Was the Revolutionary War a reactionary war? 'Bunker Hill' reconsiders history.

LA Times ^ | May 9, 2013 | Scott Martelle

[Pharmboy]

Nathaniel Philbrick's new book gets at the on-the-ground reality of the American Revolution, which the author writes began as 'a profoundly conservative movement.'

John Trumbull's "Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker's Hill." (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston / Viking / May 12, 2013)

It turns out the modern incarnation of the tea party may have more in common with the original Boston hell-raisers than people think.

Americans have long romanticized the events leading to the Battle of Bunker Hill and the start of the American Revolution, most without really understanding what happened or what was at stake. In his new book, "Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution," National Book Award-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick dives deeply and graphically into those treacherous days. The result is a riveting, fast-paced account of the nation's difficult conception but also about how people maneuvered in their time and place and under significant stress.

New Englanders of the era tended to be irascible and belonged to congregations that looked warily at anyone who strayed from doctrine. Absolutist in outlook, they defined freedom as "a very relative term" that usually began and ended with people like themselves (and notably not blacks or natives).

"To say that a love of democratic ideals had inspired these country people to take up arms against the [British] regulars is to misrepresent the reality of the revolutionary movement," Philbrick writes. "The patriots had refused to respect the rights of those with whom they did not agree, and loyalists had been sometimes brutally suppressed throughout Massachusetts."

[bunkerhill7]

My gggg Grandfather, his son and 5 other cousins & Prescott who ["grabbed his musket off the wall, kissed her [his wife]goodbye & ran out the door"], rushed to Breed`s Hill [Bunker Hill] so they could "blast the British." [Family tradition.] My gggg grandfather was 70 years old when he shot the British. His son was bayoneted as he was on the ground wounded and he summarily shot and killed the bastard British. He died 2 months later from the bayonet wound puncturing his lung.

Hatred of the British is the reason.

No "reaction" at all, just pure Redcoat hate and love of country.

[NonValueAdded]

Ah, Philbrick again

[dr_lew]

...But following the World War (1756 to 1763, called the French & Indian War in its North American aspect), where they sent over enough troops to protect the colonists from the French & Indians, they were able to actually control many incidents of life from the center of power in London.

There's a scene in the Last of the Mohicans (1992) where a scouting party hears cannon fire at Fort William Henry and cautiously approaches the scene. As they near it they peer through the trees in amazement at the spectacle of the bombardment. This scene struck me as a portent of the change that modernity was bound to bring to North America. In fact the whole movie gave a compelling impression of that era as a time of profound transformation.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks Pharmboy. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[Eye of Unk]

Ping me when the next Revolution starts.
I might be sleeping in.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

New Englanders were not the only people fighting that war, not by a long shot.

[Repeal The 17th]

John Adams clearly distinguished “the revolution” from “the revolutionary war”.
He said “the revolution” occurred in the people, long before “the revolutionary war” began.
-
“The Revolution was effected long before the war commenced.
The Revolution occurred in the minds and hearts of the people...
This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments,
and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”
~John Adams in 1818

[River Hawk]

“I wouldn’t get hung up on the idea of one side or the other being the modern-day progressives. Too much has changed since the 18th century for us to slap 21st century labels on the political positions of that era.”

Excellent point. For starters, the government of George III was libertarian compared to the Big Government meddling promoted today, by both Democrats and Republicans. Yet we just continue to take it. Nor was George III trying to foist gay marriage on us, nor was George III importing millions of unassimilable immigrants. And tax rates were, by today’s standards, incredibly low.

[VR-21]

"To say that a love of democratic ideals had inspired these country people to take up arms against the [British] regulars is to misrepresent the reality of the revolutionary movement," Philbrick writes. "The patriots had refused to respect the rights of those with whom they did not agree, and loyalists had been sometimes brutally suppressed throughout Massachusetts."

Seems the author felt that failure to accommodate ones enemies is reactionary. When you've taken a side, your purpose is to vanquish the other side. I reckon it's no longer fashionable to teach that anymore.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

The Brunswicker contingent raided the area as well, the Brunswickers being garrisoned along the Saint Lawrence River in Canada.

Incidentally, they were outfitted as a cavalry unit, but were not provided with horses, and a number of the regiment froze to death since they didn't have winter uniforms either. One Captain Willoe also described their consternation at the number of rattlesnakes. They were also very short on rations -- I doubt they were a very friendly group by the time they were dispatched over the border into NY.

[RegulatorCountry]

Looking at just the sheer number of battles, the Revolution was fought predominantly in the Carolinas, with New Jersey being the most hotly contested northern state. That doesn’t delve into strategic importance or number of casualties, but I suspect the picture wouldn’t change all that much due to those considerations.

I’ve often thought that our nation’s founding became politicized due to the Civil War, with first settlement moving to Plymouth from Jamestown and the Revolution becoming more of a New England affair as far as the history books indicated, in the aftermath of that conflict. The victors get to write the history books.

In light of that historical truism, it seems as if we’ve lost another war that most didn’t even understand was being fought, if modern history books are any indication. It was apparently a very racial conflict, too.

[Political Junkie Too]

"The patriots had refused to respect the rights of those with whom they did not agree, and loyalists had been sometimes brutally suppressed throughout Massachusetts."

Is this author saying that the Founding Fathers were really the tyrants, and the tyrants were victims?

-PJ

[Pharmboy]

Apparently so, although Philbrick’s mind seems to be a muddled mess. He certainly does seem sympathetic to the Loyalists and Royalists.

[Pelham]

“I have heard of another theory that the Revolutionary War was actually a conservative...I wish I remembered the author who proposed that idea.”

It’s Russell Kirk. I can’t recall in which of his books or essays right now but that is one of his themes.

[gleeaikin]

A while ago I ran across a rather disturbing historical novel called “Oliver Wiswell”, by Kenneth Roberts. It is the American Revolution told from the viewpoint of a young Loyalist. Has anyone else read it and have an opinion?

[gleeaikin]

These are some interesting observations. I grew up in New Jersey, and visited and camped at places like Crown Point and Ticonderoga. About 10 years ago I began work on a historical novel about the notorious Harpe brothers. Thus I learned about and ended up visiting places like Cowpens and Kings Mountain.

Up north we learned very little about the southern battles of the Revolution except the final one at Yorktown. This success would not have been possible without the sapping of British strength in the south from folks like Francis Marion, or the Overmountain Boys. Of course we must give some credit to French assistance especially at the end with their naval blockade. It helped too that India was more important economically to Britain than America.

[Makana]

“They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one.”

If one substitutes Healthcare for “stamps”, we have a frightening concept.

[colorado tanker]

This is a very difficult topic because of what the great historian Jacques Barzun termed "the great switch." In the 20th Century the major political parties of the West switched their ideology, conservatives becoming the parties of reform and change and liberals becoming the parties of the status quo and governmental power. That is why so many conservatives refer to themselves as "classical liberals."

So, it is true that the American revolutionaries should be viewed as members of a conservative movement as we define conservatism today. They were prepared to overthrow a monarchy and replace it with democratic government. They were in favor of trade (and later industrialization) and minimal taxes and government interference.

In the politics of their time, however, the revolutionaries were liberals. It was no coincidence that the American army adopted the colors of buff and blue because they were the colors of the English Whigs, who were the descendants of the men who engineered the Glorious Revolution, overthrowing James II and securing constitutional monarchy. They were the heirs of Cromwell, although loyal to the monarchy. The New Englanders of Bunker Hill were, like Cromwell, presbyterian (with a small "p") in religion, Whig in political outlook but prepared to overthrow the monarchy if that's what it took to secure the liberties they perceived to be their right.

[Pharmboy]

Yes...thank you for your clarifying comments. I would have thought that the bulk of the Bunker Hill patriots were Congregationalists, Unitarians (both of these being the heirs to Puritanism), Anglicans and Presbyterians. Interesting that you make the bulk of them Prsbyterians.

[x]

Presbyterian with a small p. Congregationalists and Presbyterians more or less agreed about theology. They came from different areas and disagreed a bit over how the church was to be organized beyond the local level.

The Congregationalists were English or New Englanders, and the Presbyterians were Scots or Irish or Scots-Irish. The fighters at Bunker Hill were largely Congregationalists (Unitarians gradually emerging from the established Congregational Church).

As the country moved westward the New England Congregationalist and Ulster Presbyterian streams could grow together, so that New Englanders like the Beechers might become Presbyterians in the West.

The Scots Highlanders of North Carolina, though, were largely Presbyterian, but Tory, having already lost much to the English (and their Lowland Scots allies) and not wanting to lose again.