American Historians have been talking about slavery's role in the revolution for 30-40 years now. Virginia was pushed to revolution by an unholy trinity of debt, unrecognized claims in the west (due to the proclamation of 1763) and preservation of Slavery, especially after Lord Dunmore armed the slaves in 1775 (see "Forced Founders" by Woody Holton). Shouldn't go too far with that though because New England didn't have the same interests as southern states like Virginia nor even middle Atlantic states. Armed slaves and runaways in large numbers alone are cause to call the American Revolution a "Civil War" even without large portions of the (white) country that remained loyal to the King. But for the most part this stuff has been discussed a great deal in the past few decades. So basically it has been re-examined, if you would like some books I could send you a list

The real cutting edge in studies of loyalists now exists about loyalists in the War of 1812. Alan Taylor recently published a book I have not yet read (alas I graduated) which argues that the War 1812 was in fact a civil war (the second I guess) pitting Slaves against masters, Indian Nations against them selves and white neighbors, and former white loyalists in canida and Northern US with an axe to grind against their disloyal neighbors. The war almost led to a more familiar form of civil war when Federalists considered seceding from the union at the Hartford convention. Going to hopefully read it in the near future.

Thank you Santa for the interesting response.

I think American history, at least at school- rather than university-level, is still taught on this side of the pond as if the British were the bad guys wearing the black hats, while the Americans were the good guys who wore the white ones! Maybe this is understandable given the fare supplied from Hollywood (I am thinking specifically of The Patriot).

I must catch up on some of the refences you give, thank you again for supplying them.

thats because Gary Nash and the social historians lost the textbook wars of the early nineties. No worries, in a couple of years american school children will probably be learning that the revolution was a crusade against islamization and socialism

fullamish - in my opinion, the main reason for the war (that no one wants to talk about, let alone teach in school) was because of the Currency Act of 1764.

It forced the colonists to use currency that the Bank of England issued...at interest. When you put currency into circulation at interest, more debt exists than there is money to pay it off, keeping those forced to be dependent on it, into perpetual economic slavery.

Read up on some Andrew Jackson to gain some more perspective...

it's about controlling the debt...

this clip is from a movie and may seem a bit off topic, but it actually nails it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KvzuDbG-TQ

"No worries, in a couple of years american school children will probably be learning that the revolution was a crusade against islamization and socialism"

lol you could maybe, just maybe, try to read that into the barbary wars in jefferson's tenure.

lol. just saying. about socialism though.. that's a mite harder.

Ha, the Currency Act, where was that old thread where we discussed that. I would like repost what I said there. Suffice to say, the Currency Act was a dead issue by the time the war occurred.

@ Fulham, it's truly astonishing how ignorant people are here about the American "revolution". Students in the 100 level class I teach think Britain was an absolute monarchy who deprived the colonies of their religious freedom, among other things. They're surprised to learn that, *gasp*, Britain was a parliamentary democracy and the colonists were rebelling against Parliamentary Sovereignty. It's a travesty. As for patriots and loyalists, the common view here is that the vast majority of the population were patriots. Little is said about the terrorism and expulsion efforts aimed at loyalists. In fact it isn't considered terrorism. And nobody will say anything about the Quebec Act and how anti-Catholicism galvanized the radicals against the British, or mention anything about black Loyalists.

And my god don't you dare even suggest Washington was a piss poor general. They'll have your head.

The Patriot is a damned abomination of a movie, as is all the anglophobic garbage Gibson turns out - Gallipoli, Braveheart, etc. I'm surprised the British even bother to watch that crap, much less take it seriously.

...and then there was 'Signs'. I know, he just acted in it. But who in the fuck would leave the axe in the basement after being under siege from aliens all night. I was screaming at the screen in the theater "Take the fucking axe, you moron!"

@Putin
The Patriot is a damned abomination of a movie, as is all the anglophobic garbage Gibson turns out - Gallipoli, Braveheart, etc. I'm surprised the British even bother to watch that crap, much less take it seriously.

Have you noticed how many Briitish actors have made their names playing baddies in Hollywood movies? Is it because we are a 'safe' ethnic community to pick on? Don't get me going on that U boat film where the Americans cracked the enigma code......pure fantasy.

Yeah Hollywood's version of history is - Americans did everything and did it heroically. The producers of that movie (U boat 251) said that if they made the story about the British then they'd make less money.

I don't know if the British are a 'safe' community to pick, surely the British press were annoyed in particular with the U Boat movie, (and the British press are unyielding when they get pissed off). I think it was even condemned in Parliament by Blair and such. But for whatever reason Hollywood has always been intensely Anglophobic, and for whatever reason British actors oblige them. It always baffles me when people play characters that disparage and caricature-ize their own people - like when Arab actors sign on to be terrorists and whatnot, or when African actors sign on to be machete wielding sadists.

Honestly, i have recently begun to appreciate what i think is an overarching Xenophopia toward Scots and increasing fears that the British Empire was becoming a "Scottish Empire" It ties into anti Catholicism (fears of Scottish Jacobites), the general indebtedness in both and south and north (Scots made up a great number of merchants in mainland n. America), the Slavery question (scottish merchants importing slaves into the south and lowering prices for slaves in general, exacerbating debt issue). If i go back to school it'll probably be a research paper if not a dissertation.

Interesting theory Santa, never heard of that before. I'd like to read whatever you write on the subject. I guess that explains why there are so many Scots in Canada. Also, I thought the Scots were mostly Protestant?

I dont know numbers, but im assuming many were, but the important point is scots were stereotyped as being Scottish Jacobites (Bonny Prince Charlie etc) War happened 30 years after Culloden but scots were still seen as supporting the Stuarts, and therefore Catholicism. In addition Scots were Tories as opposed to the Country Whigs that the American revolutionaries idolized. The Country Whigs had a real mean Xenophobic streak and suspected Scots were attempting to take over the Empire in an attempt to reestablish the Stuart dynasty (and therefore Catholicism). I don't think much work has been done about it but Id suspect American Whigs shared these ideas (I know there was rampant hatred of Scottish merchants) and such views helped frame their response to a variety of issues. For the book that got me thinking about this, see Linda Colley, "Britons"

If it seems like I think our founding fathers were as paranoid and nuts as Glen Beck, you would be right on track.

if I had something Id send you it. The most i have is a timed response paper that runs about 3 pages, been working on other cultural based issues in Early American history though, would explain my work but like the founding fathers id like to preserve my anonymity in print, so if you'd like to know send me a PM.

@ Santa ''Culloden''

I went there a couple of years ago, a really fascinating and haunted place. Interestingly, according to the guide, more Scots fought on the side of the Hannovarians than the Jacobites.

Another fact along these lines, which I found out on a visit to Ireland, is that more food was imported into Ireland from England during the famine than vica-versa. That one really shocked me. I read up on the issue and it seems that the Tories at the time were a lot more enlightened than the laissez faire liberals who came into office after them (I wish I could find the reference, but it was from an academic based at Trinity college, if anyone can help).

It just goes to show that with all human enquiry ''there is no such thing as a neutral paradigm''. My own little pet hobbyhorse.

One of my history advisors holds the theory that it was in fact a good thing that Washington was a bad general. His thought is that Washington was mediocre, (and more importantly, that he knew it), thus the chances of Washington turning into a colonial version of Bonaparte or another general-turned-monarch were considerably less. I admit I haven't gone into the primary sources enough personally to have my own opinion, but its an interesting idea in any case.

my bad, didnt check the spelling, the fact about the battle dooesnt surprise me (although i didnt know either) Lowland Scots often sided with the Hannoverians (chec your spelling here ;)), Highlanders however were more likely to support the Stuart pretenders.

As a whole, however, I am talking about ideas and perception. Americans at the time of the Revolution were a paranoid and creative bunch that saw conspiracy everywhere. How else can you believe that a Hanoverian King is in league with France to spread Catholicism (Popery) to the English mainland colonies as some truly did (right before they themselves allied with France of course).

ha nice, I tried to be cute and made the situation worse with 2 more typos

Typos........I just love them! :-)

"Suffice to say, the Currency Act was a dead issue by the time the war occurred. "

If you say so, I guess.

@ Putin - What institution do you teach at and, if it's not a super well-known one what is it? Also, is your 100-level class the introductory level? Also, Gibson is Australian so don't say he's a dumb Brit-hating American. And I doubt he had much to do with the anti-British overtones (which were overplayed) in Gallipoli. The reason colonial troops were used in Gallipoli (and North Africa in WWII was that it was easier to get them there than to France)

@ fulhamish - Good thing for the Brits that more Scots fought with them than against them. If there had been a general uprising of all the clans under Charles then he likely would've been king. There wasn't a force in the British empire that could've stopped all the clans united. (For backup on this read Arthur Herman's work)

"What institution do you teach at and, if it's not a super well-known one what is it?"

I hesitate to post personal information, but Ohio State.

" Also, is your 100-level class the introductory level?"

Yes.

"Also, Gibson is Australian so don't say he's a dumb Brit-hating American. "

I never said he was American, but thanks?

"And I doubt he had much to do with the anti-British overtones (which were overplayed) in Gallipoli."

I don't care, any movie at all that he is in dealing with history at some level is deeply anti-British. I'm surprised his Passions of the Christ didn't have the British somehow crucifying Jesus. But I guess he hates Jews even more than the British.