The American revolution was a political and military struggle in response to the embargo on the American colonies’ rights by the British parliament. The revolutionary war rose with prominent figures who resulted in the formation of united states of America as we know it today.
Paul Johnson is an English journalist, born and raised in England. He grew up with privileges of money, opportunity, and education; having studied at the University of Oxford and been a member of the exclusive Stubbs society. His career upbringing is similarly indicative of a loud intellect with a desire to speak the truth. This is evident in his earlier publications but remains focal in his “A History of the American People” one of his most famous works. (Biography | Paul Johnson Archives, 2021).
Paul Johnson is, per his official archive website (Biography | Paul Johnson Archives, 2021), an anti-communist, admired and favored by conservatives. This does not seem to have always been the case, earlier in his career he was associated with the political left democrats (where Howard Zinn stands), this earlier perception of him is justified, for his book promises an illustration of the normal people who shaped the American nation, alongside the acknowledgment of racial injustice and the rising influence of women. I would argue however that his arguments were relatively nationalist and capitalist – he recognized the privileges some men had above others but undermined that with the message that the hard work of these individuals is what allowed them to climb up the ladder, not the connections or unfair opportunity.
“Did this rapid expansion bring a rush of blood to the heads of the British elite?” The first line of Paul Johnson’s “A History of the American People” is a rhetorical question that portrays his bias; the British are but egoists with inflated pride per the luxury of rapid expansion in their land – not fit as rulers in a sense. While he does go on to admit the intellect of “George II” his first opening descriptions of him are rather stark. (Johnson, pg. 92)
I am curious if this indifference to the British was due to deflected anger from his own nation, or a means to compromise his own nationality’s role in this discussion. Had he been understanding and justifiable of the British he would be questioned for bias towards his own people. Perhaps this led to his overcompensation by being overly critical of the British, though this may be far-fetched, for he remained biased in his arguments just differently. (Johnson, pg. 92)
On the contrary to this, is his depiction of the founding fathers, one of great admiration; introducing them as “sensible, broad-minded, courageous, usually well educated, gifted in a variety of ways, mature, and long-sighted” and simply “flashes of genius”. The manner in which he introduces figures of history by description before name gives the reader an idea of his views – blatantly subjective. Similarly, I found it rather comical, his style of writing is comparatively contemporary when put against Zinn’s, it feels entertaining and more conversive, something that would be more suited to the youth in my opinion.
The differences in his descriptions of the British and American leaders convincingly highlight the factor he believes is focal in the struggle for American independence – the quality of people in charge. There is certain fictionalism to his initial depictions: the British antagonist, and the American heroes. This puts to question his unbiased credibility. (Johnson, pg. 92)
This admiration flourishes beyond simple intrigue of the great into something more obsessive as he does into detail listing George Washington’s 15 hounds, the concentrated upbringing and education of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams’s education and publications, and most notable to me the constant and lengthy mention of Benjamin Franklin’s life – I believe he may have been Johnson’s favorite founding father due to the sheer mention of him, his work, opinions, and life, perhaps Johnson wanted to highlight the individual he found often undermined or he wanted to pay homage to the autobiography, which he found to be “the best of all autobiographies”. (Johnson, pg. 94 - 105)
Beyond reassuring of his knowledge on the subject, his admiration, and these gentlemen’s intellect, these topics fail to raise much significance. They do however depict his focal greatly, they support that this book is about these individuals more than the country’s general history – these ‘normal’ people with great intellect are the catalyst to the great nation known today. This contrasts with Zinn who values the apparent “victims” and rarely acknowledges the genuine genius of these individuals as leaders.
As all discussions of the founding fathers begin, George Washington is brought to light first. Though interestingly Johnson mentioned that earlier on Washington was an imperialist, he held pride in the English grown and aimed to get a regular commission in the British army, unfortunately (even with his “first-class” skill and talent as Johnson puts it) he was unable to fulfill this ambitious dream due to the noble-blood indulged system in great Britain. Johnson concretely states that “It was an injustice and an insult, and it proved to be the determining factor in his life and allegiance” (Johnson, pg. 94)
Interestingly, when Johnson explore George Washington’s private life and career, he portrays it as that of an elite, yet he compares it to an English gentleman, this may plant the internalized admiration to his own people but could otherwise be used to showcase the similarities between English and American men (men of the colony), which he later hints at again with the mention of the parallels between some of the decisions made by American colonies and that of earlier British governance. (Johnson, pg. 94)
Similarly, I beg to question the factors found admirable about Washington as a military general. While Johnson had mentioned earlier his extensive military experience, he wasn’t known for his tactical or strategical skills. He had lost many battles – with only a few wins to his name. To be fair, as Dr. Mark had once mentioned, no one cares how many battles you lose as long as you win the last one. Per strategy in battle, I believe Hamilton amid other men is likely more well suited, but this does not mean he was not a great leader. He kept his men fighting, through scarcity and exhaustion, he used attrition to win over a bigger army. This mindset of not losing in place of only winning may seem cowardly but it is rather brave, and likely the only way in which they would have ever won.
Benjamin Franklin a founding father and maybe one of the first self-made millionaires of his time (Unlike George Washington or Thomas Jefferson who were already part of the upper class since birth), started a printing job which became quickly successful allowing him to climb up the ladder from the rags to riches as some may put it. Unsurprisingly Johnson’s sheer admiration of his character is prevalent from his introduction and throughout the extract. He fits as a perfect example of the success of the conservative module; a self-reliant adult one who built his way from poverty, proving that it is in fact possible. (Johnson, pg. 96-100)
Johnson paints Franklin sympathetically, as a man who was often ignored and undermined, beginning any mention of a possible mistake on his part as “sadly” or “regrettably” and believed Franklin was rightful in believing himself to be “the great intermediary between Britain and America”. While there is likely a certain truth to the undermined efforts of franklin, but Johnson failed to recognize the despair Franklin had for the attention of the British, he was a man of great knowledge but one who sought recognition, consistently trying to get the English’s approval, and not owning up to his own shortcomings. (Johnson, pg. 96-100)
Moreover, when discussing the Indians, he blatantly mentions the apparent disgust Washington had towards them and denounces the possibility of Franklin favoring them as he mentions “no friend of the Indians” before elaborating further. (Johnson, pg. 99) These are clear implications of his views as if the possibility of befriending or caring for the Indians would have been outrageous. Ironic when faced with the message of his book as a contemporary look at American History, for he denounces a great aspect of it in favor of another. Zinn is similarly guilty of this.
Moving on he looks at the crowds’ (both conservative and liberal) “favorite hero”, Thomas Jefferson. Personally, I found his discussion of Jefferson the most well done; he compliments his genius calling him “the archetypal figure of the entire Enlightenment” and criticizes his hypocrisy – which happens far more often than one may believe. Thomas Jefferson is a walking contradiction in my opinion, and Johnson reiterates this by listing the many ways in which he had contradicted his own self, from his stand against elites as an elitist, slave ownership, his language in contrast to his form, and even his taste in books - his favorite books are “Don Quixote and Tristram Shandy. Yet he lacked a sense of humor”, reinserting the comical style of his writing. (Johnson, pg. 102-103)
Setting this aside when attempting to view Jefferson – or any of the founding fathers - under the scope of his time and even to today’s standard he is truly an intellectual, he had great knowledge even at a young age and made great ideas – this is not to say he was a good man; for even setting presentism aside many of his actions are immoral, I understand that at the time they were normalized and I can acknowledge that it was a different time but I cannot excuse it for morality is, to me, no topic of discussion.
Per the issue of revolutionary struggle, Johnson depicts Jefferson to have unlocked a great deal on the topic, with heavy reliance on the work of John Locke – some may even believe him to have plagiarized Locke’s work (This argument is weak as Locke himself likely plagiarized his ideas from older works). John Locke refuted the concept of the Devine right of kings, and that the people should be allowed to remove a ruler who otherwise interferes with their rights and liberty. This is evident in Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of governance, where a governor should do as little as possible and that a smaller lenient government is better suited. Their belief is that a society may be stratified, but by merit, not by birth. This ideology is like that of conservatives or more accurately capitalists; individual wealth and class division per that acquired wealth is not frowned upon as long as it was owned fairly – a concept that does not consider the discrimination on bases of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc., that plays into the relative “fairness” of these earnings. (Johnson, pg. 104)
On the other hand, this preached new ideal won Jefferson the ideological battle against the British, adding more to the unified advantage of the American colonies – now the men of the colony had a desire for a republic fueled by this fear and newly found passion for liberty. (Johnson, pg. 104)
Johnson’s elaboration on the feelings of the American colonists at the time is a direct link to the English past – for it was the history they were taught; In a sense, they were mirroring aspects of history that they share with the British. These parallels in both countries are reiterated in his discussion of ‘the rule of law’ as a major fear in both parliament and colony. While he began the extract antagonizing the British, he is attempting to draw a sort of connection between the two nations.
He begins the mention of Sam Adams in a heroic manner “Sam Adams and Joseph Warren skillfully verbalized the affair [of the Boston massacre] into a momentous act of deliberate brutality”. Sam Adams writes with the intent to steer up propaganda to nurture paranoia. The use of journalism and print is one thing that was peculiar to the American revolution; media to increase saliency. Ensuring certain topics remain at the foot front of people’s minds until enough paranoia is built up and people begin to act, for instance, the Boston massacre. (Johnson, pg.100)
Though it had major aftermath being considered as the true beginning of the revolution and the beginning of trajectory towards war, it was not a battle; the British army was standing in self-defense and the death of 5 individuals total was likely done amid the chaos. John Adams was the defense lawyer at this judicial hearing. Johnson barely mentioned the part played by John Adams in the Boston trial – only stating that he was the lawyer on the passing.
John Adams is similarly self-righteous; Dr. Mark has described him as an individual who knew his intellect and placed himself on a pedestal amid the others. However, he is quick in admitting his own flaws, calling himself “obnoxious, suspect and unpopular”, and stepping back from positions where he knows another individual may be better suited; first the choice of commander in chief (though he barely plays a part since there was no competition to George Washington in the matter) and second at the end of his term as president – not siding with either side of French-English War, in the dismay of his own party. (Johnson, pg.110)
Paul Johnson discusses the abuse of power by the British as the reason behind the American Revolutions, quoting from Edmund Burke – the great British statesman- to perpetuate his claim. He explains that the call for independence by the Americans was because of the abuse of power, which was far more than can be endured. But the issue of his argument lies in not understanding the British; for if the British inflicted too little power over the American colonies, they would have likely been taken advantage of and disrespected and put too much power or hold over the colonies caused them to want to revolt. (Johnson, pg.111)
Here is perhaps where the parliament failed in their reaction to the Boston Massacre and infliction of the Tea and Quebec act, it was an overreaction, which only attracted more dispute and desire for revolt. Furthermore, in the war for independence, the English were in a difficult spot; they had to make sure to keep the colonies on friendly terms while going at war with them.
Similarly, the argument falls short in recognizing that in many ways the revolution was in search of rights, it was the lack of rights that made the American colonies feel inferior to the British and caused them to reach the point of revolt. Tax does play a part in the disparity and paranoia, but it is less prominent as an issue due to its repetitiveness throughout history even in the modern-day.
Paul Johnson explores the political, social, economic, and most notably religious freedom that may have driven the revolution. These freedoms were taken away or hindered by the British colonies – though he perceives it to be mostly “well-meaning”. (Johnson, pg.109)
Howard Zinn, the democratic historian, views the American revolution in a far less glamorous manner, he perceives it as fraudulent. In his exploration of the revolution, he began by complimenting the intelligence of this unique event, recognizing shortly the intellect of the individuals leading it. Only to later admit the way it benefitted these individuals beyond the people. He believes that the revolution was brought about to benefit the nation but more adamantly secure the elitist leaders' own economic gain. Through the “mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own good”. (Zinn, pg.62)
This depiction of the elite and rich as self-indulging, while victimizing the poor to pull sympathy is something familiar to Zinn’s work; he explores history with an empathy-inducing lens towards the oppressed minorities, while this seems beneficial to the less represented it depicts his view as largely prejudiced. When in this context looking at the American Revolution, his habit of reinstating the oppressed becomes distasteful, for he had mentioned on multiple occasions the forgotten black, Indians and women, without recognizing that in some manner their own development in society was a result of the success of the revolution – giving hope that the disadvantaged side may still be able to win. This is what is revolutionary about the American Revolution.
On the other hand, He barely touches on the founding fathers, does not have any mention of George Washington yet states the full name of the mulatto worker “Crispus Attucks” killed during the Boston Massacre. (Zinn, pg.67) Zinn’s lack of elaboration on the founding fathers in favor of the victims he perceives is more significant does not allow his argument to stand strong objectively, yet it allows him to benefit from the emotionally driven impact on the reader. In a sense choosing what he wants the reader to remember – the victims.
Why not mention George Washington in a supposedly true description of American History, did Howard Zinn presume readers to have full knowledge of the individual or did he presume him irrelevant to the discussion of tyranny. I believe it to be yet another instance where Zinn deliberately leaves out details of history to benefit his own bias illustration of what is significant.
On Thomas Jefferson, he does not discuss much, he factually states his part in writing the constitution and only recalls him when mentioning the presence of the later deleted paragraph on slaves in the constitution, which blamed the English king for bringing slaves into America and where the southern states disagreed due to the clear insinuation that slaves are to be freed per the passing of the constitution. The argument developing from slave states foreshadows future problems with the discussion of slavery and eventually the evolution of the civil war.
Zinn does not however applaud Jefferson for this thought, for he states that “Jefferson's personal distaste for slavery must be put alongside the fact that he owned hundreds of slaves to the day he died”. This dishonesty was also highlighted by Johnson as he mentioned the attempt of Jefferson and the congress of blaming American slavery on the British and King George. (Zinn, pg.72)
Nevertheless, the ground of Jefferson’s ideal government is one of little power over the people, sharing common ground with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” discussed by both Johnson and Zinn. Zinn viewed the pamphlet as a bold argument for independence, accessible to anyone who is remotely literate, he described Paine’s description as pungent – it is always interesting when Zinn shows positive bias towards another’s work, for he tends to often be overly critical. (Zinn, pg.69)
Johnson, in contrast, called the peace “atrocity propaganda” stating that Paine had preyed on incidents to highlight his own arguments. (Johnson, pg.109) He attempted to be apprehensive of it but then went on to accuse him of illustrating the “well-meaning” George III into a monster tyrant. I beg to question how much of this is Johnson truly finding Paine’s argument harsh, and how much of it stems from his own pride in his English king.
Paine describes government as a “necessary evil”, while I do agree that he benefits from creating extremities to develop controversy, I find that his arguments hold some sort of truth; the government does infringe on people’s freedom, leading at times to tyranny and abuse of power (Johnson’s exact argument behind the revolution is one of excessive abused power) and in that manner, it may be considered evil. But it is similarly necessary and needed. Thus, while remaining pretentious and overly sultry, “Common Sense” played a relevant part in giving saliency to the revolution. (Zinn, pg.69)
Paine’s pamphlet brings to light questions of stratified British society and what will be the law that will replace what was priorly king, and most importantly who gets to govern? It is here that the concept of revolution sees a clear beginning.
Like Johnson, Zinn explores the Boston massacre. However, Zinn began by introducing the reasoning behind the mob formations in Boston; a result of lower-class economic grievances and anger against the British, this dwell of paranoia only avalanched with time.
The leaders of this movement faced a dilemma, as General Thomas Gage analyzed, in which they did not want a part in the movement as there was now a risk of the Stamp Act removal affecting their wealth and as a result their voting power. That in addition to the severed ties with the rioters once the act was repealed to celebrate with those of upper and middle-class was a rather evident display of the classism in play. This classism was not addressed by Johnson and was left undermined by the greatness of the event at hand – this behavior is common with right-winged politicians, ignoring the effect of classism as a form of discrimination and infringement of rights. (Zinn, pg.65)
Zinn is not free of this either, his democratic views are apparent in his criticism of the revolution as a fraud to foster personal gain for the elites, while the advantages the founding fathers received from the constitution and revolution are certainly existent in the manner of saliency, credibility and press attention, the public certainly benefited from this revolution, if not financially then certainly emotionally with the new developed pride and nationalism. The newly found unity allowed the citizens new dawn of hope. His blaming of the elite at every given opportunity lacks credibility.
Moreover, the defense of the mob reinstates the stereotype of democrats years back as thriving for mobocracy rather than democracy, forming violent crowds and disturbing order. Possibly leading to a ‘Coup D’état’. Nowadays many are quick to jump on the democratic bandwagon, even with the many complications of what equality to all may be.
While Johnson believes the real reason behind the American revolution to be primarily religious, Zinn believes the revolution and fight for independence to have been the exploitation of the general people by the elites to win over England while maintaining the relation of wealth and power that benefits them. Dr. Mark views the revolution to have been driven by a fight for rights.
Dr. Mark believes that the revolution was not primarily started with the issue of taxation. It was the lack of rights, making the colonies feel like second-class citizens in what was believed to be their home. Many of them were English men yet they were treated as inferior simply due to being American citizens. The irony is the presumption of America as the child of England, yet the colonies felt like the English’s slaves (A great exaggeration in my opinion).
While the issue of taxation certainly raised arguments and discussion, tax has and will always be an issue, the Stamp act for instance caused discourse due to its limit on print freedom, relative to its financial effect. Johnson mentioned the inefficiency and costliness of the Act, it was unenforceable. It was here were the catchphrase “no taxation without representation” gained traction. However, Dr. Mark stated that it was in fact the lack of representation that was more angering than the influx of taxation. Zinn discussed the Stamp Act as a crisis that revealed the lack of control within the colonies that would place them at a further disadvantage had they fought great Britain. All three tend to agree on one thing however, the repeal of this Act displayed a weakness in the British that gave a glimpse of hope to the colonies. (Johnson, pg.96)
The professor similarly admitted that religion shaped the earlier parts of the American revolution, prevalent in the Quebec act, where puritans saw it as the favoring of the Catholic Canadians – per Johnson this was done to keep them loyal to the crown, but it infuriated the puritans and led to these newly formed conspiracies that increased the distrust between the colonies and the British. Zinn made no mention of the impact of religion.
While the points made by Zinn are parallel to those made by Professor Mark, I believe his theory is most like that of Paul Johnson. Johnson speaks of the religious, political, and social freedoms in which the revolution was evolved, or more accurately their absence. The exclusion of these rather basic freedoms infringes on the basic rights of the colonies. In that essence, it is like the issue of rights that Dr. Mark’s theory is built on.
While these are not exactly mirrored in the theory of Dr. Mark, they are far more plausible than the theory of Zinn – an exploitation used for the economic gain of the founding fathers/ elites. Zinn’s critical look at these greatly admired figures of history allows his take to stand out and unsurprisingly his views may be adopted by the public as he accommodates to the oppressed minorities lack of recognition. In this chapter however, he was more aggressively critical and his story telling skill was not as fluent, making the text harder to follow. I found Johnson’s writing objectively well done, it had great flow and was smoother in following a train of thoughts. The conversive and comical tone made his work better to follow. I must admit his overly narrative and admiration driven style felt less credible at times however.
Paul Johnson is an English journalist, born and raised in England. He grew up with privileges of money, opportunity, and education; having studied at the University of Oxford and been a member of the exclusive Stubbs society. His career upbringing is similarly indicative of a loud intellect with a desire to speak the truth. This is evident in his earlier publications but remains focal in his “A History of the American People” one of his most famous works. (Biography | Paul Johnson Archives, 2021).
Paul Johnson is, per his official archive website (Biography | Paul Johnson Archives, 2021), an anti-communist, admired and favored by conservatives. This does not seem to have always been the case, earlier in his career he was associated with the political left democrats (where Howard Zinn stands), this earlier perception of him is justified, for his book promises an illustration of the normal people who shaped the American nation, alongside the acknowledgment of racial injustice and the rising influence of women. I would argue however that his arguments were relatively nationalist and capitalist – he recognized the privileges some men had above others but undermined that with the message that the hard work of these individuals is what allowed them to climb up the ladder, not the connections or unfair opportunity.
“Did this rapid expansion bring a rush of blood to the heads of the British elite?” The first line of Paul Johnson’s “A History of the American People” is a rhetorical question that portrays his bias; the British are but egoists with inflated pride per the luxury of rapid expansion in their land – not fit as rulers in a sense. While he does go on to admit the intellect of “George II” his first opening descriptions of him are rather stark. (Johnson, pg. 92)
I am curious if this indifference to the British was due to deflected anger from his own nation, or a means to compromise his own nationality’s role in this discussion. Had he been understanding and justifiable of the British he would be questioned for bias towards his own people. Perhaps this led to his overcompensation by being overly critical of the British, though this may be far-fetched, for he remained biased in his arguments just differently. (Johnson, pg. 92)
On the contrary to this, is his depiction of the founding fathers, one of great admiration; introducing them as “sensible, broad-minded, courageous, usually well educated, gifted in a variety of ways, mature, and long-sighted” and simply “flashes of genius”. The manner in which he introduces figures of history by description before name gives the reader an idea of his views – blatantly subjective. Similarly, I found it rather comical, his style of writing is comparatively contemporary when put against Zinn’s, it feels entertaining and more conversive, something that would be more suited to the youth in my opinion.
The differences in his descriptions of the British and American leaders convincingly highlight the factor he believes is focal in the struggle for American independence – the quality of people in charge. There is certain fictionalism to his initial depictions: the British antagonist, and the American heroes. This puts to question his unbiased credibility. (Johnson, pg. 92)
This admiration flourishes beyond simple intrigue of the great into something more obsessive as he does into detail listing George Washington’s 15 hounds, the concentrated upbringing and education of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams’s education and publications, and most notable to me the constant and lengthy mention of Benjamin Franklin’s life – I believe he may have been Johnson’s favorite founding father due to the sheer mention of him, his work, opinions, and life, perhaps Johnson wanted to highlight the individual he found often undermined or he wanted to pay homage to the autobiography, which he found to be “the best of all autobiographies”. (Johnson, pg. 94 - 105)
Beyond reassuring of his knowledge on the subject, his admiration, and these gentlemen’s intellect, these topics fail to raise much significance. They do however depict his focal greatly, they support that this book is about these individuals more than the country’s general history – these ‘normal’ people with great intellect are the catalyst to the great nation known today. This contrasts with Zinn who values the apparent “victims” and rarely acknowledges the genuine genius of these individuals as leaders.
As all discussions of the founding fathers begin, George Washington is brought to light first. Though interestingly Johnson mentioned that earlier on Washington was an imperialist, he held pride in the English grown and aimed to get a regular commission in the British army, unfortunately (even with his “first-class” skill and talent as Johnson puts it) he was unable to fulfill this ambitious dream due to the noble-blood indulged system in great Britain. Johnson concretely states that “It was an injustice and an insult, and it proved to be the determining factor in his life and allegiance” (Johnson, pg. 94)
Interestingly, when Johnson explore George Washington’s private life and career, he portrays it as that of an elite, yet he compares it to an English gentleman, this may plant the internalized admiration to his own people but could otherwise be used to showcase the similarities between English and American men (men of the colony), which he later hints at again with the mention of the parallels between some of the decisions made by American colonies and that of earlier British governance. (Johnson, pg. 94)
Similarly, I beg to question the factors found admirable about Washington as a military general. While Johnson had mentioned earlier his extensive military experience, he wasn’t known for his tactical or strategical skills. He had lost many battles – with only a few wins to his name. To be fair, as Dr. Mark had once mentioned, no one cares how many battles you lose as long as you win the last one. Per strategy in battle, I believe Hamilton amid other men is likely more well suited, but this does not mean he was not a great leader. He kept his men fighting, through scarcity and exhaustion, he used attrition to win over a bigger army. This mindset of not losing in place of only winning may seem cowardly but it is rather brave, and likely the only way in which they would have ever won.
Benjamin Franklin a founding father and maybe one of the first self-made millionaires of his time (Unlike George Washington or Thomas Jefferson who were already part of the upper class since birth), started a printing job which became quickly successful allowing him to climb up the ladder from the rags to riches as some may put it. Unsurprisingly Johnson’s sheer admiration of his character is prevalent from his introduction and throughout the extract. He fits as a perfect example of the success of the conservative module; a self-reliant adult one who built his way from poverty, proving that it is in fact possible. (Johnson, pg. 96-100)
Johnson paints Franklin sympathetically, as a man who was often ignored and undermined, beginning any mention of a possible mistake on his part as “sadly” or “regrettably” and believed Franklin was rightful in believing himself to be “the great intermediary between Britain and America”. While there is likely a certain truth to the undermined efforts of franklin, but Johnson failed to recognize the despair Franklin had for the attention of the British, he was a man of great knowledge but one who sought recognition, consistently trying to get the English’s approval, and not owning up to his own shortcomings. (Johnson, pg. 96-100)
Moreover, when discussing the Indians, he blatantly mentions the apparent disgust Washington had towards them and denounces the possibility of Franklin favoring them as he mentions “no friend of the Indians” before elaborating further. (Johnson, pg. 99) These are clear implications of his views as if the possibility of befriending or caring for the Indians would have been outrageous. Ironic when faced with the message of his book as a contemporary look at American History, for he denounces a great aspect of it in favor of another. Zinn is similarly guilty of this.
Moving on he looks at the crowds’ (both conservative and liberal) “favorite hero”, Thomas Jefferson. Personally, I found his discussion of Jefferson the most well done; he compliments his genius calling him “the archetypal figure of the entire Enlightenment” and criticizes his hypocrisy – which happens far more often than one may believe. Thomas Jefferson is a walking contradiction in my opinion, and Johnson reiterates this by listing the many ways in which he had contradicted his own self, from his stand against elites as an elitist, slave ownership, his language in contrast to his form, and even his taste in books - his favorite books are “Don Quixote and Tristram Shandy. Yet he lacked a sense of humor”, reinserting the comical style of his writing. (Johnson, pg. 102-103)
Setting this aside when attempting to view Jefferson – or any of the founding fathers - under the scope of his time and even to today’s standard he is truly an intellectual, he had great knowledge even at a young age and made great ideas – this is not to say he was a good man; for even setting presentism aside many of his actions are immoral, I understand that at the time they were normalized and I can acknowledge that it was a different time but I cannot excuse it for morality is, to me, no topic of discussion.
Per the issue of revolutionary struggle, Johnson depicts Jefferson to have unlocked a great deal on the topic, with heavy reliance on the work of John Locke – some may even believe him to have plagiarized Locke’s work (This argument is weak as Locke himself likely plagiarized his ideas from older works). John Locke refuted the concept of the Devine right of kings, and that the people should be allowed to remove a ruler who otherwise interferes with their rights and liberty. This is evident in Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of governance, where a governor should do as little as possible and that a smaller lenient government is better suited. Their belief is that a society may be stratified, but by merit, not by birth. This ideology is like that of conservatives or more accurately capitalists; individual wealth and class division per that acquired wealth is not frowned upon as long as it was owned fairly – a concept that does not consider the discrimination on bases of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc., that plays into the relative “fairness” of these earnings. (Johnson, pg. 104)
On the other hand, this preached new ideal won Jefferson the ideological battle against the British, adding more to the unified advantage of the American colonies – now the men of the colony had a desire for a republic fueled by this fear and newly found passion for liberty. (Johnson, pg. 104)
Johnson’s elaboration on the feelings of the American colonists at the time is a direct link to the English past – for it was the history they were taught; In a sense, they were mirroring aspects of history that they share with the British. These parallels in both countries are reiterated in his discussion of ‘the rule of law’ as a major fear in both parliament and colony. While he began the extract antagonizing the British, he is attempting to draw a sort of connection between the two nations.
He begins the mention of Sam Adams in a heroic manner “Sam Adams and Joseph Warren skillfully verbalized the affair [of the Boston massacre] into a momentous act of deliberate brutality”. Sam Adams writes with the intent to steer up propaganda to nurture paranoia. The use of journalism and print is one thing that was peculiar to the American revolution; media to increase saliency. Ensuring certain topics remain at the foot front of people’s minds until enough paranoia is built up and people begin to act, for instance, the Boston massacre. (Johnson, pg.100)
Though it had major aftermath being considered as the true beginning of the revolution and the beginning of trajectory towards war, it was not a battle; the British army was standing in self-defense and the death of 5 individuals total was likely done amid the chaos. John Adams was the defense lawyer at this judicial hearing. Johnson barely mentioned the part played by John Adams in the Boston trial – only stating that he was the lawyer on the passing.
John Adams is similarly self-righteous; Dr. Mark has described him as an individual who knew his intellect and placed himself on a pedestal amid the others. However, he is quick in admitting his own flaws, calling himself “obnoxious, suspect and unpopular”, and stepping back from positions where he knows another individual may be better suited; first the choice of commander in chief (though he barely plays a part since there was no competition to George Washington in the matter) and second at the end of his term as president – not siding with either side of French-English War, in the dismay of his own party. (Johnson, pg.110)
Paul Johnson discusses the abuse of power by the British as the reason behind the American Revolutions, quoting from Edmund Burke – the great British statesman- to perpetuate his claim. He explains that the call for independence by the Americans was because of the abuse of power, which was far more than can be endured. But the issue of his argument lies in not understanding the British; for if the British inflicted too little power over the American colonies, they would have likely been taken advantage of and disrespected and put too much power or hold over the colonies caused them to want to revolt. (Johnson, pg.111)
Here is perhaps where the parliament failed in their reaction to the Boston Massacre and infliction of the Tea and Quebec act, it was an overreaction, which only attracted more dispute and desire for revolt. Furthermore, in the war for independence, the English were in a difficult spot; they had to make sure to keep the colonies on friendly terms while going at war with them.
Similarly, the argument falls short in recognizing that in many ways the revolution was in search of rights, it was the lack of rights that made the American colonies feel inferior to the British and caused them to reach the point of revolt. Tax does play a part in the disparity and paranoia, but it is less prominent as an issue due to its repetitiveness throughout history even in the modern-day.
Paul Johnson explores the political, social, economic, and most notably religious freedom that may have driven the revolution. These freedoms were taken away or hindered by the British colonies – though he perceives it to be mostly “well-meaning”. (Johnson, pg.109)
Howard Zinn, the democratic historian, views the American revolution in a far less glamorous manner, he perceives it as fraudulent. In his exploration of the revolution, he began by complimenting the intelligence of this unique event, recognizing shortly the intellect of the individuals leading it. Only to later admit the way it benefitted these individuals beyond the people. He believes that the revolution was brought about to benefit the nation but more adamantly secure the elitist leaders' own economic gain. Through the “mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own good”. (Zinn, pg.62)
This depiction of the elite and rich as self-indulging, while victimizing the poor to pull sympathy is something familiar to Zinn’s work; he explores history with an empathy-inducing lens towards the oppressed minorities, while this seems beneficial to the less represented it depicts his view as largely prejudiced. When in this context looking at the American Revolution, his habit of reinstating the oppressed becomes distasteful, for he had mentioned on multiple occasions the forgotten black, Indians and women, without recognizing that in some manner their own development in society was a result of the success of the revolution – giving hope that the disadvantaged side may still be able to win. This is what is revolutionary about the American Revolution.
On the other hand, He barely touches on the founding fathers, does not have any mention of George Washington yet states the full name of the mulatto worker “Crispus Attucks” killed during the Boston Massacre. (Zinn, pg.67) Zinn’s lack of elaboration on the founding fathers in favor of the victims he perceives is more significant does not allow his argument to stand strong objectively, yet it allows him to benefit from the emotionally driven impact on the reader. In a sense choosing what he wants the reader to remember – the victims.
Why not mention George Washington in a supposedly true description of American History, did Howard Zinn presume readers to have full knowledge of the individual or did he presume him irrelevant to the discussion of tyranny. I believe it to be yet another instance where Zinn deliberately leaves out details of history to benefit his own bias illustration of what is significant.
On Thomas Jefferson, he does not discuss much, he factually states his part in writing the constitution and only recalls him when mentioning the presence of the later deleted paragraph on slaves in the constitution, which blamed the English king for bringing slaves into America and where the southern states disagreed due to the clear insinuation that slaves are to be freed per the passing of the constitution. The argument developing from slave states foreshadows future problems with the discussion of slavery and eventually the evolution of the civil war.
Zinn does not however applaud Jefferson for this thought, for he states that “Jefferson's personal distaste for slavery must be put alongside the fact that he owned hundreds of slaves to the day he died”. This dishonesty was also highlighted by Johnson as he mentioned the attempt of Jefferson and the congress of blaming American slavery on the British and King George. (Zinn, pg.72)
Nevertheless, the ground of Jefferson’s ideal government is one of little power over the people, sharing common ground with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” discussed by both Johnson and Zinn. Zinn viewed the pamphlet as a bold argument for independence, accessible to anyone who is remotely literate, he described Paine’s description as pungent – it is always interesting when Zinn shows positive bias towards another’s work, for he tends to often be overly critical. (Zinn, pg.69)
Johnson, in contrast, called the peace “atrocity propaganda” stating that Paine had preyed on incidents to highlight his own arguments. (Johnson, pg.109) He attempted to be apprehensive of it but then went on to accuse him of illustrating the “well-meaning” George III into a monster tyrant. I beg to question how much of this is Johnson truly finding Paine’s argument harsh, and how much of it stems from his own pride in his English king.
Paine describes government as a “necessary evil”, while I do agree that he benefits from creating extremities to develop controversy, I find that his arguments hold some sort of truth; the government does infringe on people’s freedom, leading at times to tyranny and abuse of power (Johnson’s exact argument behind the revolution is one of excessive abused power) and in that manner, it may be considered evil. But it is similarly necessary and needed. Thus, while remaining pretentious and overly sultry, “Common Sense” played a relevant part in giving saliency to the revolution. (Zinn, pg.69)
Paine’s pamphlet brings to light questions of stratified British society and what will be the law that will replace what was priorly king, and most importantly who gets to govern? It is here that the concept of revolution sees a clear beginning.
Like Johnson, Zinn explores the Boston massacre. However, Zinn began by introducing the reasoning behind the mob formations in Boston; a result of lower-class economic grievances and anger against the British, this dwell of paranoia only avalanched with time.
The leaders of this movement faced a dilemma, as General Thomas Gage analyzed, in which they did not want a part in the movement as there was now a risk of the Stamp Act removal affecting their wealth and as a result their voting power. That in addition to the severed ties with the rioters once the act was repealed to celebrate with those of upper and middle-class was a rather evident display of the classism in play. This classism was not addressed by Johnson and was left undermined by the greatness of the event at hand – this behavior is common with right-winged politicians, ignoring the effect of classism as a form of discrimination and infringement of rights. (Zinn, pg.65)
Zinn is not free of this either, his democratic views are apparent in his criticism of the revolution as a fraud to foster personal gain for the elites, while the advantages the founding fathers received from the constitution and revolution are certainly existent in the manner of saliency, credibility and press attention, the public certainly benefited from this revolution, if not financially then certainly emotionally with the new developed pride and nationalism. The newly found unity allowed the citizens new dawn of hope. His blaming of the elite at every given opportunity lacks credibility.
Moreover, the defense of the mob reinstates the stereotype of democrats years back as thriving for mobocracy rather than democracy, forming violent crowds and disturbing order. Possibly leading to a ‘Coup D’état’. Nowadays many are quick to jump on the democratic bandwagon, even with the many complications of what equality to all may be.
While Johnson believes the real reason behind the American revolution to be primarily religious, Zinn believes the revolution and fight for independence to have been the exploitation of the general people by the elites to win over England while maintaining the relation of wealth and power that benefits them. Dr. Mark views the revolution to have been driven by a fight for rights.
Dr. Mark believes that the revolution was not primarily started with the issue of taxation. It was the lack of rights, making the colonies feel like second-class citizens in what was believed to be their home. Many of them were English men yet they were treated as inferior simply due to being American citizens. The irony is the presumption of America as the child of England, yet the colonies felt like the English’s slaves (A great exaggeration in my opinion).
While the issue of taxation certainly raised arguments and discussion, tax has and will always be an issue, the Stamp act for instance caused discourse due to its limit on print freedom, relative to its financial effect. Johnson mentioned the inefficiency and costliness of the Act, it was unenforceable. It was here were the catchphrase “no taxation without representation” gained traction. However, Dr. Mark stated that it was in fact the lack of representation that was more angering than the influx of taxation. Zinn discussed the Stamp Act as a crisis that revealed the lack of control within the colonies that would place them at a further disadvantage had they fought great Britain. All three tend to agree on one thing however, the repeal of this Act displayed a weakness in the British that gave a glimpse of hope to the colonies. (Johnson, pg.96)
The professor similarly admitted that religion shaped the earlier parts of the American revolution, prevalent in the Quebec act, where puritans saw it as the favoring of the Catholic Canadians – per Johnson this was done to keep them loyal to the crown, but it infuriated the puritans and led to these newly formed conspiracies that increased the distrust between the colonies and the British. Zinn made no mention of the impact of religion.
While the points made by Zinn are parallel to those made by Professor Mark, I believe his theory is most like that of Paul Johnson. Johnson speaks of the religious, political, and social freedoms in which the revolution was evolved, or more accurately their absence. The exclusion of these rather basic freedoms infringes on the basic rights of the colonies. In that essence, it is like the issue of rights that Dr. Mark’s theory is built on.
While these are not exactly mirrored in the theory of Dr. Mark, they are far more plausible than the theory of Zinn – an exploitation used for the economic gain of the founding fathers/ elites. Zinn’s critical look at these greatly admired figures of history allows his take to stand out and unsurprisingly his views may be adopted by the public as he accommodates to the oppressed minorities lack of recognition. In this chapter however, he was more aggressively critical and his story telling skill was not as fluent, making the text harder to follow. I found Johnson’s writing objectively well done, it had great flow and was smoother in following a train of thoughts. The conversive and comical tone made his work better to follow. I must admit his overly narrative and admiration driven style felt less credible at times however.
Resources
Biography | Paul Johnson Archives. Pauljohnsonarchives.org. (2021). Retrieved 9 November 2021, from http://pauljohnsonarchives.org/?page_id=4.
Biography | Paul Johnson Archives. Pauljohnsonarchives.org. (2021). Retrieved 9 November 2021, from http://pauljohnsonarchives.org/?page_id=4.