Land vs. Tea Pt. 2

This blog post will be a follow-up to my last post, which is about the various concerns the colonists had towards the British government.  Some were upset about taxes, and some just wanted more land.  Then again some had both concerns.  Here is DeAne's comment to my post:

Karin,
Is it possible that various groups of people were willing to collaborate in a revolution although they were motivated by distinct concerns? If so, does that make for a stronger or a weaker movement?
LDL

I really appreciate feedback like this, especially a comment that makes me think.  One thing I often do that I'm trying to avoid is over-simplifying things, making them seem more black-and-white than they really are.  It can make life a lot easier if there's a good guy and a bad guy, agreed-upon definitions, and little disagreement.  But this can also make life incredibly boring.  In high school at the Minnesota Zoo, and especially now in college, I'm working on diving into the inconsistencies, differences in opinion, and different viewpoints that are all a part of studying history.

It is definitely possible, and I think probable that the groups were willing to collaborate.  Although they each had different concerns, most colonists shared common goals of getting more (or even total) independence from Britain, and taking charge of the territory.  At first this seems to make them a weaker movement, since everyone's views are a part of it and it's not a unified force with one spokesperson or one message.  People's feelings and opinions are all over the place.

But just like diversity is crucial for ecologies or even human population, diversity of thought was important in the movement towards independence.  If there's only one specific type of a certain animal living in tough conditions, chances are that the population will die off.  If there are many variations of the same kind of animal, then the population can resist more natural or anthropogenic things like disease or natural disasters.

The differences in opinion about independence from Britain fueled a healthy beginning of a new democracy.  It wasn't one founding father who's radical ideas were shot down by Britain.  Instead there was power in numbers, power gained after extensive debate and compromise.  "All or nothing" didn't work anymore as a mindset because so much was at stake.  Because many people were heard, their argument got stronger and more valid and lead to independence.