tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post1599464142994942568..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Who Really Paid the Biggest Price?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-51072912684974160052008-09-03T11:42:00.000-05:002008-09-03T11:42:00.000-05:00I don’t think we can say, “the militia men would l...I don’t think we can say, “the militia men would likely have remained on their farms and grumbled” without the signers’ actions. <BR/><BR/>American militiamen had already been fighting for over a year when the Declaration was made. New Englanders rose up on 2 Sept 1774 and 19 Apr 1775 without a call from anyone involved in the Continental Congress. Indeed, on the first date the “committee men” trying to organize resistance in Boston and nearby towns were alarmed at that action, and tried to calm it. <BR/><BR/>The letters of John Adams and other sources show that people were discussing “independency” in 1775, well before he thought it was politic to do so. Pauline Maier’s <I>American Scripture</I> documents how the Congress’s Declaration echoed the sentiment and language of many other documents adopted by many other bodies down to the town and county level. In sum, the Continental Congress was going along with popular sentiment as much as it was leading it. <BR/><BR/>I think it can be argued that without such Continental Congress delegates as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and John Dickinson writing and speaking about politics from the 1760s on, ordinary farmers and workers might not have bundled up all of the London governments’ initiatives into one big ball of “tyranny,” and might not have realized that many others in North America felt the same way. <BR/><BR/>But equally, without wide popular support those pamphleteers would have accomplished nothing. <BR/><BR/>I think some historians, including those behind this essay, have focused on the signers because it’s easier to tell stories about them. As wealthy, educated men, they were more prominent and left more sources. And individuals are more sympathetic than crowds. <BR/><BR/>Those factors don’t affect just the signers, of course; we know a lot about Paul Revere because he was a successful industry leader after the war, and an individual with an exciting narrative, and much less about the other riders on 18-19 Apr 1775.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-84816034662092989742008-09-02T23:56:00.000-05:002008-09-02T23:56:00.000-05:00I understand (and concede and wholly agree with) y...I understand (and concede and wholly agree with) your point about the Revolution being a group effort and that the sacrifices of the common militia man should not be underestimated or overlooked. However, I think that the focus on the signers is only natural given that without them as the driving force, first for their restoration of rights as Englishmen and then for indepencance, the militia men would likely have remained on their farms and grumbled. But maybe not. I could be changing the subject a bit, since your point was really about "The Price They Paid."<BR/><BR/>At any rate, love the blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-42879589066287427862008-08-31T16:18:00.000-05:002008-08-31T16:18:00.000-05:00What “previous attempts,” Bill Peschel? Another Bo...What “previous attempts,” Bill Peschel? Another <B>Boston 1775</B> reader brought up the example of William Wallace, but that was centuries before, and of course the English got medieval on him and his troops. <BR/><BR/>By the eighteenth century British society viewed itself as one of the most free and fair in the world. Previous centuries of British history offer clear examples of retaliation against rebels. But more recent examples show leniency to those who gave up their fight: the quiet retirement of Oliver Cromwell’s son and successor, George III’s offer of a pension to the last Stuart claimant. London clamped down hard on Irish and Scottish rebellions, but seems to have been less strict toward English opponents of the winning government.<BR/><BR/>More importantly for the point of this posting, your term “the Colonials” seems to encompass both the Continental Congress delegates and the foot soldiers. I tried to show how the ordinary soldiers faced worse hardships than their genteel leaders in the same circumstances (campaign, capture). <BR/><BR/>“The Price They Paid” lionizes the Second Continental Congress delegates for taking a big risk in voting for independence. Why doesn’t it acknowledge the ordinary people who took bigger risks for less reward?J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-51417093406024243842008-08-31T14:53:00.000-05:002008-08-31T14:53:00.000-05:00Thank you for this. Bravo!Thank you for this. Bravo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-89049879632866085962008-08-31T14:21:00.000-05:002008-08-31T14:21:00.000-05:00Perhaps it would be worth inquiring what the Colon...Perhaps it would be worth inquiring what the Colonials risked if they had failed in their revolution. The English didn't seem charitable toward those who led previous attempts.Bill Peschelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257587479467531187noreply@blogger.com