Was there ever a chance that the American Revolution would undergo a Jacobin phase?

As in an absolutely radical period that took revolutionary ideals to their logical extreme.

I doubt it: The US revolution was not one based on creating full equality within its population but on preserving rights they felt were being threaten or ones which they think they were denied compared to the inhabitants of the motherland.

To have a jacobin phase, you would probably need leaders who propose a utopian ideal which more then likely would involve things such as freeing the slaves as well as a proto-communist political system.
 
the revolutionaries were pretty ruthless to anyone who dared show any opposition.

I've read that Franklin was an advocate of compromise until his family was threatened if he didn't come around to full blown revolutionary (a bit simplistically stated, but it was a factor).

one of the reasons the revolution succeeded was that those on the fence were cowed into remaining neutral. After the war, the loyalists were pretty much run out of town. It didn't get to the level of the reign of terror, but there was a large element of it. If the revolution had gone a bit better for Britain, more folks might have sided with them, which may have touched off a more bloody situation.
 

Remark

Banned
the revolutionaries were pretty ruthless to anyone who dared show any opposition.

I've read that Franklin was an advocate of compromise until his family was threatened if he didn't come around to full blown revolutionary
.

What about his die-hard loyalist son?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Perhaps during the 1790s. The revolutionaries had divided into two opposing factions, with the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson asserting ideas of nullification and secession, while the Federalists of Hamilton enacted censorship laws and contemplated using military force against their political opponents.
 
Remark,
I may have it wrong. It was a snippet in an obscure article about the abuses the revolutionaries heaped upon the loyalists. I'm sure the reverse would be true if the Brits had gained the upper hand. It's easy to see a bloodier situation with some adjustments. not to the level of the reign of terror, though
 
As in an absolutely radical period that took revolutionary ideals to their logical extreme.

I believe not. The American and French revolution were just too different in pretty much every aspect.

The French revolution happened predominantly in the cities, most notably in Paris.
It was an uprising by the disenfranchised lower classes against an all-ruling elite, notably the King. The elite held pretty much all the strings so their removal automatically meant a power vacuum. The revolution was decided by uprisings rather then battles and there was no real army so whoever controlled the revolutionary guards controlled the power.

The American revolution was predominately fought by organized troops in the countryside. It was a clear-cut affair between local separatists and rulers from overseas. The 'middle management' of town officials mostly sided with the rebels -and if they were not, there were accepted ways to replace them with at least a likeness of legality- so there was never any power vacuum.

This goes to say that there could have been some instances of Jacobin-like purges in some of the bigger cities like Boston or Charleston. There, like in France, a group of radicals could control the local militia to institute a reign of terror -neighbor against neighbor style. However with an organized army in the field, their power would only last as long as it took for a commander like Washington to lead his troops into town and restore order.
 
Top