Question

short - answer question

1. “the colonists believed they saw... what appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault launched surreptitiously by plotters against liberty both in england and in america. the danger to america, it was believed, was in fact only the small immediately visible part of the greater whole whose ultimate manifestation would be the destruction of the english constitution with all the rights and privileges embedded in it....

it was this—the overwhelming evidence, as they saw it, that they were faced with conspirators against liberty determined at all costs to gain ends which their words dissembled portrayed falsely—that was signaled to the colonists after 1763, and it was this above all else that in the end propelled them into revolution.”
bernard bailyn, historian, the logic of rebellion, 1967
“the americans, ‘born the heirs of freedom,’ revolted not to create but to maintain their freedom. american society had developed differently from that of the old world.... while the speculative philosophers of europe were laboriously searching their minds in an effort to decide the first principles of liberty, the americans had come to experience vividly that liberty in their everyday lives.... the revolution was thus essentially intellectual and declaratory: it ‘explained the business to the world, and served to confirm what nature and society had before produced.’ ‘all was the result of reason....’ the revolution had taken place not in a succession of eruptions that had crumbled the existing social structure, but in a succession of new thoughts and new ideas that had vindicated that social structure.... the americans revolted not out of actual suffering but out of reasoned principle.”
gordon s. wood, historian, the idea of america, 2011
using the excerpts, answer (a), (b), and (c).
(a) briefly explain one major difference between wood’s and bailyn’s historical interpretations of why the american colonies rebelled against the british.
(b) briefly explain how one historical event or development in the period 1754 to 1776 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support bailyn’s interpretation.
(c) briefly explain how one historical event or development in the period 1754 to 1776 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support wood’s interpretation.

Explanation:

(a) Bailyn emphasizes the colonists' perception of a conspiracy against liberty, seeing the American - based threat as part of a larger attack on the English constitution. Wood, on the other hand, argues that the Americans revolted to maintain their pre - existing freedom based on their lived experience of liberty, and that the revolution was more of an intellectual and declaratory act.
(b) The Stamp Act of 1765 could support Bailyn's interpretation. The colonists saw it as a direct infringement on their rights without their consent, which could be seen as part of the conspiracy against liberty he describes. The colonists' protests against the Stamp Act, such as the Stamp Act Congress, showed their belief that their rights were being violated by a secretive and unjust authority.
(c) The Committees of Correspondence could support Wood's interpretation. These committees were formed to share ideas and information about liberty and colonial rights. They were an intellectual and organizational effort to maintain and defend the colonists' understanding of freedom, which aligns with Wood's view that the revolution was based on reasoned principles and new ideas about liberty.

Answer:

(a) Bailyn sees a conspiracy against liberty as the cause; Wood sees a defense of pre - existing liberty based on lived experience.
(b) The Stamp Act of 1765; it was seen as an unjust infringement on rights, supporting the idea of a conspiracy against liberty.
(c) The Committees of Correspondence; they were an intellectual effort to maintain and defend liberty, supporting Wood's view.