I've always considered the American Revolution a textbook example of a bougie revolution, in that a fuedal aristocrat's rule was overthrown by landowning capitalists not of the old fuedal nobility. IIRC Marx said something similar about it.
But last night a friend challenged that idea by pointing out that the fuedal base of society was de facto maintained via slavery, even if de jure there was no longer a king. In their interpretation, the war for independence wasn't actually a revolution, as the old divisions of nobility/serfs were maintained and simply rebranded along racial lines of white/Black, with indigenous peoples being considered almost completely outside the polity, similar to how many Jewish and Roma communities were regarded in Europe.
Thoughts?
Also wasn't sure if this went in history or askchapo
I don't think, at the very least, the American revolution can be seen as a complete bourgeoisie revolution without the civil war and the abolition of slavery. Still, in some aspects that are important for the developing capitalism, slavery was different from serfdom in key ways. Slaves were not given their own patch of land to subsist on, which meant they could be used to feed the growing population of proletarians more effectively, or even have all of their labor dedicated to industrially useful non-food crops like cotton.