A revolution is a total or radical change. Did the 18th century American Revolution bring about change? Many historians would say that it did, however, there is much evidence supporting the opposing view. The question is, should the American Revolution be thought of as a true revolution or merely a civil war where there was a change in power, but the elements of daily life remained the same. Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution did not bring about change, because the rights, class structure and government remained the status quo in the colonies.
But, no, for this very short exposition, it is only necessary to start at 1688. This was the year of the English Bill of Rights. This bill, you may remember from your history came about as a result of The Glorious Revolution. The Bill of Rights did not list the innumerable rights of an Englishman, nor did it have to; but it did confirm an important one, especially in the context of the dispute between the king and the "people's representatives" that gave rise to the Glorious Revolution. You see, -- and this might sound familiar, as this is the approach of all despots throughout all times and all places -- James II was the one who started this fight by insisting that guns were to be outlawed (he and his henchmen would feel safer with such an arrangement).
The manifesto offered free speech, the right to form political parties and it created a “democratic” elected house of parliament – called a Duma. Despite the fact the Tsar promised all of these things for the people, after he had crushed the revolution he actually did very little to promote what he had promised. This is because he issued the Fundamental Laws, meaning the Tsar's ministers could not be appointed by the Duma, therefore denying the Duma a lot of what had been originally suggested. Furthermore, the Tsar had the power to dismiss the Duma and announce new elections whenever he wished, this further undermined democratic elements in government which showed that Nicholas II was untrustworthy and didn’t keep his promises. The Tsar’s ability to make false promises to the people was a reason for him being able to survive the revolution of 1905 but not of 1907 as people knew by then that he was untrustworthy.
Socially the war was not revolutionary because, there was still that one race that was not treated like they belonged and felt like they were taking up space. Politically the war was not revolutionary because, the imprisoned slaves were not allowed to be apart of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore Revolution was both revolutionary and not revolutionary because, of the three stated topics above. The American Revolution was the most important event in the history of the world since the birth of Christ,-stated by Richard Price. The Revolution was revolutionary based on economic factors because, as apart of the empire the colonies were protected from foreign invasion by the British military.
Socially, Charles refuses to invite the Parliament into meeting. The Glorious Revolution finally established Parliament as the main power in Europe, where the monarchs aren’t so important anymore. Which also created a body part where everyone have almost the equal right, no one having the supreme power. 4. 17th Century saw such a flowering of culture, because it was the time era where new arts and literature were introduced.
According to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament is the only body that can make law for the UK. No other body can overrule or change the laws which Parliament has made. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty however cannot be found in statute law, it is part of another source of the constitution, common law. The reason it is not part of statute law is that Parliament can pass, change, or repeal any law it likes and is not bound by laws of previous Parliaments. Therefore if parliamentary sovereignty was an Act of Parliament it would be possible for Parliament to repeal it and destroy the principle.
Federalists V. the Anti- Federalists After the American Revolution, the United States was free of British control and their first attempt at a formal government was a document titled: The Articles of Confederation. Many believed that under the Articles of Confederation enough power was not given to the central government, while many others believed that too much power was given to the state government. One result of the Articles of Confederation was that the Philadelphia Convention was called in the summer of 1787. The convention was originally called to help strengthen The Articles of Confederation, but it was later decided that a whole new constitution needed to be written. This is where the Constitution of the United States of America was born and with it came the opposing views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.
These constitutional reforms were proposed to improve democracy and the legitimacy of the governments in the UK however there has been a sense that these reforms have occurred with no real end goal therefore it makes it difficult to consider how effective they will be and if they would even make a difference due to the political framework of the UK. With the UK’s preservation of parliamentary sovereignty it in effect cancels out any proposals to move away from an elective dictatorship and to become more democratic. One reform that has taken place since 1997 is the reform of the House of Lords in the form of the House of Lords Act (1999). This was reform was proposed in two parts. The first phase was the dispersal of hereditary peers with only 92 remaining today and it abolished the voting rights of most hereditary peers.
After Edward the Confessor death in 1066 the question of who should follow him as a king appeared. The Witan chose Harold the Godwinson to be the king of England. Harold had already shown his bravery and ability, he had no royal blood but he seemed a good choice for the throne of England. Harold’s right to the English throne was challenged by Duke William of Normandy. He had two claims to the English throne, the first was that King Edward had promised it to him, the second claim was that Harold, who had visited William in the past, had promised William that he – Harold – would not try to take the throne for himself.
He then spent another two paragraphs to give the setting of the Zenger case of 1735. Both of these cases eventually brought about justice in the eyes of the people. With regard to the Bushell case, William Penn was saved from unjust punishment; with Zenger’s, freedom of press was upheld. Katz goes on to quote the Declaration of Independence as a support for the importance of the jury system. One of the reasons given against King George of England for the American Revolution was that he refused to allow the American Colonies the benefits of jury trial.