"R" The War For Independence Was A Social Revolution By: Gordon Wood

This article was a masterfully created piece fo work that did very weel in itself and its own right to display the author"s view points and arguements. With cited sources and the like the author tried to persuade the reader into thinking that the War for Independence was more of a social revolution than it was a political one. However, despite its colorful character, I was not swayed into thinking any less of the War than it really was.

Theis article claims that the War was a supposed uprising of the lower classes to change the social form of the colonies, breaking free from Great Britain was merely a fallout, to help the unhelped, to right the wicked wrongs of the unjust and cruel world that they lived in. If that was so, then why were there still rich people in place after the War, almost all of them being the same from the beggining of the War? Why did a lot of the upper class side with the colonists if they wre supposedly going to be overthrown by the War's end?

Mr. Wood stated, "There was almost no poverty in the colonies.", if this were so, why would there be a need to socially uplift the already uplifted. The fact of the matter is that there was a lot of poverty in the Americas, and that there were many people who wanted to see the downfall of the upper class. This however did not encompass the main idea of the whole war, the rich a lot to gain from the colonists victory, and the lower classes themsleves also gained a lot.

Not much had changed after the War and even if it had the change would have been so insignificant that the scholars of the time had not the interest nor the tenacity to even ponder upon the subjec. That is my analysis of the article "The War For Independence Was A Social Revolution".