*Dual Power in the American Revolution-Professor Maier's View

Click on title to link to The History Place's Timetable for the pre-revolutionary events that are discussed in the book reviewed below.


This year marks the 232th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A lot has gone wrong with the promise presented by that document and the revolution that went with it but we nevertheless justly still commemorate that event today. The point is to take that history out of the hands of the sunshine patriots who have appropriated it- and by the look of things - we better make it pronto.

BOOK REVIEW

From Resistance to Revolution: 1765-1776, Paula Maier, 1974

In my youth I was greatly enamored of Crane Brinton’s classic sociological study of the stages of revolution, Anatomy of a Revolution. In that work Brinton put forth a number of propositions that he believed were common to the English revolution of the 17th century, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century and the Russian of the 20th century as he tried to draw some conclusions about the similarities of great modern revolutions up to his time. Although his work has been superseded, in part, by advances in scholarship over the past half century of so every thoughtful observer of revolutions can still benefit by a reading of his work.

A central theme of that work was that in the pre-revolutionary period a fair slice of society (generally a literate, activist segment) shifted its allegiance in self-defense away from the established order and either adhered to new parallel political organizations or remained neutral toward the possibilities of an impeding uprising. Professor Maier has taken that proposition, although she seemingly has made no formal recognition of her debt to Brinton, and applied it to a study of the American Revolution and has made a very nice case for Professor Brinton’s proposition. Using his schema has nevertheless strenghtened her argument.

Leon Trotsky in his seminal three-volume work The History of the Russian Revolution has a chapter in Volume Two headed Dual Power. The gist of the argument that Trotsky presented there is that in revolutionary periods the organized structures of the old regime are confronted with parallel structures organized by the revolutionary forces. In the case of the Russian revolution that, once the question of the monarchy was out of the way- a question basically settled by the February revolution, shaped up to be a battle between the forces around Kerensky’s bourgeois Provisional government and the revolutionary forces around the Workers, Soldiers and Peasants Soviets. In the long haul one of those two forces had to prevail and in the Russian case it was the soviets.

Trotsky, here was, of course, discussing the question of the direct struggle for state power but I would argue that that same notion can be used for the pre-revolutionary period, at least for the American Revolution. Professor Maier’s work bears out that contention. Certainly the way that she structured her time frames captures the various turns in the political struggle toward revolution fairly accurately (first peaceful petition and non-cooperation, then spirited public demonstrations, boycotts, acts of violence against British property and eventually creation of an organ of self-government- the Continental Congress).

In that ten year period from 1765, the period of the agitation centered on the activities of the Sons of Liberty against Stamp Act, through the various other oppositional movements to unjust parliamentary actions through the key establishment of a Continental Congress (the American equivalent of the National Assembly in the French and Soviets in the Russian experiences) culminating in a declaration of independence there is a sea change in the shift of the political allegiance by the bulk of American colonists toward England and the monarchy.

The radicals in America, like John and Samuel Adams (cousins), Joseph Warren, James Otis and John Hancock, started out assuming that the English monarchy, its governmental ministries and an elected Parliament were rational organizations. And they were for the English if not for the unrepresented colonialists. Thus each act, like the Stamp Act, Townsend Acts, etc. contrary to the interests of the colonialists met with an organized opposition. However, this opposition started out with the colonialists acting merely as aggrieved by an uninformed, or in the worst case manipulated, sovereign as time and the number of egregious incidents goes on the radicals move further left, pick up other layers of society and begin to see that self-interest required independence. Along the way some elements react against the leftward movement and either goes to the sidelines of the political struggle or adhere to the monarchy. Valuable political lessons were accumulated along the way.

Are there any lessons to be drawn today from those struggles of our forebears, though? In short, are we in that ten-year period prior to a revolutionary turn? Certainly the objective situation in the economy, the world political situation and the crush of social institutions are not qualitatively different from 1765. But no, I see no parallels today of people creating alternate institutions to take on the government, although they should. Nevertheless scholars, history buffs, radicals and revolutionaries should read this book to learn about revolutionary timing, if nothing else.