It's certainly fair to claim that the revolution was "bourgeois" in the sense that it preserved the existing power of wealthy elites - indeed it could be argued that they gained economically by no longer being forced into trade policies designed to benefit the British Empire - and in the sense that many of the most prominent revolutionaries (George Washington, Jefferson, John Hancock) came from wealthy backgrounds. Having said that, there were still reasons for 'ordinary' Americans to support independence.

Firstly, the effects of the British government's taxation policies implemented from 1763-1773 - designed to raise a revenue from the colonies in order to pay off their debts from the French-Indian war - prompted fairly wide-ranging resistance. This was partly due to economic effects - the stamp tax on customs documents, newspapers etc was widespread in terms of who it impacted, and indeed was repealed only after a groundswell of popular resistance which involved directing violence against those responsible for enforcing the tax. There were also concerns over the principle behind such taxation. Both the Townshend Act of 1767 and the Tea Act of 1773 lowered the price of tea in practice, but still provoked resistance. John Dickinson's pamphlet Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania, written in opposition to the Townshend Act, was reprinted in 19/23 colonial newspapers in existence at the time, recieving wide circulation and galvanising a boycott of British goods, such as tea but also textiles and alcohol. For such a boycott to be effective, it required popular support, so evidently it wasn't just a case of this being a concern of the elite.

Secondly, the actions of the British did a lot to encourage 'ordinary' Americans to resist British rule. The King's rejection of American attempts at reconciliation - such as the Olive Branch Petition - and the outbreak of violence, for example the destruction of Falmouth, Maine, and Norfolk, Virginia severed the belief amongst Americans that they should remain loyal subjects, and legitimised in their minds the struggle for independence, as a last resort as opposed to something sought from the beginning of resistance to colonial rule.

I think perhaps the most important distinction is between the lead-up to independence and the revolutionary war, which very much involved 'ordinary' Americans and was supported by them, and the subsequent creation of the American nation, which was overwhelmingly an exercise of the elite, with the purpose of creating a system that entrenched their own existing economic and political power.

---

In terms of reading, I'd recommend Pauline Maier's American Scripture, which looks at many of the local declarations of independence produced by Americans and explores the reasons most often mentioned by them for seeking separation. John Miller's Origins of the American Revolution is also good if you want an overview of the events leading up to it, though it's fairly old now as it was written in the 1960s. Finally, if you're interested in the role of elites specifically, David McCullough's bigraphy of John Adams and Ron Chernow's books on Hamilton and Washington are all good reads.

(1/2)

So, we have first to define our terms and concepts. A bourgeois revolution can be defined as the reunion of two spheres of power that had been one under feudalism, but split apart as capitalism emerged as the dominant mode of production. These spheres are the political sphere of power, and the economic sphere of power. Under feudalism, the aristocracy had complete political power, military power and, as a result, economic power - they generally owned the land and received the surplus value generated by it. However, capitalism and the emergence of global markets (starting primarily in the 17th century) created a merchant class/capitalist class/bourgeoisie class, who began to amass an amount of wealth grossly disproportional to their social standing. The economic sphere of power therefore shifted away from those who held political power. At the same time, a class came into existence that had significant economic power, but no political power. Seen in this way, a bourgeois revolution is the rejoining of these two spheres of power.

Now we must turn to the question at hand, concerning the specific circumstances of late 18th century America. Let's first look at the pre-revolutionary colonial economy. This economy was fundamentally different from European economies, and can be best described as predominantly agrarian, in some instances even very primitive, but simultaneously highly capitalist (in the southern colonies, of course, augmented by slave labour). The bulk of white males (between 65% and 80% of white men) were engaged in a type of capitalist agricultural production, either directly or indirectly. In numbers, about 85% of farmers farmed between 50 and 500 acres of land. The wealth generated by this mode of production was distributed very unevenly. The richest 10% owned more than half of all physical wealth, and the richest 1% owned roughly 15% of all physical wealth. This tells us that, while land ownership and other forms of wealth in property was concentrated at the top, the colonial population was primarily made up of small and middling farmers for whom property ownership was the main source of income and social status.

If we then turn to the intellectual influences on the sentiments underlying the American revolutionary spirit, we find a number of interesting notions, many of them either completely or partially absent in the French Revolution. First, we can distinguish a brand of liberalism influenced primarily by Locke and Paine, and a kind of economic liberalism derived from the works of the Scottish Enlightenment, i.e. Adam Smith, David Hume and Adam Ferguson. At the same time, the colonial populace was highly religious, specifically Protestant, which imbued American thinking with a kind of Protestant work ethic as described by Max Weber. This Protestantism, combined with a nascent republicanism, created a line of thinking that held that the government ruled with consent of the governed, who could also retract that support. This is also the school of thought that produced such slogans of rights to life, liberty and property.

Politically, the American colonies were structured in an interesting way, too. The primary qualification for receiving the franchise was owning property. In the southern, slave-owning states, one would need 50 acres of land to receive the vote. In the northern colonies, one had to have land worth between 40 shillings and £50. This meant that about half of the white population was eligible to vote. The property qualifications for office were set significantly higher however, so in practice the colonial governments were made up of the richest 10% - large landowners (in the northern colonies), slaveholding planters (in the southern colonies), wealthy merchants and lawyers primarily. As you rightly pointed out, the Revolution brought no change in terms of who the ruling classes were.

These then, were the underlying factors that shaped the colonial American society. Now we will look at the events leading up the Revolution. First, the average, poor American did not really need to be convinced to trade peace for war, because there wasn't any peace to begin with. The seeds of rebellion did not need to be planted, if you will. By 1760, there had been 18 uprisings against colonial state governments across the colonies. Also, there had been 6 black rebellions, and at least 40 riots caused by various dissatisfactions. Consequently, many people were 'used' to carrying arms. A vast majority of men had a gun and were experienced in using it. Of course, we should remember that land ownership, wealth and political influence had been very unequally distributed for decades, which meant that a certain amount of rebellious energy was already present.

A number of events and factors radicalised this energy against the British, or rather, allowed the colonial ruling classes to convince the average American farmer to fight. Because, initially, the anger of the average American was directed at, not only the British government and her troops, including American Loyalists (about 20-30% of white settlers), but also at wealthy local ruling elites. (e.g. the Regulator Movements who went after corrupt local elites, and tried to create better economic conditions for the mass of small farmers. In the end, the British had to come save their local elites, which didn't do a lot to help their public image)

A particularly significant event is the (British) Royal Proclamation of 1763, issued after the Seven Years War. It prohibited settlements west of the Appalachian mountains, in what had been French territory before the Seven Years War, and designated this area an Indian Reserve. This did not go over well with either the white colonial population or the colonial ruling class, as both were interested in potentially settling in this area/claim land for plantations. This entire episode created a number of conflicts, the most well known of which are the Pontiac Rebellion and the Paxton Boys vigilante uprising.

Then there is the famous tax thing that everyone associates with this entire revolutionary episode. In order to pay for the Seven Years War (which the British won, but at a great financial cost), the British instituted a new tax - the famous Stamp Act of 1765, which was a kind of tax on paper. I'll be brief on this topic, because it is quite well known. Essentially, to say that the Stamp Act was very unpopular would be a gross understatement. The colonial Americans felt that, as Englishmen, their rights were being violated by being taxed without their consent ('no taxation without representation'). This is also where the famous Sons of Liberty come in. They hung effigies of taxmen, burned houses down and threatened the tax collectors. In the end, the British never got a penny from this tax, but the relationship between the colonialists and the British had already broken down beyond repair. Then, and I'll skip over the details, a number of well-known events fanned the flames of revolution even further - the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, the introduction of the Coercive Acts (aka the Intolerable Acts) etc.

(...)