Throughout the twentieth century, some historians have contended that the American Revolution was more than a fight for home rule—it was also a fight over who should rule at home, one that pitted ordinary people against the colonial elite. The most recent advocates of that view have found that American society became more unequal during the course of the eighteenth century, as wealth and political power in every colony grew more concentrated in the hands of leading families of planters, merchants, and lawyers. The result, they contend, was a rising tide of disaffection among humbler folk, whose participation in protests and riots expressed not only their grievances against the British empire but also their hostility to wealthy colonials. In the course of defying Parliament and the king, ordinary farmers and artisans, and even people beneath them in the social structure, developed their own "popular ideology," a political outlook more egalitarian and democratic than the republican views held by gentlemen who led the resistance to Britain.

But other historians are more skeptical. While agreeing that mounting inequalities heightened tensions during the decades before the Revolution, they argue that all classes of white colonials embraced a common political outlook—republicanism. What promoted that unity of belief and feeling was that most white men owned land and had the right to vote. As members of a propertied, politically empowered middle class, a majority of white colonials wanted only to throw off their connection with Britain; they had no incentive to seek more drastic changes in their society. Indeed, their moderate political aspirations were ably expressed by republicanism, which spoke directly to the concerns of most white Americans both by upholding property rights as the basis of personal freedom and by warning that any group of people who became too wealthy or powerful posed a threat to the liberty of the people.

1			Read the Declaration of Independence. According to this document, why did the colonists rebel against Great Britain? Which of the interpretations of the Revolution cited in this chapter's Counterpoint essay does this document appear to support? Now consider what, if any, problems this documents causes for historians as a piece of historical evidence. Who wrote the document? What was its purpose? Who was its intended audience? Do these questions or any other possible concerns make you reconsider your understanding of the ideological motivations of the Americans who revolted against the British? Why or why not? http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html As an example of why historians care about this issue of whether the Revolution was primarily a fight for home rule or over who should rule at home, read this essay on tarring and feathering. How could your understanding of this ritual change depending on whether you believe that Americans were fairly united in their opposition to the British or that significant conflict existed among the wealthier and poorer classes of Americans as they each worked to shape a revolution that fit their interest? http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/irvin.feathers.html