My mother’s doing research for a book she’s writing, which is giving me some interesting historical perspective. For instance, blacks made up 50-80% of the armed forces fighting in the American Revolution, and this was especially apparent towards the end of the war. Not only did blacks constitute a HUGE majority of the fighting force, but they fought for both the colonials and the British. This fact just seems to get dropped out of history… I was wondering if anybody has stumbled on to any other facts like this, possibly about other nations/wars/history?
I find that incredible. If true, it’s a huge adjustment that should be made in teaching about the American Revolution, and it should be brought up constantly - during black history month, in biographies of Revolutionary War figures, on the History Channel…
I’m admittedly not the biggest American Revolution Scholar, but I am a dilettante and it’s my favorite historical era, and I’ve never heard that. Nothing even close to that. What are your mom’s sources?
I’ll get her sources that include information on blacks in the Revolution for you later today, and post them here, including some examples of exemplary soldiers that were black and, again, forgotten over time.
Yeah, that sounds astounding to me as well.
Rest of my family is quite involved in AmRevWar re-enacting community, and I’ve never heard them suggest anything like that.
I will be interested to see those sources as well.
Clarifying - of course there were some black soldiers - I’m familiar with one British tactic of granting freedom to any slave who became a redcoat.
I’m sure, and I’ll be interested to read about, exemplary black soldier for both sides.
But 50-80% of soldiers sounds incredible to me. And I mean incredible literally.
I am currently reading *Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong * and it is a treasure-trove of history that you don’t hear about in the usual high school history class. I don’t have it with me to cite any particulars, but it has been quite the interesting read.
In fact it seems to contradict some things I have read. I know that by the end of the war, many of the soldiers were indentured servants and others that were essentially slaves, but not that they were black. You might want to check if the sources confuse the groups.
Sorry I should clarify, some units were 50-80% black. There were at least a couple all-black units, one British and one Colonial.
I remember that guy was interviewed on the* Daily Show*, and I thought then that he went too far the other way - saying some things were not true that are. He claimed Molly Pitcher was not a true story, because there was nobody really named Molly Pitcher (it was a nickname).
Other conveniently forgotten history - [ul]
[li]Benjamin Franklin owned a couple of slaves (I think even beyond when slavery was made illegal in Pennsylvania, because he had them with him in England at the time), even if he did petition the government to get rid of slavery at the end of his life.[/li]
[li]Nobody called the Liberty Bell the Liberty Bell until about 1840. Before then it was just a cracked bell that had hung in Independence Hall. Nobody in the Continental Congress would have known what you were talking about if you mentioned the Liberty Bell. It’s marketing.[/li]
[li]Teddy Roosevelt took Panama and the Phillipines. There was nothing to justify the American annexation of them.[/li][/ul]
A similar inconvienant fact is that Washington DC was initially built with mainly slave labor. A bitter irony that the city conceived as a monument to freedom was thus constructed.
Correction: TR never ‘took’ Panama. Panama used to be part of Colombia and the US certainly intervened during the Panamanian Revolt when Panama declared independence. And the US motives were less than pure, since Colombia didn’t want to grant access to build the Canal. Afterward, the panamanian governement leased the Canal Zone to the US on very advantageous terms.
But the US never ‘took’ anything from Colombia on the Isthmus, officially speaking.
Well, how about the inconvenient facts that Mohandas Gandhi…
-
Suggested that, in response to the Holocaust, the Jews should commit mass suicide.
-
Raised a brigade of Indian soldiers to suppress Zulu uprisings in South Africa, and received a medal for valor in combat from the British Army.
-
Wrote an open letter to the people of England, in 1940 (when Britain stood alone against Hitler), recommending that they surrender to Germany. He elaborated “Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds.”
The revolution that was funded by secret money from TR to mercenaries in Panama. He basically created that revolution.
The Declaration of Independence was not signed on July 4.
Yes, but technically he never ‘took’ anything from Colombia, which was my point. There’s no doubt that the US was the moving force behind the Panamanian Revolt, but all the agreements were with the Panamanian government.
No doubt the Colombians viewed it differently.
The cracked Pennsylvania State House Bell hung in the Pennsylvania State House. The name Liberty Bell was coined by the American Anti-Slavery Society in the late 1830s as a symbol for freeing the slaves. It would be later that the name “Liberty Bell” might just also have some meaning with American Independence.
The name Independence Hall also did not exist at the time of the American Revolution. I cannot find the cite at the moment, but IIRC, the name may have been attributed to the Pennsylvania State about the time Philadelphia served as the Capitol from 1790-1800.
While “marketing” might be an adequate term, don’t use the 21st Century definition to apply to 17th Century motivation.
True. It was adopted by the Continental Congress that day - to general public rejoicing - but it was not approved by all the various colonies until July 19, and the delegates did not affix their signatures till August 2.
Real good cite (archives.gov)
Marie Antoinette did not publicly say “Let them eat cake.” And if she had, it would not have been the patronizing remark that one would assume from the current meaning of “cake.” At the time, cake was the nasty stuff that stuck to the bottom and sides of the pan–when you were hungry and had no bread, you might survive by eating the cake but it wouldn’t be a tasty treat.
That’s more than a “clarify.” That’s not the same thing in any wayshapeorform. A rough analogy would be, “Union soldiers fought the Civil War in brilliant red pantaloons,” when in fact only the Zouaves did.
You sure you didn’t say what you said in the OP just to open up with a zinger and get some discussion going? 
Another forgotten historical fact is that apparently that bell dates to the 1600’s! 