Our First Civil War by H.W. Brands
I purchased this book thinking it would give community level examples of how the war for independence tore at the fabric of early American society. The book in fact looks at an outline of the American Revolution and provides some interesting depth to some of the history’s turning points.
What I learned about the American Revolution:
The “French and Indian War” as it was known in North America (or the 7 Years War as it was known in Europe) was for some, the first World War—-multiple continental possessions were in play as European powers fought. An early battle found the defeat of General Braddock (the defeat played out much as the ambush on the British Army in the movie, Last of the Mohicans).
George Washington was there and his Virginian troops outperformed the British regulars. The learning for many colonists of the time was that, a) the British could not be counted to protect them (the British Military fled to the coast leaving the frontier open to French and Indians). b) The British did not “get” how different America was, and c) even if we protect ourselves as colonists, we have a problem with chain of command ie soldiers from New York in the wilderness would not take orders from an officer from Pennsylvania even when it was the right thing to do.
I have read much of Benjamin Franklin but did not know that in this setting of war, he organized a private militia in Pennsylvania as the ruling leaders there were pacifists and would not fund an army even in the face of dramatic losses. Franklin managed this organization down to its funding and most citizens were satisfied. Franklin with others wondered, “what is the point of government if it won’t protect our own from terrorism?” The warfare with native Americans in these years had many “terrorist” qualities—striking fear and randomly as a tool of war.
Years later, in London, Franklin would be front-and-center in the discussion of taxes and the relationship of the colonies to Britain in general. He saw a benign global force for good that logically would include English colonies along with the mother country which with time, would be diminished with respect to populations and economies. He was principled with this view: are taxes on the colonies to pay for local administration and protection or for the growth of the English Empire? If for the Empire, how engaged do you want colonists to be when they are not represented? Can this be done with existing taxes or a new generation of taxes?
Representation in Parliament was also a point of interest. In one discussion, he points out that all the structures in the colonies supporting Royal government had in fact been funded and built by the colonists themselves—armories, legislative buildings, and so on—he points out that much of the cost and support of the recent war with the French in America was born by the colonists. Most Parliamentarians did not know that.
Franklin got things wrong: he suggesting solutions he thought would work based on the times when he lived in the colonies. He was out of date. He wrote that all this friction had been avoidable but now, “I sincerely wish, for the sake of the manufactures and commerce of Great Britain and for the sake of the strength which a firm union with our growing colonies would give us that these people have never been thus needlessly driven out of their senses……”. He was not yet on board with a stretch to independence. And he would later have a similar quote reserved for John Adams with whom he worked on many occasions “…“always an honest man, often a great one, but sometimes absolutely mad.”
A scandal would find Franklin humiliated by the ruling conservative majority and along with the contempt they heaped on him, he realized that their vision and need for control was no longer something the colonials (or he) could reconcile themselves to. He was radicalized and came back to Pennsylvania intent on supporting the revolution.
The Boston Masacre: my reading of this usually focusses on John Adams taking the risky but principled stand to defend the soldiers who killed civilians. Of interest, one of the mortally wounded Bostonians, stated on his death bed that he had seen riots against the British in Ireland and “…never knew troops to bear so much without firing as these had done….” The radicals were fanning the flames. The Governor of Massachusetts would flee his house before a mob who not only destroyed everything within it but take the building down to its frame.
Franklin’s points of view were appreciated by the minority opinions in Parliament and on-going correspondence would continue throughout the war. He is quick to point out that the British strategy militarily of setting Black Slaves and Native Americans on the frontier against all colonists (regardless of their political stances) would only radicalize the population of citizens and make any reconciliation impossible.
All of New England was labelled in revolt and the British Navy terrorized the coastline assuming everyone was guilty of insurrection. Modern Portland Maine was burned even as it played no role in what was happening in Boston. Franklin pointed out that fence-sitters politically speaking did not remain there when cast into the snow in winter with their houses in flames. The issue of law during a revolution is explored: Washington agreed to death sentences being handed out to Boston natives that informed the British about military targets or movements. Then as now, the specificity of that support could be hard to define. The cold winter in the field vs the warm housing in British controlled Boston would be a source of friction when the British left without the civilians whose homes and businesses they had occupied.
Our declaration of independence, two years into this conflict occurred despite the fact that many in Congress up to this point were “state’s rights” men who assumed eventual reconciliation with England but more self rule in the Colonies. As the war progressed, they either changed their minds or learned to suppress their hopes as stating them would have consequences. Ropes with nooses were left on doorsteps then as now as a warning.
The governor of Virginia in 1776 could only find safety on a Royal Navy vessel. He declared martial law: the government was suspended and he declared that anyone capable of bearing arms needed to rally to the British flag—those who did not were considered traitors and subject to: death, confiscation of property. Radically, he offered freedom to black slaves willing to bear arms—and in doing so helped a lot of fence sitters commit—to the revolution.
France enter into an alliance with the United States within the year after the battle of Saratoga. Of interest, this makes the war take on a global aspect and from then on, the British take a more defensive strategy hoping to win by attrition. On the western borders, Washington would insists on scorched earth warfare with opposing native Americans wanting to take any future military actions out of their hands. It was devastating for many tribes.
The war dragging on, and with Congress then not unlike Congress now (easy to criticize and often ineffectual) had to flee Philadelphia when colonial soldiers marched to demand what they were owed. Washington thought to suppress this (he was a man who valued order) until he realized that these soldiers were making the same point as he had been trying to make, without success.
The French Army and Navy were absolutely necessary to secure the military victory against Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. The surrender at Yorktown was performed by troops that had originally been set against the New York British defenses and moved to Virginia rapidly to take advantage of temporary French control of the Chesapeake as well as the addition of 2000 French soldiers. George Washington —and his army—had developed a lot over 7 years.
Yorktown led to acceptance on the part of the British Government that the US would remain free and independent. The issues to sort above and beyond that were borders and compensation. The settlement might have been scuttled over the issue of possessions—which included slaves who had, “come over” to the British side with a promise of freedom. Southern slave owners lined up in New York to reclaim their property but to British credit, the military decided to take 2000 blacks with them to Canada.
Regarding material losses—housing, land, businesses—- Franklin argued that Loyalists a) lost—no compensation was owed, b) if compensation was due, they should go to the British Government as the losses mounted with the prosecution of a war that could have been avoided, and c) Franklin throws in Canada as a bargaining chip—no money need change hands, just give us Canada to re-distribute……given the feelings of both Canadians and the British, this remained a bargaining chip and the borders with Canada fell along the traditional pre-French and Indian War boundaries to the Mississippi as both sides agreed to a treaty and an end of war.
A painting was commissioned of those involved in the signing of the treaty; the British representatives refused to sit for it and so, the painting remains incomplete, with only the Americans easily recognized.
From Franklin: “…..there has never been or ever will be such a thing as a good war or a bad peace.” We could use with his counsel once more…….
Comments