Howard Zinn Chapter 5 Discussion Question

Zinn supports this statement by duly stating that not all colonists had a large vendetta against the British. Not many cared, let alone knew about the war or the stage it was in. A lot of people in the Southern states were too preoccupied in their struggles with slavery to turn their heads toward the conflict right amongst them. If a colonist was to serve in the army it was only for the suggestion that they may eventually, "rise in rank, acquire some money, change their social status." (People's History, p. 78). This was their feeble attempt to win over any colonist who was neutral. It gave way for the people to support the war physically, but definitely not morally. I agree with Howard Zinn on this point as he included the story of William Scott who did so much for the Revolutionary cause, but only because he came from a poor background. Another reason I agree with Zinn is that The American Pageant states on page 158, "During the conflict itself, people went on working and praying, marrying and playing. Many of them were not seriously disturbed by the actual fighting, and the most isolated communities scarcely knew that a war was on." Only the ones directly affected by the war (i.e. colonists drafted to fight, etc.) would have any inkling of the madness and horrors of it all and even so they may not actually care much. This is further knowledge on the naiveté of the colonists during the war that eventually won independence and freedom, virtues so valued then and now.

Zinn backs up his statement by stating that they were made up of a lot of people who typically didn't do the fighting. They were just political leaders. I agree with the point that maybe they are not used to fighting but not on the point in which that would stop them from fighting due to the fact that just because you aren't used to something doesn't mean you wont do it or even stray from it matter of fact. Yet he does bring up great points to why eh believes in this point and a lot of them I agree with but I feel as if he is grouping a bigger population within the characteristics of a few.

Armed white men had to be convinced since they were the only ones receiving advantages and strength to being independent from Britain.

Zinn states, "The Continental Congress, which governed the colonies through the war was dominated by rich men ..." This goes back to who had a voice in the colonies. White men with property were given rights to vote. The opinions of white elite men were taken into consideration. Only they had to be convinced since their voice only mattered.

I agree with Avis's statement that Zinn tends to generalize a group into an entire state or nation. He tries straying away from this by stating, "Yes, mechanics and sailors, some others incensed against the British. (p. 77)" Zinn almost overlooks this and draws his attention to the rich since they aren't the victims.

The revolution was not genuine and not as driven by passion as many of us would like to believe or were taught. Narrow ideas from men of higher status' (the Founding Fathers) motivated the war and the bribery and persuasion of the men and women kept it alive. Just as Fizza said, the revolution, however cultivated, is a revolution nonetheless, but the reasons for it's beginnings are just as Zinn states. John Adams stated that only a third of the country actually supported the movement while a third was indifferent and another third was opposed. This goes to prove that only the wealthy white men of that era were able to control the fate of the country thus rendering the women and slaves powerless to the inevitable change war would have.

Zinn supports his contention (which becomes as such because as Diana said, it combats the conventional wisdom that we previously had- the idea that majority of the colonists willingly supported the Revolution) by providing specific examples with reasoning as well as their effects. He (like previously noted by other contributors) gave ONE (or a few really)example of economic self interest being apart of why a number of colonists joined the war (not that they all wanted freedom.) He gave the statistical approximation (1/3 were each in support, opposed, or neutral) immediately disproving the notion that the Revolution was a majority rule "let's fight Britain because yeah freedom" situation. I agree with Zinn that the Founding Fathers had some work cut out for them in "wooing the armed white population" to support the war and clearly it worked, seeing as we're not the Kingdom of the United States or something.