Customer Reviews

A Revolutionary People At War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775-1783

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

 

 

This is an excellent study of the Continental Army without which the Revolution would not have been won. Charles Royster is a first class historian and this is one of the best, if not the best, book he has written.

It is something of a social history and it gives a complete account of what the Continental army was like, its motivation, origins, and development, warts and all. I cannot think of another work that covers this topic as well as this one.

One of the most interesting facets of the book, though, is the appendix that covers statistics and the motivation of the Continentals. This gives a true and accurate picture of the Continentals and give them a human face. They weren't demigods, but soldiers who enlisted in an army that had a hard task ahead, and who sometimes failed, always endured, and finally won. In many ways it was the toughest, best army the US ever fielded. It definitely was the most enduring-no other American military force suffered from and finally overcame such an imposing set of obstacles. This book gives a much more accurate picture of the Continental Army than Charles Neimeter's American Goes To War. Charles Royster has a definite story to tell and he tells it with verve, panache, accuracy, and a definite empathy for his subject. This book is a definite must for any student of the American Revolution

This is one of the key questions Charles Royster seeks to understand in this important analysis of the American Revolution. Following a chronological approach, Royster probes the ideology of revolution, the rise of an effective fighting force to conduct that revolution, and the control of that spirit of revolution. He concentrates on the intellectual issues that arose in the context of fighting the British Empire. He believes that the men in the Continental Army not only rebelled against the perception of British tyranny but also against the issue of militarism. Americans rushed to join the army in 1775 because of what he called a "rage militaire" that represented a disavowal of British colonical policies and rule. This reaction might have been virtuous and patriotic, but that emotion did not sustain the Continental Army over the long haul of difficult battles and hardships. So what did?

Royster asserts that the Continental Army both shaped and tested the ideals of the American Revolution. He notes that the vision of liberty and independence, freedom and eqality, and the desire to create a new promised land outside the authority of a staid Europe motivated the men of the army. Morale went up and down depending on their fortunes, but their faith in this vision remained. Royster's key point seems to be: "in the eyes of the revolutionaries, war put to the trial the military ardor and skill as well as the moral assumptions on which they based their hopes for American independence. To fail as defenders of ideals was to fail as Americans, to succeed was to give the victors, their country, and its liberty the prospect of immortality" (p. 3).

The Continental Army, in Royster's estimation, was both loved and hated. It was needed for victory, but the ideals of the nation were non-militaristic and in many instances overtly pacifistic. There was a constant questioning of the role of the army in American society, especially after victory had been achieved. In spite of this, Royster believes generally remained a positive force precisely because of its leadership, patriotism, and professionalism. At the same time, there was always a suspicion that the army would act to subvert individual liberty. The tension was palpable. While the Continental Army won the war and ensured the creation of the American nation, it's role was never valued in the way that veterans believed appropriate.

The most interesting part of this book is the sense that the Continental Army embodied a national character or idealism. Did such a thing exist in 1775, 1776, 1783? If it did, it is a notoriously slippery concept, as it remains to the present. Without question, "A Revolutionary People at War" is a provocative statement of the role of the army in American life at the time of the founding of the republic. It may represent an overstatement of idealism, but it is an interesting one.

In A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, historian Charles Royster searches for and analyzes the "American character prevalent during the War for Independence." (vii) Royster finds that with regard to the Continental Army specifically and the Revolutionary populace in general, "allegiance to the `American'...side in the War for Independence was the prevailing sentiment" in the United States, and that this allegiance was based primarily on what he terms "a national character." (viii) throughout the course of this book then, Royster chronicles the revolutionary character of America's soldiers, and how it changed markedly as the war progressed. One of his central questions concerns the "ideals espoused during the revolution," and how the patriots' actions measured up to them. By 1783, Royster finds that the gap between ideals and reality was often significant. Eight years of war, it seems, "severely tested American's dedication to independence." (3)
Royster uses a prologue to define his terms with a useful essay on the idea character. The war would test Americans, especially those in their country's uniforms, and determine if they were worthy of victory. Eventual victory would of course demonstrate that revolutionary soldiers had the necessary virtue and selflessness to be deserving of such good fortune. Soldiers were keenly aware that the eyes of world were on them, and that their sacrifices would be remembered throughout the ages by countless generations of their descendents. Royster shows that Continental soldiers were inspired by religious beliefs, knowing that God was on their side. These men also employed the language of slavery to describe their predicament-if they failed, they argued, Britain would not only enslave them, but their children as well. Thus, these men in arms had a sacred duty: "the struggle for independence was the greatest test of the chosen people. In it they bore the weight of both their heritage and God's promise for the future." (9)
In 1775, Americans began the war with high ideals in a period Royster denotes as the "Rage Militaire." The Continental army went about preparing to defend America in a uniquely American way, reflective of the national character. Royster points to simplified drill manuals, short-term enlistments, soldiers in hunting shirts and civilian control of the military establishment as evidence that Americans would wage a war based upon their own terms, not simply by mimicking the British. Yet by the end of 1776, the "contrasts between the ideals of 1775 and the conduct of the war" were apparent, in the form of battlefield defeats and Continental army's "lack of discipline and decorum." (58) Numerous desertions, for example, showed that not all American soldiers lived up to the ideals of patriotic sacrifice in the face of adversity. In fact, "not only did the Continental Army fall short of Americans' ideal of an army," Royster notes, but recruiting difficulties created "a network of evasion and corruption that spread far into the populace." (63) He asserts as well that as the virtues of the soldiers were called into question after reverses, desertions, and abuses, many revolutionaries distanced themselves from the army, and denied that it embodied the cause of liberty exclusively.
By early 1777, the army was not seen by Americans as virtuous. Many civilians began to associate active military duty with a class of people-the young, unattached, "shiftless" types who were more logically suited to the ardors of Continental service. This attitude greatly curtailed recruiting of army battalions to full strength. High enlistment bounties designed to encourage men to join the ranks attest to the fact that the spirit of sacrifice so widespread in 1775 was much reduced by the beginning of the campaign of 1777, as did unscrupulous recruiting officers, uncooperative civilians and unruly men in the ranks. Americans, Royster finds, were reluctant to rely upon a standing army to secure their liberties. They wanted "the moral miracle of a quick victory that came from [the] virtuous ardor of a chose people." (151) Too often, however, the army's behavior both on and off the battlefield did not live up to the expectation of those to whom they were charged to defend.
By the latter stages of the war, as Royster demonstrates, the differences between the ideals of virtue and common practice were in sharp contrast. As evidence, he cites the "extensive trade with the enemy" (272) in some areas of the colonies; excessive profiteering by suppliers of war materiel; graft among officers and men; and "the widespread failure to enlist." (276) Royster is clear to point out that these actions did not signify a weakening of desire for victory and independence, but a weariness and desperation instead. The bitter, internecine fighting in the Carolinas and the lower Hudson Valley demonstrated not a slackening desire for independence, but how far patriots had drifted from the ideals of the early days of the struggle.
What Royster finds in the end is that despite the inability of most Americans in and out of uniform to live up to the virtuous ideals of 1775, by the end of the war it matter little. Americans remembered the war as they wanted to, one in which men fought for liberty and won through sacrifice and honorable means. "The popular interpretation of victory in the Revolutionary War," he finds, "restored the citizens to their original and vital stature as the pillars of America's future glory." (360) While some readers may find his assertion that "the founding generation had left the country's strength, virtue and liberty intact" (366) a bit hyperbolic and subject to alternative interpretations, nevertheless Royster's story is one of ideals, trials, hardships, perseverance and undeniable victory. A Revolutionary People at War is a well-written, expertly researched analysis about character. Like the men described in its pages, the book succeeds remarkably well.

Charles Royster attempts to dispel some of the many myths and legends of the American Revolutionary War in his book, A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775 -1783. While many Americans were raised with the notion that the "Spirit of `76" was prevalent throughout the sixteen colonies at the start of the Revolution, Royster shows the reader there were many conflicts within the revolutionary movement itself, like lack of desire for a standing army; theft by, for, and in the name of the army; proper use of discipline and executions; and many others. The book's timeline covers the entire war, from its birth in 1775 to the war's end in 1781. The text details stories not read in many history books: the drudgery of the soldier's life, the animosity the general population held towards the military and some of their tactics, and the general malaise of the American people regarding the length of the war. A Revolutionary People at War is well researched with over 30 pages of artwork, including portraits of some of the key figures of the time period. It does lack a bibliography and list of other noted works, which would assist the reader wanting to do further research.

Early in the struggle for independence, the American people experienced what Royster referred to as "...Rage Militaire...[what] the French call a passion for arms..." This was the result of perceived British injustices long before the battles of Lexington and Concord when American militias began mobilizing and training. This training did not reflect a mere duplication of the British model of warfare with parade and ceremony, but a uniquely American style that was adapted from "...Lewis Nicola's Treatise of Military Exercise and Thomas Pickering's `easy' plan...[which] emphasized simplicity, not show..." Most Americans believed the Continental Army could defeat the British quickly through courage and the perception that right was on their side. While most of the populace held the belief of Rage Militaire, they still feared having a standing army to fight the war. The British Monarchy's army still loomed large in their minds. The tyranny associated with a dictator is what most Americans feared and is addressed thoroughly throughout the early chapters.

Interestingly, the seamier side of the war is explored in great detail. While the cause of the Revolution and the Continental Army was noble, many soldiers and private citizens alike used the "cause" for profit. Soldiers turned to theft for many reasons, "...[they] argued that, since property would soon fall under British control, they might as well take it." Of course, there was plenty of crime amongst the soldiers while in camp or on guard duty, with crimes that ranged from petty theft to assault. Moreover, there were those who donned something that resembled a uniform, and since "...the Continental Army used a wide variety of uniforms, and officers had theirs privately made....Consequently, no one was surprised to find [officers] in varied but impressive military dress, riding around the countryside making arrangements for the army..." These "officers" bought and sold provisions to the army and in the name of the army at high markups making huge profits. Not only was theft a problem, but so was the use of profanity, poor personal and camp-wide hygiene, relationships between officers and their men, and general relations with the local population. Further still, the debate raged regarding proper punishment. Flogging was popular (usually via the cat-o'-nine-tails), but the argument over how many lashes one received pitted George Washington against Congress. He believed the standard one-hundred lashes too lenient, and Congress asserted that Washington's recommendation of five-hundred too severe. Further, Washington resorted to execution for the most serious of offenses, like treason or desertion. The problem lay with Washington's ploy of granting last minute pardons, resulting in the death sentence losing much of its sting as a deterrent to crime.

Even with the surrender of British General John Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga, the Continental Army had few victories. The other major win, although not against the British directly, was the victory at Trenton on Christmas 1776. Throughout 1777, most Americans believed victory and the end of the war was near. Throughout the harsh winter at Valley Forge, after poor performances at the Battles of Brandywine and Germantown, the morale of the army was at an all-time low. Criticism of General Washington ran rampant and the Rage Militaire that possessed the country in 1775 was all but gone. Many believed if he had achieved victory like Horatio Gates did at Saratoga, the war might have already been won. Washington, of course, weathered the storm to bring the army out of Valley Forge better trained (with the help of Baron von Steuben) and faced 1778 with optimism.

Royster's text continues with an even more gloomy assessment of the war. "Between May and October 1780, the popular expectation of imminent victory received three sharp blows: the surrender of Charleston, South Carolina...; the rout of Horatio Gates' southern army at Camden, South Carolina...; and the defection of General Benedict Arnold..." These challenges were overcome, of course, beginning with the appointment of General Nathanael Greene to the position of commander of the southern army in early 1780. The defection and betrayal of Arnold was harder to swallow, especially amongst Washington and his general staff. As Greene lamented of him, "How black, how despised, loved by none, and hated by all. Once his Country's Idol [sic], now her horror." Despite these setbacks, the Continental Army did prevail, effectively ending the war at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781.

When the fighting ended, Royster's final chapter describes the feeling of exhilaration felt by most of the country. As John Murray, a Newburyport, Massachusetts preacher was quoted, "`Joy dances in every eye. Pleasure beams in every countenance; and every bosom beats high with the emotions...'" However, lest the reader thinks A Revolutionary People at War will have an uplifting ending, he goes on to describe many other pressing issues, like paying the army. "The prosperity that the soldiers hoped for did not begin with their receiving back pay or even current pay. Washington tried to get Robert Morris [Congress' wartime financier] to obtain three months' back pay..."

The author brings to light in A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775 -1783 the darker side of the war. He is successful in bringing into focus how desperate the war years were. Yet despite the hardships and turmoil associated with the period, the Continental Army still overcame a formidable opponent and cleared the way for a federation of independent states. The reader could be nonplussed by these negatives because the outcome is known. If this were a novel rather than an historic overview, the ending surely would be different. It was with the hope and the perseverance of those involved that victory was attained.

I was given this book as a Christmas (2006) present by my wife. It took me about one week to read. Once I started I had a very hard time putting it down. It reads very well. The book answers two questions. The first and least important of the two questions is: Why did people join the Continental Army? The more important question is: Why did they stay in the Army and keep fighting?

The book answers those two questions in a chronological series. It answers both of them for each year of the conflict. Remember that this war was the second bloodiest ever fought by the USA and lasted for eight long years. The answers to the first question changes over time and the second question solidifies by the year of the hangman (1777).

It also provides an excellent picture of who these men were, and how they responded to issues and events. It discusses discipline and morale as well. The insights are as relevant then as now, reinforcing what du Piq observed about warriors/soldiers.

The sub-chapter on religion and religious motivation may surprise many readers who are not familiar with this era. In fact the three basic components of a typical Continental Army Chaplains sermon are equally effective in sermons today (I have used them as a framework in quite a few sermons and they still resonate). They are: You are part of a larger whole, How do you remember your forefathers? How do you want to be remembered? The thoughts and imagery relating to George Washington have been lost in the modern era. When the song lyrics describe him as "God like Washington" you will understand why. Serious stuff.

I highly recommend this book. I must admit here that during my last semester and a half of seminary I researched the Battle of Oriskany and worked up an outline for a book I hope to finish in the next three years, using this battle as a way to explain: Strategy, Operations, Tactics, Individual action. This book helped immensely in getting into the minds and actions of those involved.

This is not just for this interested in this conflict alone. It is an excellent read for those wishing to understand why men fight. It serves the casual and the serious reader well.

Doctoral dissertations rarely make interesting reading. Fewer still win the Parkman Prize. "A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775-1783," based largely on Charles Royster's University of California PhD dissertation, is a notable exception.

Royster argues that a number of issues motivated the American soldiers who fought the Revolution, but above all was the belief that they were fighting for God and posterity. He says that they sincerely believed that their actions would be remembered and revered for centuries, a powerful source of motivation heading into a conflict against great odds. He also describes the centrality of religion to the cause; indeed, he makes the Revolution sound a lot like a jihad. The colonists were all too aware of British strength and their own weakness, but felt that success was assured because of God's grace and goodwill.

In this spirit of godly sacrifice, Royster writes that some specific words resonated most with the soldiers of the cause: benevolence, disinterestedness and virtue. These concepts would be severely tested during the long conflict. At the heart of the friction and discord was the relationship between the men, particularly the officers, of the Continental Army and the citizens of the American colonies at large. Citizens tended to think of a standing army as generally abhorrent in theory, but recognized its necessity in meeting the overwhelming British threat. This dichotomy -- the simultaneous fear and need of a standing army -- forms the axis upon which Royster's historical narrative turns.

After the initial glow of resistance, the author writes that heading into the 178s the hostility and mistrust between the officers of the Continental Army and the public grew to fever pitch. At issue was the realization among many military leaders that the public was putting private, personal interest ahead of the army, which the officers saw as the center of gravity of resistance against the British occupation. Many American colonists, even those claiming to be true patriots, avoided the draft, continued to trade with the British army when opportunity presented itself, sent local convicts to fill the enlisted ranks, and made precious little effort to supply the myriad logistical needs of the Continental Army.

By the time of Yorktown, Royster continues, the Continental Army had become quite disciplined and effective, far more professional than many contemporary Americans recognize -- and was almost completed isolated from the society it served. The army increasingly saw itself as the true embodiment of the revolutionary ideals of 1775; they had all earned special claims to being the vanguard of the Revolution and the new US republic. Thus, they were entitled to a privileged place in society and due the pension they lobbied (and threatened) for. Meanwhile, Royster writes, the general population felt they all had shared equally in the victory and that the army represented the very vices they had just collectively defeated -- tyranny, hierarchy, placemen, class privilege, nobility, force, confiscation, etc.

The author credits George Washington with smothering the Newburgh crisis when the army in New York essentially threatened Congress with force if their demands on pensions, once promised, weren't met. Washington's deference to civil authority was critical and the fact that there was a yawning chasm between officer and enlisted meant that even if the officers tried something rash they likely wouldn't have had an army to command. At the center of the debate and crisis was that to one significant group in American society a standing army based on discipline and social hierarchy and led by a powerful central government were the prerequisites for achieving and maintaing the victory of the Revolution, not the very antithesis of the Revolution as many others claimed.

The whole controversy over the continental officers was best expressed by the debate over pensions. On the one hand, there was fear that the US would set up a new community of placemen -- the exact model they had hoped to defeat in the Revolution. But Royster says the crux of the issue was that a pension for officers in the continental army, no matter how small or short-term, in itself seemed to confirm that their effort toward the achievement of independence was somehow greater than everyone else's. They would be sanctified as the true founding fathers, and that struck many people the wrong way. In short, the people were reclaiming the war and victory from the army -- the army that really had won the battle with great sacrifice and against all odds, according to Royster. Of course, the Society of the Cincinnati only added to the controversy, especially that they wore special badges, had titles, and that membership was hereditary to first born sons.

Royster notes that the dispersement of the continental army was a sad affair. No pomp or celebration. Many just went home, poor and begging for food along the way. The crisis was over, pensions and the Society of Cincinnati quickly abated. It was a mini-revolution of the public over the army, the author writes. For their part, the army's claim to preeminence wasn't due to any inclinations to European despotism, but rather was grounded in the moral absolutism of the Revolution itself.

In the end, Royster claims, the Revolutionary generation authored a phony history of their generation, one that focused on a whole society built on virtue and honor. It was an unrealistic, almost fatuous vision, intentionally created, that lasted for over 150 years. Its a verdict Royster desperately wants to overturn with this book, and I think he's succeeded.

I'll get straight to the point. I rated this book a 3 star, not because it's a bad book but because it's not a book for the casual reader. If you are a college history major or a professor, you'll find this to be an excellent read and it should probably make a good supplemental reading for those folks. In fact all of the comments on the back cover are from University Professors. However, if you're like many who come to Amazon.com to buy the casual or beach read and want something that is easy to read, this is not the book for you. This book is written for the more arduous reader of the Revolution so something like "Founding Brothers" might be a better read for person with more of a passing interest. If you've read the others, don't mind working a little when you are reading and want a good book that details the mindset and character of the military and the people during the revolution, you'll like this book as there is plenty to learn about the era here.