Hanna Lambrecht Part 1 Comments: Questions: The king had lots of issues with what was happening in the colonies. But instead of going to the colonies to find out what could be done, he continually elected new officials, based on PERSONALITIES that flattered him. I find it curious that such a strong and powerful leader would shrug off the problem to someone else until it became too large to ignore. Connections: Rebellions are not a new prospect to the world, in fact they happen all the time. Protests have recently sprung up around the world in places in Africa and the Middle East. But there are some little ones that have recently occurred that hit much closer to home. The Occupy Protests may not seem like they are a rebellion, but they are. It was a way for American citizens to express the issues with things like higher taxation. It is really no different from our predecessors 200 years before. We may not have tarred and feathered the politicians we were upset with, but many Americans stood up for what the believed was wrong. It's pretty close to what was happening with the early rebellions in the American colonies. Have we found a better and more diplomatic way to handle the issues? Or will history repeat itself? Will we have a new Boston Tea Party or Boston Massacre? Or will the nation save itself from a revolutionary war much like the war that created its morals? Turning Points: I believe that one of the very first catalysts and turning points in the American Revolution were the Stamp and Sugar acts of the mid-18th century.Grenville was searching for a solution to fix the debt in Britain due to the Seven Year's War that had just ended with France. However, I believe that he forgot he was leading colonists that wanted to avoid the heavy taxation of the King, among other things under his noose-like grip. In applying the taxes, he created a very angry nation. Point of View: When analyzing a war, there are always two sides to the coin. In this case, it's the newly formed American colonies vs. the British Empire. Hibbert gives a unique report from Britain's side and it is the first account I have read from that perspective. It brings the reasoning of supposedly 'irrational' decisions into light. I think the readers get a better grasp on just what was trying to be accomplished by the British. Understanding both sides of an issue is crucial to choosing just one, and Hibbert makes it easy to understand what was happening on Britain's side. A King was trying his best to unite a country, while a country was doing its best to tear it apart. Does that make one side more wrong than the other? Or more right for that matter?
I strongly agree with you on your point about the king, Hanna. I think that the king thought of the rebels as a petty protest group that would have no effect on Britain and Colonial America, which was where he was wrong. The British may have had the best Navy and overall military power, but as the conflict erupted into war, the rebels had a higher morale, something to fight for. Most men were untrained, yet they knew all of there fellow soldiers as neighbors, giving them a slight advantages, as well as being masters of their own geographical landscape. Not only that, but in America, the rebels were highly supported while in Britain the loyalists and the war in general were often times not supported. Overlooking the whole situation and letting his favorite officials try to handle it was a big mistake.
Jenna Baranowski Post #1 Reading Thoughts: Connections- As I read the first part of Redcoats and Rebels, I was often thinking of what I had learned as a kid about the American Revolution. I thought that Americans were simply put- the good guys. I never learned that the loyalists often times feared for their lives, and were tarred and feathered (a horrible torture). It was weird putting together both sides of the war and looking at it from a neutral standpoint. Importance- One of the most interesting passages from the first part of Redcoats and Rebels was about the Boston Tea Party. The author made sure to touch on the fact that Britain was in debt because of the protection they provided to America (albeit Britain wanted to protect what they saw as its property). To most people, it would make sense that taxes were raised in the colonies to make up for this debt, but the colonists didn’t want to pay for a war that they had no say in. America’s behavior then reminded me of a child being mad at its parent for lying to them, even though the lie was for their own good. When a group of angry colonists threw expensive tons of tea into the Boston harbor, its reasonable for Britain to have to stay the strong leader and take action. It was different for me to see a historical landmark such as the Boston Tea Party in perspective of the British, and almost feel sorry for the British too.
TLH strategies: Cause and Effect- Going back to the Boston Tea Party, it was interesting to see what motivated the Sons of Liberty into dumping a ship’s worth of tea into the Boston harbor. When the stamp act was finally repealed after much argument, the British felt the need to reinstate their power by placing another act on tea. They thought that not only would the act make up for a large dept from the seven year’s war, but it would also but the colonists in their place. One of the biggest mistakes of the British was to assume the colonists lax about who ruled them and the respect given to them. After the British took advantage for so long, it was no wonder the Sons of Liberty finally did something about it. Differing Perspectives- Redcoats and Rebels is a book largely about perspective. While it is mainly from the point of view of the British, there are times when the colonists offer a perspective too. I think one of the best things about this book is that is neutral. It shows terrible people with selfish objectives and good people that want both sides to be happy on both sides of the war. Though the author is careful about keeping the book neutral, I see myself sympathizing with the British. After all America was its territory and like a parent, the country had to act like the bad guy sometimes.
I agree with you in the idea that the colonists were wrong and did overreact. I also like how you pointed out that the author did talk about the flaws of all the people involved, it made them seem more human, rather then just people in a textbook. It also made it easier to understand why they did the things they did.
One thing I disagree about with you is that the book is neutral. The author did add a little American perspective here and there, but more than not the writing was sided with the British, at least I feel. Throughout the book he always seemed to stress the American flaws more. He did point out what the British did wrong, but to me it seemed like he was almost just explaining the people and the story vs. degrading them. I do think he tried to keep the book neutral, but I found myself disliking the Americans more at the end of the book than the British.
Hanna Lambrecht Reply for Part One: Jenna, I felt the same realization when I began the book about the American's side. We were taught from an early age that the British were the bad guys and the young american colonies were just doing what they had to do to build their country. It's a very fresh view. I knew of the tarring and feathering, but I didn't know that the politicians were ostracized and forced to live in a land of so called enemies to enforce the laws of their king. Politicians stayed out of loyalty, but I often wonder how far I would go to prove my loyalty to my country. Could I endure that torture? I do agree with Miranda on the point that the book is not neutral. There is a lot of information about both sides but the author is pointing fingers at the colonies for their poor decisions and outlashes. The Boston Tea Party is an interesting topic and every time I hear about it I learn something new. I do believe the Sons of Liberty were a little out of line, even if they were trying to prove such an important point. They had to realize the economic troubles in Britain (the cause of the taxation) would not be solved by wasting an entire shipload of tea. Extreme circumstances cause a falter in logic many times though and I do wonder if they thought that was the best solution.
I agree with you that the Boston Tea Party was a very interesting part of the American Reovlution. However in your blog, you write, "After the British took advantage for so long, it was no wonder the Sons of Liberty finally did something about it." I disagree that the British took advantage of America, but were legally and fairly enforcing these Acts on the colonies so the taxes on British and American citizens would be the same. However, these new Acts affected all Americans financially no matter how fair and legal the Act seemed, and it wasn't easy for the Americans to keep up to the King's demands, which is why they rebelled and why the Sons of Liberty was created.
Madison Trobec Post 3 Jenna, I agree with you that we were always taught that America was fighting to free themselves from an oppressive and unfair government, when really they simply overreacted to taxation. I do, however, disagree when you say that the British took advantage of America. They had created the colonies for the exact purpose they were being used for: to extend England's economic growth. They had nurtured the colonies, and expected the colonies to do the same for them.
Megan Niemuth Post #1 Posting in two parts because apparently its too many characters...
Evaluation: Despite studying the American Revolution in the eighth grade, I have a fairly bad memory, and remember little. However, there were a few things I read that confirmed what I already knew. When Paul Revere was first introduced on page sixteen, I wasn't surprised to learn that he had copied the picture of the Boston Massacre. This I already knew. I also remembered a bit about the Boston Tea Party, wherein the colonists threw barrels of tea into Boston Harbor, due to a tea tax. Reading that section of the book helped clear up things that it's been awhile since I've thought about. The author of this book seems to show things in a reliable light. Mostly things are told from the British side, which is nice since we've grown up hearing it from the American perspective, but it also manages to tell parts of the American side, which is nice since I, as I've already stated, have a bad memory. He also manages to successfully illustrate why the British lost the war, without flat out saying it. As far as the effects on history, reading this book has made me wonder, a bit, about what would have happened had the British won. Would we still be under British control? Would we be loyal subjects or would there be uprisings? And would Britain be taxing us? Not that I think Britain didn't have a right to tax the colonists. People in England were paying for the Seven Years' War, why not the colonists, on whose behalf that war was fought? This book has helped me realize that the British weren't be ridiculous in their wishes, and that the idea that the Americans were fighting a was for independence was a bit much, considering Britain did have a right to tax them. Importance: The main idea of the book seems to be that the Americans took things too far in wanting independence and that the reason the British lost was that their leading officers were incapable of making intelligent decisions. Of course, this pretty much has to be expected when people are allowed to have a leading place in the army due to their considerable influence, money, or influential family members. The author's message seems to be that the Americans are often painted as being entirely in the right, while the British are the cruel dictators, but as they say, history is written by the victors, and the author seems to have made it his personal mission to write an accurate, unbiased history of the war. Although, admittedly, he sometimes goes into almost too much detail, to the point that the reader might get lost in the descriptions of the characters. Only one part of the book really confused me, and this was the Boston Massacre section. I've gone back to read it a few times, but I can't help but get lost in the descriptions of the various groups of people over the span of a few days. One of the things I have been able to understand, however, is that the Boston Massacre is not entirely the fault of the British. They had ample provocation, and were mostly acquitted, although the Americans painted the story to make the British look much worse than they were.
Through Their Eyes: The colonists in the past seemed to think that it was ridiculous for Britain to tax them, while the British saw it as their right, because the Americans were part of their empire and the previous was had been fought on their behalf. Of course, the Americans had a viewpoint that was probably fairly blinded by the previous mistakes of the British, and saw this as yet another example of British tyranny. The British, who were more used to the dictates of the King and Parliament, saw no issues with what they were asking of the colonists. Differing Perspectives: This book manages to share the conflicts on both sides, although the author seems as though he is showing the British side. What makes it seem like he is showing both sides is the fact that rather than simply focusing on the good points for the British, he also shares their weak points, occasionally commenting on what's happening with the Americans. As far as other perspectives, there is the perspective that America is in the right and Britain was being a cruel tyrant, which most Americans view as the only side of the story, and I'm sure the British have their own version, although I do not know what it is. I agree with the perspective of this book. Britain did a lot of foolish things which led to them losing the war, although they were perfectly justified in wanting the colonists to pay taxes as well.
Jenna: I agree with your sentiments that the British were wronged. I cannot see what would incite the colonists so about these taxes. They seem to be a reasonable way to exact payment for the cost of the Seven Years' War, which was fought to protect the colonists, and people in Britain were already paying similar taxes. As far as the Boston Tea Party, that seems to me to do little other than cause the ultimate downfall of the East India Company, rather than having the intended anti-Britain effect. While it makes sense that they would not want to pay them (who wants to pay taxes?) I can't help but think of Britain as, like you said, a sort of parent. Honestly, I believe the colonists should have grown up a bit more, especially when the King decided to remove most of them. If a single tax on tea is all that remains, what exactly did the colonists have to complain about? It couldn't have been that difficult to afford. I also agree that one of Britain's biggest mistakes was to assume the colonists would be okay with it. It seems to me that if Britain had taken a more active role with the management of the colonies in years previous, the Americans might not have gotten so out of hand, and might have accepted the taxes more readily. If they'd held more loyalty to their King, then surely they wouldn't have had such a problem paying the taxes.
Questions: One really big question I have is why did King George III turn down the Olive Branch petition? I mean was it that he was just so royally ticked that he couldn’t possibly consider forgiving the colonies. Or was it that he knew what he was doing. I mean did he realize that even if he did accept the petition there would still be trouble in the colonies, and it would just be best to settle it now?
Connections: During the time of the American Revolution the colonists fought for a better government, one where there wasn’t a reigning monarch. They were the first group of people to create a government like this that is still surviving today. It really was a “revolution”, so to speak, because after the Americans did it, we were the example that many other people strived for. Whether people have been striving for a democracy like we have, or just to get rid of an un-rightful monarch there are many examples of people rebelling for a better government today. One example is the recent rebellions in Egypt. The people overthrew their dictator at the time, Husain Mubarak, in an attempt to create a democracy. They voiced what they wanted and made it happen. The rebellion is still going on today, and was bloody, but so was our Revolutionary War.
Turning Point: One major turning point, at least it seemed to me, in these series of events was the Battle at Concord and Lexington. After a group of, almost sloppily thrown together, farmers sent the proud redcoats scurrying back to Boston, everyone seemed to realize how real this was. It made people realize that this whole rebellion thing wasn’t just consisting of “secret” meetings and small spurts of public rebellion anymore, it was a war. It must have sent a shockwave through the colonies to hear that their men fought the British, and won! I mean come on! That battle must have given people a sobering dose of reality, but also an amazing drink of hope. I mean Great Britain at the time was just that; great. They had conquests all over the world and had one of the fiercest militaries of all time. This group of un-uniformed men went up against this supper power and won. The Battle at Concord and Lexington really was the first real chapter in the American Revolution because it made people realize this war was a reality, but also that it was a hopeful reality. That hope is what drove many of those men through the endless, bitter winters and the much too bloody battles.
Differing Perspectives: The main selling point about Red Coats and Rebels is that it’s told through British eyes. With this book I got a very different flavor of the American Revolution, rather then the traditional U.S. history book. The book starts off explaining that the British just got done fighting this very costly war in America against the French, and a few Native Americans, to protect the colonies and the people living in them. It’s only natural then that they should be taxed then; the people back home in Britain were being taxed as well for this war. I do understand the whole idea that they didn’t get to vote for who represented them. That would be frustrating, but in retaliation they start physically harming people and their property? I don’t really understand what they were trying to prove, other then the fact that they were unruly. Yes the people they harmed did work for the king, but when we have laws passed today we don’t agree with, we don’t automatically go ransack the homes of people who work in legislation. I mean if I were the king, or anyone routing for Britain I would be enraged. Technically the Americans were still under British reign, even though they didn’t act like it, so the British began to enforce more taxes on the Americans to show their dominance. In a way the British were treating the Americans like unruly teenagers, but they were acting like it. The British didn’t handle the situation perfectly, but neither did the Americans. Sometimes our history books almost try and make out the colonists to be victims, but really they weren’t. I also understand why Great Britain felt the need to send more troops to America, to hopefully settle them. For the Americans sending more troops just made them even more angry and violent. I mean I would be frustrated too if I had to house soldiers I didn’t even want, like the Americans had to, but the soldiers were only sent because they were rebelling so much. I do side with the British concerning the pre-war events; this book really gave me a very new outlook on who “started” the Revolutionary War.
Evaluation - In my opinion Hibbert opened my eyes to a whole new meaning to the Revolutionary War. Going into this book, I had been expecting facts to enhance my knowledge on the subject, not change it completely. Learning about England's side of the story completely changed the game for me, and rendered my previous knowledge of the Revolution inadequate. It was unbelievable reading about how savage the Americans really were, and even though it is obvious that every side has its own flaws, it was still astonishing to me that the Americans weren't as heroic and great as history class would crack them up to be.
Importance - I think the message Hibbert want to send was that when it comes to war, when you look at both sides, there is no good or evil. Similar to politics in today's world, everyone has their own opinions about what is better for the world, and all are beneficial to someone, and not so much to others. When it comes to the Revolution, the Loyalists/British wanted to stay united with America, and the heavy taxation was only to help lessen the damage of Britain's debt, which was mostly from providing protection for America. The rebels wanted America to become independent, which would provide economic opportunities for its inhabitants (and of course, less economic pressure from Europe), but would leave England in even heavier debt. No side is purely good.
Reading Like a Historian
Differing Perspectives - Like I mentioned before, seeing the Revolution through British eyes is a whole new experience for me, and also somewhat disappointing. I used to think the Americans stood up and did what's right for their country and the rest of the world. Knowing about both sides of the war, I can't decide who's right and who's wrong. Perhaps it's better that way. Either way, I had no clue how much suffering the British had gone through, and how many casualties they took not only due to fighting, but also from severe winters and diseases such as smallpox.
Through Their Eyes - Again relating to perspective, I found it surprising that there were members of Parliament that supported the rebels, and people that were against the war altogether. I mean, it isn't as much surprising as much as I really have never thought of it before. Seeing the British talk about how it is pointless trying to stay connected with a country far overseas was enlightening to me, as well as seeing the Redcoats themselves explain that every victory is also a loss, because the Americans were once their comrads.
Evaluation: This book was very helpful for seeing the other side of the conflict. It seems that since we are Americans, we are painted as being the victims, and the British bullies. I agree with Zach's opinion that the book really changed my opinion on the whole war as well, rather than just providing more detail. It seems that, as they say, history is written by the victors, and as Americans, we are mostly told an edited version of events that make the war have been totally justified on our side. Big Idea/Generalizations: I found while I was reading that many people in Britain thought that this was a little uprising that could be subdued without much effort at all on their part. I think this is partly due to their overconfidence, which is probably what ultimately lost them nearly all their colonies. I think that Britain, in general, was entirely too eager to think themselves insurmountable and this is evidenced by the agreement of the French to fight on the side of the Americans, which appears to have been partly to put Britain in its place. Even some of the German soldiers were annoyed by the conduct of the British, and it seems that this is a recurring pattern with the British.
Turning Points: While reading this book, I had quite a few moments where I thought 'That's a good example of why the British ultimately lost.' or 'That contributed to the overall defeat of the British.' Some things were like the battles. Some commanders made some stupid decisions which led to ridiculous defeats, in regard to when or where to attack. A large part of it, though, seemed to be the hesitancy to attack which first Howe and then Clinton exhibited. It appears as though the two commanders didn't actually want to take part in the war. For example, Israel Putnam is reported as having said that "General Howe is either our friend or no general." I am inclined to believe it was the latter, as another thing that struck me as foolish was the tendency of the British to give commands to those that were wanted away from Britain, or those that were most famous or had the most money, rather than those that were most suited for military command. Another thing was the state of the Navy during the war. Sandwich obviously wasn't fit for his post, as the Navy was allowed to fall into disrepair. With a larger, better Navy, the war might have been won. All of these things together, and a few more, combined to give the commanders fewer and fewer chances to change the direction of the war for the better. Through Their Eyes: It seems that part of the reason the British lost the war was their reluctance to push any advantages they might have gained. They seemed to want, rather than attack when Washington's troops were weak, to wait until they were recovered and joined by others. Perhaps this was common courtesy at the time, or perhaps it was simply the general idiocy of those that Britain thought fit to be put in command of such a campaign, I do not know which. However, I do think that had Howe attacked when Washington had so few troops, he might have dealt a great defeat upon the Americans, which would have made their luck go down from there, and perhaps the British might have won.
Hanna Lambrecht Reply for Part Two: Megan, I couldn't agree more with the comment that history is written by the victors. When I first read that it made me wonder as to what the British populace is taught. Are the Americans the bad guys to them, just as the British are to us? I also agree with the fact that the performance of a general was dependent on his salary. Ir made me wonder if I were a general would I be more concerned about my salary or saving my mens lives and winning the war? However, I disagree with the fact that the British were too timid to attack. While Howe did miss a great opportunity to really hurt Washington's troops, I think it was strategy to not make the first move, not fear.
I agree with your first comment about the King not accepting the Olive Branch petition. It seems that, especially in the beginning, the King was prepared to do whatever he could to make the colonists happy, even retracting most of the taxes, so I really don't know what made the colonists so mad. It wasn't as if the British were enforcing unfair taxes. The taxes were perfectly justified, as Britain needed to regain money after the Seven Years' War and citizens in Britain were already paying the same tax. I agree with you about the turning points as well. It seems like a lot of people in Britain dismissed the war as a simply uprising that could be put down easily, and failed to see the importance, and this ultimately led to those defeats. I also agree that the colonists were a bit out of line in taking all their frustrations out on the tax collectors and loyalists and such. Today we don't hurt people just for having opposing political convictions, and I can't help but think that it was entirely unreasonable for the colonists to become this irritated over something that wasn't limited just to them. Plus, when they started acting up, the new taxes were imposed to show them that they were still beneath the crown and still subjects of Britain, so they couldn't just refuse to pay the taxes. I also side with the British concerning those events, because it seems that Britain gave the colonists entirely too much leeway to begin with, and the colonists just didn't know when to stop pushing it. Britain was doing nothing wrong, and so the Americans had no real reason to want any sort of independence or anything.
I like how you pointed out that in the start the king kind of went out of his way to appease the colonist by changing the taxes and what not. Then all of a sudden he pulls a 180 and completely rejects their "apology", you could say. I mean if I were George I would have been completely fed up with these colonists too. In a way I probably would have wanted to completely reject their petition too, but I just kind of think he didn't really imagine what could have possibly happen by him turning down their petition.
Turning Points: I think the Battle of Saratoga was a major turning point. After that battle is when the French declared that they’d aid the Americans. It became official 1778 with the Franco-American Alliances. Then after the French, both Spain and The Netherlands joined the American forces. The Battle of Saratoga is when the rest of the world started really taking the Americans seriously as an enemy against the British, and I guess it’s true that your enemy’s enemy is your ally. We wouldn’t have been able to win the war at all without the support expressed through out the colonies, but we were fairly outnumbered by the British with out the supplies and men that our allies had provided. The Battle of Saratoga was really the last push those countries needed to decide to help us.
Different Perspectives: Again I’m going to look at this from the British’s side, but this time they’re in the wrong. If I were Great Britain as a whole I would feel invincible, especially against those measly little colonists. What mainly lost the British the war was arrogance and too many enemies. Britain had this virtually indestructible army and naval forces, and they are going against and un-established and, up to Washington being put in charge, unorganized army. I can understand how the British could be arrogant, but they greatly underestimated the colonists’ advantage and that’s the geography. The Americans knew where to go and where not to, they knew the land, and that put them a few steps ahead of the British. The other factor that the British underestimated as well was their enemies. I admit I didn’t know this, but three different countries aided the Americans. I mean I knew the French did, after the Battle of Saratoga, but I didn’t realize that Spain and The Netherlands also aided the Americans. Those three allies are what just gave the Americans the extra push the need to move forward and beat the British, which the British really didn’t see coming.
Visualize: I can just picture the signing of the Peace of Paris treaty; a cool September breeze blowing through open windows offering a soft relief from the summer heat. The greatest relief though in the room is the treaty before all the men; the final end to the taxing war for both sides. The British are all straight backed and stiff, mouths thin and pursed with frustration at the loss of this seemingly easy win. The cheery, yet polite, Americans beaming with pride. Pride that their rebellion was successful, and they finally got what the original Pilgrims wanted all along: freedom. The tension seems to simply flow away with the soft zephyr to the Americans; their happiness outweighing any other emotion. The British officers’ pride was far too wounded to even consider posing for the painting; the painting that forever made that moment immortal, along with Britain’s bitterness.
Evaluation: I think that the Revolutionary War did much more for the colonies than just gain their freedom. I believe it brought them together, and made it more imaginable for them to become one. All the different colonies really had to pull together and rely on each other. The famous carton by Ben Franklin, “join or die”, really became a reality during those times, and the colonies did step up and join together. Before the war they all thought of themselves as completely different bodies, but during the war they became one. After the war though, when the British left, the colonies kind of went back to that old way of thinking, but because of the war the colonies were more willing to listen about officially becoming one. All these different states with so many different ideas and opinions were able to come together and unite against one common enemy, and that can do wonders for creating a strong union no matter how different the people are. I mean it at least worked in our case, because we are still the United States of America today.
I agree with what you said about the Revolutionary War doing much more for the colonies than just gain their freedom. I think that one of Britain's greatest fears was that if America won, there would be change worldwide- Britain's rein over the world would be questioned and other countries would fight for freedom like America. I like what you said about how the war affected the state's attitude towards each other and creating a joint government after the war. I'm not sure I agree with you though, when the states came together to create a new government, there were plently of disagreements and close-calls. Even though after the war, America was at one of it's weakest points in history, the war brought it together and probably made creating a new government easier than it would have been had the war been solved diplomatically.
Hanna Lambrecht Post for Part Two: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." - Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson is a hypocritical man and when I read the passage on him in the novel my fascination was rekindled. He believes so strongly in the fact of freedom. That the creator, whoever it may be, gifted each and every one of us with freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He found it unfair when the king stood in the way of his rights and the rights of his countrymen, yet had a plantation with hundreds of slaves laboring the days away, and '... Had no intention of relinquishing them." (Hibbert 116) How can a man that believes no matter who you are you have these three rights, call a run-of-the-mill southern plantation home? How could he not fight for freedom for all races? For a nation free of the cruelties of slavery? Would not he have changed the course of the future just by setting an example and living without slaves? Where would our nation be today if the founding fathers would have made one different decision?
Britain has consistently been known has a military powerhouse. They are one of the leaders in military defense and technology. Some of the strategies that were used in the eighteenth century show that Britain has always been a force to fear. Battles won by Britain were not always by sheer force or strength or fire power but strategy. As generals for the American forces began to come from Britain, the American troops were gaining ground due to military strategy. Today, America joins Britain as one of the leading militaries. I found it interesting that the French agreed to help the colonies against Britain. Was it for redemption after the Seven Year's War, or was a bigger benefit foreseen for France?
After Tarleton's easy defeat of Buford, Hibbert talks about Loyalist civilians coming out of hiding to seek redemption on the rebels. This comment made me wonder why the loyalists were not made a part of the fighting force. The colonies were recruiting anyone they could get. Did Britain have too much pride to add an untrained man to their military forces, or did the loyalists hide out to avoid the war? In that case, how many soldiers did Britain lose? It may have been a completely different outcome if the civilians would have helped. However, I go back to my previous comment that all Britain had was military strategy. Did they have so much faith in the strategy they found no need for bigger troops? Like Megan mentioned, was it overconfidence that made Britain ok with leaving loyalists out of the war?
By the end of the book, I had a whole new outlook on the American Revolution. Almost every action had a British justification. When you learn about it here you hear what the British did to the rebels and you just can't believe it. However, reading this book puts a new perspective on it. You can see that the British were just as desperate and concerned as the rebels. With such similar interests, they could have most likely come to a peaceful agreement with time, but the colonies needed freedom. I found the novel very enlightening and found so many new details about the war that further helped my ability to understand what and why the war was happening.
Jenna Baranowski Post #2 Reading Thoughts Big Idea/Generalizations- Something that I assume has been drilled into all of our heads since we were little is that, statistically- England should have won this war. The rulers were close to being the kings and queens of the world. Even after I’ve read the book, I’m amazed that little America actually did it. One of the contributing factors of this was that England had been oppressing a huge part of the world for quite a bit of time. It’s obvious that England was worried about the situation in the colonies, but not many people know that they were also worried about American privateers in their territory. The French, the Spanish, and even the Scottish had their own personal grudges against England. America knew about this and played it to their advantage. They sent Ben Franklin (a charming man of many occupations) to France to win the country over. In the end England was worried that America would simply be a catalyst. Questions- An American General, William Heath wrote “A British sentinel asked an American, who was nearly opposite to him, if he could give him a chew of tobacco: the latter, having in his pocket a piece of a thick twisted roll, sent it across the creek to the British sentinel who, after taking off his bite, sent the reminder back again.” This puzzles me because throughout the book, we read stories of cold-blooded murder, rape, and violence of both sides to the other. I wonder if this (the quote) is a single occurrence or if it represented the attitude of either army toward the other.
Reading like a Historian Through Their Eyes- It happened on both sides, but murder, rape, and general cruelty was especially harsh for the loyalists. Otherwise known as tories, loyalists were hated among the general American population for siding with the British. They lived in fear that the rebels would come and destroy their homes and families Differing Perspectives- It is said that history is written by the victors. After reading Redcoats and Rebels, I would definitely agree with this sentiment. Usually books about the American Revolution are biased in the American perspective, but this book is written in the opposite. It was strange to hear of the struggles that England went through (some of the same as America). It was eye opening read stories of crimes and compassion that happened on both sides of the war.
Reading Thoughts Importance: Like many you have previously said, I was surprised by this new perspective Christopher Hibbert had layed out for us in Redcoats and Rebels. After reading Part One of this book I have found that the author's purpose was to show us the British side of the American Revolution rather than the popular American side, which had us all believing the Americans were the good guys and the British were the bad guys. His book has made it easier for me to make my own opinions on who was right and wrong, and have a neutral standpoint. Connections: When I think about the relationship between America and Britain, i think about the relationship between a parent and their 18 year old child. Britain, the parent, is asking for financial help from America, their child. Since America is still "under Britain's roof", then Britain has every legal right to collect taxes from America to help pay to the debt from the Seven Year War. Samual Johnson once wrote, "It's Members [of the English Parliament] had a perfect right to impose taxes on the American colonies as payments 'exacted by authority from part of the communtiy for the benefit of the whole" page 22. So legally, America could not rebel against these taxes. However, colonists no longer wants live under British control and pay these "fair" taxes.
Thinking Like A Historian Through Their Eyes: After reading about the rebel colonists, like the Sons Of Liberty, and what had happened to stamp disributors and royal officials, I could not help but feel bad for the British. Loyalists, like Andrew Oliver, were brutaly murdered and their houses torn apart by angry colonists. "What greater joy did New England see, than a stampman hanging on a tree," was a very strong quote that showed how sadistic and angry the colonists had been, and how afraid loyalists in America must have been. Turning Points: One of the major turning points I found in Part One was when the British were beginning to realize the rebellion needed to be suppressed before it spiraled out of control. Thomas Gage had told the King, "So long as the British behaved like lambs , the colonists would play the part of lions, but that if the government were resolute the Americans would 'undoubtfully prove very meek'" page 24. The King agreed, but did not think the colonists would actually take action when the time came and that they were all talk. Yet legal Acts were still made that shut down the port in Boston, which effected all of New England. From that point on, Americans began to take action in becoming their own independent country by creating The First Continental Congress.
Reading Thoughts Visualize: As I was reading about Washington crossing the Delaware to the British camp in Trenton, I felt as if I was a soldier suffering through that cold December night. I could imagine freezing from the storm of sleet and having fear for being seen/heard by the enemy. Tired and also hungry, yet afraid that if I rested, even for a second, I may never wake up again. It must have been one of the most miserable marches Washington's soldiers had ever experienced. Generalizations: Due to the British threats on American independence, the colonies had become stronger as a whole. Before the rebellion, each state had their own cultural differences from one another and they did not function well together. During the Revolution, however, the conolnies found themselves coming together to reach the main goal- liberty.
Thinking Like A Historian Turning Points: Thomas Paine's popular phamplet, Common Sense, was a major turning point in America's idea for independence. It had been written so that all Americans, no matter what their education, could understand Paine's strong points. It had also influenced the First Continental Congress that "...if independence were to be achieved, foreign alliances would be required and the these alliances could never be formed until the American colonies had their won permanent and seperate governemnt" page 115. This had begun the idea to create The Declaration Of Independence. Change and Continuity: Washington's attack on Trenton had been a successful change for America and proved Washington was good enough to lead the Rebel Army. His change in strategies, like attacking the British camp during the night, proved a small, yet major win for America.
Big Idea/Generalizations - One main concept that was shown throughout part two was that the war wasn't just between England and Colonial America. Attacks on the rebels' forts were often conducted by both the British and Hessians (Germans) who had sided with England. On the other hand, America used England's conflicts with other European countries to their advantage. France had helped the rebels informally until the victory at Saratoga, after which they signed the Treaty of Alliance and the whole thing became official. Spain didn't form an alliance with America until 1779, and did it because of an ongoing conflict with Britain; they didn't really support the rebels.
Evaluation - Overall, this book being about the British perspective of the Revolution, it was very contradicting to what I had previously known about the topic. For the most part it's because prior to reading it, I had known just about nothing about the British side of the story.
Reading Like a Historian
Change and Continuity - When Washington took back Philadelphia after the British abandonment of the town, oddly enough the rebels and British were in the same geometric positions as they were two years before. Even so, the new French alliance caused the British Army to have to use a new strategy, which was to bring the battle to the South, where the British could protect resources in the Caribbean while continuing to attack and weaken the rebels. The war was completely changed, yet both sides were back to the same positions they were in just two years back after New York had been taken by the British.
Through Their Eyes - Giving a little credit to the American rebels, through reading this book I realized that even though the rebels were savage and didn't have the best reasoning for leaving England, they displayed very well that you can't win until you've won in the enemy's eyes. The rebels never gave up, and through their combined strength they somehow defeated the British.
Madison Trobec Part 1 Connections: When I chose this book, I expected to learn facts about the war. This is what I had always taken what I was told to be. It never occurred to me that everything I had been taught was only true from one point of view. Every American history book has made the colonists out to be brave heroes who fought against an unfair government. I never thought about it in a way that made Britain seem completely justified in their actions until I read this book. Importance: The main focus of the book seems to be that Britain was completely within its rights to tax the colonists and that the hatred of Britain came not directly from the laws, but from the officials who were in the colonies. It seems that many of the soldiers housed in the colonies were disrespectful and insolent, angering the colonists. Turning Points: The main turning point in this version of history seemed to be the Stamp Act. This act is what brought up the feelings of resentment at being taxed for a war they had no say in fighting. It also demonstrated just how oblivious the king was to their protests and how ineffective the efforts to enforce the laws were in the colonies. Through their Eyes: After reading this book, it enabled me to look at the conflict from both sides. The Americans felt that it was unfair for Parliament to tax them without them being represented, which is a good point. However, the British felt that because they had created and nurtured America,and still did, they had a right to put taxes on their foods and objects to help pay off a debt.
Madison Trobec Post 2 Big Idea/Generalizations: There were a few Generalizations I thought of as I read this book. One is that we have all been taught that England should have won the war. And, taking into account that they had more people, a larger army, and more power, they probably should have. However, the more prominent generalization that we all know is that America was right to rebel. The British were oppressive and controlling and we needed to become a free country. However, this book changed my mind about this as well. Evaluation: In relation, this book helped me reach the conclusion that America was not completely right. I am not saying that it didn't turn out for the best. I am saying that right and wrong are not as clearly defined in this war as we have been led to believe. Differing Perspectives: I believe that a major part of what lost Britain this war was their perspective that the colonies could not possibly overtake them, that they were too powerful to be defeated by their little economy branch. It was their overconfidence that caused them to lose. They also underestimated their disadvantage of fighting in unfamiliar territory, where they were unsure of the possible traps and snares that could be set for them. Through their eyes: Another reason the British may have lost is that they always waited too long to attack, waiting until the Americans had called reinforcements. They seemed to be fighting to fight fairly, not fighting to win the war. This might have been the cause of their ultimate failure.
Hanna Lambrecht Part 1 Comments:
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
The king had lots of issues with what was happening in the colonies. But instead of going to the colonies to find out what could be done, he continually elected new officials, based on PERSONALITIES that flattered him. I find it curious that such a strong and powerful leader would shrug off the problem to someone else until it became too large to ignore.
Connections:
Rebellions are not a new prospect to the world, in fact they happen all the time. Protests have recently sprung up around the world in places in Africa and the Middle East. But there are some little ones that have recently occurred that hit much closer to home. The Occupy Protests may not seem like they are a rebellion, but they are. It was a way for American citizens to express the issues with things like higher taxation. It is really no different from our predecessors 200 years before. We may not have tarred and feathered the politicians we were upset with, but many Americans stood up for what the believed was wrong. It's pretty close to what was happening with the early rebellions in the American colonies. Have we found a better and more diplomatic way to handle the issues? Or will history repeat itself? Will we have a new Boston Tea Party or Boston Massacre? Or will the nation save itself from a revolutionary war much like the war that created its morals?
Turning Points:
I believe that one of the very first catalysts and turning points in the American Revolution were the Stamp and Sugar acts of the mid-18th century.Grenville was searching for a solution to fix the debt in Britain due to the Seven Year's War that had just ended with France. However, I believe that he forgot he was leading colonists that wanted to avoid the heavy taxation of the King, among other things under his noose-like grip. In applying the taxes, he created a very angry nation.
Point of View:
When analyzing a war, there are always two sides to the coin. In this case, it's the newly formed American colonies vs. the British Empire. Hibbert gives a unique report from Britain's side and it is the first account I have read from that perspective. It brings the reasoning of supposedly 'irrational' decisions into light. I think the readers get a better grasp on just what was trying to be accomplished by the British. Understanding both sides of an issue is crucial to choosing just one, and Hibbert makes it easy to understand what was happening on Britain's side. A King was trying his best to unite a country, while a country was doing its best to tear it apart. Does that make one side more wrong than the other? Or more right for that matter?
Zach Peterson - Post #3 (reply)
DeleteI strongly agree with you on your point about the king, Hanna. I think that the king thought of the rebels as a petty protest group that would have no effect on Britain and Colonial America, which was where he was wrong. The British may have had the best Navy and overall military power, but as the conflict erupted into war, the rebels had a higher morale, something to fight for. Most men were untrained, yet they knew all of there fellow soldiers as neighbors, giving them a slight advantages, as well as being masters of their own geographical landscape. Not only that, but in America, the rebels were highly supported while in Britain the loyalists and the war in general were often times not supported. Overlooking the whole situation and letting his favorite officials try to handle it was a big mistake.
Jenna Baranowski Post #1
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts:
Connections- As I read the first part of Redcoats and Rebels, I was often thinking of what I had learned as a kid about the American Revolution. I thought that Americans were simply put- the good guys. I never learned that the loyalists often times feared for their lives, and were tarred and feathered (a horrible torture). It was weird putting together both sides of the war and looking at it from a neutral standpoint.
Importance- One of the most interesting passages from the first part of Redcoats and Rebels was about the Boston Tea Party. The author made sure to touch on the fact that Britain was in debt because of the protection they provided to America (albeit Britain wanted to protect what they saw as its property). To most people, it would make sense that taxes were raised in the colonies to make up for this debt, but the colonists didn’t want to pay for a war that they had no say in. America’s behavior then reminded me of a child being mad at its parent for lying to them, even though the lie was for their own good. When a group of angry colonists threw expensive tons of tea into the Boston harbor, its reasonable for Britain to have to stay the strong leader and take action. It was different for me to see a historical landmark such as the Boston Tea Party in perspective of the British, and almost feel sorry for the British too.
TLH strategies:
Cause and Effect- Going back to the Boston Tea Party, it was interesting to see what motivated the Sons of Liberty into dumping a ship’s worth of tea into the Boston harbor. When the stamp act was finally repealed after much argument, the British felt the need to reinstate their power by placing another act on tea. They thought that not only would the act make up for a large dept from the seven year’s war, but it would also but the colonists in their place. One of the biggest mistakes of the British was to assume the colonists lax about who ruled them and the respect given to them. After the British took advantage for so long, it was no wonder the Sons of Liberty finally did something about it.
Differing Perspectives- Redcoats and Rebels is a book largely about perspective. While it is mainly from the point of view of the British, there are times when the colonists offer a perspective too. I think one of the best things about this book is that is neutral. It shows terrible people with selfish objectives and good people that want both sides to be happy on both sides of the war. Though the author is careful about keeping the book neutral, I see myself sympathizing with the British. After all America was its territory and like a parent, the country had to act like the bad guy sometimes.
Miranda Hogan post #3 (reply)
DeleteJenna,
I agree with you in the idea that the colonists were wrong and did overreact. I also like how you pointed out that the author did talk about the flaws of all the people involved, it made them seem more human, rather then just people in a textbook. It also made it easier to understand why they did the things they did.
One thing I disagree about with you is that the book is neutral. The author did add a little American perspective here and there, but more than not the writing was sided with the British, at least I feel. Throughout the book he always seemed to stress the American flaws more. He did point out what the British did wrong, but to me it seemed like he was almost just explaining the people and the story vs. degrading them. I do think he tried to keep the book neutral, but I found myself disliking the Americans more at the end of the book than the British.
Hanna Lambrecht Reply for Part One:
DeleteJenna,
I felt the same realization when I began the book about the American's side. We were taught from an early age that the British were the bad guys and the young american colonies were just doing what they had to do to build their country. It's a very fresh view. I knew of the tarring and feathering, but I didn't know that the politicians were ostracized and forced to live in a land of so called enemies to enforce the laws of their king. Politicians stayed out of loyalty, but I often wonder how far I would go to prove my loyalty to my country. Could I endure that torture? I do agree with Miranda on the point that the book is not neutral. There is a lot of information about both sides but the author is pointing fingers at the colonies for their poor decisions and outlashes. The Boston Tea Party is an interesting topic and every time I hear about it I learn something new. I do believe the Sons of Liberty were a little out of line, even if they were trying to prove such an important point. They had to realize the economic troubles in Britain (the cause of the taxation) would not be solved by wasting an entire shipload of tea. Extreme circumstances cause a falter in logic many times though and I do wonder if they thought that was the best solution.
Taylor Rowerdink reply to Jenna Baranowski
DeleteJenna,
I agree with you that the Boston Tea Party was a very interesting part of the American Reovlution. However in your blog, you write, "After the British took advantage for so long, it was no wonder the Sons of Liberty finally did something about it." I disagree that the British took advantage of America, but were legally and fairly enforcing these Acts on the colonies so the taxes on British and American citizens would be the same. However, these new Acts affected all Americans financially no matter how fair and legal the Act seemed, and it wasn't easy for the Americans to keep up to the King's demands, which is why they rebelled and why the Sons of Liberty was created.
Madison Trobec Post 3
DeleteJenna,
I agree with you that we were always taught that America was fighting to free themselves from an oppressive and unfair government, when really they simply overreacted to taxation. I do, however, disagree when you say that the British took advantage of America. They had created the colonies for the exact purpose they were being used for: to extend England's economic growth. They had nurtured the colonies, and expected the colonies to do the same for them.
Megan Niemuth Post #1 Posting in two parts because apparently its too many characters...
ReplyDeleteEvaluation: Despite studying the American Revolution in the eighth grade, I have a fairly bad memory, and remember little. However, there were a few things I read that confirmed what I already knew. When Paul Revere was first introduced on page sixteen, I wasn't surprised to learn that he had copied the picture of the Boston Massacre. This I already knew. I also remembered a bit about the Boston Tea Party, wherein the colonists threw barrels of tea into Boston Harbor, due to a tea tax. Reading that section of the book helped clear up things that it's been awhile since I've thought about. The author of this book seems to show things in a reliable light. Mostly things are told from the British side, which is nice since we've grown up hearing it from the American perspective, but it also manages to tell parts of the American side, which is nice since I, as I've already stated, have a bad memory. He also manages to successfully illustrate why the British lost the war, without flat out saying it. As far as the effects on history, reading this book has made me wonder, a bit, about what would have happened had the British won. Would we still be under British control? Would we be loyal subjects or would there be uprisings? And would Britain be taxing us? Not that I think Britain didn't have a right to tax the colonists. People in England were paying for the Seven Years' War, why not the colonists, on whose behalf that war was fought? This book has helped me realize that the British weren't be ridiculous in their wishes, and that the idea that the Americans were fighting a was for independence was a bit much, considering Britain did have a right to tax them.
Importance: The main idea of the book seems to be that the Americans took things too far in wanting independence and that the reason the British lost was that their leading officers were incapable of making intelligent decisions. Of course, this pretty much has to be expected when people are allowed to have a leading place in the army due to their considerable influence, money, or influential family members. The author's message seems to be that the Americans are often painted as being entirely in the right, while the British are the cruel dictators, but as they say, history is written by the victors, and the author seems to have made it his personal mission to write an accurate, unbiased history of the war. Although, admittedly, he sometimes goes into almost too much detail, to the point that the reader might get lost in the descriptions of the characters. Only one part of the book really confused me, and this was the Boston Massacre section. I've gone back to read it a few times, but I can't help but get lost in the descriptions of the various groups of people over the span of a few days. One of the things I have been able to understand, however, is that the Boston Massacre is not entirely the fault of the British. They had ample provocation, and were mostly acquitted, although the Americans painted the story to make the British look much worse than they were.
Megan Niemuth, part two of post #1
ReplyDeleteThrough Their Eyes: The colonists in the past seemed to think that it was ridiculous for Britain to tax them, while the British saw it as their right, because the Americans were part of their empire and the previous was had been fought on their behalf. Of course, the Americans had a viewpoint that was probably fairly blinded by the previous mistakes of the British, and saw this as yet another example of British tyranny. The British, who were more used to the dictates of the King and Parliament, saw no issues with what they were asking of the colonists.
Differing Perspectives: This book manages to share the conflicts on both sides, although the author seems as though he is showing the British side. What makes it seem like he is showing both sides is the fact that rather than simply focusing on the good points for the British, he also shares their weak points, occasionally commenting on what's happening with the Americans. As far as other perspectives, there is the perspective that America is in the right and Britain was being a cruel tyrant, which most Americans view as the only side of the story, and I'm sure the British have their own version, although I do not know what it is. I agree with the perspective of this book. Britain did a lot of foolish things which led to them losing the war, although they were perfectly justified in wanting the colonists to pay taxes as well.
Jenna: I agree with your sentiments that the British were wronged. I cannot see what would incite the colonists so about these taxes. They seem to be a reasonable way to exact payment for the cost of the Seven Years' War, which was fought to protect the colonists, and people in Britain were already paying similar taxes. As far as the Boston Tea Party, that seems to me to do little other than cause the ultimate downfall of the East India Company, rather than having the intended anti-Britain effect. While it makes sense that they would not want to pay them (who wants to pay taxes?) I can't help but think of Britain as, like you said, a sort of parent. Honestly, I believe the colonists should have grown up a bit more, especially when the King decided to remove most of them. If a single tax on tea is all that remains, what exactly did the colonists have to complain about? It couldn't have been that difficult to afford. I also agree that one of Britain's biggest mistakes was to assume the colonists would be okay with it. It seems to me that if Britain had taken a more active role with the management of the colonies in years previous, the Americans might not have gotten so out of hand, and might have accepted the taxes more readily. If they'd held more loyalty to their King, then surely they wouldn't have had such a problem paying the taxes.
Miranda Hogan Post #1 part 1
ReplyDeleteQuestions: One really big question I have is why did King George III turn down the Olive Branch petition? I mean was it that he was just so royally ticked that he couldn’t possibly consider forgiving the colonies. Or was it that he knew what he was doing. I mean did he realize that even if he did accept the petition there would still be trouble in the colonies, and it would just be best to settle it now?
Connections: During the time of the American Revolution the colonists fought for a better government, one where there wasn’t a reigning monarch. They were the first group of people to create a government like this that is still surviving today. It really was a “revolution”, so to speak, because after the Americans did it, we were the example that many other people strived for. Whether people have been striving for a democracy like we have, or just to get rid of an un-rightful monarch there are many examples of people rebelling for a better government today. One example is the recent rebellions in Egypt. The people overthrew their dictator at the time, Husain Mubarak, in an attempt to create a democracy. They voiced what they wanted and made it happen. The rebellion is still going on today, and was bloody, but so was our Revolutionary War.
Turning Point: One major turning point, at least it seemed to me, in these series of events was the Battle at Concord and Lexington. After a group of, almost sloppily thrown together, farmers sent the proud redcoats scurrying back to Boston, everyone seemed to realize how real this was. It made people realize that this whole rebellion thing wasn’t just consisting of “secret” meetings and small spurts of public rebellion anymore, it was a war. It must have sent a shockwave through the colonies to hear that their men fought the British, and won! I mean come on! That battle must have given people a sobering dose of reality, but also an amazing drink of hope. I mean Great Britain at the time was just that; great. They had conquests all over the world and had one of the fiercest militaries of all time. This group of un-uniformed men went up against this supper power and won. The Battle at Concord and Lexington really was the first real chapter in the American Revolution because it made people realize this war was a reality, but also that it was a hopeful reality. That hope is what drove many of those men through the endless, bitter winters and the much too bloody battles.
Miranda Hogan Post #1 part 2
ReplyDeleteDiffering Perspectives: The main selling point about Red Coats and Rebels is that it’s told through British eyes. With this book I got a very different flavor of the American Revolution, rather then the traditional U.S. history book. The book starts off explaining that the British just got done fighting this very costly war in America against the French, and a few Native Americans, to protect the colonies and the people living in them. It’s only natural then that they should be taxed then; the people back home in Britain were being taxed as well for this war. I do understand the whole idea that they didn’t get to vote for who represented them. That would be frustrating, but in retaliation they start physically harming people and their property? I don’t really understand what they were trying to prove, other then the fact that they were unruly. Yes the people they harmed did work for the king, but when we have laws passed today we don’t agree with, we don’t automatically go ransack the homes of people who work in legislation. I mean if I were the king, or anyone routing for Britain I would be enraged. Technically the Americans were still under British reign, even though they didn’t act like it, so the British began to enforce more taxes on the Americans to show their dominance. In a way the British were treating the Americans like unruly teenagers, but they were acting like it. The British didn’t handle the situation perfectly, but neither did the Americans. Sometimes our history books almost try and make out the colonists to be victims, but really they weren’t. I also understand why Great Britain felt the need to send more troops to America, to hopefully settle them. For the Americans sending more troops just made them even more angry and violent. I mean I would be frustrated too if I had to house soldiers I didn’t even want, like the Americans had to, but the soldiers were only sent because they were rebelling so much. I do side with the British concerning the pre-war events; this book really gave me a very new outlook on who “started” the Revolutionary War.
Zach Peterson - Post #1
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts
Evaluation - In my opinion Hibbert opened my eyes to a whole new meaning to the Revolutionary War. Going into this book, I had been expecting facts to enhance my knowledge on the subject, not change it completely. Learning about England's side of the story completely changed the game for me, and rendered my previous knowledge of the Revolution inadequate. It was unbelievable reading about how savage the Americans really were, and even though it is obvious that every side has its own flaws, it was still astonishing to me that the Americans weren't as heroic and great as history class would crack them up to be.
Importance - I think the message Hibbert want to send was that when it comes to war, when you look at both sides, there is no good or evil. Similar to politics in today's world, everyone has their own opinions about what is better for the world, and all are beneficial to someone, and not so much to others. When it comes to the Revolution, the Loyalists/British wanted to stay united with America, and the heavy taxation was only to help lessen the damage of Britain's debt, which was mostly from providing protection for America. The rebels wanted America to become independent, which would provide economic opportunities for its inhabitants (and of course, less economic pressure from Europe), but would leave England in even heavier debt. No side is purely good.
Reading Like a Historian
Differing Perspectives - Like I mentioned before, seeing the Revolution through British eyes is a whole new experience for me, and also somewhat disappointing. I used to think the Americans stood up and did what's right for their country and the rest of the world. Knowing about both sides of the war, I can't decide who's right and who's wrong. Perhaps it's better that way. Either way, I had no clue how much suffering the British had gone through, and how many casualties they took not only due to fighting, but also from severe winters and diseases such as smallpox.
Through Their Eyes - Again relating to perspective, I found it surprising that there were members of Parliament that supported the rebels, and people that were against the war altogether. I mean, it isn't as much surprising as much as I really have never thought of it before. Seeing the British talk about how it is pointless trying to stay connected with a country far overseas was enlightening to me, as well as seeing the Redcoats themselves explain that every victory is also a loss, because the Americans were once their comrads.
Megan Niemuth Post #2
ReplyDeleteEvaluation: This book was very helpful for seeing the other side of the conflict. It seems that since we are Americans, we are painted as being the victims, and the British bullies. I agree with Zach's opinion that the book really changed my opinion on the whole war as well, rather than just providing more detail. It seems that, as they say, history is written by the victors, and as Americans, we are mostly told an edited version of events that make the war have been totally justified on our side.
Big Idea/Generalizations: I found while I was reading that many people in Britain thought that this was a little uprising that could be subdued without much effort at all on their part. I think this is partly due to their overconfidence, which is probably what ultimately lost them nearly all their colonies. I think that Britain, in general, was entirely too eager to think themselves insurmountable and this is evidenced by the agreement of the French to fight on the side of the Americans, which appears to have been partly to put Britain in its place. Even some of the German soldiers were annoyed by the conduct of the British, and it seems that this is a recurring pattern with the British.
Turning Points: While reading this book, I had quite a few moments where I thought 'That's a good example of why the British ultimately lost.' or 'That contributed to the overall defeat of the British.' Some things were like the battles. Some commanders made some stupid decisions which led to ridiculous defeats, in regard to when or where to attack. A large part of it, though, seemed to be the hesitancy to attack which first Howe and then Clinton exhibited. It appears as though the two commanders didn't actually want to take part in the war. For example, Israel Putnam is reported as having said that "General Howe is either our friend or no general." I am inclined to believe it was the latter, as another thing that struck me as foolish was the tendency of the British to give commands to those that were wanted away from Britain, or those that were most famous or had the most money, rather than those that were most suited for military command. Another thing was the state of the Navy during the war. Sandwich obviously wasn't fit for his post, as the Navy was allowed to fall into disrepair. With a larger, better Navy, the war might have been won. All of these things together, and a few more, combined to give the commanders fewer and fewer chances to change the direction of the war for the better.
Through Their Eyes: It seems that part of the reason the British lost the war was their reluctance to push any advantages they might have gained. They seemed to want, rather than attack when Washington's troops were weak, to wait until they were recovered and joined by others. Perhaps this was common courtesy at the time, or perhaps it was simply the general idiocy of those that Britain thought fit to be put in command of such a campaign, I do not know which. However, I do think that had Howe attacked when Washington had so few troops, he might have dealt a great defeat upon the Americans, which would have made their luck go down from there, and perhaps the British might have won.
Hanna Lambrecht Reply for Part Two:
DeleteMegan,
I couldn't agree more with the comment that history is written by the victors. When I first read that it made me wonder as to what the British populace is taught. Are the Americans the bad guys to them, just as the British are to us? I also agree with the fact that the performance of a general was dependent on his salary. Ir made me wonder if I were a general would I be more concerned about my salary or saving my mens lives and winning the war? However, I disagree with the fact that the British were too timid to attack. While Howe did miss a great opportunity to really hurt Washington's troops, I think it was strategy to not make the first move, not fear.
Megan Niemuth Post #3
ReplyDeleteMiranda,
I agree with your first comment about the King not accepting the Olive Branch petition. It seems that, especially in the beginning, the King was prepared to do whatever he could to make the colonists happy, even retracting most of the taxes, so I really don't know what made the colonists so mad. It wasn't as if the British were enforcing unfair taxes. The taxes were perfectly justified, as Britain needed to regain money after the Seven Years' War and citizens in Britain were already paying the same tax. I agree with you about the turning points as well. It seems like a lot of people in Britain dismissed the war as a simply uprising that could be put down easily, and failed to see the importance, and this ultimately led to those defeats. I also agree that the colonists were a bit out of line in taking all their frustrations out on the tax collectors and loyalists and such. Today we don't hurt people just for having opposing political convictions, and I can't help but think that it was entirely unreasonable for the colonists to become this irritated over something that wasn't limited just to them. Plus, when they started acting up, the new taxes were imposed to show them that they were still beneath the crown and still subjects of Britain, so they couldn't just refuse to pay the taxes. I also side with the British concerning those events, because it seems that Britain gave the colonists entirely too much leeway to begin with, and the colonists just didn't know when to stop pushing it. Britain was doing nothing wrong, and so the Americans had no real reason to want any sort of independence or anything.
Miranda Hogan: reply
DeleteI like how you pointed out that in the start the king kind of went out of his way to appease the colonist by changing the taxes and what not. Then all of a sudden he pulls a 180 and completely rejects their "apology", you could say. I mean if I were George I would have been completely fed up with these colonists too. In a way I probably would have wanted to completely reject their petition too, but I just kind of think he didn't really imagine what could have possibly happen by him turning down their petition.
Miranda Hogan Post #2 part 1
ReplyDeleteTurning Points: I think the Battle of Saratoga was a major turning point. After that battle is when the French declared that they’d aid the Americans. It became official 1778 with the Franco-American Alliances. Then after the French, both Spain and The Netherlands joined the American forces. The Battle of Saratoga is when the rest of the world started really taking the Americans seriously as an enemy against the British, and I guess it’s true that your enemy’s enemy is your ally. We wouldn’t have been able to win the war at all without the support expressed through out the colonies, but we were fairly outnumbered by the British with out the supplies and men that our allies had provided. The Battle of Saratoga was really the last push those countries needed to decide to help us.
Different Perspectives: Again I’m going to look at this from the British’s side, but this time they’re in the wrong. If I were Great Britain as a whole I would feel invincible, especially against those measly little colonists. What mainly lost the British the war was arrogance and too many enemies. Britain had this virtually indestructible army and naval forces, and they are going against and un-established and, up to Washington being put in charge, unorganized army. I can understand how the British could be arrogant, but they greatly underestimated the colonists’ advantage and that’s the geography. The Americans knew where to go and where not to, they knew the land, and that put them a few steps ahead of the British. The other factor that the British underestimated as well was their enemies. I admit I didn’t know this, but three different countries aided the Americans. I mean I knew the French did, after the Battle of Saratoga, but I didn’t realize that Spain and The Netherlands also aided the Americans. Those three allies are what just gave the Americans the extra push the need to move forward and beat the British, which the British really didn’t see coming.
Miranda Hogan Post #2 part 2
ReplyDeleteVisualize: I can just picture the signing of the Peace of Paris treaty; a cool September breeze blowing through open windows offering a soft relief from the summer heat. The greatest relief though in the room is the treaty before all the men; the final end to the taxing war for both sides. The British are all straight backed and stiff, mouths thin and pursed with frustration at the loss of this seemingly easy win. The cheery, yet polite, Americans beaming with pride. Pride that their rebellion was successful, and they finally got what the original Pilgrims wanted all along: freedom. The tension seems to simply flow away with the soft zephyr to the Americans; their happiness outweighing any other emotion. The British officers’ pride was far too wounded to even consider posing for the painting; the painting that forever made that moment immortal, along with Britain’s bitterness.
Evaluation: I think that the Revolutionary War did much more for the colonies than just gain their freedom. I believe it brought them together, and made it more imaginable for them to become one. All the different colonies really had to pull together and rely on each other. The famous carton by Ben Franklin, “join or die”, really became a reality during those times, and the colonies did step up and join together. Before the war they all thought of themselves as completely different bodies, but during the war they became one. After the war though, when the British left, the colonies kind of went back to that old way of thinking, but because of the war the colonies were more willing to listen about officially becoming one. All these different states with so many different ideas and opinions were able to come together and unite against one common enemy, and that can do wonders for creating a strong union no matter how different the people are. I mean it at least worked in our case, because we are still the United States of America today.
Jenna Baranowski Post #3 (Reply)
DeleteMiranda,
I agree with what you said about the Revolutionary War doing much more for the colonies than just gain their freedom. I think that one of Britain's greatest fears was that if America won, there would be change worldwide- Britain's rein over the world would be questioned and other countries would fight for freedom like America. I like what you said about how the war affected the state's attitude towards each other and creating a joint government after the war. I'm not sure I agree with you though, when the states came together to create a new government, there were plently of disagreements and close-calls. Even though after the war, America was at one of it's weakest points in history, the war brought it together and probably made creating a new government easier than it would have been had the war been solved diplomatically.
Hanna Lambrecht Post for Part Two:
ReplyDelete"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." - Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson is a hypocritical man and when I read the passage on him in the novel my fascination was rekindled. He believes so strongly in the fact of freedom. That the creator, whoever it may be, gifted each and every one of us with freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He found it unfair when the king stood in the way of his rights and the rights of his countrymen, yet had a plantation with hundreds of slaves laboring the days away, and '... Had no intention of relinquishing them." (Hibbert 116) How can a man that believes no matter who you are you have these three rights, call a run-of-the-mill southern plantation home? How could he not fight for freedom for all races? For a nation free of the cruelties of slavery? Would not he have changed the course of the future just by setting an example and living without slaves? Where would our nation be today if the founding fathers would have made one different decision?
Britain has consistently been known has a military powerhouse. They are one of the leaders in military defense and technology. Some of the strategies that were used in the eighteenth century show that Britain has always been a force to fear. Battles won by Britain were not always by sheer force or strength or fire power but strategy. As generals for the American forces began to come from Britain, the American troops were gaining ground due to military strategy. Today, America joins Britain as one of the leading militaries. I found it interesting that the French agreed to help the colonies against Britain. Was it for redemption after the Seven Year's War, or was a bigger benefit foreseen for France?
After Tarleton's easy defeat of Buford, Hibbert talks about Loyalist civilians coming out of hiding to seek redemption on the rebels. This comment made me wonder why the loyalists were not made a part of the fighting force. The colonies were recruiting anyone they could get. Did Britain have too much pride to add an untrained man to their military forces, or did the loyalists hide out to avoid the war? In that case, how many soldiers did Britain lose? It may have been a completely different outcome if the civilians would have helped. However, I go back to my previous comment that all Britain had was military strategy. Did they have so much faith in the strategy they found no need for bigger troops? Like Megan mentioned, was it overconfidence that made Britain ok with leaving loyalists out of the war?
By the end of the book, I had a whole new outlook on the American Revolution. Almost every action had a British justification. When you learn about it here you hear what the British did to the rebels and you just can't believe it. However, reading this book puts a new perspective on it. You can see that the British were just as desperate and concerned as the rebels. With such similar interests, they could have most likely come to a peaceful agreement with time, but the colonies needed freedom. I found the novel very enlightening and found so many new details about the war that further helped my ability to understand what and why the war was happening.
Jenna Baranowski Post #2
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts
Big Idea/Generalizations- Something that I assume has been drilled into all of our heads since we were little is that, statistically- England should have won this war. The rulers were close to being the kings and queens of the world. Even after I’ve read the book, I’m amazed that little America actually did it. One of the contributing factors of this was that England had been oppressing a huge part of the world for quite a bit of time. It’s obvious that England was worried about the situation in the colonies, but not many people know that they were also worried about American privateers in their territory. The French, the Spanish, and even the Scottish had their own personal grudges against England. America knew about this and played it to their advantage. They sent Ben Franklin (a charming man of many occupations) to France to win the country over. In the end England was worried that America would simply be a catalyst.
Questions- An American General, William Heath wrote “A British sentinel asked an American, who was nearly opposite to him, if he could give him a chew of tobacco: the latter, having in his pocket a piece of a thick twisted roll, sent it across the creek to the British sentinel who, after taking off his bite, sent the reminder back again.” This puzzles me because throughout the book, we read stories of cold-blooded murder, rape, and violence of both sides to the other. I wonder if this (the quote) is a single occurrence or if it represented the attitude of either army toward the other.
Reading like a Historian
Through Their Eyes- It happened on both sides, but murder, rape, and general cruelty was especially harsh for the loyalists. Otherwise known as tories, loyalists were hated among the general American population for siding with the British. They lived in fear that the rebels would come and destroy their homes and families
Differing Perspectives- It is said that history is written by the victors. After reading Redcoats and Rebels, I would definitely agree with this sentiment. Usually books about the American Revolution are biased in the American perspective, but this book is written in the opposite. It was strange to hear of the struggles that England went through (some of the same as America). It was eye opening read stories of crimes and compassion that happened on both sides of the war.
Taylor Rowerdink Post #1
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts
Importance:
Like many you have previously said, I was surprised by this new perspective Christopher Hibbert had layed out for us in Redcoats and Rebels. After reading Part One of this book I have found that the author's purpose was to show us the British side of the American Revolution rather than the popular American side, which had us all believing the Americans were the good guys and the British were the bad guys. His book has made it easier for me to make my own opinions on who was right and wrong, and have a neutral standpoint.
Connections:
When I think about the relationship between America and Britain, i think about the relationship between a parent and their 18 year old child. Britain, the parent, is asking for financial help from America, their child. Since America is still "under Britain's roof", then Britain has every legal right to collect taxes from America to help pay to the debt from the Seven Year War. Samual Johnson once wrote, "It's Members [of the English Parliament] had a perfect right to impose taxes on the American colonies as payments 'exacted by authority from part of the communtiy for the benefit of the whole" page 22. So legally, America could not rebel against these taxes. However, colonists no longer wants live under British control and pay these "fair" taxes.
Thinking Like A Historian
Through Their Eyes:
After reading about the rebel colonists, like the Sons Of Liberty, and what had happened to stamp disributors and royal officials, I could not help but feel bad for the British. Loyalists, like Andrew Oliver, were brutaly murdered and their houses torn apart by angry colonists. "What greater joy did New England see, than a stampman hanging on a tree," was a very strong quote that showed how sadistic and angry the colonists had been, and how afraid loyalists in America must have been.
Turning Points:
One of the major turning points I found in Part One was when the British were beginning to realize the rebellion needed to be suppressed before it spiraled out of control. Thomas Gage had told the King, "So long as the British behaved like lambs , the colonists would play the part of lions, but that if the government were resolute the Americans would 'undoubtfully prove very meek'" page 24. The King agreed, but did not think the colonists would actually take action when the time came and that they were all talk. Yet legal Acts were still made that shut down the port in Boston, which effected all of New England. From that point on, Americans began to take action in becoming their own independent country by creating The First Continental Congress.
Taylor Rowerdink Post #2
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts
Visualize:
As I was reading about Washington crossing the Delaware to the British camp in Trenton, I felt as if I was a soldier suffering through that cold December night. I could imagine freezing from the storm of sleet and having fear for being seen/heard by the enemy. Tired and also hungry, yet afraid that if I rested, even for a second, I may never wake up again. It must have been one of the most miserable marches Washington's soldiers had ever experienced.
Generalizations:
Due to the British threats on American independence, the colonies had become stronger as a whole. Before the rebellion, each state had their own cultural differences from one another and they did not function well together. During the Revolution, however, the conolnies found themselves coming together to reach the main goal- liberty.
Thinking Like A Historian
Turning Points:
Thomas Paine's popular phamplet, Common Sense, was a major turning point in America's idea for independence. It had been written so that all Americans, no matter what their education, could understand Paine's strong points. It had also influenced the First Continental Congress that "...if independence were to be achieved, foreign alliances would be required and the these alliances could never be formed until the American colonies had their won permanent and seperate governemnt" page 115. This had begun the idea to create The Declaration Of Independence.
Change and Continuity:
Washington's attack on Trenton had been a successful change for America and proved Washington was good enough to lead the Rebel Army. His change in strategies, like attacking the British camp during the night, proved a small, yet major win for America.
Zach Peterson - Post #2
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts
Big Idea/Generalizations - One main concept that was shown throughout part two was that the war wasn't just between England and Colonial America. Attacks on the rebels' forts were often conducted by both the British and Hessians (Germans) who had sided with England. On the other hand, America used England's conflicts with other European countries to their advantage. France had helped the rebels informally until the victory at Saratoga, after which they signed the Treaty of Alliance and the whole thing became official. Spain didn't form an alliance with America until 1779, and did it because of an ongoing conflict with Britain; they didn't really support the rebels.
Evaluation - Overall, this book being about the British perspective of the Revolution, it was very contradicting to what I had previously known about the topic. For the most part it's because prior to reading it, I had known just about nothing about the British side of the story.
Reading Like a Historian
Change and Continuity - When Washington took back Philadelphia after the British abandonment of the town, oddly enough the rebels and British were in the same geometric positions as they were two years before. Even so, the new French alliance caused the British Army to have to use a new strategy, which was to bring the battle to the South, where the British could protect resources in the Caribbean while continuing to attack and weaken the rebels. The war was completely changed, yet both sides were back to the same positions they were in just two years back after New York had been taken by the British.
Through Their Eyes - Giving a little credit to the American rebels, through reading this book I realized that even though the rebels were savage and didn't have the best reasoning for leaving England, they displayed very well that you can't win until you've won in the enemy's eyes. The rebels never gave up, and through their combined strength they somehow defeated the British.
Madison Trobec Part 1
ReplyDeleteConnections: When I chose this book, I expected to learn facts about the war. This is what I had always taken what I was told to be. It never occurred to me that everything I had been taught was only true from one point of view. Every American history book has made the colonists out to be brave heroes who fought against an unfair government. I never thought about it in a way that made Britain seem completely justified in their actions until I read this book.
Importance: The main focus of the book seems to be that Britain was completely within its rights to tax the colonists and that the hatred of Britain came not directly from the laws, but from the officials who were in the colonies. It seems that many of the soldiers housed in the colonies were disrespectful and insolent, angering the colonists.
Turning Points: The main turning point in this version of history seemed to be the Stamp Act. This act is what brought up the feelings of resentment at being taxed for a war they had no say in fighting. It also demonstrated just how oblivious the king was to their protests and how ineffective the efforts to enforce the laws were in the colonies.
Through their Eyes: After reading this book, it enabled me to look at the conflict from both sides. The Americans felt that it was unfair for Parliament to tax them without them being represented, which is a good point. However, the British felt that because they had created and nurtured America,and still did, they had a right to put taxes on their foods and objects to help pay off a debt.
Madison Trobec Post 2
ReplyDeleteBig Idea/Generalizations: There were a few Generalizations I thought of as I read this book. One is that we have all been taught that England should have won the war. And, taking into account that they had more people, a larger army, and more power, they probably should have. However, the more prominent generalization that we all know is that America was right to rebel. The British were oppressive and controlling and we needed to become a free country. However, this book changed my mind about this as well.
Evaluation: In relation, this book helped me reach the conclusion that America was not completely right. I am not saying that it didn't turn out for the best. I am saying that right and wrong are not as clearly defined in this war as we have been led to believe.
Differing Perspectives: I believe that a major part of what lost Britain this war was their perspective that the colonies could not possibly overtake them, that they were too powerful to be defeated by their little economy branch. It was their overconfidence that caused them to lose. They also underestimated their disadvantage of fighting in unfamiliar territory, where they were unsure of the possible traps and snares that could be set for them.
Through their eyes: Another reason the British may have lost is that they always waited too long to attack, waiting until the Americans had called reinforcements. They seemed to be fighting to fight fairly, not fighting to win the war. This might have been the cause of their ultimate failure.