As the British men approached the colonists on the ‘Green’, they appeared to be a strong, moving force. They wore fine clothes, the colonists: casual. They were orderly, the colonists: unorganized. However, there was a difference that contrasted both armies. Skill and the need for freedom. The British Army was a motley crew of outlaws, bandits and cutthroats, but the colonists had the fire and sense to fight this army effectively. The colonists did not have the strength in numbers, but that didn’t stop them from carrying out their ‘call of duty’. The British Army had pure hatred directed at the men fighting on the Green, but that didn’t stop these people. To Adam, the approaching army was a wall of sneering faces. But to his Father, they were a barrage of bravado. …show more content…
And yet, there was a different type of fire that burned in the hearts of the colonist men. It was a flicker of freedom – so unlike from the deriding demeanors in the faces of these British men. Was it the shabbily-dressed attire that made the colonial men look intimidating? Was it the way they fingered their muskets as they prepared to fight? No. It was the flame of independence. The flame that sparked the first shot. The flame that caused the men on the Green to attack the British soldiers. The flame that caused the King’s Army to run all the way to Boston from fright. It was the flame of independence – and it had burned a hole into the hearts of these uniform soldiers. And the flame would foreshadow the upcoming event that would declare a nation free from British
McCullough, David. 1776. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005. In this book, 1776, David McCullough uses strong and effective voices to describe the soldiers and the patriots during the Revolutionary War in the United States. The author describes how the Americans squabbling, disparate colonies to became the United States, and how the British Empire tried to stop them.
Some guns were fired at us from the first platoon.” This quote is important because, he states that the British shot first. And the British say that “ lay down your guns or we will kill you all. The colonists didn’t lay down their guns so, the British
The pressure was on the British on how they could handle internal affairs. The British were also too confident which hindered them, while the Americans fought to prove something. In the novel, McCullough provides insight into the Continental army’s experience and their work ethic using sources like quotes. An example is at the beginning of Part two of the novel, when a quote states”The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army”. George Washington saying this implies the fight of this army, and how they are taking responsibility, even though they may not have the experience like the
As Englishmen in the 18th century perceived ethnicity and gender not as biological features but as individual’s speech, behavior, and clothes, they were disturbed when they saw their dead countrymen’s apparel were stripped and worn by the Indians (59). In contrast, Indians regarded stripping as a way to mock the English and to facilitate the integration of captives (90). Little contends that Englishmen regarded clothing as a symbol of their superiority in race and manhood. When they saw the Indians removing clothes from the dead and the captured, they feared that nakedness and Indians’ dressing of English garment undermined their racial, class and gender superiority that they employed to stimulate their battles against Native Americans (90). The English captives forced to “cross-dressing” Indian garments were similarly upset
In the text, Philbrick's selection of primary sources serve to develop his thesis into multiple authentic and surreal accounts of differing perspectives between loyalists and patriots. In his focus on primary sources, Philbrick knits together firsthand accounts from various Bostonian residents such as John Adams and John Andrews with events leading up to the war. For the most part, reading each journal and firsthand documentary is refreshing, but there are various points when Philbrick's reliance upon certain accounts prove to be unnecessary and exhaustive. He references to countless sources, and while most were significant, many appeared to have miniscule relevance to the main takeaway. For instances, Philbrick purposed John Andrew's narrative to aid readers in understanding the context of everything taking place in Boston during the 1700's, but most of the information referring to Andrew's personal accounts and the British's evacuation appears
Charles Royster not only successfully conveys this virtuous American character throughout the book, but he also accurately shows the revolutionaries dedication to preserving that virtue at all costs. Royster explains that the national character is the foundation which the relationship between the American people and the Continental Army lays. He then argues that the Continental Army continued to challenge the virtuous government many revolutionaries sought, inevitably shaping the relationship between the two groups. He displays the viscous cycle between the American people and the Continental Army. The two groups had a great dependency on each other, however there was a continual battle between them.
(Foreword to the Fourth Edition, Joseph J. Ellis, xi). Morgan explains the colonists as a “quarrelsome, litigious, and divisive lot” (Morgan, 5). He also describes
Roland Emmerich’s depiction of the Revolutionary War is clouded by inaccuracies, fictional characters, and far from realistic and exaggerated depictions of authentic revolutionary America. This movie allows the general public to get a glimpse of the Revolutionary War and the spirit of independence that plagued many colonists, and certainly evokes feelings of patriotism, but if one is looking for a historically accurate film, The Partiot is not the most historically accurate. Consequently, The Patriot is capable of being a learning tool if viewers are aware of the fact that this film is loosely based on historical figures, embellishes some aspects of colonial life and military service, and has numerous inaccuracies. As a result of the factual errors, it is not a solid learning tool, but it does give a glimpse into the Revolutionary War, the time frame of the war, significant battles, and military strategies. The film also slightly conveys a patriotic, American bias, so that should be considered when viewing as well.
Thomas Paine once stated, “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” During the late 1700’s the colonists were struggling with liberty from the British. They desired freedom, but feared failure. It was difficult since the colonists did not have a strong and experienced army like the British. Colonists had little motivation so that is when Paine felt the need to take action.
The British sent troops to Boston as a preparatory estimation against future assaults on British individual or merchandise. In any case, Governor Hutchinson expressed that "an open and general revolt must be the results," (Doc. E). The measure of troops had unquestionably raised that strain between two sides. The pioneers griped, however proceeded with it since they thought British government is giving security and wellbeing. A few Bostonians were not satisfied to be observed constantly and the British troopers contended with specialists for nearby occupations.
"Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country”, cried the members and then they ended the meeting. That night, over 100 men including the Sons of Liberty dressed in Indian attire, the poncho and soot streaks soldiers wore during the French and Indian War. There was word that they might need some sort of protection, I mean they were about to commit a terrible crime, so they armed themselves with hatchets, axes, and pistols, and sneaked aboard the ships. Three ships cargo of precious teas lay in Boston harbor, their captains unaware of the iconic events that were soon to take place. The native American clothing was both to keep their identities a secret, and to show England that they were beginning to identify themselves as Americans, not British subjects.
His argument, clearly articulated in the afterword, is that Bacon’sRebellion served as the first act in a longer drama that did not reach its cli-max until the Glorious Revolution. Successive crises between 1675 and 1689were fueled by the same underlying factors, which Rice refers to as unresolved“dilemmas” that produced “dramatic tension” (211). Restive colonists inVirginia and Maryland faced one dilemma, struggling to assert their rightsas Englishmen in an increasingly repressive regime controlled by wealthyoligarchs. Native Americans faced another dilemma, struggling to surviveEnglish territorial expansion and the escalating violence of the Indian slavetrade. Colonial leaders attempted to strike a balance between the demands of their English subjects and their Indian allies, but ultimately found this to beimpossible.
In the first place, the British soldiers had great strengths in the American revolution,
Thomas Paine’s The Crisis does an excellent job of exemplifying the usage of the colonist’s feelings prominently in the content. One of Paine’s purposes in writing such a pamphlet is to convince the colonial Americans that they must not be cowardly by supporting British rule. Throughout his pamphlet, this ideal is displayed in an extremely pronounced manner, with a considerable example in the first paragraph: “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will… shrink from the service of this country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of every man and woman.” (Paine 331).
Courage being the forefront of their strengths, showed the bravery of the Founding Fathers before the war had even begun by standing strongly behand their thoughts, beliefs and ideas to the point it caused turmoil between them and Britain, even though the outcome of their actions was obscured to them at the time. Courage may have been the front-runner for the founding fathers’ strengths, but their intellectual power reigns supreme as their greatest asset. The ability they had to think openly, freely and critically about topics such as freedom, life and politics becomes the founding fathers most prized possession and Britain’s worst adversary. Without their profound common sense and intellectual power as a strength the colonies would still resided under British rule instead of questioning their actions and becoming