Chapter 15 Chapter 12 Political Revolution (Part 1)

The European domination of the world in the 19th century was based not only on the European Industrial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution, but also on the European Political Revolution; the essence of the Political Revolution was to end the division of human beings into rulers and ruled by God This notion.People no longer think that politics is above the people, nor that the people are below the government.For the first time in history, a political revolution has shown on a scale larger than the city-state that politics and the people are inseparable—that the people have woken up and acted not only to participate in politics but to do so as their inherent right.In this chapter we examine the general pattern of European political revolutions, the causes of the English, American, and French revolutions, and the various manifestations and worldwide implications of nineteenth-century European political revolutions.

The political revolution, like the economic revolution, developed in stages, which, as we have mentioned, began in England and then spread to continental Europe and the United States, and later to the rest of the world.The same goes for political revolutions, whose beginnings were marked by the English Revolution in the seventeenth century, and further developed by the American and French Revolutions that followed.It then affected all of Europe in the 19th century.In the 20th century, it affected the whole world. It is no accident that economic revolutions and political revolutions are similar in their extent.In fact, the two revolutions are closely related.The economic revolution largely determines the political revolution because it produces new classes with new interests and new ideologies that justify their interests.This will become clear if we briefly trace the general course of economic and political revolutions.

In the early Middle Ages, three distinct social groups could be found in Western Europe: the nobles who made up the military aristocracy, the clergy who made up the ecclesiastical and intellectual nobility, and the peasants who labored to support the two upper classes.With the development of commerce, this condition of the social hierarchy in the Middle Ages began to be changed by the appearance of a new element, the urban bourgeoisie.As this class grew in wealth and numbers, it became increasingly dissatisfied with the privileges of the various feudal estates and with the many restrictions that hindered the development of a free market economy.Thus, the bourgeoisie and the national monarchy formed a mutually beneficial alliance.Kings received financial support from the bourgeoisie, enabling them to maintain their authority over the various feudal estates; in turn, the bourgeoisie benefited from the establishment of law and order throughout the kingdom.This alliance lasted until it bored the growing middle class, which turned to And against the king.These goals of the middle class were important factors in the English, American, and French Revolutions.The success of these revolutions also meant the success of liberalism—the new ideology that provided rational explanations for the interests and goals of the bourgeoisie.In this sense, liberalism may be called the particular program by which the growing middle class intends to secure for itself the benefits and the control it can count on.

The liberal creed of the middle class was in turn challenged by the urban workers, the proletariat.With the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, workers living in crowded cities became increasingly class conscious.They increasingly feel that their interests are not the same as those of their employers and that their situation can only be improved by joint action on their part.Thus the workers, or rather the intellectuals leading the workers, developed a new ideology - socialism.It directly challenged bourgeois liberalism, advocating not only political reform but also social and economic change.We shall see that socialism became a major force in European affairs in the late nineteenth century and a major force in world affairs in the twentieth century.

It was not only the powerful creeds of liberalism and socialism that gave impetus to the political revolution in Europe, but also nationalism—an ideology that affected all classes and animated broad masses of people.Traditionally, the first and foremost allegiance of these people has been to the district or the church.In the early modern period, the object of allegiance was extended to the new national monarch.But, beginning with the English Revolution, and especially during the French Revolution, more and more Europeans were subordinating their allegiances to the new national cause.The rise of the national church, the rise of the national dynasty, the rise of the national army, the rise of the national educational system, all these combined to transform the former subjects of dukes, feudal serfs and urban citizens into an all-encompassing nation. During the nineteenth century a new national ideology spread across the continent from its origins in Western Europe, and now, in the twentieth century, it is the driving force behind the awakening of formerly dependent colonial peoples around the world.

These three doctrines—liberalism, socialism, and nationalism—were the main ingredients of the political revolution in Europe.Together they galvanized ever wider strata of the peoples of Europe, giving them impetus and cohesion unmatched in any other part of the world.Thus the political revolution contributed as much to European world hegemony as did the scientific and economic revolutions.When Europeans began to expand overseas, they encountered societies where relations between rulers and ruled were less than harmonious.The apathy of the populace—their lack of a sense of connectedness to their own government—explains why Europeans had so little trouble establishing and maintaining their rule in one area after another.India is perhaps the prime example of the vulnerability of societies to European expansionism that maintained disparate ethnic agglomerations, religious agglomerations, and conflicting local allegiances.For more than a century and a half, the vast Indian subcontinent, with its millions of people, splendid civilization and ancient historical traditions, was ruled by a relatively small number of British officials and senior staff without much effort.When an uprising against British rule broke out in 1857, not only British troops but Indians also went to suppress it.The reporter of The Times of London reported this fact with astonishment. "I am more and more amazed at this vast tributary of the tide of war that is flowing around and before me. All these men, women, and children are flocking joyfully to Lucknow to help the Europeans subdue their brethren .”

But European political control and economic control necessarily meant the spread of European political ideas.Just as the world felt the impact of Stephenson's locomotives, Fulton's steamboats and Gatling's machine guns, so it felt the impact of the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Communist Manifesto.The worldwide upheavals that have come to mark our times are the direct result of these exciting documents. The first stage of the political revolution in Europe was the English Revolution in the seventeenth century.The roots of this upheaval in England can be found in the conflict between Parliament and the Stuarts; this conflict turned into an open civil war in which Parliament won.This result is not unprecedented.Other representative institutions have also weighed down monarchs, as in Poland.However, there is a big difference between the two situations: the victorious British Parliament essentially represented the interests of the middle class, while the Polish representative institutions represented the feudal aristocracy.Thus, the result of the victory of the British Parliament was the establishment of a representative constitutional government-this is Britain's greatest political contribution to Europe and the world.In contrast, the victory of Poland's aristocratic-controlled parliament led to feudal chaos that later ended in the country's total downfall.

The Tudors before the Stuarts were generally popular, especially with the middle class and gentlemen.It brought rival noble families under central control.It severed the Christian Church from Rome by establishing the Anglican Church, the state religion, and in the process, distributed vast lands and other properties that had previously belonged to Catholic institutions.It also built a navy and pursued a popularly anti-Catholic foreign policy. The first Stuart king, James I (reigned 1603-1625) and his son and successor Charles I (reigned 1625-1649) quickly squandered this prestige.They attempted to impose the teachings and rituals of the Anglican Church on all people, thus arousing the hostility of the subjects who did not believe in the state religion, that is, the Puritans.They also attempted to rule without a Congress, but encountered difficulties because Congress controlled the country's resources.They try to get around this barrier by selling patent rights in import-export trade, domestic trade, and many manufacturing industries.This brought in great revenues, but also aroused resistance from the bourgeoisie, which demanded that "all free subjects have the right of inheritance to practice their trades freely".

The crisis came when the Scots revolted against Charles' attempts to impose the teachings of the Anglican Church on them.In order to obtain funds to suppress the uprising, Charles was forced to call a parliament.And this long parliament, convened in 1640, ignored Charles' need for money and instead made far-reaching demands, including the execution of the king's chief adviser and a complete reorganization of the Anglican Church.Charles refused to obey; in 1642 fighting broke out between the Royalists' Cavaliers and the Puritan Roundheads. Britain did not calm down for almost half a century, until the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688.A stirring series of events during those decades constituted the English Revolution.The particulars of the revolution are of no concern to us except to the extent that they help to illustrate the manner and extent by which the revolution produced the creeds of liberalism, nationalism, and socialism.It is therefore sufficient here to note that the English Revolution passed through five stages.The first phase, from 1642 to 1645, was the Civil War phase, in which the Bolsheviks were defeated by Oliver Cromwell's famous New Model Army.During the second phase, 1645-1649, a situation developed that was later repeated—however, with certain changes—in the French Revolutions of 1792 and the Russian Revolutions of 1917.Among the victorious Christians, a split arose between moderates and radicals.The Moderates, led by Cromwell, defeated the Radicals, led by John Lilburne.When Charles was executed in 1649, Cromwell was head of the republic of England known as the republic.

During the third period, from 1649 to 1660, Cromwell and his Puritan followers ruled England extremely effectively and piously.It was a time when various religious rights were suppressed and religious issues were resolved.Cromwell died in 1658, and was succeeded by his son Richard as Lord Protector of the Republic.The latter was a mediocre man, and the nation was weary of the restricted, austere life under the Puritans.Thus, the Stuart dynasty was restored; consequently, the fourth period, from 1660 to 1688, is known as the Restoration period. The Stuart kings Charles II (reigned 1660-1685) and James II (reigned 1685-1688) did not and could not cancel the various reforms of the republic.However, they did try to restore personal rule.This, combined with their adherence to the French royal family and their encouragement of Catholicism, made them increasingly unpopular.Finally, James II was overthrown with the Glorious Revolution of 1688; the Glorious Revolution marked the fifth and final phase of the English Revolution.The new ruler was James I's son-in-law, William of Orange. In 1689, William accepted the Bill of Rights which articulated the fundamental principle of the supremacy of Congress.This bill stipulates that: the king cannot suspend the law; unless it is agreed by Congress, it cannot raise taxes or maintain the army; without legal procedures, it cannot arrest and detain subjects.These rules do not mean that the UK has become a democracy.This was not achieved until the establishment of universal suffrage in the late 19th century.But the Act of 1689 did establish once and for all the supreme power of Congress and, in this case, put an end to the American Revolution that had begun almost half a century earlier.

From the perspective of world history, the main significance of the British Revolution lies in the determination and implementation of the principles of liberalism.This was to be expected, since the British Revolution was essentially a middle-class affair.The merchants and minor nobles who supported Congress had two main goals in mind—freedom of religion and safety of person and property.On the Puritan side, however, there was no agreement on these matters.Many conflicting views were expounded and vigorously debated.In religion, for example, there was a veritable torrent of unorthodox views, and many new denominations emerged, including Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers.At that time, the Presbyterians were striving to establish their denomination as a national organization, imposing its teachings on all citizens.Clearly these religious differences must be reconciled, or Congress' victory will be undermined and the country itself may collapse.It is in these circumstances that the basic liberal doctrine of freedom of religious belief is formulated and established.On the basis not only of expediency, but of principle, there has come to be general agreement that it is immoral and ineffective to try to force people to accept certain beliefs.To be sure, the Anglican Church remains the official, state-backed denomination, and its members receive preferential treatment in government office and otherwise.On the whole, however, the principle was established that freedom of conscience should be granted to all Christians who neither threatened public order nor interfered with the worship of others. Questions of human rights and property rights were also hotly debated, an issue that divided the Puritans right and left even more than religion.The split came gradually as rank-and-file soldiers in the New Model Army began to feel that their interests were being ignored by officials and Congress.These soldiers gained new ideas and perspectives after four years of successful combat.They had beaten the better in battle, and stepped, victorious, into some of the grandest mansions in England.This leads them to doubt the authority of the big shots and to trust their own abilities.As one authority put it, "To give ordinary men a chance to taste the possibilities of power and to speak their minds is, in short, one of the great achievements of the English Civil War, only by accident. " Ordinary people do speak their minds!In presenting a multitude of opinions, the common man demands, in addition to complete freedom of conscience, a democratic republic and the elimination of economic misery.This was expressed more clearly and emphatically by the Equalizer; the Equalizer was a pejorative name given to a mass movement chiefly by the urban lower middle classes and rural tenants.The leader of the Equalizers was John Lear, or "John the Freeborn", whose hard life reflected the training and aspirations of his followers. The Equalizers provided leadership for fundamental political grievances and formulated a codified program in which the demands of the rank-and-file soldiers of the Model Army were systematically formulated.Thus was drawn up a manifesto, the People's Pact; presented to Parliament in 1649, it is now said to be "the first written constitution in European history."It expressly proclaims certain fundamental principles of liberalism: first, the individual has certain inalienable rights from nature, inalienable inalienable rights by the state and church; second, the principle of popular sovereignty, that all political power is Granted by the people.On the basis of these principles, the mouthpiece of the army demanded many specific reforms that are now recognized as the foundation of a democratic constitutional state.They included freedom of religion, a written constitution, universal suffrage for male citizens, a biennial parliament, the wider spread of property and civil rights, and the end of capital punishment, debt imprisonment, primogeniture, and all feudal possession. Congress has never been compelled to act on the People's Pact.Cromwell was powerful enough to imprison Learburn and suppress disaffected groups in the army.This does not mean that averages have no influence on their contemporaries.The laws passed by the House of Commons to establish a republic also included the basic principle of the equalizer: "As far as the world is concerned, the people are the origin of all just powers." have the highest power in this country". If Congress is so ready to accept the principle of popular sovereignty, what is the dispute that pits Congress against the mean?The answer can be found in the definition of the word "people".Cromwell and his followers believed that the "people" who should stand for election to the House of Commons were those with a "real or permanent interest" in the kingdom - property owners, while the Equalizers insisted He argued that "any man born in England should... have a say in the election of MPs (Members of Parliament)." Thus, the dispute was between a constitutional assembly government and a democracy.Many of those who favored democracy did so because they intended to use their votes to bring about social reforms, whereas Cromwell and his followers, fearful of such reforms, were staunchly opposed to the egalitarians. In fact, two revolutions were going on in England in the seventeenth century.The first was the political revolution of the petty aristocracy and the bourgeoisie; the petty aristocracy and the bourgeoisie were interested in winning the civil and religious liberties necessary for their place in society.The second is the social revolution of the lower middle class and tenant farmers; the lower middle class and tenant farmers demand complete religious equality and political equality, demand rich food for the poor, and have the vision of the class of small property owners. The social revolution in England in the seventeenth century failed, just as the social revolution in France in the eighteenth century later failed.In both cases, leaders lack the numbers, organization, and maturity necessary to succeed.Their time did not come until the late nineteenth century, when the Industrial Revolution had produced an enormously large, class-conscious urban proletariat.The urban proletariat has developed its own ideology—socialism, which is completely different from and opposed to bourgeois liberalism. After the upheavals in Britain in the seventeenth century, the second phase of political revolution in Europe was the so-called Enlightenment that emerged in the century before the French Revolution of 1789.The term Enlightenment comes from the fact that the leaders of this movement believed they lived in an age of enlightenment.They see the past basically as an age of superstition and ignorance, and believe that it was only in their time that mankind finally passed from darkness to light.A fundamental feature of the Age of Enlightenment, then, was the notion of "progress," which persisted until the twentieth century.Since the Enlightenment, it has become generally accepted that the human condition will steadily improve, so that each generation will be better off than the previous one. How is this constant progress maintained?The answer is simple and convincing: by harnessing the power of human reason.This trust in reason was another fundamental feature of the Enlightenment.In fact, two key concepts are progress and rationality.And the advocates of these concepts are a group of highly expressive people known as philosophers.These philosophers are not to be mistaken for formal philosophers, they are not learned or systematic thinkers in any particular field.Most of them were men of letters or popularizers—not so much philosophers as newspaper writers.They are closer to H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw than to G. E. Moore and A. N. Whitehead.These philosophers, like Wells and Shaw, generally opposed the existing social order and wrote plays, novels, essays, and histories to popularize their ideas and illustrate the need for change. These philosophers were greatly influenced by the law of gravitation and believed in the existence of natural laws that govern not only the physical world, as Newton proved, but also human society.Following this assumption, they set out to apply reason to all fields in order to discover effective laws of nature.They subject everything—all people, all institutions, all traditions—to the test of reason.While this is a severe test for any society at any time, it is a particularly severe test for the French ancien régime, which is past its prime and where many joints are creaking.These philosophers thus subjected the ancien regime in France and in the whole of Europe to a crushing onslaught of criticism.More importantly, they developed a set of revolutionary principles by which they intended to bring about large-scale social reform.Of particular interest to us are some of their specific proposals in the three spheres of economics, religion, and politics. Their main watchword in the economic sphere was laissez-faire—let the people do what they wanted, and let nature take its course.This opposition to government interference was a reaction to the total and rigid control of economic life commonly known as mercantilism.In the early stages of nation-building, mercantilism was considered necessary for national security.However, by the 18th century it seemed redundant, even harmful.The slogan of laissez-faire was enthusiastically embraced by merchants hampered by patent rights, excise duties, or excessive duties and taxes.We have already mentioned that this was the case with the English merchants; they attacked the patents sold by the Stuart kings.But mercantilism was even more restrictive in France, so naturally philosophers turned their attention to mercantilism.They searched for the laws of nature that underlie economic behavior and proposed the general principle of laissez-faire—the non-interference of the state with the free play of natural economic forces. Laissez-faire was brilliantly formulated by the Scot Adam Smith in his famous Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).Self-interest, he argued, is the motive of individual activity, so far as the economic activity of the individual is concerned; self-interest.In Smith's own words: In religion, the main slogan is "Ecrasez iinfame!" - smashing the shameful, that is, destroying religious fanaticism and intolerance.There are two reasons for this backlash against intolerance.One reason is the belief that intolerance prevents scientific discussion and truth.Another reason is that intolerance seems to be threatening political unity and stability.Therefore, Voltaire, an outstanding advocate of freedom of religious belief, said, "If only one religion is allowed in England, the government is likely to become arbitrary; if there are only two religions, the people will cut each other's throats; but when When there are a large number of religions, everyone can live happily and live in harmony." More precisely, philosophers rejected the traditional belief that God rules the world and determines the fate of human beings at will.Instead, they looked for a natural religion that was consistent with the judgment of reason.The result is all sorts of things that are fundamentally contrary to religious orthodoxy.Some became outright atheists, denying the existence of God and denouncing religion as a tool of priests and politicians.Others became agnostics, neither affirming nor denying the existence of God.Most people are deists, happy to agree that God existed and created the world, but firmly believe that after God created the world, he allowed the world to function according to certain natural laws without interfering.Thus, a deist can do two incompatible things at the same time and gain both.They can accept God and Christian teachings, but at the same time, they can reject certain things with supernatural characteristics, such as the conception of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of Jesus, the divinity of Christ and the revelation of God in the Bible.The important point worth pointing out here is that all these new tenets—atheism, agnosticism, and deism—reflected an unprecedented increase in rationalist skepticism about “revelation” or “supernatural” religion.For the first time since the triumph of Christianity in Europe, there was a definite rupture in the Christian tradition. Similarly, in politics, philosophers also have a key term - "social contract".The contract theory of government is not a new theory: it had been formulated systematically by the English political theorist John Locke in his Treatise of Government published in 1690.Locke said in this treatise that if rulers mismanage their subjects, "by this failure they lose the powers which the people earlier conferred on them for quite the opposite purpose, and the powers are devolved to the people, The people have the right to restore their former liberties...." In other words, Locke saw rule as a political contract between the ruler and the ruled.However, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau transformed it into a social contract rather than a political contract.For him, a contract is an agreement among the people.Rousseau said in his major political work (1762) that all citizens, in the process of establishing a government, fuse their individual wills into a common will and agree to accept the judgment of this common will as the final verdict.Rousseau's idea of ​​the common will is abstract and open to various interpretations. The dictators of the 20th century used this doctrine to justify their totalitarian regimes.From the point of view of European political revolution, however, it is important that Rousseau emphasized the sovereignty of the people.He saw the right to govern as a mere "power of agency" and thus justified the revolution that returned the legitimate power of the people to the people, who possessed supreme power. "The trustee of the executive power is not the master of the people, but the clerk of the people; he (the people) can bring them into power and bring them down as he pleases; for the trustee, there is no question of contract, only obedience .” The above brief remarks illustrate the significance of the Enlightenment for the political revolution in Europe. Slogans like "smash the shameful," "laissez-faire," and the "social contract" undermined traditional institutions and customs.Moreover, they are a challenge not only to the status quo in France, but also to the status quo in the whole of Europe and even overseas.In fact, philosophers do not see themselves as French or Europeans, but as members of the human race.It is worth noting that Voltep criticized Bishop Bossuet's "World History Course" on the grounds that this work mainly deals with the history of Jews and Christians, and ignores pagan ancients and other cultures. History.This critique is quite typical of philosophers' conscious attempts to think and act from a global rather than a Western perspective.They tried to discover laws of general applicability that were comparable to Newton's laws of the physical world. Though philosophers did not discover immutable laws governing all mankind, their writings did influence thoughtful people in many parts of the world.Their greatest immediate achievement was to persuade many of the princes of Europe to accept at least some of their doctrines.These monarchs still adhered to their theory of ruling by natural right, but they had changed their thinking about the purpose of their rule.Governmental power was still the natural prerogative of monarchs, but this time it was used for the benefit of the people.Therefore, these rulers are called benevolent despots. The most famous of these benevolent despots were Frederick the Great of Prussia (reigned 1740-1786), Catherine the Great of Russia (reigned 1762-1796) and the Habsburg Empire. Joseph II (reigned 1765-1790).Ekaterina was perhaps the most eloquent.The representative slogans of the Enlightenment are often uttered, such as: "All citizens should be equal before the law," "The monarch should serve his people," "It is dangerous to divide a country into a few large estates" and so on.But Catherine and her contemporaries didn't just talk about reforms.Catherine greatly improved the administrative system and educational system of her country; Frederick did a lot to promote the agriculture of Prussia; The reign was exhausted by trying to reshape his empire into conformity with the new principles.However, despite their great power, these rulers achieved very little.Their successors often undermined their gains, while clergy and nobles stood firm against reforms that threatened their vested interests. The teachings of the Enlightenment inspired not only a few sovereigns, but also some of their subjects.In Russia, for example, the aristocrat Alexander Radishchev published a work in 1790 entitled "Acts from St. Petersburg to Moscow".Radishchev was a devoted follower of philosophers, and in his writings he sharply condemned the basic institutions of his country—bureaucracy, absolutist monarchy, and serfdom.Likewise, in the Habsburg Empire many faithful followers of the philosophers can be found.Among them was a nobleman named Djörje Besseinje who was popularly known as the Hungarian Voltaire. At the end of the 18th century, a Countess named Yulia Chaquet owned a library with 5,160 volumes, of which more than 3,600 volumes were in French, including all the first editions of Voltaire and Rousseau.Even in the Muslim Ottoman Empire, Sultan Selim III was an ardent supporter of the doctrines of the Enlightenment, which he seems to have absorbed from French merchants and diplomats in Constantinople.Although he tried his best to put his ideas into practice, the opposition of vested interests was so fierce that he was killed in 1807 after ruling for 18 years.The subjects of the Sudan, especially the Christians in the Balkans who had some contact with Western Europe, were also influenced by the Enlightenment.More eminent in this respect was a Serbian itinerant monk named Obradovic, who traveled extensively in England, France, and Germany.During his travels, he became an outspoken believer in the Enlightenment; this can be seen in this passage from his writings: In North and South America, the Enlightenment also had a direct and very significant impact.In Latin America new doctrines were spread by the steady stream of officials, merchants, and immigrants.One historian, after analyzing the widespread dissemination of the philosophers' works in the universities and private libraries of Latin America, concluded that the Enlightenment clearly influenced ... a whole generation that reached maturity around 1808, leading to struggle for independence.As for the thirteen British colonies, we shall examine them in detail in the following section on the American Revolution.Suffice it to say here that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were just as thoroughly philosophers as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu.After all, it was Jefferson who declared that everyone had two fatherlands: "his own country and France." The influence of various theories of the Enlightenment did not disappear with the end of the 18th century or even the 19th century.The writings of Voltaire and Paine remain influential to this day, and still inspire peoples living in countries whose general conditions and institutions are similar to those with which earlier philosophers struggled.For example, K. M. Khaled, a professor at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, published a book in 1950 called "Here We Begin" that laid out a program for rejuvenating the Muslim world.Khalid quotes Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hughes extensively in the book, and quotes Rousseau to clarify his motivation for writing the book.He wrote in the preface; "As far as the nobility of the motives for writing this book is concerned, I have a clear conscience." Perhaps Rousseau expresses this feeling best: "It is our belief in God and our belief in Human faith inspires our determination to transform stupid, servile animals into intelligent, human beings." We should not exaggerate the effectiveness with which the teachings of the Enlightenment were carried out by a benevolent despot.It was not until the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 that the Enlightenment greatly affected the masses of the European people.But by 1789 a revolution had broken out in the thirteen British colonies, which provided an experimental demonstration of the new doctrine in action. We have mentioned earlier that one of the chief features of the thirteen colonies was their political intractability, their elected parliamentarians at odds with the governor and other officials sent from London.We also mentioned that Britain decisively defeated France in the Seven Years' War and, through the Peace of Paris in 1763, acquired the French colonies as far as the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Mississippi River in the west.The British and Americans were very proud of their huge joint victory.But this victory created new ones while solving old ones.一个新问题是，由于法国进攻的危险已消除，十三个殖民地的独立精神正在不断增强。另一新问题是，英国政府在获得巨大的新殖民地以后，决定加紧对帝国组织的控制。这种加紧在早期阶段也许是可行的，但这时，在长期的“有益的忽视”之后，在消除法国的威胁之后，殖民地居民确信他们能够照料自己并有充分的权利这样做。因而，美国革命基本上起因于帝国权力和殖民地自治这两种相冲突的要求；马萨诸塞的总督弗朗西斯·伯纳德在他于1765年11月23日寄给在伦敦的上司的信中，十分清楚地表明了这一点： 对这一决定性的问题作出回答的是军队。在美利坚殖民者当中，并非所有的人，甚至也不是大部分人，赞成求助于暴力。事实上，他们分裂成两个敌对的阵营。保守主义者仅仅希望恢复1763 年以前普遍地存在于母国与殖民地之间的那种松散的关系。但是，激进主义者要求帝国关系中发生使殖民地能完全控制自己的事务的变化，他们还要求殖民地内部出现有利于平民百姓的政治权力的转移。关于后面一点，保守主义者激烈反对。他们不想引进民主政体；相反，他们希望象1688年英国的光荣革命一样，保持上层阶级的领导。最后，由于不列颠无能的官员屡犯大措，激进主义者得以独行其是。 导致革命的步骤是众所周知的，无需详细叙述。首先是1763年时宣布禁止向阿巴拉契亚山脉以西移民。这原是作为在能够制订出有条理的土地政策以前保持和平的一项临时措施，但是，那些可能成为移居者和投机商的人以为自己将为了英国少数毛皮商的利益而被永远排除在外。然后，是施行一系列财政措施，公布了“糖税法”、“驻兵法”、“印花税法”和“汤森税法”；其目的是为了将英国繁重的税收负担的一部分转嫁到美利坚殖民者肩上。这些征税在英国人看来，尤其是考虑到近来击败法国人的战争所带来的花费以及将来保护美利坚边疆所必需的预计的花费，似乎是合情合理的。但是，殖民地居民由于都受到这些征税的影响，一致加以反对。他们召开了一次洲际大会，组织对英货的抵制，直到这些财政措施被取消为止。然而，英国政府又施行了另外一系列欠考虑的措施，引起了一场导致革命的新风暴。 一连串富有戏剧性的事件——东印度公司对茶叶的垄断、波士顿茶党案、作为对在波士顿港口的破坏行为的惩罚的强制法令即不可容忍法令——是人们所熟悉的。当时，1774 年，英国国会还通过了魁北克法案，为被征服的法商加拿大人规定了一个政府体制，并划定了魁北克的边界，边界内包括俄亥俄河以北的全部领土，即现在的威斯康星州、密执安州、伊利诺斯州、印第安纳州和俄亥俄州。在捍卫魁北克法案方面，可说的东西很多，但是，美利坚殖民者谴责它是为了天主教的法裔加拿大人的利益而阻挡他们向西扩张的又一道不可容忍法令。1774年9月，第一届大陆会议在费城召开，组织了对英货的又一次抵制。第二年，当英国军队从波士顿前往康科德搜夺那里的秘密军需库时，战斗开始了。正是在这次战斗中，有人在列克星敦草坪打响了“声闻全世界的枪声”。结果是英国军队发现自己被围困在波士顿。第二月即1775年6月，第二届大陆会议召开，它需要负责一场正式的战争，开始招募一支美利坚军队。 大会对于与母国实行最后的决裂，仍很勉强。但是，随着战斗的蔓延，要求独立的情绪增涨。1776年l月，潘恩出版了富有鼓动性的小册子。潘恩只是两年前刚从英国来到美洲，他痛恨英国社会的不公正。现在，他在小册子中热情地激励殖民地居民抛弃“旧世界”的暴政： 在殖民地各地得到传阅，它大大地有助于大会在1776 年7月4日作出接受《独立宣言》的决定。一旦军事行动开始充分进行，决定性的因素证明是法国对革命者的援助。战争的前两年间，法国并没有正式卷入，不过，它把军火源源输送到殖民。1777年决定性的萨拉托加战役中，美利坚人所使用的武器的十分之九都来源于法国。第二年，法国与起义者订立同盟，向英国宣战。荷兰和西班牙加入法国一方，而欧洲其他大部分强国则组成武装中立联盟，以保护它们的贸易不受英国海军的攻击。法国海军和一支拥有6000人的法国远征军的援助，大大地有助于乔治·华盛顿所率的军队的胜利，大大地促成了英国最后于1781年在约克敦的投降。1783年在巴黎签订的和约，正式承认了美利坚共和国的独立，其边疆以西一直伸展到密西西比河。但是，加拿大仍属于英国，并接受了仍忠于英国的60000名美利坚托利党党人，他们在人数上与原先在圣劳伦斯河流域的法国居民相等。 从世界历史的观点看，美国革命之所以重要，并不是因为它创造了一个独立的国家，而是因为它创造了一个新的、不同类型的国家。《独立宣言》已宣布：“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的：人人生而平等。”于是，美国人民在革命期间和革命之后，通过了旨在使这一宣言不仅在纸上而且在生活中得到实现的种种法律。 首先，这些法律废除了东半球的限嗣继承地产权和长嗣继承制。被指定继承人的土地不能在该家庭以外出售，而长嗣继承制则要求土地须移交给长子。施行这些制度的目的是使大地产在其因袭的所有人的管理下保持完整无损。但是，《独立宣言》发表10 年后，除两个州外，每个州都废弃了限嗣继承地产权，宣言发表15年后，每个州还废弃了长嗣继承制。换句话说，新的美利坚共和国是建立在由农民本人经营的小地产的基础上，而不是建立在由少数人控制的大地产的基础上。托利党党人如弗吉尼亚的费尔法克斯家族拥有600万英亩的土地；对托利党党人所拥有的大地产的夺取和分配也促进了上述的过程。这些地产被夺取后，被小块小块地出售，从而明显地改变了新共和国的土地所有制。 美国革命也导致公民权大大地扩大，不过，男公民选举权直到50年后才确立。革命还促进了反对奴隶制度的运动。一个接一个州政府通过了禁止输入奴隶的法律——罗得岛和康涅狄格于1774 年通过，特拉华于1776年通过，弗吉尼亚于1778年通过，马里兰于1783年通过，到1784年，规定逐步地、完全地废除奴隶制度的法律己在宾夕法尼亚、马萨诸塞、康涅狄格和罗得岛得到通过。甚至在弗吉尼亚的蓄奴中心，1782年时也通过了使解放奴隶较为容易的法律，8年之内，该州有1万多名奴隶获得自由。 较大的宗教信仰自由是革命的另一成果。先前，十三个殖民地中有九个殖民地已设立州教会。这意味着居住在马里兰的公理会教友必须帮助支持该州的主教派教会；居住在马萨诸塞的主教派教会成员必须帮助支持当地的公理会教会；即使那些根本没加入教会的人，也看到他们所纳税款的一部分被用于支持一个州教会。但是，革命开始之后，马上就有五个州的已确立的教会被废除，从而，开始了已成为当代美国之特点的宗教信仰自由。 立宪制度也因革命而得到加强。十三个州都接受了以《独立宣言》的原则为基础的宪法。这些宪法给财产所有人以专门特权，并不是完全民主的。但是，它们通过政府权能的分立而对统治权加以限制，并附上《人权法案》；该法案规定了公民的天赋权利和以往没有一个政府会公正地去做的一些事情。 1787 年的《西北法令》确保西部诸地将分享美国革命的来之不易的好处：它规定新的州应建立在俄亥俄河以北地区，它们在所有法律方面与旧的州相同，但不能实行奴隶制度。西部诸地将无须经受原先各州的殖民地附属的制度或竞争扩张的制度。相反，当它们能取得州的地位时，它们将因有弹性的联邦制的原则而享有原先十三个州在战争和革命中赢得的权利和自由。 这些变化并不象法国革命和俄国革命所带来的变化那样广泛和深刻。这些较后的革命，特别是俄国革命，促成了较美国革命多得多的社会改革和经济改革。然而，美国革命在当时具有深远的影响。一个独立的共和国在美洲的建立，在欧洲被广泛地解释为：它意味着启蒙运动的思想是切实可行的——一个民族有可能建立一个国家，有可能制定一种建立在个人权利的基础上的切实可行的政体。 美国各州所通过的宪法尤其给当时的欧洲人以深刻印象。他们向列举人类的不可剥夺的权利——宗教信仰自由、集会自由、出版自由、不受任意扣押的自由——的《人权法案》欢呼。我们将看到，〈人权和公民权利宣育》的发表形成了法国大革命的高潮，这并非偶然的。起草该宣言的委员会承认，“这一崇高的思想”产生于美洲。“在北美洲确立起自由的那些事件中，我们已进行了合作；北美洲向我们表明了我们应将对于自身的保护建立在什么原则的基础上。…”当挪威人和比利时人分别于1814和1830年起草各自的宪法时，美国又充当了一个样板。 重要的一点是，美国已成为自由和机会的一个象征。它作为没有以往数千年的负担和积淀的一块新的土地而受人羡慕。例如，德国的音乐家和诗人舒伯特宣称，在美国，十三扇“金色的大门向不容异说和专制政治的受害者们敞开着”。同样，杰斐逊的意大利朋友菲利普·马泽伊写道，绝大多数意大利人是美国的赞赏者——他们“大声地称它为人类的事业，尽管他们生活在专制政府的统治下”。在爱尔兰，民族主义领袖亨利·格拉顿因美国革命者的成功而受到鼓舞，他告诉自己的同胞们， “在你们确定当奴隶的可行性以前，请始终朝美国看。”随后，他在对英国的一次警告中说：“当美国派遣其大使……前往欧洲并向世界表明自己的独立和政权时，你会想象自己将说服爱尔兰满足于一个为它制定法律的英国国会吗？” 当时的美国政治家埃德蒙·伯克已意识到美国革命的意义，他宣称： 即使今天，在巨大的变化已改变美国社会、新的更激进的革命运动已控制世界大部分地区时，美国革命对世界历史进程的影响仍可感觉到。