anyel
New Member
Posts: 2 
|
Post by anyel on Nov 8, 2015 1:25:33 GMT
Zinn supports his point of view that many colonists didn't support the revolutionary war by stating, among with many other examples, that "Shy estimates that perhaps a fifth of the population was actively treasonous. John Adams had estimated a third of opposed, a third in support, a third neutral." I agree with Zinn, I believe that a lot of the nation did not have a say on what should've happened. There were many people who were loyal to Britain and others who just didn't care. I agree with Hannah when she says that most people saw no reason to put their lives at risk. I also agree with Emily about the revolution having no appeal to slaves, indians, women or lower ranking white men.
|
|
|
|
Post by solmaryv on Nov 8, 2015 2:52:18 GMT
Howard Zinn supported his argument about many colonists not supporting the war by stating statistics in page 77. He stated, "John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third support, and a third neutral." This means that actually more than half the population of colonists did not support the war, which is quite a lot considering it was a war for freedom for all states, not just one. I agree with Zinn because the Revolutionary war was fought by mostly the rich. In page 77 again, Zinn states, "Excluded from the militia were friendly Indians, free slaves, Negroes, white servants, and free white men who had no stable home." The Revolutionary war was mostly fought by the rich because they were trying to secure their place in the "top". Which is why I don't blame the colonists for not support the war. Going back to Zinn's quote, at first, they didn't want the rich to fight, but the "desperation led the recruiting of the less respectable whites". This was unfair and almost ironic how they were fighting for freedom, yet themselves were already limiting the minority's freedom. To conclude, I agree completely with Zinn's point because the colonist in fact didn't support the war. However, the "rich" didn't want them to be part of the war to begin with, so we can't blame them.
|
|
|
|
Post by solmaryv on Nov 8, 2015 3:03:18 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. Knowing this, the radicals had to reach out in any way possible in order to be backed up. I agree with Billy when he said that the radicals were the main cause of the revolutionary war. However, if you look closely at the members that were part of the Radicals, they were mostly rich white men. The rich didn't want the minority to fight in the beginning, it was only AFTER they were desperate that they started accepting the lower class white men. It was part of the Radicals fault that the majority of the people were living their ordinary lives and did not pay attention to what was going on externally because they were the ones that didn't want them involved in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by billythebeast on Nov 8, 2015 3:03:20 GMT
Howard Zinn supported his argument about many colonists not supporting the war by stating statistics in page 77. He stated, "John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third support, and a third neutral." This means that actually more than half the population of colonists did not support the war, which is quite a lot considering it was a war for freedom for all states, not just one. I agree with Zinn because the Revolutionary war was fought by mostly the rich. In page 77 again, Zinn states, "Excluded from the militia were friendly Indians, free slaves, Negroes, white servants, and free white men who had no stable home." The Revolutionary war was mostly fought by the rich because they were trying to secure their place in the "top". Which is why I don't blame the colonists for not support the war. Going back to Zinn's quote, at first, they didn't want the rich to fight, but the "desperation led the recruiting of the less respectable whites". This was unfair and almost ironic how they were fighting for freedom, yet themselves were already limiting the minority's freedom. To conclude, I agree completely with Zinn's point because the colonist in fact didn't support the war. However, the "rich" didn't want them to be part of the war to begin with, so we can't blame them. I agree with Solmary's post extremely. As she stated, the colonists as a whole did not support the war. Desperation was what made them recruit the other less fortunate and respectable white people. |
|
|
|
Post by sely217 on Nov 8, 2015 3:29:16 GMT
Howard Zinn argues that prior to the Revolutionary War, many colonists did not support the war and thus, the Founding Fathers “would haveto woo the armed white population” (People’s History, p. ). How does he support this contention? Do you agree or disagree with Howard Zinn on this point? How and why? |
|
|
|
Post by sely217 on Nov 8, 2015 3:35:00 GMT
I do agree with Howard Zinn on his point about how they had to woo the white population. I believe in every situation there are people who care n people who do not and most of these people who dont care are people who may not be as heavily affected as others. They had to give the white population incentives, because not everyone was so ready or eager to get involved and not everyone was informed on what was going on. Promising the incentives of freedom or money was a great way to get people involved and a great way to get people fighting on their team. Therefore people joined the revolutionary war believing the incentives they were promised. It was a compromise, I give you this if u fight in the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by sely217 on Nov 8, 2015 3:42:25 GMT
I also think the people who did not support the war were either too occupied with like what Diana brings up about the southern states being too preoccupied with the struggle of slavery instead of focusing on the war that was happening or they knew that what came with the victory or lose of war came your death. Death is inevitable and nobody can guarantee your safety during a war. Wooing the colonists with these promises of wealth or rise in social status did effect those who were dying for those opportunities, however it was not because they cared about the conflict of the war it was because they were recieving those rewards.So in a wau I believe they did not really achieve getting people to care more about the war by providing them with those things. Yes they joined but because they were driven by their own personal desires. However in a way someone at one point or another is driven by their own personal desires and many peope during these wars were too. Was getting people involved enough to get them to care?
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahp on Nov 8, 2015 3:46:56 GMT
Zinn said that not every one wanted to fight the British so this required the founding fathers to have to get people on their side rather then let them stay out of the war. I agree with Zinn because the war would not benefit many people so they would want to stay out of it, the war would not benefit the women, slaves or small land owners so many did not care to be that interested in the war except for their future.
|
|
|
|
Post by sely217 on Nov 8, 2015 3:49:02 GMT
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. I agree with Diana's statement about how the colonists supported the war physically but not morally. I would like to tie this back to my reply because again the things there were promised got them involved, but were they really thinking about what war entitled them to do. They had to slaughter other people which isnt morally correct but they still did it with the incentives in mind. We still kill today but for reasons of all kinds. It doesn't mean everyone supports it. Its a game of tug a war. I am in physically or morally, decisions dont always include a balance of both. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahp on Nov 8, 2015 3:50:01 GMT
I also think the people who did not support the war were either too occupied with like what Diana brings up about the southern states being too preoccupied with the struggle of slavery instead of focusing on the war that was happening or they knew that what came with the victory or lose of war came your death. Death is inevitable and nobody can guarantee your safety during a war. Wooing the colonists with these promises of wealth or rise in social status did effect those who were dying for those opportunities, however it was not because they cared about the conflict of the war it was because they were recieving those rewards.So in a wau I believe they did not really achieve getting people to care more about the war by providing them with those things. Yes they joined but because they were driven by their own personal desires. However in a way someone at one point or another is driven by their own personal desires and many peope during these wars were too. Was getting people involved enough to get them to care? I fully agree with you, they were occupied with their lives, slaves,and family |
|
|
|
Post by TeresaD.Torres on Nov 8, 2015 3:51:34 GMT
I agree with zinn on the point that many colonists did not support the making of war. Some had other matters to worry about and some like William Scott wanted a rised in rank and money. Plus the war wouldnt benefit women, slaves, or small owners of land.
|
|
|
|
Post by TeresaD.Torres on Nov 8, 2015 3:54:30 GMT
Zinn said that not every one wanted to fight the British so this required the founding fathers to have to get people on their side rather then let them stay out of the war. I agree with Zinn because the war would not benefit many people so they would want to stay out of it, the war would not benefit the women, slaves or small land owners so many did not care to be that interested in the war except for their future. I fully agree with sarah input on this subject the war would only benefit the rich and powerful white men. |
|
|
|
Post by madhatter0920 on Nov 8, 2015 3:56:17 GMT
Zinn said that not every one wanted to fight the British so this required the founding fathers to have to get people on their side rather then let them stay out of the war. I agree with Zinn because the war would not benefit many people so they would want to stay out of it, the war would not benefit the women, slaves or small land owners so many did not care to be that interested in the war except for their future. I absolutely agree with Sarah while a portion of the colonies wanted to fight the British the other portion was against it and wanted to stay out of a way, women still had no right as well as slaves so why would they be apart of something that would not do them any good or benefit their future had they cared enough to be apart of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Sahil on Nov 8, 2015 4:32:20 GMT
I agree with Zinn. Many of the people didn't find a reason to fight or even care to fight. But when given a promised bounty, of course they'd find a reason to fight. Their reason was wealth and they'd actually be someone of importance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sahil on Nov 8, 2015 4:42:22 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 agree with Hannah when she states that they didn't feel the need to fight because they personally didn't care for the war. If you put yourself in the situation, why would you argue for something you don't care about or get nothing from? You wouldn't. But if a prize was given to you in the end, yeah you'd want to fight. |
|
