Thank you for acknowledging your mistake.

Indeed Daniel2, nothing in history is cut and dried, not even your position.

First let me say that I find your lecture interesting, however there are a few facts that you ought to know:

First, Washington was a vehement supporter of the British during the French-Indian war, in fact it was under his command that the first skirmish was fought in the New World. He continued to fight for the British being desirous of rank in that army. During the war he came to realize that he would never hold rank because he was a colonial (He had only been chosen because of his experince as a surveyor and resolved to retire. He soon become active in local politics.

Second, While Washington was hopeful that an accord could be reached with the British he must have had some idea that it would not as he started speaking against English policies as early as 1773. In fact, he knew that it would come to armed conflict when he was elected to attend the Continental Congress as he packed his uniform from the French-Indian War and wore it when discussions began about who would command the army.

Washington chose the flag on the chance that an accord could be reached, thus preserving his options. At the same time, he was preparing to fight the British. He realized that there was little hope for it. The colonists directed their appeal to King George because they felt he would act as their champion against parliament. These hopes were of course dashed when he chose to support his prime minister. (Not that I blame him much, he had little choice in the matter)

As far as the British gaining the upper hand, consider this: As long as Washington could keep his army in the field, the British had already lost. The cost of shipping troops, quartering them amongst loyal tories, pursuing operations in a hostile countryside and hiring mercenaries far outstripped the cost to colonists of raising an army. While it may be true that the colonies had little to spare for an army, they didn’t need much. In the southern campaigns, colonial forces were annihilated at least twice, by force of arms. However, as soon as one army was destroyed, another would arise to take its place. The French came into the war after the American colonists had shown that they could defeat the British and stay the course. Surely you don’t think the French would join a losing side just to pique the British Lion?

As to the causes of the war, they were varied. It was not just an issue of taxation, but also of economics and principles. In the north, the mercantile system was strangling local manufacture. The country there was ill suited to farming and unable to survive, they turned to manufacture and trade which in turn competed against British trade. In south, were mercantilism should have worked, it was hampered by crooked factors in England who benefited from no oversight and cheated the southern farmers. Further, when redress was sought, colonists were almost certain to lose in British courts, as they could seldom attend and the defendants were always upstanding British citizens, not uncouth colonists.

The colonists felt the taxes levied against them were unfair not because of the amount but rather that they had no say in them. No colonists sat in the parliament that voted on them. Further, when the British tried to enforce these taxes, the state assemblies resisted and the crown suspended them. The colonists felt that these assemblies had been setting the laws and knew far more of matters than a parliament so distant. To people raised on the theory of democracy and the rights of Englishmen, this was intolerable.

As to the demeanor of the British troops, they were no worse than any other army of the time. I wouldn’t describe them as heartless, but rather as soldiers, fighting a war they didn’t really understand, far from home, where every patrol could become an ambush in a hostile countryside amongst people they didn’t like who hated them. If this sounds a little like the American experience in Vietnam, good. The parallel is apt.

They couldn’t have treated the American soldiers with any more contempt than the French regular army troops did. His allies overruled Washington constantly and apart from diverting British attention, the French contribution was negligible. There most valuable contribution was to lend "legitimacy" to the war effort. We could have won the war, but it would have taken longer. If you look at the enlistment rates, Washington’s army was continuing to grow despite never actually closing with the enemy. It was become more professional. He was organizing an engineering corps and teaching his troops to meet the enemy as equals on the field of battle. The defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown need not have been the end of the ware, but sentiment had turned back home and there was a feeling of throwing good money after bad.

I am quite aware that history does not end at our coastline and I am well aware of British contributions. But consider this: Do you think the opportunity to rebuild the empire could have occurred with the American Revolution? The French revolution arose directly from the success of the American version. It was that ultimately led to the seizure of French colonies that the Directorate and Napoleon were unable to defend because of the incredible victories of the British Navy. So, in an off handed way, by losing an empire, you gained one.

(For those who find this too long, my apologies. But you can’t discourse these things in just a few words. Sorry)

Thank you for your even-handed contribution.

I agree, my ‘version’ of events does tend to be more sympathetic toward the British perspective rather than detail the incredibly numerous blunders that the British authorities made (of which, MWRuger, you have only detailed some) in their attempts to exert their authority over the colonists. That was one of the main problems with the British at the time, their inflexibly autocratic nature….the British just could not except the fact that the colonists had a will and a sense of community of their own, Washington’s struggle to gain rank exemplifies this. Thomas Jefferson approached this issue with his A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA (1774) where he stated his belief that the American colonies and other members of the British Empire were distinct states united under the king and thus subject only to the king and not wholly to the British Parliament….a very sensible view shared by several other delegates, notably James Wilson and John Adams. It seems only fair that either the colonists had their own parliament or congress, or at least were represented by Americans in the British Parliament back in London.

If only the British had compromised, even a little, as they had done with the French in Quebec. One thing is for certain, the British learnt the toughest of lessons in 1783, and as you say MWRuger, bounced back even stronger (and a good deal morefair-minded).

Your last paragraph is particularly illuminating, however there are some aspects to the American War of Independence that I would like to clarify.

Until early in 1778 the War of Independence was just a civil war within the British Empire, it was only later, as France in 1778, Spain in 1779, and the Netherlands and Russia in 1780 joined the British American colonies against Britain, the war became global. The supplies and funds furnished by France from 1776 to 1778 were invaluable to the British American colonists, while French military and naval support after 1778 was essential. The outcome of the War of Independence, therefore, resulted from a combination of British blunders, American efforts, and ample French assistance. For instance, the French involvement at Yorktown was instrumental in the British American colonies final victory over Britain. Of the 14,000 Franco-American troops involved at Yorktown, over a third were French, and the other aspect of Yorktown was the French navy’s blockade of Cornwallis’ army. In fact, the war at sea in its later stages was mainly fought between Britain and America's European allies, the American effort being reduced to privateering. The involvement of Russia, Spain and Holland in undermining Britain’s sea power, effectively reduced the supply of troops and supplies from England to New York. To put things into perspective, in 1776 the American colonies had 27 ships as against Britain's 270, by the end of the war, the British total had risen close to 500, and the Americans had dwindled to 20. The war at sea was just as important as the war on land, and in this aspect of the war, America had little involvement.

And, the French, Spanish and Netherlands involvement in the conflict was as much out of pique as anything else….they couldn’t wait to strike back at the nation that had trounced them just twenty years before in the Great War for the Empire (of which the French and Indian War was but a small part). Spain, France and Holland had been losing territories all over the globe to the British. The War of Independence stretched well beyond the eastern seaboard of the USA….at one point England itself was under threat of invasion from a massive French and Spanish fleet. If England had been overwhelmed at that time, effectively snuffing out the driving force of global development, the engine room of the industrial revolution, and the founder of such democratic nations as Canada and Australia, what of American independence then? The American revolution could have resulted in the termination of the development of democratic principles…..America, by taking on Britain, could have been effectively cutting its own throat in the long term. With Britain out of the way, perhaps French and Spanish imperial designs would have been far more extensive during the 19th century. The French and Spanish political, religious and democratic framework is far less tolerant than that of the English-speaking world…..what of humanity then?

As it happens, things couldn’t have worked out better. The fact that America did split from mother England, though a disaster at the time, allowed the American people the self-determination and freedoms to create the greatest nation the world has known…..The United States of America.

I thought I graduated from history. It took a John Williams score, a movie and this board to show me that all I learned was...wrong?

THE PATRIOT is the sort of historically-inaccurate, politically-correct propaganda that some people want to believe in because it suits their cosy little world of make-believe.
However, by all accounts, THE WIZARD OF OZ has more in common with reality than THE PATRIOT.

Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to THE PATRIOT, and hearing Williams’ score….as long as it is a good movie….that’s all that really matters.

Jeron

At least this embryonic ‘novel’ is based on historical fact, unlike THE PATRIOT.

Maybe you should lay off the wise cracks. You and I both know it was a simple error so please keep your comments to yourself. Also, the letter B just happens to be right below G. If you don't believe me, look down at your keyboard and see for yourself.

Oh, and I thank everyone else for not stooping to the childish level of pointing out every little mistake and then making fun of it.

Lee, about the funny things in the film; I didn't mean the comedy they might attempt during the movie. Unless the numerous times the boom mic is seen bopping up and down every so often when the characters are chatting away in monotone and the patriotsm was very laughable and pathetic (remember Air Force One?) as well as the fight scene at the end (hehe...ummm...Mel Gibson VS. the Bad A$$ Brit). Yes, maybe what was behind the British was evil but I'm sure not all British soldiers were angry and wanted to spill blood wherever they could; is this a Rambo movie?

JJH, you're right about the neccesity of making a film on the American Revolution; anyway, haven't seen Battlefield Earth and don't plan on it. Beside it's probably only here for the fact that the fourth of July is coming up; good political move for Bush?

DANIEL2, very nice. People like to be told what to do (in general) and they like seeing things cut and dry, black and white, right and wrong etc. Unfortunantly, for those people, nothing in this world is like that....a good thing too. History shows us that some situations are not so black and white - which is mostly promoted in that way with American propaganda - some situations come to mind in wars like Vietnam or the Gulf etc. etc. etc.

LOL....yeah me too Dantoris....I shouldn't go any further...back to filmmusic

Lee, about the funny things in the film; I didn't mean the comedy they might attempt during the movie. Unless the numerous times the boom mic is seen bopping up and down every so often when the characters are chatting away in monotone and the patriotsm was very laughable and pathetic (remember Air Force One?) as well as the fight scene at the end (hehe...ummm...Mel Gibson VS. the Bad A$$ Brit). Yes, maybe what was behind the British was evil but I'm sure not all British soldiers were angry and wanted to spill blood wherever they could; is this a Rambo movie?

JJH, you're right about the neccesity of making a film on the American Revolution; anyway, haven't seen Battlefield Earth and don't plan on it. Beside it's probably only here for the fact that the fourth of July is coming up; good political move for Bush?

DANIEL2, very nice. People like to be told what to do (in general) and they like seeing things cut and dry, black and white, right and wrong etc. Unfortunantly, for those people, nothing in this world is like that....a good thing too. History shows us that some situations are not so black and white - which is mostly promoted in that way with American propaganda - some situations come to mind in wars like Vietnam or the Gulf etc. etc. etc.

LOL....yeah me too Dantoris....I shouldn't go any further...back to filmmusic

I seriously doubt if an invasion could have been mounted. Given the French's wretched showing against the British navy, it would likely have failed. Consider, Napoleon gave up the idea after serious consideration and he had the entire resources of continental Europe behind him.

I have no doubt that the French presence shortened the war, but consider, the English had held absolute sea supremacy for the course of the war and it had not let them win the war on the land. in my view, it really was a case of Hearts and Minds. Once the British lost those, the country could only have been kept by force. The technology of the time coupled with the logistic difficulties made the odds long on the British side.

By the way, is it just me or is the dramatic and emotional music in William's "The Patriot" way better than the action cues? Why else does feel that way? I mean, the action was no more than "The Lost World" meets "Far and Away" or something. I don't know... it has become so standard that it doesn't thrill me anymore. The dramatic music however is far superior to anything Williams has written since "Schindler's List"! "The Patriot Theme" must be one of the top-10 Williams themes of all time, "Preparation for Battle" is excellent and "The Colonial Cause" is simply awesome.

I still believe you are playing down the importance of French involvement in the American Revolution. Not only that, you seem to be unaware of just how close England came to being invaded by the French and Spanish in 1779. The American War of Independence was a civil war within the British Empire to begin with, after 1778 it became an international war between Britain and American’s European allies (Russia, France, Spain and Holland), the American War of Independence then threatened to become secondary to a war that would see Britain not only lose 13 of its American colonies, but also its entire empire, including its own freedom. Of course, French and Spanish occupation of England (though it doesn’t bear thinking about) may not have lasted for long, after all England had occupied most of France at the time of Agincourt (but that’s another story). But, French occupation of England would have severely handicapped Britain’s development and everything that went with it. With Britain and Canada out of the way, and the fledgling USA still indebted to the French, there will have been a strong risk of French and Spanish imperial ambitions turning on the USA.

I feel I must emphasize that the naval aspect of the War of Independence was a vitally important part of the conflict. The entrance of France into the war, followed by Spain in 1779 and the Dutch in 1780, was a vitally important factor in the outcome of the War of Independence, not just at sea, but on American soil also. The Spanish and Dutch were not active along the American seaboard, but their role in keeping British naval forces tied down in Europe was instrumental in the final outcome of the War of Independence. The British navy could not maintain an effective blockade of both the American coast and their enemies' ports in Europe. An immediate result was that the French fleet was able to sail to America, where it appeared off New York. However, the naval conflict was not restricted to the American coastline. Fierce battles took place in the English Channel during 1778 between the British and French fleets. Though the skirmishes were inconclusive, had the British Admiral Keppel won decisively, French aid to the Americans would have diminished and Rochambeau might never have reached America.

This is the crunch time MWRuger. In 1779, England itself was in real danger….the unimaginable now became a distinct possibility. Not only did Britain have to face the privateers of the United States, and the fleets of France and Spain off its own coasts, England also lived in fear of invasion. The combined fleets of France and Spain had acquired command of the English Channel, and a French army of 50,000 waited for the best moment to board their ships. This plan of invasion was not ‘American’, this is where the American War of Independence almost led to the French and Spanish invasion of Britain itself…..long before Bonaparte arrived on the scene. The French and Spanish took the opportunity that American hostilities toward the British afforded….whilst the British were tied up in America, the French and Spanish could assail the shores of England itself. It was only because of the greatest of luck that the invasion of England failed to materialize…….storms and sickness amongst the French and Spanish crews led to the postponement of the threat. So, far from the American War of Independence being restricted to the American coastline, a very important part of the conflict took place back in Europe. Hence, when France sided with America in 1778, the American War of Independence ceased to be a civil war within the British Empire, and became an international war that threatened to cripple Britain itself.

Despite French, Dutch and Spanish control of the English Channel in 1779, and the continued threat of invasion, and the loss of British territory in the West Indies, the British maintained control of the North American seaboard for most of 1779 and 1780. However, Britain’s ability to transport supplies and men from England was severely curtailed by the enemy presence in European waters. The war also took place in the Mediterranean where Britain reinforced Gibraltar, which the Spaniards had brought under siege in 1779, from where the British managed to send a fleet to the West Indies in early 1780 and gained many Caribbean territories from the Dutch. In the meantime, a powerful British fleet relieved Gibraltar in 1781, but the price was it allowed the departure of the French fleet at Brest not only to the West Indies, but also to India, where a severely depleted Britain military presence was rocked by further French aggression. All of this was happening directly because of the American Revolution. I am not blaming the colonists for their rebellion, I am merely pointing out the global effect of their actions.

The French fleet arrived in the West Indies and promptly moved on to New York. Just before the French fleet arrived, a major portion of the British fleet returned to Europe to counter further Spanish hostilities around Gibraltar, taking with them several formidable ships that were much needed in America. French troops were then landed to help Lafayette contain Cornwallis until Washington and Rochambeau could arrive. The French fleet was instrumental in the Siege of Yorktown that eventually saw Cornwallis surrender. Therefore, the Spanish siege of Gibraltar directly led to the French fleet being able to reach America to disembark troops and blockade Cornwallis at Yorktown. Though the British navy subsequently defeated the French in the Battle of the Saints off Dominica in 1782 and British land and sea forces reasserted authority in India, Yorktown basically ended hostilities on American soil. However, a peace treaty with the Americans could only take place until the global aspects of the War of Independence, that I’m sure you would agree were vital in allowing American independence, had been resolved.

As far as America had been concerned, it had been far from certain that the colonists could fight a successful war against the might of Britain. The Americans could not have hoped to win the war without French help, and the French monarchy, whose interests were anti-British but not pro-American, had waited watchfully to see what the Americans could do in the field. Even before the French made their vitally importance entry into the war, they began supplying arms, clothing, and loans surreptitiously soon after the Americans declared.

As far as Britain’s enthusiasm to triumph in the War of Independence is concerned, it wasn’t just a case of losing heart. Following the French and Indian War, Britain’s resources were severely diminished, hence the taxes that the colonies resented so much. That is the main reason, apart from American effort with French assistance, the British resolve to maintain control of its 13 American colonies waned. There was no way in the world that Britain would have let the 13 American colonies go if it had had the means to continue defending its territory. By 1770, Philadelphia was the third most important city within the British Empire, after London and Manchester, so although the 13 New England and mid-Atlantic colonies were not considered as important as Britain’s West Indies territories, there was a huge incentive for the British to regain control of the territory. There were tens of thousands of colonists loyal to the British cause, and Canada and Florida were firmly in the hands of the British, so the British had no reason to feel ‘out of their element’ when in the area of conflict. And remember, even after the War of Independence, the North American wilderness was just as much home to pioneering British families (in Canada), as it was to pioneering ‘American’ families in the USA. It just so happened that the nature of the British army, with its strict discipline and regimentation, was less suited to wilderness fighting than the dogged, but far less regimented American militia. That said, there was a significant loyalist army that did fight in the same way as the American militia, and who were just as suited to fighting in the wilderness….and the loyalist army did not wear red-coats as apparently depicted in THE PATRIOT, their uniforms were similar to the American militia.

The best example of the British Empire’s unwillingness to capitulate at almost all costs came in the Boer War. In South Africa the British suffered numerous humiliating defeats through Dutch guerrilla tactics before pouring in so many troops that the most dogged Dutch resistance could not be sustained. 500,000 British troops were brought in from all corners of the Empire, especially India, Canada, and Australia, and such a huge force was irresistible. Ironically, within twenty years of Britain gaining total control of South Africa by winning the Boer War, South Africa would gain independence, and break virtually all ties with the mother country. Though a strong element of British culture remained in South Africa, the Dutch element of the government did not sympathise with Britain at all, though they were an ally in WWII, and finally went on to impose apartheid. The main reason for the Boer War was Britain’s desire to control all of the diamond mines that the Dutch colonists were opening up. The financial cost of the war to Britain was enormous, but Britain was determined….it had endless resources, and it used them.

Anyway, I suppose all this amounts to is splitting hairs…..and at the end of the day, it is good to hear a rather more even-handed account events, such as yours MWRuger, than that depicted in THE PATRIOT.

Roger Ebert eloquently sums up the THE PATRIOT. He liked the movie, but had this to say – ‘The British are seen as gentlemanly fops or sadistic monsters, and the Americans come in two categories: brave or braver. Those who have a serious interest in the period will find it a cartoon; those raised on summer action movies will find it more stimulating than most.

I appreciate the French contribution to the Revolution; I also feel that they didn’t come into the war until they saw it was a sure thing. They wanted to make sure we could win because they knew that the British would strike hard in the West Indies and they wanted to make sure that the potential gains were commiserate with the potential losses. I have always suspected that the French had some longer-term strategy that never came to fruition because of the French Revolution. Something involving Canada I suppose.

I would be interested in reading your sources for the attempted/contemplated invasion. I have never read of it in any of my histories of the colonial period. Please let me know what your sources are.

I don’t think that you appreciate how rough the British had in the field here. Yes, they could be re-supplied by ship, when they were on the coast. But when they moved inland, they had to rely on either baggage trains or local Tory support. Both unreliable. Baggage trains are susceptible to disruption or capture. In fact just such an action almost cost Washington his life early in the war. Local Tory support grew less and less reliable as the war progressed. Most Tories felt that it was the job of the British Army to put down the rebels and to protect Tory property. The fact that they were unable to protect Tory property when they pulled out of New York City and Philadelphia made other Tory sympathizers less likely to come forward. When those cities were occupied local Tories took the opportunity to redress perceived or real slights by the local rebels. When the British decamped they knew it would be their lives if they stayed. By the time the French came into the war, there is no way that the Americans would have accepted British rule again. The “loyal” base of Tories had fled to England or Canada by that point and the colonies would have been a continual chore to police and the cost would have been enormous, far more than the anticipated gain.

I agree that the British had their own frontiersmen; in fact, they made use of the Indians in this fashion. There was a particularly unpleasant episode involving the Indians in New England and up state New York where neither side acted honorably. The British convinced some bands of Indians to strike back at the Colonists who were encroaching on their lands. The Colonists took this opportunity to hit back in devastating fashion. They killed all they could find and burned all their crops and villages. They not only struck at the raiding bands, but all Indians guilty and innocent alike. When the Indians went to the British for succor during the winter they were turned away and allowed to starve. Disgraceful behavior from both sides.

In short, I do think we are splitting hairs because it is obvious that our sources don’t agree. It is probably a matter of perspective.

I almost dread seeing the Patriot although I am sure that I will like William’s score. The sad truth is that most people will take it for history rather than fiction. I believe it is possible to make a historically accurate picture that is also entertaining, I just haven’t see very many.

Hey, anyone ever seen Al Pacino's war pic called Revolution, with score by John Corigliano?

About The Patriot....... I'm sorry Williams couldn't come up with anything more convicted or passionate or memorable; it's just professional. Brass, strings, orchestration. But then it's a moronic kind of film (Colonial war as WCW soap opera). Score sounds like an exhibit at Disneyland. You'd have to go back to Home Alone or Monsignor, or The Eiger Sanction to find Williams doing something this conventional or dumb. The reviews of the movie (Roland emmerich, the newly-minted auteur who directs [I know, wrong term] like he's just struggling to make his shot list for the day) and score are all happy though. Read THEM.