New Book Challenges Popularly Held Views of the American Revolution

PR Web ^ | 6-29-11 | PR flack

[Pharmboy]

[kevkrom]

his substantial influence was derived entirely without the assistance or approval of the ruling elite. If people did not depend on the ruling elite for their success, why were the elite needed at all?

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

[Wuli]

ping

[GOP_Party_Animal]

That flag is hung backwards.

[Pharmboy]

The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list...

Beginning with the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 held in NYC, the activity shifted to NYC; many riots and a few scuffles broke out between the Patriots and the Brits still in NYC (e.g., see here. After 1770, the street activity shifted to Boston.

[Pharmboy]

Boyoboy...I had the same thought when I read that...

[Dead Corpse]

Sounds like an interesting read.

People were killed, private homes were destroyed, and everything was turned upside down.

Deje vu all over again...

[Ohioan]

Interesting, but slightly misleading. While Otis doubtless played a major role in promoting a revolutionary spirit in Massachusetts, what your review describes was not the primary motivation for what occurred in Virginia & Carolina, where the cultural differences--basic from the time when the respective settlers left Europe for different quests--etc., led in other directions..

The reason that the Constitution never empowered the Federal Government to get into the Social engineering we now see among the usurping Fabians, was that there never was a prevailing social philosophy that they all could have agreed to. What they did agree to in 1775-1776, was that they did not want outside interference in their domestic affairs. We need to again agree on that, and boot the Socialist Totalitarians out of power.

William Flax

[Pharmboy]

True enough...the publisher should have known that, and the author should have pointed it out. Good Point.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Sounds like an apology for George Soros.

[Pharmboy]

True enough (that the issues were different), but it was the Bostonians (and Massachusetts people in general) who got into the faces of the Brit tax collectors, governing bureaucrats and troops who were there, more than the folks from Virginia did in the 1760s and early 1770s. Please--do not think I am lessening the contributions of the great Virginians--but Patrick Henry did not give his brilliant speech until 1775.

The Sons of Liberty mainly communicated in the 1760s between New York and Boston, and it was these colonies who led the revolution at the beginning. By 1775, all 13 were in for the most part. For this, I believe that Otis deserves a special mention and huzzah!

[11Bush]

The book posits that Otis was the most dangerous kind of man to the feudal oligarchy; his substantial influence was derived entirely without the assistance or approval of the ruling elite.

Reminds me of someone from Alaska, just can't seem to remember who.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Later.

[Dead Corpse]

...and boot the Socialist Totalitarians out of power.

Plenty of those in both Parties today.

[aculeus]

It sounds great!

[colorado tanker]

Interesting review and it looks like a good read.

This was the beginning of the trend toward bourgeois democracies. By the 1830's Britain and France were headed that direction and by the 1870's most of the rest of Europe was.

It's not surprising it happened here first. The remnants of the feudal system never transplanted to British North America, nor did the British aristocracy. The pinnacle of Colonial society were mostly second and third sons of aristocrats. Most of our "high society" would have been considered upper middle class back in Britain.

People like Otis weren't very interested in the old order back in Britain running things over here.

[Pharmboy]

You raise several excellent points. First, that the tensions of the feudal system never made it to these shores; even before there was a United States, Americans always seemed to be less class-conscious than the Euros (and that remains). I would also add that the early colonists had seen enough of the fruits of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation and did not want to bring religious wars to this continent.

And, as to your second point about the aristocracy, Washington was a great example of the 2nd tier; his father, Augustine, while a landowner (farms and iron mines) also owned a foundry and had to actually work for a living, something the first tier did not have to do.

The landed gentry in the colonies always resented the second-class status they were given by the Mother Country; it made a difference for General Washington, and its broader impact as an engine of the RevWar (amongst the upper classes) should not be underestimated.

[La Enchiladita]

Indeed it is.

[Ditto]

Thanks for the ping. Good story.

[Gondring]

That flag is hung backwards.

Yeah?

Well, Betsy dragged the thing on the ground...

Methinks FDR's Flag Code wasn't in existence then, but heck, putting words over the flag violates section 8g, anyway. :-)