Thanks to Curiositystream for supporting PBS Digital Studios
Would you have joined the American Revolution?
Cause depending on who you were, there's a good chance that the answer would have been no.
Although I haven’t taken an official survey, I’m pretty sure if you asked the average
U.S. resident if they would have joined the American Revolution back in the 1770s, the
answers of “America Heck Yes!” and “I don’t know.
Maybe not,” would be based in our current feelings about the U.S.
But before we dive into history, there are some important things to remember for this
particular thought exercise:
First, in the 1770s, there was no way of knowing if this crazy revolution idea would work.
There are lots of ways you could end up dead either from fighting, sickness, or being killed
for treason.
And second, no one is “American,” there is no United States, and you are a British
colonist or an adjacent group.
And finally, although it’s easy now to imagine that in our past lives we were all George
Washington, or the folks living in the fancy upstairs part of the house on Downton Abbey,
chances were we would have been just a part of the larger population.
So you have to put yourself in the uncomfortable shoes of the average Josiah or Jaakobah, and ask:
When the conflict broke out, who would you have been?
So, you could have been (on a list that’s not all encompassing): an enslaved African
American laborer, Native American, women from all backgrounds, a white land owning man,
or a non-property owning white colonist (also a man).
So let’s start with: Imagining that you were an African American.
By 1775, approximately 500,000 black people were living in the 13 colonies, and most of
those people were enslaved.
As a result, there’s a high probability that if you are in this position, you are
also enslaved.
So for many colonial African Americans, while they had little legal recourse for decision
making, they still exercised individual and collective autonomy and had to weigh their options.
In 1776, Lord Dunmore, a British military commander, offered enslaved blacks their freedom
if they would join his troops.
And hundreds joined Dunmore’s forces.
Plus outside of fighting, as many as 100,000 escaped during the course of the conflict
often with the help of British forces.
George Washington on the other hand, turned down official requests from African Americans
looking to join the war, even though black soldiers participated in some of the earliest
battles of the Revolution.
The reason being, in some counties, black enslaved people were 25-50% of the population.
So arming them was considered a huge threat to the white slave owning population, which
Washington himself was a part of.
But as the war raged on, by 1778, the colonists removed the ban on black soldiers, and as
a result an estimated 5,000 black soldiers joined their side.
So for African Americans the choice often came down to favoring the side that they felt
would offer them the greatest potential for freedom.
Because ya know, that's what this whole war was about.
Okay, let’s say you were Native American (American here flagged for the continent,
and not the for the country folks):
So, if you were a Native American person living within or near the 13 colonies, you were likely
choosing where and how to participate in this conflict based on your own desire to maintain
autonomy apart from the colonies.
Because remember: there was no U.S.
Just independently or cooperatively functioning Native American Nations and 13 (kind of) connected
British Colonies.
And often, white colonists’ interactions with Native American populations were not peaceful.
See Bacon’s Rebellion if you want to learn more about how Native Americans were affected
when colonists tried to rebel against the colonial government.
Plus at the end of the French and Indian War, the British issued the Proclamation of 1763.
After a revolt led by Ottawa chief Pontiac, King George III issued this proclamation to
prevent further expansion westward by white colonists.
He forbade all 13 colonies from buying land west of the Appalachian Divide, in effect
creating a firm boundary on the wayward settlers who were increasing the number of raids.
So because of these reasons, many nations decided to side with the British.
However, because of regional alliances, some Native American nations did side with the colonists.
So as with any group this was a political decision related to personal freedom and bargaining.
Next: Let’s look at Women (of all backgrounds).
Although women were not officially recruited to join the armed parts of the revolution,
they still played a crucial role.
For example, many native, white colonist, and black women contributed to the war efforts
on both sides through providing food, clothing, and upkeep for men who were fighting, although
some of these decisions were made through choice and others through force and coercion.
But there were ladies who also joined the fray on the battlefield.
Take for example Prudence Cummings Wright of Pepperell, Massachusetts who formed her
own militia of 30 to 40 other kick-butt women to stand guard over their town and intercept
suspected Tory spies.
So for women the decision to support (or resist) the revolution was also tied to individual
autonomy and self-protection, and not just linked to whether or not their male family
members decided to take up arms and chuck a bunch of tea leaves into the harbor.
Also check out Professor Debra Newman and Professor Catherine Allgor’s research in
the works cited, for more info on black women’s history during the revolutionary era, and
politically connected women’s roles in helping to shape early U.S. politics.
Okay, now let’s say you were a free, white, land owning male.
According to Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (you know, that
big heavy book a lot of high school students lug around), owning property was kind of a
huge deal in the colonies.
Landowning white free men were the only ones who could run for office or have certain rights.
And this model continued into the formation of the early United States.
Zinn notes that in Maryland, under the 1776 constitution, a white man (an important
distinction here since this wasn’t extended to basically anyone else) had to own 1,000
pounds of property to run for state senator and 5,000 pounds of property to run for governor.
And that’s in money not weight.
These restrictions effectively excluded 90% of the state’s population from ever holding office.
Yet, if you were a super wealthy landowner, it was more likely (though not guaranteed)
that you consider siding with the British because you were already collecting taxes
and at the top of society.
But some property owners weren’t necessarily the uber wealthy.
Mid level property owners who were primarily small farmers, were concerned that they could
lose their land as a result of joining this new-fangled independence idea, either because
their untended farms wouldn’t produce enough to pay their taxes, or because if this whole
“uprising” thing didn’t pan out, that they could lose their land as a result.
And, you know, their lives.
So for many landowners, it was high risk high reward, but for many who were already landowning
colonial officials, it was potentially high risk and little reward.
And that leads us to a big portion of who was drawn into the fray: white men who were
poor or didn’t already own property.
Although as we mentioned above, many people of all backgrounds joined the fight both against
and in support of the colonists, a lot of men in this particular category stood
to gain a great deal.
And as a result joined the war effort because the continental army offered money and perhaps
even more importantly LAND to men who enlisted.
And land in the colonies essentially vaulted your political status.
According to historian John Ferling, although the initial call to arms was very popular,
this dwindled as time went on.
He writes that when the British Army marched from Boston on April 19th, 1775, a bunch of
messengers raised the alarm (including elementary school favorite: Paul Revere).
By the next day, Massachusetts had 12 regiments, Connecticut later drummed up 6,000 fighters
and within a week there were 16,000 recruited fighters from 4 New England colonies.
Then in June the Continental congress took over the New England army and made the continental army.
But over time, Ferling also notes that this enthusiasm waned, particularly when soldiers
realized that joining the war time effort was dangerous and challenging.
As a result, throughout 1776 many colonies had to offer enlisted troops cash, blankets,
supplies, and short enlistments of less than 1 year in order to get more men to join the
war efforts.
But over time enlistments of 3 years became the standard.
In 1777, Congress recommended a draft to the states and by 1778 most of the fighting states
were conscripting men, since voluntary enlistment quotas weren’t being met.
So even the potential to own land and receive payment for service wasn’t enough to drive
the large numbers that the Colonies needed to fight the war.
So if you were in this group, you could gain money and land or you could lose your life
in a lot of different ways.
Heck of a choice.
So how does it all add up?
It seems like the answer to “whether or not you would have joined the American Revolution”
is a bit murky because the stakes were high and the outcomes unclear, especially before
France allied with the colonists.
Although some people stood to gain a lot from colonial upheaval, others stood to lose a
great deal and these categories weren’t always represented as discrete considerations.
And trust me, I know I’ve probably left many sides out of this historical rubix cube,
but I wanted to ask you:
Would you have joined?
And how is your answer based on the subject position you imagine you would have in a pre-United
States, 1775, North American world?
Drop those answers below, start debating, and I’ll be checking in with some replies.
That’s all for now and we’ll see you next week!
Thank you to CuriosityStream for supporting PBS Digital Studios.
CuriosityStream is a subscription streaming service that offers
documentaries and non-fiction titles from some of the world's best
filmmakers, including exclusive originals.
One I really enjoyed was “America’s Declaration narrated by Danielle Allen."
Professor Allen narrates the two years surrounding the signing
of the Declaration of Independence and how this radically changed
the course of American history.
Get unlimited access today-- and for our audience, the first
60 days are free if you sign up at curiositystream.com/ORIGIN
and use the promo code ORIGIN during the sign-up process.
Hey guys, thanks for tuning in last week for our episode on when marriage moved more towards
the idea of the “love match”!
So, rather than just singing the lyrics to Tina Turner’s “What’s Love Got to Do
With It” I figured I’d respond to some of your questions and also give a few shout outs.
So Marsha Vania on Facebook writes “what if the cultural shift to love marriages wasn’t
a driver but a reflection, a romanticization of individuals making their own marriage
matches/contracts in the industrial era?”
Thanks for the new thoughts Marsha!
So it seems like this is just as valid a theory on the rise of the love match, although it
could be difficult to determine the finite reasons why folks consider themselves in love.
For example, some say love grows over the course of a relationship by building mutual
understanding, respect and trust, whereas others feel like they got struck by a cherub’s
arrow the first moment that they see their partners.
In either direction, love can be a many splendored thing, so it could be that married couples
centered love because it was also tied into the idea of free choices, and individual will
rather than family obligations.
But I’ll also kick this one out to the audience: remember to respond on Facebook or YouTube
if you have any further thoughts.
I’d also like to give a shout out to Diane Dorbin on Facebook and Gibran Smith and Spencer
Morran on YouTube!
Keep those comments coming!
So, that’s it for now and we’ll see you next week!