“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”
– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain
A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...
This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).
Filmmaker Richard Holmes virtually omits the issue of “no taxation without representation” …
I still greatly admire this film, despite its many weaknesses. But a viewer should go into this program with low expectations regarding the political coverage. For example, Holmes paints the Americans as “spoiled children” that didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes – not his exact words, but a pretty close paraphrase of his sentiments. Richard Holmes thus strikes me as a genuine British patriot – something which I actually admire greatly. Thus, I would presume that Mr. Holmes would object if the American Congress in Washington, D. C. were to tax the British people without their consent. He would probably respond that this analogy is “inaccurate,” but there is much truth in it nonetheless; since the Americans were not represented in this Parliament that was then taxing them. As his fellow Englishman from a prior century (John Locke) once argued, taking people’s property without their consent is stealing. Thus, arguments about the “fairness” of British taxation in America would thus seem somewhat hard to support; even if the British defense of the colonies had cost them dearly in the last war with France (and even if the actual amount of the tax was still fairly small). Holmes does not consider the “no taxation without representation” argument at all until the end of the film, when he mentions it as a reason for the growing British opposition to the war. Considering how important this argument was to the mindset of the Patriots, his omission of this issue is somewhat curious. I would have liked to hear a British response to this argument, but Mr. Holmes seems to have none to offer here – or at least, he offers none in this film. This is one of a number of reasons that he strikes me as somewhat ignorant of Revolutionary-era politics.
Boston Tea Party, 1773
… but he is excellent on the military history, with his visiting of the actual battlefield sites
But in fairness to Mr. Holmes, he is truly in his element when he is talking about military history; and this is where this documentary shines. I have watched two other documentaries about the American Revolution which gave good coverage of the military campaigns. PBS and the History Channel (both American networks) were probably better at the human drama of these battles. But Mr. Holmes is clearly quite knowledgeable about military strategies and tactics. His maps help to show the geography of what happened, and his visiting of actual battlefield sites also adds much to his coverage. Mr. Holmes has done some other films about British military history, including an examination of the battlefields of World War II. (That film is part of the “BBC History of World War II,” so I cover it in my review of that series here.) Thus, Richard Holmes is not a specialist in the details of the eighteenth century; which may explain his aforementioned ignorance of Revolutionary-era politics. Rather, he is a specialist in British military history more generally; and his expertise in this area is evident here.
Battle of Camden, 1780 (a major British victory in this war)
Some of these sites have modern anachronisms, such as cars and paved roads (but are still good)
Sometimes, the battlefield sites have annoyingly modern anachronisms in them – like cars, paved roads, and monuments (not to mention tourists in modern clothing). His coverage of the New York campaigns is particularly vulnerable to this, since New York City is so thoroughly urban today. In the eighteenth century, many of the areas of what is today New York City were a rugged wilderness; but today, New York City is instead filled with skyscrapers and other modern buildings. Thus, the battlefields in places like Long Island look nothing like they did during the eighteenth century. He thus tries to compensate for this by showing things such as posters with Uncle Sam saying “I want YOU for U. S. Army, nearest recruiting station,” outside an actual U. S. Army recruiting station in contemporary Manhattan (the area of focus). Or when discussing the American trade with the mother country during the eighteenth century, he also shows some footage of the contemporary New York Stock Exchange (not very period-looking, but it’ll do in a pinch). These are the modern equivalents of what he’s talking about from the eighteenth century, and they help to suggest some comparisons to the world of that time. Other battlefield sites are somewhat better-preserved, and allow you to see what they looked like at the time.
Central Park, one of the few parts of New York City that looks anything like it did in the eighteenth century
The disadvantages of his focus on North America, in explaining how Britain “lost America” …
Richard Holmes focuses this film almost entirely on North America. This definitely has its advantages, and it was interesting to hear a British perspective on these American (and Canadian) campaigns. But the British lost this war in other places besides North America. The desired British victory was in danger, from the moment that the French entered the war on the American side. Indeed, the Americans would not have won, if not for the French help in this war. But surprisingly, this French assistance is not mentioned much here, except as it pertains directly to the North American theater of operations. For example, Holmes covers the massive naval engagement between the British and the French in the Chesapeake Bay (off the Virginia Capes), and the French troops that fought alongside the Americans in their final victory at Yorktown. But except for a few short sentences, you’d barely know that the French (and others) were hammering the British elsewhere in the world. There was, for example, a Great Siege of Gibraltar from 1779 to 1783; and there was fighting in the Caribbean, Africa, and India as well. There was a massive naval war closer to home in the English Channel as well, where the French were wreaking havoc on British shipping. Holmes mentions how from an American perspective, the French “finally” sent their reinforcements to the Patriots, when they intervened in the Battle of Chesapeake Bay. Along with the land intervention at Yorktown, this was their most direct assistance to the American cause. But indirectly, these campaigns elsewhere in the world had a huge effect on North American affairs; because they tied up many British troops that could otherwise have been sent to fight the “rebels” in North America. These campaigns were massively important, but you wouldn’t know it from watching this film.
Battle of the Chesapeake Bay, 1781
His film is somewhat weak on the politics, even on the British side …
As far as the political aspects of the war go, there’s not much coverage of the politics of either side. On the American side, the Declaration of Independence is briefly mentioned, but not quoted from. There is virtually no coverage of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution, except to say that “the Revolution had come full circle” when it returned to a British form of government (which is only partially accurate). In fairness to Holmes, he seems to be an admirer of both the American and British forms of government, but he clearly doesn’t know much about them when he discusses them (somewhat briefly) in the last episode. On the British side, there’s almost no coverage of King George III, Prime Minister Lord North, or the opposition to the war amongst the people and the Parliament. At the beginning of the war, this opposition was very small. But after the war had been going on for some eight years without an end in sight, the tide was turning for British public opinion; and the British public was demanding an end to the war.
King George III of the United Kingdom
Lord Frederick North, the first prime minister in British history to receive a “vote of no confidence”
The analogies to the American war in Vietnam have both advantages and disadvantages …
Richard Holmes also makes many analogies to the American war in Vietnam, and there are undoubtedly many appropriate analogies to be made here. Both of them were long and protracted wars that wearied the stronger side after several years. Both were lost because of bad decision-making by their leaders, and both had winning sides with support from foreign powers. Both were guerrilla wars where the eventual winner was vastly outnumbered, and both were wars where the eventual loser actually had a better military. Even more importantly, both were wars where the stronger side actually won most of the battles, but nonetheless lost the war. But sometimes Holmes almost seems to stretch this analogy too far, I think, when he compares the American rebels to the ruthless Viet Cong. He talks about terror tactics among the Patriots, arguing that the Patriots “got out of hand.” Although this sort of thing did undoubtedly happen, it was nothing like the mob violence of the French Revolution (to which some today have compared it). Moreover, a significant amount of the terror that did occur was actually from the Loyalist side - something which is not really acknowledged here. For example, both sides in the Southern campaigns actually targeted the civilian population of the other side, burning down their farms and attacking those who resisted. While Patriots did indeed engage in these actions, so did the Loyalists, with somewhat greater frequency than Holmes acknowledges here. In fairness, neither side had a particularly high frequency of terror tactics (by the standards of dictatorial regimes in the twentieth century, at least). But if one is going to make an issue of Patriot “terror,” then it would seem that one's standards of evidence can't be all that high; and that the evidence against the Loyalists would just about measure up to those same standards. Holmes also covers the existence of slavery and racism among the Americans, but ignores most of its practice among the Redcoats and Loyalists (who had plenty of slaveholders of their own). In fairness, his coverage of runaway slaves that fought for the British was actually quite good; and was quite interesting to watch. But his mention of those African Americans that fought for the Patriots is rather brief, and gives one the impression that their numbers were somewhat small. In truth, their numbers were fairly significant; although Mr. Holmes may actually be correct that more African Americans fought for the British.
Banastre Tarleton, one of the most controversial British commanders of this war
This film is thus something of a mixed bag …
Thus, in many ways, his coverage strikes me as somewhat biased – at least when it comes to the politics. You’d have to go to PBS or the History Channel to get a good treatment of this war’s political history for television. To be fair, his coverage of the military campaigns is actually somewhat even-handed (with the exception of the coverage of some atrocities and race relations issues); and he makes you feel sympathy for the soldiers of both armies. But his interviews with contemporary Americans living near the old battlefields leave something to be desired here, since they paint a picture of a contemporary America that is more sympathetic with Britain than with their own country. In fairness to some of these Americans, Mr. Holmes was putting them on the spot in these interviews; and they were obviously trying to be diplomatic to that “guy with the British accent.” Obviously, in this context, a British accent would be a red flag for a Patriot sympathizer. This may have reduced the candor of these Patriot interview clips, and increased the candor of those with more liberal views. Some, for example, seemed to regret that we ever revolted against Great Britain to begin with. One of them even said on camera that we’d be better off staying part of the British Empire, and being part of its “socialized medicine” system – a remarkably ignorant thing to say, in my opinion. In fairness, interviewing people is a legitimate documentary technique; and it’s good to get these people on the record nonetheless. But Mr. Holmes makes these views seem somewhat more representative of Americans than (perhaps) they really are, and so the true American support of our Revolution would seem not to be found in this film.
British surrender at Yorktown, 1781
… although I did enjoy it anyway
His ultimate answer about how Britain lost America is that it “failed to win the hearts and minds of the people.” This is undoubtedly true, but not covered in as much detail as it should be. His answer about why the British lost the war is thus somewhat incomplete, although his coverage of bad military decisions by British generals sheds more light on the subject, because of its covering these bad decisions in greater detail. For all of these reasons, I would have to conclude that this film is something of a mixed bag, which is as bad on the politics as it is good on the military campaigns. I actually enjoyed this film greatly, and do recommend it for its military coverage. Despite its weaknesses, this film still belongs on the shelf of the Revolutionary War buff; but one should probably take its political conclusions with something of a grain of salt.
Footnote to this blog post:
The mother country recognized American independence with the following words: “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
– The Treaty of Paris (1783), signed by King George III of Britain
DVD at Amazon
Disclosure: I am an Amazon affiliate marketer, and can sometimes make money when you buy the product using the link(s) above.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
A review of “The War That Made America: The Story of the French and Indian War”
Two American-made documentaries about the American Revolution
Adam Smith and the American Revolution (another British perspective)
A review of David Grubin's “Napoleon” (the story of the Napoleonic Wars)
The British Empire: From the Acts of Union to the Battle of Waterloo
A review of “The War of 1812” (specifically, the North American war)
Colonial Canada: From the Seven Years' War to the War of 1812
Part of a series about
British military history
Seven Years’ War 1756-1763
American War of Independence 1775-1783
French Revolutionary Wars 1793-1802
Napoleonic Wars 1803-1815American War of Independence 1775-1783
French Revolutionary Wars 1793-1802
Korean War 1950-1953
Other wars to be covered later
Other wars to be covered later
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment