Customer Reviews

America Goes to War: A Social History of the Continental Army (American Social Experience)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

One of the least covered areas of American History in our schools is the American Revolution. Most texts gloss over the war and primarily concentrate on the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the various other aspects of how we became a country. Very little, if any, space is devoted to the men and women who actually won our independence through their valor and sacrifice and we constantly harbor the impression that an intense patriotism belied their motivation. Dr. Neimeyer breaks through the myths of our revolutionary forefathers and gives us a superb social history of who our revolutionary forefathers were and what their motivation for serving was. This was our first army and the last time our military services were integrated until 1950. Dr. neimeyer goes into depth concerning the various etnnic groups who made up the army and shatters many of the myths we grew up with. A superb text to add to any American History curriculum or for anyone who would like a more in-depth study of our ancestors.

The American Revolution was won by an army of "dirty rif-raf" who stayed with the program even though starved, half-naked, unpaid, and disrespected by upper-class officers and politicians. Neimeyer ignores the smartly-uniformed "rebels" of the legends. When facts become legend, print the facts.

Put simply, this book provides an excellent illustration of those served in the Continental Army. This book received one poor review from a reader that approached the book with his own agenda and ignoring the author's clearly stated intention. Neimeyer sets out to "show who served in the army during the Revolution, and why." He has done an excellent job.

Charles Patrick Neimeyer's "America Goes To War" was a well researched, documented, and written book. Neimeyer explains who served in the Continental Army, the reasons they served and the difficult lives the soldiers had. The text is annotated throughout with supporting evidence and an extensive bibliography gives the reader several sources for further study.

However Neimeyer's conclusions do have a leftest bias that caused this reader to question several of the interpretations of the information presented. Also very little of the warfare between the British and American armies was explored in this book and the affect it would have on the social history of the American Army.

Over all this is a good book to understand the men who served in the Continental Army and some of the reasons why.

After reading an excerpt by Murray Rothbard, that described how Washington 'Crushed the Spirit of Liberty' of the Continental Army, I was appalled to find out that executions and floggings were common. Terrorizing the enlisted in an effort to mitigate desertion was an acceptable practice. I was never taught this in school.

Thus, in an effort to verify that these transgression were true, I read enough of Neimeyer's book (and others) to be convinced that this nasty piece of history was, in fact, true about Washington.

To those who respond with self righteous indignation, that this horrendous behavior was necessary, I say there is no proof to that. Granted, Washington is given credit for winning the revolutionary war, but I now see him as something of an elitist, who was probably less interested in liberty than he was in becoming famous.

By the way, if you label me a liberal, you will find that I am to the right of right. I carry guns, I oppose nearly all taxation, and I am committed to securing my own individual liberty.

Hats off to Charles Patrick Neimeyer for not towing the line for the establishment.

I picked up this book expecting a history of the effectiveness of the Continental Army, especially as compared to the British and German forces which it had to fight. Before the advent of Baron con Steuben, the Continentals were at a distinct disadvantage, especially as regards to drill, discipline, and the ability to maneuver in the open and slug it out toe to toe with the European professionals. What I found was something totally different.

What the author is attempting to demonstrate is some type of soldier-worker who would bargain for his wages and not fight for the ideology of the Revolution. OK, so what? Immigrants, blacks, boys, deserters, and shiftless natives with no roots in the community were taken into the Continental Army and finally led with skill and bravery to defeat the veteran opponents led with equal skill. Very few armies in history generally fight for an ideology-they fight to win and they fight for their own survival. What the author has given us is a social history more akin to 20th century left-wing denigration of the armed forces than a true social history of the Continental Army which would have been valuable.

In short, this small volume doesn't cut it, is mch less valuable than the works of Robert Wright, Charles Royster, and Harold Peterson. The bottom line is not what the man in the ranks came from, but that he endured and he won sometines against overwhelming odds. No other army in American history underwent the hardships the Continentals did, or the length of service in wartime. In this, the author completely misses the mark and has given us an idealogical diatribe which is an excuse, not good history.