BS: A new view of Independance Day...

Subject: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: GUEST,Shanghaiceltic
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 01:40 AM

Have any of our US Catters read this book yet. Sounds interesting. The comment by Washington about his soldiers is nothing new. The Duke of Wellington had some very pithy things to say about his.

As it is pro-British it must be true ;-)

Independence book takes British side
By Harry Mount in New York
(Filed: 05/07/2005)

A pro-British account of America's War of Independence topped the United States' bestseller lists yesterday, the day it celebrated its freedom from rule by London. More than one million copies of David McCullough's 1776 are in print already.

The book, which concentrates on the country's year of birth, has been acclaimed by critics.

McCullough praises George III and Westminster MPs but attacks George Washington as a poor tactician and a snob. The author highlights the American general's condescending attitude to his soldiers and his dismissal of them as "dirty and nasty, and afflicted by an unaccountable kind of stupidity". He attacks Washington for prejudice against the presence of free blacks in his army.

The historian, who has twice won a Pulitzer prize, depicts George III as a magnificent figure who voiced concern over his "unhappy people" in America.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 02:21 AM

The White House was built on the backs of many slaves. Hundreds of them.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: paddymac
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 03:14 AM

It's always discomfitting when someone from "the other side" starts popping bubbles. There is often a very fine line between blatant revisionism and truth telling.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 04:14 AM

"There is often a very fine line between blatant revisionism and truth telling."

Don't misunderestimate the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 04:17 AM

History is always written by the winning side.. of course they don't like it when someone comes along and tells them they were wrong.. Todays Spindoctors are nothing compared with some of the progaganda we've had fed to us over the last 2000 years.....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 10:47 AM

Washington was a class snob, but so were his British contemporaries!!!
The quote is very similar to ones by British generals, I could dig out some if anyone's interested.
For all his faults, Washington was one of the greatest (and if you think the word is positive or negative, get a dictionary) leaders of all time.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 11:20 AM

When historical accounts don't get revised to take into account the facts that have been left out, they cease to be history and become propaganda. Which is to say, lies told with a political and social motive.

For black and brown Americans, the outcome of the War of Independence was pretty grim. Whether it would have been better, if it had gone the other way, that's questionable. But in any case, what's done is done.

It's quite fun imagining alternative histories. What's strange and not such fun is when people get all partisan and empassioned about things like that.

The alternative history I find most intriguing in that period is if the French had come out on top in the North American wars. I rather like the thought of how that might have worked out.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 01:19 PM

Last night's Charlie Rose had a repeat of a May 30 2005 David McCullough interview. McCullough has written a book 1776 about early days of the American Revolution.

He got a lot of his material from diaries and other memoranda. He is a thorough researcher and I want to read the book.

He says that George III's documented madness didn't come about until 20 years after the revolution and that he was an intelligent man. American impressions to the contrary are what we were indoctrinated to believe.

I don't know how he discovered this but he says that more than half of "Americans" were not in favor of the war, but were kind of forced into it when the ringleaders of the Rebellion found themselves in deep doo doo, that after King George made the official pronouncement that the Brits were going to 'crush' the rebellion, the fomenters of unrest realized that they might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

(That last was a definite paraphrase on my part.)

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: PeteBoom
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 01:57 PM

Washington WAS a terrible tactician. He was also far more aware of position in Society than people tend to be taught - as was Jefferson and the bulk of the rest.

He desperately wanted a King's Commission into the regular Army and could not get one - so became a militia officer instead. Then, he managed to start the shooting in the Seven Year's War (French and Indian) by firing on a French scouting party, building a small fortification (Fort Necessity) and in turn surrendering it when the French showed up in force.

Where he stood out was managing to survive Braddock's disaster of building a road into the wilderness so his (Braddock's) army could move easily and beat the French like gentlemen. That he did survive, and managed to get some troops out was a feat that many Regular officers failed to do, including Braddock himself.

He DID manage to demonstrate a skill that would stand him in good stead in the 1770's - he could draw troops to him and hold them by force of will. He was theatrical, melodramatic (by today's standards), vain, incredibly conscious of position of society and perpetually hurt that because he was a "colonial" he would never fit into the London society he desperately wanted to join.

The result was he learned to keep an "Army in Being" in the field against far superior forces. When war came, he managed to fight a hit-and-run war, even tho he wanted to fight a classic set piece to show what a great leader he was. He learned (the hard way) that doing so would have the war over by mid-1776. So, he took the un-glorious route and fought when he could and ran when he could not fight.

He also made a point of not blaming subordinates for his mistakes (eg., Long Island, Brooklyn and Fort Washington) - a lesson current leaders should learn from.

Having read McCullough's book, rather than "praising" George III and other leaders, he points out that they were not evil incarnate. His reivew, in short, is "balanced" - looking at what the record actually shows, not what we have learned in Mythology Class... ummmm... I mean History Class.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 02:11 PM

PeteBoom, where I quoted McCullough was from his lips. I have not yet read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 06:48 PM

The list of 18th (and 19th and 20th and 21st) century snobs is long. Very, very long.

Washington was a lousy tactician -- he had decent ones under his command, though. The Continental Congress was Washington's boss, and the CC simply dithered and played politics. If it wasn't for the French the I'd be singing "God Save the Queen." And if it hadn't been for officers like Morgan and Arnold (yes, that's Benedict Arnold) whipping Burgoyne at Saratoga the French probably wouldn't have helped the Colonists -- and I'm back to singing "God Save the Queen."

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 07:04 PM

PeteBloom, there was fighting between the French and British in what is now western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio long before the 22-year-old Washington became involved. For example, the French took Trent's Fort (then under construction) and made it into their key fortress, Fort Duquesne, in April 1754, which was several months before the 'battle" at Fort Necessity. I hardly think that one can credit him with starting the Seven Years War.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 07:07 PM

Let us put it this way. In the Colonies of the time, was there any leader more dynamic or forceful than Washington?
That said, the fuller view we get of him, the better. Warts and all is my motto.

George III was intelligent but had his own issues, all Hannoverians (as in House of) did. His son was by far the more brilliant, but spoiled, selfish, bad-mannered and on terrible terms with his father and wife.

Condemming Washington's leadership because of those snobbish views is silly, like saying Stalin wasn't a great leader because he hated Capitalists, farmers, foreigners, Armenians, Chechens, Ingush, Ukrainians, Trotsky, Germans, Jews, philatelists.....

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 07:50 PM

It sometimes seems that Americans think of George III as being in charge, in a way that he wasn't, in the way kings were in charge in earlier centuries.

It didn't work like that. He had a lot of pull all right, but in the end his authority was limited, more so than has been, and is, the case with US Presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 08:30 PM

After the Revolution, there was a fairly strong section of public opinion that wanted the United States to be a monarchy, and preferably with George Washington as king. Washington, to his credit, rejected the idea.

I remember that when Reagan was elected the historians looked into his genealogy and declared that Reagan had the most royal (British royal implied) family tree of any president except Washington.

I'd be interested to see both of those judgments documented.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 09:07 PM

McGrath of Harlow said:

It didn't work like that. He (George III) had a lot of pull all right, but in the end his authority was limited, more so than has been, and is, the case with US Presidents.

There is a story from World War II times (and stick with me, kids; the point will be along shortly) that at some grand, high-level international diplomatic meeting a relatively new officer was in charge of protocol, and specifically in this case the seating arrangements at the major banquet that was held. He seated Churchill and Roosevelt at comparable spots.

Upon seeing the arrangements, the US chief of protocol approached the young officer and pointed out that Churchill didn't rate as highly as Roosevelt, and therefore the seating needed to be adjusted.

"Why is that?" the young officer said in injured and unbelieving tones.

"Because Churchill is merely Head of Government, whereas Roosevelt is both Head of Government AND Head of State!"

After hurried consultation of the protocol books, the seating was adjusted to give precedence to Roosevelt.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 11:37 PM

So it's clear that George III was not in fact a "magnificent figure", nor even depicted as one by McCullough--that's a blatant misreading.

I have 1776 and am reading it, and have just finished Iron Tears, which as I noted in another thread, made it clear that the American war, as it was often called, was virtually Britain's Vietnam, complete with a very vociferous opposition, slashing attacks in the press, national security questions, and riots in the streets (the riots only tangentially related to the war in America.)

Right from the start there was a very sizable segment of British society including some of its best thinkers and leaders --(Chatham almost up to his death, as well as Burke and Fox, among others)-- which thought the war a tragic mistake for Britain. A corollary of this is that George III, and his chosen ministers were dead wrong to be pursuing it.

As Pete Boom has pointed out, Washington fervently wanted to be an officer in the regular British army. As I recall, it was not usually permitted for a colonial to attain this status, certainly not without sponsorship. I'd say the British missed a sizeable opportunity there--and may have regretted it.

As far as Washington's failings, Iron Tears points out, that, though there were Americans criticizing him, Washington, was "far more a hero to the London press than anyone engaged in putting him down". "From what Englishmen knew of the failings in America of their own leadership after public hearings in Parliament, columns in the daily press, and scurrilous tales told in penny broadsides, the enemy commander-in-chief was a majestic figure". This is then illustrated by an English account published on 23 September 1779 which "exuberantly combined fiction and fact in creating a near-paragon of higher humanity".

I would also disagree that Washington was a "terrible tactician". He found out early what he had to work with--which wasn't much---and made the best of it.

To a large extent it was a question of militia vs a regular army. American commanders had to deal with a flow of mainly untrained troops, who, being badly paid and fed, were only too likely to just go home at the end of an enlistment. I've read this is a main reason the attack on Quebec was done so hurriedly in late December 1775 by Arnold and Montgomery, (who was killed)---if they had waited til l January, much of their army would have melted away with the year.

Washington realized both the necessity of avoiding pitched battles in general, and the necessity of seizing a chance like Trenton, which was not in fact an easy victory over Hessians sleeping after celebrating too much-see David Hackett Fischer--another excellent historian-- and his book Washington's Crossing.

It's certainly true that the British commanders had a serious problem in that in general   their highly trained troops were virtually irreplaceable--since Parliament was not generous in providing more--it's even a question as to where they would have come from---especially after France's entry on the American side--when the troop supply almost completely dried up--since a French invasion was expected-----and came close to occurring.

But the burden is still on those who would like to assert George III was a "magnificent figure" in the 1775-1783 period, and that Washington was a "terrible tactician". Proof is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 01:06 AM

Didn't he throw a dollar across the Potomac (or Delaware) River? Strong guy to do that; of course, a dollar WENT further in those days.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 07:44 AM

made it clear that the American war, as it was often called, was virtually Britain's Vietnam,

I've heard the Boer war called Britian's Vietnam, but never the War of Independance, which is odd, as 1776 is a much better analogy, in particular, another 'great power' helping the opposition, and politicians preventing the generals doings anything near as much as they would like.

Bunnahabhain

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Torctgyd
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 08:26 AM

Reply to Ebbie: I did read in a history book (forgive my lax mememory but I can't remember the title) which said that a third of the population in the Colonies were pro independence, a third agianst and a third couldn't have cared less.

In discussions with a close friend (a US graduate in history) we came to the conclusion that much of the known 'history' of the revolution was myth and that it had as much to do with the colonial leaders gaining power than throwing off the oppression of the British. It's an interesting 'What if' to discuss what, and how easily, the British could have done to forestall the revolution at the time; whether there would have been a later revolution is highly moot in this scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 08:54 AM

It seems quite possible there may have been more support for the rebellion in England than there was out in America.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 08:58 AM

One intriguing consequence of it, if it had gone the other way, would have been that there wouldn't have been any call for using Australia as a place to send convicts, so that's two continents with a very different history.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: GUEST,Allen (cookieless)
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 10:15 AM

One can't underestimate the contribution of Tom Paine

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: PeteBoom
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 12:08 PM

Ebbie - No arguments from me with what you said.

Art - Faded memory? THings muddled together. I know Necessity was after the capture of Trent, What I was under the impression of was that it was a recon party that Washington fired on about the same time... willing to concede that it has been a while and fog may have blurred it.

Field tactics and strategy are two different things. When Washington attempted to push his views on commanders during the war (early) bad things happened - like standing a fighting with half-trained troops against line regiments. Bad idea. (Long Island). Washington made good use of errors by his opponents who tended to get overly confident, and to learn from his mistakes - hence his escape from Long Island instead of standing and fighting again, and the war ending there.

Germantown and other battles demonstrated how much training had improved the abilities of the officers and men alike as the war progressed. The later battles also demonstrated how Washington learned to rely on subordinates to offer practical, workable suggestions, and the means to make them happen.

It is interesting that the same thing happened in the war of 1812 - half trained militia or troops in nominally "regular" regiments being whooped by militia and yoeman regiments made up of veterans and regular line regiments - and the officers wondering why... Until a young artillery officer presented them with the obvious solution - train, train, train and when you think its enough, train some more - then pick your ground and your fight and make it your own.

Now then, I do recall one discussion I had many many many years ago over drinks with a fellow. What we decided was that the "War of Revolution" was not - the "revolution" had happened some time before and the thought processes that lead up to the war were the result.

If you look at philosophy in Britain, say, thru to the early 1750's (around the start of the Seven Years War), and compare it with the thought processes by colonial "leaders" in the 1760s and early 1770s, you'd see very strong similarities. His point was that the level and class of society of people moving to the colonies changed around that point. Where second sons of gentry and aristocracy, educated and sort-of educated alike once came, and were heralded as "sophisticated thinkers" by the colonials, following the Seven Years War, many of these stopped coming, and those who came tended to be laborers and some craftsmen, but not the upper classes - along with convicts to some locations of course.

His point, and I may be foggy on it, was that before the 7 Years War, most people living in British America were emigrants from Britain or their direct offspring. By 1770, he claimed that was not the case. Most were born there. His argument was that where "political philosophy" had moved in in Britain, it had not in America - nor had it in parts of rural Britain. The result was that the colonial leaders in their petitions to Parliament and the King and the reasons for them, sounded, well, reasonable to most of the people reading them in the newspaper - and silly to the political elite of the day.

Add to that the "reasonable" need to recoup some of the expense of stationing troops in America and paying for the expenses of the war there, as far as the "elite" thought, and you get resentement from some, resignation to their lot from others, and another group believing that it was only fair, based on the expenses incurred on their behalf.

Ah well - back to work.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independence Day...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 12:59 PM

Just thought I'd give it the correct spelling...

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independence Day...
From: PeteBoom
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 01:16 PM

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independence Day...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 01:32 PM

Thank you, M of H; that bothered me no end!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 01:38 PM

Intersting thread. It's true that the struggle of the American colonies had a lot of support in Britain and the ordinary folks, certainly, were cheering on the underdog. I think it's fair to say it was viewed as more of a civil war than one between two nations. People may have changed their minds a bit after it escalated and got ugly when the French jumped in.

I was on a discussion panel years ago, discussing the topic of "battles that changed the course of history" (as if any didn't!) and I was one of two non-Americans. After a few rounds of "we whupped you" sort of comments that I erally couldn't defend myself against, I was delighted when the host revealed that the ancestors of the American guests had all immigrated to the US during the 1800s and were in fact on 'the other side' during the war.

We're all pals now though ... right? ;o)

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 03:32 PM

Of course there were people in England who felt pretty sceptical about all this at the time - for example Samuel Johnson with his "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?"

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 04:10 PM

Samuel Johnson was for many years rabidly and outspokenly against America and Americans.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 04:37 PM

He did make a forceful point there though, didn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 05 - 02:21 PM

I very much doubt that I would have pissed on George Washington or any of his generals, or George III or any of his generals, if they were alight! They were probably all psychopathic, murdering bastards who thought nothing of slaughtering thousands of innocents if it suited their purposes - not terribly dissimilar to the foul monsters who have just bombed London.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jul 05 - 03:50 PM

Now there's a broad brush.

Subject: RE: BS: A new view of Independance Day...
From: PoppaGator
Date: 07 Jul 05 - 04:29 PM

I read 1776 about two weeks ago, and the summary provided in the opening message of this thread is a huge oversimplification McCullough's message.

Washington is not presented as a "poor tactician and a snob" ~ he's shown to be an inexpereinced commander who was able to learn from his mistakes while maintaining his aura of personal leadership.

George III isn't really "praised," either ~ the author simply points out that he didn't begin showing signs of insanity until many years later.

The year 1776 was not really a very good year for the Continental Army, but it was a year they survived ~ barely ~ and during which they learned how to continue hanging on.

It's an interesting, subtle, and persuasive book, debunking a lot of oversimplified myth without going so far as to assert an equally oversimplified opposite point of view, as implied by Harry Mount, whoever he might be. Certainly not "pro-British," that's for sure. Also written in a nicely readable style, more like a novel than a history text. Perhaps Mr. Mount is jealous of McCullough's writing talent.

I didn't think it was any secret that opinion was divided among Americans at the time of the revolution. Now, I grew up in New Jersey, where most of the Revolutionary War was fought and where many historical sites are preserved and frequently visited by school groups, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, etc ~ perhaps we got a more throrough education on this particular historical period than kids in other US states. But I've always been aware that there was a great deal of "Tory" sentiment during the Revolution, support for the "redcoats," etc., especially in New York City and environs.