|
|
Post by rdoughty on Nov 8, 2015 4:51:07 GMT
Howard Zinn supports this statement by simply stating that all of the colonists were not Patriots. Many of them were Patriots but that left the rest to be loyalists or just undecided colonists. Many didn't want war with Britain and the colonists undecided were just concerned with there personal needs. The Southern colonies also didn't want to play a role in the Revolutionary War for their sights were set on crops, revenue, and slavery. They were almost obligated to do so for their own well being. I agree with Zinn's statement, well because is was true, not all the colonists were as eager to call for independence as some others were, leaving only about half the of the population with support for the Revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by rdoughty on Nov 8, 2015 4:58:27 GMT
I also agree with what Diana mentioned about the Southern states being to oppcupied with their needs on slsvery. The Southern states simply relied on slavery too much and they couldn't risk going to war to ruin all that they have done with slavery.
|
|
nolan
New Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by nolan on Nov 8, 2015 8:18:35 GMT
Zinn supports his contention by stating how being drafted into the military meant a promise for the poor to rise to a higher rank, acquire money, and change their social status. Many Americans who were drafted were poor people who fought a cause they didn't believe was their own. William Scott was shoemaker who only entered into the rebellion for a promotion and hopefully rise in rank, however not knowing why the fighting was taken place. I do agree with Zinn because most colonists supported, opposed, or remained neutral about the rebellion. Not all colonists were like William Scott who continuously went back into battle. I agree with Selena's statement that there were incentives promised to the colonists, in which is why the colonists choose to fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 9, 2015 16:55:30 GMT
He supports his contention about people having to advocate for the war by pinpointing economical self interest and the post war economy and atmosphere. However one of his most prevelant arguments is that the continental congress "was dominated by rich men, linked together in factions and compacts by business and family connections." So yes i agree these men hand connection, wealthy, and full of self interest, credibility, compromise, and education.i also agree that the declaration of independence was not targeted to blacks womens and indians, but it did eventually evolve into a tool to fight for those rights. And yes ofcourse i also agree that in every society the wealthy influence the not wealthy. So yes i agree with Zinn the wealthy educated men used the not wealthy uneducated white men to fight a war that led to (eventually) a beautiful new type of government, (no not a fairytale monarchy,) a bicameral , 3 branched, constitutional, well thought out, criticized, and redeveloped master piece. Though you seem to agree with this It seems that their is an air of sarcasm to what you are saying. I am waiting for the rest of the comment. Overall do you not like the idea that Zinn is arguing that it was only for the rich? |
|
fizza
New Member
Posts: 9 
|
Post by fizza on Nov 9, 2015 21:00:28 GMT
He supports his contention about people having to advocate for the war by pinpointing economical self interest and the post war economy and atmosphere. However one of his most prevelant arguments is that the continental congress "was dominated by rich men, linked together in factions and compacts by business and family connections." So yes i agree these men hand connection, wealthy, and full of self interest, credibility, compromise, and education.i also agree that the declaration of independence was not targeted to blacks womens and indians, but it did eventually evolve into a tool to fight for those rights. And yes ofcourse i also agree that in every society the wealthy influence the not wealthy. So yes i agree with Zinn the wealthy educated men used the not wealthy uneducated white men to fight a war that led to (eventually) a beautiful new type of government, (no not a fairytale monarchy,) a bicameral , 3 branched, constitutional, well thought out, criticized, and redeveloped master piece. Though you seem to agree with this It seems that their is an air of sarcasm to what you are saying. I am waiting for the rest of the comment. Overall do you not like the idea that Zinn is arguing that it was only for the rich? Yes i was being condescending because i feel as if zinn makes it seem as if it was practical for a"everyday man" to create and pass legislation. Education wasnt accessible to even the middle class, there was no question of women or slaves. The argument he produces about blacks and natives not haveing a say, was so obscene. As if in that era it was realistic. I agree with all zinn says about self interest and wealthy men, but the point is these men also had the ability and resources to have a stand. There was no injustice done, there were mistakes ofc but they had to create a government in a time of monarchys. In this case the end justified the means. (even though the means were not that bad) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 13, 2015 14:31:47 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. This is so heartbreaking and true. So often our veterans are not cared for and once the war is over they are left with nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 13, 2015 14:34:53 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. The ones that were rich sure did, which strengthens his thesis that it was a war for the rich fought by the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 13, 2015 14:46:06 GMT
Though you seem to agree with this It seems that their is an air of sarcasm to what you are saying. I am waiting for the rest of the comment. Overall do you not like the idea that Zinn is arguing that it was only for the rich? Yes i was being condescending because i feel as if zinn makes it seem as if it was practical for a"everyday man" to create and pass legislation. Education wasnt accessible to even the middle class, there was no question of women or slaves. The argument he produces about blacks and natives not haveing a say, was so obscene. As if in that era it was realistic. I agree with all zinn says about self interest and wealthy men, but the point is these men also had the ability and resources to have a stand. There was no injustice done, there were mistakes ofc but they had to create a government in a time of monarchys. In this case the end justified the means. (even though the means were not that bad) I completely agree. The rich were truly the only ones that understood fighting this war. It truly did affect them, as it usually does for the rich as opposed to the poor. It would make no sense to bring an uneducated man in to make law. It's ludicrous to think that. Zinn I think tips the scales to make it sound awful that we had poor men fight for independence, but fails to acknowledge the fact that this war was necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by beyonce on Dec 7, 2015 13:51:23 GMT
Howard Zinn supports this statement by simply stating that all of the colonists were not Patriots. Many of them were Patriots but that left the rest to be loyalists or just undecided colonists. Many didn't want war with Britain and the colonists undecided were just concerned with there personal needs. The Southern colonies also didn't want to play a role in the Revolutionary War for their sights were set on crops, revenue, and slavery. They were almost obligated to do so for their own well being. I agree with Zinn's statement, well because is was true, not all the colonists were as eager to call for independence as some others were, leaving only about half the of the population with support for the Revolution. I agree with Raynerd, as he stated a large majority of colonists only joined the military to fulfill their own personal aspirations and financial needs they hoped joining would provide. Even the most dignified soldiers such as William Scott had no viable ill feelings towards the British. He stayed in the military and continued to return for his economic growth and a significant climb in social status. Many soldiers and potential recruits in fact had not even known the status of the war at any particular time. Although, I also feel as though Zinn contradicts his contention just a little. A few paragraphs after he talks about America's desperation for soldiers, he goes on to gloss over the fact they didn't attempt to enlist slaves, Native Americans or white men with no property at all. So really, were colonial leaders of the time really that desperate? They still chose white men of poor backgrounds but they were still above vagrants and minorities regardless, and were treated as such. |
|
