Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

The Hamilton soundtrack was awesome in the way that it made very early American history feel like it was happening today for me. I was interested in the plot of the story the entire time, and was especially interested in why Hamilton did not get the authoritative opportunities he wanted so badly from Washington. There were 6 or 7 songs that brought back a common theme for Hamilton not to “Waste his shot”, and I began to wonder why this was. The more I listened, the more his background and heritage was brought up. Being an immigrant from Nevis, brought to New York as an orphan to continue his studies, Hamilton was not viewed as entirely equal to the rest of the “American” people. Because of this his genius was somewhat restricted to writing and drafting of papers. While he was extremely successful in doing so (he drafted 51 of the of Federalist Papers), it seemed to me that he always wanted more, almost demanding Washington to raise his position as he pleaded to not be called “son”.

One interesting point in the soundtrack to me was back to back songs “Yorktown” and “What comes next”. Here, America wins the revolutionary war, but then has to begin setting the foundation for what is to come next. It was interesting to think and hear the early debates between Hamilton and Jefferson, and I especially liked the song “What’d I miss”. I thought it made irony of the fact that Jefferson was so vocal about the formation about the United States, but wasn’t here to be a part of the revolution.

Another thing I thought about here was that today if a woman had been cheated on, I would expect to see her divorce her husband, but I had to remember that women were not seen as equal at this time, so she continued to stay with him, even on the morning of Hamilton’s duel with Burr. Then, in getting into Hamilton’s life, I wonder if he would have had won the presidency if he had not cheated on his wife and been caught. Would his election have substantially shifted American life today? It is interesting to ponder how much seemingly small events in this time period have led to such significant movements and institutions over the last 200 years.

In 1776, I found the element of it telling a story and it’s casualness to be very interesting. Not only was the movie upbeat because of the music, but it also made some jokes along the way to keep it lighthearted. At the same time, it also told a deeper story than one I had ever previously learned about the declaration of independence. To me, something I never knew was exactly how hard John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had to fight to get the Declaration of Independence to be a consideration.

In class today, while looking at the pictures, we learned that stories and structures are built at the same time. We also learned that they are all misleading and none of them are the truth. As an example, professor Bezio talked about the titanic. While watching this movie, there were points that I laughed and even thought what the heck is going on, but I remembered what we talked about in class. This is relevant because while this story was interesting, I had to remember this is most definitely not word for word exactly what happened.

In the podcast #7 that I listened to, professor Bezio also talks about stories and the way we interpret what they mean, whether that be what they meant at the time or now. Professor Bezio also discussed the fact that every story has a lesson, and to figure out this lesson, one must use close reading, which includes Semitic theory. This theory is basically how we get our ideas from words. In 1776, there were certain quotes, which lead me to interpret this story the way I did.

For example, when the delegates were discussing talking to parliament, someone was worried they would offend parliament. Adams blurted out, “This is a revolution damn it! We’re going to have to offend somebody.” My idea from these words is that even if discussing this with parliament “offends” them, he doesn’t care if it means the United States can declare independence. Another quote was at the end when Wilson from Pennsylvania, had the final tie-breaking vote and he said, “I’m different from most of the men here. I don’t want to be remembered. I just don’t want the responsibility… But if I vote for you, I’ll be the man who prevented American independence.” The message I got from these words was that Wilson wanted to make the right decision for America rather than himself.

Stories always have a message or lesson, even if it ins’t a huge life lesson. Throughout the movie 1776, I could see a story being told with a message.

Our past reading in PHOS ignited my curiosity as to how the American Revolution truly played out for the colonies. We learned from Zinn that the majority of the population did not even feel inclined to rebel against the British; most of the colonial men joined up in arms to reap economic benefits after the war. Watching 1776 and Hamilton has now elevated my curiosity more since each one depicts the Revolution in different manners.

One key difference between 1776 and Hamilton is how America’s elite is represented. Hamilton does a refreshing job in showing the diversity of America with the inclusion of minorities such as women and blacks whose roles in America’s history are often silenced by those in power. In the Broadway production, Hamilton is even played by Lin-Manuel, who comes from Latino descent, which elevates the production’s multiculturalism even more. This musical displays how America’s society should have been represented in history from the start, but instead we have just been focused on rich old white guys.

How Lin-Manuel Miranda tells the story of Hamilton and his impact in the Revolution is also very different than any way history has been told. Miranda utilized modern hip-hop and rap to tell the stories, which resonated with the younger demographic of society and provided a more entertaining way to learn our nation’s history. I don’t think this has been done before in such an effective way. Not only did Miranda use modern storytelling forms, but he is also telling a story that has not been focused on in most curriculums, at least in my opinion. Until I watched Hamilton, I had never heard the full story of Hamilton’s involvement of the Revolution in my history classes. This is a shame since Hamilton was extremely educated and played a big role in the decisions the Founding Fathers made.

On the other hand, 1776 had a more traditional take on the history of the American Revolution. It involved the conversations of mainly wealthy white men. No women played key roles in the musical, unlike Hamilton with the Schuyler sisters and the daughters of Philip Schuyler, the Revolutionary War general. Although, 1776 was also unique in how the production told history with the presence of silly banter between the delegates of the states. I have never heard of any member of the colonial elite being humorous, so this was definitely something new to see.

With both of these musicals, the same historical events are being discussed but in very different ways. Different people and issues are focused on in each one. There are so many perspectives of historical events that are told now and so many different ways in which they are told. So, my question is, how can we discover all these perspectives that have been silenced for so long? How do we know what voices to look for? There is so much information out there, how does one know what questions to ask and where to look for them to get the full story of an event.

After watching 1776 there were many aspects that stood out to me that we talked about in class and were also present in the movie. I think that the discussion of gender roles and social class division was very evident in the movie. For example, while the dialogue between John and Abigail Adams seemed loving there was still a clear power dynamic between the two. Abigail was sitting at home waiting for her husband to come home while John was busy with his important work. Additionally, the dynamic between the custodian and the congressional delegates was an important division between social class. The custodian was clearly in a lower social class while the delegates are all wealthy and hold a great deal of power. I think that this contributes to the ideas we’ve been discussing about history being written by the victors and Zinn’s chapter from Monday’s class about the American Revolution. There’s such a focus on the wealthy men’s wants and perspective on declaring independence but we get no perspective from the common man such as the custodian. Just like how only one fifth to one third of the population was for the American Revolution, we can’t tell what proportion of the colonists were for declaring independence because the emphasis is always on the people in power.

Another aspect that stood out to me after discussing the connotations of various portraits of leaders was the inclusion of Benjamin Franklin getting his portrait painted. This scene drew a sharp distinction between different types of leaders and approaches to leadership. On one end Franklin is depicting his social status and wealth by paying someone to paint a portrait of him in a powerful position. On the other end we see Adams very passionate about his work and being painted in a more personable light as he writes letters back and forth to his wife. We also hear him say “I’m not promoting John Adams. I’m promoting independence.” This gives the impression that Adams is less worried about his socials status and more interested in pushing the agenda that he thinks is best for the people. This relates back to the portraits because we also see these two sides of leaders when looking at Lincoln’s and Washington’s portraits versus the candid photographs we saw of Obama. There’s one side to the leaders that is focused on power, wealth and status while the other side emphasizes personality and passion.

I think that the elements of comedy that were incorporated into the movie made it hard decide whether the movie was an accurate depiction of the historical event. The movie itself also seems to show the perspective only of the delegates and not of the common people so even if the movie is accurate to the political elite’s perspective, it’s just a portion of the sentiments that were shared during this time. This made me think how difficult it must be to make a historically accurate movie because you can only create a movie from one point of view so there will always be several voices left out.

The film, 1776, showed a very interesting perspective to the Founding Fathers and the lead-up to the Declaration of Independence. Many elements of comedy are used to poke fun at the different members of Congress and the lack of seriousness within the meetings. They make stereotypical jokes about New Jersey and New York being very loud and that no one listens to each other. Benjamin Franklin falls asleep often during the meetings and Steven Hopkins is always drunk and asking for more alcohol instead of contributing to the discussions. It also seemed that before the question of independence was proposed they never actually resolved anything important. They would have daily weather reports from Jefferson and when George Washington would send reports of bad news looking for support, they never came up with any plans to help him and the army. While this may have been a comedical exaggeration, I think that the film was getting at the idea of privilege among the wealthy men and disregard for any issues that were not their own. The Congress members treat the custodian, Andrew McNair, as their own personal servant and when he voices his opinions about independence he immediately gets shut down and is reminded that he is not one of the Congressmen so his opinions don’t matter to them. This relates to the Constitution only applying to men who owned property where the majority of Americans were excluded and ignored from the policymaking and from the concerns of the “important” people. 

Throughout the film, they mentioned a few times about how the history of the independence of the colonies would be written. John Adams was describing how he was embarrassed that the only way for Jefferson to be able to write the Declaration of Independence was if he could be with his wife. Ben Franklin responds to him saying, “Don’t worry John, it won’t appear in the history books” (1:19). Another example is when John Adams says that he won’t be in the history books and it will only be about Franklin, Washington, and Washington’s horse that will be known to have conducted the entire Revolution. The film was emphasizing that there is a certain narrative that was created about the independence of the colonies to try and make it sound more patriotic and united against England. This was a major theme in the movie shown through the exaggerations and comedy making it clear that the Founding Fathers were not divine leaders that they are often made out to be. 

1776 was entertaining and informative. I learned a lot about the continental congress that I hadn’t known before. The movie musical set in, 1776 Philadelphia, depicts the proceedings of the continental congress. We are introduced too many famous historical figures, most notably,  John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and John Dickinson. The movie focuses on John Adams struggle to get congress to agree to fight for freedom against the British. I never realized there was such an intense internal struggle within congress. I had just assumed that every delegate was completely against the British monarchy and for freedom. In the movie when anything is put to a vote it always ends in a tie with the same colonies voting on the same side and New York courteously abstaining. I wonder why New York is the one state to always abstain?

The portrayal of the presidential cabinet in the musical Hamilton is similar to that of the continental congress in 1776. In Hamilton Alexander Hamilton is constantly struggling against Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Before seeing Hamilton I never knew about the internal conflict within Washingtons administration. In the cabinet battles Lin Manuel Miranda illustrates Hamilton and Jefferson in a constant childish battle.

“Sittin’ there useless as two shits/Hey, turn around, bend over, I’ll show you where my shoe fits” (Hamilton in the First Cabinet Battle).

I wonder why we never learn about all of these internal conflicts within our founding congress and presidential cabinet? Is it to protect patriotism? To create a narrative that all of the founding fathers were against the British and devoted to the creation of a free nation?.I found 1776 very funny and wonder if the delegates actually acted as childish in real life as they do in the movie? Are they just portrayed like that in the movie/musical? Or were they actually silly/childish? We still have to take everything in the movie and musical with a grain of salt. I question how much in the movie and musical is completely accurate? To what degree can we just the historical fact behind both pieces?

One thing that really stuck out to me during Hamilton was just how detailed the storyline was. After seeing that and realizing how long ago that was it really makes me appreciate historians and the people that documented the lives of so many influential people in our history and history from all around the world. The duel between both Hamilton and Aaron Burr was a powerful one. While ultimately it did come down to an actual duel, the duel I am referencing is the one of power. The two constantly fought for power and recognition from both the public and General Washington. As this duel continued on, it reminded me a lot of our current climate in America. There is a constant battle for power. Whether it be between states and federal governments, within congress, or even between races. There seems to be a major underlying theme of power-seeking behavior. Why is that?

Alexander Hamilton had access to something most Americans never have the opportunity of having. Education. It was through his education that he was able to represent himself well enough to become General Washington’s right hand man. I found it comical how frustrated this made Aaron Burr. While this story does a beautiful job or portraying the unbelievably successful life that Hamilton lived. It was hard for me to not acknowledge how privileged he was. However, the more I continued to watch the more I realized that he wasn’t nearly as privileged as many white males in America at this time. I was inspired by his ability to overcome his lack of affluence growing up.

After our class discussion today, I am overwhelmed with questions concerning the revolution. Hamilton helped paint a clearer picture for me as to the circumstance of the war. While I do not agree with the idea that our schools teach students that everyone that colonized in America wanted to revolt. I am confident that the revolution itself was one that did not only promise Americans the opportunity at wealth and prosperity, but I think it gave them a better means of life. Of course I am not speaking to the enslaved people of colonial America because their vote was not valued when deciding whether to revolt or not. On top of that, they would have had no choice in whether to fight or not during the war. I am still unsure what to make of that reality. Ultimately, I believe America is a broken place, that has broken policy, but I do believe that today it is a place of freedom.

While reading today’s chapter of A People’s History, I noticed a lot of common themes among things we have already talked about in class, and also of things that we still hear politicians and people talking about today. First of all, Zinn’s telling of the American Revolution reinforces how the white elites that wrote history wrote it in a way that isn’t entirely accurate, and was meant to serve a specific purpose. In the well-known story of the American Revolution, colonists of all types and all classes came together to support a heroic and worthy cause and gain independence for everyone and create a new America where everyone could be equal and free. However, as Zinn points out, this is far from the truth – many lower-class Americans were against the Revolution because the benefits didn’t directly apply to them, but rather to the upper class who would be solidifying their power through the Revolution. There was a lot of coercion and involuntary service to create the militias that fought in the Revolutionary War, and many internal class conflicts that made the Revolution far messier than is often taught in American history. The Revolution is likely taught the way we know it, as a uniting and inspirational story of American bravery, to strengthen American partiotism and create an unproblematic version of American history.

Another point from the reading that stuck out to me was how deep class conflict in America goes, and how the institutions upon this country were built were purposely created to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. As we have heard in discussions of systemic racism over the past few months, it is often impossible to reform the racist systems we already have in place because they are already performing exactly as they were built to. After reading Zinn’s chapter, it is easy to see that the same goes for systemic classism. The elites both in the 18th century and today have always found ways to keep the middle and lower classes just satisfied enough to avoid revolts and conflict, but oppressed enough so that they can retain wealth and power, and in turn, political and social influence.

The American Revolution was a time when all Americans came together as one and fought and won their freedom and independence from Britain. Or so I thought. In Howard Zinn’s “A Kind of Revolution” I learned that this was not entirely the case. This war, like the majority of things in this time period was for the benefit of the elite. That had ulterior motives and wanted to gain more power and wealth from this Revolution. The Revolution was yet another example of the rich exploiting the poor. 

The poor were actually the reason for the success of the revolution. Shy says, “Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in its time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of them did much of the actual fighting and suffering between 1775 and 1783,” (page 79). The poor do not get the credit they deserve and the war was a hoax. It was not the people coming together for one common goal, it was the rich again taking advantage of their power and making the poor do the dirty work for their benefit.

In “A Kind of Revolution” Howard Zinn provides a more accurate analysis of the American Revolution, which includes the perspectives of slaves, Indians, white servants, and poor white people. Similarly to previous chapters within A People’s History of the United States, I was once again compelled to question and alter my past beliefs about historical events after reading this chapter. In lower, middle, and high school I learned of the American Revolution through the lens of rich, white powerful men, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and therefore never really considered the major role that minority groups played in the American Revolution. Zinn’s description of the wealth divide between the wealthy and poor oppression that the minority groups faced during the American Revolution was very eye opening to me.

Zinn explains the unfortunate truth that one of the motivations of the upper class to engage in the American Revolution was to gain more wealth and power in society. I was previously unaware of this and the wealth divide that existed within the Continental Army. For example, I was suprised that colonel’s within the army received $75 a month, meanwhile privates in the army received $6.66 a month. After learning about this and other facts, I completely agree with Zinn that the Revolution was, “distributed in such a way as to give a double opportunity to Revolutionary leaders: to enrich themselves and their friends…” (84). It is now much easier for me to understand why the United States still faces major wealth gap and class issues as classism was implemented in our countries roots hundreds of years ago by our Founding Fathers.

Furthermore, I agreed with Zinn’s statements regarding the Constitution.I think that it is awful that African Americans, indentured servants, women, and men without property were not reflected in the Constitution. As Zinn states, I once believed that “…the Constitution drawn up in 1787 [was] a work of genius put together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality” (90). However, now, it is puzzling to me that our Founding Fathers only referenced white men in the Constitution and did not include minority groups, such as women and African Americans. 

Howard Zinns’ Chapter A Kind of Revolution added to my fascination of my favorite time period in US History by looking at many underrepresented perspectives. The American Revolution is idolized as an inspiring unity of different people fighting one common cause. In reality, the war was for the benefit of  the elite landowning colonists so they could expand their wealth and power. For many colonists in the lower classes, they had no motive for fighting in the war. The elite tried to fabricate incentives for the lower classes to enlist, but coercion was often the most effective way.

After our talk about social classes last class, I was surprised to hear that many people used the war as a way to elevate their social status and “climb the ladder”. This served as the main motivation for many lower class farmers to enlist, because if they were able to advance their rank in the army they could save some money and change their social status. Alexander Hamilton famously chose this path and ended up being one of the most important founding fathers.

When Zinn analyzed the motivations of the founding fathers in the Constitution, it surprised me how much they were really writing for their own benefit and not the benefit of the whole population. In my prior history classes, we have revered this document as a “work of genius put together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality”(90). However, many of the founding principles were put into place to benefit the wealthy men who were drafting it. They wanted a strong federal government to secure their industries and protect their investments. This system designed in part by self interest for a few wealthy colonists has lead to the growth and development of the most powerful country in the world. So, should we be blaming the founding fathers for putting their needs first when their needs indirectly benefitted the country as a whole? I believe it is not so much that we have to blame them, but simply be cognizant of this fact that our country was designed from its beginnings for the rich to get richer. When ignorant Americans try to argue our country was build by the many for the many, it is important to note the asterisk in this statement. America, regardless of how it turned out over the following centuries, was drafted by the political elite to expand their fortunes and use the lower classes to amass more wealth.

After reading this chapter in “A People’s History of the United States,” I was in shock with the amount of information that I was not taught in school about the American Revolution. I am once again disappointed in the American schooling system. I knew the American Revolution as a time when the country came together and united as one to fight off the controlling British. Especially coming from Boston, I could never see anything wrong with the Patriots. It surprised me that the middle class were the ones who wanted the Revolutionary War, I always thought it was the upper class. From what I was taught in school, African slaves and Native Americans were often a small piece of the American Revolutionary. I never fully understood their side of the story until now.

I was taught that the U.S. Constitution was a fair document giving everyone somewhat equal rights and a way for the colonies to create a system of laws and a government. As I continue to read I realize it was a way for the elite in America to become even more elite. On page 90, Zinn writes “the rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates.” This highlights the classism that was present at that time. The rich are going to make laws and set up a government that allows them to continue to become richer and richer creating an even larger difference between the rich and the poor. It has been an ongoing cycle of the top 1% making the laws that benefit the top 1%. This creates a disregard for the lower classes. I feel that this issue of wealth and power within our country is still an extremely prominent issue regarding the government and well-being of Americans. 

The American Revolution is something we were taught all throughout our schooling, so of course when asked most people would know what it is and why it happened. But Zinn proved to me that I was wrong and was missing key information about the revolutionary war.  This information was never taught in any of my history classes because it was based off the common folk, and most history lessons are based on the heroes/the important people. For example, I had no idea a lot of the colonists did not want to have the revolutionary war, and the ones that did were the middle class. And the main reason they supported the revolution was not because they wanted to rebel and hated England, but because of economic reasons. The only reason the colonist did end up fighting was because they were legally being forced to fight, not because they felt the revolution was necessary and supported starting a war with England.

Reading this chapter and reading the past chapters, I have realized there has always been some kind of separation between the rich and the poor. The rich fully supported this war and was happy by its success, while the poor was the reason behind the success of the war since they were the main ones fighting. I feel like in most historical events the rich always end up being the only people that benefit from whatever event happened. The big companies and wealthy men get more money in their pockets, while the poor people work underneath the wealthy people and never get credit for all the hard work they do. Without the working class a lot of jobs would go undone and would heavily affect the world. While if we didn’t have the wealthy men that history seems to put on a pedestal the world would not be heavily affected.

I found this chapter to be extremely insightful to my understanding of how to interpret important historical events and documents, such as the Revolutionary War and the U.S. Constitution, in response to who in history was controlling the narrative of these events. With the Revolutionary War, Zinn (1980) analyzed what this war meant to both Native Americans and African slaves. For Native Americans, the Revolutionary War augmented their feelings of isolation and fear for their future livelihood as they no longer had the aid of France and England to protect them from the oppression and violence colonial Americans placed on them. Colonial Americans were eager to acquire more land in the west as the populations in the American colonies in the east were growing; however, this was not good for Native Americans because they were constantly being forced off of their land to relocate to some other uninhabited area. Hence, many land conflicts arose between colonial Americans and the Native Americans, yet the Native Americans held their ground and defeated the groups of American colonists who wanted to take their land. On the other hand, the Revolutionary War for African slaves allowed them to achieve freedom as thousands of African slaves took advantage of the mayhem to escape their masters so that they could live relatively free lives in other parts of the world. Also, free black people, who mainly lived in the North, began to assert themselves in a white supremacist culture as they advocated for voting rights, for financial resources to educate their children, for anti-discrimination laws, and for many other things that would reduce the inequalities the free black population in America no longer wanted to suffer from.

Similarly, Zinn (1980) points out that the U.S. Constitution is just another document that the colonial ruling class in America used to serve three primary purposes. One, the wealthy deliberated crafted the rhetoric of the Constitution to protect their economic interests- owning property, land, and slaves- while maintaining their system of privilege. As we have already learned in class, African slaves, indigenous people, women, indentured servants, and white men who did not own property were not extended these same protections and liberties. Two, the rich wanted to create a representative government that would maintain peace in society while preventing uprisings- for instance, farmers and military veterans rebelling against members of Congress. I should add that the rich were obsessed with controlling the government and controlling the laws by which the government and the people in America had to abide by. Three, the upper-class needed to earn the support of middle-class white America so that middle-class white Americans could support them instead of allying with the poor to overthrow the rich in power. By deceiving middle-class white Americans to believe that the U.S. Constitution would prioritize democracy, equality, and balance in society and that they- the rich- would grant them some rights and privileges in return for their support, middle-class white Americans took a bite of the upper-class’ act of good faith too soon. The middle-class soon regretted their decision when they saw how the upper-class continued to perpetuate systems of inequality against them.

In my earliest days of learning about the American Revolution, I found myself filled with awe for the heroism of the Patriots, the wisdom of the founding fathers, and the moral soundness of our nation’s foundational documents. Something about the history of the United States felt so honorable to me, and ever the little patriot, I thought of the leaders in our history as inherently idealistic. “A Kind of Revolution” outlines exactly the sentiments that have drastically shifted my sentiments toward our history’s leaders. I learned in my early education that the Revolution was fought for the establishment of a just democracy. The American colonies were subject to parliamentary taxation without representation, and in recognition of this injustice, the morally upright Patriots rebelled in the name of equality. As it turns out, this isn’t the full story.

At this point in society, we’ve come to accept that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and men of the likes probably weren’t the best of guys according to today’s standards. But we excuse them on the notion that they were great leaders to whom we’re indebted for our freedom. “A Kind of Revolution” raises the question as to whether we really do, and moreover whether that was really what the Revolution was fought for. It seems self-evident, in consideration of the class revolts that were put down by colonial governments during the Revolution as well as unequal pay between low-ranking Patriot soldiers and the elite officers, that this war was not really fought for the equality it advertised. Otherwise, why would the lower class have to be coerced into fighting for such a cause through legislation and financial incentive? In recognition of the systemic divide between classes in Revolution-era America, it’s pretty clear that any liberty the founding fathers might have been fighting for was not that of the have-nots. This is further questionable when considering the governmental actions taken in response to forceful political participation from the lower class. The Riot Act, The Sedition Act, and bars against poor citizens voting and holding office all demonstrate a governmental desire to suppress the voice of the “mob,” the majority of the American polity who held little wealth. As I learned, the American colonies rebelled against Britain to counteract the injustice of taxation without representation, but as the Constitution and other foundational documents were founded by a systemically designed elite network of men, our country was in turn founded on legislation without representation.

If we’re to give our early government the benefit of the doubt, maybe high concentration of power within the elite minority is an issue that’s inevitable in a society where power requires expertise, which requires education, which requires resources, which requires wealth. However, this chapter makes it clear that this issue was addressed in movements of the time. The bigger problem lies within the suppression of these movements. Shays’ Rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion, and revolts of that sort were fought to address the lack of power offered to the lower class, and the government responded to each with combative force, only appealing to the lower class with performative reform that achieved little and mostly sought to maintain the peace (a euphemism for elite power). We can see further in the developmental period of our history that government officials were not only unconcerned with the needs of the poor, but sought specifically not to address them by establishing a strong central government that would maintain economic power for the elite and establishing laws that would punish citizens for speaking out against the government through action such as libel. In fairness, no government can be expected to act without bias, and a government dominated by the rich will act with bias favoring the desires of the rich. All of this considered, I think it’s important to question the motives of our history’s leaders as well as those of our current leaders. How much of social achievement can actually be attributed to these leaders, and how much was fabricated through myth or strong rhetoric?

As I read this next chapter of A People’s History of the United States, I was surprised to learn about the requirements to become an elected official in the colonies. The most outrageous of these requirements was the one that required anyone running to have 5,000 pounds worth of property if they were running for governor and 1,000 pounds worth if they were running for senator. The fact that you could exclude 90% of the population from even having a chance at running is ridiculous

Because of this outlandish rule, the cycle of the wealthy controlling the poor would never have ended. It is also ironic that the people who made this rule were the ones who already met the requirements. They knew when they made this rule it would allow them to hold power without any competition. The only way to properly run a country is to have equal opportunity for everyone to become a decisionmaker. Although the rules and requirements are different in today’s United States, there is an argument to be made that bias has been created toward people of wealth and power.

Once again, Zinn highlights the side of history that is not commonly acknowledged. He again reconstructs my opinion of the people that lead this country and the comparison between who i thought they were verse the actuality of who they were. The American revolution is a topic that students learn about from a very young age. It tells the tale of the founding fathers who were intelligent men that organized a revolution to fight Englands oppression and free the United States. Yet in actuality, the founding fathers were elitist white men who said “every man is created equal” but had a very narrow definition of “all men”.

The revolution seems something like something comparable to the situation with indentured servitude. When it was advertised, the people that were impacted by it were deceived into thinking it would be something very different than what it actually turned out to be. The middle and lower classes, who were the ones who actually did the fighting, were tricked into a fight that was more beneficial for the upper class. The upper class claimed to be fight for everyone, but they were fighting to keep their own power and position in society, and get rid of England who they were under.

The United States continually had conflicting actions and words. They had the bill of rights, but then pact the Sedition act. The government of the people was a government that would quell rebellion and disagreement by utilizing its power and manipulating the people of different classes, races and backgrounds.

The American Revolution is celebrated as a pursuit of liberty and happiness, but its true motivations are less pure. At its core, the American Revolution was an attempt by the colonial elite to maximize profits by eliminating British involvement in the colonial economy. This attempt proved successful as class disparities were reinforced and expanded over the next 250 years. 

Class disparities were not invented during the American Revolution, but the war certainly did not alleviate them. That said, the Continental Congress marketed the war as an opportunity to diminish wealth differences. The colonial elites emphasized marginal improvements for the lower middle class: “It seemed that the majority of white colonists, who had a bit of land, or no property at all, were still better off than the slaves or indentured servants or Indians, and could be wooed into the coalition of the Revolution” (Zinn 1785). This section of America was vitally important to the independence effort; failure was inevitable if the war was a battle of colonial elites against the British military. The support of this section of the colonies allowed for the continuous oppression of the lower class, made up of slaves, indigenous peoples, and very poor whites.

In some ways, the war offered an opportunity to pursue economic and social growth for a section of the middle class. In certain instances, “the military became a place of promise for the poor, who might rise in rank, acquire some money, [and] change their social status” (1751). This mobility was limited, though, and the war allowed the elites to remain complacent in addressing economic disparities. According to Zinn, “ruling elites seem to have learned through the generations — consciously or not — that war makes them more secure against internal trouble” (1768). The concern with war served as a partial distraction from concerns with class and wealth.

Despite efforts to market the American Revolution as a potential stepping stool for large swaths of America, many of the middle class citizens saw through this ploy. For example, “the southern lower classes resisted being mobilized for the revolution. They saw themselves under the rule of a political elite, win or lose against the British” (1834). In hindsight, these concerns proved to be justified. 

While the American Revolution is taught as a heroic effort to escape imperialism and establish a government that promotes equality and the pursuit of happiness, this approach only tells part of the story. The revolution, and the constitution that followed, was born out of an attempt by the colonial elites to monopolize political and economic control of America. This goal, camouflaged by utilizing cultural and racial divisions, proved successful. Although the American Revolution and Constitution established the most successful government and society in the world, the founding fathers were not motivated by a sense of selflessness and concern for equality, as is often portrayed.

I never thought I’d read about the American Revolution again. It is one of my least favorite parts of history, and it always felt like it was taught in order to flex or instill a greater sense of nationalism. It’s always been something that is taught over and over again throughout k-12. You learn it multiple times in elementary school, then again in middle school, and again in High School. I thought I knew everything there was to know; tea throwing in the sea and all. Zinn brought up some points that I had never actually thought about, things that related to the common folk.

I thought it was very interesting that most of the colonists didn’t actually support the revolution. The middle class that actually did support the revolution, only supported it because of economic reasons, not because they hated England and wanted to rebel. A lot of people also refused to fight in the Revolutionary war, and staged mutinies, which is something I was never taught. That was so interesting because it really shows that the only people who really wanted this was the elite, and the elite are those who get what they want and write history as we know it. The elites convinced the working-class people that they were going to gain a lot from this war, and that is why they need to fight it, but at the end of the day who gained more power and more wealth was the elite.

This idea really connects to the society we live in today. A lot of promises are made to us by politicians, millionaires, people in power, but nothing is ever actually done unless it benefits the 1%. They get away with this because some is given to the working class, but most stays within the 1%. The small, and I mean small, advances made for the common people is what keeps everything in order and keeps the elites elite without much sacrifice or change.

Chapter Six in A People’s History of the United States was very interesting particularly because of the various topics that were discussed. The chapter talked about topics such as Africans in the Americas, building the Continental Army, running for political positions, land confiscation, class structure and more. On the topic of building the Continental Army, I found it interesting that building said army was a struggle. Specifically, it was challenging to recruit people because the majority of the population, who were poor, did not want to support the movement mainly because it was run by the rich and powerful within society. Since the colonials were oppressive towards the African Americans and the Native Americans, neither group supported the revolution unless it directly impacted them. For example, some free Africans in the North volunteered for the fight.

The rich and powerful who guided the Revolution within America ended up relying on small, poor, militia groups to fight the good fight. Numerous poor people ended up volunteering or enlisting in the army so that they could have the opportunity of having a better life. They hoped that they move up social classes, earn a good wage, and more. When the war eventually came to an end, the soldiers didn’t receive their money. Instead, they were given tickets that could be used to pick up their money in a few years. Other than the war, another important factor within America was what was going on politically. In order to be apart of the government, you needed to be a wealthy land owner. Throughout the war, Loyalists ended up fleeing their homes so that they could keep their freedoms. Their homes and property were taken and eventually redistributed. Often times these confiscated lands ended up in the lands of previously wealthy people. This is an example of the famous saying where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In states like New York; however, some of the land was given to the people thus decreasing the amount of tenant farmers in the area. Something that the book pointed out that I found to be very interesting was that, in Maryland, in order to run for governor, you needed to own at least 5,000 pounds worth of property. In order to run for the state senate, you needed to own at least 1,000 pounds of land.

While reading, a found one quote that was stood out to me greatly. The quote stated, “The rich must wither control the government directly or control the laws by which the government operates.” I think this quote is very interesting mostly because I think it’s true. Examples of this can be seen all throughout history. Specifically we saw this quote come to life during the Industrial Revolution when leaders of industry bribed and supported political leaders for their own personal gain. Overall, I found the reading from A People’s History of the United States to be very interesting while containing numerous ideas and topics that can be seen in our society today.