SAMPLE RESPONSES
3/3
1. The American Revolution can be interpreted through multiple historical perspectives, particularly those of Carl Becker and Bernard Bailyn, who offer contrasting explanations for why colonists moved toward independence. While Becker emphasizes social and economic conflicts within colonial society, Bailyn argues that ideological concerns about liberty and power were the primary driving force.
2. Becker’s “progressive” interpretation suggests that the Revolution resulted from competing interests among different colonial groups. According to Becker, divisions between elites and common colonists, as well as conflicting economic motivations, pushed individuals toward more extreme political positions. Moderates who attempted to remain neutral were ultimately forced to choose sides as tensions escalated. This interpretation implies that the Revolution was less about unified ideals and more about internal conflicts that fractured colonial society.
In contrast, Bailyn presents an “ideological” interpretation, arguing that the Revolution stemmed from the colonists deeply held beliefs about liberty and fear of tyranny. He claims that colonists interpreted British actions, such as the Stamp Act, as part of a deliberate conspiracy to undermine their freedoms. Over time, these perceptions intensified, transforming resistance into a broader revolutionary movement. According to this view, the Revolution was driven by a genuine commitment to protecting political rights rather than material interests.
3. These perspectives also differ in how they interpret the idea of the Revolution as a fight for liberty. Becker would likely argue that the rhetoric of liberty masked underlying social conflicts, while Bailyn would contend that the belief in liberty was sincere and central to colonial motivations. Similarly, events like the Stamp Act and Boston Tea Party would be seen by Becker as flashpoints of social tension, whereas Bailyn would interpret them as evidence reinforcing colonial fears of British oppression.
In conclusion, Becker and Bailyn provide two distinct explanations for the American Revolution: one rooted in social conflict and the other in ideological conviction. Together, these interpretations highlight the complexity of the Revolution’s causes.
Becker-A “progressive” view of the Revolution as the product of social conflict among colonial groups
Bailyn-An “ideological” view of the Revolution as resulting from the colonists’ ideas about liberty and power:
1. Identifies Becker’s Argument (1/1)
-Correctly explains that Becker views the Revolution as driven by social and economic conflict among colonial groups.
-Mentions division, competing interests, and breakdown of moderation
2. Identifies Bailyn’s Argument (1/1)
-Accurately explains that Bailyn sees the Revolution as driven by ideological concerns
about liberty and fear of tyranny
-References colonists’ belief in a deliberate British threat to freedoms
3. Explains a Difference or Connection (1/1)
-Clearly compares the two interpretations
-Shows that Becker emphasizes material/social conflict, while Bailyn emphasizes ideas
and beliefs
-Also explains how each would interpret events like the Stamp Act differently
2/3 Response
1. Becker argues that the American Revolution happened because different groups in the colonies had conflicting interests, which pushed people to take sides.
2. Bailyn believes the Revolution was caused by colonists’ ideas about liberty and their fear that Britain was taking away their rights.
3. Both historians think the Revolution was caused by conflict, but Becker focuses on economic and social differences, while Bailyn focuses more on ideas.
1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Too vague. Doesn’t fully explain the difference (just says “conflict”); Lacks specific explanation (no mention of ideology vs. material conflict)
1/3 Response
1. Becker says the Revolution happened because people were mad at Britain.
2. Bailyn says the Revolution was about liberty.
3. They are different because they have different ideas.
1. Too vague / inaccurate (no mention of colonial internal conflict)
2. Minimal but acceptable (mentions liberty)
3. No real explanation of difference
SCAFFOLDING SENTENCE STARTERS
1. Becker – Progressive View
2. Bailyn – Ideological View
3. Comparison / Difference
TEACHING TIP
Students often lose the third SAQ point because they:
3/3
1. The American Revolution can be interpreted through multiple historical perspectives, particularly those of Carl Becker and Bernard Bailyn, who offer contrasting explanations for why colonists moved toward independence. While Becker emphasizes social and economic conflicts within colonial society, Bailyn argues that ideological concerns about liberty and power were the primary driving force.
2. Becker’s “progressive” interpretation suggests that the Revolution resulted from competing interests among different colonial groups. According to Becker, divisions between elites and common colonists, as well as conflicting economic motivations, pushed individuals toward more extreme political positions. Moderates who attempted to remain neutral were ultimately forced to choose sides as tensions escalated. This interpretation implies that the Revolution was less about unified ideals and more about internal conflicts that fractured colonial society.
In contrast, Bailyn presents an “ideological” interpretation, arguing that the Revolution stemmed from the colonists deeply held beliefs about liberty and fear of tyranny. He claims that colonists interpreted British actions, such as the Stamp Act, as part of a deliberate conspiracy to undermine their freedoms. Over time, these perceptions intensified, transforming resistance into a broader revolutionary movement. According to this view, the Revolution was driven by a genuine commitment to protecting political rights rather than material interests.
3. These perspectives also differ in how they interpret the idea of the Revolution as a fight for liberty. Becker would likely argue that the rhetoric of liberty masked underlying social conflicts, while Bailyn would contend that the belief in liberty was sincere and central to colonial motivations. Similarly, events like the Stamp Act and Boston Tea Party would be seen by Becker as flashpoints of social tension, whereas Bailyn would interpret them as evidence reinforcing colonial fears of British oppression.
In conclusion, Becker and Bailyn provide two distinct explanations for the American Revolution: one rooted in social conflict and the other in ideological conviction. Together, these interpretations highlight the complexity of the Revolution’s causes.
Becker-A “progressive” view of the Revolution as the product of social conflict among colonial groups
Bailyn-An “ideological” view of the Revolution as resulting from the colonists’ ideas about liberty and power:
1. Identifies Becker’s Argument (1/1)
-Correctly explains that Becker views the Revolution as driven by social and economic conflict among colonial groups.
-Mentions division, competing interests, and breakdown of moderation
2. Identifies Bailyn’s Argument (1/1)
-Accurately explains that Bailyn sees the Revolution as driven by ideological concerns
about liberty and fear of tyranny
-References colonists’ belief in a deliberate British threat to freedoms
3. Explains a Difference or Connection (1/1)
-Clearly compares the two interpretations
-Shows that Becker emphasizes material/social conflict, while Bailyn emphasizes ideas
and beliefs
-Also explains how each would interpret events like the Stamp Act differently
2/3 Response
1. Becker argues that the American Revolution happened because different groups in the colonies had conflicting interests, which pushed people to take sides.
2. Bailyn believes the Revolution was caused by colonists’ ideas about liberty and their fear that Britain was taking away their rights.
3. Both historians think the Revolution was caused by conflict, but Becker focuses on economic and social differences, while Bailyn focuses more on ideas.
1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Too vague. Doesn’t fully explain the difference (just says “conflict”); Lacks specific explanation (no mention of ideology vs. material conflict)
1/3 Response
1. Becker says the Revolution happened because people were mad at Britain.
2. Bailyn says the Revolution was about liberty.
3. They are different because they have different ideas.
1. Too vague / inaccurate (no mention of colonial internal conflict)
2. Minimal but acceptable (mentions liberty)
3. No real explanation of difference
SCAFFOLDING SENTENCE STARTERS
1. Becker – Progressive View
- “According to Becker, the Revolution was caused by…”
- “Becker argues that conflict between ______ and ______ led to…”
- “This suggests that the Revolution resulted from ______ rather than ______.”
2. Bailyn – Ideological View
- “According to Bailyn, the Revolution was driven by…”
- “Bailyn believes colonists feared that…”
- “This shows that ideas about ______ and ______ motivated colonists to…”
3. Comparison / Difference
- “One key difference between Becker and Bailyn is…”
- “While Becker emphasizes ______, Bailyn focuses on ______.”
- “For example, an event like the Stamp Act would be seen by Becker as ______, but by Bailyn as ______.”
TEACHING TIP
Students often lose the third SAQ point because they:
- Don’t explicitly compare (they just restate)
- Stay too general (“they are different”)