American Revolution - Page 3 - Historum

tonywalt · July 11th, 2012, 01:22 PM

I think there was a helluva alot of Apathy during this war - many sitting on the fence or busy doing farm work. It's just not appealing to write that in a history book- fair enough.

A historian said it best when he said it was 1/3 Korean War, 1/3 World War II, and 1/3 Vietnam War, in terms of public opinion, view, enthusiasm.

**tjadams** · July 11th, 2012, 01:25 PM

Sure. A lot of colonist were doing very well in their lives and
didn't want to risk that. Being asked the old question, "You're either
for us or against us" was hard to answer.

PragmaticStatistic · July 13th, 2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongo

Some Americans fought for the money, but I believe most did not.

You got any stats to back that up?

PragmaticStatistic · July 13th, 2012, 11:12 AM

Evidently where one came from in England and where one resided in the colonies determined how poor the colonialist was:

According to the http://www.greatmigration.org:

Quote:

Great Migration colonists shared other distinctive characteristics. New Englanders had a high level of literacy, perhaps nearly twice that of England as a whole. New Englanders were highly skilled; more than half of the settlers had been artisans or craftsmen. Only about seventeen percent came as servants, mostly as members of a household. In contrast, seventy-five percent of Virginia’s population arrived as servants. And in much greater proportion than the English population as a whole, New England settlers came from urban areas.

Unlike colonists of other regions, the Great Migration colonists were primarily middle class, and few were rich or poor. English emigrants primarily in search of economic betterment were unlikely to settle in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; the potential rewards were not great. Similarly, those already rich saw little opportunity to increase their wealth in a harsh region with no obvious cash crop. Emigrants seeking to realize the greatest economic opportunity would choose to go elsewhere, in effect excluding from New England those who placed material concerns first. The result of this exclusion was a remarkably homogeneous population, with colonists sharing similar backgrounds, outlooks, and perspectives.

An important rite of passage for all Great Migration colonists, and one that further bound them together as a group, was the voyage to Massachusetts. The majority of emigrants lived within a few days travel of a port of departure. Ships left from several points along the English coast, including London, Bristol, Barnstaple, Weymouth, Plymouth, Southampton, Ipswich, Great Yarmouth, and Gravesend. Most emigrant ships left England in March or April, allowing sufficient time for the journey and the ship’s return trip to England before cold weather began again. An average ocean crossing lasted from eight to ten weeks but the time of the voyage could vary greatly, from a trip of just thirty-eight days to one of six months.

Once in New England, the settlers usually spent a minimum of several weeks – frequently the entire first winter – in the port town at which they arrived or another established town. After gathering information about possible places to settle, they dispersed to towns throughout the colony, sometimes moving several times before finding permanent residences. Most chose to move to a new town, generally one less than two years old. The key to success was arriving early enough after a town’s founding to become a proprietor and share in the original land distribution, administered and controlled by the town. Proprietors received the best and largest land grants, as well as rights to share in future divisions. This share in future land divisions was extremely important to the settlers because it ensured viable economic futures for their children.

In order to best secure these rights, towns limited the number of possible proprietors. Once the limit was reached, the town was considered closed. In Dorchester, this process happened quite early – in 1636, just six years after its founding. Twenty-two towns, from Maine to Rhode Island, were closed or entry was drastically restricted within the first ten years of settlement. Fortunately for new arrivals, the frontier continued expanding and many new towns formed during the lifetimes of the original settlers. Settlement expanded from Boston, to both the north and the south, along the coast. The colonists first occupied land cleared by previous Native inhabitants. After these more desirable areas were taken, settlers moved into increasingly difficult terrain. Twenty-three towns in Massachusetts were founded in the 1630s, and these towns, as well as those settled in succeeding decades, provided a stable and secure land distribution system for the immigrants.

Thus a common man in one area of the colonies could have a very different reason to join the revolution than one in another colony.

According to the Smithsonian Magazine article "Myths of the American Revolution":

Quote:

But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.

The following year, when Congress mandated that men who enlisted must sign on for three years or the duration of the conflict, whichever came first, offers of cash and land bounties became an absolute necessity. The states and the army also turned to slick-tongued recruiters to round up volunteers. General Washington had urged conscription, stating that “the Government must have recourse to coercive measures.” In April 1777, Congress recommended a draft to the states. By the end of 1778, most states were conscripting men when Congress’ voluntary enlistment quotas were not met.

Thus, it was the offer of cash and land that prompted so many poor and middle-class colonialist to fight a revolution they knew would only benefit the wealthy landowners. So, the drive to be one of the new elite meritocracy with your free land, and the assumption of the right to vote as a land owner, would be a very good reason to fight someone else's war.

**Rongo** · July 13th, 2012, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PragmaticStatistic

You got any stats to back that up?

No, hence the words "I believe". But my next 3 paragraphs, which you omitted when quoting me, explain the reasoning behind my belief.

**Baltis** · July 13th, 2012, 11:27 AM

Not sure I've ever heard the American Dream cast in such disparaging terms.

PragmaticStatistic · July 14th, 2012, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongo

No, hence the words "I believe". But my next 3 paragraphs, which you omitted when quoting me, explain the reasoning behind my belief.

I was not challenging the other info you provided, just checking to see if you could back with data your implication that most Americans did not fight for money. Baltis would never allow me to make such a generalization without proof. Its like my saying the founding fathers created portions of the constitution for personal gain. I cannot prove it, and neither can you prove most Americans did not fight for money. Only this morning, in a private message, Baltis continues to demand I prove my claim.

So why has not Baltis demanded you prove most Americans did not fight for money? Because most people want to project and accept the myth of who are founding fathers and the revolutionary colonists who fought the war were. Its the patriotic thing to do. To imply otherwise is considered sacrosanct.

**Rongo** · July 14th, 2012, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PragmaticStatistic

I was not challenging the other info you provided, just checking to see if you could back with data your implication that most Americans did not fight for money. Baltis would never allow me to make such a generalization without proof. Its like my saying the founding fathers created portions of the constitution for personal gain. I cannot prove it, and neither can you prove most Americans did not fight for money. Only this morning, in a private message, Baltis continues to demand I prove my claim.

So why has not Baltis demanded you prove most Americans did not fight for money? Because most people want to project and accept the myth of who are founding fathers and the revolutionary colonists who fought the war were. Its the patriotic thing to do. To imply otherwise is considered sacrosanct.

Oh please. We all know that being "unpatriotic" is the hip thing these days...

**Baltis** · July 14th, 2012, 04:22 AM

During the first months of 1781, recruiting in VA became extremely difficult. Von Steuben was in charge of recruits and managed a meager 450 or so during a 6 month stretch. Complaints from the populace centered upon how deserters from the CA army weren't being prosecuted so why should they serve?

One might keep in mind these 'recruits' were by way of county levy which was essentially an order to the local militia leader and county sheriff to enlist a portion of their men. Nevertheless, even with the promises of the Continental Congress of future gain and urging of their local and state leaders, the population of VA was not showing any enthusiasm for joining the army.

And then something happened. Cornwallis invaded VA and began to terrorize the interior of VA. All of the sudden, men showed up in thousands to help with defense. While we often think of Lafayette and his small army bottling up Cornwallis in Yorktown, the underlying records reflect other pressures that gave Lafayette considerable assistance. Those pressures being in the form of large militia armies coming out to fight. Men who, by that time, had plenty of experience. Many with the Continental Army and many with militia actions at Guilford or Cowpens.

It seems that, once threatened with British regaining control of their state, the people of VA turned out without need of compensation. The result was sending Cornwallis into a defensive stance long enough to get Washington down to put the siege into effect.

**Rongo** · July 14th, 2012, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltis

During the first months of 1781, recruiting in VA became extremely difficult. Von Steuben was in charge of recruits and managed a meager 450 or so during a 6 month stretch. Complaints from the populace centered upon how deserters from the CA army weren't being prosecuted so why should they serve?

One might keep in mind these 'recruits' were by way of county levy which was essentially an order to the local militia leader and county sheriff to enlist a portion of their men. Nevertheless, even with the promises of the Continental Congress of future gain and urging of their local and state leaders, the population of VA was not showing any enthusiasm for joining the army.

And then something happened. Cornwallis invaded VA and began to terrorize the interior of VA. All of the sudden, men showed up in thousands to help with defense. While we often think of Lafayette and his small army bottling up Cornwallis in Yorktown, the underlying records reflect other pressures that gave Lafayette considerable assistance. Those pressures being in the form of large militia armies coming out to fight. Men who, by that time, had plenty of experience. Many with the Continental Army and many with militia actions at Guilford or Cowpens.

It seems that, once threatened with British regaining control of their state, the people of VA turned out without need of compensation. The result was sending Cornwallis into a defensive stance long enough to get Washington down to put the siege into effect.

Yes, I think this is very indicative of the American mentality at the time. There's a lot of misconceptions that they were fighting about taxation, or they were fighting for independence, or they were fighting for financial gain. While there certainly were Americans who fought for those things, it would appear that the majority of them were fighting for the simple reason that they didn't like the idea of British troops moving into their towns, shacking up in their homes and trampling their fields.