COMMENT POSTED TO A BOOK REVIEW IN THE GUARDIAN
"We know that
18th-century colonists referred to themselves as English or British; that
identification with one’s own particular colony easily trumped any sense of a shared
identity as Americans."
Sorry, but for people who done some serious reading of
American history, that's not news.
As a matter of fact, it was estimated that during the
"revolution" about one-third were Loyalists, one-third indifferent to
it all, and only one-third active supporters. It was a minority event.
One French nobleman who came over for some adventure in the
later days of the "revolution" said that he saw more excitement over
events in the cafes of Paris than he saw in America.
I put "revolution" in quotes because it really is
a misuse of the word to apply it to the American War. It has been accurately
described by a European writer as a local set of aristocrats seeking to replace
a foreign set of aristocrats.
The only time, the events vaguely resembled a revolution was
when Massachusetts volunteers responded to Britain's sending over troops to be
quartered. It was brief. The Continental Congress then appointed Virginia
aristocrat George Washington to take command. He rode in and took over,
referring to the local volunteers in his letters as scum and rabble. He
instituted lashing and hanging to instill the discipline he liked as an admirer
of British Armed Forces.
The "revolution" was only won because of huge
French assistance. Washington was pretty well incompetent as a General, never
winning a single significant battle, and it was French Generals who insisted on
the last, decisive battle at Yorktown. Washington wanted to attack New York
instead. The only other important battle was earlier at Saratoga, and again
French help was decisive with weapons and money and assistance.
