Category: American Revolution

American Revolution: Struggle for Independence

As Aristotle once said, “ Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions.” A revolution can be defined as an instance of revolving or an overthrow of social order in search of a new one. The American and French Revolutions are two events in history that are often compared and can be categorized with many similarities and differences.

Both of the events had similar sparks that stirred them up to the revolutions that they did. Two of the main reasons for the revolutions were the search for liberty and freedom. America was in search of freedom from Great Britain for all of the taxes and regulations being put on American citizens. The French went a little more extreme and had the goal of exterminating their government system and implanting a completely new one that would give their citizens more of a say in what goes on in their society. Although both countries had similar reasons for their actions, the outcomes were as similar as the sun and the moon.

The American Revolution mainly focused its energy on gaining independence. After the Seven Year War, America’s economy was restricted from British rules, for they had to pay off the war and the extreme taxes they were assigned by the British parliament. Taxes include some, such as the Stamp Act, which placed taxes on items such as newspapers and diplomas. What angered Americans was their lack of representation in the Government that was assigning these taxes. To voice their thoughts, Americans decided to rebel against the British Parliament. Literature was also published that sparked the rebellion, such as Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” After years of conflict, the Revolution was able to come to a conclusion, and by 1783, the thirteen colonies gained independence from Britain.

French Revolution: Struggle for Equality

The French Revolution had the main goal of getting rid of the French Monarchy. The Third Estate wanted to obtain equality instead of having the higher estates rule over them and pay no consequences or fees. They were tired of being walked over and wanted a change. After time and time of looting, striking, and rioting against higher powers in events such as the storming at Bastille and the Reign of Terror, and the signing of documents such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the Revolution began to come to a closing period, and a new leader began to rise.

On August 22, 1795, the National Convention approved a new constitution that put France’s first bicameral legislature in place. Executive power laid in the hands of the Directory, which was run by Napoleon Bonaparte. On November 9, 1799, Napoleon staged a coup d’état, which abolished the Directory and appointed him France’s first consul. This event marked the end of the French Revolution.

The main differences between the two events were the circumstances and factors that were a part of each. The American Revolution was caused by the majority of the American population requesting equality and was run mainly by the highest class, while the French were started by the lowest class. Another difference is who got tied into the Revolutions after they started. For the most part, the American Revolution stayed between the Americans and the British, but the French Revolution mainly started between the Third Estate and the French Government but expanded to the French Government fighting other monarchies in Europe, such as Austria and Prussia.

Revolutionary Impacts: Liberty and Society

The French and American Revolutions are two events in history that play a large role in influencing the nations to come. They can be similarly compared in the reasons that they started, such as for liberty and freedom, but contrasted for what was being fought for. The Americans sought a change in Government, but their social system remained intact, and the French sought to completely change their society.

References:

1. Aristotle. Quote: “Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions.”
2. Middlekauff, R. (2005). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. Oxford University Press.
3. Paine, T. (1776). Common Sense. Published anonymously.
4. Doyle, W. (1989). The Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press.
5. Hampson, N. (1989). A Social History of the French Revolution. Routledge.
6. McPhee, P. (2002). Liberty or Death: The French Revolution. Yale University Press.
7. Palmer, R. R. (1959). The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800. Princeton University Press.
8. Popkin, J. D. (2010). A Short History of the French Revolution. Pearson.
9. Schama, S. (1989). Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Penguin.
10. Wood, G. S. (1992). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage.

Women’s Rights and Dependence in the American Revolution

N. Gundersen, Joan R. “Independence, Citizenship, and the American Revolution.” Signs, vol. 13, no. 1, 1987, pp. 59–77. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3174027. “Independence, Citizenship, and the American Revolution” “Single women had the independence of mind and property to qualify as voters, but except in New Jersey, the American revolutionary leadership failed to recognize this. New Jersey provides a single example during the Revolutionary era of a state where women were included in the body politic. Women had a constitutionally protected right to vote in New Jersey from 1776 to 1807” (Gundersen 65). “In 1796, the legislature excluded black men and women from voting but reaffirmed white women’s right to vote, using the phrase ‘he or she.’

In order to qualify to vote, a woman had to be a property holder and thus independent” (Gundersen 66). Women were considered dependent on British loyalty oaths, but a widow or spinster’s choice of allegiance was independent. Each state had to decide if women in this scenario were dependent. Before the Revolution, a woman was a legal dependent. However, there were other aspects of a woman’s status, including duties, rights, and privileges. The land was an important part of a woman’s dowry; when her husband died, the land would be passed down to her male heirs. She also had partial ownership of personal property if the family declared bankruptcy or when her husband died. Equity provisions were another part of a women’s dependent status prior to the Revolution.

Equity provisions helped married women be independent in a legal sense. Women were citizens of the new U.S. government, and they had independent choices while staying in the same dependent status (67 & 72). It was common for a husband and wife to stand on opposite sides of the Revolution. This caused multiple property and dependency issues. Each state government had to decide which situations determined the ownership of property and how a woman who stayed home fit into a society ruled by men. Most women married between eighteen and twenty-one years old. In many cases, a woman would engage in premarital for her significant other to determine if she could produce his heirs. This made her closer to becoming a wife.

As a wife, her status is dependent on her husband. Prenuptials were common women who could have “separate independent estates during marriage” (Gundersen 72). However, they did not receive economic independence from this. Legally a wife is dependent on her husband. While a widow was independent legally. Women became leaders while their husbands fought in the war; some petitioned the state for economic support to survive. The dependent poor increased during the Revolution; families struggled to make ends meet without fathers and brothers home to work. Men were independent; they had the right to vote, own property and gain the benefits of liberty. Women were dependent, couldn’t vote because men brought them to the polls, and couldn’t own property.

Women’s Contributions and Changing Perspectives in the Revolution

Society compared women to slaves during the Revolution. Women were deputy husbands. They stayed home, managed the farm or business, and raised the children. This started to change the views society had on the women’s sphere. Cometti, Elizabeth. “Women in the American Revolution.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3, 1947, pp. 329–346. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/361443. “Women in the American Revolution” Women had new roles during the war; they became the head of the household, acquired their husbands’ duties (while he was fighting in the war), and were employed in the husband’s business or farm. The charity was needed for most families’ survival because there was no common currency, soldiers’ pay was not distributed on time or regularly, and did not cover necessities.

Many women petitioned the government for economic assistance. Most families did not receive enough economic help from the state legislatures and revolutionary committees due to local officials being ineffective and not caring. State legislatures and revolutionary committees “sought remedies in a variety of resolutions and acts providing for the distribution of money and food to soldiers’ families, for limiting prices, for rationing essential commodities, and for state purchasing and marketing of goods” (Cometti 330-331). The textile industry hired a lot of women. This was similar traditionally to the work women would do at home. The other main jobs for women were as farmers in New England and the Middle States.

Women also volunteered by making clothes and food and collecting materials that could be used toward the war effort. Old clothes and lead-based objects (to be made into bullets) were passed along to the soldiers. Tea and other luxury items from England were in high demand but were relatively unattainable during this time. In some cases, hordes of females would attack a store and steal its luxury goods. Women generally enjoyed using British luxury items and rarely negatively commented about others using them. Patriotic women ostracized Tories, and it took little evidence for someone to be labeled a Tory. “At a quilting frolic, a group of young ladies stripped their lone male guest to the waist and covered him with molasses and the “downy tops of flags” because he had cast aspersions on Congress” (Cometti 338).

When women asked other women for charity, a song, a bribe of tea, or begging, kids allowed the beggars to receive charity. Wealthy women handed out food and drink to marching soldiers. Women took the roles of nurses, cooks, laundresses, and camp followers in the war. George Washington was dismayed by the camp followers; he was upset they were “riding on military wagons and eating at public expense instead of working in the country” (Cometti 344). Young women would only take patriot lovers and “met to sew regimental colors for their beaux” (Cometti 340). Women made and distributed packages of food, clothes, etc., to the soldiers too. When the French arrived to assist the patriots, dancing became a popular pastime for young ladies and soldiers.

Tea, Loyalty, and Women’s Changing Roles in the Revolution

Although balls were an extravagance, they were enjoyed by many wealthy women throughout the war. Some ladies courted British soldiers, which caused shock. (Whigs were not allowed to court the enemy, and Quakers had no rules about this.) When items from England were banned, wealthy women stockpiled these items, while poor women formed mobs, broke into stores, and stole them. Tea symbolized British sympathy. Women loved tea and made sure others did not get to enjoy it during the ban. “When the designated moment of sacrifice came, groups of ladies would sometimes assemble over a last ceremonial cup of tea to pledge farewell to the “pernicious weed.”

And they were vigilant in seeing that others should not have what they had given up, going so far as to denounce those who dared to relapse from their resolutions; for it was possible to obtain tea by such stratagems as whispering across the merchant’s counter and obtaining falsely labeled packages of tea.” (Cometti 337). Later, privateers sold tea illegally, and only the wealthy could obtain this luxury item. However, with other British goods, women did not engage in judgment. Tea was the only British good that women used as a sign of loyalty during the war, which was also appropriately used to determine one’s social status. Marsh, Ben. “Women and the American Revolution in Georgia.”

The Georgia Historical Quarterly, vol. 88, no. 2, 2004, pp. 157–178. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40584736. “Women and the American Revolution in Georgia” Raids and plunders were common, the economy was decimated, rice was high in demand and low in quantity, and many families emigrated to South Carolina, abandoning and neglecting their plantations and homesteads to flee to safety. Many Tories lived in Georgia (the youngest colony). A lot of fighting occurred because the British wanted to take over Georgia. The population had a small number of planters. They were the elite, the highest social class, and well-to-do planters owned slaves. Most planters moved their families to South Carolina, usually to the Lowcountry. Their families continued to move throughout the war.

British soldiers and Loyalists plundered throughout Georgia destroying families’ livelihoods, and some wealthy families took refuge in South Carolina. Tory women mostly stayed with their husbands and children during the war. Women continued to be matriarchs after the war while their husbands determined “new locations for the refugees and tied up colonial business affairs” (Marsh 163). Planters moved their families to safety in the north, and women who remained in Georgia became the head of their household (deputy-husband) and economically responsible for their family during the war; this “re-emphasized the significance of women’s roles within the family” (Marsh 160). She became in charge of the remaining slaves and her children.

Women’s Resourcefulness, Loyalties, and Changing Dynamics Amidst War

Families that stayed behind had to have mobility for short periods of time and distances when they were finding ways to protect their homestead from the atrocities of war. Weapons and adult males were absent on the home front; women had to rely on their wits and resourcefulness to protect their property. Women were not involved in politics; their main role was to their family and household. however, because of this, they could safely be on the opposite side of their significant other. Their husband and son’s oath of abjuration (declaration of loyalty) determined which side women were part of in the war; if she sided with her husband, their land could be seized. Many women chose to remain neutral or did not side with their husbands and protect their property.

Emigration, attacks, and capture separated African-American slave families when their owners moved north; many slaves escaped during the confusion. The matriarch determined the destination and planned for her family to escape. Usually, babies and infants were not brought along on these trips; mothers would stay at their plantation with their children because it was safer than trying to escape. Courtship was difficult during the war; some young people switched sides in the war to be with their lovers! Quakers decided that instead of parents determining if their child could engage their significant other, Quaker meetinghouses would decide. During the British occupation of Georgia, Tories met to form social networks. All marriages were unlicensed; there were fewer potential partners because of the war.

“Lacking the social connections, economic power, and political weight of their elite neighbors, many had no choice but to remain in Georgia and face the consequences of revolution.” (Marsh 166). Some Tory women were spies during the war, which changed the role of non-elite white women from passive victims to helpful informants. Women were protected by their status. During the beginning of the war, they were extremely effective. Patriots focused on uprooting the Tory women to prevent the spread of Patriot military plans. Patriot women were also spying during the war. In the backcountry, elite landowning women wrote petitions to male authorities to leave in safety which tended to be granted based on their connections and how they determined members of their family (they left out the male members of their family for their own safety.)

References:

1. Gundersen, Joan R. “Independence, Citizenship, and the American Revolution.” Signs, vol. 13, no. 1, 1987, pp. 59–77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3174027
2. Cometti, Elizabeth. “Women in the American Revolution.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3, 1947, pp. 329–346. https://www.jstor.org/stable/361443
3. Marsh, Ben. “Women and the American Revolution in Georgia.” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, vol. 88, no. 2, 2004, pp. 157–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40584736

Women’s Struggles and Educational Progress in the Revolutionary Era

During the Revolution, women were often not treated fairly. Women during this time were thought to be inferior to men, which was evident in the lack of legal rights for married women. Women were also denied independence in economic, political, or civic matters in Anglo-American society during the eighteenth century. For example, A large number of white women in the eighteenth century spent their days carrying out many challenging tasks in or around their rural homes. The riskiest work they performed was childbirth. Most women during this time gave birth to five or more children. However, this was in addition to the other pregnancies that ended in miscarriages. Sadly some of these women also died during childbirth, or in some cases, they watched their infants die.

During the eighteenth century, women weren’t allowed to have a say in politics, and some of them became annoyed because of the many restrictions placed on them. As time went on, some things slowly began to change. For example, a movement began to help improve the education of women in order to give them more ways to support themselves. During the Revolutionary Era, male and female authors began to demand improvements to female education. They argued that there were many major differences that existed amongst the sees that were based solely on access to learning. This was the point that Essayist and early American Feminist Judith Sargent Murray was trying to make in her essay “On The Equality of the Sexes.”

Women’s Vital Roles: Contributions and Resistance in the Revolutionary Era

Murray’s writings became very popular, and she continued to publish additional Feminist essays that focused on women’s education and the equal value men and women should have. Murray believed that while society must be based on strict compliance to order, A woman’s place within. That order must be changed. Murray believed that “Whatever differences that existed between the intelligence of men and women were the result of prejudice and discrimination that prevented women from sharing the full range of male privilege and experience.” Murray supported the view that the Order of Nature demanded full equality between the sexes, but that male domination corrupted this principle.

The Revolutionary Generation included numerous women that contributed to the struggle for independence. Although women weren’t allowed to serve in the military, they assisted in many other ways. There were wives, girlfriends, daughters, and sisters that joined their camps to perform other important tasks. For example, Martha Washington accompanied her husband, General George Washington, during much of the war. These women became known as camp followers. They cooked, cleaned, sewed, mended uniforms, and provided medical assistance to the sick and injured. They also tended to the farm animals, milking cows, and searched for food. Some of these women showed their dedication in other ways, such as risking their lives by acting as spies. They would enter British camps or places of recreation to seek out information they could pass on to the rebels.

The Daughters of Liberty was a group that came about after the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act. It was an Organization made up of only women that wanted to demonstrate their loyalty to the Revolutionary cause by boycotting British goods and making their own. The women continued to be on the frontline of efforts to impose boycotts on British goods, but they also controlled domestic production efforts. “Because most textiles in the colonies were imported from Britain, weaving homespun cloth became an act of political rebellion.”

References:

1. Murray, Judith Sargent. “On The Equality of the Sexes.”
2. Norton, Mary Beth. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800. Cornell University Press, 1996.
3. Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
4. Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll. “The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in Nineteenth-Century America.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1.1 (1975): 1-29.
5. Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage, 1993.
6. Zagarri, Rosemarie. Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Revolutionary War: Mobilization, Experiences, and Scholarship

War and Society in the American Revolution: Mobilization and Home Fronts, Edited by John Resch and Walter Sargent, Editors. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007.

John Resch and Walter Sargent’s assortment of essays unites probably the best input on the American Revolutionary War. It is isolated into two areas, one concerning the inspiration and preparation of fighters and the other the wartime encounters of an assortment of partners, networks, and ladies. The editors, who themselves contribute fine expositions to the initial segment of the assortment, incorporate a mindful early-on review of the works they have picked and finish up with a historiographic essay on the changing grant of the Revolutionary period over the mediating hundreds of years.

Diverse Perspectives on Revolutionary Experiences

The caption of the book makes it strategic that understanding the assembly of all Americans is critical to understanding the Revolution itself. Undoubtedly, a comprehension of assembly finds a good pace of longstanding inquiries concerning the potential inspirations of members in the war. The authors on military motivation astutely inspect Continental and local army powers. This has permitted them to see continued cooperation by every single social status, “[…] most Americans looked to government to organize, sustain, and lead the society’s collective military effort.” (p.10). Other territorial and topical essays on enlistment demoralize speculations from that experience. By parsing an assortment of networks, they found that enrollment encounters were natural and reflected neighborhood associations and stress lines.

The expositions of the primary portion of the volume are firmly strong. Those of the second are less so, and that is both a quality and a shortcoming. It takes into consideration a wide scope of independently convincing themes to be investigated that outline this was a war with no reasonable depiction between the home front and battlefront.

Holly Mayer’s essay on the ladies who went with the armed force, Joan Gunderson’s record of the preliminaries of evacuee ladies, and expositions on the southern boondocks concerning supporters, slaves, and Native groups help book lovers to remember the vacancy of any such discrete conceptualizations. These points are basic to a comprehension of the American Revolution, and the nature of the grant and writing in every one of them is excellent. Be that as it may, there is to some degree less concentration, and they could have profited from a more tightly editorial hand to associate them with the bigger topics of the book.

Violence, Alliances, and Unanswered Questions in the Revolutionary War

In the same way as other works about war and society, the effect of brutality will, in general, get quick work. This is to some degree settled by Wayne Lee’s insightful essay about how ‘Violence is always judged’ (p. 165), even in the Carolina backwoods, an energizing and provocative subject. It additionally opens up an entire field of grants that asks for extension in its very own segment. In any case, this is a minor issue and just gives different researchers in the field, and maybe Resch and Sargent themselves, another volume to consider.
Jim Piecuch’s essay, Incompatible Allies, discusses one of the many reasons Britain lost the war they didn’t utilize allies they had access to in the colonies.

The reason why is discussed in the essay, “If the British sought slave and Indian support, they alienated white loyalists; if they rejected it, they might find the Indians allied to the Whigs, who frequently courted them and also lose services of thousands of fugitive slaves who filled important non-combat positions in the army” (p. 210). This essay could most definitely expand because it gives light on topics that I haven’t heard discussed before. An author could probably do a whole volume on these subjects showing how the British caused their demise during the war.

There are so many viewpoints that can be discussed in three distinct groups of people. They all had different viewpoints on the war and each other. These issues put the British in a hard place whom they could use to be their allies without losing the other two. Another volume could be written on the ‘what ifs’ of this situation. What if Britain was able to bring these groups together? What would our nation look like? That is the reasoning behind why I think this essay can be expanded to so many different avenues of new research and unanswered questions.

Booklovers, understudies particularly, will discover a lot to energize them in these pages. The essays are written in an unmistakable, open style. Those new to the field will discover a significant number of the expositions provocatively, and pros will be outfitted with an assortment from the absolute best researchers in the field. So with this being said, this book is a must-read regardless of your background.

References:

1. Resch, John, and Walter Sargent. War and Society in the American Revolution: Mobilization and Home Fronts. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007.
2. Mayer, Holly. “Ladies Who Accompanied the Army: Holly Mayer Explores the World of the Women Who Followed Washington’s Army.” In War and Society in the American Revolution: Mobilization and Home Fronts, edited by John Resch and Walter Sargent, 200-215. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007.
3. Gunderson, Joan. “Trials of Refugee Women: Gunderson Examines the Difficulties and Dilemmas Faced by Refugee Women.” In War and Society in the American Revolution: Mobilization and Home Fronts, edited by John Resch and Walter Sargent, 216-228. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007.
4. Piecuch, Jim. “Incompatible Allies: Piecuch Discusses the Reasons for Britain’s Loss in the American Revolutionary War.” In War and Society in the American Revolution: Mobilization and Home Fronts, edited by John Resch and Walter Sargent, 210-215. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007.
5. Lee, Wayne. “Violence is Always Judged: Wayne Lee Examines the Complexities of Violence in the Carolina Backwoods.” In War and Society in the American Revolution: Mobilization and Home Fronts, edited by John Resch and Walter Sargent, 165-175. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007.

Valley Forge Case Analysis

Today’s soldiers would never know how hard it was for our brothers to survive in times when there was no leadership, no assistance, and no remorse on the way of life for an American soldier. The procedures and policies that we have in place for our safety and well-being we sometimes think are too harsh are meant to make sure we are ok and well taken care of as well as our families; sometimes I find myself overwhelmed with army life, not knowing how good I have it. To provide for your family as a man is one thing, but to survive for your family is another. Many crucial factors stood out to me because it was complicated to know a lot of soldiers looked at the family they know in love in the eyes to fight a good fight and not return for something as hectic as starvation and shelter.

Valley forge was a troubling time for a lot of American soldiers. I could not imagine having to beg citizens for basic needs such as food, water, shelter, or starvation because a lack of support was provided by someone whose duty was to lead me and help me protect not only my family but also the country’s whole. While reading this article, I was overwhelmed by how many failed attempts to lead and protect my fellow soldiers were taken. It makes me grateful for the procedures that are in place now today. Leadership is a big issue because soldiers had no guidance or support to complete the sought-out mission. Lashings as punishment to an already Malnourished team who didn’t even have something as simple as a blanket to keep them warm, food to keep them energized, and comfort to keep them sane seems well out of line, especially for a man trusted to lead American soldiers to a victory.

I understand that many things we have today are because the world is different, the times are other, and technology is undoubtedly one of the biggest reasons. I still stand on if you have a great leader; the rest will flow and follow. How can you know how to be successful if you never had an example? Essential leadership and empathy could have single handily saved many of our soldiers if proper support and guidance were instilled in those responsible for leading our war.

I propose that nobody took the time to see if men were ready for war and if our leader was fit to lead. I understand how different times are now and the resources we have now been even thought about then, But would it have been so hard to take the time and make sure we had an army built to weather any storm? Survive any outcome and lead themselves if not being guided properly. I guess that’s why we have so many evaluations to make sure we are worth the time and training because we have too many resources to repeat the same cycle soldiers did at valley forge.

I propose a better leader, an efficient plan, and more concern for what-ifs if there were safe houses while in the field that could have provided the soldiers with food, shelter, aid, and assistance, a lot of those soldiers who did not make it home would have. Protocols should have been in place and enforced for everyone, and an efficient chain of command to lead and implement not specific protocols. Women should have been allowed to cook and aid soldiers in those safe houses and trained on how to handle the hectic situation. Soldiers deserved financial compensation, with a portion sent home to ensure the families were ok and not stressed out. A lot of these suggestions are primary care and aid. I am happy to serve because I know I am in a place where my family is ok and I will survive any outcome based on the basic training, the knowledge and classes I have completed, and my dedication to serving my country.

Revolutionary Mothers by Carol Berkin

The American Revolution was a fight for independence from Britain fought by many people, specifically men, that students learn about today. What many do not know, is that women also played a role in this war. Whether these women were fighting with the British or with the Americans, they still helped during the revolution in various ways including aiding wounded soldiers or by being spies. The book “Revolutionary Mothers” by Carol Berkin is filled with stories of many brave women who helped their husbands or their countries throughout this era. Berkin informs her readers that this book bluntly tells the stories of women who got caught up in the conflict between the Americans and the British without sugarcoating it. She stays true to this purpose by being able to communicate the brave things women did without romanticizing it or making it seem like women played a central role. Additionally, she uses the diaries and stories of many women, not just one or a few.

When the war broke out, husbands and sons were sent out to fight. This left women alone in the house with their young children doing their usual household chores. Although most women did not join the military to fight, it was extremely hard for them to avoid the harsh realities of what the war. Berkin tells the story of Frederika von Riedesel, the wife of a general whom she accompanied with their children. The author writes about how Frederika was near one of the battles of Saratoga and was faced with challenges such as a wounded officer eventually dying while she tried to comfort him (85). Berkin explains that “in the next few days, the baroness saw more death and suffering” (86), a sad truth that some of the generals’ wives would soon realize when they joined their husbands at the military camps. Berkin is further able to inform her readers about women having to face the struggles of war in chapter three. She writes that “both Patriot and British forces committed conscious acts of fierce brutality” when they would occupy a woman’s home (38). Women would be in fear of what soldiers could do to them or their children. Furthermore, Berkin explains that husbands’ political choices would threaten their wives back home, making them victims of violence (97). These examples are just some of the terrible things women had to deal with during the American Revolution, and Berkin effectively wrote about them without sugarcoating them.

Carol Berkin does not romanticize the stories of these women. Although some were wives of powerful men, she does not discredit what they did for their country by adding a romantic love story. It is true that women believed that they were just following their feminine duties of being obedient wives, but Berkin prefers to focus on their actions rather than their reasonings. For example, on page 110 Berkin writes “Together, Molly and William became the most powerful political force in the Mohawk Valley” but continues to write about what Molly Brant did for her people and for the British since she was a loyalist. Of course, she was a loyalist because of her husband, but she believed that she could bring peace between the Indian and the white societies and tried to use her influence of being part of two worlds to achieve it. Another example is when Berkin writes about Frederika von Riedesel, wife of Fritz Riedesel. During the war, they were both miserable without each other and did not like that they were separated (81). Berkin continues to tell her readers about their relationship but does not make it her main focus. In fact, she focuses more on what Frederika did during her time away from her husband Fritz. When Frederika’s carriage was mistakenly attacked by American soldiers, Berkin says that she began to take charge (87). The author continues to provide more information on what exactly Frederika did, which was moving people into the cellar and comforting them. She was worried about her husband, but it did not stop her from helping other people who were in need. Berkin does not erase or try to devalue what these two women did. She makes sure that their stories are told with respect without turning them into love stories.

Berkin did keep her word when she said that she was not going to only tell the story of one woman but instead tell the stories of several. Throughout the book, Berkin quotes the women’s diaries to further explain the situations, what they were going through and what they were feeling. An example of this is when Berkin writes about inflation in the third chapter. She uses a quote from a woman named Mary Donnelly where Mary expresses her fear of hearing her young child cry but cannot feed him because she does not have any food (33). During this time, there was no money and families were lacking resources and food. By the use of this quote, readers can imagine how desperate women were feeling because they could not do anything. A few pages later, Berkin writes about how Eliza Wilkinson “captured the feelings of many women, left alone to face brutality and violence of war” (36) and continues to quote her. Eliza’s quote from her diary describes the horrible things she saw people do to each other when they had different political opinions. Furthermore, the use of quotes throughout the book helps readers understand what was going on during the revolutionary era. Not only is this time in history told by one woman, but it is also told by multiple women who shared their experiences in the pages of their diaries and Berkin executes this so perfectly.

Carol Berkin is able to prove her thesis by actually writing “Revolutionary Mothers” the way she told her audience that she was going to do it. She does not sugarcoat it nor romanticize it and she gives voices to many women, not just one. It is a well-written book that effectively informs readers about the struggles that countless women faced during the revolutionary era and what many other women did to help throughout the war.

Work Cited

1. Berkin, Carol. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence. Knopf, 2005.

Many people would say the American colonists were bargaining with the British for their freedom in the leadup to the Declaration of Independence, but through an international affairs lens, is this actually the case? Was either party actually acting within the bargaining model, or where they both just determined to get exactly what they wanted? Ultimately, is the bargaining model a satisfactory and comprehensive model to view the American Revolutionary War under, or must one look elsewhere? This paper will argue that while components of the bargaining model, including its assumptions and conclusion that war results from failure to strike a bargain, are very useful in explaining the causes of the Revolutionary War, it also has some oversights, making other theories, such as the “democratic norms and culture” argument, the fundamental attribution error, and prospect theory, necessary to get a more complete picture of why the war played out the way it did.

Before going into the main analysis, it is relevant to highlight some assumptions being made here. Firstly, at this moment in history, the world could be described as an unbalanced multipolarity, perhaps moving towards what would become unipolarity—in Britain—by the end of the eighteenth century. As far as the colonies, they will be treated as an actor or states. This is because, in all the major theories, relations between two or more states are the focal point, and the colonies must act as one to utilize these theories.

The concept of war as a mode of bargaining was first introduced by Carl von Clausewitz, who is famously quoted as saying, “[w]ar is the continuation of politics by other means” (Downes 9/19). In the time since then, however, a solidified theory known as the bargaining model has taken hold, which “describes interactions in which actors try to resolve disputes over the allocation of a good” (Frieden 2019: 96). Of course, states will only reach an agreement, however, if doing so would give them at least as much as their “expected value” from fighting, creating what is known as the bargaining range, or “the set of deals that both sides prefer over war” (Downes 9/24; Frieden 2019: 99). In “Rationalist Explanations for War,” James Fearon surmises that “war is costly and risky, so rational states should have incentives to locate negotiated settlements that all would prefer to the gamble of war” (Fearon 1995: 380). He is interested in pinning down the reasons why any rational state would arrive at the answer of war when it seems there are always less costly and deadly alternatives. Before reaching his conclusions, however, one must acknowledge the assumptions the bargaining model makes.

Starting with the assumption that states are unitary actors and exist in anarchy, this appears to be true (Downes 9/24). Though not yet an actual state and instead the purveyors of an internal revolution, the colonists’ link was strong enough to unify thirteen unique colonies. Additionally, the framework for the revolution was not based on class, race, or ethnicity but rather on an ideological national identity, thus fulfilling the requirement of the assumption. The other half of this assumption, that states exist in anarchy, also seems to be true. Though England would attempt to subdue the colonies with military forces, the conflict can ultimately be considered a domestic, or internal, affair. The key here is that there is no external force to police the situation, and both sides are free to act in their own direct interests.

The second assumption, that states pay the cost of war themselves, is mostly true (Downes 9/24). The onus of funding the war definitely fell to each respective side; however, France helping the colonies monetarily and logistically does add a wrinkle to the situation. When you involve another actor’s resources, they are also added to the math of the bargaining model. With France’s assistance, the colonies were certainly unburdened. So, while the logic about the lower the cost of war, the more willing to fight, holds, where the money is coming from in the case of the colonies is not solely themselves.

The third assumption, that states do not prefer war for its own sake, also seems to be the case here (Downes 9/24). From their perspective, the colonists had exhausted all other means of negotiation before resorting to violence. The Declaration of Independence lays out clearly each of these attempts made by the colonists to no avail. In addition, England would have had no clear and obvious reason for waging a war on their most prosperous colonies. Therefore, neither actor had the motive to provoke war for the sake of it. Rather, it seemed to be a matter of necessity.

The fourth assumption, that states only care about getting the best deal, might provoke some objections from the colonists and their defenders, who would argue they were fighting not for typical, materially self-interested reasons but simply for what they were owed as human beings: unalienable rights (Downes 9/24). As humble as these wishes might have been, however, it could still be argued that achieving them would look enough like “getting the best deal” that this particular objection can be ignored.

The fifth and final assumption, that states are rational, could raise some eyebrows when considering the state of the British monarch at the time (Downes 9/24). King George III is infamously characterized in history as a mad figure and therefore not the most “rational.” That being said, when weighing the costs and benefits of the colonies’ independence, it would not exactly be irrational for the British elite, as a whole, to want to hold on to one of the main stimulators of their economy.

Now having considered each of the bargaining model’s assumptions, it is plausible to say that the Revolutionary War fulfills them well enough to make it a valid framework for initial analysis, but whether the model itself is as foolproof is another question entirely. To answer it, one must look into two more general ways one could apply this model to the Revolutionary War, as well as bring in some explanations by Fearon to explain why it nonetheless occurred.

The first bargaining model interpretation of the war is that as England’s premiere colonies and irreplaceable sources of revenue, the colonies felt they had an upper hand and therefore a bigger expected outcome in what they were after. This confidence was exhibited with aggressive tactics like the Boston Tea Party but only amounted to slaps in the face of their home country. When England not only failed to redress their grievances, and instead imposed harsher terms, the colonists saw no choice but to cease the bargaining and continue politics through other means, the very idea Clausewitz propagated.

The alternative theory still following the logic of the bargaining model assumes a much larger initial bargaining range. This could be the case if the colonists took into account the likely costs of waging war with the world’s preeminent superpower. It is also just as likely because it is known that the colonists did attempt to bargain many times before they drafted the Declaration of Independence. How, then, with such a large bargaining range, did the colonies ultimately find themselves engaging in direct combat with their country of origin? For that, one must examine the shortcomings of the bargaining model and the associated writings.

In his journal, Fearon assumes the accuracy of the bargaining model and searches for plausible exceptions within it. He concludes that there are only three reasons why a rational state might go to war in spite of the bargaining model (Fearon 1995: 381). The first explanation, which he deems the weakest, is in cases where states are fighting over an indivisible good, in which the issue becomes all-or-nothing (Fearon 1995: 381-2). This would definitely apply to the nature of the colonies’ demand for unalienable rights. In fact, an argument could be made that what Fearon considers to be the weakest rationalist explanation could actually be the strongest when applied to the Revolutionary War because the other two, commitment problems and private information, misrepresent the state of affairs at that time. The colonists would have been quite aware of the sheer power they were up against. Furthermore, no amount of strategic planning around the time of attack or misrepresenting their capabilities would have changed this, and the colonists would not have been so naïve to think otherwise (Fearon 1995: 381-2). So, while the indivisibility option proposed by Fearon seems to best explain how a bargain might fail to be struck under the bargaining model, the weakness of the other two is representative of bigger pitfalls surrounding the theory.

For some reason, Fearon’s take on the bargaining model also assumes that states would never want to take on the costs of war under any circumstances—even if the expected benefits would outweigh the costs (Fearon 1995: 381). Fearon’s judgment is correct that this does not explain why a state would not try to bargain just to avoid the costs outright, but he does not provide a resolution in the case of the colonists, who had already tried bargaining many times. After that, it makes perfect sense that the colonists would pursue war if the costs were worth the overall gain. And what could be more essential and worth fighting for if not for your own rights as a person (as they saw it)?

Given these shortcomings of the bargaining model, it seems necessary, then, to provide alternative or additional theories to explain under what pretenses the Revolutionary War occurred. Perhaps the most compelling of these supplementary theories is Bruce Russett’s “democratic norms and culture” argument, in which he argues “if people in a democracy perceive themselves as autonomous, self-governing people who share norms of live-and-let-live, they will respect the rights of others to self-determination if those others are also perceived as self-governing and hence not easily led into aggressive foreign policies by a self-serving elite” (Russett 1993: 92). Essentially, democratic states will expect other democratic states to act within the peaceful norms present in their own systems when interacting with one another.

In the case of the colonies, though hard to call it a norm considering they had not been around very long, the founders were highly influenced by Enlightenment thinking and had already internalized the ideas of liberty and freedom. That being said, these men would also have realized they were up against an authoritarian monarch rather than a democracy. Russett says that “authoritarian states are expected to aggress against others if given the power and the opportunity. By this reasoning, democracies must be eternally vigilant and may even need to engage in defensively motivated war or preemptive action anticipating an immediate attack” (Russett 1993: 93). So, though the colonists might have hoped for reciprocated peaceful conflict resolution and had given England the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, they eventually had to let go of this and treat England as the autocratic regime it was.

Another useful concept to append to the bargaining model in explaining the Revolutionary War is the fundamental attribution error. According to Causes of War, this theory says that “[i]ndividuals have a tendency to interpret others’ behavior, particularly behavior that they regard as undesirable, as reflecting dispositional factors rather than situational factors” (Levy 2010: 143). In other words, people interpret actions and decisions based on what fits their narrative, often resulting in cognitive biases. “Moreover, since we believe that our own actions are defensively motivated, and since we assume that the adversary understands that, we interpret the adversary’s hostile behavior as evidence that it must be hostile” (Levy 2010: 143). The colonists characterized England as levying taxes just to keep them under control and restrict their freedom, but, situationally, it made sense for England to tax the colonies to recoup losses caused by the French and Indian War. By this theory, however, the colonists would not have been able to see past this, only seeing that England was unnaturally greedy and disrespectful of the rights God had endowed them with, and took England to the task.

A final additional framework to explain the Revolutionary War is prospect theory. The theories discussed up to this point have been very colonial-centric, but viewing England through this lens yields another quite compelling explanation. Per this theory, people have a tendency to overweight losses relative to gains, and therefore, “[t]hey are more likely to fight in order to avoid losses than to make gains” (Levy 2010: 151-152). Furthermore, “[i]f faced with possible losses from the status quo … individuals will prefer to gamble on risky strategies that might eliminate the loss and maintain the status quo rather than adopt a strategy that is certain to lead to that negative outcome” (Levy 2010: 151). By this token, it makes sense why England risked war over the colonies they had held ownership over for so long. The economic loss would have been massive and disruptive to the economic system they were accustomed to. It also explains why the bargaining model is unsatisfactory in explaining the situation: England was not willing to bargain at all if it meant losing the incredibly valuable status quo.

Perhaps that sentiment says it best. Though some aspects of the bargaining model are compelling, it comes short of fully explaining the Revolutionary War because, in some ways, neither side viewed it as a bargaining situation, to begin with. The colonists were determined to receive their full autonomy and independence from England, and the British were determined to make sure they did not let go of a sliver. Again, though the bargaining model’s assumptions and conclusion that war results from failure to strike a bargain are not off base, it is not a sufficient theory alone. Fearon’s rationalist explanations attempt to close the gap somewhat, but it is other theories, namely Russett’s “democratic norms and culture” argument, the fundamental attribution error, and prospect theory, that are necessary to actually wrap one’s head around this momentous war in American history. Relying on multiple, logical theories through which to view the past makes sure these events are not oversimplified and brings us closer to the proper conclusions.

How much do you truly know about Winter At Valley Forge? The war started in 1775. It had started cause the shot was heard around the world. The Americans had gotten into a war against the British. They were really there at Valley Forge cause he wanted to spy on the British and they would be easy to attack them. Winter At Valley Forge was one of the toughest times in American history and bought out new leaders.

The Rebel soldiers had just arrived and it was already hard to endure; they had arrived at Valley Forge on Dec. 19. Also with no confidence and hope. According to battlefields.org Article, ¨Winter At Valley Forge¨ published in 2019, ¨The army’s supply of basic necessities, like food and clothing, ran perpetually short; coupled with the wintertime cold, and the diseases that ran rampant through the camp, this lack of provisions created the infamously miserable conditions at Valley Forge.¨ According to the evidence Valley Forge was one of the toughest times in American history, They were in pain from the bare cold, hunger and tiredness. Due to the fact all of the evidence of no food, clothing, sheer cold, etc. 2500 people died there. According to the battlefields.org Article, ¨Winter At Valley Forge¨ published in 2019, Washington said it was ¨A dreary kind of place. And uncomfortably provided¨ According to Washington At Valley Forge published in 2008 Private Martin once said “The army was not only starved but naked.” (Freedman 1) It was extremely uncomfortable and nobody wanted to be there. It was so badly provided that they couldn’t have enough tents for everybody so they had to have two people in each tent setup. They had barely made it out alive.

Very few deserted which showed their determination. According to Historic Valley Forge publisher in N/A “In all, only 42 cases were tried by Court Martial at Valley Forge — desertion or attempted desertion” The evidence verifies that they were determined to survive as a challenge. That nobody was gonna stop them. But another part of that is they will get 100 whips or hang if attempt/try to desert. According to the battlefields.org Article, ¨Winter At Valley Forge¨ published in 2019, ¨Washington’s steady leadership was crucial to keeping the army intact¨ This would mean that Washington was pushing them to be stronger. So they would be determined to fight off the cold. So they could make it out of there and still believe that they could make it out of there. Many people did not desert which showed their bravery.

It had bought out great leaders such as Gorge Washington, Von Steuben, and Marquis De Lafayette. According to Ducksters article ¨Valley Forge¨ published in 2019, George Washington was the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. His leadership and resolve played a big part in the United States gaining its independence from Britain.¨ One could imply that George Washington was one of our greatest leaders because he had a big role in the American revolution. He was one of the highest commanders. He was mainly in charge of the army and told them directions, what to do etc. According to Ducksters article ¨Valley Forge¨ published in 2019, “Friedrich von Steuben was a Prussian-born military leader who served as the inspector general under Washington. He took on the task of training the Continental Army. It was through von Steuben’s daily drills, even in the cold of winter at Valley Forge, that the soldiers of the Continental Army learned the tactics and discipline of a true fighting force.”This implies that Von Steuben was also a great military leader right under Washington. He had daily drills for the soldiers like we do lockdown drills. He taught them a real fighting force. The American Revolution brought out brand-new leaders like Washington and Von Steuben.

Winter At Valley Forge was one of the hardest times in American history which also have bring out brand-new commanders. They had the toughest time there and survived. Very little deserted which showed their determination. It had bought out fresh new leaders. How much did you learn about Valley Forge? It is very good to know about what happened in the past. And how America was made the way it is today.

Works Cited

1. N/A. ¨Winter At Valley Forge¨. www.battlefields.org. American Battlefield Of Trust. 2019. Web. January 29, 2019.
2. N/A. ¨Valley Forge¨ www.ducksters.com. TSI. 2019. Web. January 29, 2019.
3. N/A. ¨Historic Valley Forge¨. www.ushistory.org. IHA. 2019. Web. January 29, 2019.
4. Freedman, Russell. Washington at Valley Forge. Singapore. N/A. 2008. Medium (Print).

On the 19th of April 1775, fighting between colonial militiamen and troops marked the outbreak of the revolutionary war, which eventually saw the thirteen colonies gain independence. This essay will assess the importance and relevance of ideology among colonists, the role of government, and economic factors as elements that caused enough strain in the Anglo-American relationship for the surge in military activity. Howard Zinn argues that ideology was a façade for the greed and wealth of upper-class colonists, which is a different and controversial view that ignores the basic understanding of the progressive society that attracted immigrants from across Europe. On the other hand, Bernard Bailyn suggests tyranny allowed for the ideological mass movement of freedom and independence. This view is very consistent from the American perspective, however, it fails to acknowledge the intentions and context behind policies of the government that were often branded tyrannical among some historians but entirely justified by others. Lewis Namier`s exploration of politics during this time period leads to the idea the influential, pro-republic colonists manipulated the interpretation of the actions of settlers to create the impression of tyranny. Moreover, a combination of economic growth in the colonies and the birth of the industrial revolution may have incentivized rich colonists to pursue separation from regulation to have economic freedom tailored to the needs of the colonists rather than the Crown. Short-term factors like intolerable acts may have added the necessary spark to start a revolution. Although economic factors may have influenced both Empire and the thirteen colonies, it is clear that the root and long-term cause for the outbreak of the war was the progressive build-up of republicanism, which was only exacerbated, and allowed for, by the actions of the government.

It is often proposed that the colonists had a common quest for liberty and freedom causing a war against the Empire. This neo-Whig view was presented by Bailyn (1992, p.20), who argued the question of the extent of Parliament`s jurisdiction in the colonies led to an ideological will for the preservation of political liberty threatened by the apparent corruption of the constitution (Bailyn, 1992, p. 51). Bailyn was a Harvard graduate who presented his views on the American revolution using primary sources, and he suggests colonists feared a government with substantial and unjust power and the American reaction to policies ultimately led to a deterioration in the Anglo-American relationship, which would inevitably lead to the outbreak of war as it was the only course of action to meet the aim. Propaganda published throughout the colonies outlines the idea that long and violent abuse of power, is generally the means of calling the right of it in question (Paine, Common Sense, 1776). Thomas Paine was titled the father of the American revolution despite being English-born, and he used `Common Sense` to explore ideas of independence whilst criticizing Empire. By supporting the French Revolution and the `Rights of man`, it is clear Paine`s belief in freedom may be clouding his perception of the events he was experiencing. Although fighting had already broken out, the best-seller may be attempting to encourage more people to join the battle. Simultaneously, it justifies the American response to policies viewed as tyrannical, like the Tea Act of 1773, which suggests ideas of independence from the Empire were significant enough to colonists as a cause of war. However, the ideas explored were not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor (Paine, Common Sense, 1776), suggesting the number of colonists seeking an ideological revolution, and therefore violent conflict against Empire was limited. The omission of not only popularity but also the potential for personal intent of pro-revolution colonists from Bailyn`s argument questions the accuracy of his view and the true influence of ideological factors in instigating the revolutionary war. Alternatively, the driving factor of the American Revolution can be seen as the greed of elitists, who sought to preserve and build upon their superior status by gathering support among people by diverting tensions from class conflict to a mass movement for independence. This view was brought forward by Howard Zinn, who argued the upper class could defeat potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of new, privileged leadership (people`s history chp 4) and found they could take over land, political power, and profits from favorites of Empire.This suggests that the elites had far more to gain than any other singular group who were established in the thirteen colonies and used the idea of independence and liberty to entice support from the same lower classes that opposed their disproportionate accumulation of wealth and power prior to the war. They redirected tensions to Empire, which escalated into war. This is further supported by strong economic growth in pre-revolution times, where wealth would accumulate towards the top, therefore creating a ruling class with inherently less class mobility. Common farmers would lose out on their access to free trade among Empires and most people were not gaining access to the proposed democracy, suggesting war was not within their interests. This heavily points to the outbreak of war being orchestrated by the ruling class to gain popular support despite previous tensions by using ideological arguments. Following the ratification of the constitution, James Madison revealed, in a speech, that the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. (Madison, 1787) Madison inherited wealth from his family and has been dubbed a founding father, yet his publication insinuates that uniting the classes was as significant of a factor as gaining independence from Britain for the revolutionary war. Madison believed in protecting the rights of the minority and the benefits of liberty in economical progression. Zinn`s radical interpretation, however, fails to acknowledge this. It is clear the assertive reaction, by large groups of colonists, to tyrannical policies enabled the necessary mass movement of the ideas to spread among pro-republic colonists. Moreover, it ignores that colonial America was subject to salutary neglect until the end of the Seven years’ war and so ideas of self-government were undoubtedly prevalent. Similarly, many of the people that migrated to the colonies shared a republican ideology, although their attempts at revolution in Europe failed. This view is further supported by other prominent historians such as Edmund Morgan, who suggested the divisions between the rich and poor were limited due to land ownership and emphasized the potency of ideology promoting liberty. It also implied that many businessmen and merchants could benefit without intrusive regulation. Regardless, this suggests there was enough support among a variety of colonists to create the tensions necessary against to start the revolutionary war. George Bancroft even suggested that the prosperity America experienced since it was colonized was a sign from God that it was chosen to demonstrate the ideal model for civilization- democracy and self-government. Ultimately, increased governing exacerbated the influence of ideas of liberty, which encouraged colonists to fight.

It may therefore be suggested that tyrannical rule over the colonies was the outstanding factor in facilitating the outbreak of war. Activists were able to manipulate the intentions of legislation and manufacture anger toward it. Imperial historians, like Osgood, described the empire as not guilty of intentional tyranny toward the colonies (Find quote) implying that Americans overreacted to legislation that was passed within the law. These overreactions were met with more legislation from the government, which was wary and potentially fearful of French influence over the colonies. Initial measures such as the Stamp Act were enforced following a long and expensive war with France, where the colonies benefitted from extensive support and protection. Thomas Whatley proclaimed Britain is not yet recovered from a War undertaken for their Protection. No time was ever so seasonable (appropriate) for claiming their assistance. The distribution is too unequal, of benefits only to the colonies, and of all the Burdens upon the Mother Country. (Whately, 1763) Although Whately is speaking as a member of the crown, over £59 million were spent on protecting the colonies, and only a fraction was reimbursed through taxation, further emphasizing the good intentions of the government. Despite this, Americans boycotted goods and James Otis, who was a lawyer in the 18th century colonial times argued that no taxation without representation is tyranny, which became a popular phrase throughout the colonies and could be viewed as the primary argument among colonists for independence. This further accentuates that the role of government was in hindsight very limited and colonists reacted as they did because many people had already experienced some sort of democracy and power. Colonial America famously had a more democratic system than anywhere in Europe, with a far larger electorate. Essentially, the colonist`s experience of self-government made them irreconcilable to governing. This is contradictory to the Olive Branch Petition, signed by the second continental congress on July 8th, 1775; it suggests the colonists were unwilling to go to war by pledging their allegiance to the crown. The reluctance of the crown to accept their rights as citizens in turn implies that King George III was unwilling to acknowledge their argument for representation, suggesting Britain did intend to oppress the colonists. It can be said the stubbornness of the government forced the colonists into using warfare as a solution to having their demands fulfilled. However, Lewis Namier`s analysis of politics during the age of the American Revolution concludes there was no danger of tyranny in Britain (Jr., 1962). His work suggests that politicians in Britain could not focus on ideology, because of the structure of politics. As the political nation was composed of the narrow elite of society, the dynamics of politics encouraged politicians to pursue influence through (insert a quote from the open tab on the computer) above all else, hence making it impossible for them to intentionally seek to oppress the colonists through legislation and taxation. It similarly links to the idea they viewed colonists as subjects of the crown since they were both taxing and protecting them, rendering the whole idea of the Olive Branch Petition a political ploy to further gain support among people who were neither loyalists nor republicans. Essentially, this argument dovetails into the concept that colonists overreacted to legislation while enhancing Osgood`s argument, clearing the government of the accusation of tyranny. find PS. Analyze it and conclude.

Women proved to be the most heroic and prominent people throughout the most oppressive times in America during the Pre-Columbian era to 1650, the Era of the American Revolution and the New Republic 1750 to 1800, and the period leading to the American Civil War 1800 to 1860. The Native women’s power and hard work during the Pre-Columbian era left the European explorers extremely impressed. The women of the American Revolution and the New Republic used their powerful voices to support their country and make an impactful and positive difference. The women during the period leading into the Civil War proved to be the backbone of America. In conclusion, the American women’s heroic actions led them to be the most outstanding people throughout the most brutal times in America during the Pre-Columbian era, the Era of the American Revolution and the New Republic, and the period leading to the American Civil War.

The Native women’s power and hard work during the Pre-Columbian era made a huge impression on the European explorers. The Pueblo Peoples left a more spiritual impression on the Spanish explorers. They arrived on the western land in the mid-sixteenth century to a community full of rituals and agriculture practices. Even though their jobs were assigned according to gender, they had a spiritual purpose. They believed women had a spiritual power, thus they managed food production. In addition, they had a matrilineal system that led the women to have control over land rights. More importantly, the men highly respected the women for this reason. On the eastern lands, during the first interaction between the Native Americans and the Europeans, the Iroquois peoples’ culture amazed the explorers with how much power the women had. The Iroquois formed a confederacy that was built on the idea of peace and unity.

The Iroquois women oversaw their politics and religion. One of their religious rituals consisted of an activity called “The Chanters of the Dead”, where they gave meanings to peoples’ dreams. Their political power oversaw the organization of families, the rights for land, and the overall supervision of their communities. The women kept their confederation peaceful by allowing both genders to work hard and together. By the time British settlers arrived; the Iroquois proved to be a strong union led by their wise women. Even though, the Spanish had a rough time settling into the New World when they sent Christopher Columbus, by the time Queen Elizabeth planned on colonizing the Atlantic side of the Americas, the Native women and the Spanish men were involved by marriage and trade. Queen Elizabeth did not have interest in combining her men with the Native women or converting them to Christianity. She wanted to push them out to make room for an exclusive settlement. The settlement was not smooth the first time because Queen Elizabeth only sent men. When she sent women, she intended for a more peaceful approach to settle in. Even though her plan to settle did not go as planned the second time, the third time was more successful in Jamestown with the help of the neighboring tribe, the Powhatans. They prevented the British from dying of hunger by feeding them their agriculture. The British observers were so amused by the way the women controlled their crops because they believed it was a man’s job. Pocahontas, daughter of Chief Powhatan, became to be one of the most famous Indians to ever live. Ironically enough, she became a legend because she was kidnapped by James-towners. After she agreed to stay with them, she changed her whole life by changing her name to Rebecca and starting a family of her own with a planter named John Rolfe. She gave the British insight to the successful Native customs. Pocahontas takes all the credit for her husband’s success with tobacco farming and sugar production in America because she showed him the Powhatans agriculture practices. In conclusion, the Native women’s power and work ethic during the Pre-Columbian era was extremely impressionable to European explorers.

The women of the American Revolution and the New Republic used their powerful voices to support their country and make an impactful and positive difference. The Daughters of Liberty made their debut when colonials started boycotting British goods in order to hold out against the new taxes. White women, along with black slave women, started producing homespun cloth because they were not importing it from England anymore. Since the white women saw this job as a choice, they treated it as a patriotism and began to call themselves “Liberty’s Daughters”. After the success of the homespun cloth, they continued their support their country throughout the next few years when the British made new regulations on importing tea. The women started drinking coffee instead of tea while influencing others to do so as well.

They even went as far as passing the First Continental Congress. They received so much praise and acknowledgment in the press for their hard work and contribution. Women even had the opportunity to publish their poems about their disapproval of drinking tea. They proved to be a positive influence in politics. As the Revolution began in 1775, Indian nations made the decision to ally with the British and go to war. Since the women decided whether to go to war in any circumstance, Molly Brant, a Native woman who married a British official on the frontier, was highly influential. Since she was a woman of the Mohawk and married to a powerful British man, she was able to act as a successful mediator between the two worlds. Even after her husband died and she returned to her people, she was still very active in the war. As the war went on, more women suffered without their husbands present to support and protect them. Their husbands were also suffering as they were under attack. To protect them, Esther DeBerdt, the wife of Pennsylvania’s Governor, and Sarah Franklin Bache, daughter of Benjamin Franklin, arranged a fundraiser for the troops. They called their organization The Ladies Association of Philadelphia. Their goal was to reach out to women, in and out of the state, and encourage them to show patriotism. The women suggested they cut back on luxuries so they could donate money.

Successfully enough, they raised $300,000. However, the state of Washington encouraged the women to use the money to make shirts for the soldiers instead of giving them cash. In the end, Bache gave the soldiers over 2,000 shirts. Another important aspect of the Revolutionary War was the impact it had on African slaves. Since the Revolution’s purpose was to be free of the British, people also started questioning the rights of the African slaves. People were concerned because the country was contradicting itself by building a nation established on liberty, yet slavery still existed. Mum Bett, also known as Elizabeth Freeman, was another woman who used her powerful voice to make an impactful and positive difference in the attempt to end slavery in the northern states. She was the slave of Colonel John Ashley from Sheffield, Massachusetts.

She and many other slaves made a petition to get their freedom back in 1781. The petition successfully made it to the state court two years later. The court ruled that slavery cannot be permanent in one’s life. In conclusion, the women of the American Revolution and the New Republic used their powerful voices to support their country and make an impactful and positive difference.

The women during the period leading into the Civil War proved to be the strong foundation of America’s success and survival. Godey’s Lady’s Book was a magazine published in 1860 that had a huge influence on Americans during this time. They believed that a perfect woman was a wife, mother, and the backbone of a family. The country relied on the women, including nonmothers, to be nurturing and show motherly instincts to people who were not fortunate enough to receive love. Then, gender roles started changing by the eighteenth century, during the preindustrial time. Men and women worked together from home to produce every day necessities to sell. Later, as business grew, men started working outside the home to manage the money and women stayed inside completing the labor. This was where the era of the industrial transformation all began; in the early nineteenth century. It was called “outwork”. Before people began working in factories, they produced goods in their home. Women dominated this field.

Even after production moved to factories in the late nineteenth century, there were still thousands of seamstresses living in New York in 1860. Although outworking required more skill than working in the factories, women were still paid poorly. The evolution of the industrial era would not have been possible without the women’s hard work and dedication. Following this was the era of women dominating factory labor. These women and girls saw this as an opportunity for personal independence. In addition, their work ethic was finally going to be accepted as economic help. The Mill Girls of Lowell worked in a factory north of Boston, Massachusetts named Francis Cabot Lowell, after the leader of the group of merchants who opened the first American factory. The women were thrilled to be able to earn their own money. They enjoyed their lives and even formed close relationships with one another due to their long work days.

When factories began to expand to distant locations, manufactures built boardinghouses so they could live closer to work. Their bond only got stronger after they developed this sisterhood. Without these women, the success of the first American factories would have been impossible. By the 1860s, immigrants made up more than half of the factory workers. With so much division in society between immigrants, the native middle class, and the poor, work opportunities were not accessible to everyone in need of a job. Women recognized the tragedy taking place amongst struggling poor women and single mothers. The first charity was organized in 1799, by women, in New York City was called The Society for the Relief of Poor Widows. Women were able to survive their tragic living conditions because of this charity. The charity offered spiritual support, food, and clothing. Women proved that without a solid foundation, a country cannot advance to greater accomplishments.

Women proved to be the most courageous and prominent citizens throughout the harshest times in America during the Pre-Columbian era to 1650, the Era of the American Revolution and the New Republic 1750 to 1800, and the period leading to the American Civil War 1800 to 1860. The Native women impressed the European explorers with their power and hard work during the Pre-Columbian era. The women of the American Revolution and the New Republic were not afraid to use their powerful voices to support their country and make an impactful and positive difference. The women during the period leading into the Civil War proved to be the backbone of America’s transitions. In conclusion, the American women’s heroic actions led them to be the most exceptional people throughout the most tragic times in America during the Pre-Columbian era, the Era of the American Revolution and the New Republic, and the period leading to the American Civil War.