"Myths of the American Revolution" Topic

"We think we know the Revolutionary War. After all, the American Revolution and the war that accompanied it not only determined the nation we would become but also continue to define who we are. The Declaration of Independence, the Midnight Ride, Valley Forge—the whole glorious chronicle of the colonists' rebellion against tyranny is in the American DNA. Often it is the Revolution that is a child's first encounter with history…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Ah I thought this would be your link

link

Both are interested articles. The second article is an interested tead, if a bit strongly slanted toward the French. The French were very important to the supply of the American forces and also putting troops on the group, but all the clothes and powder in the world will not make a revolution successful without the men willong to put them to use.

I think his point was, without the gunpowder, they would have been using their rifles like clubs after a few weeks.

Pitchforks vs muskets and cannon.

Judging from the illustration at the top of the second article it was the Poles not the French who won the war.

The Smithsonian article is good, but I find it mixing up "myths" held by the general populace and myths held by the more informed. To this day, most Americans believe that the
"citizen soldier" (ie: militia) did most of the fighting/winning. This belief is mixed up with the myths about who served in the ranks after '76, and why. It was reinforced by the 2nd amendment, and still held sway in 1861.
The myth still infects the current discussions about the right to bear arms. The "myth" that the militia was awful actually was the counter to the prevailing myth. Now saying that the militia was "sometimes" useful is a counter to the counter myth. Frankly, the militia did best when they grossly outnumbered the Brits (ie: Bennington, Springfield, Kings Mountain).
You will also note that the article hedges it bets in order to make its points, especially regarding the British discussions on whether to use force. In the end they did, and in doing so, ignored the naysayers. Never forget that Germaine being replaced was a big factor.

Again a interesting read. While usually dislike these types of things I found both articles interesting.

Glad you enjoyed it boys!.

Amicalement
Armand

Pan Marek makes an interesting point about the right to bear arms. I hear many "Tea Baggers" raise the point that the British tried to "seize" the citizens' own weapons. This in fact completely untrue, since the British made it clear that privately-owned items were considered sacrosanct and they were only concerned with the illegal seizure of public armouries (which were Crown property).

What exactly is a "Tea Bagger" in this context?

A member of the Tea Party – not the British meaning, apologies for any confusion.

Intriguing image

Well, you have kind of splitting hairs. Smith's expedition was out looking to seize stored arms, gunpowder, and ammunition. They did in fact find some and dumped the bullets in a mill pond. They also burnt a gun carriage which the rebels mistook for burning the town. Of course the Brits did burn private property along the way home, though sometimes they were fired on from the homes – but perhaps not by the homeowners.

Also, Dunmore seized the public black powder at Williamsburg. Not sure about any of the arms stored there. While not privately owned, they were public stores. Not sure if purchased by the Crown or by VA.

Eventually Patrick Henry was able to secure repayment for the powder, which leads me to believe they were purchased by the people of VA.

link