he American Revolution was a movement of freedom. A symbol to the world, a battle cry to all oppressors and a call to arms to all of the oppressed people of the world that “all men are created equal”. The government is obligated to obey the will of its people. It was inspired by the radical French revolution but was it really? Of course in comparison to the French revolution not really radical but even on its own it’s not a radical revolution. Looking at documents from both primary sources and secondary ones you could say it had its radical moments but if you can connect view points of the people and our leaders occupations and identities you can see that every “ radical “ event was for a more conservative outcome and purpose. This is my opinion of course and sure there are many against my viewpoints but just like I cant deny their all of what they are saying they cant completely shut down what I am saying either. It might have seemed t radical when reading stories of lynching and tar and feather cases but looking at our leaders and there views spell out conservative. From reading documents Id like to point out some things that I have personally felt that are necessary to proving my case is the similarities between our government and the British Parliament. They are similar in the fact that there is one head person with other separate branches that run the government to create laws. We also based a lot of our beliefs off the Magna Carta and the English Bill or Rights. The revolution started because we wanted the same rights as the citizens of Britain had and once we had our rights nothing else was done. Barely any change to the rights at all. Our rights were equal to that of the Englishmen even though we fought so hard for change. I believe the revolution was a brilliantly thought out plan that dealt more on economics, manifest destiny, and conservation rather than a liberal cry out for freedom. I mean were we really slaves to Parliament or to each other’s greed. I am sure Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t completely disagree with me. Even John Adams wasn’t all for the idea of a revolution. Don’t agree with me then take a look at the signers of the declaration and constitution and our leaders. Those already in position of power that Parliament gave them including they’re wealth were the same men who lead the revolution. I find that the Revolution was about class conflict. All the talk about republicanism, inalienable rights, and equality was all condiments and dressing to justify hardcore economic motivations. In document H it shows how our leaders differ from that of the French, Haitian, and other revolutions. A majority of the members were lawyers by profession. The members came from concentrated points like towns near the coast. Not one member was representing a interest in farming or engineering and mechanics. At least 5/6 of members were to a greater or less extent economic beneficiaries from the adoption of the Constitution. Fourteen members invested in lands for speculation and at least 24 members loaned money at interest. Eleven of them represented in mercantile (trade), manufacturing, and shipping lines were represented by at least eleven members and slaves was represented by at least 15 members. “ It cannot be said, therefore, that the members of the Convention were “disinterested” in …..(A)s practical men they were able to build the new government upon the only foundations which could stable: fundamental economic interest”. Lets not forget that one of our cry outs to Parliament was “no taxation without representation”. They did care about liberties but more for the coin in their pockets. Another thing to take in is the way the colonists were protesting before the war. Events like the Boston Tea Party for example. It was still a