On this note Degler argued that “Even the abolition of primogeniture in all the Southern States by 1791 cannot be taken as significant” (Source A), yet it can be seen as a starting point to the massive social change acquired via the Women’s Liberation Movement.
Although it can be said as true that “No major shift in leadership took place…as a result of the Revolution” (Source A). As most men involved in formulating the Declaration of Independence and leading the Revolution “held an office before and after the dividing line of the Revolution” (Source A). A change in the selection of leaders changed drastically following the Revolution, “All offices” were “open to men of merit, of whatever rank or condition” (Source B). No longer was leadership based on a God-given right, or only open to those with wealth and status, but it was rather based on merit.
A main counterargument is that very little social change occurred, which would deem the revolution as radical, as “Important social institutions were left untouched by the Revolution” (Source A). But one is forgetting in the argument the social change which actually did occur, and the catalyst the Revolution served for …show more content…
This was radical as it went against the monarchical God-centered society. The conservative view on social change relies fully on the aims of the American Revolution, “In our eyes the American Revolutionaries appear to be absorbed in changing only their governments, not their society. But in destroying monarchy and establishing republics they were changing their society as well as their governments and they knew it” (Source B), they also see the changes which occurred only as gradual yet, “Americans had become, almost overnight, the most liberal, the most democratic, the most commercially minded, and the most modern people in the world” (Source
Although it can be said as true that “No major shift in leadership took place…as a result of the Revolution” (Source A). As most men involved in formulating the Declaration of Independence and leading the Revolution “held an office before and after the dividing line of the Revolution” (Source A). A change in the selection of leaders changed drastically following the Revolution, “All offices” were “open to men of merit, of whatever rank or condition” (Source B). No longer was leadership based on a God-given right, or only open to those with wealth and status, but it was rather based on merit.
A main counterargument is that very little social change occurred, which would deem the revolution as radical, as “Important social institutions were left untouched by the Revolution” (Source A). But one is forgetting in the argument the social change which actually did occur, and the catalyst the Revolution served for …show more content…
This was radical as it went against the monarchical God-centered society. The conservative view on social change relies fully on the aims of the American Revolution, “In our eyes the American Revolutionaries appear to be absorbed in changing only their governments, not their society. But in destroying monarchy and establishing republics they were changing their society as well as their governments and they knew it” (Source B), they also see the changes which occurred only as gradual yet, “Americans had become, almost overnight, the most liberal, the most democratic, the most commercially minded, and the most modern people in the world” (Source