I'm taking a class on the American Revolution and Federalist Era this semester and our professor introduced a very tasty thought today that I immediately wanted to discuss with and get the opinions of other history enthusiasts: Were America's famous forefathers really the ones leading the people toward Revolution? Or were they playing catch-up with events that were already unfolding? (That is, were they unaware of events beyond their immediate scope of observation and swept up when there was no turning back?)
The Second Continental Congress declared independence in July of 1776, however, acts of independence-minded defiance were already happening as early as October of 1774 when a militia in Worcester, Mass. barred the courthouse and kept the Crown-appointed judge from starting another session, after which the gathered townsmen declared the end of British rule and announced it was time for a new, non-British government.
Does Revolution start from the official Declaration or when the people first dismiss their ruler? Were the famous names tied to our fight for independence truly the visionaries and leaders of revolution or were common men who's names have been forgotten responsible for spurring the uprising of the colonies? Were men like Tomas Paine, who embraced the spirit of revolution and spread ideas in writing, the cause or merely a symptom of actions like those of the militia in Worcester?
Edit: After seeking insights and friendly lets-explore-this-train-of-thought conversation in /r/history and only getting let-me-tell-you-how-it-was answers taken straight from a High School history text, I was directed here where I hope to find the consideration and discussion of my professor's query instead of the outright disregarding of it.
In many ways the Continental Congress was playing catch up. John Adams famously wrote that the discussion of independence "frightens them". Samuel Adams wrote letters to his colleagues back in Massachusetts advising them to tone down the rhetoric.
However the independence minded members of Congress and the people in Massachusetts and elsewhere had different immediate goals.
Those in Congress were pushing for a unanimous consensus on the independence issue. They wanted to present a united front--and there was much opposition from delegates like John Dickinson of New York Pennsylvania (and other Middle Colony representatives).
Yet Massachusetts was functionally independent by the spring of 1775 when violence broke out. Starting in the summer and fall of September 1774 (the Worcester rebellion is the primary example this early), towns across New England overthrew royal authority and made those appointees either leave town or swear oaths to not work for the crown.
By the spring of 1775 there was no royal authority anywhere in Massachusetts except in Boston and as far as Gage could march his troops--and even then he had to have a major force (witness his attempts to arrest members of the Salem Committee of Safety and the resultant uprising by thousands of area militia) to exert authority.
Royal governors across most of the colonies were forced to flee, many of them to Navy ships. In Pennsylvania the radicals finally got a new government in.
Two major battles and many more small skirmishes had happened before the Declaration of Independence was even proposed, much less written and signed.
So yes, there's much truth to the idea that the Founding Fathers were simply hanging onto a tiger that they couldn't control.
However there's also the things that the Founding Fathers^1 did that couldn't have been done by the uprising of the people (what Kevin Phillips calls the rage militaire). Organize resistance across colony lines. Open up negotiations with France for formal aid (they were already starting to provide informal aid). Organize boycotts and plan to build an army (in Massachusetts the Provincial Congress had been preparing for an army of 15,000 men. Concord was a major supply depot for this army, which is why it was a target).
This was after violence had broken out.
Political elites organized protests like the Boston Tea Party (it's my belief that the reactions to Boston Tea Party is what jump started the Revolution), and the boycotts of goods. They wrote letters and pamphlets that were widely read. They preached from the pulpits or at other public gatherings.
I do think that they've been given too much credit for resistance, but that trend has started to change.
1.) I dislike calling them Founding Fathers, because the term can be so vague. It's generally used to refer to the men who were involved in national politics between the Stamp Act and the signing of the Constitution, yet that group is so large and varied that the description falls short. Talking about the Founding Fathers leaves out the influential women of the Revolution. It leaves out the vast public turmoil that made the Revolution possible.
Sources
1775: A Good Year For Revolution by Kevin Phillips
The First American Revolution: Before Lexington and Concord by Ray Raphael
American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People by T.H. Breen
The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America by Gary Nash
From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 by Pauline Maier
American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence by Pauline Maier
This sounds a bit like a homework question, so I'll keep my answer somewhat brief.
/u/smileyman provides am excellent argument for his position, though I would add to his book list T. H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution, Bernard Bailyn, The Idealogical Origins of the American Revolution, and Gordon S. Woods, *The Radicalism of the American Revolution."
I would counter his point, however, by pointing you to both primary documents and histories of the American loyalists, who throughout claimed that it was a small, violent, and above all active group of "Patriots" enforcing their troublesome political beliefs on the public. I still think Philip Ranlet, The Loyalists of New York does an excellent job making this argument for that colony. I'm actuality going to dive into a pile of loyalist histories this weekend, so I should have some new books to recommend.