Freedom and human rights are among the most important issues that are currently being hotly debated ideologically. V. I. Lenin noted that" for every revolution, "freedom is" a slogan that is very, very important. " 1 This slogan was also written on the banner of the American Revolution of the XVIII century. However, in order to judge its nature and results, it is important to determine what it actually gave to the people, what kind of freedom and for whom it was meant, and how much revolutionary slogans and declarations were embodied in "human rights".

This issue has become particularly relevant in connection with the 200th anniversary of the American Revolution, which was accompanied by the publication of a large number of books and articles. According to P. Mayer, "Uncle Sam's birthday" was marked by an unprecedented literary "expansion"2 . In addition to research, the pages of socio - political journals included materials about the nature and impact of events in those years on the subsequent development of the United States. In these publications, a prominent place is given to the issue of democratic "freedoms" and "human rights". A course of lectures was also delivered on this subject by prominent professors, public and political figures in the United States, which was later combined in a volume entitled "The American Revolution continues" 3 . Promoting this publication, the Saturday Review magazine devoted one of its issues to the topic "America's Influence on the World, 1776-1976" .4 The famous historian G. S. Commander wrote an article about the American Revolution as an "ideal" for the rest of the world, and the equally famous political scientist E. F. Goldman called it "The American Revolution".the "dream" of humanity.

To properly assess the outcome of the American Revolution, it is important to determine what were its causes and driving forces. In American historiography itself, there are deep disagreements between representatives of various trends on this issue, the analysis of which has recently become the subject of a monographic study. 5 This topic has already been discussed in Soviet literature .6 Dominant position in the

1 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 38,: tr. 346.

2 P. Maier. Why Revolution? Why Democracy? "The Journal of Interdisciplinary History". Vol. VI. 1976, p. 711.

3 "America's Continuing Revolution". Washington. 1975. 398 p.

4 "America's Impact on the World 1776 - 1976". "Saturday Review". September 13, 1976.

5 B. Sternsher. Consensus, Conflict and American Historians. Bloomington - L 1975.

6 For more information on the evolution of the views of representatives of this school, see: N. N. Bolkhovitinov. Modern American Historiography: new trends and challenges. "New and recent History", 1969, N 6; his. The Revolutionary War and modern American Historiography. Voprosy Istorii, 1969, no. 12; izd. Some problems of historiography and the American Revolution of the XVIII century. "Novaya I novey-

page 89

American historiography continues to be occupied by the so-called "neoconservatives", representatives of the apologetic school of" continuity " - "consent", which was established in the United States after World War II. The concept of this school is based on the thesis that the meaning of the American Revolution was to preserve the unprecedented democratic freedoms that the inhabitants of the New World were supposedly already endowed with at the time of the conflict with the mother country. This problem is of fundamental importance for evaluating the revolution. In fact, when these historians raise the question of the continuity of "rights" and "freedoms" in the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods, they question whether, strictly speaking, there was a revolution in North America, whether any democratic changes took place as a result of the war of independence, or whether it came down to a kind of conservation of pre-existing institutions and orders. To solve this problem, you need to answer at least the following questions:: what was the political system of the colonies on the eve of the revolution, what was new in the process of the revolutionary movement, and, finally, what was the overall result of the revolution? This topic is large and complex, and the article will focus only on some of its aspects.

First of all, what was the political system of the colonies at the beginning of the liberation movement, did democracy really exist there, and if so, what was it? Much has been written in American literature about the "New England phenomenon" - a political system that was supposedly the prototype of the "free world". R. Brown's book "Middle-class Democracy and the Revolution in Massachusetts", which laid the foundation for the school of Concord, is widely known .7 Based on random calculations, Brown concluded that even before the revolution, 95% of the adult male population of Massachusetts used the right to vote. However, Brown's research methods raised serious doubts. The fact is that Brown and his followers did not limit themselves to assessing the American colonies of the eighteenth century, but extended their conclusions to the situation in the colonies in general, arguing, in particular, that the experience of the United States is directly related to the fate of the modern national liberation movement .8 The fallacy of such statements is quite obvious. One of Brown's critics has reasonably pointed out that following this line, one can conclude that the origins of the modern national liberation movement in African countries are rooted in their democratic traditions. 9 In reality, however, this movement is primarily connected with the emergence of new forces fighting against the colonial system of imperialism.

According to representatives of the "progressive" school, who are fairly critical of the theory of "consent" and demand a careful study of the processes of socio-economic development and class contradictions of colonial society, Brown's approach violated the historical perspective, shifted the emphasis and distorted the real cause-and-effect relationships. The author claims to make very broad generalizations based on the study of a rather narrow topic about democracy in the colony of Massachusetts. At the same time, as the check showed, Brown's statistical calculations designed to prove the presence of democratic candidates are not necessary.

shaya istoriya", 1973, N 6; P. B. Umansky. Problems of the first American Revolution. "The main problems of US history in American historiography", Moscow, 1971; I. P. Dementiev. The main directions and schools in American historiography of the post-war period. Voprosy Istorii, 1976, No. 11.

7 R. Brown. Middle-Class Democracy and the Revolution in Massachusetts 1691 - 1780. Ithaca. 1955.

8 See: R. Morris. The Emerging Nations and the American Revolution. N. Y. 1970.

9 J. Cary. Statistical Method and the Brown Thesis on Colonial Democracy. "William and Mary Quarterly", 3-d ser., Vol. 20, 1963, p. 262.

page 90

liberties in America, do not stand up to criticism. Opponents emphasized that Brown's conclusions were based only on the material of 50 wills, while thousands of them were preserved. For example, Brown chose two eastern Massachusetts counties, leaving out the other seven, where significantly fewer males were eligible to vote - in some cases only about 40% 10-but the most important thing is not even that. The inconsistency of Brown's and his like-minded scientists ' conclusions lies not so much in statistical falsification, but in the fact that the whole problem of democratization was reduced to mathematical calculations that were disconnected from the socio-political conditions of that time.

Based on newly obtained data related to the main city of Massachusetts, Boston, D. Warden strongly rejected Brown's conclusions. Boston, in his opinion, experienced an aggravation of socio-economic contradictions, accompanied by the strengthening of the position of the "elite" and the growth of discontent among the "grassroots". "Eighteenth-century Boston, "he writes," was not the nirvana of "middle - class democracy,"having experienced all the consequences of" rising wealth inequality. " 11
Especially obvious is the inconsistency of Brown's conclusions about the nature of the political order of Massachusetts on the example of the data given in the work of Professor M. Zuckerman of the University of Pennsylvania, devoted to the situation of New England cities of the XVIII century 12 . Speaking of the political institutions of New England, one cannot but recognize the enormous role that the so-called city meetings played there. For representatives of the concord school, this is one of the arguments in favor of the" eternal " existence of democracy. The rallies that regulated the political life of New England cities were attended not only by those who were granted the right to vote, but also by those who did not have it. At the end of the seventeenth century, the right to vote in Massachusetts was granted only to free citizens who owned land or other property, but in fact it also extended to those who did not have it. It is often assumed, Zuckerman notes ,that having the right to vote and taking part in voting "is a sufficient indicator of democracy." 13 C. Brydenbaugh, a well-known expert on early American history, also dwells on this fact, noting that the "average" New Englander, "participating in city meetings, heard countless times about their rights and freedoms."14 However, it is important to understand what was the social meaning of the broad participation of New Englanders in the electoral process and, in particular, when discussing issues at city rallies.

In 1630, the founders of the Massachusetts Bay settlement openly proclaimed themselves "opponents of democracy" and, far from sharing, in the words of M. Zuckerman, "the ideals of middle-class democracy", were supporters of the oligarchic order, but this did not prevent them and their followers from involving the adult male population in the discussion of various issues of the life of this settlement, and then other cities that spun off from the original settlement. The preservation of public order largely depended on the decisions of city meetings. On this basis, Zuckerman argues that public order in New England cities was based more on

10 Ibid., pp. 252 - 259.

11 G. B. Warden. Inequality and Instability in Eighteenth Century Boston: A Reappraisal. "The Journal of Interdisciplinary History", Vol. VI, 1976, pp. 586 - 587.

12 M. Zuckerman. The Social Context of Democracy in Massachusetts. "William and Mary Quarterly", 3-d ser., Vol. 25, 1968; ej usd. The Peaceable Kingdom. New England Towns in the XVIII-th Century. N. Y. 1970.

13 M. Zuckerman. The Social Context, p. 527.

14 With Bridenbaugh. The Spirit o'76. The Growth of American Patriotism before Independence 1607 - 1776. N. Y. 1975, p. 148.

page 91

consent rather than coercion. It would be more accurate to say that the consent that the city fathers sought at the meetings was a means of coercion. The point of involving the population widely in the discussion of the community's pressing problems was to direct the mood of the majority in the right direction and force them to maintain a stable social order. We can agree with Zuckerman that city rallies were not just a kind of democratic gathering, but a real tool for maintaining peace and balance between different property groups, in other words, protecting property rights and owners .15
The meaning of such a democracy has not lost its significance to this day. The involvement of the broad mass of the population in the electoral process is still an instrument of preserving the rule of the propertied classes and maintaining their basic right - the right to private property. In our time, this is clothed in the form of universal suffrage. In New England, on the eve of the revolution, only the adult male population was allowed to participate in elections. In the colonies, as representatives of the school of consent also admit,there was a property qualification. Its purpose was to prevent the poorest and most destitute, and therefore the most discontented part of the population, from voting and making political decisions. Everyone who was needed to make joint decisions participated in their discussion, and everyone who interfered with this was excluded. There was no legal basis in this sense. There was absolute arbitrariness. One tenant was granted the right to vote, while another, often in exactly the same position, was denied it. Crucial in this case was the word of the land owner, on the plot of which the tenant lived 16 . As a result of a carefully conducted special study, belonging to the radical direction of J. R. R. Tolkien, Lemish came to the conclusion that when discussing trade and shipping issues, city meetings invariably proceeded from the interests of a small group of merchants, ignoring the interests of the general mass of sailors .17 This is just one of the evidences that the democracy of city meetings was fictitious, being a tool for ensuring the rule of the propertied elite over the bulk of the population.

There were deep contradictions and disagreements between the ruling elite at city rallies and the bulk of their participants. If they have not developed into an acute conflict, it is largely due to the fact that the representatives of the lower strata were not properly organized and politically prepared. "The crowd," notes D. Harder, " was not able to clearly formulate its requirements and general principles at the level corresponding to city rallies, which were in the hands of more educated people." Pamphlets explaining the constitutional theory and principles of the British Community, he said, were "not readily available" to the mass of participants in the city's 18 rallies . This argument sounds quite convincing, while the statement of Hurder's critic, the well-known American historian E. Morgan, who represents the concord school, that "it is unclear what general principles, other than hostility to the rich, could have been formulated by the masses" 19 is completely untenable. If only among those who act-

15 M Z uckerman. The Social Context, pp. 525, 526, 527.

16 Ibid., pp. 530 - 533.

17 J. Lemish. Jack Tar in the Streets: Merchant Seamen in the Politics of Revolutionary America. "William and Mary Quarterly", 3-d ser., Vol. 28, 1968, p. 387.

18 D. Hoerder. Boston Leaders and Boston Crowds, 1765 - 1776. "The American Revolution. Explorations in the History of American Radicalism". Ed. by A. F. Young. De Kalb. 1976, pp. 252, 239 - 240.

19 E. S. Morgan. The American Revolution: Who were "the People"? "The New York Review of Books", 5.VIII.1976, p. 30.

page 92

If he was able to represent the interests of the lower strata of the population, there were people who were able to organize themselves, theoretically substantiate and develop such principles, the situation might have looked different.

Another argument of the supporters of the theory of "consent" is that such an organ of political power in the colonies as the lower chambers of the legislative assemblies, already on the eve of the revolution, was a democratic institution. And the task was only to defend their freedom. The American historian D. P. Green even claims that this task was one of the main ones in the Revolution of the 20th century . However, even this thesis does not stand up to criticism. D. T. Main proved that the overwhelming majority of assembly delegates are representatives of the propertied classes, who made up only 10% of the population .21 Oligarchic representation in the assemblies of such colonies as New York and New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia, North and South Carolina, and New Hampshire. The idea of greater participation of the people in legislative institutions was developed only with the growth of the liberation movement in the colonies after 1765. A practical change in the composition of the assemblies was outlined starting from the 70s of the XVIII century, when the popular masses took on an unprecedented scale. As a result, many middle-class representatives were chosen as delegates to local legislative institutions. It was the revolution that led to a significant change in the composition of the legislative authorities, which, according to Main, were renewed by two-thirds at the expense of newly elected representatives of the democratic strata of the population .22
These changes were the result of the actions of farmers, remes * lennikov and other segments of the population. It was the broad mass of colonists who were the driving force behind the liberation movement, and their participation gave it a revolutionary character. As a result of the initiative from below, the organizations "Sons of Freedom" and "Correspondent Committees"have emerged. They contributed to the acceleration of the revolutionary process and were a tool for the restructuring of society. "Hundreds of people who have never held any office," writes the American historian M. Jensen, " have joined these local committees... The appearance of these people in local government bodies was accompanied by the elimination of the hierarchy of governors, upper chambers, judges, prosecutors, secretaries and other officials appointed in the colonies."23
The "Correspondents ' Committees" or "Security Committees", as they were otherwise called, did not lose their role after independence, with the election of new legislative assemblies and the establishment of local authorities. Moreover, the activities of local authorities formed "from above "proceeded to a certain extent under pressure" from below", being subject to the control of"Correspondent Committees". For some time, the "committees" continued to maintain their influence. However, gradually, as state constitutions were developed, the activities of local governments became more independent. According to J. T. Main, this was one of the main goals of the propertied groups that seized control of the authorities: they sought to get rid of the control and guardianship of the "committees",

20 J. P. Green. The Role of the Lower Houses of Assembly in XVIII Century Politics. "Journal of Southern History", Vol. 27, 1961, p. 474.

21 J. T. Main. Government by the People. The American Revolution and the Democratization of the Legislatures. "William and Mary Quarterly", 3-d ser., Vol. 23, 1966, p. 393; ejusd. The Sovereign States. 1775 - 1783. N. Y. 1973, ch. 4.

22 J. T. Main. Government by the People, pp. 397 - 405.

23 M. Jensen. The American People and the American Revolution. "The Journal of American History", Vol. 57, 1970, p. 24.

page 93

which, according to the deep conviction of the ruling classes, brought only an element of "anarchy", giving too much power to the "crowd"24 .

History knows of no truly revolutionary movement in which the people do not play the role of the main driving force. At the same time, it is clear from the experience of history that no bourgeois or bourgeois - democratic revolution has brought true freedom to the people, and "human rights" have been guaranteed exclusively within the narrow-class framework of bourgeois democracy. These patterns can also be traced in the American Revolution, although its apologists claim that the transformation initiated by the bourgeois revolution in America was and remains an unprecedented, unique example in history. "The success of the American Revolution," writes one of the founders of the Concord school, D. D. Boorstin, "meant that the people now controlled the government." 25 The same idea is imbued with the article published in connection with the 200th anniversary of the United States by the already mentioned Green, which is based on his lecture given in a number of countries in connection with the anniversary campaign. Arguing that the American Revolution was "in sharp contrast to virtually all subsequent revolutions", he refers to the apologetic statement of the eighteenth-century historian S. Williams, who claimed that the results of the revolution exceeded the expectations of the most prominent minds of his time, that the revolution in America created the conditions for the emergence of "a more natural form of government, a more perfect system of freedom and a more prosperous social system." In defending this position, Greene stands in solidarity with representatives of the conservative trend in American historiography, ignoring the works of critical historians who oppose such idealized constructions .26
It is no coincidence that E. S. Morgan, who represents the Concord school, and who was praised in Green's article, sharply attacked the attempts of some American historians to revise the idealized scheme of the school he represents .27 In particular, his opposition to the new book by the famous American historian W. A. Williams is characteristic. Without denying the significance of the American Revolution for the destruction of the "past," W. A. Williams emphasized that by establishing the "present," the ruling classes of the United States did their best to counteract the revolutionary changes of the "future." 28 This provision was sharply criticized by E. S. Morgan. Meanwhile, the thesis of W. A. Williams is fully confirmed in reality.

During the War of Independence and during the subsequent peaceful development, the American "elite" used a complex arsenal of political tools to avoid radical changes and maintain its dominance. The nineteenth-century French writer A. Tocqueville argued that, unlike the French Revolution, the American Revolution was imbued with a "love of order and law." This idea of Tocqueville's has now been adopted by the apologists of the capitalist system. In one of the recently published openly propaganda publications in the United States, prepared for the 200th anniversary of independence, Tocqueville's statement is put in direct connection with the efforts of modern guardians of "law and order". With a retrospective assessment of the American revolution, this publication highlights its difference from the French and other revolutions.-

24 J. T Main. The Sovereign States 1775 - 1783, p. 193.

25 D. J. Boorstin. The Americans. The Democratic Experience. N. Y. 1973, p. 252.

26 J. P. Green. Values and Society in Revolutionary America. "The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences", July 1976, pp. 55 - 57.

27 E. S. Morgan. Op. cit., p. 29.

28 W. A. Williams. America Confronts a Revolutionary World: 1776 - 1976. N. Y. 1976, pp. 38 - 40.

page 94

russian revolutions 29 . There is no doubt that the American Revolution was relatively moderate .30 Nevertheless, it also had a social program, and the political system established as a result of the War of independence was not determined by "love of law and order." The new government was based on the dictatorship of the propertied classes, whose interests were put at the forefront in the formation of the US political system.

Due to a number of features of historical development, America in the eighteenth century had more freedom than in the countries of the Old World. However, the position of the lower classes was constantly deteriorating, which resulted in an increase in mass discontent. This fact is clearly revealed in the articles of G. Nash, who showed on the example of three major American port cities-Boston, Philadelphia ,and New York - that the steady growth of property inequality throughout the XVIII century led to the strengthening of social stratification in the colonies and the aggravation of class contradictions by the time of the revolution. 31
Mass demonstrations during the period of the liberation struggle that preceded the break with the mother country were moderate in America in comparison with the subsequent development of the revolutionary movement in other countries. Nevertheless, even in the North American colonies of England, they "were of decisive importance at every important turn of events that led to the War of Independence."32 This position, put forward at the time by the"progressive" historian A. M. Schlesinger, was then strongly criticized by the supporters of the "concord" school, who sought to level the social conflicts of the American Revolution. In recent years, the progressives ' thesis has been developed and supported by new materials in the works of M. Jensen and his students.

Criticizing the concord school, Jensen insists that the masses were the vanguard of the revolution, playing a decisive role in it, although ultimately deprived of the fruits of the victory that was secured through their participation. Noting that in America, property was "distributed more equally than in Europe," Jensen points out that while "most owned small farms, many of them owed money for their land purchases." In addition, some farmers remained in the position of tenants, did not expect to become owners of the plots they cultivated. "Hundreds of city dwellers," writes Jensen, "owned no property." 33 These people actively participated in the mass movement. The ruling classes had to make concessions and maneuver in order not to alienate the people in the difficult conditions of the anti-colonial struggle and, while retaining their leading role and control, use their revolutionary activity to their advantage .34 It must be admitted that the" elite " - merchants, land aristocracy and lawyers who spoke at the hundred-

29 I. Kristel. The American Revolution as a Successful Revolution. "The American Revolution". N. Y. 1975, p. 33.

30 For more information, see: A. A. Fursenko. American and French Revolutions of the XVIII century. (Experience of comparative characteristics). Voprosy Istorii, 1972, No. 11.

31 G. Nash. Urban Wealth and Poverty in Pre-Revolutionary America. "The Journal of Interdisciplinary History", Vol. VI, 1976; ejusd. Social Change and the Growth of Revolutionary Urban Radicalism. "The American Revolution. Explorations on the History of American Radicalism".

32 A. M. Schlesinger. Political Mobs and the American Revolution. 1765 - 1776. "Proceedings of American Philosophical Society", Philadelphia, Vol. 49, 1955, p. 244.

33 M. Jensen. The American Revolution within America. N. Y. 1974, pp. 9, 70 - 71.

34 P. Maier. Popular Uprisings and Civil Authority in XVIII Century America. "William and Mary Quarterly, 3-d ser., Vol. 27, 1970, pp. 3 - 4; ejusd. From Resistance to Revolution. N. Y. 1972, chap. 1; J. T. Main. Political Parties before the Constitution. Chapel Hill. 1973, p. XIX; R. S. Lоngley. Mob Activity in Revolutionary Massachusettes. "New England Quarterly", Vol. 6, 1933, pp. 98 - 130.

page 95

rone revolutions, successfully coped with this task. Therefore, unlike in European countries, in America, those people who played a leading role in the revolutionary movement at the very beginning practically retained it until the end and even after the revolution.

J. Worden argues that democracy and the elite co-existed in the United States.35 This conclusion seems unconvincing, especially since Warden himself, in an article about the Boston "caucus" - a kind of political club that brought together representatives of the elite, quite convincingly showed that the system called "democracy" was actually managed and controlled by a small group of people belonging to the rich elite. Worden explains the role of the" caucus " in the case of Boston, but his research has a broader meaning, because this city, at that time the second largest in the United States, the cradle of the American Revolution, had a very special role in shaping political institutions and traditions in America. Consideration of the origin and role of the Boston " caucus "is all the more important because later, in the 19th and 20th centuries," caucuses " were an integral part of the party and political life of the United States, being an important link in the mechanism of American bourgeois democracy. Because in the colonies of the XVIII century. there was still no developed party-political system, the facts and circumstances concerning the activities of the Boston "caucus" are directly related to the emergence and development of traditions that influenced the formation of later party-political institutions in the United States.

Much has been written about various organizations of revolutionary action. But the question of how the representatives of the ruling elite managed to maintain their influence and exert a guiding influence still remains poorly understood. In this sense, Warden's work on the Boston caucus, which he calls "the first political machine in the history of the United States," 36 is of undisputed interest. The "caucus" has existed since the 1720s, and it is its influence that explains the election of the same people to political positions during the long period leading up to the revolution. The influence of the "caucus" testified to the process of formation and growing consolidation of the Boston "elite", which tied its fate first unconsciously and spontaneously, and then consciously to the interests of independent national development. The activities of the "caucus" and the mechanism of its influence on the political life of the country are very revealing when describing freedom during the American Revolution. The close interaction of the "caucus" with the merchants, its connection with such institutions as the church and the police, was a fairly well-established system of political governance. The "caucus" consisted of a relatively narrow group of representatives of the wealthy elite and included such prominent figures of the American Revolution as D. Hancock, E. Cook and S. Adams. It seemed to integrate various public institutions into a single system, which included, in addition to the organizations already mentioned, also the city meetings mentioned above. A wide variety of means and methods of this kind of integration were used: from getting the right people drunk to complex political maneuvers and economic concessions such as tax deferral, etc.

According to Warden, the fact that neither newspapers nor mass organizations opposed the "caucus" indicates its democratic nature, that it was part of the democratic system from which the "Sons of Freedom" and "Correspondents ' Committees"organizations grew. Desiring to reconcile the interests of the ruling elite and the-

35 G. B. Warden. The Caucus and Democracy in Colonial Boston. "New England Quarterly", Vol. 43, 1970, p. 45.

36 Ibid., p. 19.

page 96

For example, Warden combines "elite" and "democracy" into one system 37 . However, it should be borne in mind here that we are talking about a system of bourgeois democracy that guaranteed the ruling elite a decisive role in making political decisions and implementing them, including control over such mass organizations as the Sons of Freedom and the Correspondents ' Committees, where the "caucus" tried to introduce its representatives. The actions of the "elite" were dictated and carried out primarily in its own interests. If the rich elite did show some concern for "human rights," they were forced to do so, and within extremely limited limits.

Bourgeois historians often emphasize the great mobility of American society, the lack of pronounced stratification. Of course, compared to the Old World in America, the distinction between classes and social groups was less definite, which is due to the historical features of the development of the New World. But there is a strong objection to the Concord school's thesis that the development of American society was the steady growth of the so-called middle class. This leads to the conclusion that the American Revolution was supposedly a classless war for freedom. The facts tell a different story. There was social inequality in America, and it was getting worse. The class stratification of colonial society, although less pronounced than in Europe, was one of the most important sources of revolution. In his book Classes and Society in Early America, H. Nash, comparing social development to an iceberg, emphasized the need to study not only its visible surface, but also the main, lower part, which is hidden from view38 . In this book, as well as in a number of subsequent studies, G. Nash showed an indissoluble connection between the process of class differentiation and the growth of social protest from the lower classes on the eve of the revolution in America.

This kind of approach naturally undermines the Concord school's thesis about conflict-free development of the United States. True, its representatives have recently significantly modified their constructions, but their essence has not changed from this. A clear example of this is the work of Harvard University Professor B. Beilin 39 . Today, he is one of the most prominent and influential specialists in the history of the Revolutionary War in the United States. It was he who was assigned to deliver the report "Major Trends in Recent Work on the American Revolution" at the XIV International Congress of Historical Sciences in San Francisco 40 . Beilnn denies any involvement in any school, stating that it adheres to an independent position. But in practice, he stands in solidarity with the representatives of the "concord" school, defends their main points and criticizes those who challenge the latter. The peculiarity of Beilin's approach is that it absolutizes the ideological side of the war of independence, assigns it a leading role and resolutely denies the importance of socio-economic factors and class conflicts. Beilin and his associates claim that political freedoms in the United States were established in a conflict-free way, and not as a result of the struggle of the democratically-minded masses.

But this is contrary to historical facts and the results of the work of many scientists who have studied the role of the masses and the socio-economic aspects of the American Revolution. Not accidentally in the report

37 Ibid., pp. 28 - 33, 36, 38, 42 - 45.

38 G. Nash. Classes and Society in Early America. Englewood Cliffs. 1970, p. 13.

39 B. Baylin. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge. 1967; ej usd. The Origins of American Politics. N. Y. 1967; ej usd. The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson. Cambridge. 1974.

40 B. Baylin. Lines of Force in Recent Writings on the American Revolution. San Francisco. August 1975.

page 97

Beilin did not mention the research of such historians as M. Jensen, D. T. Main, G. Nash, M. Zuckerman, etc. The speaker sharply criticized the works of the well - known radical historian D. Lemish , 41 who called for showing the active role of the grassroots - "silent" participants in revolutionary transformations. However, while rejecting Lemish's concept, Beilin did not provide any convincing arguments. His criticism of the works of D. Henretta and A. Kulikov, devoted to the growth of property inequality and social stratification of the Boston population, was also unsubstantiated .42 Meanwhile, it was precisely as a result of this process that a new elite emerged, whose interests, in particular, found their expression in the activities of the Boston "caucus". Beilin categorically states that the conclusions of Henretta and Kulikov do not matter, as they suffer from incompleteness. But even the partial data available to Henretta and Kulikov reveal a significant difference in the position of various social groups in Boston, indicating the growing role of the wealthy elite in political decision-making. These conclusions were further developed and confirmed in the above-mentioned later published works of G. Nash.

Beilin accuses those who seek differences and contradictions in American society or seek to show the clash of interests of different social groups of distorting the truth. He criticizes this approach as presentist. However, attempts to revise the dogmatic concept of the conservative school, which has become traditional over the past 25-30 years, representing the historical development of the United States in a flat image of the theory of" consent", can hardly be considered as a manifestation of presentism. Rather, these attempts reflect a realistic approach to assessing the past, based on a well-founded concern for the future of the United States. The events of the recent past in America have made many people seriously think about the validity of the "conflict-free" theory in relation to the United States.

Many representatives of the Concord school openly admit that the emergence of this trend in historiography was largely dictated by opportunistic political considerations. One of the main motives for the formation of the Concord school was, in particular, the Cold War, in which bourgeois science sought to substantiate the thesis of the inviolability of the socio-economic and political system of the United States, based on the foundation of history. In this scheme, capitalism was considered synonymous with democracy .43 B. Beilin, in fact, continues this trend. It is his concept that has all the attributes of a presentist approach. In his report to the XIV International Congress of Historical Sciences, he showed the American political organism as a harmoniously developing democratic system, which, according to him, is based on a strong historical tradition. His point of view is that the American Revolution was a steady movement towards freedom, gradually moving from one stage to another. Beilin continues this line to this day, declaring that the "phenomenon of the American Revolution" lies in its permanent character, in the fact that, as he states, it continues to operate to this day. To confirm this idealized scheme, Beilin did not

41 J. Lemish. The American Revolution Seen from the Bottom Up. "Towards a New Past. Dissenting Essays in American History". Ed. by B. J. Bernstein. N. Y. 1969, pp. 3 - 45.

42 J. Henrella. Economic Development and Social Structure in Colonial Boston. "William and Mary Quarterly", Vol. 22, 1965; A. K u 1 i k o f f. The Progress of Inequality in Revolutionary Boston. "William and Mary Quarterly", 3-d sen, Vol. 27, 1971.

43 B. Sternsher. Op. cit., pp. 7 - 9.

page 98

it stops short of denying well-known phenomena. In particular, his attempt to obscure the counter-revolutionary role of loyalists is at least strange .44 Beilin is a significantly modified (in comparison with the early works of the school of "consent") version of the conservative direction. Beilin's concept is presented in a rather sophistical form. His work provides a wealth of factual material that helps elucidate the history of ideas in the American Revolution. However, this cannot in any way compensate for the one-sidedness and bias characteristic of the concept of the school of consent, even if it is modernized.

Marxist scholarship considers the American Revolution of the eighteenth century as an anticolonial bourgeois-democratic revolution in which the struggle for national liberation was organically intertwined with the movement for the political and economic reconstruction of society.45 Only with this approach, taking into account the whole complex of conditions of social development in their interaction, only taking into account all the diverse manifestations of the struggle for freedom, both ideological and material, can the question of the origin and nature of this revolution be clarified. The struggle of the colonies for independence developed in an ascending line, taking on an unusually wide scale by the mid-70s of the XVIII century. In order to maintain their positions in the leadership of the movement, the ruling elite had to adapt and maneuver. In all its actions, one line is clearly traced - to keep power under the guise of slogans of freedom. The "caucus" controlled mass organizations in Boston. The "forced democracy" of New England city meetings served the same purpose. But the arsenal of means of the "elite" was far from exhausted by this, as an example, we can cite the southern colonies and New York, where conservative sentiments were stronger and, accordingly, the position of the ruling elite was stronger. However, even there, the eve of the War of independence was marked by an active mass movement, although the means by which the" elite " sought a way out of this situation were somewhat different here.

As a result of the growing tension between the ruling elite and the farmers of the hinterlands, who fought for equal rights with the inhabitants of the coastal strip, serious unrest broke out in a number of colonies .46 In the 60s and early 70s of the 18th century, a wave of farm protests swept through the North American colonies. Accounting for about half of the country's population , farmers were the most important driving force behind the revolution. It is no coincidence that it was during the years of the growing liberation movement against England that poor and middle-class farmers ' voices for economic and political rights intensified. In a recent study on the farm movement in North Carolina, M. L. M. Kay provided new evidence that the farmers ' movements were due to the intensification of class contradictions and were a war of the poor against the rich .48 This was the case in North Carolina. Similar situation for slo-

44 B. Baylin. The Central Themes of the American Revolution. An Interpretation. "Essays on the American Revolution". Ed. by S. Gurtz, J. Hutson. N. Y. 1973, pp. 15 - 18.

45 У. З. Фостер. Essay on the Political History of America, Moscow, 1953, p. 177; G. Apteker. The American Revolution, 1763-1783. N. 1962.:: tr. 38-41.

46 See - A. And Fursenko. Farm performances on the eve of the American Revolutionary War. "New and recent history", 1975, N 5; G. P. Kuropyatnik. The land question and the revolutionary situation in North America on the eve of the American War of Independence. "Questions of History". 1976, N 8.

47 J. T. Main. Social Structure of Revolutionary America. Princeton. 1965. p. 272.

48 M. L. M. Kay. The North Carolina Regulation, 1766 - 1776: A Class Conflict. "The

American Revolution. Explorations in the History of American Radicalism", pp. 73 - 83.

page 99

She lived in South Carolina and New York, where large farmer uprisings also broke out. They were held apart from the patriotic speeches of the urban grassroots, although objectively they were an integral part of the united liberation movement for democracy and independence. However, the ruling elite managed to turn things around in such a way that, with the blessing of the leaders of the anti-British protests of the residents of the east coast, and with the direct participation of some leaders of the "Sons of Liberty", reprisals were launched against the rebellious farmers of the western counties. This tactic was dictated by the desire to split the ranks of the liberation movement.

To characterize what "freedom" was like under the conditions of independence, the activities of the newly elected legislative bodies, especially the state assemblies, which played an active role in the formation of the new legal order, are very indicative. Although a number of states attempted to democratize their laws by including a bill of rights in their local constitutions, in many cases conservative groups remained in power. 49 R. Hoffman, who has studied the evolution of Maryland's political life, claims that under the colonial regime, due to property restrictions, 90% of the adult male population was deprived of the right to hold elected office. There were other restrictions on the right to vote. After independence, Maryland adopted a conservative constitution. During the local convention elections in five counties, the people made an attempt to implement universal suffrage by a clear vote. However, the elections in these counties were canceled. Representatives of the new government, fearing popular discontent and seeking to strengthen their position, adopted two legislative acts on changing the tax system and the rules for paying debts, which to some extent satisfied the demands of the lower classes. According to the apt remark of contemporaries, these measures were the "price of the revolution" that the ruling elite of Maryland was forced to pay. "They all knew that they had to sacrifice something to maintain their leadership position," writes Hoffman50 . Moreover, Hoffmann is also wrong when he stated in a later publication that political control could not be exercised on the basis of class prerogatives and privileges .51 The policy of the ruling class was based on well-defined social prerogatives and privileges, no matter how complex the maneuvers were.

The United States Declaration of Independence proclaimed the right "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Far from being a record of what had already been achieved, it was a manifesto, a kind of promise to the people. Some of the principles of the declaration were later reflected in the State constitutions and Articles of Confederation. But the real rights of the people and the freedoms they received were very far from what was promised. If we talk about the Articles of Confederation, then this document practically did not give legal guarantees and did not involve any reforms. In many respects, the Articles of Confederation were ambiguous, being the fruit of a compromise dictated by wartime conditions, the need to maintain a certain balance between central and local authorities.

49 J. T. Main. The Sovereign States, pp. I43f.

50 R. Hoffman. A Spirit of Dissention. Economics, Politics and the Revolution in Mariland. Baltimore. 1973, pp. 169 - 170, 210.

51 R. Hoffman. The "Disaffected" in the Revolutionary South: the First American Civil War. "The American Revolution. Explorations in the History of American Radicalism", p 312.

page 100

The compromise resulted in the Constitution of 1787. However, if in the first case it was a compromise designed to satisfy the interests of more or less broad strata and groups of the population, in the second case it was a matter of collusion between the big bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy. The American researcher P. Mayer notes that even at the first mass demonstrations, the ruling circles began to think about the means of curbing the "crowd". But for the time being, they had to endure. But after the War of Independence, tolerance for mass demonstrations disappeared .52 Grassroots attempts to deepen the revolution, achieve the democratization of the economic and political order, and frequent attacks on big proprietors and those in power have caused serious concern at the top 53 . It was in this context that a convention was convened to draft a new constitution.

The Constitution of 1787 was intended to secure the rights and power of a wealthy minority in the United States. This was openly stated by the creators of the constitution. "Those who own property and those who do not have it have always represented different interests in society," Madison wrote. "Regulating these different and contradictory interests is the main task of modern legislation." 54 The drafting of the new constitution was taken over by representatives of the propertied classes, who sought to curb the democratic movement and create a strong central government. One of the immediate reasons for the convocation of the convention and the adoption of a new constitution was the uprising of D. Shays in Massachusetts at the end of 1786, which was the culmination of the democratic movement. The end of the war of independence led to the aggravation of class contradictions and the strengthening of social protest from the lower classes, which found its expression in equalizing demands and armed actions of the people. Shays ' rebellion was quickly suppressed, but it caused deep alarm in the ruling circles. According to T. Jefferson, it had "too great an impact" on the work of the convention, which, by adopting the constitution, "released a kite to restore order in the poultry yard." 55 Jefferson believed that the "spirit of resistance to government" was necessary and "useful." "I believe," he wrote, " that a small uprising now and then is a good thing. This is as necessary for politics as a thunderstorm is for cleaning up the atmosphere. " 56 However, the majority of participants in the convention held a different view. The causes that had caused the Massachusetts uprising continued to hold, and there was no guarantee that there would not be a new explosion somewhere else .57
Although the Constitution of 1787 was an advance for its time, it was still a departure from earlier promises. We must agree with M. Jensen that in some respects it was a step backward even in comparison with the Articles of Confederation. In this sense, as noted by M. Jensen, the Constitution of 1787 can be considered as a kind of thermidor of the American Revolution 58 . Representatives of the school of consent dispute this provision. But their arguments are inconsistent and unconvincing. Some argue that the constitution logically continued and consolidated the basic principles of the Constitution.-

52 P. Maier. Popular Uprisings and Civil Authority in XVIII Century America, pp. 19 - 34.

53 M. Jensen. The American People and the American Revolution, pp. 27 - 32.

54 See M. Jensen. The New Nation. N. Y. 1967, p. 427.

55 CM. M. D. Peterson. Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation. N. Y. 1970, p. 359.

56 CM. D. Ma lone. Jefferson and His Time. Vol. II. Boston. 1951, pp. 158 - 160; A. Koch. Jefferson and Madison. N. Y. 1964, pp. 45 - 46.

57 M. Jensen. The American People and the American Revolution, p. 34. 88 M. Jensen. The American Revolution within America, Chaps. 3 - 4.

page 101

key provisions of the Declaration of Independence 59 . Others, on the contrary, believe that as a legal document of a different nature, the Constitution of 1787 should not have repeated what was said in the Declaration of Independence .60 No matter what the proponents of the concord school may say, the fact remains that the Constitution of 1787 did not guarantee equal rights and equal freedom for all Americans. The freedom proclaimed by it was bourgeois in its class essence, and the human rights mentioned in it were directly related to the possession of property.

In a report on "human rights" at the XIV International Congress of Historical Sciences, the prominent American historian R. Palmer recognized that " among all rights, the right to property stood out." It was the core of the new law and order. However, following his previously developed concept, Palmer qualified the American Revolution as a democratic one, although in reality it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution with all its characteristic features of narrowness .61
The American Revolution significantly advanced the process of democratizing political life. On various occasions and due to various circumstances, but in all cases under the pressure of the mass movement, articles and provisions were introduced into the state legislation that changed the old order in the direction of its democratization. "The people have been given more power and more freedom than they had before independence," he writes. Jensen. "At least some of them were infected with a new spirit and took a new attitude towards the society in which they lived. They have made it clear that they would like more power and more freedom in the future. " 62
The inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the text of the American Constitution in 1789 helped to democratize this document somewhat. However, the Bill of Rights was by no means a natural product of a routine constitutional process, as R. Palmer claims, for example. To justify his position, he states that " during the period from 1770 to 1790, revolutionary enthusiasm weakened." But who in this case were the people who fought for freedom in the troops of Washington and won victory in the War of independence, and after its end persistently sought democratic transformation? Wasn't there a clash in America over the adoption of the constitution, during which opponents of the" federalists " accused the framers of the constitution of the lack of democratic freedoms? "After the government began its activities," writes R. Palmer, "the first Congress, relying on the article of the constitution that allowed it to amend it, proposed about a dozen amendments, ten of which were ratified." 63 This is true, but not all of it. It's not enough to say that Congress passed the Bill of Rights, but it's important to note why it did. Mustier, the French envoy, had informed his Government that the framers of the Constitution of 1787 were "absolutely unwilling to make amendments," but when they discovered that their opponents intended to do so, they took the initiative. "These amendments," Mustier wrote,"were drawn up by the dominant party in such a manner as to avoid any prejudice to the spirit of the constitution and to allay excessive anxiety." 64 Thus, the adoption of the Bill of Rights was a direct result of pressure from "below".

59 N. S. Commager. The Revolution as a World Ideal. "Saturday Review", December 13, 1975, pp. 13 - 19.

60 P. G. Kauper. The Higher Law and the Rights of Man. "America's Continuing Revolution", pp. 51 - 52.

61 R. Palmer. Les Droits de 1'Homme. San Francisco. 1975.

62 M. Jensen. The American People and the American Revolution, p. 35.

63 R. Palmer. Les Droits de 1'Homme.

64 Moutier-Montmorent 12. IX. 1789. Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres. Archives Diplomatiques. Paris Correspondance Politique. Etats-Unis, VoL 34, p. 256.

page 102

It is necessary to focus on one more point of the mentioned report of R. Palmer. He acknowledges that state legislation and the Constitution of 1787 were limited, but he does not emphasize that the issue of rights was resolved differentially: one way for the people (the poor, the Negro population, women, and other groups) and another way for counter-revolutionaries, "loyalists."

According to J. T. Main's calculations, about a third of the US population was white and black "proletariat" 65 . Of course, this term applied to the social structure of American society at that time is very conditional. But it is true that about a third of the American population was made up of oppressed and destitute slaves, poor farmers, artisans, etc. The revolution did not bring liberation to the Negroes. They remained in the position of slaves for a long time, although even from the point of view of bourgeois liberties, the abolition of slavery was objectively on the agenda .66 The Constitution of 1787 left everything the same, legalizing racism .67 The American Revolution democratized access to land and helped shape the farming path of capitalism in U.S. agriculture .68 The agrarian problem was then one of the central issues on the agenda. But it was resolved in such a way that the farmer's mass did not receive any legal guarantees. Thus, despite the proclaimed freedoms, a huge mass of Americans remained disenfranchised. This was the limited nature of the American Revolution.

However, if we take into account the restriction of rights for "loyalists", opponents of the revolution, which Palmer says with regret69 , then the situation is different. The revolution could not win if its enemies enjoyed equal rights with its supporters. By the way, those "loyalists" who later returned to the United States or declared support for the new government enjoyed the full range of constitutional guarantees. Moreover, they actively joined the conservative bloc of "federalists", supporters of the constitution of 1787, forming the mainstay of the new system. Palmer's regret that opponents of the revolution were discriminated against is a direct echo of the criticism that the new legal order was once subjected to by deposed classes or groups of the population, in the view of which the new system violated "human rights".

By portraying the American Revolution as the standard of democratic development, bourgeois authors seek to discredit the socialist revolution. Palmer and his co-authors, based on their report to the congress in San Francisco, treat bourgeois "freedoms" and "human rights" under socialism contrary to historical reality, and seek to establish the thesis of the superiority of bourgeois democracy.

Many social actions of the past were marked by liberation ideas. Revolutionary movements were accompanied by the breaking of the old system. The depth of the transformations accomplished by different revolutions depended on historical conditions and the correlation of class forces. These same factors determined the degree of change brought about by the American Revolution. The "freedom" and" human rights " that it established were conditioned by the framework of bourgeois transformations, which from the very beginning were historically limited.

65 J. T. Main. The Social Structure of Revolutionary America, p. 272.

66 S. Lynd. Class Conflict, Slavery and the United States Constitution. N. Y. 1967, p. 14.

67 J. P. Levine. Rasism and the Constitution: 200 Years of Inequality. "Intellect", July-August 1976, pp. 23 - 26.

68 P. Kurapyatnik. On the development of capitalism in US agriculture in the pre-monopoly era. "New and recent history of the USA", 1958, N 4; his. The struggle for land in the colonial period of the United States. Voprosy Istorii, 1974, No. 8.

69 R. Palmer. Les Droits de 1'Homme.

page 103

Permanent link to this publication: