The term American Revolution is misleading. There was a revolt against British authority, true, but the colonies had already been self-governing in many ways, with a legislatures and a governing elite. It was that governing elite that met, in the Continental Congress, and tried to respond to what they saw as unjust impositions of British authority and taxation, and, when things escalated, revolted. The Declaration of Independence certainly had grand Lockean rhetoric about governments being instituted among men, but the Articles of Confederation that followed were a short, practical description of the working arrangement by which the colonies would revolt. Yes, there was a great deal of dithering and over-reaction and great differences of opinion ( and less visionary thinking than improvisation) but the colonial governments did not really fall apart. The main agents of British authority, the Royal Governors, were replaced by members of the colonial governing elite. This is why you do see better names for the conflict- like The War for American Independence.

For example, Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia, imposed unpopular British laws like the Intolerable Acts. He was opposed by the House of Burgesses. Negotiations led to outright hostilities. Needing someone to do his job, the Burgesses gave Edmund Pendleton the powers of a governor. Virginia militia units under their control overmatched the British forces under Dunmore's control , and he was forced to flee first from Williamsburg to York, then to a British warship off shore. The Burgesses wrote a constitution for the state, and under that made Patrick Henry governor. There were complexities- Loyalists, and relations with the Cherokee- but the Burgesses essentially kept the government structure.

After the Treaty of Paris, there was pretty much a continuation of that governing arrangement in the United States until 1790. In the 19th c., historians like John Fiske would make much of post-War disturbances like Shays' Rebellion, the bumbling powerless Continental Congress, and a very weak economy to be able to extoll the Federalists and the Constitution as the saviors of the United States, bringing order from chaos; but that's pretty much changed. The post-War period now is seen as, yes, bumbling, but it did overcome some hurdles, like, agree how to divide up new territories and create more states . And, when there was a convention to come up with something more workable, in 1787, it was again those colonial legislatures and that same governing elite that formed it.

When historian Crane Brinton tried to group the American Revolution into his classic Anatomy of a Revolution, it didn't really belong. In the French and Russian Revolutions ( and, if he had looked, the Mexican ) there was a top-to-bottom upheaval, with a rigid incompetent government unable to reform and meet a crisis and then losing control, and power descending from it to the local level. That descent and fragmentation of power is key, and it also can easily get obscured by ideology. Pancho Villa may have wanted land reform, a very big issue for Mexico then ( and now) and he may have derived most of his popular support in Chihuahua for it. But through much of 1915, the government of the north of Mexico was, basically, by the Army of the North, and it was vague- sometimes at the whim of whichever of his lieutenants happened to be in town. Likewise, there have been some excellent historians, like Gordon Wood, who have found plenty of vigorous new political thinking and debate in the early American Republic- it is a fascinating time. And the governing elite did worry about its place: George Washington was genuinely alarmed by Shays' Rebellion and the likelihood that discontented Continental veterans might pick up their guns and there'd be "Mob Rule" . But regardless of rhetoric and new ideas, the existing governing elite was not displaced, and the basic government power structure did not fall apart.

Hi,

I am not a professional scholar, however, my 'amateur' passion is the American Revolution. I don't think your conception of the American Revolution is accurate.

There was, for instance, Conway's Cabal which sought to replace George Washington with Horatio Gates. Washington himself was constantly paranoid about being replaced, due likely in part to the fact that he went several years without winning any major (or moderate) battle. Our opinion of Washington today is based on a campaign by his allies both during and after the Revolution to paint him in a certain light. That painting neccesitated pamphletting and back-room subterfuge to sabotage or at least impair people viewed as political enemies of Washington. That is not to say George deserves no credit, he certainly deserves a great deal, if not for being a military leader then for being an astute politician.

Tensions also arose between states, often cut across Industrial/Agrarian or Large/Small population lines. There was paranoia in many of the smaller New England states about the influence of Virginia (and to an extent Massachusetts), which if you look at the Founding Fathers, were a plurality (if not outright majority between those two states) of the group. This paranoia is actually the reason we have two senators per state

Large-state delegates promoted James Madison’s Virginia Plan, the document that was the basis for several of the clauses in the Constitution. Under this plan, the Senate and the House would base their membership on the same proportional “right of suffrage.” That is, the number of senators in each state would be determined by its population of free citizens and slaves. Large states, then, stood to gain the most seats in the Senate. As justification for this advantage, delegates noted that their states contributed more of the nation’s financial and defensive resources than small states, and therefore, required a greater say in government.

If we extend the period of "Revolution" to the first 15-20 years afterward when the government forming then there was a near constant stream of fighting, with states teetering on the brink of war with one another. States issued their own currencies, levied taxes on the former Continental Currency, and there were even other rebellions. In this case there actually was bloodshed. There were labor riots in Boston & NYC as well during this period, often times with death or at least 'maiming' accompanying them. These trends were just a continuation of fomenting unrest that occurred during the Revolution, and extended to the period after. We do not hear about it, perhaps because we did not have poets or laureates on par with European ones to romantically describe it, but it was happening.

As to why there wasn't more bloodshed or coups, my personal theory is that causes like the French Revolution had a broad-base of the population either supporting or vehemently opposed to it. While America had Tories and Patriots, there was a large part of the population that just wanted to work, farm,etc. There was a large portion of the population (maybe half or more) that did not particularly care if the taxes went to the King or some Colonial Government (that, by the way, may have ended up with a King as well when all was said and done for all they knew). Tenant farmers, or skilled workers also did not particularly care if their landlord was paying one Englishman in the soon-to-be United States, or an Englishman back in England.

I think most likely the answer to your question is that these things did happen, however there has not been a whole lot written on them. Remember that literature in the United States did not take off for maybe 30+ years after the Revolution, so there were not many great poets, authors, etc. to write these histories the way we have for other conflicts. What is not written down by this type of author typically gets glossed over, since the people that want to read historical first-hand accounts are much fewer in number when compared to those that would rather read flowery prose on the topic.

If you're interested in the Revolution in general I would recommend The Glorious Cause which covers the period before, during and a bit after the Revolution. It talks in depth about society at the time, along with the war itself. For some historical fiction, that actually appears to have been well-researched check out Burr from Gore Vidal.

A fantastic question and one that historians are certainly well aware of and have debated about. You will very likely get several different answers with several different well supported theories. First, the American Revolution was less a revolution than a simple withdrawal from a greater system. Do not misunderstand me, it was a revolution in definition, but American revolutionaries were aimed at correcting a system they deemed broken for the colonies, but was not necessarily broken in Britain, adopting Enlightenment theories that did exist in the British system of government. One can see this in the frequent demands for representation in parliament and the olive branch petition that outlined how peace was still the preferred option to address colonial grievances. The colonists were not overthrowing the system of British rule, they were withdrawing from it, and this is significantly easier to do when the powers to do be are 3,000 miles away.

So, why didn't the Revolution devolve into violent infighting? My interpretation of the revolution leads me to argue that it was due to the decentralization of the young American system. The goal was always simple, withdraw from colonial rule and establish a loose confederation of states that managed their affairs with a weak central government that worked together within a limited scope. This government was so weak that at points the states never bothered to send their delegations. In France a overthrow of the central government was necessary, as well as control of that central government. In America it was decentralized, there were 13 state legislatures that managed regions that diffused a larger conspiracy against the weak federal government from ever formalizing. There simply was little point to infighting, when different regions retained so much control of power.

I may get some slack for this but there was absolutely an air of virtuous superiority as well. Americans were hell bent on demonstrating their system of democracy, and the opportunities that the young country presented were just better than the British system. That Britain had been exploiting the colonists for their own wealth where the colonists simply wanted to farm, and live the more virtuous lifestyle. The American dream was to own your own land, and manage your own affairs. The result was when a local government did take an action that was deemed unvirtuous to the American vision the mob reacted to address said grievance. On a wider stage America's republican government was about high-minded debate, intellectualism, and merit. This certainly permeated across all levels of government, and at times even appeared to counteract the vision the average man had for America, but it helped keep the wider peace.

But the common man absolutely did react, mob violence was very common in the revolution. The most famous example would be Shay's Rebellion, but there were numerous examples of when a leader decided to test the limits of what American's deemed proper to find themselves with an armed mob at their doorstep.

I think that explains the lack of wider violence, but the lack of infighting is a myth. The above merely explains why the infighting did not devolve into wider violence. A lot of what follows is from Alan Taylor's American Revolutions which I highly recommend if you want to examine the many smaller revolutions that made up the greater American Revolution. It is important to note that for all intents and purposes America was on a trajectory toward disunion after the Revolution ended, and it was happening very fast. Westward Expansion was making contact with Native American's increasingly violent, lack of legal enforcement on the western frontier drove mobs to fight against wealthy land speculators who were seen as stealing their opportunities to better themselves, debates on the extent of republicanism drove apart the unity of the states, a laughable central government was seen as useless, the economy was in shambles, and growing threats from global powers all led to the developing sense of anarchy and threat to peace. I think the term anarchy here is doing a lot of work. There was nothing to really attack on a wide stage, who were you going to overthrow? The government under the Articles? They were useless. So, state's largely contended with violence within their own borders, and a wider conspiracy never materialized. Anarchy was a good way to describe the failings of the Articles.

Enter the Constitutional Convention, which aimed to address growing concerns of a failing American Confederacy. It's important to note this meeting was conducted in secret out of fear of attracting mob violence. Here, they put forth a much stronger national vision for the United States, with a strong central government with a Republican foundation to address the growing needs of country falling apart. I think a lot of the success of this convention stems from the fact that the Revolution was in the past, victory achieved, and Washington was guiding it. When finished the Constitution contained its greatest power against infighting, Federalism, which defined the powers of the state and federal government. (More on this in a bit). The debate that followed was conducted very professionally, aimed at the state's each individually accepting it and following the rule of 9/13 to ratify which stemmed from the Articles of Confederation (though in reality it should have been 13/13 but Mr. Hamilton played a little loose in this department). Once again we can see the decentralization of power at work. Hamilton, Madison, and other Federalist's knew the new constitution could fail if enough states rejected it. While they manipulated the system for ratification in their favor, all it took was enough states to say no, and it would have failed. With enough states ratifying the Constitution the transition appeared republican enough to pass the test and was established. (Yes, I am ignoring the plethora of debates around ratification, mostly for time).

Did that solve the problems of infighting? Absolutely not. The Early Republic is full of examples of violence over the limits of federal power, and definitions of who best protected the rights of the people, but it was also conducted in a high-standing Republican framework. Unity was also seen as the best solution to the increasing threats of other powers, who could benefit from a fractured United States. Many historians will frame conflicts between the Revolution and the Civil War as revolutions of their own. Each time America emerged as demonstrating a united nation as the best defense against external influence. The system of Federalism is what held the country together during these early times. By protecting the rights of the state's it kept the decentralization of the revolution in place, something that James Madison claimed was important to the foundation of the American Republic. A republic would only survive because it was large, and different regions would create the natural check on the consolidation of the majority needed to maintain the republic. It's in this school of thought, the tyranny of the majority, where a lot, and I mean a lot of debates derived itself through the Early Republic, but the conflicts largely remained regional, often failing to expand to other state's which would be required to seriously challenge the federal government.

In conclusion, the fact the revolution occurred in a set of separated colonies working together staved off violent infighting caused by controlling a central power. To be united served as a better defense against the threats of other powers, and the federal system established by the Constitution saved the country from falling apart. Infighting existed, but violence was largely localized, and the high-minded debate in the vision of the republican government American's believed in helped keep debates largely to just being a debate and not violence.

Just to add a few extra thoughts to the answers here. Historians have definitely made the case for the American Revolution being inherently conservative, as well as being inherently radical (Gordon Wood literally wrote the book on this). But I'd say there are a few other ways we can look at the American Revolution.

• The American Revolution being an event in a larger War of Independence. I have to admit I don't think anyone has specifically argued this, but bear me out. What I mean by this is that the actual "overthrowing colonial governments and establishing new states and governmental orders" did happen...but largely happened in 1775-1776. Once this was done, the thirteen colonies were thirteen states, and while they would argue and tinker with their internal constitutions and their concept of nation, as well as fight a war with Britain, nothing was quite as fundamental as those initial first steps. Even with all of the fighting in North America, the British never actually bothered to re-establish colonial governments anywhere, except very briefly in Georgia.

• The American Revolution as Civil War. This definitely has more of a basis of thought among historians, although it very rarely gets raised to a central point of view. By this I mean - even within the thirteen colonies, and especially in US historiography, the fact that the Revolution was a conflict between Americans, specifically between "Patriots" and "Loyalists", gets downplayed and ignored. Often the Loyalists get portrayed in the US version of history as just a bunch of stuck-up rich Brits, but this is not an accurate understanding of Loyalism at all - Loyalists made up an estimated 15%-20% of inhabitants of the colonies (compared to maybe 45%-ish of Patriots), and could come from a variety of backgrounds: freed slaves, tenant farmers in New York, native peoples on the frontier, French-speakers in Montreal. Looking at the conflict from this perspective certainly exposes some of the more violent and revolutionary aspects of the war, as many loyalists had their property expropriated, and a not-insignificant number of them ended up effectively as refugees in the tens of thousands (meaning that something like 2% or so of the population of the Thirteen Colonies was forced to leave because of war and violence). I think there is a very real tendency therefore to downplay this violence between Americans - the term lynching is thought to originate from "Lynch's Law", which described the kind of extralegal violence authorized by Virginian justice of the peace Charles Lynch against local Loyalists. Regarding property seizure, the historian George Tindall in fact made an argument that this massive redistribution of property from the war made the 1780s and 1790s more "equal" in opportunities for white Americans than any time before or since. If this almost sounds like an argument for the American Revolution as Revolution, I'd say that the difference between revolutions and civil wars seems to ultimately have as much to do with PR, who wins, and the benefit of hindsight as it does from formal definitions, and the two types of events tend to go hand in hand: the historian Eric Foner has made the case that the US Civil War was in fact a "second American Revolution" (and much more revolutionary than the first), while the Russian Revolution inevitably led to the Russian Civil War, which was arguably also a much more revolutionary event than the relatively simple seizure of power by Bolsheviks in November 1917.

• Finally, the American Revolution as a global war for empire. This is a point of view which almost gets completely ignored in US historiography, much more so than the previous viewpoint. Quick, what was the biggest land battle in the war in terms of troops involved? The biggest naval battle? One of the most successful military leaders against British colonial forces in the war? Would it surprise you if the answers were "the siege of Gibraltar", "the Battle of the Saints in the West Indies", or "Tipu Sultan of Mysore"? My point here is that the American War for Independence, although important to America, very quickly was subsumed into a much larger global war for empire between Britain on one side and France, Spain and the Netherlands on the other. Not only did these forces significantly aid Americans (the Yorktown campaign was as much won by the French navy and French troops as by American troops), but the American theater wasn't even the main region of conflict for European powers in this 1778-1783 rematch of the Seven Years War, as the war had very notable military campaigns in Europe, the Caribbean, and India (where it's known as the Second Anglo-Mysore War). Interestingly, in British historiography you tend to hear more about these campaigns, in part because not only were they ultimately a bigger investment of British military resources, but the war went better for the Brits there (especially at Gibraltar and the Battle of the Saints).

Anyway, just some perspectives to keep in mind when we think about the American Revolution/Revolutionary War/War of Independence!

I'm thinking more on the topic, and I think actually we underestimate the infighting that happened in the wake of the American [insert label here].

There's a whole popular musical about the first Secretary of the Treasury (and de facto leader of the opposition party) who was killed by the Vice President of the United States. That's the same Vice President who then resigned, traveled to the Western frontier, was involved in a murky armed conspiracy, and then tried for treason. He was involved with a general who was the Governor of Louisiana and Senior Officer of the US Army, who was also clandestinely a highly paid asset of Spain.

Just that alone, in any other country, would probably make you say "wow what a troubled, unstable former colony".

And that's frankly just the tip of the iceberg. The 1790s in particular were a time of extreme political partisanship that really was only exceeded in the Civil War era. The Federalists and Jeffersonian (Democratic-) Republicans really viewed each other as threats to social and political stability, and became proxies of the British and French respectively in the French Revolutionary Wars (with members of each political faction receiving funding from their respective allies on occasion).

As was mentioned elsewhere, there were a number of rebellions i this period, most notably Shays Rebellion (indirectly spurring the creation of the new Constitution) and the Whiskey Rebellion (which was intentionally put down as a show of power by the new Constitutional government).

And that's not even getting into the British continuing to militarily occupy parts of the Northwest Territory well into the 1790s, or major warfare in the region with native peoples culminating in the largest ever defeat of the US Army by Native forces. Or the fact that one out of five Americans at the time of independence was a slave, and another two out of a hundred was made an international refugee because of their political sympathies because of the war.

Or the fact that in 1783 unpaid Continental Army soldiers mutinied and marched on Congress, which was forced to flee Philadelphia.

Which is to say - I think the period 1775-1815 (to pick some arbitrary dates) was very turbulent and violent. While it did not result in the overthrow of the Constitutional order created in 1787, that wasn't an obvious eventuality at the time, and the benefit of hindsight and US national mythology smooths out much of these conflicts and disorder.