Monday, July 9, 2012

The Real History of the American Revolution


28 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cole Bielen Part 1
      I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book for a summer assignment. "The Real History of the American Revolution" was a very detailed book that covered everything from early colonial life in America to the Treaty of Paris, and all the battles in between. And that is why I enjoyed the book so much, I really enjoy military history, and the book covered all of the major battles of the revolution.
      Along with informing me of major battles, the book really informed me on how the revolution was really a war of perspectives. By thinking like a historian, I was able to determine that the way the American Revolution was viewed is exactly like the way conflicts are viewed today. Depending on who you were and what you thought of the rebel United States and Britain changed your perspective on the war, just like all conflicts today are perceived. This was different for me because it really went against my prior knowledge of the revolution, which was created by my 9th grade American History class. That class really painted the revolution as being black and white, that all Americans wanted independence and that all British wanted the colonies to stay under control of Britain. Although this is partly true, many British didn't want to give the U.S. independence because it would undermine Britain as a global power, and many Americans wanted independence because they did not want to face the tyranny of King George III. However, there were supporters of the British on American soil (Tories), as well as there were people that believed fighting the Americans was a lost cause. By thinking like a historian while reading the first two parts of the book, pages 1-158, I was able to determine that almost nothing is black and white, and that everyone will have a different opinion on a conflict based on their perspective as well as their background.

      Delete
    2. Chris Rhyner
      Comment

      Cole, I agree with you fully on how prior history classes said that the war was black and white. I also liked how you said that the views are basically the same in wars today and during the revolution.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you on George Washington. His successes as the American commander in chief never came from his military abilities. He was never the greatest military hero and had no major victories. But what did make him an astonishing and an important symbol of the Revolution is his character. He was great politically and he was a great leader overall due to his personality. He was trustworthy, strong, willing, and filled with wisdom. Its no wonder why he was chosen as Commander and eventually the first president of the United States.

      Delete
    2. Cole Bielen Part 2
      Another thing that many of us think about some people involved in the revolution is that all major people involved were either great leaders that should be recognized forever or horrid men whose names are now used as insults. This goes back to the idea of almost nothing being black and white, and will be another theme for this post: although there were many good and bad people, they all have faults. I thought like a historian when I looked over all the previous knowledge I had of a major figure, then compared it to the new knowledge the book had given me. Take George Washington for example. As soon as the name popped into my head, I instantly thought of a tall Virginian man that was the leader of the Continental Army and the first president of the United States. However, I didn’t recognize the faults that George Washington had. Washington was actually a very poor tactician, and lost many battles because of poorly thought out battle plans. The reason that Washington was so highly praised was because of his command presence, or his ability to command his army and keep them organized, which he was exceptionally good at. Another great example of a man that I recognized, but not in a good way, was Benedict Arnold. Although many people, including myself, associate his name with that of being a traitor (which he was), many people don't realize that he was a militia captain for the Patriots or even why he became a traitor. Arnold was a great American leader, but was arrogant and lived life well out of his means. Wanting the best for his wife and daughter, he made a request to work for the Royal Army for monetary compensation. Arnold didn't become a traitor because he supported the Crown, but because he was in need and that he wanted what was best for his family. The reasoning behind Arnold’s actions caused me to sympathize with him a little, and caused me to think like a historian and wonder if any other well recognized military figures had ever acted in a similar way. A lesson that the last two parts of the book, pages 159-353, taught me is: that no matter how perfect some of our most trusted or idolized individuals in life may be, 95% of the time, they will have faults. This can be applied to pretty much everyone today; politicians are a group that comes to mind for me. Even for myself, no matter how perfect I may seem (very) I still have my faults.

      Delete
    3. Jake Dahlke
      Reply to Cole Bielen

      I completely agree with you as far as how all people in history, good or bad are only recognized for what really stuck out for them. In my second post I also brought up how I had always thought that George Washington had been this flawless figure that everyone looked up to respected. By reading this book I learned that he actually had quite a few flaws when it came to being a tactician and people were actually starting to doubt his ability to lead. I like how you brought up Benedict Arnold as well. I hadn't really thought about him or as how a bad person could have really done good. Great post Cole and good job thinking like a historian.

      Delete
  3. Hayley Schnae
    Part 1 and 2 pages 1-158
    "The Real History of the American Revolution" was a very clear and in-depth analysis of the American Revolution and it gave precise information on all the battles, both major and minor, and all the information on the most significant people involved in the revolution.
    As I was reading the novel, one reading thought that caught my attention was probably one of the most important quotes in the revolution, "Taxation without representation is tyranny". This quote was said by a famous Boston lawyer, James Otis, and was a battle cry for the revolution. The quote symbolizes the colonists voice in government. The colonists had no voice. They had no representation. This was one of the biggest reasons for the revolution. The colonists wanted to be part of the government and voice their opinion. But unfortunately, Parliament didn't agree and the government became tyrannical. Another reading thought I had during the novel was how the American Revolution differed from other revolutions such as the French and Russian revolutions. In these revolutions, the citizens mainly fought for survival not because just because of taxes or voice. The government was starving the lower classes and giving nothing to them. Yet, in all revolutions, the citizens (and colonists) did want power and voice in government in some way or form but was not the main factor for the Russian and French revolutions. And in all revolutions, some change did occur whether it was surviving or succeeding from the main country.
    As I was reading, I also had to think like a historian to fully understand the American Revolution in greater detail. One of the historical thoughts was the different perspectives of the revolution. The colonists perspective was that they felt like they were treated differently from the other English men and women. They all came from the same country and heritage so why were they treated so different and unfairly? They also felt no voice in government and felt like slaves to the tyrannical British Parliament. They viewed Parliament as tyranny and King George III as a tyrannical king whose selfish acts led to the revolution. On the other hand, the British perspective was to keep the colonist under their control for their own purpose. They knew that losing the revolution meant losing world power. They didn't feel the colonists were treated very differently. In my opinion, the American perspective is one I agree with because they were treated as lower class citizens just as the black slaves felt until the civil war. Another historical thought I had was how the Parliament's taxation and refusal to compromise caused the Americans to rebel. The main effect from this was the creation of the United States. Not only did it change nationwide but changed the world. Caused a shift in world powers that would soon occur in the future years to come following the revolution. Britain lost world power and showed hated countries to gain advantage over Britain. This changed the lives of many people for the good (colonists) and for the worst (the British).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Katie Koenig

      I couldn't agree more when you say that "No Taxation without Representation" Became the battle cry of the revolution. The people were treated unfairly and had no rights or representation in their government even though they were British citizens.

      Delete
  4. Hayley Schnae
    Part 3 and 4 pages 159-353
    The last half of the novel introduced the climax and resolution of the revolution. Battles are more bloodier and devastating.
    One reading thought I had during the second half of the book was what would of happened if Cornwallis didn't surrender after Yorktown. Would the revolution have lasted longer? Would there have been a different outcome? Would the Americans give up and hand victory to Britain? No one can truly answer any of these questions but we can make prediction. If Britain would have won, we wouldn't have freedom, taxes would be extremely heavy, and the possibility of not exploring the western half of North America. We might have only the 13 original colonies. Yet, these are only prediction on the possible outcome. The final reading thought I had was the importance of the Franco-American alliance. The French helped give the British a heavy blow and helped the American army emerge stronger after the harsh winter at Valley Forge. The Americans entered Valley Forge as a weak, hungry army and emerged stronger than ever. Without the French alliance, the Americans might have not had the power to defeat Britain and remain part of the tyrannical government.
    An important historical thought I had was a huge turning point in the revolution: the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Paris helped to secure a recognition of independence, setting boundaries, and giving fishing and navigational rights to the new American country. This changed everything. It gave the Americans hope for a better life and power/strength. Yet, it showed weakness for the British and a drain of power. The final historical thought I had was how we can use our past to help us. The revolution shows how our government came to way it is and how we are who we are: free Americans with liberty! We can learn that we as a country, have courage and we should appreciate all the people who tried and those who died trying to give us the freedom we have today. But even with our separated country, our government still taxes Americans. It just goes to show that not everything changes for the best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of your posts are worded really well, Hayley, and I would like to thank you for commenting on my second post. Like Mr. Seeley said, I need to put in what kind of reading thoughts I had while I was reading, and how I thought like a historian. Your posts show these very well, and are great examples of how to put your thoughts into text.

      Delete
  5. Katie Koenig
    Part 1 and 2. Pg. 1- 158
    I enjoyed reading " The Real history of the American Revolution over the summer. I thought that it did a great job of explaining n detail the ups and down of both sides of the revolution as well as explaining battles, acts, and people I had never even heard of! It is a great analysis that goes in-depth and really shows the whole picture. As I was reading, I realized that this was the first revolution were the people had started it because of their own government. After reading about the French and Indian War, as well as the revolution, it became clear how unique this war was. All the other wars had been about survival, but this war was started all because of an idea. An idea that the government was tyrannical. It was a revolution started by the government and the issue was set ablaze by the countries own people. Another thing that caught my attention was the pamphlet "Common Sense." It was something that was written for the everyday people by a common person. It described the cause for revolution and why the colonist needed to band together to become Americans. This is what sparked the revolution. By this time the powder had already been laid, but with this simple book, all of America wanted to join the fight in the revolution.
    I thought like a historian by think about the cause and effects. The effects of all the taxes and acts proposed by King George III, led to the famous saying " No taxation without representation" by James Otis, really brought this up as an issue within the once peaceful colonies. When Parliament refused to let the colonies be represented and imposed even more taxes, the revolution was born.
    Another thing I thought about was the peoples perspective. At this point many were still loyal to the King and Parliament. So when the war began, a group of "country bumpkins" were up against the most advance army of their time. However the British were taught to shoot fast not accurately but the colonist were excellent marksmen. they also knew the terrain, climate and weather of the area, whereas the British were not familiar at all with any of the above. Redcoats were also treated very poorly and so many deserted. Once broken down, the colonist seemed to have something to fight for. The odds weren't so uneven. They also had a goal to fight for. The hope, the dream, the goal, of freedom from the tyrannical Great Britian and King George the Third.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kendra Polzin
      I like your writing style and I think you express your ideas very well. I agree that the revolution was born on a thought but it was because of economic oppresion from Parliament that the thought was born. Also, not everyone wanted to join in on the revolution. Only about a third of the people were patriots. Plus, when the revolution was started, it was never really declared. I also agree that Parliament wouldn't let the colonies have a representative. Also, it was impossible for them to have an accurate representative because by the time they got to England, they would be "outdated". And over time they would lose their connection to being from the colonies. I absolutely love your last paragraph! It is completely ture and you worded it very well.

      Delete
  6. Mr. Seeley

    Katie and Hayley - Nice job of using Thinking Like a Historian (TLH). Keep pushing those skills (Using the Past, Turning Points, Cause and Effect, Change and Continuity, Through Their Eyes) as you read.

    Cole - Nice start. It sounds like you are really liking the book. Just make sure to identify what TLH you are using. My suggestion is to do the following...

    Cause and Effect
    As I read I discovered that Thomas Paine's Common Sense had a huge impact on the Revolutionary war by... Even today it shows you the power of literature and the written word...

    I hope that helps.

    Keep up the hard work everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Katie Koenig
    Part 3 and 4

    Throught the book i tended to notice that the British took a very loong time whenever they were going to attack or movve to someplace new. Over and over they gave the Americans the much needed gift of time. Without it the war might have turned out completely different. The Americans might not have had enough time to fortifiy and the British might have ended up crushing the Revolution. We might have lost the war. Another very significant part of the war was the French American Alliance. Without the French, America was in very bad shape. We had no navy which the French helped out tremendisly with. They created victories, such as at the battle of Chesapeke Bay, where the French held off the Royal Navy. They helped out in Americas greatest time of need.
    i had to think like a historian by thinking about perspective of other people. What did the Indians think of all of this? These strange people came into there land and started a war that they got dragged into. They were repeatedly used and betrayed by both sides and became victims of massacres and campains to wipe them out. I wonder what they thought of all of this. Finally, the last turning point in the revolution was the electio of the first president of the United States of America. George Washington was the obvious choice. He had wisdom beyond his years and alwats managed to rally everyone when times were tough. He was a great and inspiational leader and helped form what is now the modern day U.S.A.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris Rhyner
    Part 1 & 2

    One generalization I made is that the "American" people were NOT ready for any revolution in the early stages of the colonies; they probably weren't even ready in the beginning of the revolution itself. The colonies had too many different beliefs on how to go about this war that, in the way the book put it, how did the States even win the war? They won the war because of George Washington. He was smart. When he said all that the Americans had to do to win this war was to outlast the British he was right.

    Another thing that stood out to me was the “No Taxation without Representation quote. I personally thought that it was the perfect battle cry for the revolution. I thought this because George III and parliament was imposing outrageous taxes on the colonies to offset “war debt”. Taxes on tea? Not cool at all. Neither was the Stamp Act. I believe that is what pushed the colonies over the edge in the movement for a revolution.
    Thinking like a historian, I figured out why parliament posed the taxes on the colonies in the first place. It was because of the French & Indian War. Even though the British were in the war, they sucked out loud. It was really the colonists who helped win the French & Indian War. The British Regulars were taught that precision— it didn’t matter. It was synchronization that really mattered. But the Colonists new that every bullet counted and this is also how the war in the Colonies was won.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Chris Rhyner
    Parts 3 & 4

    One generalization I made was that the British seemed like they didn’t even want to be there. By this I mean the Generals. They moved very slowly so that the Continental Army and Militias could regroup and make a counter attack— sometimes. Usually the Patriots cheered when they thought they had won, only to get mowed down by the British soldiers that had to be there and fight. So there really weren’t any counter attacks right away. But when the Patriots were able to attack, they did so with ferocity. Another thing I noticed was that Washington was a horrible tactician. That being said, toward the end of the war, he got pretty good at planning and carrying through with battles, but earlier in the war he was just horrible at this skill. But, he knew that to win against the British one must outlast the British. That is just the thing he did. At the end of the war, the British were just too tired to fight the war anymore. They also didn’t have enough man power or the money. So in the end, the Revolution was won because of the length.

    I believe that the past helps us look at many things differently. For instance: reasons of war. Sure most wars now are fought over independence, because the Americans sparked the interest in independence. But the important difference is the real reason people are fighting. In the French and Russian wars for independence were because of social structures and new ideas for the French and just plain tyranny for the Russians. Even though the Patriots claimed that George III was a tyrant, it was because of the unlawful taxes. In Russia people were starving. That is how the past helps look at revolutions now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kendra Polzin
    Part 1&2 Pages 1-158
    Part 1 -
    As I read this book and was looking for the reading thoughts and trying to think like a historian, I realized that I was noticing more than I would have without using these skills. I caught details that I know I would have otherwise just passed over. One reading thought was under the category of "The Big Idea". It was the idea that the American Revolution was economic. The colonists were feeling economically oppressed. This helped to make them realize that they were not represented in Parliament. Without this realization, the revolution may have never even started. A second reading thought I used was “Importance”. All of the acts that Parliament created are extremely important to the revolution. Without them there may not have ever even been a revolution.

    It was interesting to do the Thinking Like a Historian part of the reading. It got me more interested in the exact details of everything. My first TLH is "Through Their Eyes". When the colonists were beginning to become upset over not being represented in Parliament, they didn't want a revolution. Most people simply wanted the same basic rights of any other English citizen. This included being properly represented in Parliament. In their eyes, they were English citizens, not Americans. The term didn't even exist. My second one is also “Through Their Eyes”. It is an eyewitness account of an Indian raid in September 1694. It amazing and terrible to think of what some people had to go through. People were attacked, taken from their homes, and forced to walk extremely long distances, if they weren’t killed. Obviously, this event was not a direct link to the revolution but it was a part o the wars that work to cause the huge debt. Then came the taxes and then the revolution.

    Part 2 –
    My first reading thought for part two was an “Evaluation”. During Paul Revere’s famous midnight ride, he did not shout "The British are coming!" like many people, myself included, have always thought. Instead, he said, "The regulators are out!" It's strange to me because now I will never be able to think of his ride without correcting myself when I think "The British are coming!" It's such an iconic phrase for him and it wasn't even correct. The second thought is “Generalization”. Even after the attempted takeover of Canada and everything else, not everyone was unified as to what the fighting was all about. Many didn’t even have any idea. Because the revolution was never officially declared at that time, people didn’t have a solid reason.
    My first TLH is a “Turning Point”. It is the turning point of Lexington and Concord. It is thought to be the first battle of the revolution. It started the fighting with weapons and violence. It also showed the massive differences between the British soldiers and the minutemen of the colonies. It was sort of a turning point, realization, and a start for the fighting. My second TLH is “Cause and Effect”. When Benedict Arnold kept Carleton occupied in the Battle of Valcour Island on October 11, 1776 he prevented Carleton from meeting up with the other British soldiers. This kept them from invading the colonies from the north, through Canada. Arnold, in a way, saved the revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dylan Hartwig
    Parts 1 and 2
    Throughout the reading of this book "The Real History of the American Revolution", I was able to contract all sorts of pieces of information regarding the events preceding and leading up to what was the American Revolution.

    A Basic Generalization I made along with these first steps into the novel was the simple fact that these newly made colonies were too inexperienced to hurl themselves into a war/revolution such as this.
    The thoughts and beliefs on how the war was to be done was too different from each individual colony. The colonies overall were too different from each other and young to have a said "camaraderie" To pull it all together.

    In Thinking Like a Historian, I was able to tune in on the fine details in the events that led up to the revolution. One "Cause and Effect", specifically, being the French and Indian War. The War eventually led to the British saying "Oh hey guys, you invaded us so uhm you have to leave otherwise we're going to make you leave". Because of our inexperience this led to out fort bring taken over and one thing led to another. When all was said and done, Things were not so Hot and then England had massive amounts of war debt. That "war debt" was the exact Cause for the Effect. The Effect being taxation without representation; A major stepping stone to the revolution. The Second TLH Is "Through Their Eyes". During the battle of Lexington and Concord. Through viewing one of the first violent actions of the revolution, people were able to come to conclusive point that action needed to be taken. Things were not going to go smoothly from there on out. The course to be taken was one full of bloodshed and hardships in which our country was to earn freedom from tyrannical rule.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jake Dahlke
    Part 1&2
    I really enjoyed reading this book and I gained a lot of information that I didn't previously have. I really liked how the author included what really went into a revolution and showed what conditions fueled the start of one. I liked how he used other revolutions such as the Russian Revolution and compared it to the American Revolution. When you compare the American Revolution to other revolutions it makes it look like the American Revolution wasn't even really needed. The conditions that led up to the start of the Russian Revolution were a lot more harsh and severe than the conditions that led up to the American Revolution. That made me start thinking about what the change between these two revolutions was? I realized that the big change was that American had an ocean of distance between the government they were opposing and Russia was opposing the government right at home. The American Revolution never would have happened if it had been in England. The fact that America was so far away allowed the revolution to happen.

    The second reading thought that I will blog about are the events that really led up to the Revolution. Before I read this book I always thought that the colonies wanted to separate from the tyranny of England because the King was severely taxing the Colonies. And yes, that it somewhat true but after reading the book you can see that there is more than one perspective. Yes, the King was taxing the colonies but that was only because he paid for the protection of the colonies during the French and Indian War. It cost a lot of money in order to send British troops across the ocean and then to operate in America. The taxing was due to the fact that the colonies actually owed the King money for being protected by him. Before the French and Indian War the King really had left the colonies alone and now that he had to get involved, he wanted some return. It was really due to cause and effect that the taxation happened, and in my opinion really wasn't as unfair as what it seemed to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dalton Nelson
      I like how you talked about the Russian revolution its gets us the reader a different perspective as to why a war could break out and i cant agree with you more on your take on the King he was taxing them to protect his colonies and it was a tough choice. Good job Jake.

      Delete
  13. Jake Dahlke
    Parts 3&4
    Parts 3 and 4 for me were the most interesting because it was pretty much all new information for me. I really enjoyed learning about all the individual battles and seeing perspectives from both sides. The first thought I'd like to address is about Washington. I always thought he was an amazing, flawless general and leader. And he was an amazing leader and general but by reading the book I realized that he did have his flaws as well as anyone else. He lost some major battles in the war because he had some flaws with this tactics but I admire how he still pulled through and never lost courage and even though he lost a couple battles, he was still able to win the war. Everyone thinks that it was easy for Washington and he was a natural at being a great leader and general, but while reading I tried to see it through his perspective. I believe that it actually was extremely hard for him to be this person that everyone looked up to. It must have been even harder when he lost battles such as the battle for Philadelphia, and people were starting to lose hope in him and starting to doubt him.

    The second thought that I will blog about for these parts was when the French decided to join into the American Revolution. The French were finally convinced to join with the colonies when Washington displayed great courage and determination at Germantown. Washington was able to show the French that the colonies were really committed to the revolution and would win no matter what. The French joining in the revolution to aid the colonies was really the tipping point of the revolution and was what won the war for America. Although both the colonies and the French were fighting against the British, they had differing perspectives on the war. The colonies were fighting for independence from a monarchy. The French were fighting a rival empire in hopes of bettering themselves by taking down a rival. The colonies were also worried that once they escaped from the monarchy of England, would the French, another monarchy, want to imprison them as well? It was a valid point and I agree with the colonies perspective of that they had to be wary of the French even though they were a great ally to them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dylan Hartwig
    Parts 3&4

    As I finished reading through parts 3 and 4 of the Novel "The Real History of the American Revolution", I really recognized how the material in the first two parts were only just the initial kindling for what real battles and ferocity was to come later on during the final scenes of what was the American Revolution.

    One thing I'd like to point out is without Washington's bravery and courage shining through at germantown, things would have been completely different. Granted, his strategy's may have sucked out loud, but his head on and not-so-quick thinking may have just been what got him recognized. However, his presence didn't just stay selectively to the colonies themselves. Luckily the knowledge of his presence on the battlefront of the revolution made a name for him in the eyes of the French. Had that not have happened, the whole revolution would have gone completely different. Luckily a "Turning Point" So to speak happened when the french did come into play with the colonies.

    Another TLH that came pervaded my thoughts was trough the eyes/perspective of King Geroge The Third. Initally, this war was because of the tyrannical rule George was using through the abuse of taxes on imported goods and through the stamp act. Through his eyes, did he actually see himself as a merciless tyrant? Or was he simply trying to find a practical way to make up what he lost for trying to PROTECT the colonies, mind you. Now If the roles were to be switched, would someone really feel like what they were doing was wrong. "I protected you so now we need to make up for the losses". Merely food for thought, but put into a situation such as that, one would react for the better of their interests.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dalton Nelson
    Part 1&2
    I knew reading the book "The Real History Of The American Revolution" was going to be a challenge because of my little background on the topic. Because of the little information i knew it was difficult to predict stuff in the first section but i did derive some questions. First of all i dont get why people make King George III out to be some bad guy he just wanted the best for his colonies and he wasnt nearly as harsh as the French or Russian leaders. Also The French and Russian Revolutions were based on the starvation of the nation ours was more of a cause and effect. Yes many things went into like the French and Indian war and other wars along with many acts like the Stamp Act and Taxation without Representation but the main reason in my mind was because it is extremly difficult to be run or to mesh with England when to do anything you have to cross the Atlantic which is not only dangerous but takes a long time so i could use the (TLH)Through Their Eyes the hardship and cost just to get basic supplies they needed and i too along with them would get upset and want to revolt. The old and new world couldnt come together because it is impossible to govern a country effectively unless you respond to the needs and wants of the people and enforce laws right away as it is stated. So the cause is the distance between the two lands and the effect the beginning of a revolution. One last thing that really intrigued me was Paul Revere I always knew him as the man that yelled "The British were coming!" he took many rides besides that one and he also aided John Sullivan and John Langdon in not allowing General Gage to take over Fort William along with all of its amunition which i really didnt learn anything about in past years of schooling just kind of caught my eye.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dalton Nelson
    Parts 3&4

    In this part to me is where all the action occurred and the climax happened. The main focal point of it all were the battles and the great leader George Washington. Washington understood the kind of battle he was in and the oppenent he was facing which is a valuable thing to know in wars now a days as well. He knew that Britain had a great militia and military and could not be triumphant by destroying but what he had to do was out last them because he knew he himself would never give up or stop fighting. Washington was more of a act first think later kind of man like myself if he wanted to move he moved if he wanted to attack he attacked. Howe had an opportunity early before winter to take out washington and end the war by either invading Canada, New England or Philadelphia but instead he didnt. I can see through his eyes why he would want to wait it out until spring. Winter is risky their is more risk for injury, getting lost, starvation so i agree with that idea. But i think the main turning point is when all of Thomas Paines work to gain allies and tell people about the revolution pays off and we get France on our side. Yes they could turn on us at any second but we get benefits of more men more money since we don't have alot of either and we don't have a strong industry and government and now we have back up.
    Vocab:amnesty, reconciliation, alacrity, inept.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shirley Albiter
    Part 1 & 2

    The book "The Real history of the American Revolution" really go me thing about the doubtless behind the persecution of King George as a tyrant towards the colonies. Was the American Revolution needed or were the colonies being greedy and wanted more self-power?if the setting would have been in England rather than the in the New-World? Would the American Revolution would have occurred Those were some of the questions that I encountered reading this book.

    I also came to a better understanding on the reasons why King George had taxed the colonists, and before I had suspected that they were un-fairly taxed. After the French & Indian War, King George needed to supply protection to the colonists soon after. Their protection was going to come at a price, this being paid by taxes imposed on the colonies. From my point of view, the colonists seemed to have over-reacted to the imposed taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shirley Albiter
    Part 3 & 4

    During these last reading sections, they were highly dense with information concerning the battles during the Revolution. Although in the beginning, Washington went through many battle defeats that didn't stop his thrive to continue until defeat over his British opponents occurred. A question that I encountered during this reading was if the french hadn't provided military and financial aid to the colonists, would have they still succeeded? Another question was concerning the fact that both sides didn't have much funds, but if they both would have, would the war have ended much quicker? The British had recently gotten out of war and still had debt left. The colonies were new and inexperienced in fighting against a major dominant global power. Something I didn't understand was if Britain had such a powerful navy at sea and could have crushed them easily, why did they fight most of there battles on the inland of America.

    One of the turning points in the war was at Yorktown. Though not the best location to be chosen by the British for victory over the colonists, Cornwallis (British war leader) had a large armed very well trained army. He also had enough artillery to believe that victory would be his. But he didn't think that he would encounter defeat here.

    This book really made be doubt the fact of if we really needed the Revolution but also made me realize that these people really strived in fighting for what they believed in. A lesson we can use in certain points in our life.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree very much with Dalton. This section of the book is much more interesting then section one and two . I found it very useful as to you explaining in detail to what you were talking about like setting examples and stating the generals names as well as the names of the occurred events. I enjoyed your writing style and found it very easy to understand.
    -Shirley Albiter

    ReplyDelete