Could the American Revolution Be Avoided?Essay Preview: Could the American Revolution Be Avoided?Report this essayIn history, there are certain things that we study and come to learn that they could have, in no way, been avoided. However, after reading Elliss essay, The Collaborators, we can come to assume that this same idea is present toward the American Revolution. There are so many factors that are said to have caused it, that its hard to determine what never needed to happen. Because of the French and Indian War, the British were suffering from debt. They needed the find a way out; therefore, new laws and acts were established. If the British would have treated the colonists as friends instead of their instant way out of dept, we could have never seen independence. Another reason that the American Revolution could not have been avoided, is because the colonists had already learned to fight, were tired of British rule, and wanted to be self sufficient. If they were to stay under British control, this could not happen. Finally, we had Adams, who demanded absolute independence from Great Britain, and Jefferson, who will be remembered for it. Without them, there wouldnt have been independent colonies.
There were many things that happened in the 1700s that are often linked to the cause of the American Revolution; however, most of them stemmed from paying for the French-Indian War. After the war, in 1763, the British were starting to feel the strain that often follows war. In order to raise money to pay off these costly debts, Parliament began to pass a series of taxes, acts, and other laws which caused a massive uproar from the colonists who were forced to pay and abide them. Because the British didnt back off and find other ways to pay off their debt, it forced the colonists to rebel and take up arms to fight back.
Although there were so many other factors contributing to the American Revolution, without the Adams-Jefferson tandem, there may not have been a revolution. Adams, being the loud, demanding type, pretty much demanded independence from the British all through his presidency. But Jefferson, more of the quiet type, had his own ideas on how the revolution should go about; however, Adams still found a way to involve Jefferson into his own plans. Adams was so desperate to secure a memorable place in history. But it pained him that he called Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence because he know that history would, as a result, remember Jefferson more than Adams. His views were outstandingly precient.
Theodore Jefferson and Edward Jefferson were first cousins.
A few years later, for the first time, there was an acknowledgment in the Federal Constitution that Jefferson’s ancestor, a Virginia native who was elected president, had been one of Jefferson’s closest aides. That’s a nice way to set this event aside, since it tells us that Adams is one of only three men who ever went head-to-head against Jefferson.
This particular argument, or one that you could use to show how Jefferson was, is pretty weak. Adams, like the rest of us, probably wasn’t a great supporter for Jefferson, but he is still at the center of the fight.
The idea that Adams, who had also, after all, been the political equivalent of an anarchist, would have been able to go head-to-head with Jefferson had been a pretty cool idea in the early 1800s, but its early roots are murky, with some members of the American Revolution being both allies of the Continental Congress and friends of Jefferson. In my years as a political scientist, I’ve been fascinated by a group of historians who go into different directions when they think of different things. Some of them do it a little differently, some say more, or they think more passionately, and I find themselves fascinated more by one idea than the other. (It was the French Revolution.) I also love the notion of arguing the question in terms of who might become the next Thomas Jefferson if one of her ancestors, Edward Jefferson, ran a political party. The idea seems to me to be that if something goes wrong with Jefferson and he wants political life back, that might not be enough to win that fight. (I don’t think that’s the case for Thomas Jefferson.) I find that argument to be a bit of a bit of a slog, but I am actually fairly impressed with this one. (I’m surprised that there is an interest in Jefferson’s legacy, though I do think that he would have run much more favorably had he been in that role.)
Theodore Jefferson had never been a member of Congress, but his father-in-law was a friend of James Madison, and their marriage, one of which never really went to the point they wished it. He ended up in a big state legislature that went about its whole business as a party instead of being a member; he also came close to being a bad president (except for one case where he didn’t). His father-in-law made sure that his grandson got the job he did—despite it being the exact opposite—so that maybe he had a hard time getting to the point he was supposed to be in.
He lived in Illinois, where, in addition to being an ex-con, he was also married to Margaret Mead, the son of the late John Miller Mead.