Analysis Of Boycotts Made The Revolution Radical

The American Revolution was a time of change in the colonies. People were fighting for their independence, and now historians such as Barbara Clark Smith, Gordon Wood, and T.H. Breen argue if this was radical. Smith said it was not, due to the lack of attention to the oppressed. Wood disagreed, and said that the legacy of the Revolution is what made it radical. In Breen’s essay, “Boycotts Made the Revolution Radical,” he states how the Revolution was radical by bringing together many colonists to boycott and eventually take up arms and fight for their independence. Breen makes the best argument versus Smith and Wood because of this attention to all the colonists and their actions. Breen’s essay stated that the elite brought together most colonists through boycotts. The cause for boycotts would be clearly told, and even uneducated people could understand. The need for boycotts was caused by a misconception Parliament had about the American Colonies’ wealth. Breen realized that people of different regions, genders, and social classes got involved and this helped the fight for independence become stronger. Women would get involved quiet protests, like not buying tea, and making their own things. Some harsher forms of protest would be that …show more content…
Smith, on the other hand, talks about how the Revolution was not radical because of the lack of rights given to women, slaves, and free African Americans. Slaves and free African Americans were not allowed to fight in the early stages of the war. The reason George Washington allowed them to fight was after “Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation.” In this proclamation, Britain is calling for the aid of slaves in their armies, the reward being their freedom. Smith believes that this is what makes the Revolution not radical. Although she is not entirely right. She ignored the fact that many people banded together to fight against the strongest nation and