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

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.

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 s

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 dif

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