What's the British take on the Revolutionary war?

[Platapus]

Barbara Mitchel is a historian I know. She is currently writing a book on the involvement of Cuba (as a Spanish colony) in the Revolutionary War.

Most histories don't address the assistance we got from Cuba.

Can't wait until her book is published. Maybe if I sweet talk her, I can be one of her reviewers.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Dr. Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United States" is also a good reference. He delves into why many of the colonists were not in favour of fighting in the revolution and what purpose the Declaration of Independence was intended for.

Zinn's book is terribly biased, actually. It is bad history, and takes an anti-American tone at every possible turn. It was used (parts) in a university history class I took, and it is terribly sourced... really awful. You'd do better to learn American History via wikipedia than if that text were your only basis (unless you live abroad, and hate the US, then it will preach to the choir (even if it is contradicted by most all sources contemporary to the described events)).

Anything with "people's" in the title is a overt statement of the politics of the writer (ie: "people's republic," etc, and Zinn fits right into that company).

Better for the revolution might be 1776, or even John Adams by McCullough (for very readable books that are also worth reading). Another very readable book is His Excellency: George Washington. It shows Washington's motivations (partially economic) for deciding to become a revolutionary (nice because it is a biography that concentrates on the "important" bits as they related to his decisions as general and President, and not about every minute detail of his childhood, etc, like some other Washington tomes).

My take has always been that the colonies were grossly mismanaged by the British. The situation in the colonies was nothing if not telegraphed before hand. You can't really transition from a model where almost anything goes, with nearly complete local autonomy to dictating from across the ocean. They created an independent-minded people, then didn't give them enough avenue for local power, AND power in Parliament. Had they gotten out in front of the situation, and given the US real representation in Parliament I don't think the Revolution would ever have happened in the first place. There were some in England in favor of such a solution, too, this is not just 20/20 hindsight.

[Platapus]

I think you are confusing your opinion of Zinn (who was an admitted socialist) with the quality of his work.

Anything with "people's" in the title is a overt statement of the politics of the writer

and you talk about Zinn's bias?

His writings are not perfect (show me a historian who is). Yes he does have a different interpretation than some other historians. But his research and citations have been reviewed.

If your University class only used parts of his work, I would question the academic integrity of your instructor. Few historical references can be taken piece meal. This is especially true with Zinn as he did have a habit of jumping around thematically in his history.

Was your instructor using Zinn to criticize him?

If you treat historical interpretations in the light of "hating the US" you will be limited in your understanding of history. History has many interpretations. If you limit yourself to one culture's interpretations you will only know one culture's interpretations.

If you don't like reading Zinn, that's great. But to say that his research is without merit or use, is inaccurate.

I, for one, have an open mind to historical interpretations that I don't completely agree with.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by jumpy

How would the colonial civil war have shaped up without the aid of the french? (.

Is that what the British history books call it?

[tater]

You tink a university history professor should stick to a single text, and take it hook, line and sinker? Really? I'd prefer a US history prof capable of actually writing a US history, and picking and choosing from various sources. That is after all Zinn's book is—it's a survey book using secondary sources. It's not like any text of an entire nation's history is gonna be great, they'll all be retreads, regardless of the author. I think in many ways his book really requires that you already know the basic storyline, in fact.

It's like WW2 pacific histories that use Morrison as if it were a primary source. Look at all the WRONG takes on the IJN at Midway that were simply retreads of Morrison and Fuchida (taking Fuchida uncritically (even though he was discredited in Japan) since he was the only japanese author they had translated).

Zinn's take on Hiroshima is of course wrong (he thinks the cable from the jap ambassador saying they should negotiate proves something (yet ignores the response from Tokyo—"hell no!")

His stuff about the Pequot was missing a lot (which I know since I grew up near where they were wiped out, and we learned about it in much detail). Eberything missing pushed the story in one direction (Euros BAD, natives, happy, living in harmony).

And no, the prof was not using Zinn only to criticize, this was at a U here in the US, so the prof was likely every bit the socialist that Zinn was. Zinn says that his history is biased right in the book. He claims that since all the others are biased the other way it's OK. The later stuff (recent history) is terrible. The earlier parts are better, but the narrative is clearly designed to go a little too far in the opposite direction of enshrining the Founders.

Myself, I prefer scholarly books with, you know, proper footnotes and citations—even if the text itself is well-written (it is very well written, and pretty readable).

[Platapus]

Well you have established your credibility on this topic by your posts.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Is that what the British history books call it?

No, that was my reference - 'colonial' because it pertains to a colony (at that time at least), and 'civil war' seeing as we were pretty much fighting ourselves (subjects of a colonial territory) rather than say, the french directly - they being a sovereign nation, which the US subsequently became.

I think our history books just refer to it as a whole lot of effort that turned out not to be worth the aggro, possibly in part because of the french /jk


Looking back to my history lessons, the colonial scuffle was not something on the curriculum, other than in brief passing to mention settlers to the new land and a dispute over taxes and ownership of land, coupled with the english tradition of empire building and dishing out a pasting to the french and the innate temperament of the colonists to america wanting to set up shop and not be bothered by all the problems and intrigues (both political and religious) that beset the old country of europe. That's my sweeping overview.
I guess it might have been something I might have studied in more detail had I chosen A-level history, or perhaps a degree in the same.

[Lord Justice]

If one perhaps wishes a worthy read from a British perspective, might I suggest (Redcoats and Rebels). Delays with provisions, manpower etc, an ocean apart. In order to put rest to those men of the woods whom lacked discipline, was a costly and foolhardy affair, to draw from regiments where the British Empire was scattered around the world to one continent would not have been wise, the island required revenue and trade to its shores from all theatres. With the French intervention of troops extra ships etc stoppage to British supplies overseas was indeed a pesky buisness, but a most thunderous blow, not so directly placed to line volleys, but to the supplies, resulting in malnutrition, illness, disease, of some of the men whom suffered in that long voyage in nasty conditions to disembark, march, then find a lack of provisions to maintain, survive, sapping ones morale, not forgeting the constant manpower seeping in from the patriots err.. rebels Sirs I ask myself if the British pulled from other regions of the globe would the outcome have been diffrent? Well we will never know.

[Bilge_Rat]

British take:

The professional soldiers felt let down by their government. They were being asked to do a job for which they were not trained and without being given adequate resources or support by their government. Nevertheless, up until Yorktown, they managed to beat pretty much all the regular armies the Rebel put up against them.

The Rebels fought a vicious guerilla war where they spent as much time killing or intimidating Tory supporters as they did fighting the British Army.

The Rebels where much better at fighting the propaganda war. Every little British mistep was overblown as a war crime, both in the colonies and the liberal ("whigs") British press, while Rebel atrocities were glossed over.

In Britain, political parties were divided. The conservative Tories who sided with the King supported the war, while the Liberal whigs/press who saw this as an opportunity to strengthen the power of Parliament opposed the War.

I read this fascinating book , "Fusiliers", a while back by a British historian who follows the story of a British regiment that fought from Lexington to Yorktown:

http://www.amazon.com/Fusiliers-Brit.../dp/0802716881

When you read it from the British point of view, there are many parallels to the American experience in Vietnam.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

When you read it from the British point of view, there are many parallels to the American experience in Vietnam.

As there actually are. Wellington refused to take command of British forces in America in 1814, and some of the reasons he gave were ones we should have listened to in 1962.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I also think that a number of my fellow Americans also forget that we needed the French to attain victory, and that victory wasn't so much total as it was the British throwing up their hands and going home.

Not to mention, the Dutch and the Spanish.

[danexpat]

"The Fort," by British author Bernard Cornwell, the author of the Sharpe's books. About the Penobscot Expedition, the U.S. Navy's worst defeat pre-Pearl Harbor. How many people know that Paul Revere was court-martialed as a result of this action?

http://www.amazon.com/Fort-Novel-Rev...6251943&sr=1-1

[August]

Originally Posted by danexpat

How many people know that Paul Revere was court-martialed as a result of this action?

Not many i'll bet, but definitely more than what also know that Revere lost a whole chest of hand made silver items that he'd taken along to sell if the opportunity arose. It was lost on one of the ships they scuttled and still has not been recovered (at least that we know of). Imagine what the contents would be worth today!

There's a lot of money sitting somewhere on the bottom of the Penobscot bay. Last time I dove there i didn't find any of it...

BTW there's also rumors of a U-Boat wreck somewhere out in that bay as well.

[Tchocky]

As someone who never really peeked into this period, this thread is a great pointer

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I wasn't there so I don't exactly how it went down, but I'd say it worked out pretty well in the end for both the US and UK.

But we are building Round-abouts now, what's up with that?