Half a Revolution Blog

14/8/2012

Two of Howard Zinn's assertions in the chapter "Half a Revolution" are summarized below. Do you agree with Zinn? Disagree? Why? To what extent do you believe these assertions about the American Revolution are valid?

Choose ONE of the claims below from Zinn and tell us what you think!
In a 250 word MINIMUM blog post, please share your opinion on ONE of Zinn's claims below about the American Revolution using SFI and evidence from the Zinn text or the Choices unit to support your opinion. Post your blog as a COMMENT!

1. The Revolutionary War was a "war of independence" from colonial domination, a "civil war" between the various forces within American society, and a "world war" fought both in North America and on the European continent

2. The unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact after the Revolutionary War.

14 Comments

Luana

19/8/2012 06:36:18 am

In the chapter "Half a Revolution", Zinn defends the second idea listed above that inequality was present in American society even after the Revolutionary War. During the Revolutionary War, men from lower classes would enlist themselves in the army hoping to move up their social classes, but in the end the payment to common soldiers was ignored and the soldiers started a mutiny in New Jersey. Another example of Zinn's claim would be when Loyalists' properties were taken away and given to the main leaders of the Revolutionary Movement which gave these local elites a fresh start in power and acquirement of land, but to the small farmers and tenants, the Revolutionary War didn't bring in many changes and everything just stuck to what it was before. It is clear from Zinn's claim that even before and during the Revolutionary War, the colonies had already set their ways and weren't too comfortable when it came to changes, so that "Alexander Hamilton mentality" remained in America despite all the other changes and a Constitution, "By the time of the revolution, certain patterns were already set in American colonies. Indians had no place in the new society. Blacks were not treated as the equals of whites (Slavery was still going on in the lower south in rice and cotton plantations). The rich and powerful ran things. After the war, the Revolutionary leaders could make those patterns into the law of the new nation." It was also noticeable that even the voting system, which is supposed to be a universal right was based on amounts of land and propety, not letting small farmers who couldn't pay debts vote, and worse, not even helping them. Farmers who were also in the Continental Army never got their pay in cash and went to court, started mobs, broke into jails, etc. When the time came to write the Constitution, the Founding Fathers had certain concerns in mind like with the mobs and revolt from the poor- that soon they'd start demanding more and in their vision, they couldn't let this happen. One of the big problems of the Constitution was the limits on voting and the power that came from it- It was a symbol of land, money, power that not many people had the privilege. After the Constitution was accepted and the Bill of Rights passed, another unjust aspect was the fact that the Congress insisted on passing taxes on war bonds that the working class, ordinary Americans had to pay for. The Whisky Tax also ended up hurting small farmers' business and the Sedition Act was supposed to stop them from acting and speaking up for their rights which was the total opposite of what the First Amendment was saying, so the balances between rich and the poor, the taxes and voting rights were enforced in that new society but not the right to freedom of expression or a place for the minorities that fought side by side during the Revolution, the "invisible" crowd, which built certain patterns up to this day.

Arda Kanberoglu

19/9/2012 04:30:26 am

In Howard Zinn’s chapter “Half a Revolution” he shows great examples to the second idea listed above that inequality was present in American society even after the Revolutionary War. A few examples that Zinn showed was during the Revolutionary War, when men from lower classes would enter into the army hoping to move up their social classes, but in the end the payment to common soldiers was ignored and the soldiers started to question higher authorities in New Jersey. Another example that Zinn used was when Loyalists’ had to give up their properties and were taken away and given to the main leaders of the Revolutionary Movement. By doing this it gave these local elites a fresh start in gaining power and gaining land, but to the small farmers and tenants, the Revolutionary War didn't bring in many changes and instead everything was exactly what it was before. Zinn’s claim has been proven even before and after the Revolutionary war, the colonies had already set their ways and weren't too comfortable when it came to changes, so that Alexander Hamilton “mentality remained” in America despite all the other changes and a Constitution, he said, "By the time of the revolution, certain patterns were already set in American colonies. Indians had no place in the new society. Blacks were not treated as the equals of whites (Slavery was still going on in the lower south in rice and cotton plantations). The rich and powerful ran things. After the war, the Revolutionary leaders could make those patterns into the law of the new nation."

Gabriel Araújo

22/9/2012 11:49:15 am

I do agree with Howard Zinn in his assertion which states the unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact after the Revolutionary War. The Americans fought the Revolutionary War to change the structure of the American society, but there were certain aspects that were already settled and did not change. Some examples of these patterns that did not change and remained the same are the indians and the blacks, who were not treated equally to whites. Indians did not have a place in the American society; society was already “designed” without the indians. While the indians did not have a place in the society, the blacks still suffered from slavery, in rice and cotton plantations on the south, for example. The ones who were richer and powerful were the ones who ruled. The life of small farmers also did not change, everything remained the same. There are several more examples of how America society structure remained unequal. The American sodiers that went to the army thinking that they would get payed and move their social classes up, and they didn’t receive their payment, leading later on to a mutiny in New Jersey. Loyalists had their lands and properties took by the Revolutionary Movement leaders. These are some examples that Howard Zinn uses in the chapter “Half a Revolution”, that proves how unequal the American society structure remained politically, socially, economically and ideologically, just like it was before the Revolutionary War. Although changes occurred after the war, inequality stayed the same.

Pedro Oliveira

23/9/2012 04:37:39 am

I am completely in favor and agree, entirely, on Howard Zinn’s brilliant affirm. Although some might still resist admitting it, The unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact after the Revolutionary War. This is seen in many ways, where we are able to observe the almost null difference between what used to be the situation of several different portions of the population. One example, maybe the most significant one, is the soldiers that went to war with the hope of becoming part of a different, higher class of the society one they returned. In fact, almost the opposite used to occur. Once a young man went and came back from war, no reward was provided to him; actually they usually came back in an even worst situation, since they spent all that time without a job, without earning any type of money and living in primitive conditions. Another example is the true Native Americans. Despite being the first group of people to live in the region of North Americans, the Indians were fought upon, defeated and, later on, expelled from their native land, or murdered. They had no significance at all and weren’t even considered “part of society”. The blacks also remained in an unequal situation after the war. They were still treated with a huge insignificance and were often slaves or cheap workers. The white elite, however, benefited from the war, since the loyalists lost their possessions and were taken away, practically opening the way to the formation of a new, white, capitalist elite of Americans.

Jacqueline Amorim link

30/9/2012 06:58:09 am

After reading Howard Zinn´s chapter, Half a Revolution, I completely agree with the affirmative in which he states the unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact after the Revolutionary War. Throughout his chapter, Zinn describes actions made by the main leaders and the local elite in which discriminated and treated the black, Indians and the lower classes as inferiors with no rights. Some of these actions were not paying the lower class that enlisted themselves in the army only to have a better salary and life conditions. Another action was leaving the blacks and Indians apart from society. The blacks continued being treated as slaves in the plantations of cottons and rice located in farms of the lower south, and the Indians were simply not characterized as humans. The small farmers and the tenants also remained the same as before and were not benefited from the independence, since they did not have the amount of properties that allowed them to vote. The new elite in the contrary, characterized by the leaders of the revolutionary movement, received the loyalist´s properties and were able to have a new start with the acquirement of land. Therefore, towards the characteristics seen above and what was represented by Howard Zinn, the political, social and economical aspects of the American society remained the same. By writing this affirmative paragraph and agreeing to Zinn´s point of view I believe that there was no reason in fighting for the values and for the so called independence if the most important aspects in the society that had to be changed were not even modified.

Tonton Pessoa

30/9/2012 12:35:15 pm

I completely agree with the statement of Howard Zinn in which he states that the unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact after the Revolutionary War. Some examples that can clearly defend this idea are the inequality established by the elite regarding the blacks and the Indians. The class structure continued the same. The blacks remained the same by continuing working as slaves in plantations of corn and rice in the south and the Indians were treated as complete savages who were only useful in the war against the British. They needed to construct their homelands and fight for their liberties alone with no help from the powerful ones. Another example used by Zinn was the voting procedure, in which the only ones who could vote were the ones who had a big quantity of land and property to pay their own debts, excluding the small farmers and the tenants who were not allowed to vote, since they weren’t rich and did not have such quantity. This proves that the rights of the people were completely intact after the Revolutionary War. Another example that attests Zinn’s statement was when Loyalists lost their properties, which were taken by the major leaders of the Revolutionary Movement. This example clearly demonstrates that the only ones who were benefitted from this revolution were the new elite, the leaders of the revolutionary movement and that the real practical, not theorical fighters, the Indians and the lower class, were not benefitted as they should have been. Therefore, towards the examples above, I completely agree with Howard Zinn’s statement and believe the struggle for independence and for the rights of the citizens was completely useless for the reason that the unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact.

Renata

2/10/2012 01:00:37 pm

I am completely in favor of Howard Zinn’s statement in which he affirms that problems regarding unequal political, social, economic, and ideological structure of the American society are continued being treated the same way after the Revolutionary War. Some evidence that show this is the fact that the local elite, considered being the leaders of the Revolutionary Movement, received land properties, which were taken from the Loyalists, different from the blacks and the Indians, which had to sustain themselves alone, without the help from anyone. This is the complete contrary from what it was promised since the beginning of the war. The leaders, who are now known as the new elite, had told the poor people, they would gain a lot if they won the war against the British, however this did not happen. They continued suffering and were not paid for entering the army, as they thought they would be. The farmers and the tenants can also be included in this situation since they were not considered part of the population when it came to voting procedure. After the revolution, the government demanded that the people who were able to vote were only the ones who could pay their debts and have a certain quantity of land. Therefore, these two groups of people could not vote. As it shows throughout the examples above, the promises stated by the leaders before the war was not established after it, so Zinn’s statement is completely correct and has evidence to prove it. Therefore, I agree to it.

Renata Biglia

2/10/2012 01:10:33 pm

Thia last comment was mine :)

Maria Julia

2/10/2012 11:29:40 pm

In “Revolutions”, the fifth chapter of his book, Howard Zinn analyzes the smaller rebellions that took place while America was obtaining independence from Great Britain. In this chapter, he claims that the “unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact after the Revolutionary War” since the centralized power was only shifted from the hands of the British to the hands of the white, rich, male elite. Zinn says, “soldiers turned against their officers, Indians sided with their old enemies, and poor farmers in Massachusetts took up arms against their brand-new American government” (Zinn 67), which demonstrates the people’s lack of support to the government that was just founded. Only one third of the population was in favor of the revolution and only one fifth of it actually fought, mostly being blacks that wanted liberty or white males who wanted arms. Indians, blacks, people who had small amounts of land, and especially women’ interests continued invisible to the government, and even the Constitution was written by wealthy, rich males. The fact that no women, blacks, indentured servants, or people without properties were present in the writing of the Constitution shows how their interests were not taken into consideration. The taxes system also continued being biased towards the elite’s interests, and this can be seen since although the bonds were owned by a great majority of wealthy people however ordinary people were the ones paying taxes for them. The Founding Fathers “did not want a balance except one that kept things as they were”, with the power concentrated amongst the most wealthy and the bourgeoisie and the common people continuing living as they were before.

Maria Julia

2/10/2012 11:30:42 pm

Ana Vitoria Pessoa

2/10/2012 11:55:59 pm

By reading and understanding Zinn's chapter "Half a Revolution", I am totally in favor of his belief, since there are many aspects that can be proved in which the political, economical, social and ideological subjects remain the same as before the war for independence. An evidence that can prove this theory is the situation in which the farmers and the tenants, people who really faught for the war, was not benefitted and were not considered to be citizens, since they could not vote. During that time, the only ones who could vote were the elite, which had what it needed, a certain amount of land and money which could pay all their debts. Another evidence it is the inferiority of the blacks and indians, people who had to sustain themselves alone, without the help from the local elite. The third and last evidence I will cite today is the fact that the poor people entered the army believing they would be payed for it, but unfortunately they were once again fooled by the rich and did not get payed. Therefore, towards what was said above and towards the author's statement, I agree with the affirmation.

Bia Lomanto

3/10/2012 11:08:27 am

I agree with the author’s claim that the lives of Americans did not change that much even after the Revolution. Howard Zinn defends the idea that there was clearly an inequality present in the American society after the Revolutionary War. Men started enlisting in the army with bigger life plans, but they ended up forgotten. Before the Revolutionary war, the colonies didn’t want any kind of change. The voting system is one of Zinn’s examples of privilege, since it is supposed to be open for everyone in a democracy but in those times it was a right to those who owned more and was denied to those who didn’t have as much property. After the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were accepted, there were still symptoms of unfair treatments in the Congress. They insisted on excepting taxes payed by the lower working class, on war bonds. There was also a tax called, “The Wisky Tax”, which harmed the poor rural workers who were also oppressed by the “Sedition Act”. This act went against the First Amendment to the constitution, since it proposed a certain balance to the higher and lower classes in society. The taxes and limited voting rights may have been implemented in that new society but the right to freedom of expression was completely forgotten. These are some examples of how the American society was unequal even after the Revolutionary War. The constitutional and political changes did not apply socially to the lives of Americans, and Howard Zinn makes a great point in his chapter.

Rodrigo Pereira

3/10/2012 11:03:15 am

I agree with the first assertion made by Zinn in the chapter “Half a Revolution”, but totally disagree that social, economic and ideological structure remained intact after the Revolutionary War. It’s correct to affirm that the social and economic structure remained the same. Black citizens were still discriminated and had no rights in colonies. They seek to fight by the Revolutionary Army so that they could have freedom but were turned down and reaccepted. Many of them wanted their rights that why in 1780, seven blacks demanded their rights to vote since they had fight for their country and that they had been fighting the war for the right to govern themselves. The economic structure also remained intact the social classes were still separated. As Zinn points out that the poor in New Jersey entered the Army to fight and rise in social classes but at the end the government refused to pay the common soldiers which made them doubt about higher authorities. However, the ideological structure changed after the Revolutionary War. Before the Second Continental Congress, many colonies disagreed with the idea of breaking away from Britain, for example in Virginia where Paine distributed his Common Sense pamphlet to change their minds. This means that after the Constitution was written by Jefferson and signed by all colonies, then, they all had changed to the same ideology. The first assertion made by Zinn is true because a war fought between a colonized nation and the most powerful nation in the world involved various characters. A war for independence to get rid of the British, a civil war for ideology where many states disagreed with the change of a colony to a nation and a world war where France got involved with the 13 colonies to fight off the British. This assertions are valid because they prove that the growing nation at that time have a reason to be one of the greatest today, since it have involved various people and changed ideologies to achieve independence.

Renata Borges link

3/10/2012 01:01:35 pm

After reading and comprehending the following chapter, “Half a Revolution”, I completely agree with what the author says: “ The unequal political, social, economic and ideological structure of American society remained intact after the Revolutionary War”. The reasons I totally agree with this argument are that after achieving independence from the British with the help of the majority of the population, mainly including the poor people, the country continued the same, the only ones benefited were the rich ones, the local elite, which were the leaders of the revolutionary movement. The tenants along with the farmers, the blacks and the indians, people who really fought in the war, were unfortunately not considered to be part of the population when it came to voting. The only ones who could vote were the elite, that could pay all their debts and had enough money for it, and the ones who had a great amount of land. These poor peple were promissed of receiving a good salary for joining into the army, so eluding themselves they entered, but their promisse was not accomplished, the elite did not pay. Towards what was cited and explained above I believe and agree with both of Zinn’s statements and could easilly defend it using the above evidences. Thank you.

US HISTORY BLOG

Half a Revolution Blog

Leave a Reply.

Ms. Garrett

Archives

Categories