혁명기와 미공화국 초기 내셔널리즘의 기원과 본질 재고(再考): 친(親)노예제 혁명과 인종주의적 내셔널리즘의 탄생

허현 한국미국사학회 2023 미국사연구 Vol.58 No.-

Since American historians of nationalism have interpreted the American Revolution as an important historical event for the construction of American nation and national identity, they tend to assume that a distinctive American nationalism existed, or was forged in the colonial and Revolutionary periods. However, it is difficult to avoid the criticism that this interpretation too easily denies the British roots of the North American British colonies, and too easily ignores the divisive factors that existed among the colonies, thus failing to provide a historical definition of “American” that can be seen as characterizing an American nation. On the other hand, nationalism scholars define American nationalism as civic nationalism as opposed to ethnic nationalism, concluding that all it took to be a patriotic American was a commitment to the revolutionary ideology of freedom and equality, which defined the national identity of Americans. But they fail to note that revolutionary ideologies were not universal concepts, but rather specifically historical ones that cannot be fully understood without considering the issue of slavery. In short, the existing scholarship on the origins and nature of early nationalism perpetuates a false nation, a fictionalized nationalism, and a mythical national identity that leaves out slavery and slavery as a significant American experience. The paradox of the American Revolution, which is regarded as the leading democratic revolution in the modern West, is that the essential condition for its success was the betrayal of the very political tenets of freedom and equality that the revolutionaries overtly sought. What united the 13 disparate North American British colonies on the road to revolution was not a false notion of nationhood or a fictionalized nationalism, but a “common cause”, which was essentially a political belief and sense of crisis that they could not be enslaved by the British empire. Yet, paradoxically, it was slavery that threatened this cause the most that the revolutionaries rejected. While there had been a significant wave of antislavery movement in the colonial period, led by Quakers, this antislavery ideology was no more than anti-revolutionary and anti-union ideology in the midst of a revolution. The Slave Power perceived slavery in the Northern America as a benevolent institution distinct from slavery in the West Indies, and freedom as a revolutionary and unionist ideology was clearly defined as self-governance in isolation from Great Britain, and the protection of property rights. As Arthur Lee of Virginia argued, “property rights were the guardians of all other rights”, and “to deprive them of these rights was in effect to deprive them of liberty”. In colonial society, these property rights meant, among other things, slave property rights; and when the “freedom” and “self-government” of colonial slaveholders in regard to slave property rights were threatened, the Revolution soon began to clearly embody its identity as a revolution for the defense of slavery. Thus, American nationalism during the Revolutionary War and the early America was characterized above all as racial nationalism, namely, as white nationalism.

미국 혁명의 공화주의: 고든 우드의 『공화국의 창건』을 중심으로

김남균 한국미국사학회 2012 미국사연구 Vol.35 No.-

What made the United States a republic? According to Gordon S. Wood, the most important political ideology for the American revolution was not liberalism, nor economic interests, but republicanism. Although it was long been accepted that the American Government is a republic, few have asserted that republicanism was the political ideology behind the Revolution. This argument first took form in the 1940s and it was in the 1960s that republicanism was proven to be a historical fact. Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic, one of the canonical books of American historiography, shows that republicanism was a historical reality during the American revolution. The Creation of the American Republic demonstrates that republicanism, which came from England, provided not only the ideological background for the American revolution but also played a crucial role in establishing the federal constitution. Wood’s portrayal of transformation of republicanism into a new brand of American Republicanism through the foundation of the American Republic is the most significant academic achievement of The Creation of the American Republic. 무엇이 미국을 공화국으로 만들었는가? 고든 우드에 따르면 미국이 영국으로부터 독립을 쟁취하고 또 연방을 창건하는 과정에 가장 강력한 영향력을 발휘하였던 것은 자유주의나 혹은 경제적 이익이 아니라 공화주의였다. 미국의 정부 형태가 왕이 없는 공화국이라는 것은 건국 초부터 인정된 사실이나 그 공화국을 만들어 낸 정치적 이념이 공화주의였다는 주장은 오래된 것이 아니다. 1940년대부터 주장되기 시작하여 1960년대에 와서야 공화주의의 실체가 역사학적으로 증명되었다. 이렇게 공화주의가 미국 초기 역사에 실재하였던 역사적 사실임을 실증적으로 보여 준 가장 대표적인 저서가 바로 우드의 <공화국의 창건>이다. <공화국의 창건>은 미국 공화국의 창건에서 영국에서 건너 온 공화주의가 혁명의 사상적 배경이 되었을 뿐 아니라 연방 헌법을 제정하는데도 결정적인 영향을 주었음을 보여주고 있다. 특히, 우드가 강조하는 바와 같이, 공화주의가 미국 공화국을 창건하는 과정에서 미국화되어 미국적 공화주의로 변질하였음을 입증하고 있다는 점이 <공화국의 창건>이 가지고 있는 가장 큰 학문적 업적이라고 할 수 있을 것이다.

미국 혁명과 여성의 의식변화

박현숙 ( Park Hyeon Sug ) 한국미국사학회 2002 미국사연구 Vol.16 No.-

This paper examines the impact of the American Revolution on women’s consciousness and its meaning. American women have been changed as they participated in the Revolution. They became politically conscious and active in their lives, but more important and meaningful is that their changes have been continued even after the Revolution. For this reason I reached to the conclusion that the Revolution had a positive effect on American women, although many historians agreed to the contrary. Before the Revolution it was generally accepted that women were inferior to men. Even women themselves had low self esteem and denigrated their sex and their domestic work in general. They had very limited conception of themselves and were actually confined to the private realm.. Public realm and politics were exclusively for men and were prohibited to women. However, as the Revolution occurred women were inevitably involved in the war. They actively participated in the war, boycotting imported English goods, spinning and weaving the clothes, taking care of the family business in place of their spouse, subscribing money for the army, even fighting as soldiers. Successfully doing these works women were reevaluated not only by men but also by themselves and gained self confidence. Women had also perceived that private and public realms were not separate, but related ones, and that their roles in private areas were pivotal to the public welfare. Thus, women gained social identities and self-esteem via the Revolution. These changes in women’s consciousness during the Revolution further developed into their elevated interests in politics after the Revolution. In conclusion, American Revolution awakened women’s consciousness and served to change their traditional way of life. The Revolution opened a door for women to a new world. While participating in the Revolution, women witnessed and experienced a new world. The Revolution was a momentum for women to advance into the public realm which had been dominated by men. Via these changes of women’s image and consciousness, the Revolution contributed to the advancement of women’s status.

체성의 또 다른 딜레마 -제국주의적 본성의 자유로운 아메리카인-

허현 한국서양사학회 2024 西洋史論 Vol.- No.160

미국적 정체성에 관한 딜레마 중 하나는 반(反)식민주의 투쟁으로서 미국 혁명에도 불구하고 미공화국 초기부터 제국주의적 정체성이 확연하게 드러난다는 사실이다. 하지만 미국의 제국주의적 정체성이 혁명 이후 갑작스럽게 형성되어 등장한다는 가정은 비(非)역사적일 수밖에 없다는 점에서 미국 혁명의 본질에 대한 전통적해석은 재고될 여지가 있다. 사실 식민지 건설 초기부터 북미영국식민지의 백인 정착민들은 스스로를 대영제국의 주권자로서 간주하며 원주민들의 추방과 학살에 토대를 둔 영토적 팽창을 민주주의적 평등과 자치의 필수적 요소로서 요구하였고 따라서 이들에게 자유와 제국주의는 결코 모순되는 개념이 아니었다. 정착민들은 제국에 반대하는 입장에서 자치권을 요구하거나 제국의 합법성을 부정했던 것이 아니었으며 오히려 제국을 공화주의적 자유와 인민의 동의라는 이념에 부합하는 것으로서 바라보았다. 게다가 북미영국식민지들은 모두 직⋅간접적으로 노예제에 의존하면서 사회적⋅ 경제적 토대를 구축해 이미 노예제의 제국으로서 성격을 확연하게 드러내었다. 노예제는 식민지에서 엄청난 수의 비(非)자립적 빈민들을 노예화하여 오직 자립적유산계급에게만 정치적 권력을 허락함으로써 공화주의적 자유의 실현을 가능하게만들었다. 한편 보편적 자연권 개념으로만 이해되는 정착민들의 자연권 개념도 노예제와 모순되는 것이 아닌 제국주의적 뿌리를 가진 것으로 이것은 정착민들이 영제국의 동등한 일원으로서 신세계의 영토로 자유로이 이주하여 그들 자신만의 정치적 권위와 재산권, 국가 및 자유를 수립할 수 있는 정치적 권리를 의미하였다. 식민지 정착민들이 이러한 자유와 자연권을 부정당했을 때 남은 선택은 결국 독립을 위한 혁명이었다. 애국파는 노예제 메타포에 기초하여 혁명을 정당화하였고 대영제국의 앞잡이이자 동맹세력으로서 인디언과 흑인들에 대한 인종주의적 억압과학살을 자행하며 백색 국가의 탄생을 예고하였다. 혁명 후 서부 식민화에 몰두했던 정착민들과 토지 투기꾼들, 그리고 노예소유주들은 억눌려 있던 에너지를 발산시킬 수 있었다. 혁명 속에서 탄생한 것은 아메리카의 자유가 아니라 아메리카제국, 즉 인민주권에 기초한 정착민 식민제국이었다. 미국적 정체성은 그 역사의 출발부터 자유와 평등의 이념에 토대를 두고 있던 것 이상으로 훨씬 더 ‘제국주의적’ 이었던 것이다 Another dilemma regarding American identity is that in spite of the American Revolution as an anti-colonial struggle for universal freedom and equality, an imperialist identity was quite evident in post-revolutionary America. Therefore, the traditional interpretation of the nature of the American Revolution is need to be reconsidered. As settlers in the British North America saw themselves as sovereign subjects of the British Empire and demanded territorial expansion based on the expulsion and genocide of indigenous peoples as an essential component of democratic equality and self-government from the earliest days of colonization, so freedom and imperialism were not contradictory for them. The settlers were not demanding autonomy in opposition to empire, but as citizens of the British Empire, and they were not rejecting the legitimacy of empire as a political form, but rather viewing it as consistent with the republican freedom and the consent of the governed. Moreover, all thirteen colonies were already characterized as the empire of slavery, as they had built their social and economic foundations on slavery. Slavery made republican freedom possible, for by eliminating the great bulk of the dependent poor from the political nation, it left the public area to men of propertied independence. Also, the American concept of natural rights also had imperialist roots that did not contradict slavery. The settlers’ concept of natural rights basically meant the political right of settlers to freely migrate to the New World as equal members of the British Empire and establish their own political authority, property rights, nation, and freedom. When the settlers were denied them, their choice was separation from the British Empire and revolution to achieve it. For this reason, the revolutionary ideology of the patriots effectively justified the revolution based on slavery metaphor and encouraged the racist oppression and genocide of Indians and blacks as a proxies of the British in the name of freedom, heralding the birth of a white nation. After the Revolution, the new American republic was able to unleash the pent-up energy of colonizing settlers, land speculators, and slaveholders. It is American empire, or a settler colonial empire based on popular sovereignty, not American freedom, to be born in revolution. American identity was far more “imperialistic” than it was founded on the idea of freedom and equality from the start.

또 다른 미국 예외주의?:조이스 애플비(Joyce Appleby)의 자본주의, 노예제, 그리고 미국혁명

허현 한국미국사학회 2017 미국사연구 Vol.46 No.-

Joyce Appleby, who died on December 23, 2016 at the age of 87, has been recognized as a distinguished historian and author on American Revolution and capitalism, arguing that ideas about capitalism and liberty were fundamental in shaping the identity of early Americans and that they constructed a new social order based on those ideas. Appleby organized her ideas in books like “Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s” (1984) and “Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination” (1992), and attempted to offers a sweeping new history of capitalism, from its origins in the trading empires of the late Middle Ages all the way through to the Great Crisis of 2008, in “The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism” (2010). While it is easy to understand that Appleby, as a historian of capitalism, had tried to focus on the historical, economic, and structural analysis of American capitalism, she actually had concentrated on examining and shedding new light on the revolutionary culture and epoch-making role of capitalism, paying special attention to the cultural aspects like the change of one’s way of thinking and patterns of behavior. In doing so, Appleby has performed the grander project of redefining the historical origin of American republic and the American identity, based on the capitalistic ideas and convictions. A history of ‘Appleby’s capitalism,’ as another American exceptionalism, is that of “a free and equal people” as an agent of change and innovation and the story of capitalism of democratic and liberal nature. According to Appleby, therefore, the early Americans embraced capitalism as their salvation, an alternative to empire and aristocracy. In this respect, it is not surprising that Appleby is at the pains of turning her back on the capitalist history of slavery as an extreme exploitation system of labor. As long as Appleby regards capitalism mainly as a sort of culture or cultural system, rather than as a political economy, as a power relation, or as class relationships, however, a history of ‘Apple’s capitalism’ remains just as a unfinished story of American capitalism. Appleby’s story of American capitalism is needed to be written more with the story of the place of modern slavery in the history of capitalism, with the story of democratic and at the same time anticapitalistic tradition, and with the “vexed” relationship between the rise of capitalism and the commodification of human beings. 2016년 12월 23일, 87세의 나이로 타계한 미국의 역사가 조이스 애플비(Joyce Appleby)는 미국 독립혁명과 미공화국 초기의 정치사상 및 자본주의의 역사에 관한 대표적인 학자로 평가받고 있다. 애플비는 자유주의와 자본주의 사상 및 신념이 초기 미국인들의 정체성을 형성하는 데 지배적인 역할을 담당했으며 이후 미국인들이 이를 바탕으로 새로운 사회질서를 구축했다고 주장하면서 『자본주의와 새로운 질서: 1790년대의 공화주의적 비전(Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s』”(1984)과 『역사적 상상력 속에서 자유주의와 공화주의(Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination)』”(1992) 등의 저서를 통해 자신의 주장을 체계화했으며 말년에 집필한 『가차없는 혁명: 자본주의의 역사(The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism)』(2010)를 통해 인류의 가장 강력한 발명품 중 하나인 자본주의의 역사에 대한 학문적 집대성을 시도한 바 있다. “자본주의사가(historian of capitalism)”로서 애플비는 미국 자본주의의 기원과 발전 및 형태에 관한 역사적․경제적․구조적 분석에 몰입했던 역사가라기보다는 자본주의적 사상과 질서의 등장으로 인한 인간의 사고방식이나 행동양식의 변화라는 문화적 측면에 주목하면서, 특히 미국 독립혁명과 미공화국 건국 초기에 미국인들의 개인적 혹은 국가적 정체성 형성에 지배적인 영향을 미쳤던 것으로 해석하고 있는 자유주의와 그 문화적 구현체로서 자본주의의 혁명적 문화와 새로운 시대적 역할을 검증하고 재조명하는 데 집중해 왔던 역사가라고 할 수 있다. 애플비는 이를 통해 미공화국의 역사적 기원과 국가적 정체성을 자본주의적 사상과 신념의 토대 위에서 새롭게 재정의해보고자 하는 한층 거대한 프로젝트를 수행해 왔다고 볼 수 있는데 이 과정에서 ‘미국 예외주의(American exceptionalism)’의 역사서술이 자연스럽게 자리 잡았다는 점 또한 부정하기 어렵다. 애플비가 전통에 도전하고 이를 무너뜨리는 변화와 혁신의 주체로서 주목하는 “자유롭고 평등한 인간”은 애플비에게 바로 자본주의적 인간, 자본주의 문화를 기꺼이 수용한 인간으로 정의된다. 애플비가 판단하기에 자유주의와 자본주의는 부정할 수 없는 역사적 연관성을 가지고 있었다. 즉 “풍부한 자원과 유연한 사회적 규범을 가지고 있었던, 오직 미합중국에서만이 자유로운 사회에 대한 예지적 비전에 현실적인 힘을 실어주는 것이 가능”했던 것이다. 애플비 자신이 자본주의적 덕목 내지는 문화로 정의하는 자유와 혁신, 진취성, 창조적 지성, 그리고 진보 등은 바로 애플비가 만들어내는 또 다른 미국 예외주의의 핵심 개념들을 이룬다. 다시 말해, 애플비가 만들어내는 미국 예외주의의 실체는 바로 자본주의인 것이다. 하지만 또 다른 미국 예외주의로서 애플비의 미국 자본주의 해석에 대한 객관성과 정당성을 검토해 볼 때 ‘애플비의 자본주의’가 미국 자본주의의 역사를 제대로 담아내고 있는지에 대한 근본적인 질문이 쉽게 해소되는 것은 아니다. 무엇보다도 애플비에게 자본주의는 ‘문화’ 혹은 ‘문화체계’로서 역사적으로 가장 혁신적이었고 가장 자유에 부합했으며 가장 민주주의적이었고 또 무엇보다도 가장 진보적이었기 때문에 ‘선택’된 문화로서 이해된다. 이런 입장을 가진 애플비에게 노예제는 무척이나 거북스럽고 난감한 주제로 남아있다. 애플비가 ...

초기 미국문학에 끼친 밀턴의 영향

송홍한 한국고전중세르네상스영문학회 2002 중세근세영문학 Vol.12 No.2

Milton had a great influence upon American literature, especially from the colonial period through the early Republican period, He is sometimes called "the American Milton." His epithet "American" sounds persuasive when we take it into account that his republican ideas had greatly contributed to the development of the American Republic, either directly or indirectly. His influence upon American literature worked in various respects, political, religious, literary and so on. All these influences may well be literary, since all these derive from his literature. In other words, his literary influence is not limited to a literary field only but extended to other fields, political, religious, cultural, educational and so on. This essay is focused upon Milton's influence upon the early American literature, though its results may not be literary. Milton's influence upon American literature goes back to the early colonial period of America. Even before his great poems were published, Americans had already showed interest in his prose works. After the publication of his epics, they became more and more interested in his literature, especially Paradise Lost. Early American writers found their poetic models in Milton's poetry, and found their political ideas in his prose works. During the Revolution his influence was directed toward the political world. Adopting Milton's language and imagery in their political writings became popular just like a fashion. Milton was among representative political leaders for Americans who were struggling for the Revolution. Milton the poet, however, had greater influence upon the emotional respect of the Revolution. Hugh Henry Brackenridge, John Trumbull, Joel Barlow, Timothy Dwight, and Philip Freneau are major representative poets influenced by Milton's literature. These poets are sketched in terms of their dependency upon Milton. Though we may have various arguments about "what makes American literature," the American Milton worked as one influence, as John T. Shawcross admits.

미국의 독립운동사 서술 경향과 특징 - “장기적” 미국 혁명과 “소외된” 건국세력을 찾아서 -

許炫(Hur, Hyun) 역사교육연구회 2020 역사교육 Vol.156 No.-

This work examines the historiographical trends and challenges of the American Revolution. Although the standard narrative that puts the “Founding Fathers” at the head of an all-embracing, consensual movement has still dominated the historical writings of the American Revolution, alternative histories of the founding period have both multiplied and diversified. The conflicted nature of the founding years is reflected in the historiography of the American Revolution, which looks increasingly like a series of debates. Despite the overwhelming popularity of books about the Founding Fathers, therefore, the vast majority of academic historians studying the Revolutionary era now focus not on them but on “marginalized” founders such as Native Americans, African Americans, women of all races and ranks, and nonelite whites. In doing so, they have opened up a whole new series of debates. Taken together, new scholarship makes it clear that historians cannot even reach a consensus about the fundamental nature of the American Revolution. Nonetheless, there is still an uncritical defense of the finite, never-changing history of the American Revolution. Without the complete deconstruction of it as a “founding myth,” it is meaningless to look for the “long” Revolution as an unfinished human story.

미국혁명의 폭력적인 기원: 호손의 「내 친척, 몰리노 소령」을 중심으로

김은형 한국아메리카학회 2011 美國學論集 Vol.43 No.3

On its surface, the narrative of "My Kinsman Major Molineux" by Hawthorne seems to glorify the Holy History of the American Revolution and the American myth of self-made success, both of which began to be touted as official ideologies of the United States in the 19th century. For example, the popular protest against the British king`s usurpation of the power to appoint colonial governors seems to serve as a democratic origin of the American Revolution. In addition, Robin, the protagonist of the story, appears to be a shrewd youth who can pave the way to a promising future like Benjamin Franklin, the paragon of the self-made man. Beneath the narrative surface, however, the narrator deviously begins to illuminate the violence and mobocracy inherent in the origin of the American Revolution. The crowds attending the protest are temporarily united by meaningless laughter and discordant commotion, completely lacking rationality. More ironically, the seemingly democratic resistance turns out to be no other than organized mob violence, tarring and feathering Major Molineux-the tyranny of the majority over an individual. Furthermore, Robin, who surprisingly proves to be violent, domineering, and not very shrewd, falls silent after witnessing his kinsman`s tremendous disgrace. Dispossessed and disinherited, he simply wishes to return home. The optimistic vision of self-made success, buttressed by Ralph Waldo Emerson`s self-reliance and Thomas Jefferson`s independence, is thus debunked and overwhelms him because this rural youth barely 18 years old is not yet ready for the complex political and commercial tricks that constitute entrepreneurial manhood-adult duplicity, aggression and manipulation-necessary for ruthless success in the urban market. By thus shattering confidence in both the righteousness of the American Revolution and the possibility of self-made success-i.e., by betraying the violent origin of the American Revolution- "My Kinsman Major Molineux" eventually helps readers to understand the reality of the nineteenth-century America: dislocations and disruptions by the emerging market economy and mass democracy. Simultaneously, however, Hawthorne`s explicit condemnation of the Revolutionary mob and excessive idealization of the Loyalist Major Molineux in this short story implies his fundamental fear of any form of social change that inevitably involves violence, the breakdown of social order and bonds, and class conflict. Admittedly, such fear contributes to the effective illumination of historical ironies such as the violent origin of the American Revolution. Nevertheless, Hawthorne`s extremely conservative imagination would lead to his limitations as a writer, as revealed by his later works.

미국혁명기 아일랜드 의회독립의 분기?

김철기 한국서양사학회 2023 西洋史論 Vol.- No.158

이 글은 아일랜드 의회독립 운동의 과정과 결과를 미국혁명과의 관계에서 살펴본다. 구체적으로는 아일랜드가 아메리카와 영향을 주고받으며 유사한 출발점 만들어 갔지만 미국혁명의 분리독립과 다른 의회독립으로 귀결된 원인을 설명하고자한다. 아일랜드를 영국 의회법에 구속시킨 1720년 아일랜드 선언법은 1766년 아메리카 선언법에 대한 갈등 이후 아일랜드에서 새롭게 주목받게 되었다. 아일랜드와아메리카의 다른 선언법은 혼동되고 동일시되며 비판을 받았고, 그러한 아메리카와의 공통된 대의는 1780년에 등장한 아일랜드 의회독립 운동에서 자리잡게 되었다. 아일랜드인들은 아메리카인들처럼 의회의 대표체계를 재고하며 권리와 자유의 언어로 의회독립을 요구했고, 결국 1782년에 선언법을 폐지하며 의회독립은 달성되었다. 그러나 그것은 이듬해 아메리카의 분리독립과 다른 결과였다. 두 나라의 차이를 만들어낸 가장 결정적 변수는 저항 운동의 성격보다는 영국 왕 조지 3 세의 행위에 있었다. 아메리카인과 아일랜드인 모두 왕에게 충성하면서 영국의회의 권위를 비판하고 영제국의 통치에 저항하려고 했다. 그런데 조지 3세는 아메리카인의 저항만 반란으로 규정했고, 그 결과 아메리카 식민지만 분리독립의 길을걷게 되었다. 아일랜드는 아메리카처럼 분리독립의 길로 갈 동기가 비교적 부족했던 것이다. 왕과 의회가 통치하는 영제국의 정치 구조에서 본다면 미국혁명이 아일랜드 의회독립의 경로에서 벗어난 사건이었다. The purpose of this article is to examine the process and resolution of Ireland’s Parliamentary independence movement in comparative terms of the American Revolution. Specifically, it explains a similar ground in which how Irish and American resistances influenced and shaped each other, and the divergent results that the Irish case ended up being Parliamentary independence while the American case secured its separation from the British empire. The Declaratory Act of 1720, which had bound Ireland to British Parliamentary acts, was brought into new light due to the dispute over the American Declaratory Act of 1766. The different Irish and American Declaratory Acts were confused and criticized, whereby the common cause between America and Ireland was established in the emergent Irish Parliamentary independence movement. Like Americans, the Irish did rethink their Parliamentary representative system and sought to reform it by using the language of liberty and right. In the end, Ireland’s Parliamentary independence was achieved in 1782 particularly by repealing its Declaratory Act of 1720. That was different, however, from the resolution of the American Revolution 1783 in the following year. The king George III’s different actions were the most decisive variable that explain the difference. Both Americans in the early years of the Revolution and the Irish, though both denying British Parliamentary sovereignty, were reluctant to criticize or blame their king. Yet George III declared not Ireland but America in a state of rebellion; therefore, only Americans turned into separatists, whom the Irish did not necessarily have to be. Therefore, in the structural sense of the British empire that the King and Parliament ruled, the American Revolution diverged from the path on which Ireland’s Parliamentary Independence movement was developing.

역사교육과 인권: 아메리카혁명에서의 인권

이병련 역사학연구회 2008 사총 Vol.66 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to emphasize the human rights, universal rights of men, in the history education. In the history education of South Korea, it seems that human rights issues are little considered, and therefore it should be improved. To help teachers and students learning history, this paper introduces how human rights issues are considered in textbooks and teaching materials of history in the United States and Germany. The Virginia Bill of Rights and the United States Declaration of Independence which were declared during the American Revolution enlightened the beginning of a new era in the world history. Its unique characteristic was that the origin and validity of Human Rights are not deduced from the government, but from natural rights, the inherent and unalienable rights of men. At the same time, it became the basis of government and public order. Americans, however, did not pursued the final goal of essential ideas of these declarations. Few people desired to expand the principle of human rights to women, black slaves, and Native Americans. This denial of women as political subject, thereby refusing the possibility that women can benefit from the Declaration of Human Rights, was argued in various discussions. Especially, in the Southern colonies which was based on the slavery-based plantation economy, the revolution and declarations did not bring freedom to slaves but the heyday of slavery after the revolution. The history of expansion to the West of North America coincides with the deprivation of rights, deportation, and extermination of Native Americans. And the racial prejudice that Native Americans are primitive men, barbarians is still remains in the American history textbooks.