Why the Patriots Really Fought
Many soldiers were not necessarily driven by the cause of liberty
Reader Comments
African Americans in the Revolutionary Was
I see once again that the contribution of the African American as well as Native American contribution to the war of independence is ignored. Your myth busting leaves a lot to be desire correcting the truth of who really fought this war. The brave Black and Red Americans dot so much rate an acknowledgment of their sacrifice. When will this mean spirited country give credit where credit is due. Shame on you myth busters for not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
France versus Britain
What's often overlooked is that France sent troops to the North American continent to fight alongisde Washington against the British. This was part of an extended British-French rivalry, similar to an earlier British-Spanish and a later British-German rivalry. France was finally defeated in 1815, but by that time the United States had secured itself to the point that it wouldn't have appeared a wise idea for Britain to attempt to resume the war in North America. But at the time when Britain decided to withdraw and accept a colonist victory the contest over these colonies would more likely have appeared to just be a pawn on the chessboard in the main game between Britain and France. As much as anything else that larger framework contributed to the British acceptance of colonial independence. But it's perfectly plausible that, if the French revolution had been easily squashed before Napolean appeared, then Britain might then have decided to attempt to return and finish the job in the colonies.
"Patriots" Motivation
If you read the accounts of the "Whiskey Rebellion", you will learn that G. Washington held a claim to about 30,000 acres of land in the present Township of Washington PA - that was illegal under British law. The British regarded the native Americans of the Iroquois Confederation, and the Leni Lenape (Delaware) tribes as allies against France - and accorded them status of soverign in their territory. Settlement was prohibited west of the eastern mountain chain (Appalachians). The "Revolution" was about how best to ethnically cleanse the indigenous people in order to seize their land.
The mischaracterized "taxation without representation" was to retire the British debt from the Seven Years War (French and Indian) of 146 Million British Pounds. At the time, all of the coinage in the North American colonies amounted to less than 8 Million Pounds. It is fair to say that with or without representation, the colonists would never own up to any responsibility to pay that debt when the package included a prohibition against the seizure of native American lands.
There was nothing to the Revolution except greed on the part of the Colonial upper class and a good supply of peasants to do the fighting for the mostly betrayed promise free land "later".
Why the Patriots Really Fought
How come it's OK to uncover "myths" about the American Revolution, and not about "The Holocaust?" They are both historical events. The latter should be just as open to investigation and debunking as the former.
Truth Tires Liars
Yes, we understand, Michael of VA. Its actually the down-n-dirty truth which tires you.
Heroes & The Minutemen
"ALL HISTORY IS A LIE." NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
Continental Army conscription, etc.
American Vichy, huh?
Why is it that such epithets are thrown around so easily? They add nothing to the discussion or to our appreciation of history. Perhaps it's easier than admitting the background and motivation of Continental soldiers is more complicated than you woould like.
Continental Army conscription was a fact; that doesn't denigrate the soldiers who fought under Washington, but it knowing how varied the men were helps us better understand and appreciate what they accomplished.
A good friend of mine is an expert on Loyalist soldiers, and has discovered that some numbers of Continental soldiers fought on both sides for many reasons. Were they traitors? Not necessarily. Some fought for the British until they had an opportunity to desert and return to the Whig side; others remained in a Loyalist regiment to the end of the war. Some of the latter applied for and received a pension from the US government. Captured British troops, too, sometimes fought for the other side. The War of the American Revolution was much more than trite myths and boring stereotypes ... and a true appreciation and study of our history deserves more than thoughtless name-calling.
John Rees
www.revwar75.com/library/rees
Tell me something new!
All soldiers are like that. Do you think the Brits joined for the advancement of the Kings pocket book? No! They joined for the advancement in their poverty stricken lives. For pay, and social advancement.
I'm so tired of these anti-American liberal articles and professors. They are American Vichy.
Why a Few Fight
There is always a percentage, 25 - 40, with the guts to fight. Sadly, that percentage seems smaller today. There is a large minority today that won't fight at all; the left, privileged elite, and liberal camp followers. Mostly it is from lack of courage, in some they are simply too self centered. Fortunately America has always had enough to fight, and as we look at the brave soldiers we have today we can be justly proud of the few....
my dearest lil' ol' me, i think that the "love of freedom" has to be defined in terms that are appropriate for the 18th century milieu when land was the measure of how "free" one was.
certainly, for those regulars born in europe amidst european notions of cultural superiority and surfdom, where land ownership was reserved for the elite, the promise of land in exchange for military service would surely have been considered a means of manifesting one's freedom. land ownership fully represented freedom: freedom from tyrany, freedom to create a new life, freedom to be an independent [rather than dependent] producer.
