Final answer:
Peter Oliver's description of the "American Rebellion" hints at a perspective that views the events as a mere uprising rather than a sweeping social and political transformation, contrasting with other historians who use the term "Revolution" to denote significant systemic changes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The significance of Peter Oliver's reference to his study as the "Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion" rather than the "Origin and Process of the American Revolution" signifies a unique perspective on the event. The term 'rebellion' implies a resistance against established authority without the complete systemic change implied by the term 'revolution'.
Historians are divided on the nature of the American Revolution, with some seeing it as a colonial struggle for independence, and others viewing it as a radical transformation with significant social and economic reforms, such as the works of Gordon Wood and the Progressive School of Historians.
This division highlights the debate over whether the revolution maintained the status quo or significantly altered colonial society from one of deference and tradition to a more liberal and democratic culture.