I just finished reading a great book titled "1776" by David McCullogh. The book covers the timeframe from the siege of Boston to the battle of Princeton.
I am curious of how the the British view the major personalities of the period (Howe, Washington, etc.), and the perspective taught in English schools.
The book is short enough to be an easy read and long enough to expand on the major engagements and personalities of the period. I consider it a must read for any American interested in the early days of the American revolution.
I thought that 1776 was an excellent book. It presents a very human and interesting portrait of George Washington. Not revisionist or anything, just deeper and more well rounded.
Mike
Well, its very subjective, as you would expect. From a British point of view the US Rebellion is a small part in the history of the Empire. In fact it can be claimed that it spurred on British buisinessmen to expand their horizons somewhat and economically was probably better for the British Empire in the long run. We expanded more into India for example.
As for revolution, well in many ways it was perhaps the 1st US Civil War. Not all the Colonists wanted to seceed from the Crown, the Canadian colonies didnt. Perhaps as many as 50% or more subjects of the Crown in certain States remained loyal.
My counter question would be;
What do Americans get taught, was it a Civil War or are they taught that every Crown subject longed to Rebel?
The revolution was not portrayed as a Civil War. That said, I don't think what was taught mentions the fact that the population was generally divided between loyalists to the Crown and those pushing for independence. Until I read 1776, I did not appreciate how much loyalist sentiment existed in Boston and New York City. Many of the local population evacuated Boston with the English Army, and I don't think popular support waned until Hessian mercenaries and English regulars started pillaging the countryside. At that point support for the rebellion solidified and the war from England's perspective was lost.
Washington was not the best general. Neither was Howe. Where Washington succeeded and Howe failed was in the ability to listen to advice of others. Had Howe listened to Clinton's advice, the outcome of the war may have been different.
As a former "American History" teacher, years ago, the curriculum was of simple facts. There were those who wanted to "rebel" and those who wanted to remain loyal. Most colonists wanted to remain loyal. :eek1: Yet, when faced with self-governance they surely embraced it? That is easy enough by looking at who repatriated themselves to England after the Declaration of Independence and after the formation of the new American government through the Constitution?
I am not sure that this forum is the proper one to dispute your assertion as to it being a civil war in America. I'll take rebellion against an Imperial power who wanted to fund it's war waged against another sovereign power [France in the form of the French and Indian wars] by imposing taxes against the colonials? England did reject the counter proposal for funding the war?
Hmmm ... I guess we all can learn the perspective of, and from, :chin: each other?
And, to build on what Herr Schacht put forward, Washington was not the best of Generals. He lost more battles than he won. But, he kept the colonial army together and won the battles that needed to be won? :rolleyes:
What's the general view on the significance of the French involvement ? An American friend of mine who knows far more about the subject than I is of the firm opinion that if not for the French involvement the war would have been lost, but comments that this aspect is not widely taught or acknowledged in the US.
I don't have an opinion one way or another (not having read enough on the subject), just curious what people think.
Vulture
I don't believe the French involvement won the war, but it definitely shortened it by years. The fighting up until Yorktown had already shown that the British were unable to control the countryside or even all the major cities and ports, and without doing that the war would have probably continued for many more years until the British got tired of trying to control things.
An effective and legitimate offer to settle the differences between the American colonists and the British king might have led to a settlement short of independence, but that doesn't seem to have been a likely situation from anything I have ever seen or heard once independence had been declared.
Rick
In my opinion, the American army would have prevailed whether or not the French intervened due to the following:
- logistics of fighting a war over that distance
- morale and the passing of time: the longer the Continental Army fought, the greater the support they received from the public
- inability of the English to control the countryside
I am still curious how the English view the commanding officers and their tactics.
The general rule as to who was a loyalist and who was a "patriot", most sources I have heard mention that there was a split of about 1/3 or less loyalist, 1/3 or greater patriot, with the rest sitting in the middle. As for civil wars, it really did not develop that way until the war expanded into the south. There loyalist and rebel fought each other with great bitterness, urged on by the British forces then deployed there. In many cases, the countryside did not need to be controlled because of the indifference of many of the people.
France's involvement was vital for a number of reasons. The most important of which was monetary. The army could not be supported without adequate arms, ammunition, and other equipment which the French provided in some quantity. Also, French, Spanish, and Dutch involvement meant that the war was no longer an isolated event. Instead, other portions of the Empire were now threatened and the British had to stretch their resources to resist the other powers facing her. This was especially true of her navy which now had to contend with the fleets of the other major powers where before she was barely challenged by anything of consequence. The fight was now a "world war." Faced with this, and the threat of American "Privateers" preying on their shipping, the English eventually became eager to settle and get out of the American quagmire. They won the world war, but settled for the loss of their American colonies.