Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Paul Aleckson
- I’m Paul Aleckson. I am the District Social Studies Coordinator. I also teach an Advanced Placement U.S. History and a pre AP Seminar Class. I am the Project Coordinator for our Oral History Project (www.dceoralhistory.com) which received the Beveridge Family Teaching Award. I have coached both boys and girls basketball for many years. I am fortunate to work with an amazing social studies staff. They are dedicated to teaching social studies in a fun, exciting manner and to truly helping students become historians and active citizens. I really like to push students to do their very best!
(Hailey Marie Nuthals) While reading The Glorious Cause, a similarity between the discord of the rebel army with a poor quartermaster and a nation with a dysfunctional government arose. I find the discouraging state of affairs when the Americans’ quartermaster neglected his duties to control shipments and transportation of supplies desperately needed by the soldiers to echo the conditions experienced by a country with a yet undeveloped government (say, America’s earliest attempt); things weren’t getting where they needed to go, information was lost, and orders were simply not being followed. In the rebel’s case, the problem worsened until the men were without proper clothing in the dead of winter. With the first attempt at government in the United States, the Articles of Confederation gave the congress no real power- laws could not be enforced, and the states fell into disarray.
ReplyDeleteAlongside the connections made, I had to ponder a question that arose while reading the novel. One of the more notable aspects of The Glorious Cause is the in-depth view of the relationships between different characters. The more I read, the more I wonder how accurate the descriptions of the relationships really are. For example, I’m curious as to if General Washington really regarded Lafayette as a relieving, trustworthy man of power or just as a leader the rebels sorely needed, and nothing more.
A notable point of this novel is that the rebel cause is clearly more sympathized with. There are equally used perspectives of men rallying for each cause, but one can easily tell that the author, Jeff Shaara, supports the Americans. I am curious about how the story might have been told differently from the perspective of a British citizen. I still agree strongly with the American cause, of course, but it could be interesting to see the difference between the two perspectives in history.
Another interesting aspect of The Glorious Cause is the split condition of America at the time of the Revolution. When one thinks back on that period of time in the U.S.’s history, one usually pictures America as a united force, with everyone fighting valiantly for their country’s independence. It is awakening, in a way, to be reminded that not everyone in the land supported the division of Great Britain and America. The different views of the Tories and the patriots gives the novel a little more interest- one may wonder how the country will fare once it is permanently seceded from its monarch ruler. Will the Tories cause endless trouble in the new country, or possibly return to England and the support of their former government? The division of support for the rebels and the British caused some changes in the way the war was fought- America might have won a tad sooner had the entire population been behind the war. Of course, that may have been part of the Tories’ intent in the first place. Tory hospitality certainly helped the British forces fare more comfortably in the strange land. The cause and effect of the different beliefs of those living in the colonies makes for a more interesting story.
Hailey:
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in the fact that the rebel army was not supplied well and that the first government of the U. S. was not very strong. The division of the colonial population did hamper the rebel cause a little, but since the tories never united together their influence was only a small difficulty to overcome. Washington's Army succeeded in part because of foreigners in the army fighting for our cause. Lafayette was a great influence on Washington.
(Dylan Brushaber) While reading The Glorious Cause I found myself constantly asking questions. One of the most common was "How would a efficient quartermaster effect Washington's army?" This question was answered when Nathanael Greene took over the postion. The army was then able to recieve desperately needed supplies such as food and proper clothing. Although I still question, "Had these supplies come sooner how would the American Revolution been affected?" Surely no one would be left to eat rocks and parish in the winter at Valley Forge.
ReplyDeleteI was also able to find a very clear connection, while reading, about a military's disconnect with the government it is protecting. It was very obvious to me that Washington was frustrated with the inability of Congress to provide for his army. I relate that to the recent news of General McChrystal's criticism for today's governmental leaders. It seems that both McChrystal and Washington had much of the same problems in two completely separate time periods.
The Glorious Cause has also been giving me many strong examples of cause and effect. One that frustrated even me simply reading about it was the arrogance and stupidity of General Lee. The Battle of Monmouth was nearly no battle at all because of Lee's unfaithfulness in his military. Luckily Washington was able to come at the last moment and reorganize his forces to push back and defeat the British. Washington's quick thinking and the reliability of his officers caused the battle to be a complete success instead of a tragic failure.
The French view of America greatly affected the outcome of the American Revolution. Up to the point at which America was recognized as a country victories as well as supplies were few and far between. However; when an alliance was made with France, the advantage began tipping to an American favor. General Clinton began to retreat without even being attacked simply from fear of French battleships. This then led to the American victory at Monmouth, as well as promise of supplies for American troops.
As Hailey has stated, at first Congress had no real power. The Articles of Confederation were hardly a document that could be respected. It forced Congress to beg for money and caused great turmoil to America. We today are lucky that our founding fathers were able to realize this and blessed us with the American Constitution. Without such a change our country would cease to exist.
(Dylan Brushaber) While reading The Glorious Cause I found myself constantly asking questions. One of the most common was "How would a efficient quartermaster effect Washington's army?" This question was answered when Nathanael Greene took over the postion. The army was then able to recieve desperately needed supplies such as food and proper clothing. Although I still question, "Had these supplies come sooner how would the American Revolution been affected?" Surely no one would be left to eat rocks and parish in the winter at Valley Forge.
ReplyDeleteI was also able to find a very clear connection, while reading, about a military's disconnect with the government it is protecting. It was very obvious to me that Washington was frustrated with the inability of Congress to provide for his army. I relate that to the recent news of General McChrystal's criticism for today's governmental leaders. It seems that both McChrystal and Washington had much of the same problems in two completely separate time periods.
The Glorious Cause has also been giving me many strong examples of cause and effect. One that frustrated even me simply reading about it was the arrogance and stupidity of General Lee. The Battle of Monmouth was nearly no battle at all because of Lee's unfaithfulness in his military. Luckily Washington was able to come at the last moment and reorganize his forces to push back and defeat the British. Washington's quick thinking and the reliability of his officers caused the battle to be a complete success instead of a tragic failure.
The French view of America greatly affected the outcome of the American Revolution. Up to the point at which America was recognized as a country victories as well as supplies were few and far between. However; when an alliance was made with France, the advantage began tipping to an American favor. General Clinton began to retreat without even being attacked simply from fear of French battleships. This then led to the American victory at Monmouth, as well as promise of supplies for American troops.
As Hailey has stated, at first Congress had no real power. The Articles of Confederation were hardly a document that could be respected. It forced Congress to beg for money and caused great turmoil to America. We today are lucky that our founding fathers were able to realize this and blessed us with the American Constitution. Without such a change our country would cease to exist.
Dylan:
ReplyDeleteexcellent questioons and insights. The need for supplies did hamper the war effort for the colonists early in the war. Congress was not very good at solving the shortage of supplies and the lack of money. Washington conducted the war on his own, in fact he paid his soldiers out of his own pocket by the end of the war. The French aid was the key factor in winning the war. Without their participation it is doubtful that the colonists would have won.
(Victoria Beda) In The Glorious Cause II I imediately made a connection with Thomas Jefferson. It talked about the long trip he made over to France with his family. I have been on several trips with extended family and relate to his analyzing of his two grandsons. I also can relate to when Jefferson and his grandson, Temple, are exploring the new cities later on in the section.
ReplyDeleteAnother part in the text that really stood out to me was when King Louis XVI finally made the decision to become an ally with America. It only took Sharra two lines on page 337 to explain that France had sided with America. However, those two lines had major importance. If France would have never decided to join with America, it is almost certain that England would've won. The British would have more supplies and expirenced soldiers then the rebels. In conclusion, the two lines on page 337 ultimatly decided the outcome of the war.
A cause and effect I saw in section II involved Washington, Greene, and Arnold. On page 236-7 Washington and Greene are debating on how to place the armies. Washington keeps Benedict Arnold in control of Philidelphia. But both Washington, Greene, and Congress knows that Arnold has the qualifications. However, Washington seems to put full trust in him. Almost every American knows that later Arnold betrays Washington. If he wasn't kept at such a high level of trust, some of the secrets wouldn't have been passed on to the British.
On page 272 the rebels have posts and spies sent out to look for the British and where they will attack. A nearby farmer named Thomas Cheney gives Washington some news on British invading from the north. I could see through Washingtons eyes that this farmer may be a spy and wanting to lead them off track. However, I could also see through Cheney's eyes and see that it didn't matter if they believed he was a spy or not. What mattered to him was that they knew the information.
As Dyan said, the French involvement in the war was crucial to the outcome. Without their supply and troops the war would've soon been over. Also the French recongnized the Americas as a country. That alone was a big step in gaining freedom as a seperate nation then England.
(Marissa Hanson)
ReplyDeleteSeveral significant contributors to the American Revolution include: George Washington, Nathanael Greene, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Cornwallis, and finally France.
In part two of The Glorious Cause, a major turning point occurs. The Americans found an ally in the French government who “…had granted the American congress with two million francs to assist them in their war effort, with a guarantee of two million more for each year the war went on.” This persistence in getting this approval from France is a great example of what it takes to win a war. The alliance and support from France helped the Rebels defeat the British army. If this alliance wasn’t made, the outcome of this revolution would have been drastically different.
Throughout this novel many questions came to mind, one being: “How would have this war been different if it would have been fought today instead of over 200 years ago?” And to this question, many answers are apparent. So many things have changed over the past two centuries. Language and formality of speech has changed for one. During the American Revolution they didn’t even have things such as railroads, telegraphs, or automobiles. Letters could take months or even longer to reach their intended recipient and could be lost or stolen on the way and not even make it to its destination all together. Now, decisions can be made instantaneously. Communication and transportation have improved drastically, making decisions much more efficient and precise. Now we have cars, planes, trains, telephones, computers, you name it-technology has progressed profoundly. Another major change has been weapons used. During the revolution, weapons included cannons, flintlocks, and the bayonet. Unfortunately, the Americans did not have many of these weapons and what they did have were nowhere near accurate, dependable, or suitable for war.
I agree with Hailey’s comment that although we are able to read the “British perspective” it is still written and portrayed by an American supporter; the author’s bias is evident. I believe Hailey has a valid point that if this book was written by a British resident, we as readers would be left with a different taste in our mouths, one more lenient to the British perception.
(Nate Woznicki)
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this chapter I made a few predictions as to what this section would hold. These firstly focused on gaining support from the french. I figured that the section would focus on that aspect of the war. Sadly this prediction was crushed as I read on and remembered that the British view was also being portrayed inbetween and they were not aware of the possible French involvement this early. It seemed that it was mainly Franklin's chapters that focused on this part of the war.
The second prediction afterwards that was made was just that the second section would focus purely on the more diplomatic side instead of filling it up with as many battle scenes. Of course I started to lose faith in this prediciton as well once the campaign in New Jersey hit. I was sorely disappointed but this should have been expected in my predictions as writing a story of the revolution would not be able to organize into 3 sections that well.
In a big picture look, gaining support from the French played a major role in the outcome of the war. This teaches in more recent times that more often than not, alliances and allies are required to win a war. This applies even more when you are the underdog of the situation. If not for large monetary support of the French people, history could have been drastically altered into a different ending to the revolution, in which Britain may not have lost. This is a lesson that can be looked back on and well applied to situations for future generations.
As I have stated in the previous part of the comment a major turning point in this section is the French involvement. The rebels had a major benefit from this possibly changing the outcome the war itself. While the British still had more training and a sense of formal structure, they had a major downfall now that the rebels were able to starting to make more of a commotion.
Marrisa makes a great point about the differences if this war would have been fought 200 years later. It is quite interesting to think of how the communications and leaps in weaponry would have affected the revolution out of the rule from what was the most powerful country military-wise. It is quite a possibility that the rebels would have no longer had a chance due to the major differences between Developing Countries and More Developed Countries in this day and age.
Victoria:
ReplyDeleteGreat insights. The Frech were a main key in the victory of the colonistd over the British. The American commanders were always afraid of spies and they progressed into excellent leaders by learning from their experiences and from each other. Greene was a key figure to the colonists winning the war in the South.
Marissa H. Excellent thoughts. The French were a key to the colonists victory. The individuals involved in the war were key to one side winning and one side losing. As times changes and progress added new inventions and ideas the world would become a smaller place and the ideals of the revolution would spread throughout the world.
ReplyDeleteNate:
ReplyDeleteExcellent ideas and thoughts. The alliance with France was akey to the colonists victory. Allies would be used in the future to help win other battles. You have a good understanding of this idea.