|
|
Post by Jenesis on Nov 5, 2015 12:28:07 GMT
Addressing what Diana said, many of the soldiers ,who we would like to believe were entirely patriotic, were bribed into fighting in the war. Often by means of money and land which they seldom received. This is a pretty ironic scenario being as America, in the early days, were promised such amenities from Britain. They did receive land but oppression came shortly after. Pondering it now, I feel like the colonists didn't even realize that, once again, they were blindly handing over their power to entitled men vs actual representatives. What leader or leaders would allow their people to fight in war without awarding them their pay?
|
|
fizza
New Member
Posts: 9 
|
Post by fizza on Nov 6, 2015 1:02:00 GMT
This is irrelevant but modern day america does it all the same. We promise veteran benefits and target title one schools because of the same reasoning. Needy men do whats needed to provide for their families in whichever era.
|
|
|
|
Post by billythebeast on Nov 6, 2015 12:57:36 GMT
I do agree with Zinn in this matter. Many of the white men who were armed had little to no care about the cause as some had previously stated. The radicals, however, were the main cause of the revolutionary war. These radicals, using "propaganda" and other tactics really did have to "woo the armed white population." Zinn goes on to say that many of the people were living ordinary lives and did not pay attention to what was going on externally. Knowing this, the radicals had to reach out in any way possible in order to be backed up.
|
|
jenai
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jenai on Nov 6, 2015 23:52:41 GMT
Zinn does support his contention by stating that, "...general enthusiasm for the war was not strong. While much of the white male population went into military service at one time or another during the war, only a small fraction stayed," which indicates that many of the white males didn't care much for this war. I agree with this statement but i do believe it wouldn't be such an issue if they allowed other "types" of people fight also. For instance, Zinn stated, "Excluded from the militia were friendly Indians, free Negroes, white servants, and free white men who had no stable home," which is absurd because you have willing people to join the war but you exclude them until desperation kicks in. Also, a statement that explains why i agree is, "It seemed that the majority of white colonists, who had a bit of land, or no property at all, were still better off than slaves or indentured servants or Indians, and could be wooed into the coalition of the Revolution. But when the sacrifices of war became more bitter, the privileges and safety of the rich became harder to accept." This quote shows that the rich basically had no interest in fighting if there was no benefits to them. I agree with Avis' statement,"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." which is also true and Emily's statement, "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," which supports my claim above.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannah062999 on Nov 7, 2015 3:26:10 GMT
Zinn argues that simply not many people had too much interest in the war against Britain at this time. There was different reasons for this such as the people's location in certain states, feeling that there is no need for war, self interest, or simply not even caring.
I would have to agree with Zinn. Many people did not feel the need to fight and were simply not interested because of their personal priorities or where they stood in the community. They had seen no reason to fight this war putting their own life at risk unlike the people who decided to "fight" (the leaders) who did not necessarily put them selves on the war front at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannah062999 on Nov 7, 2015 3:28:11 GMT
I agree with billy when he said that radicals were the main cause of the revolutionary war. Not many people showed interest in the separation from Britain at all. Atleast not until those radicals started pointing things out and like billy said making propaganda to being to rage the population and make them want to fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by coiette on Nov 7, 2015 16:29:43 GMT
I agree with what Zinn is saying. Many white men did not feel obliged to fight in this war because they simply did not care enough to. Which was way propaganda was used to persuade these white men to join the military. Also, a paragraph in the book on page 79 caught my attention which Zinn talked about how Connecticut actually passed a law back then which required all men from ages 16-60 (exception of government officials, ministers, Yale students and facility, Negroes, Indians, and mulattos) to be apart of the military services. However, if they did not want to serve in the military they could simply provide a substitute of someone else for them or pay 5 pounds, which is what I'm assuming most men did.
|
|
|
|
Post by coiette on Nov 7, 2015 16:54:00 GMT
I agree with what Mercedes says about how there was no unity in the fighting but people were forced to join to win against Britain. As I said in my last post, men had a choice if they were chosen to fight in the war and did not want to they had a choice of paying 5 pounds or substituting someone else for them for fighting in the war. Now I'm going to be honest that I am not the best at converting 5 pounds to American dollars then trying to figure out how much that amount of money was back in the 1700's but I'm going to assume that was rather a lot back then. Anyways, many men probably did not have 5 pounds lying around and maybe no one would want to substitute someone else to fill their position in the war without feeling guilt if they were to die fighting (Yes I just now realized I literally just contradicted myself but oh well) so men chosen for war were forced into the war and hoped for the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by maryam on Nov 8, 2015 0:33:18 GMT
I believe that Zinn backs up what he said because not many people cared about the war and really put it to the side. The people who actually fought in the war were the ones they you would not thing will have fought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Breanna on Nov 8, 2015 0:34:22 GMT
I agree with ZInn on this. As others have stated, some colonist simply did not have a care for the war. let alone a grudge against Britain. Not everyone had a drive for independence. Also some people were just excluded from being able to join the war such as the slaves and the indians. Colonies in the south were too focused on keeping their slaves in line to fight against the British. It got in the way , stated on page 77. The whites who were not initially allowed to join the militia may have not been educated on how deep rooted the problems with Britain were, so in order to recruit them, the pot needed to be sweetened. In order to gain independence as a nation, they actually had to ask their own nation for help.
|
|
|
|
Post by maryam on Nov 8, 2015 0:37:06 GMT
I agree with what Hannah said, a reason why they did not fighting the war was the fact that they did not want to risk their lives for a war that they had no interest in. Also the ones that did fight mostly the leaders did not have much to lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Breanna on Nov 8, 2015 0:38:03 GMT
I do agree with Zinn in this matter. Many of the white men who were armed had little to no care about the cause as some had previously stated. The radicals, however, were the main cause of the revolutionary war. These radicals, using "propaganda" and other tactics really did have to "woo the armed white population." Zinn goes on to say that many of the people were living ordinary lives and did not pay attention to what was going on externally. Knowing this, the radicals had to reach out in any way possible in order to be backed up. I agree with Billy's post. The radicals were the only ones really trying to gain independence from Britain. These radicals, are also the rich white men that do not necessarily know how to fight, as Avis has said above. Due to this they had to finally start asking the people they deemed to be lesser for help in obtaining their goals. |
|
|
|
Post by kenzcounts on Nov 8, 2015 0:48:16 GMT
I agree with Zinn on this topic due to the fact the he uses so much evidence to support his idea. Zinn supports this contention by stating, "In fact, the military became a place of promise for the poor, who might rise in rank, acquire some money, change their social status". This shows that men didn't enter the army for the purpose of fighting for independence from Britain. Men of lower statues simply joined the war for the idea of possibly having an opportunity to have a better life. It was also stated that, "John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral". The fight against Britain wasn't a topic that people of lower statuses, whom made up majority of the population found to be important. Only people of higher statuses truly cared about the war due to the fact that independence from Britain would mainly benefit them .
|
|
|
|
Post by kenzcounts on Nov 8, 2015 0:58:51 GMT
Zinn argues that simply not many people had too much interest in the war against Britain at this time. There was different reasons for this such as the people's location in certain states, feeling that there is no need for war, self interest, or simply not even caring. I would have to agree with Zinn. Many people did not feel the need to fight and were simply not interested because of their personal priorities or where they stood in the community. They had seen no reason to fight this war putting their own life at risk unlike the people who decided to "fight" (the leaders) who did not necessarily put them selves on the war front at all. I totally agree with Hannahs point that people didn't feel the need to fight for something that wasn't their priority. I think that it is human nature to feel that way. The average person wouldn't bother to get into a conflict that wouldn't benefit or cause a negative change to their life. |
|
Mazna
New Member
cali is the mission
Posts: 3
|
Post by Mazna on Nov 8, 2015 1:16:30 GMT
I believe that Zinn stated, "They would have to woo the armed white population,"(p.77) because the Founding Fathers could only just rely on them. They already didn't respect the natives and slaves, so why depend on them? Zinn wrote, "...they knew the Revolution had no appeal to slaves and Indians."(p. 77). This now meaning that the whites already assumed that the slaves and Indians won't care what happens with the nation. Therefore, the leaders for the Revolutionary War knew that the white people will take their side and fight just so the ranks for them could go up. So, basically, I am also agreeing with Diana when she states, "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)." All of the white men that volunteered for the war just wanted to be on top, be rich, and be popular, more so like the stereotypes of popular blonde girls in movies.
|
|
