Revolutionary Conservatist Analysis

A prevalent question that comes up while studying America’s past is “was the American Revolution a true revolution?”. Depending on the whether the historian sides with the theory of a strict or loose constructionist, the answer will vary. Strict constructionists tend to believe that a revolution produces a significant end result whereas loose constructionists refer to any type of violence in conjunction with a constitution, rulers, or policies. This differentiation leads to the topics of conservatism and radicalism. In correlation with the American revolution, conservatists claim that the outcome of the revolution was nothing great. On the other hand, radicalists feel that the changes after the revolution were extraordinary. Pulitzer Prize-winning Carl N. Delger agrees with the conservatists
Delger strongly believes that the American revolution was anything but radical. “The overarching considerations of survival or victory distort or enlarge the narrow and limited aims for which the conflict was begun”, claims Delger, “The American War for Independence was such an event. Begun for only limited political and constitutional purposes, the war released social social forces which few of the leaders ever anticipated, but which have helped to mold the American tradition”. A major point of Delger’s argument is that the phrase “all men are created equal” is wrongly assumed “that the mere inclusion of that phrase in the Declaration worked the mighty influence implied in the foregoing examples; social values are not created so deliberately or so easily”.
Delger’s argument, aside from being disheveled and difficult to follow, included only one noticeable counterarguments. He contradicts his argument and his only counter argument was shamefully achieved to say the least. Delger’s use of rhetorical modes, however, was strong. He cited outside sources, used many dates, and well-known event and figures. These additions do help strengthen his rhetorical modes of the