A Short History of the American Revolution by James Stokesbury
Part I Chapters 1-9 pages 1-161
Part II Chapters 10-18 pages 162-287
Follow the directions in your summer reading letter or on the post about directions for summer blogging.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRyan Yde Part I:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the fact that the information in this book is 100% accurate, and not just partially from the author's imagination. Also, the text presents the status of both sides during the war, instead of the British army or the patriot army.
Cause and Effect : The main driving force behind the colonist's outrage was the fact that they were not being represented by the British government, yet they had to pay taxes. As the King George began instituting more unfair taxes on the colonist's, the rage kept growing. This led to an outburst of war and conflict. Not everyone in the colonies wanted to be an independent country. Many colonists were loyalists (loyal to King George.) However, there were many that were involved in defeating Britain as well.
Questions:
Thinking in a historical perspective, was being taxed without be represented a new phenomenon? No. During other times in history, even today in communist countries, people have no say in who represents them. Taxation without representation was not a new atrocity, so why did that spark conflict?
Mai Mee Vang
DeleteI agree with you, I also like it how it is 100% accurate as well as shows both sides of the war instead of one or the other's, and also why the colonist's were outraged at the British government, why bother being within a government if you are not represented. The colonist's had a good reason to up rise against the British government.
John Palarski
DeleteHow do you guys both know for certain whether or not the information presented in the book is 100% accurate. Since the author wasn't there and no one in recent history was there, I think we have to presume that some details will not necessarily be 100% factually correct.
Correct John. I overstated it. The author presumably studied sources written by people who had a first-hand account. Because the event was so long ago, there is no sure way of confirming every detail outlined. There are no survivors that could tell us that there are inaccuracies, but we should still assume that there are some inaccurate fine details.
DeleteContinuing on what I stated in my Part 1:
Turning Points: In Chapter 2, The Second Continental Congress met to pick a military leader for the Revolution. Their decision, George Washington, was arguably the best choice that could have been made. Washington had combat experience in the French and Indian War. Because he knew the tactics that the British Army used, he knew how to effectively level the playing field during the war. The British had more soldiers, weaponry, and money; but the Americans had George Washington, a brilliant general that knew the enemy. I would consider this a turning point in the war. Without good leadership from a brilliant general, the chance of the colonies to gain their independence was miniscule. However, having picked Washington, the playing field was evened, giving the Americans a much better chance at succeeding in the war and eventually becoming the United States we know today.
Mai Mee Vang
ReplyDeletePart 1
Reading Thoughts:
When I was reading chapter four entitled “Creating States and Armies”, I encountered the problems faced by both the sides the Americans and British. American’s problems were where their power was. The states had more power than the government themselves, which caused numerous problems within the problem, some examples would be printing money since the government didn’t have power they didn’t have a central treasury or bank which means they weren’t able to print. Power wasn’t the only problem, when battles occurred; both sides had to figure out how to recruit men and how to maintain them as well. When they reached a well amount of soldiers, the Americans did not have the necessary utensils to maintain them, for example foods, weapons, and clothing to keep warm in the winter unlike British. With all the problems they faced they eventually found a way around it, if not they did their best to get past it. Reading the chapter reminded me of obstacles everyone encounters daily, whether that is with friends, family, or even teachers. At first when you encounter it, you may think it’ll be hard if even possible to get through. But with thorough planning you’ll get through the problems you face.
As I continued to read, I came across the name Thomas Pain he seemed familiar but I didn’t really recall where from, as I kept reading I realized why his name sounded so familiar, from my past history classes, we briefly talked about him and the famous pamphlet he wrote called, Common Sense, as I kept reading, Strokesbury made it clear how strongly Paine believed in independence. Throughout the paragraphs Strokesbury stated passages within Paine’s pamphlet; he stated that Americans would be better off without the British government. The pamphlet strongly encouraged many to be for the independence The 13 Colonies are fighting for if they weren’t already. It was a very successful propaganda.
Reading like a Historian:
In the past there were many views to the conflict, the Americans wanted independence so they were fighting for it. While on the other hand, the British might have felt threatened and/or betrayed because of the reoccurring rebellious actions.
Even though the change did not happen rapidly, the supporters within The 13 Colonies and its’ allies made change happen by fighting through with Great Britain with all they had.
Madeline Jagodzinski
DeleteMai Mee, I strongly agree with the problem of power for the Americans. The Americans were unorganized and scattered, which led to the colonies having more power than the government. On the other hand, the British had a government where there was a leader to make decisions for the people, which the Americans did not want. I also agree with your idea of Thomas Paine believing in independence. Paine wrote a very successful piece of propaganda which led to the colonists wanting to fight for independence. Paine's propaganda was a motivator for the colonists to fight for freedom.
Mai Mee Vang
ReplyDeletePart 2
Reading Thoughts:
While I was reading chapter 14, Seasons of Disaster, Strokesbury stated how well known Benedict Arnold’s name was debated between Washington’s. I was surprised as well as confused because Washington’s name is known for all the great things he achieved, but Arnold’s was known for the total opposite. Arnold’s name may be well known but he shouldn’t be proud of it. Many said his name is also a synonym for treason, and treason is the acting to overthrow one’s government, or to harm or kill its sovereign. On the 25th of September Washington found out Arnold betrayed him, and when Washington tried to capture him, he was already too late. Arnold fled to Britain for safety. Even though he made it safe back no one ever trusted him again the British also. Though his name is well known, he isn’t known for good, this reminds me of Hitler and all he caused. Even though Hitler is known by many, he isn’t known for doing any good, rather only for all the bad.
Throughout the story the word tory showed up a lot, as well as tories. At first I was unaware of what this word meant. After multiple times occurring throughout the book I looked it up. The definition of tory/tories is a member of the conservative party in Great Britain or Canada. After rereading the sentences with the word it seems like a synonym of loyalist, someone who remained loyal to their government, in this case someone who remained loyal to Britain during the American Revolution.
Reading like a Historian:
The Americans benefited after the American Revolution, because they achieved what they wanted from the start, independence from Great Britain. On the other hand Great Britain did not benefit, but they didn’t get harmed either. Stokesbury compared losing The 13 Colonies as adolescents just maturing, like children maturing into adults.
After the American Revolution many things changed other than The 13 Colonies gaining their independence. Without the British and their trades the Americans had to rely on the wealth of their land, farming, how smart they were in industry, and also, since they now don’t have a controller they had to figure out who should take control as well as whom to listen to.
John Palarski
ReplyDeletePart 1
Reading Thoughts:
Like Mai Mee and Ryan,I also like how both sides of the story is expressed in the book. I found it refreshing that we can see both sides instead of just one mainly biased one.
I also thought it was helpful that the first whole chapter was dedicated to the causes of the war and also took a look at relationship between England and France. The chapter also describes the reason for England's colonization aspirations, which was very helpful for me.
Reading like a Historian:
There are many Revolutionary War causes, including a series of British acts of Parliament such as the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act and the Townsend Acts. The American colonists had become increasingly angered at their homeland over a period of many decades. The colonists became especially alarmed at British taxation programs, not only because they greatly hampered colonial economies, but also because they believed the acts of Parliament were consistently violating their rights as British citizens.
At the beginning of Chapter Six, Strokesbury describes the Americans outlook as pretty bleak. Strokesbury says that the American's were very close to losing the war after there loss of New York City. I found it interesting to think about just how close the British had come to ending the war. If they had won, life today would certainly be different.
Madeline Jagodzinski
DeleteJohn, I also found it interesting that if the British would have won the war, what would life be like today? I think that the colonists had something to fight for and the British was just there to fight. The colonists wanted freedom, and that was a motivator to fight, along with the help of the French. The Americans were just more motivated to win.
John Palarski
ReplyDeletePart 2
Reading Thoughts:
When reading Chapter 7, Small Mercies, I couldn't help but notice that on page 115 Strokesbury stated that George Washington didn't know that he was beaten when he was assembling troops on the west bank of the Delaware. Washington, in theory, should have noticed that his chances of winning were slim to none. However, Washington assembled the troops and since he was naive to the fact that his odds were terrible he was able to keep morale up. Strokesbury goes on to say that morale is to the physical as ten to one.
I found it ironic that Britain lost the war when the French came and cut them off by sea. Britain was so dominant at sea during that time period and had been beating the Americans because of there naval superiority. Also it was the French that cut them off, there long time rival, which made it even more fitting.
Reading like a Historian: I personally think the British really missed out on a good opportunity by losing the war. Had Britain won, they would have been able to assert themselves as probably the most dominant country even today. They would have had full control of all Americas resources and would have been able to make a lot of money off of it. Even though Strokesbury doesn't really feel like Britain was harmed, I personally think they were for those reasons.
By winning the war, the Americans inherited some major problems. They were left with not a lot of exports and no government system. They were forced to come together and form there own government. Its fascinating that they were able to do this and that we're still using there model today.
I agree John. The British could have maintained world dominance by winning the war. I believe the deciding factor was the fact that the Americans didn't give up. The British exhausted most of their resources as the war dragged on. The last "nail in the coffin" was the fact that no European country was interested in coming to the aid of the British in the war against the colonies.
DeleteJacob Theobald: Part 1
ReplyDeleteReading thoughts-
I realized that there were many fronts in the Revolutionary war. As I started reading further and further, I noticed that there were in fact several mini-wars being fought between the British, the Americans, the Hessians, the Loyalists, the Scots, etc. While every one of these sides was actually a branch of a larger cause, every one of them had their own goals, prejudices, and grievances.
I also noticed that while one thinks of wars in a general win/loss scenario or who killed who and how many they killed determines the outcome, it actually works quite differently. On the American side, this war was fought not only while poorly clothed, equipped, and generally with very little money, but also with a strong sense of morale and (if I may be so bold) nationalism. They won the war not because they killed the King, overthrew a tyrant, killed the most people, etc. True, they won the land, but that's only a portion of WHY they won. The fact of the matter was they had something larger to fight for; this eventually led to the most negligible army in the world (at the time) beating the most substantially funded, equipped, and revered/feared army in Europe.
Reading Like a Historian-
The cause of the war is pretty simply put, but understanding why it was caused is another matter. The colonists simply did not agree with the unfair taxation; the King didn't care. The British treasury was in no position to make peace with the colonists on their terms. Not only that, but they didn't want to. Who were they that they had the right to not only question them but also to downright refuse to pay the taxes they owed the Crown? Their societies along with their ideologies clashed, and by that point, war was unavoidable.
There were multiple perspectives in this book, however the main perspectives were of the Americans and the British. Although the British perspective is an admirable one, due to my lineage and the society in which I have been raised in, I feel that the Americans had it right. The limits that were being put on them were very unfair.
Mai Mee Vang
DeleteJacob I agree with you, even though they didn't have all the proper needs compared to the British they still won, they had a reason to fight and they never lost sight of it which probably also influenced their outcome.
Madeline Jagodzinski
ReplyDeletePart One
Reading Thoughts-
Preview/Predict:
While reading A Short History of the American Revolution by James L. Stokesbury, I did not realize that a war could be so hard! One difficulty was finding men to fight. This was hard for both sides. The Colonists' armies were made-up of volunteer militia and some regular troops, but not all of the men living in the colonies sided against the British, so according to the book, only eight to ten percent of the population fought for the Colonists (70). The British also had trouble finding men to fight because they did not conscript soldiers like many other European countries, and not many men wanted to go to America to fight an unpopular war. Finding men to fight was difficult, but keeping them fed, clothed, and providing proper equipment was harder, especially for the colonists because they did not have the money, resources, manufacturing, proper equipment, or training that the British had. Even though the colonists lacked many advantages, they had perhaps the biggest advantage -- the home court. Certainly fighting on home soil was an advantage and a motivator for the Colonists.
Questions:
One topic that I questioned as I was reading the first nine chapters of this book was the alliances each side formed. Why did the French ally with the Colonists against the British? While most of Europe hated the British, it was really only the French who helped. One reason the French helped the American cause was because according to chapter seven the French valued "Liberty"(126). Another reason was Benjamin Franklin, who was the perfect man to represent the colonies to France and get the French support. There is no way the Colonists would have won the Revolutionary War without the French support.
Thinking Like a Historian -
Cause and Effect:
Problems do not magically appear; they start with a cause. The Revolution started with the disagreement over taxation; however, its roots grew from how the British and the Colonists viewed themselves differently. The British thought the Colonists should pay their fair share of the Seven Years War as British subjects, so they taxed them. The Colonists saw the Seven Years War as Britain's problem, not theirs; therefore, the taxes were unfair. These different views and the inability for the two sides to discuss and come to agreement led to the American Revolution.
Using the Past:
Even though the Revolutionary War was over 200 years ago, some of the same problems such as who should pay taxes and what the government should do for citizens is a big problem today. Just like the British and the Colonists could not listen to each others' concerns and come to an agreement, our political parties today are too separate, and are having trouble governing the United States. Hopefully, moderation and compromise will come soon, not another revolution.
Ryan Yde
ReplyDeletePart II
Reading Thoughts..
The second half of the book made me realize that both sides were struggling to stay afloat. The British had an advantage in the beginning of the war, because they had more resources being the world superpower at the time. However, after the resources were exhausted, the British began to struggle. America struggled throughout the war. They were disadvantaged from the start. Once the British ran out of resources, the American army and the British army were on an equal playing field. The deciding factor was who had the greater will to win.
Also, I began to realize that the colonists, whether Patriots or Loyalists, were greatly affected in a negative way by the war. Most of the money in the colonies was being used to fuel the army instead of industrial production and growing the economy. Obviously, when no money is invested in production or commerce, there will be no growth. The economy will begin the shrink. The colonists saw this happen.
Turning Points: In Chapter 15, the author stated that there were many rules against Catholics in England during the war, presumably because of King Henry VIII's argument with Pope Clement VII. Catholics were not allowed to attend universities, or hold commissions in the military forces. These rules came back to haunt England, and they tried stripping down some anti-Catholic rules in order to recruit Irish Catholics to serve in the military. By not allowing Catholics to serve in the military at first, the British shot themselves in the foot. They could have had many more thousands of soldiers to fight against the American army.
Change and Continuity: During the Revolutionary War, lots of money was spent on both sides. This greatly affected both economies in a negative manner. Throughout history, countries spend great amounts of money to fight another country. Even today, the United States spends trillions of dollars on defense spending and wars. Countries still spend large amounts of money on wars, and wars still affect economies, as it did back then.
Madeline Jagodzinski
ReplyDeletePart Two
Reading Thoughts-
Questions:
What makes history interesting? History is interesting when a good story is told. One of the weaknesses in A Short History of the American Revolution, by James L. Stokesbury, is that it is a text heavy book. The text covers important information explaining the Revolutionary War. The information presented was mainly as a secondary source because there was little evidence of primary source quotes, diaries, journals, pamphlets, drawings maps, or newspaper articles presented. One example of a primary source that was used in this book was the information from Thomas Paine's, "Common Sense." This was mainly in the opening chapters; the rest of the book was mainly a synthesis of Stokesbury’s research presented to the reader. Primary source information gives the reader a window to look through to make his or her own decisions about historical events. While not absolutely necessary if a reader is just looking for the basic facts, it does make the reader more interested in the topic. Another weakness of this book was that there were no charts of casualties, men, or food. In the book, there were maps, but even the maps were in black ink, and did not show trade routes or battles. Using better text features like putting in charts, timelines, or pictures would have helped the readers understand more. So, was this book an accurate, balanced presentation of the key facts? Yes, but the text heavy format was boring. I wonder what this book would be like if it were published now in 2012, not twenty years ago in 1991.
Connections:
Do revolutions still happen today? In seventh grade we studied the cultural revolution in the United States in the 1960, so I looked for revolutions happening today. In 2011 there was a revolution in Egypt. The people of Egypt began a non-violent protest that became violent. The people in Egypt were protesting against their government for many of the same ideas that the Colonists were fighting for, such as freedom of speech, unfair emergency laws, and a lack input in government. Even though the Egyptian revolution is over, many of these issues are still being worked out by groups in Egypt. It doesn’t quite seem over. Another revolution happening right now is occurring in Syria. The Free Syria Army is fighting the government forces of President Assad. Again freedom from oppression is an important cause that the people are fighting for. This war is going on right now and in the news. Foreign countries like the Unites States and groups like the United Nations are involved, too. There are battles and people dying, and this war isn’t over yet.
Jacob Theobald
DeleteWhile I can respect your criticism of an author whose chosen topic you'd have otherwise known practically nothing about, I think you take too much of a pessimistic view towards his work. The title of this book is titled "A Short History of the American Revolution". If you were looking for something of the sort you describe, why did you choose to read the watered down version of a war that lasted seven years long? Primary sources can take up quite a lot of ink. In this book, there are several hidden primary sources that aren't labeled. There are several quotes and anecdotes that I feel add a little more substance and, dare I say, humor which opposes what you describe as a boring "text heavy format". But this is secondary.
I believe that your research brings a very serious issue to light that all of us -- we're all Americans after all -- can appreciate and identify with.
Madeline Jagodzinski
ReplyDeletePart Two - continued.
Thinking Like a Historian-
Change and Continuity:
Our world is always changing. Change is something that can be noticed with the passing of time. One interesting change from the Revolutionary War to today is in communication and technology. Today, armies use electronics like computers, phones, and wireless GPS, etc. that help us communicate better with the world around us and other people. During the Revolutionary War, there were no electronics, so communication was more difficult. Two hundred and thirty years ago, during the Revolutionary War, communication relied on manpower. Letters, orders, secret details had to be hand-written or spoken by a man, and then hand-delivered by a man. Armies on both the Colonist and British side used couriers and spies who traveled on foot, horseback, by boat, etc. to hand deliver communication. This caused time delays and made the Revolutionary War longer than revolts today. There are still revolts going on in the world. In places like Egypt and Syria, ordinary people like the Colonists are trying to gain freedom from their governments, but these new rebels are using technology like social networking sites, Twitter, and cell phone technology to communicate much more quickly than the colonists were able to. Communication technology is one big change that has happened.
Differing Perspectives:
Point of View is the perspective from which a story is told. In A Short History of the American Revolution, by James L. Stokesbury, the perspective from which the American Revolution is told is that of the author James L. Stokesbury. His book is a secondary source synthesis of the events surrounding the war. It presents a balanced perspective. It is not overly favorable or critical of either the Colonists or the British. I agree with the perspective of this book because it tells both sides of the War really well. I think that getting both sides of the War is good because then you can get a better understanding of what really happened during the Revolutionary War. Time gives perspective. If this book was written 20 years after the War, it would probably give an unbalanced perspective, and it would not give both sides of the War.
Blaine Baumgartner
DeleteI couldnt agree with you more on how much war has changed to better technology for communication. But not only has communication between armies increased but also to how the news is spread you have social networks that on a moments notice can inform millions of people that there is some kind of revolution just like the Egyption revoltuoin the news spread like wild fire due to the increase in communication
Blaine Baumgartner
ReplyDeleteBlaine Baumgartner
ReplyDeleteReading thoughts: Through out reading this book I could never have imagened what it must have been like to be a soldier fighting in a war that you believe in but dont have the nessecary equipment to do so. It also supprised me at how hard it was for the American government to find ways to get the soldiers the nessecary equipment due to the lack of money to pay the farmers to give the nessecary cloths for the soldiers and the food that would be needed to fully support the army. Another problem that held back the war effort was inability for the army to show that they can take on the English before an countrys would join into the effort.
Before reading this book I knew that the British had employed multipul groups of people to help them in the war due to the lack of troops that would join the army to join the war. These groups caused many of the problems that the British face because these groups of people like the Heshins and the Idians were not under the command of the Britsh. These groups would even cause a battle that should have been won to a battle that was lost do to the lack of devotion of the cause. The British also didnt understand how the
Americans were fighting the war, The british view it as a common war that they faught all the time capturing the capital city and they win but didnt realize that the US would keep fighting now matter how many of the major citys they took because they believed in the cause.
What were the causes and effects: The main causes of the war was the fact that many Americans no longer view themselfs at part of Great Britian because of how little say they had in the government. An example of this would be the raiseing tax prices on all of the imported goods.
The effects of this cause a massive amount of dept to both England and the United States. Not only did the debt limit the US but it also put a strain on the relationship of England.
Jacob Theobald: Part 2
ReplyDeleteReading thoughts-
The second part of the book got really involved in how much both sides were aching. The British were being attacked on multiple fronts in India, the West Indies, and there was even a threat of invasion by the French and Spanish on their very soil. The fact that the British hung on as long as they did showed the largest sense of fortitude that would rival the US's today.
I feel like the Americans would not have won the war if they hadn't had the home field advantage. They knew the terrain, they knew the routes, they didn't need to depend on foreign shipments. In order to gather reinforcements, they may have to wait a month. The British may have had to wait upwards of 4 months: the total time it would take to get the request back, the time it would take to gather the fleet, and the time it would take to send them. Although they did have the finances to do such, time was the issue.
Thinking Like a Historian-
To think of today's change in technology vs. the Revolution would invite profound thoughts from a regular thinker. How did they fight such wars with massive armies in such little time? Today, orders can be sent out in 2 seconds, be recieved, and the following day, hundreds of thousands of soldiers can be deployed in less than 48 hours. So the change is quite massive.
Also, if you look to the past (not just today) you can also detect things that broke the US's trust they held in the British. Most of the colonies that were formed in the US were formed on religious freedom. Religious freedom that they had actually fled Europe in order to obtain. So by telling the colonies, "You can flee, but you have to...", they stepped on the toes that had been stepped on before. By then, the colonists had already gotten a rather aggravating bruise. Also, the war that brought down the hardest taxes was a war that most colonists were not even involved in. They had no reason to pay these taxes. Most were against the war in the first place. By putting an obligation to an already contemptuous settlement probably was not the best move in the playbook.
Blaine Baumgartner
ReplyDeleteReading thoughs part 2: While reading this book it talked alot about how the British had a hard time with the amount of people that they needed to win a battle. This contributed to the main reason the British could never get the finishing blow to the Americans and because of the lack of communication between there allies. I also noticed that the British often uderestemated the Americans and because of this they would often let up on an attack to rest. If they wouldnt have underestemated the Americans and how far they would go to seperat from the British it would have been a completly difftent war the British should have won the far without much of a problem.
Another thing that I learned while reading this book is that the American farmers would often not give what they could with out proper payment even if they did beleive in the cause. This cause massive problems to the Army because they often could barrly fead there own men. It could also lead to the loss of supporters because they would sometimes steal the animals or materials to give there army the best they could to keep them going.
What has Changed and remained the same: What has changed is the way that wars are faught due to advancing communication and the items used to fight wars.Now wars are faught with small teams compaired to the massive armies that would beformed and stand in the middle of a field and fire until one army out manueverd the other. The main thing that has remained the same is houw hard Americans are whiling to fight for something that they believe in such as the pacific theater in WWII and an even harder faught war for the right to own slaves during the civil war.