Some historians have argued that the American Revolution was not revolutionary in nature. Instead of fostering revolutionary change, it maintained continuity. Support, modify, or refute this interpretation, providing specific evidence to justify your answer.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Some historians have argued that the American Revolution was not revolutionary in nature. Instead of fostering revolutionary change, it maintained continuity.

I think that the American Revolution was a genuine revolutionary movement stemmed from the anger and desperation of the American colonists that suffered many grievances from the British government.

The 13 American colonies had to pay heavy taxation such as the Navigation Acts, the Stamp Acts, the Tea Act. The worst part was that Colonists did not have any voice or representation in the English Parliament.

That is why colonists created secret groups such as the Sons of Liberty and people like Samuel Adams united other colonists against the English crown.  

It is true that there were also some particular agendas inside the revolutionary movement, specifically, economic ones. But in essence, for me, it was a true independence movement.

b) he seized power from the directory and appointed himself emperor

happy to

pls mark as brainliest

disease was the number one killer of native peoples. they had had little exposure to the diseases of europe. this led to some villages being almost completely wiped out and some tribes destroyed.