

In 1773, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act granting the financially troubled British East Indian Company a trade monopoly on tea exported to the American colonies.

The colonies protested. Tea agents resigned or canceled orders and merchants refused consignments in response to the unpopular act. Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts, determined to uphold the law, ordered that three ships arriving in Boston harbor should be allowed to deposit their cargoes and that appropriate payments should be made for the goods. On the night of December 16, 1773, while the ships lingered in the harbor, sixty men boarded the ships, disguised as Native Americans and dumped the entire shipment of tea into the harbor. That event is now famously known as the Boston Tea Party.

In January 1774, the British Parliament reacted by passing The Coercive Act, known as the Intolerable Acts in America, which shut down Boston Harbor until the British East India Company had been fully reimbursed for the tea destroyed in the Boston Tea Party. Americans throughout the colonies sent food and supplies to Boston via land to prevent death from hunger and cold in the bitter New England winter.

Parliament also passed the Quebec Act at the same time, which granted more rights to French Canadian Catholics and extended French Canadian territory south to the western borders of New York and Pennsylvania.

Westward settlements were outlawed. Troops were allowed to be stationed in colonial homes. Prominent colonials reacted by establishing the First Continental Congress in autumn of 1774 in Philadelphia which denounced the Intolerable Act. They once again petitioned Parliament, King George and the British people to repeal the acts and restore friendly relations. For additional motivation, they also decided to institute a boycott, or ban of all British goods in the colonies.On April 19, 1775, part of the British occupation force in Boston marched to the nearby town of Concord, Massachusetts, to seize a colonial militia arsenal. Militiamen of Lexington and Concord intercepted them and attacked. As a result of this there was a kind of confrontation between colonists and troops.

The first shot, the so-called shot heard round the world made famous by the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson- was one of many that hounded the British and forced them to retreat to Boston. Thousands of militiamen from nearby colonies flocked to Boston to assist.

In the meantime, American leaders established the Second Continental Congress to discuss options. In one final attempt for peaceful reconciliation, the Olive Branch Petition, they professed their love and loyalty to King George and begged him to address their grievances. The king rejected the petition and formally declared that the colonies were in a state of rebellion in 1775.

The Second continental Congress chose General George Washington to command the militiamen besieging Boston in the North. They also appropriated money for a small navy and for transforming the undisciplined militias into the professional Continental Army.

Encouraged by a strong colonial campaign in which the British scored only narrow victories, many colonists began to advocate total independence as opposed to having full rights within the British Empire. The next year, the Congress voted on July 2, 1776, to declare their independence. Thomas Jefferson, a young lawyer from Virginia, drafted the Declaration of Independence and presented it in a nice way. The United States was born.

The United States becomes a Nation. They had to make a choice. They were divided into patriots and loyalists to the king of Britain. For them, they would find justice when appealing to the king.

For some historians, Americans who tried to avoid (provide) the separation between colonists and the mother land sent a petition to the king asking him to repel the Coercive Act, but the king was not reactive. The British Parliament issued an order that the British navy can seize and this was seen as a declaration of war.

So the war started in 1775 because of tension that was building up on around the years because of taxation. In other words, it started as taxation and ended up as a balance of power. Americans declared their independence.

The main causes of the American Revolution

Britain wanted to raise money and control the colonies because Britain faced economic problems due to the successive wars that Britain has with France. Britain imposed taxes these were causes contributing to the war.

This leads to the Boston Tea Party: The Boston Tea Party

Protests

Militias

British passed the coercive act

Effects:

-Independence was declared: Washington becomes a leader

-India declared -Continental army + navy arsenal was formed

Long term effects:

The USA becomes a nation

The US becomes a large territory

A democracy is born

America inspired other revolution

The American Revolution can be seen as a fight against cost. They were taxed in a Parliament in which they were not represented. The British Parliament kept acting in order to control the colonies and the American reacted to show that they have some kind of autonomy.

How American historians interpreted American Revolution? Some of them are Radical Revolutionists

Others are Moderate

Each generation of historians will come up with a new interpretation of American Revolution. Each generation belonged to a particular school of thoughts which are related to intellectual and scientific developments which were taking place at that time.

We try to understand the different concepts related to the evolution: The Renaissance, Age of exploration, Protestant Reformation, scientific Revolution, Enlightenment

It is within this context that historians will deal with the American Revolution.

The intellectual context

Renaissance and its relation to the American Revolution

The intellectual evolution

Renaissance: The rebirth of classical values (1300-1600)

A return of classical values related to Greek and Roman civilization.

Before the Renaissance, there is an age known as the Middle Ages.

The rise of the Muslim civilization coincided with the Middle ages. There is a move from a vision of the world related to divinity to another view in which humanity is the center of attention.Historically speaking, we are moving from the Middle ages to Renaissance.

Intellectually speaking, we are moving from romanticism to a vision based on reason, scientific.Renaissance (1300-1600)The Renaissance was a great cultural movement started in Italy and spread to other European countries (England, France) in the late 15th C and ended in 16th C.

During Renaissance, many Europeans scholars studied the knowledge and arts of ancient Greece and Rome. For them ancient civilization were the source of reason and wisdom. They wanted to recapture the spirit of Roman and Greek Cultures in their own literary, philosophical and artistic works. The culture of Greece and Rome are often called Classic antiquity. The Renaissance represented a rebirth of these cultures (the revival of these cultures, revival of antiquity or learning).

During the Middle ages, knowledge had no place, rather theology and church dominated all aspects of knowledge. The Renaissance marked the end of the Middle Ages.

Many Renaissance philosophers rejected the Middle age philosophy and thoughts. Many Renaissance leaders/philosophers rejected many of the attitudes and principles (philosophy) of the Middle ages.

The role of man in the Middle ages

Everything related to man is confined to divinity. Philosophers believe that mans chief responsibility was to pray to God and to save his soul because they thought that society at that time was filled with evil temptations.

Renaissance thinkers, however, emphasized mans centrality and his responsibility and duty towards his society.

A shift from man being passive to man being active, from being receptive to being reactive and the agent of change.

A change in the notion of agency, it is not God who is the agent of change it is rather Man.

Shift: a change in the notion of agency

Passive man active man

Society can render an individual evil society can civilize them

God is the agent of every change Man is the agent

During the Middle Ages, theology was the main branch of study. However, during the Renaissance period, the study of humanity was given much importance .i.e. Renaissance thinkers paid great interest to the study of humanity (realistic representation of man). The first accomplishment of renaissance was this move from theology to humanity.

For centuries, most scholars and philosophers believe that the modern era of human history began with the Renaissance. Humanism becomes the most significant intellectual movement in the Renaissance period. This doesnt mean that there is a cut between Middle ages and Renaissance. The concern about religion was still there. Philosophers were not 100% secular. The church started to lose its influence but it was still there. After the Renaissance there was the Enlightenment period.

The Enlightenment period (1600s)It is called the age of reason, the age of rationalism. It was marked by 3 big principles:

1. The worship of reason

2. The orderliness of nature

3. Deism

1. The worship of reason:

During that period, philosophers emphasized the use of reason as the best method of learning the truth. The first major philosophers were mainly French Jean Jacque Rousseau, Voltaire, Descartes (German) and the English philosopher Jean Look. They relied heavily on scientific method with its emphasis on experimentation and observation (careful perception) to reach the truth.

Reason

Through the scientific method (means of

experimentation and visual observation)

leads to Truth

For the age of reason philosophers, humans have a unique function simply because they can reason. For them, all the accomplishments of science are credited to reason. For them, reason contradicts superstition, ignorance, uncritical acceptance of the authority of theology. All of these dominated the Middle ages. Thats why they blamed people of authority/ the leaders of Middle ages for keeping people in ignorance in order to protect their own interests (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church)

For them, reason relies on the scientific method .i.e. experimentation+ visual perception leads to truth

The age of reason was a turning point in the American historiography:

Superstition gave way to reason

Divine right .to secularism

Metaphysics .to scientific account Thats why it was called the age of reason (the worship of reason)Philosophers of Enlightenment used reason in order to explore issues in politics, education, law, philosophy. Their arguments were based on reasoning/ argumentation in their attack of tyranny, social injustice and ignorance. Many of their ideas contributed to the outbreak of both the French and American Revolutions in the late 17th c.

Reason led to the notion of commonsense / good sense because these philosophers believe that each person has a rational will which makes it possible for him to carry out his own plan. They contrasted it with animals (their behavior is predictable: when they are angry for example they fight) which are slaves to their emotions. People can figure out the best course of action when they are afraid, angry, and hungry because they have rational will, they can reason. They have common sense/ good sense. They emphasized the role of education in acquiring good sense, a good method of reasoning.

John Locke:

1.According to John Locke, reason is the candle of the Lord set up by himself in mens mind and must be our last judge and guide in every thing. Locke believes that man must use reason to form a state that protects his social civility, life, liberty, for building a civil society, a government that protects peoples life, liberty and freedom. These 3 words/principles are used in the declaration of Independence of America.

Anyone can reason provided the capacity of reasoning which is allowed to develop through education. He emphasized the importance of education that allows man to tolerate conflicting ideas and enables him to speak. 2. The Orderliness of Nature:The 2nd principle emphasized by philosophers was the orderliness of nature. Nature is very well established and ordered. There is no intervention of God in nature. Everything in the universe behaves according to a few simple laws that can be explained mathematically. For them, mathematics is the order. The centrality of man: the truth is there and it is up to men to discover it through reason, physical laws, mathematics.

Some historians adopted this approach (truth is absolute, empiricist) and others debated and criticized it and said that truth is relative (post-modernist/ the Relativists).

One of the impressive laws at that time was Newtons law of gravity. Gravity is there (= The truth is there). This is applicable to human nature. Human nature is well-ordered as the physical universe.

This leads to the predictability of the future / history is cyclical.

Montesquieu thought that a science of human nature was possible. He was the first philosopher who tries to formulate the basic uniformity of all human behaviour. Because human history is predictable, it can be repeated. i.e the circumstances/events can be repeated in the future.One of his ideas was the notion of climate. He believes that climate has an important impact on human beings in justifying a certain conduct by colonial forces .i.e. different kinds of governments are appropriate for people who live in different parts of the world = the best government for each nation could be planned by considering the countrys climate. This will be used later on by colonists. This means that the best government or each nation could be planned according to the countrys climate .e.g. Free democratic governments are possible in Northern Latitudes because people in these areas are more vigorous , have a greater share of frankness and sincerity but he said that the only workable form of government in hot climate is despotism. According to these philosophers, since the universe is ordered, events are predictable.

3. DeismThese philosophers thought that God created the universe and stepped aside. The universe can be understood by the human mind. God created a universe ideally adjusted to the reasoning powers of man. Through reasoning man can figure out the best course of action (centrality of man).

After God has created the universe, he left it strictly alone. This theory deism ruled out the possibility of miracles. God regulates nature so that it proceeds mechanically. This means that future events are fully predictable on the basis of earlier events. These philosophers like to think of universe as a clock which keeps perfect time because it was designed by a super clock designer/ maker. They (philosophers like Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau) go back to God in their analysis of things although they initiated secularism. They did not cut themselves from divinity. This shows a movement from one vision to another ( God is not responsible for the universe) but there was no strict cut : it was a process of evolution. They did not detach themselves completely from divinity.

All of these led to formulate the idea of human dignity and worth , since man is central. This started in France, there was a number of philosophers called les philosophes. It was these philosophers who greatly influenced leaders of French revolution and together with Jean Locke influenced American Revolution.

Centrality of men led philosophers like John Locke to formulate ideals which influenced the American Revolution.

In the American revolution, there was all the time a reference to the intellectual content. The first thing they did in America was to build the intellect by providing area for schools to develop. They believe that the reasoning capacity can evolve through education.

One of the first steps in the formation of the United States that was based upon Enlightenment ideals was the creation of the Declaration of Independence. This sought to promise personal freedom to all citizens and this was to be guaranteed by means of a new form of government, one that was based on the peoples right to have a say in their government.

The Enlightenment also helped to shape the colonies in terms of religion. Although during the Enlightenment there was a very secular focus, in America this was not the case. The colonies were still very religious but they used the ideas of their freedom to choose (that were derived from the Enlightenment). Instead of being tied to one religious authority, there were many choices in the colonies and people had a right to choose how to establish and maintain their connection to God.

Newtons scientific revolution changed the way that people thought about the universe, leading them to question the relationship between people and their rulers helping to light the fuse to the American Revolution of 1776.

Newton created a mathematical theory that allows us to predict how the moon goes around the earth and how apples fall from trees. He showed that there are natural laws that rule our universe.

Seeing this amazing success, the philosophers of Newtons day asked: If there are natural laws for how planets move, shouldnt there be natural laws for how people should act as well? And if so, what are these natural laws?

Perhaps the most important philosophers to consider this question was the English man John Locke.

The political theory of John Locke

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote a book called the Two Treatises of Government. In this book, he refuted the ideas of divinity and he uses biblical sources to prove that God did not mark anyone to rule.The first Treatise is a criticism of Robert Filmers Patriarcha, which argues in support of the divine right of kings. According to Locke, Filmer can not be correct because his theory holds that every man is born a slave to the natural born kings. Locke refuses to accept such a theory because of his belief in reason and in the ability of every man to virtuously govern himself according to Gods law. The Second Treatise is Lockes proposed solution to the political upheaval in England and in other modern countries. This text laid the foundation for modern forms of democracy and for the Constitution of the United States.

The Second Treatise consists of a short preface and nineteen chapters. In Chapter 1, Locke defines political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property. In this view, these laws only work because the people accept them and because they are for the public good.

In chapter 2, Locke claims that all men are originally in a state of nature.

In chapter 3 and 4, Locke outlines the differences between the state of nature and the state of war. The state of nature involves people living together, governed by reason, without need of a common superior. The state of war occurs when people exert unwelcome force on other people, interfering with their own natural rights and freedom, without common authority.

Before Locke, there was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes concludes that natural man, in order to preserve life, must seek peace. Natural law demands that we seek peace because to seek peace is to fulfill our natural right to defend ourselves. Unlike a civil law, which must be written down and publicized in order to be known, a law of nature is natural and inherently known by all because it can be deduced by innate mental faculties (reason, philosophy). There is no common superior to enforce the law of reason. Each individual is forced to work out his/her own interpretation of reason. People agree that the law of reason should be given to the community.

According to Locke, the state of nature is the natural condition of mankind. It is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct ones life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. Locke differed from Hobbes who sees the state of nature as a state of war which could be ended only if individuals agreed in a social contract, to give their liberty into the hands of a sovereign, who was thenceforward absolute, on the sole condition that their lives were safeguarded by sovereign power.

The most direct reading of Lockes political philosophy finds the concept of consent playing a central role.

From this natural state of freedom and independence, Locke stresses individual consent as the mechanism by which politics, societies are created and individuals join those societies. While there are of course some general obligations and rights that all people have from the law of nature, special obligations come about only when we voluntarily undertake them.

Locke clearly states that one can only become a full member of society by an act of express consent.The members of the community must agree with a majority vote to set up government institution or mainly legislatures. The owners of properties must agree either personally or through their representatives whatever taxes should be imposed on people.

Legislative power made by the consent of the majority became the supreme power. No one can be deprived of his property without the consent of people or their representatives. The legislature is but a delegated power to the people. Behind the supreme power of legislation, there is the superior power of the people. It is because of these ideas Locke was considered as the early theorist of democracy.

The question is what if the government does not respect the laws?

Here comes Lockes theory of resistance. John Locke treats the legislators who violate the natural rights as no more than thieves.

It is upon the first treaty that Locke builds his second treaty which is very important. It starts with the state of nature that is a hypothesis that says that man used to live in a state of nature and it is for this that all Commonwealth spread.

In a state of nature people lived in peaceful condition.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a book called Leviathan. With Hobbes man used to live in a war against nature. However, Lockes nature is different, it has a social character. Man lives in nature according to the law of nature which is reason which teaches them that no one ought to harm others in their lives, health, liberty and property. There may be war or violence only when the man abandoned the law of reason.

Yet, in a state of nature there is no common superior to enforce the law of reason. This means that each individual is forced to work out his interpretation of the law of reason.

The inevitable result of this is confusion. So in Lockes state of nature peace is precarious because there is no common superior to enforce the law of reason: men are equal and each one has the right to interpret the law of reason.

This situation led to the creation of civil society which is instituted as a way of remedy for the inconveniences of the state: war, confusion

A civil society is given into effect through a contract in which each individual agrees to give the community the natural right of enforcing the law of reason. Even with Hobbes there is a contract but everyone agrees to give the right of enforcing the law of nature to a leviathan: to a superior relationship between the government and subjects.

This contract has 3 stages:

1. Men must agree unanimously to come together as a community and pour their natural power so the community upholds the rights of the individuals.2. The members of the community must agree by a majority vote to set up institutions and especially the legislative institutions.3. For the majority, the owners of properties in society must agree either personally or through a representative to whatever taxes should be imposed on people.

Contract

Community majority property

Legislation

This legislative power made by the consent of the majority becomes a supreme power in the Commonwealth. It must be exercised for the good of the subjects and it should establish justice by law. No one can be deprived of his property or be taxed without the consent of people. The legislator is but a delegated power for the people. People gave the government whatever power and they can dispose of it. The government is in a nature of trust and it embraces only the powers that were transferred to it and these powers are mainly to enforce the power of reason and to protect peoples liberty. Behind the supreme power of the legislator ,there is the supreme power of people.

It is because of these ideas, John Locke is considered as an early theorist of democracy, separation of powers and the power of law.

What if the government abuses power and does not respect the contract? Lockes theory of resistance.John Locke treats the legislators/ government officials who exeeds their powers and violate the natural right of people as no more than thieves. For him they put themselves in a state of war with those who supposed to be subjects to them.Those subjects have the right to resist them with violence if necessary. This reasoning is used in the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence (Liberty/pursuit of happiness /property). It is the right of the people to remove this government and come up with another one.

Many of Lockes contemporaries criticized him because if one day a community establishes a government and on the other day resist it (because the government did not abide by the laws of the contract) then it will lead to anarchy/ confusion. Locke made two replies: -1- Tyrants would not be resisted unless their abuses affect the majority of people,

-2- and his second reason is that if resistance is occasioned the blame should not lie with subjects who acted to protect their liberty but rather with the government which occasioned it even if resistance leads to chaos. This reply, Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues, used: they were patriots but they faced the abuses of the British government (taxes etc). In this situation, political authority shifts from the government and the officials and reverts back to the community during the first stage of the contract. Therefore the people recover their original freedom to set up new political institutions as they see fit.(people are individuals not a community, they agreed to be a community)So resistance leads to Revolution and the community is supreme. Revolution is the act of the major portion of the people whose consent must be obtained for the dissolution of the government. It is very important that government might be dissolved while society remains intact. This means that people themselves represent a power superior to government and this means that society/ community/people are superior to government. This idea had a great weight in the convention which assembled at Philadelphia in 1787, in which delegates from 12 of the 13 states met at the Constitutional Convention to frame the constitution of the US.

For John Locke, the sovereignty exists in the community as a whole because it is the original and supreme power that defends the rights of people.

John Locke conceives of democracy as a spirit/state of mind/culture rather than as a form of government. The rulers are the trusties of the people who delegate their powers to them. There is the political side but also the economic side. So John Locke is not only seen as the founder of democracy but also as the theorist of liberalism. John Locke believes that Man has natural rights and the most important rightis that of property. In the state of nature, Locke assumes that there is sufficient land for all. If in due course all of the earth comes to be owned by someone, then there is a private property (when you have a piece of land and you labor it , it becomes yours). Tis recognition of private property will prevent oncoming generations from owning lands and from preserving/ sustaining themselves and this is contrary to the fundamental law of nature/ reason. The question is: how is then the fundamental law of reason to be satisfied in this new context?

John Locke believes that when the enough and as good proviso( individuals have a right tohomestead private property from nature by working on it, thus convertingcommon propertyintoprivate property = there is enough land) is no longer satisfied, civil society will begin. When civil society is formed , the appropriate property arrangement will be made by concent by representatives of the civil society. The decisions will be made by the representatives of the civil society. Locke included this in his contract and it is the third angle.According to Locke, the individuals holding property is a matter of natural right. This right has priority over any civil. It is before the civil society. These rights must be protected. Any expropriation by the authority is a violation of the individuals natural rights. The government/ state does not have the right to arbitrarily take peoples property and then people have the right to overthrow the government (the right to rebel).

A government provides grounds for rebellion if it acts other than to further the public or common good. Locke here seems not so much to be defending the property of the rich against the poor but rather defending individual property against possible government encroachment. Property is at the heart of his political theory. So his chapter on property is integrated within the main thesis of the second treaty of government. His main thesis is the essentially limited nature of the political authority. One of the justification of the civil society is the preservation of property and one of the justification of rebellion is the insecurity of property.

resistence property civil societyJohn Locke used insecurity of property in an extended meaning: it means anything a person has, ie, a right over himself , over his liberty as well as over the material positions

Was Locke starting a capitalist society?Property is at heart of John Lockes political theory. The government is limited in scope and the preservation of man is the end of any legitimate civil society. Locke imposed restrictions on ownership. Man has a right to private property as much as he can produce and consume. To become a capitalist, man has to produce more than he can consume and to exchange the surplus of money: by that money (gold or silver), he can buy more lands and hire more workers and when you hire more more workers , the labour of these workers becomes yours and therefore you can sell it (labour + food), and the cycle is repeated again and again.So here property will become unequal as accumulation increases. All depends on the livelihood of those who have property. The inequality of wealth will lead to the inequality of power and rights and the perversion of justice. In the third treaty of the contract, those who have property/accumulate property will legislate especially in taxes.

But one of the leftist philosophers, C.B. Macpherson, interpreted Lockes law of property. According to Macpherson, John Locke believes landless men are not wholly rational and therefore they do not have full rational rights.

If you can not have more money, you are not fully rational and therefore their consent is not needed to set up a government among men. These people are just commodities for sale (= to produce more so that wealthy people can accumulate more gold and silver). If you are poor, its your fault and this idea is held by the Republicans in the US these days. Those with the capacity to accumulate property can legislate.For Locke, rational people can legislate and determine what shall be done (leftist historians theorized for capitalism). Although Lockes theory was revolutionary, it is not intended to represent a revolutionary stance with regard to inequality of wealth because he was seeking the support of the Whig merchants for his policy. He did not intend to mean that political equality (equal rights, to be protected by the government, the right to vote a legislative body, to have property, all individuals are equal before the law, civil society should be protected) means economic equality. Locke is considered the theorist of liberalism. Liberalism is deemed by scholarly consensus to have dominated the political thought of the American revolution and historians proclaimed the great Mr. Locke Americas philosopher as the revolutions guide and prophet. So from this perspective, Lockes two treatises of government look like the text book of the American revolution and the source from which Americans drew the principles of 1776

Lockes political thought had thoroughly dominated the political philosophy of American Revolution.

One American historian called Louis Hartz, in his classic study The Liberal Tradition in America, extended the Lockean intellectual impact beyond the revolutionary period to the whole of America s political thought and behaviour. He believed in the profound impact that Locke had on Americans not only before but also after revolution.The Lockean model (dominated the scene until 1960s) was challenged in the late 1960s when a historical shift away from Locke was initiated leading to a new interpretive paradigm which highlights Lockes negligible influence upon American political thought before 1966.

One of these historians is John Dunn. He wrote influential essay only in few cases could the revolution possibly have been in any sense about the 2 treatises of government of John Locke.

We can see here a demotion of John Locke (reduction in status). This demotion was taken to the extreme by different scholars who questioned not only the extent but also the nature of relations between Lockes thought and American Revolution.

J.G.A Pocock ( a historian and a pioneer in the study of the American thought) one of the founders of the Revisionist movement suggests that Locke should be counted by the enemies of revolutionary thought because the principles of liberalism are inconsistent with the principles of the revolution 1776.

Pocock and Macpherson are leftists. The Revisionist movement is dominated by leftist historians and philosophers.

Locke is the initiator of Liberalism and its normal that he fell under attack by the Revisionists. In the 1960s the American Revolution thought has shifted with Lockean Liberal thought. The Revisionist historiography has converted the intellectual guide and prophet into the revolution enemy. We can see that historiography was explained through the Lockean model.

A new interpretative paradigm Pocock and Bernard Bailign

Both of them were considered hostile to liberalism and came up with a new thesis :The Republican Synthesis/ Hypothesis

It proclaims that the Revolutionists fought for virtue sake and not for commerce. The Revolution was not the result of pure economic interest but of values, virtues and ideals.

The Republican Revisionism destroyed (debunked) the monolithic Lockean model. They deny the historical significance of Lockes Liberalism and to cast it into an anti-revolutionary line.

These pioneers, while at the same time proclaiming the decisive importance of the Republican sources in the formation of the American revolutionary thought, stressed American values and citizenship and not the economic interests. But it can be shown that in relation to the most crucial issues in the Anglo-American dispute/ war, the economic and political interests are there: religious liberty, the ultimate sovereignty of people, limits of civil authority and there is a question of taxation without representation. The historical textual evidence testifies consistently and often explicitly to this through the use of the language of Locke on government.

So the historical textual evidence is there to support the idea that Locke is present in every forceful manner. The revolutionary writings do not support the claims of the Republicans.

A series of essays published in the 18th century about England that presented a vision of society based on value, citizenship and participation written by 2 British writers John Trencherd and Thomas Gordon entitled Catos letters.

Cato was a Roman leader who lived a long time foe of Julius Caesar.

These letters are called after Cato because he is known for his high moral integrity.

1. The vision portrayed in Catos Letters Vs. the vision portrayed in the two treaties of Locke

The main issues that are mentioned are social, economic, political. Catos Letters highlight the civic humans. They highlight also ideals of citizenship. They also highlight virtue and participation of individuals in governing the country. The Lockean Model as shown in the 2 treaties is considered liberal. There are temptations of self-interest. His theory is built on the state of nature. The motive is the preservation of Man. The fact that all people are equal leads to conflicts and a great deal of self-interest.

This is based on his theory of property

He was advocating accumulation of wealth and considered that labour changed from being common to being private (Liberalism)

Self-interest Capital Accumulation

But many of those who supported the idea said that Catos Letter raise suspicion that this would lead to establishing a Leviathan (dictatorship) a title of a book written by Thomas Hobbes. He borrowed this title from the Bible. Just like Locke he believes in the state of Nature. Men are not good but chiefly biased by desire and selfishness The war of all against all, and in order to move away, people must agree among themselves to put on top a Leviathan to give power not to community but to a ruler and his authority should not be questioned because questioning it would lead to war ( the atrocities of the civil war).

The war was a result of questioning the kings authority. It might lead to a Leviathan, Dictatorship.

The 2 treaties founded a city state, a democratic state, a policy.

From the 1960s, disagreement began among historians about the work influencing the American Revolution. Clinton Rossiter was a US historian, a political scientist who wrote the following No one can spend time on the newspapers, library inventories and pamphlets of colonial America without realizing that Catos Letters rather than John Lockes civil government was the most popular quotable estimeable source of political ideas in the colonial period. Parallels between Catos Letters and the two treaties of Locke.

Any interpretation is based on an intellectual work.

Leviathan was a dictatorship based on the participation/consent of people to put on top a ruler of authority. The meaning of Leviathan in American concept was economic not polical: when you dont have the initiative especially economically, uniformity among people is not achieved.The Scientific Revolution

(Te late 1600-Early 1700)

Scholars and scientists increasingly realized the importance of experimentation and mathematics to scientific advances. The realization helped think about the scientific Revolution. One of the main figures of the Scientific Revolution was Galileo.

He used observations and mathematical analyses and his purpose is to look for cause and effect relationship among natural events. History was based on cause and effect and experimentation. After him there was Francis Bacon who viewed experience as the most important source of knowledge. These principles are important because it helps moving from God being the agent of change to reason being the agent of change. A movement from providential to reasonable change explained in terms of cause and effect relationship: by collecting all observable facts of nature, we can find explanation of these events.Another figure also is Isaac Newton. He founded a law of universal gravitation and laid the foundation for Modern study of optics.

In addition to scientific discoveries, there was the philosophy and methods of science. One of the major philosophers was Ren Descartes who proposed that Mathematics is the model that all other sciences would follow. Mathematics yielded absolutely certain conclusions because the Mathematical process starts with simple, self-evident truths and then used logic to move step by step to other truths. According to him one truth leads to another through logic. So getting to the truth is an accumulative result.

(For Descartes mathematics is the mother of all sciences).

Like any innovation/ new idea, this was resisted by theologians (religious people. But scientists believed that the scientific Revolution helped relieve the wonderers of Gods creation. For them, science does not negate God but help reveal Gods power. But many others were upset by the development of scientific law because for them scientific law would govern the universe without divine assistance from God.

Another movement during the period:

The Reformation

The Reformation was a religious movement that took place in 1500s. It led to Protestantism. It had a tremendous impact on social and economic life. The influences are still felt today. This Movement began in 1517 by a German monk Martin Luther. He started this movement by protesting certain practices of the Roman Catholic church and around 40 years later, Protestantism started to emerge.

Before the Reformation, Europe was held together/ unified by the universalism of the Catholic church and also by the claim that the Holy Roman Emperor was a supreme leader/ ruler. After the reformation, there were many Protestant churches that were competing with the Catholic church and with one another and Europe cant be held together by religion but entered in war because of competing churches (England, Spain..) and this led to the emergence of powerful European forces.The causes of the Reformation:

Religious causes: due to the serious abuses in the church, there were corrupt financial practices and this led to tension between common men and their church leaders.

Cultural causes related to the Renaissance. There were a cultural movement as an increasing number of people gained education and returned to Classics. Renaissance led to raising awareness that there was a shift in church to bad or corrupt practices.There were also political causes: kings were becoming more and more absolutists. The king rules by divine right. They regarded the Pope in Rome as a political leader of a foreign country (the unity of Europe held thanks to the Pope) and they started to resist his influence in their countries. Everything is moved by this change

John Calvin ( from Switzerland) an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principle figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism.

King Henry the eight of England he is known for his role in the separation of the church of England from the Roman Catholic church. He formed The Anglican church (Protestantism) and the King of England is the head of the Anglican church up today. The British wanted to be unique and call their church Anglican Tension between the Catholic Church (the Vaticans) Anglicans (Protestants)

What is important here is the decline of divinity and the rise of wisdom-reason. The individual gained more weight as a result of the decline of divinity.Greek RevolutionHerodotus (485 BC) was a Greek historian widely referred to as the father of History). He attempted to study the world through observable evidence and experience. And as a consequence, the primary corner stone was observable forces: human activities & culture. So, he was interested in I witness accounts and he was not interested only in describing what happened but also why things have happened which is the reason why we study history. So his methods of applying evidence and studying history became the foundation for history as it was practiced.

Another Greek philosopher: Thucydide (460-400 BC). He had been webbed the father of scientific history because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods as outlined in his introduction to his work. He studied the actions of Men as opposed to supernatural forces. And he used credible, observable evidence to establish factual account for the past.

For Thucydide, political forces are more important than cultural forces to be studied and used as materials to study history.

Cultural forces are not the driving forces for history. For him, the main reason for studying the past was speculative. Understanding political events, causes of wars are very important because these information will be used to explain further the future events, to make future policies.

The use of what happened in the past to serve as a lesson for the present and the future. He emphasized the cause and effect. His emphasis on cause and effect, political forces and observable data influenced later on history.

Aristotle criticized him the way he viewed history as being the more recitation of facts and he considered mythopoetic stories to be more important because they were imaginative and creative and they contained deeper insight to the church than factual account of the past. It affected modern history that believed that fiction is as important as facts. History is also imaginative because it relied on the unobservable of the past, as it makes a correlation between fiction and reality.

Another branch of Greek philosophers were skeptics who went even further because they claimed that since all knowledge is the perception of the individual so no one truth about anything could be found.

According to skeptics, scientific history is no more factual than mythopoetic history.

Greek philosophers moved beyond merely acceptation of tradition and knowledge as truth and began to use logic and reason to explain the universe.

The Roman Historiography

Roman history focused more on Romes rise to power attributing this to the quality of political leaders to fair policies and to strong political institutions but also to fate.

Polybius (200 BC) directly connected the Greek tradition to the Roman history.

Tacitus (120-56 BC).He advocated the strict observance of objectivity in his interpretation of history. His motto was writing without hatred or political bias. Roman historians focused mainly on political policies and on the use of I witness account and speeches as their evidence. Their evidence on fortune set them from Greek tradition. They did not give specific agencies to specific Gods but they consider fate which is not observable as an explanation of events.

Christian historians

They viewed fate and destiny as a driving force for historical change. They continued to emphasize the influence of religion specifically the power of Christian God. One of the most important Christian philosophers is Augustine of Hippo (354-430). He has led to the development of neutral view. This knowledge spread across America and Europe during the 18th century.

Francis Bacon / Jean Bodin (16th, 17th c)

The deductive reasoning of the Aristotelian philosophy which relied too much on reason and logic, did not please these two philosophers. Bacon believed that more accurate method of reasoning would be inductive. He emphasized the inductive method which relies on data and evidence. He claimed that historians should observe data and evidence first then derive a hypothesis. He advocates experimental philosophy and empiricism. All knowledge must be subjected to experimentation based on evidence to prove its validity. This inductive method advocates observation of data Complementation of data Conclusion to make generalization.

Bodin wrote specifically on the topic of history, his book entitled The Method for the easy understanding of History. This book helped to secularize the history of mankind. Throughout his book he urged historians first to avoid prejudices, to maintain detachment, to stick to facts and to be aware of the historical context of historians from the past. He was paving the way for historicism Vico s historicism.

These rules for the practice of history were central to shaping history about maintaining objectivity and critically analyzing sources o information.

Vico: The father of historicism

Vico investigated history for its own sake attempting to understand historical events on their own, within the context of their own worldview. The past is not understandable unless you understand the culture of past people. He wrote New Science and claimed that he had discovered the key to history which human nature and culture changed and developed over time, the mental world of earlier people differ subsequently from people coming after them. In order to understand the past, they must first understand the meaning of the language they used. So the past is the world to be studied on its own terms. This is called historicism which is a basic concept in Western Historiography.

Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called the city of God. He describes history as a recurrent conflict between the city and God. God is scared and the city of the world is profane. For him history is cyclical. He imagined supernatural forces which are mainly God and Satan as primary agents of history. History is moved through this conflict. He was influential during the middle ages. The Greek Roman tradition remained strong especially in Bezantine and Islamic Empire. Bizantine historians continued Greek tradition by observable data and evidence. But in the Middle East and North Africa, Islam replaced Christianity and Muslim historians did not emphasize God as the primary agent of history.

Muslim historians

Muslim historians stressed human agency in the rise and fall of civilization. Ibn khaldoon (1442-1395 BC) studied secular events and emphasized human agency as the true force behind history.

The Evolution of Modern HistoryThe American politician Machiavelli believed that politicians should understand former histories and the history of previous leaders so that they use these leaders as models.

His approach to history was specifically speculative, powerful and strong. Knowledgeable men according to him are the driving forces and the agents of change of any history. Machiavelli omitted any mention of God. He strongly reshaped history as a secular subject. History is not about cause and effect. It is a series of ups and downs. It is really easy to predict future historical events. He was part of that trend emphasizing reason.

In USA, in that period, most American historians were local historians in specific towns of history. American history started as a local history, so they were coloured by the experience of their authors and by protestant Euro-centric perspective. His histories relied on the memories of their writers. They used little evidence too. Early American histories were more similar to primary sources than to our current history.

During the scientific revolution, historians continued a Greco-Roman tradition. They criticized that Greco-Roman tradition and added to the knowledge of these classical historians. There is a break from the classicism of the Renaissance.

The main concept that the Enlightenment has added is the notion of progress, that is , Enlightenment philosophers believed that civilization relied on each scientific innovation. The past is a long strain of advancement toward the present day.

Another feature is incredible optimism . They believed that they have reached the peak of civilization and they would continue to progress forever.

This view is Euro-centric par excellence in that they believed that Euro-centric civilization was mostly advanced in the entire world because it had moved beyond superstition and ignorance into a period of truth and progress based on rationalism and science. This means that all histories were relative to the achievement of the 18th century Europe in a linear fashion. For them, Enlightened Europe was the pinnacle of advancement.

Machiavelli was one of the Renaissance historians. His philosophy of history was explicitly speculative. Understanding of the past to improve the present. His focus is on politicians as the driving force of change.

Machiavelli omits any mention on God in his world. He in a way continued the Greek and Roman tradition. He strongly reshaped history as a secular subject. History according to Machiavelli is a series of ups and downs.

Still in that period in America, most historians were local. Histories of specific towns and colonies started as a local history and as such they were coloured with the experiences of their authors and also with the Protestant Eurocentric expansions.

These histories relied on the memories of their writers. They used little evidence other than the memories of their authors. These histories were more similar to handbooks as we currently practice it.

There was a state of local history, history that is based more on the memory rather than on the past.

The Scientific Revolution

The historians continued Greco-Roman tradition. They critiqued that Greco-Roman tradition and added to the choices of political historians. They did not only continued but also added to it Development of newer philosophers led to the development of newer philosophies coincided with the Revolution and Reformation period. This period spread across Europe and America in the late 17th century.

Francis Bacon and Jean Bodin became disillusioned with the limitations of the Aristotelian philosophy which relied too much on reason and logic to support their conclusions.

Bacon believed that a more accurate method of reasoning would not be deductive, it would be inductive. It is a way of reasoning that relies first on data and evidence.

A general premise of theory. So the major contribution of Bacon was his advocacy of what is called experimental.

A compilation of data and then a generalization and conclusion from that data.

Bacon as a philosopher applied this to history. Bodin wrote specifically on the topic of history and he wrote a book The Method For the Easy Understanding of History: the history of secularizing the history of mankind. He urged historians first to avoid prejudice, to maintain detachment, to stick to facts and to be aware of the historical context of historians from the past these are Bodins rules

Paving the way for the historian Vico, the father of historicism

According to Vico the past is different. You can not understand the past if you dont have a culture of that past. He claimed to have discovered the key to history. Human nature and culture change and develop overtime. This means that the mental world of earlier people differed subsequently from people who came after that.

These historians must first understand the ways how these people think. They must understand the meaning of the language they use. So it is this idea that the world is a different world to be studied based on the context.

this is historicism: a crucial concept in Western historiography. There were deviations for secularism because Vico believed that history is shaped around 3 ages:

The age of God and Giants: Everything was commanded by auspices and oracles which are the oldest institutions in profane history.

The age of heroes: they reigned everywhere in aristocratic Commonwealths on account of a certain superiority of nature.

The age of Men: in which all men recognized themselves as equal in human nature and therefore they have established the popular commonwealths and then the monarchies, both of which are forms of Roman government.

In the age of God and Giants people had to obey a small elite. They are the important elites that changed the world.

The age of men is characterized by civil wars, and therefore it will lead to God and Giants again

This is based on cause and effect relationships

The main concept of Enlightenment historians was the idea of progress. So Enlightenment historians added the crucial idea of progress. These historians believed that civilization developed with each scientific innovation. The past is considered by these Enlightenment historians as a long string of advancements towards the present day. It is not a question of cyclical history. It is rather that history must be seen in terms of progress.

Another important feature was their incredible optimism of the intellectuals of the day, that is their belief that they had reached the height of civilization and they would continue to progress forever.

This view of history is Eurocentric par excellence that they believed that European civilization was the most advanced in the entire world because it has moved beyond superstition and ignorance into a period of truth and progress based on rationalism and science. It means for them that all cultures of the world were relative to the achievements of the 18th century Europe in a linear way. The 18th century Europe was the pinnacle for advancement and everything else is less advanced or inferior. The linear tense of history will dominate for so long. These ideas will impact the policies that will be adopted by European powers. Colonialism was founded on the ideas of Eurocentrism on the linear sense of time. All of this will be consolidated by literary history which led Edward Said to theorize for the Eurocentric approach of the world.

Another philosopher and historian Voltaire like Machiavelli he believed in the speculative purpose of history. According to Voltaire, the over pattern of history was a battle between truth and error. Humans develop intellectual innovations with which to overcome errors to achieve progress.

Other historians discarded other ideas of progress. Herbert, an organicist view of historical change, believed that history is like a living organism. It will develop and then will die. For him, instead of progress, history was governed by cycles that repeat themselves. He also believed that all cultures needed attention and they had to be studied and as a result we should not judge the past by the present day as standards by a supposedly set of universal values. You can not judge the past to different universal views (very dissimilar to Eurocentrism).

to inspire many historians to see human history not as a linear progression but as a succession of distinct civilization. So human history is not the progress towards which human civilization reached the peak. It is a succession of distinct and heterogeneous philosophies impacted much on the 20th century history.

Another historian David Hume also rejected the progressive view of history and wanted historians to apply Bacons empirical method sticking strictly to the facts as expressed in document and as a form of observable method uncovering the truth as they saw it. One important political result of the Enlightenment ideas was the American Revolution. Because of that many historians have analyzed the American Revolution within Enlightenment framework.

Those who approved on social changes of America were called the Whigs who described the Revolution as a natural result of progress of the right of freedom of men. Those who opposed the revolution were called the Tories and the Tories described the revolution as irrational unfortunate mistake and one important Irish philosopher and interpretation Edmund Burk . He was the one who wrote The Standard Whig Interpretation of the American Revolution During and After the War.

Burkes interpretations were extremely popular among American historians who appreciated very much these positive views of events.

But the 1st American history was written in 1789 by a Revolution war hero David Ramsay. He wrote a book History of the American Revolution. His book appeared as part of a great literary and cultural effort to shape the national identity of America at that time. He plagiarized Burkes account for revolution. Ramsay led the way for the nationalist histories of the US based on long hold beliefs in democracy and liberty as being unique to the US.

Mercy Otis Warrens book History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of American Revolution . Her view was among the most well documented and thoroughly argued. She was a witness of the Revolution. She had access to the major leaders and documents of the revolution. What is interesting is that she infused her account with her own observation and her opinions about the events. They were supported by well documented data. She gave historical data. This book is made of 31 chapters. She covers blow by blow the historical events of the American Revolution.

The Revolution was thought to establish a Republican system to bring liberty to people. And the victory of the Americans was a proof of the logic of popularity of the American colonists at that time.

She came up with another idea: the constitution weakened the Republic and made it vulnerable to military and monarchical tyranny. There were other versions that are considered mainly patriotic versions. These patriotic versions portrayed the constitution, the 1st presidents, the leaders in a very positive way.

1400 1800: this period witnessed a revolutionary development. The history of European and American thought here is a hope to create a more modern sense of history. This takes us back to the age of Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and Scientific Revolution.

All of these shaped American and European perspective of their past. Earlier perspective had presented historical knowledge as revealed by divine authority whereas modernity sees scientific authority as the basis of the knowledge of the past.

They viewed human nature as unchanging and eternal, whereas Modernist historiography starting with Vico argued for a universal history emphasizing Ruman development and change over time. Many Enlightenment historians added to that and they argued that human development traveled in a linear trajectory of progress from primitive to civilized, from ancient ages to the present modern age. This idea led to Eurocentrism.

This affected a lot their policy and most importantly they began to emphasize human reason and the empirical method of enquiring from divinity to secularism, from superstition to reason, from deduction to induction. This brought changes and laid the ground work for the independent aspect/discipline of history which would emerge in the 19th century.From 1400 to the 18th century, there was a change in ideas = a revolution in ideas took place before the political revolution. Before the French Revolution, there was the intellectual revolution. Because all European and American policies were perceived by an intellectual preparation A linear trajectory of progress in the 19th century European historiography.Colonialism , for example, was seen as a result of the intellectual preparation and the linear trajectory of progress from primitive (they) to the civilized(we) and different empires were formed. The same for imperialism, war on terror which is reinforced by intellectual and mainly informational revolution which helped them to see specific cultures as violent and need to be tamed.The Renaissance mainly in art: return to classicism.

19th century European historiography:These schools emerged because historians became more prestigious in academia. Different schools of thoughts revolve around major theories and philosophers and the four of the first influential theories that shaped American historiography in the 19th century are idealism ,Marxism , Empiricism, and Romanticism. And of these 4, Empiricism was the most influential in creating the framework of modern notion of history.

1. Idealism:

It implies that in history the focus was the abstract universal patterns and changes in ideas over time and most of the enlightenment historical theories were idealistic. They focused on abstract patterns, and because 19th century philosophers were very much inspired and influenced by Enlightenment historians, they are considered as idealists.

Some of these theories continued to see God or providence as the central historical agent and progress as the primary pattern in world history (there is a pattern that reflects a linear trajectory of progress:no cut between past and present) while others took a more secular path looking for more observable sources/ faces of change, and questioning whether any pattern of history exists at all.

During the 19th century, many historians continued to be idealists.

Hegel (most influencial German idealist) agreed with the Enlightenment concept of progress in history. According to him, history is unfolded in a sort of a divine dialectic.

All things in nature give rise to their opposite .i.e. Day give rise to Night and vise versa.According to him, ideas are similar to nature. An idea called Thesis gives rise to Antithesis and this Antithesis led to another Synthesis and this Synthesis becomes a Thesis. Thesis Anti-thesis Synthesis Thesis Antithesis

SynthesisFor him, thanks to God /providence there is this dialectic relation and he applied it to ideas. An idea or thesis in society leading naturally to an opposing force to challenge the idea and the debate between the two give rise to synthesis which takes ideas from both and become a thesis.

The synthesis joins ideas from both sides. From the one side, it is an observable natural phenomenon, but at the same time, it comes from providence. Experimentation and at the same time Providence.This is idealism. Everything is explained of abstract universal ideas. The Enlightenment was idealistic.2. MarxsimCarl Marx (18thC), the most famous student of Hegel. Marx himself used the idea of dialectical change in his own theory. He developed a new philosophy called historical Materialism taken from dialectic materialism. He believes that real, concrete, observable things should be at the heart of understanding the world. He began his history of capitalism by investigating the material conditions of human beings in the past.

He first investigated how people obtained the basic necessities to live (what work they did to live), and how to produce these basic necessities (means of production).

And he came up to the conclusion that each mans relationship to his societys mode of production shaped his life/ the way he lives. For example, of the mode of production is industrial then the mens relationship to this mode is a worker and industry. So, he will belong to a specific socio-economic class which is the working class and this will shape the rest o his existence: access to education, political power, material possession, values, behaviorIn a way Marx is adopting deterministic approach. According to Marx, there are two classes, the Bourgeoisie (middle class entrepreneurs who control and own the means of production) and the working class. Those whose relationship to the mode of production is of dominance have greater access to to means of production, education, political power than the working class whose relationship to the mode of production is of dependence Material production have always shaped life and this is the essence of Historical Materialism. That will lead to class struggle.So all these ideas of human societies, which Marx called superstructures (politics, morality, education), are determined by socio-economic structures. Since economic structures change over time, then they will cause changes in the superstructure making history in progress. And because the socio-economic structures change, ideas change overtime causing superstructure to change and historical progress occurs in dialectical way through class struggle. So, the ideas are determined by the socio-economic structure. Marx defined 3 main eras in human history:

-Ancient society

-Feudal society

-Capitalist and Modern society

Each era is defined by its mode of production. Each evolved to the next through class struggle. This progress is dialectical because human beings continually challenge their situation leading to different ones. Humans continually challenged the ideas and forms which came before, revised them and synthesized new ideas. They continually change the mode of production and ideas. This trouble would continue until in the final stage the working class/proletaria rose up in revolution to eliminate the Middle class entrepreneurs and establish an egalitarian society and social, economic and political order. This is the 4th stage of socialism which is communism, and of course before that the working class had to develop class consciousness and to be awre of their oppression in order to make that historical change happen.

3.Empiricism:Empicist view of historiography dominated by observable evidence (Humes).Other philosophers : Auguste Comte was a 19th century French philosopher and a sociologist whose work influenced many academic fields and 19th century politics as well.

He built upon empiricist ideas to form a new theory: the concept of Positivism. According to him, human knowledge developed through 3 stages:

1. Theological stage in relation to region (Nature is explained in terms of divinities or spirit)2. Metaphysical stage3. Positive stage (scientific principles)In the positive stage, all human knowledge will be based on empirical truth rather than superstition and prejudice. As a result, he asserts that scientists and historians should be objective .i.e. they should separate themselves from their own bias, perspectives and emotions in the study of their subject.

In this way according to Comte, historians could derive truth from pure facts. Comte, a mathematician, applies the rules of mathematics on human facts.

By the end of the 19th century, historians, social scientists, politicians, social theorists mainly Herbert Spencer had developed what came to be known as Social Darwinism (which was used to justify certain practices) arguing that some human societies were more evolved more than others and despite little biological evidence to prove social Darwinism. There is no empirical evidence that justifies/supports social Darwinism.

Despite this, the period from the late 19th century to the early 20th century became infused with these racist, elitist and sexist concepts.

Leopold Von Ranke was a late 19th century German historian who emphasized source based history and narrative history.

Ranke had tremendous faith in historians to find a truth about the past and to see the past as it essentially was. His method of reconstructing the past included exhaustive research and critical analysis of primary sources. He also emphasized disciplined objectivity in interpretations and he linked them to gifted historical intuition to draw out the essence o the meaning behind the fact.( he linked both empiricism and historical method based on objective data).Rankes approach has been turned a historicist but in a slightly different way than earlier historicists.

Hermeneutics is the theory of studying each period as having its own knowledge system.Neo historicists: Each period has its own system of knowledge as its called by Foucault who came with the notion of the archeology of knowledge. i.e. a historian is like an archeologist who builds knowledge about a period through fragments (accumulation of data).

Historicity is based on 2 major ideas:

1. History should be understood and interpreted in its own term2. The centrality of the context, what is called hermeneutic. i.e. a text can not be literally understood I we do not go to the contextIn one way, Ranke agreed with Vico that the past must be understood in its own terms. But rather than focusing on universal truth and general patterns in the past, Ranke emphasized specific events and their individual nature. Because historicists believe that history is cyclical, Ranke believes that every single detail matters. His concept of the otherness of the past was strongly influenced by his belief that each historical age and each culture had its own spirit of the age which manifested itself in specific, political, religious and cultural institutions and events. And in order to reconstruct the spirit of the age (past), historians needed to become objective observers understanding the past within its own context and standards rather than anachronistically (study the past with todays ideas) through the lenses of present day values, ideas and opinions.

History according to Ranke should be studied to gain this understanding of this past cultures for their own sake rather than for some speculative reason (studying the past to understand the present and to learn lessons)

Although Ranke was aware that the historians imagination played a role in organizing and interpreting the primary sources, he stressed the scientific fact based on nature of his work and the empirical method as the crucial difference between history(as a discipline = a fact based nature of telling history) and other stories (telling stories). Hence the difference between history as a discipline and telling a storyJohann Gustav Droysen was a German (19thC) historian. He criticized Rankes method as being too simplistic and concerned only with verifying on checking the authenticity of a historical document. Therefore, Droysen was more hermeneutical (i.e. it is impossible to provide a literal interpretation of a text = a text can not be understood without reference to its context, cultural environment to the language in which that text was formulated in a particular time in the past) in his approach.Hermeneutics: context including language because words have multiple meaning according to context and historical period.Droysen was more hermeneutical in that he attempted to understand the true meaning of a text as its authors had intended it by interpreting the text in terms of its historical and literary context.

So for Droysen, understanding the deeper meaning of text was central to the scientific study of history. This understanding can only be achieved if historians can place themselves in the mental world of the past. Historians must understand the world view of past actors in order to understand them and how they react inside the context.4.RomanticismIt could be considered as a reaction to the cold and clinical approach of the Enlightenment rationalism.

A romanticist admitted the importance of empiricism. He understood the benefits of empirical evidence in historicism but believed that history should express more emotions and creativity and this purpose suited political nationalists because they seek to use emotional appeal to foster patriotism toward the nation state. So by providing a common glorious past of Romantic heroes, history played a crucial role in unifying diverse ethnic groups in each nation and gaining loyalty to newly formed Republicans and Democratic governments. One essential part of gaining this loyalty was to prove the historical legitimacy of the new forms of government, the flaws of other forms of government and the superiority of their nation state as compared with others. This concept of Romanticism played a major role in the study of history because European and American governments funded history departments to promote Nationalist history ( useful to guarantee loyalty to successive governments). This helped history as a profession (formed a prestige and the growth of historical profession).

These Romantic Nationalist historians illustrated the perfect characteristics for all citizens to emulate (follow). Nationalist history focused on the idealized traits/ characteristics for all citizens to follow and focused on the great mass of history rather than strictly on politics or government institutions.

Therefore, during the 19th century, history led to the emergence of these 4 concepts: Idealism, Imperialism, Marxism and Romanticism. In America, the major concepts that were used: Romanticism and NationalismRomanticism and Nationalism

Two of the most popular American historians of the 19th C are George Bancroft and Francis Parkman. They published popular histories which described the dramatic and heroic efforts of European Americans ( the elicist, racist interpretation) to advance justice and liberty. These are called the Drum and bugle histories . The Drum and bugle histories were extremely popular and in a way fired the American imagination about its heroic and Romantic past.Bancroft particularly his romantic traditional approach was tremendously appealing to American public caught up in the wave of nationalism dominating public discourse in 19th C and at this center of this was the American Revolution. Because the American Revolution is the central story of the birth of the United States, so many stories about the Americans Revolution with all their heroes and battles became part of the foundation of Americas national philosophy (mythology) and a favored topic of nationalist consensus historians.

Nationalist consensus historians: mainly Romantic and Nationalists The central story of the 19th C was the American Revolution because it is the story of the birth of America.

Professionalization( another concept in the American revolution)

On the one hand, we have the Romantic interpretation of American Revolution/ Romantic nationalist history, on the other hand, we have professionalization. University trend historians wished to establish history as a scientific discipline independent from literature, rhetoric or theoretical philosophy.

One of the most important institutions to promote professionalization history was the American historical Association founded in 1884 and the majority of its members sought legitimacy in Academia by emphasizing a number of standards:

1. Objectivity

2. Research and documentation

3. The scientific method of historical profession

This American association has a committee called the Committee of Seven. It created a national program to reform history curriculum along the lines of Rankes scientific analysis of documents. Therefore, Rankes brand of history is his emphasis on objective analysis of primary sources and the primacy of political subjects. This brand would dominate the historical profession in the US for many generations. This association prompted national political history focusing on universal institutions and trends rather than on local or regional politics.

For the association, personal, regional and local history was considered irrelevant to the higher prospects / goals of the country