Radicals vs. Conservative s Essay by Merrill Jensen Power Point by Ian Siedow

Radicals Jensen uses the word separate from “revolutionary” Radicals disliked British and the colonial aristocracy Western farmers not fairly represented* Middle class city slickers also not fairly represented* *In colonial assemblies and in British parliament

Conservatives Jensen uses word separate from “loyalist” Members of this “party” were wealthy aristocrats Conservatives wished to preserve wealth and authority in the aristocratic oligarchy Jensen claims they hid behind democratic ideals

Main Idea Radical ideals shaped revolutionary thought Conservative ideals protected wealth in colonial oligarchies Internal political turmoil caused “democratic laws” The colonial aristocracy represented conservatives Farmers and the middle class housed the radicals

Format of Essay Introduction to idea of internal conflict Discussion of possible error in specific study Idea driven organization Specific evidence: Pennsylvania

Jensen on Radicals: “Furthermore, there arose, in each of the colonies, leaders… who seized on British acts as heaven-sent opportunities to attack the local aristocracy—too strongly entrenched to be overthrown on purely local issues—under the guise of a patriotic defense of American liberties.”

Jensen on Conservatives: “Not even John Adams, one of the few conservatives who worked for independence, was willing to stomach the ideas of Tom Paine when it came to the task of forming governments within the American colonies.”

Pennsylvania: The Irony Labeled as the most “American” colony due to religious toleration, political participation, and ethnic diversity Used as Jensen's argument on political oligarchy Scotch-Irish and Germans were farmers and Presbyterians. The opposite of a Quaker Quakers controlled assembly in rigid oligarchy Radicals took control before Helped ignite revolution

Evaluation: Merrill Jensen Studied University of Wisconsin-Madison Taught at UW Madison and Oxford Considered of the Progressive school of thought Wrote on what made the constitution Usually wrote against the consesnus

Evaluation: The Text It is slightly biased. Tries to find internal reasons for revolution External reasons even brought conservatives against the British Jensen fairly states the above argument John Adams: “The principles of the American Revolution may be said to have been as various as the thirteen states that went through it, and in some sense almost as diversified as the individuals who acted it it.”

Conclusion Merrill Jensen may have been biased but the information raises a new way of looking at the reasoning behind political legislation in colonial America and the revolution itself. I recommend it for scholarship Like Howard Zinn, Jensen took a widely accepted subject and challenged its validity