5 ms·

FTA : Confessionalists would sympathize with these ideals since many of them believe American democracy grew out of the Reformation as much as it did the Enligh

FTA : Confessionalists would sympathize with these ideals since many of them believe American democracy grew out of the Reformation as much as it did the Enlightenment. American democracy grew more so out of the pragmatic commercialist negotiation of the extent of colonist autonomy in the colonial charters (see [1] though there are better supporting docs 4 sure out the). Colonists got a measure of freedom not possible in England/Europe and wanted the whole pie eventually. "Revivalism" and "materialism" were both second fiddle to "I make my living how I damn well please". [1] http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp

coldtea 8y ago
>"Revivalism" and "materialism" were both second fiddle to "I make my living how I damn well please". Were they though? Because people elsewhere could have said that as well, but didn't (and in some places, did), regardless of being in similar circumstances.
- simonh 8y ago
  Did those other people elsewhere already have their own elected legislature and a largely autonomous commercial environment? You're not addressing the argument, only scoring points on a specific statement out of context.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Did those other people elsewhere already have their own elected legislature and a largely autonomous commercial environment? Those are manifestations of "I make my living how I damn well please", so can't be its cause. In other words, the argument takes for granted what it should prove -- that "Revivalism" and "materialism" were both second fiddle".
DanielBMarkham 8y ago
Yes and no. It's not that you're wrong, it's just incomplete. I completely agree that eventually they wanted the entire pie, but that happened in a context based on European history for those people in-country. We can look at other areas, like Central and South America, and find that it didn't work out so well. Religious freedom was a huge motivating factor for the initial wave of migration, and part of that freedom involved a heritage of things like the 30 Year's War. This was the basis and background of what played out later, even if what played out later was more commercial and deist in nature. I think it's a mistake to look at the American Revolution in terms of what happened in 2-4 decades around 1776. There was a lot more going on. ADD: You don't get the wording and reasoning of the DOI and the fact that multiple states had state religions at the founding of the country from purely commercial interests.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  "Religious freedom" has two sides, the "free practice of religon" on the one side, and the "get rid of troublesome fanatics" on the British side. Making troublesome people (including petty criminals) go away paid immediate dividends at home. IMO, that's a key part of the American Revolutionary experience. America was a backwater land of weirdos in many ways... Puritan fanatics, feudal Dutch, Catholic heretics, Quakers, etc. The colonies were kept at arms length in some respects, and were a lower priority for attention than the far more lucrative India and sugar islands.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    Of course while the Puritans were in power they also got rid of undesirables (i.e. the royalists/Cavaliers) in much the same fashion.

coldtea 8y ago

>"Revivalism" and "materialism" were both second fiddle to "I make my living how I damn well please". Were they though? Because people elsewhere could have said that as well, but didn't (and in some places, did), regardless of being in similar circumstances.

simonh 8y ago
Did those other people elsewhere already have their own elected legislature and a largely autonomous commercial environment? You're not addressing the argument, only scoring points on a specific statement out of context.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Did those other people elsewhere already have their own elected legislature and a largely autonomous commercial environment? Those are manifestations of "I make my living how I damn well please", so can't be its cause. In other words, the argument takes for granted what it should prove -- that "Revivalism" and "materialism" were both second fiddle".

DanielBMarkham 8y ago

Yes and no. It's not that you're wrong, it's just incomplete. I completely agree that eventually they wanted the entire pie, but that happened in a context based on European history for those people in-country. We can look at other areas, like Central and South America, and find that it didn't work out so well. Religious freedom was a huge motivating factor for the initial wave of migration, and part of that freedom involved a heritage of things like the 30 Year's War. This was the basis and background of what played out later, even if what played out later was more commercial and deist in nature. I think it's a mistake to look at the American Revolution in terms of what happened in 2-4 decades around 1776. There was a lot more going on. ADD: You don't get the wording and reasoning of the DOI and the fact that multiple states had state religions at the founding of the country from purely commercial interests.

Spooky23 8y ago
"Religious freedom" has two sides, the "free practice of religon" on the one side, and the "get rid of troublesome fanatics" on the British side. Making troublesome people (including petty criminals) go away paid immediate dividends at home. IMO, that's a key part of the American Revolutionary experience. America was a backwater land of weirdos in many ways... Puritan fanatics, feudal Dutch, Catholic heretics, Quakers, etc. The colonies were kept at arms length in some respects, and were a lower priority for attention than the far more lucrative India and sugar islands.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  Of course while the Puritans were in power they also got rid of undesirables (i.e. the royalists/Cavaliers) in much the same fashion.