Where does a culture lie? Does one find it among the leaders of a people,
or does it predominately reside within the common folks of a society at a given
time? The latter intuitively seems to be
a better source. The culture of ancient
Rome, for example, is best answered by collecting information as to how typical
Romans lived. Their daily travails and
successes and how they reacted to both reflect what that culture was all about
in terms of its values, attitudes, modes of behavior, and what its people
strove to accomplish. Those qualities are
the elements of a culture.
But
for historians to be able to delve into that level analysis before the
institutionalization of descriptive research that mostly surveys the opinions
or views of common people became common, it was quite the challenge. Upon what could such historians rely on to
gather the information that reveals those qualities of those people?
There are the contemporary commentaries
of writers of the time – usually the comments of educated people (mostly
elites) – or there are records that reflect common behaviors (e.g., tax
records) or found communication artifacts (letters, diaries, journalistic
accounts or notes, etc.) or logically based evidence attached to known
developments (such as conducting wars that relied on the participation of many
from the lower classes). But all of these
sources and their use are subject to bias, not only on the part of those who
produced the evidence but on the part of those who choose to analyze it.
Of course, this sort of bias is what led,
in part, to political science and the other social sciences to choose
behavioral approaches to their studies. But that is of relatively recent
vintage and given the availability of limited sources of information, one is
left with studies that can proceed only with that sort of potentially biased
materials and/or biased analyses.
In the opinion of this blogger, one such
study is the very insightful work of Ray Raphael[1] as he looked at such
sources in attempting to relay the role the common folk played in the American
Revolution. While one can readily judge that
this study is limited as indicated above, one is also readily taken by the
detail his work portrays.
The purpose here is not to give a
definite critique of this study, but to pass on the major findings Raphael
reports – that is: what can one say,
generally, was the role of the common person in that war and how does that
behavior give one insight as to the cultural makeup of Americans during those
years? What follows is a rundown of Raphael’s
take-aways regarding that role and this blogger’s interpretation as to the
significance of each point.
The first take-away is that the war
meant the average American had to work a lot harder than he/she did before the
war and was willing to do so. The main
reason for this extra effort resulted from the interruptions the war created in
terms of trade. One needs to remember
that the American economy still depended highly on imported goods since the
goods were not produced domestically.
The British instituted an effective blockade that cut off that trade.
The war forced Americans to begin and
sustain the needed production of such goods.
Generally, American “Artisan and laborers made tools and weapons.”[2] Plus, the corps of workers who usually made
what was produced domestically found themselves fighting the war. So, those new artisan and laborers included
the efforts of women, freemen, slaves who stepped in to replace the labor,
ingenuity, and skills of the missing soldiers who numbered in the thousands.
Second, the common folk had to do with a
lot less in terms of goods and services or to do without them. This ranged from luxury goods to the bare
necessities – food, clothing, housing materials, etc. For example, salt became highly scarce as the
military requisitioned a great portion of what was available. Of course, such scarcities led to significant
price hikes.
And scarcity was in many cases the least
of it as the citizenry was exposed to the ravages one associates with war
including rapes, houses being taken over – commandeered – or burned or
otherwise destroyed. While people of
means were sparred the more outrageous occurrences of such acts, they did share
in significant sacrifices. And native
Americans did not escape negative consequences as many lost their agricultural
lands. Unfortunately, the war seemed to
justify white Americans taking over these fields.
And finally, the slave population did
not go unaffected. Fearful their slaves
would escape, slave owners clamped down on their slaves to avoid such
eventuality and those slaves who did escape often met up with diseases that
ended in death. There were many
incidences where large number of blacks met with death such as at Yorktown
where they were cast out and ended up between enemy lines.
Third, among whites, the native population,
and African Americans, their source of motivation in whatever they did was not spurred
on by any allegiance to the British Crown or to some dedication to republican
beliefs. According to Raphael, they were
pursuing their self-interest.
This is not to say that initially they
lacked in “patriotic” zeal, but as the pains of war had their effects, the vast
majority began to look inward to what was best for each in attempting to get
through it with the least cost. And if afforded
with some opportunity, they were prone to take advantage of it. A better motto became, “charity begins at
home.”
Fourth, the fact is the fighting was
done by the common folk. Most of that
happened by them joining and remaining as members of militias. One of George Washington’s adjustments in
fighting the war was to accommodate, after some experience, to count not on his
standing army, but on the utilization of the more localized militias that
existed in the various colonies/states.
Yes, many of the poorer people fought because
of not being able to buy their way out of service upon being “called,” a choice
available to the rich. So, many poorer
people were paid by the rich to take their places and fight in their respective
militias. Raphael follows, in his overall
narrative, the fates of several soldiers who stayed with the struggle through
the long war.
It should be remembered that the war
lasted from 1775 to 1783 and Raphael states, “Independence was declared by
wealthy merchants, planters, and lawyers; independence was won by poor men and
boys while those who were better off gave but grudging assistance.”[3] As one passes judgements on these
discoveries, one is well served to remember the difference between ideals and
how people normally do not live up to ideals – especially under stress – something
Raphael seems to forget.
This posting will stop here with this
book’s list of conclusions. The next
posting will share with the reader the remaining four take-aways the historian
claims in his work. They comment on the
various levels of support the war garnered, how the war tested authority,
methods of supervision and repression, and how the population rose and
rebelled. It will also share this
blogger’s judgement on whether that historian is too critical – perhaps justifying
the opinion that he is a critical theorists/historian.
To give the reader a teaser, this
blogger does not believe he is, but the overall judgement is not that easy. For one thing, Raphael’s book is one of a series
edited by Howard Zinn. Zinn is described
by right wing journalists as a socialist.
He died in 2010, but the books in this series have sold over two million
copies and seem to be regularly assigned on college campuses.[4]
[1] Ray Raphael, A People’s History of the American Revolution: How Common People Shaped the Fight for
Independence (New York, NY: Perennial,
2001).
[2] Ibid., 382.
[3] Ibid., 384.
This quote summarizes Raphael’s main point. In the next posting, this blogger will
comment on this general editorial message.
[4] For example, see Naomi Schaefer Riley, “Reclaiming
History from Howard Zinn,” Wall Street Journal (May 17, 2019), accessed
July 5, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/reclaiming-history-from-howard-zinn-11558126202 .
No comments:
Post a Comment