The Ripple Effects of American Independence
The United States and the United Kingdom are today great partners on
a divided world stage. Ironically, we may argue that this is a
relationship which in its worst straits would help to plant the seeds for a
reciprocating progressiveness that would leap back and forth across the
Atlantic through the coming century. Bred in the thick of British
colonialism, the United States would surface into existence with an
ingrained nod to monarchical elitism and a full-fledged thrust toward
constitutional democracy. The transition would suggest a new caveat to the
people, with the expectations of political involvement and activism
promoting suitable elected representation. In the United Kingdom, the rule
of the British Crown and a feudalist system with highly unequal
socioeconomic propensities, helped to maintain a culture of political
ignorance amongst the publics while assuring leadership, authority and
wealth to those who had inherited it. The events unfolding in the United
States, though the point may well be debated in a historiographical
discourse, may to a certain perspective be seen as the catalyst to the
realization in Europe of political ideals theretofore only available in
philosophical rhetoric. Thus, the impact of their actualization in the
burgeoning United States would send a signal soon heeded by the French.
And as the French Revolution would unfold into the era of Napoleonic
expansionism, soon much of Europe would fall under the pale of
constitutional democracy. The discussion here demonstrates that in the
immediacy with which the French Revolution would succeed the American
Revolution, the commonality of their respective aspirations toward
constitutionality and their common struggles to define a balance between
democratic governance and a centralization of authority descendent from
monarchical principles, we can make the observation that France would
represent a first and most crucial lynchpin in directing the external
resistance to feudalism of America’s revolution to the internal needs in a
drastically unequal Europe.
Certainly, the American Revolution was by explicit intent championed
as a break from the philosophical repugnance of European feudalism, and
most directly, British colonialism. Rejecting monarchy, the United States
had presumed to stand in principled opposition to the undemocratic impulses
which had instigated its founding. But the divide between the ideals of
its British background and its progressive principles was immediately party
to the structure of its originating government. Indeed, “the evolution of
America’s political parties was to a great extent the outgrowth of the
British political system, which in an oversimplified analysis, can be said
to have been divided into conservatives, who tended to support the monarchy
and the power of the King, and liberals, who sought to restrain royal
prerogatives and enhance the legitimacy of Parliament as an alternate power
source.” (Sage, 1) This is a matter of its emergent identity which we will
subject to discussion hereafter. However, we can see that in its vying for
independence, the United States would still demonstrate in some ways its
immediate cultural relationship to Europe while explicitly seeking an
evolution in the terms surrounding this culture.
America’s fight for independence would emerge quite naturally out of
the needs of its people to establish a form of governance, of economy and
of society reflective of the demands created by the path of development of
the colonies. Moreover, this need would be increasingly revealed in the
sentiments of progressive thinkers and public authorities throughout the
European and American intellectual communities who were increasingly
beginning to think according to an ethical standard concerning the
treatment of all men. The late 18th and early to mid-19th century would be
distinguished in the history of man as a period given over to revelations
regarding the rights of man, resolutions concerning the proper governing of
societies and rumblings of equality in parts of the world perpetually-to
that point-understood in terms of sharp divisions across class, ethnicity
and religion. Western Europe would largely be the seat of conception for
the philosophical and discursive advancement of this period, with the
intellectual centers of urban France and Germany serving as forum for the
elevation of man as an individual and as part of a collective brotherhood.
During a historical period which would come to be seen as the
Enlightenment, various subjugated groups seized the emergent opportunity to
demand the rights accorded them by the supreme creator. Fundamental
amongst the principles of enlightenment would be the set of considerations
put forth by a man, ironically, from the seat of America’s subjugation.
In his consideration on the balance between the presence of central
leadership and the will of the individual, British political philosopher
John Locke offers an evaluation of power which draws its inspiration from
the natural law of reason.
In an analogy upon which we may base a thorough discourse on this
predilection, Locke describes a circumstance which he contends is
indicative of the inalienable capacity of each man toward choice,
regardless of the presence or absence of an intervening authority. He
remarks that “a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for
having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me
but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my
preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present
force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own
defence” (Locke, Section 19). Here is the truest manifestation of Locke’s
promise that reason will ultimately dictate a power structure. Even as the
law is a most imposing presence once one has entered into the confines of
the social contract at the center of Locke’s premise, it is a mere shadow
of a consideration in the context described above. When threatened, and if
given the opportunity, each man will have the power to defend himself.
Executor of his own justice, in this scenario, a man is shown to make the
active decision to exit the social contract. Where law and reason under
traditional circumstances suggest that such rationality will be shared
amongst all interactants within the physical confines of the social
contract, when such can be evidently determined as to not be a mutual
quality of intersecting parties-as with Locke’s thief hypothetical-then
one’s obligation to the social contract is considerably diminished.
Thus, to the Americans, who saw that the monarchy which governed and
exploited them from afar was irrationally suited for their purposes,
Locke’s ideology is a visible presence in key revolutionary American
writings. Indeed, America’s most important contribution to the world
community was both actual amd philosophical. Essentially, its actionable
revolution demonstrated that the forces of monarchy could be dismantled,
that a balance of democracy could be achieved and that the ideals of the
rights of man were something more than mere rhetoric. Many of the most
important pieces of literature contributing to the revolution would be
fundamental in the formulation of events the world over during the 19th
century. Thomas Paine’s 1776 pamphlet Common Sense remains the most famous
and representative of such literature. And indeed, the sentiment here
delivered helps to explain how the patriots prevailed in conflict with the
mighty British military, offering a template to the numerous independence
movements which would be spurred in the wake of America’s birth.
Naturally, most prevalent among these would be France, whose tumultuous
transition from feudalism to democracy would see it through myriad stages
while offering a lighted path to so many other nations in Europe. .
In a text designed to produce a sense of revolutionary outrage, Paine
crafts a philosophical treatise on appropriate governance designed to
counter that which had very organically emerged in the colonies with the
increasingly archaic nature of monarchy such as that imposed upon the
colonists by the British. In his pamphlet, Paine openly calls for and
advocates armed resistance as a means to the defense of the economic and
governmental systems developing separate from the British Crown. He
characterizes the distinction between kingship and the evolving colonial
democracy as being irreconcilable, contending that “men of all ranks have
embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various
designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed.
Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest.” (Paine, 82) Couched in
Paine’s sense of righteous indignation, the text largely drives toward this
point by making the concerted argument that the colonists can tolerate the
imposition of kingship so far as they can tolerate the sacrifice of the
freedoms which had become inherently associated to persistence in the
nascent America. This would be the undercurrent that would sweep the
colonists into vehement support for the cause of independence, drawing a
core philosophical connection between the anticipated form of government
and the emotional disposition of those with the means to achieve it. And
as this discussion shows, those means would be shown to be within the reach
of dramatically outsized forces such as the American colonists, encouraging
soon after the far more robustly numbered French peasantry to cast aside
the shackles of oppression.
In this encouragement, American would help to touch off something
perhaps all the more miraculous given the proximity to its oppression to
the European peasantry at large. First in the doctrines which would be
formulated in the wake of French independence and secondly in the way that
Napoleon Bonaparte would begin the spread of such doctrines to a continent
driven by inequality, America’s revolution could be said to have been the
opening round in the deconstruction of colonialism and feudalism throughout
Europe and thus, the world.
Drafted in the image of the American Declaration of Independence,
though perhaps more ambitious and sweeping even in its trajectories, the
Declaration of the Rights of Men would dictate a universal principle
arguing that all men are born equal and that any distinctions made between
men according to the social conditions must be terms agreed upon by all
parties. The constitutional document underscoring the spread of liberal
ideology throughout Europe, it would be taken up by Bonaparte in an active
dispensation of the philosophy in a context where such was sorely needed as
a foundation upon which to build rapid change.
In order for us to examine how successfully somebody such as Napoleon
Bonaparte was able to achieve French national objectives, this is to
indicate, we must first understand the nature of French objectives at this
moment in history. This is a distinctly difficult moment in French history
to characterize according to unified objectives. The revolutionary period
which gave prelude to Napoleon’s rise must, in fact, be understood in terms
of the general disarray which consumed France in the political, social and
economic contexts. 1789 is generally seen as the touchstone of the
revolutionary era, with its chronological proximity to the recent American
war for independence and its attendant constitutional doctrine playing a
large part in inspiring this response to general discontent. The rigid
class system which divided France into three distinctly unequal segments of
nobility, clergy and peasantry-within which there were yet innumerable
philosophical perspectives on how best to treat a France that was
increasingly populated, gradually urbanizing and grossly inefficient as
demonstrated by the poor economic conditions of so many-had doomed old
France to inevitable decline. In fact, at this juncture, “when the King
called for an Estates-General in 1789, the social tensions plaguing the old
regime emerged as a central issue of the Revolution.” (CHNM, 1) It was
apparent that discontent with feudalism, catapulted by the revelations of
the Enlightenment regarding natural rights, had reached a breaking point in
France that would spill over into a decade of absolutely reckless, inchoate
factionalism. Groups spanning the spectrum from Royalist to radical
leftist (typically in the Jacobin party which would include Napoleon) would
vie for authority, with idealism and political agenda playing equal parts
in motivating individuals to align one way or another. And with the events
in the United States proving ultimately permanent in dispatching of the
unwanted imposition of democracy, there was now evidence for the first time
since the decline of ancient Rome that a democratically governed republic
could be conceived and formulated.
Such is to assert that French objectives in this time are somewhat
unclear except to say with great certainty that change was desired and that
circumstances and influences had rendered change inevitable. Given the
carnage of the French Revolution, of which the guillotine is the most
notoriously lasting symbol, it would become greatly obscured that in fact
the primary objective of the French Revolution was modeled like America’s
to achieve a greater plurality of representation and a dismantling of the
monarchy-driven feudalist system in France and throughout Europe. Where
the monarchies of the European states claimed various familial connections,
as well as clear connections interest, the revolutionary groups in France
would claim a connection amongst the unnumbered common people of Europe.
Specifically, where destitution surely was a common presence throughout
peasantry, it was not the only disposition to be found amongst those
excluded from political leadership and cultural ascendance. Those who were
educated, skilled and even moneyed would find it impossible to slip the
detainment of hereditary ranking under the system theretofore reigning,
providing a close enough identification of common grievances for all the
excluded classes of Europe. The revolutionaries of France found themselves
at the center of what the European monarchy would rightly view as a threat
to the overarching world order.
This is backdrop into which Napoleon Bonaparte would step. Amidst a
ten year reign of disorder and pandemonium, his efforts would represent one
of the few consistent assurances. The opposition of foreign royals to the
emergence of the revolutionaries to power would take the form of an ongoing
military confrontation, in which the revolutionary army of France would
face off against the royal armies of Prussia and Austria to the constant
and impressive victory of the General, Napoleon. So much was this the case
that he alone would rise from the tumult of the decade to declare himself
de facto leader of all of France. In his own characterization of this
accomplishment, he would claim that “I closed the gulf of anarchy and
brought order out of chaos. I rewarded merit regardless of birth or wealth,
wherever I found it. I abolished feudalism and restored equality to all
regardless of religion and before the law. I fought the decrepit monarchies
of the Old Regime because the alternative was the destruction of all this.
I purified the Revolution.” (Chew, 1) If we may take anything as a mission
statement or a proclamation of intent for Napoleon’s ongoing militancy
hereafter, this may serve as one with an inbuilt claim to justification.
All ethical consideration completely aside, it would certainly be difficult
to determine whether the indiscriminate bloodshed of the revolutionary
period would be worse than the massive but state-sponsored bloodshed of the
Napoleonic Wars. Less difficult to approximate however is the claim
implied here by Napoleon, that it would be his effort that would make the
aims of the revolution feasible. In the climate of terror and mob rule
which precipitated Napoleon’s lone ascent to authority, the elimination of
feudalism was anything but certain. Only the elimination of order had
there succeeded. (CHNM, 1)
Therefore, we must first recognize that the wars which Napoleon
engaged on the behalf of the revolutionary would be the first to endorse an
as yet unachieved sense of constitutional order based upon the populist
vision for entitlement to mobility and property ownership. Most evident of
his accomplishments would be the expansion of French borders and the
vanquishing of historic enemies of the French popular movement during this
time, but no less than an equal accomplishment would be his centrality in
therefore endorsing state-sponsorship of a system contrary to the
restrictions of feudalism. A reflection on Napoleon’s role as a party to
the revolution and his ultimate exploitation of this role to step up to a
seat of uncontested rule illustrates his importance in galvanizing this
popular movement with meaningful military leadership. Amidst the chaos and
indiscriminate bloodshed which would dominate the ten years from 1789 and
1799, Napoleon would ascend to the rank of general, a position which had
long demanded-which it would not achieve until its desertion of the Royal
party-a suitable and effective strategist. To that juncture, and under the
typically critically lambasted family Bourbon Kings, in whose line Louis
XVI ruled, France remained the inferior of all its closest continental
competitors. As Wiegely’s text observes, “the French Army of the mid-
eighteen century could not match the skills of the Prussians or the
British, and probably fell short of the battlefield toughness and
resilience of the Russians and Austrians as well.” (Weigley, 256) This
would, as we have discussed, prefigure the success of revolutionary forces
in bringing about the dismantling of the monarchical military, with
America’s template for success helping to elucidate this military
vulnerability. It also reveals here a very clear distinction between the
imperial rule which preceded Bonaparte and his own brand. Namely, the
military force previously constituting France’s armed corps would be
demonstrably weaker than those of its neighbors at a juncture when the
retraction of colonial expansion was driving an interest in consolidation
by European powers. This is to note that its military disinclination,
comparably speaking, during the declining reign of Louis XVI would place it
at a point of susceptibility during a time when such could segue easily
into the outright loss of sovereignty to foreign dominance. The vocal
objection to the allowance of this vulnerability would be a political
identifier for the position held by revolutionaries, though as a cause for
subversive revolutionary action it would naturally pale in comparison to
such motives as devastating poverty and an absence of political
opportunity. In addition to the chaos this would allow within the French
cities where fervor was at its highest pitch, this military meagerness
would present France as ripe for the picking by many of its neighbors.
Thus, Napoleon would be faced with a conflict of interest in the
formulation of an order founded on the democratic principles of the
Declaration but cognizant of the prevailing power structure in European
continental affairs. In order to help address the balances which would
here be achieved, we can again see that the discourse which was first acted
out in the United States would precipitate the approach taken by those such
as Bonaparte. Namely, this is evident in the rancorous debate that would
persist at the Constitutional Convention.
In fact, the Constitutional Convention and all ensuing conflict over
the conceptualization of the burgeoning United States would reflect the
difficulties in reconciling traditional forms of socioeconomic hierarchy
and governmental authoritarianism with emergent conceptions of natural
rights and human equality. The sometimes disparate forces of capitalism
and democracy would be molded into a practicable form of governance with
the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In many ways however, as well-
illustrated by the leanings of the monumentally influential The Federalist
Papers, the Constitution would ultimately be conceived with a distinctive
bias toward the retention of a hierarchical society and a governmental
power there-from elected. Such liberal progressives as Thomas Jefferson
would be consulted in smaller quotient than would be staunch federalists
during the process of conception.
As James Madison argues as one speaker under the shared nom de plume,
Publius, in commenting on groups rising in protest of the government that
“the friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for
their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to this
dangerous vice.” (Rossiter, 71) Identifying popular objection to policy or
ideology as a threat to the solidarity of the newly formulating nation,
Madison represents well here the over-arching impetus of The Federalist
Papers. These are designed to accord the government with a protection of
power. In Thomas Jefferson’s writings, we find outright hostility toward
this extrapolation of government powers. More than that, later in his
life, it seems apparent that he is resistant to the association established
between the ‘principles’ stated in The Declaration of Independence and
those found in the Constitution. Where the latter is endorsed by the
Federalists as a watershed doctrine of civilization’s history, Jefferson
says of the former, “neither aiming at originality of principle or
sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular or previous writing, it was
intended to be an expression of the American mind.” (Mansfield, 12)
Jefferson’s assertion of a wholly organic process suggests that the
philosophy found in the Declaration was perhaps endorsed by the intensity
of British tyranny or by the sense of something significant coming into
being on a state level. In either respect, the core principle found in his
work is that the rising of individual liberties and of self-determination
were inexorable. But this would seem to have subsided in the ensuing years
during which the Federalist Papers would be published, with Jefferson’s
conception of the colonies as separate but partnered ultimately subsiding
to political forces less intent upon individual rights outside of a
protection of the government’s sovereignty. Jefferson, by contrast, speaks
early on the subject of states’ rights.
In Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, in fact, he makes a note
of stating in the very crucially worded jab at Great Britain that “these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”
(Mansfield, 11) Unquestionably, Jefferson would by principle make the case
that America’s states are far from Free and Independent under the
conditions of the Constitution. As Publius would express, this time
through the channel of Alexander Hamilton, there was to be viewed a grave
danger to America’s principle of a strong federal government in the
granting of latitude for state autonomy. Of the interacting states,
Hamilton would remark, “to presume a want of motives for such contests as
an argument against their existence would be to forget that men are
ambitious, vindictive and rapacious.” (Rossiter, 48) His contention would
be that the foul and contemptible nature of the common man would pose a
threat to the stability of any sovereign state if not kept in check by a
central government inherently empowered to apply administrative authority
to all states within its union.
This not only differs from Jefferson’s understanding of free
government as being a representation of the people, or at least of the
peoples’ interests, but it also distinguishes itself philosophically from
his view of man. Without question, the Federalist view would not shine a
favorable light on the hoi polloi, holding this to be a rung of society not
to be given the opportunity to prove itself aggressive and sociopathic in
the interests of self-advancement. Jefferson did not share this view,
instead paying interest to each man’s equal right to liberty and his
potential to pursue infinite ends with that liberty. Jefferson appears to
view the United States as a progressive break from the monarchical
imbalance of European society, where the Federalists seemed determined to
channel this monarchical society into what was a fundamentally more
As we have noted, the revolution was a genuine threat to the
leadership core in all of Europe, where feudalism had long represented a
common plight for the peasantry of the whole continent. The debates which
ensued in the Continental Convention showed that there could genuinely be a
break from these old forms of government that could emerge out of the
combination of vigorous armed confrontation and subsequent compromise of
philosophical forms. This was also a pretext for the economic discontent
which sparked revolt in France and which festered throughout the European
cities and countryside. The success of a French revolution threatened the
stability of other European monarchies, with a stated objective of the
revolution being the recognition of natural liberties and property rights
through the states of the European continent.
As a leader of both a majority segment in this movement and,
ultimately first ruler, and after 1805, emperor of France, Napoleon
markedly associated himself with many of the principles of the revolution
in both his domination of state and his ambitions beyond French borders.
In his uncompromisingly ruthless assertion of French authority over his
neighbors, Napoleon actively “argued that he was building a federation of
free peoples in a Europe united under a liberal government.” (Chew, 1)
This was a premise which descended from the revolutionary notion that
constitutionality would dictate a government designed for the people.
(Chew, 1) By no means a democratic order, Napoleon’s principal notion for
the governance of state was one informed by the principles of liberal
capitalism, and represented the first meaningful break in European
imperialism from the dynastic monarchies which had reigned since the
primacy of the Holy Roman Empire. The secularism and liberalism which were
paired in Napoleon’s perspective would inform the necessity of his warfare.
Certainly, the ebb and flow of information, transportation and trade
throughout Europe ensured that no state could profess to an isolated
revolution in economic governance. “Although self-sufficiency or local
exchange remained the preponderant way of economic life, these incursions
of capitalism began drawing everyone into some form of regional and even
international exchange.” (Rank, 1) Thus, the economic mobility of the
people of France would inherently mean nothing short of this same desire,
demand and achievement of the peasant classes throughout Europe.
Napoleon’s vanquishing of so many of these states in military confrontation
both leading into and occupying the first half of his rule would
demonstrate an active pursuit of this reorganization of the continent, not
specifically under French control but under the influence of the French
Thus, it would be Napoleon’s most lasting of accomplishments to
engage in the reinforcement of a French constitutional movement throughout
Europe. Even as he would restore a monarchy to the French state by placing
himself in the imperial seat, Napoleon would nonetheless pursue a
constitutional state with a balance toward civil order. And though the
expansion of French borders would demonstrate a partial realization of
French national objectives for the increase of occupied territory, its
retraction would come with a relative quickness. More important and
lasting would be the genuine achievement of a national objective which
Napoleon did stress as important. Specifically, the expansion of French
borders would occur dually with the composition of the Napoleonic Code,
upon which all peoples of Europe were to be governed. Accordingly,
Napoleon himself is observed to have described “the code as a
“revolutionary project” which spurred the development of bourgeois society
in Germany by expanding the right to own property and breaking the back of
feudalism.” (Wikipedia, 1) With each of his military victories, Napoleon
would continue the process of exporting both philosophical revolution and
This is to say of the revolution’s key objectives in France, which we
might rightfully identify as the objectives of the French nation as a
whole, would be the instigation of feudalism’s decline throughout the
continent, actively reflecting America’s contribution to Europe and to this
world. Certainly, a cursory glance around Europe at this time of post-
Enlightenment will suggest that this system of restrictive noble ownership
of lands, of guild-controlled labor hierarchies and generally of an
enforced distinction of classes was being scrutinized and abandoned in
exchange for emergent notions of a free market economy. Capitalism was
essentially supplanting feudalism, inducing a system no less prone to
inequality but distinguished by its receptiveness to economic mobility.
For American and French revolutionaries, this would be a demonstrable leap
forward for all parts of the world. Historians must generally speak of
this time as the nexus point where the American and French Revolution
segued into the Napoleonic wars across the transition into the 19th century
as foretelling the industrial revolution and the popular spread of
Center for History and New Media (CHNM). (2005). Monarchy Embattled.
George Mason University. Online at
Chew, Robin. (2004). Napoleon I: Emperor of the French. Lucid Caf?.
Online at http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95aug/napoleon.html.
Locke, John. (2003). Two Treatise of Government, 14th. ed. Cambridge
Mansfield, Harvey C. (1979). Selected Writings Jefferson. Harlan
Paine, Thomas. (1776). Common Sense. Penguin Classics.
Rank, J. (2007). The Napoleonic Code. Law Library: American Law and
Legal Information. Online at http://law.jrank.org/pages/8702/Napoleonic-
Rossiter, Clinton. (1961). The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics.
Sage, Henry. (2005). The Evolution of American Political Parties. Sage
History. Online at
Weigley, Russell F. (2004). The Ages of Battles: The Quest for Decisive
Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo. Indiana University Press.
Wikipedia. (2007). The French Revolution. Wikimedia, Ltd. Inc. Online
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more