Ken Burns' American Revolution

 

     With The American Revolution everyone’s favorite documentary maker Ken Burns (aided by co-directors Sarah Botstein and David Schmidt) has done it again.  The series is entertaining and enlightening, using judiciously researched words, often from correspondence, and a wide variety of images to relate the story of this country’s struggle for independence.  The sound track is too often cloyingly nostalgic or elegiac (as it was in The Civil War) and might have used more eighteenth century tunes, and the visuals suffer from the fact that photography was yet in  the future, leading to the frequent repetition of certain portraits (such as Benedict Arnold’s) as well as an overuse of maps (though they are informative in reporting of battles).  In spite of such quibbles, the programs remain eminently watchable for their entire twelve hours. 

     And even the reasonably well-read non-historian will learn a few things.  Though every school child knows of loyalists, the traditional nationalist story of our origins is slow to admit to what an extent the Revolution was a civil war.  This has led to a vague but satisfying notion that the fight was us against them and to the suppression of incidents of vigilante action like the sadistic treatment of customs official John Malcolm who in 1774 was twice tarred and feathered.

     The most significant revelation was perhaps the fact that both enslaved Africans and native peoples had reason to expect better treatment from the British than from the colonists, leading some members of these groups to choose to fight on the side of George III.  For their own strategic reasons, even before the Americans had risen in arms, Britain had sought to minimize conflict with the indigenous tribes by forbidding settlers to cross the Appalachians.  On the other hand many Americans had significant interest in westward expansion, some in order to gain land of their own and some, who had been in a position to secure a claim to western lands, to realize huge profits.  George Washington was a leading example of this second group. 

     While the Southern colonies blocked early abolitionist attempts in the Constitutional Convention, and the issue was divisive even in the North, the British army offered freedom to enslaved persons who escaped to their lines and enlisted in their cause and a good many accepted the opportunity.  Both Indians and African-Americans pursued their own interests, just as colonists and English were doing, though both non-white groups were to suffer long past this country’s founding; indeed, neither has achieved equality yet today. 

     Further, Burns makes it clear that the rebels might never had won the war had it not been for the support of France and, to a far lesser extent, Spain.  Not because they supported the ideals of the revolution, but purely due to their centuries-old rivalry with Great Britain, these European powers played a significant role in convincing the English Parliament that they should settle this dispute in order to deploy their forces elsewhere to defend their expanding empire.   

     Some of our patriotic clichés survive.  The fact is that the American Revolution was the first major rejection of monarchy and feudalism, though the British king had lost significant authority in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  In spite of baronial Southern planters, much of America’s leadership was in the hands of middle-class tradesmen -- a silversmith, a brewer, a printer.  As long as land remained available, if one does not consider the fate of its aboriginal inhabitants, a new arrival who had nothing in Europe might become a property holder here and, before long, could aspire to gentility.  Eliminating birthright aristocrats may have made America seem crude and vulgar to some two hundred and some years ago, but it was a step forward in human rights.

     The viewer gets a lively sense of the significance of George Washington’s contribution.  His demeanor alone impressed everyone as noble and dignified, encouraging all to defer to him.  His giving up first the supreme military authority and then the presidency, though it was only to return to trying to amass a greater fortune through business dealings, was rare and praiseworthy among revolutionary leaders. 

     And the rebellion of people, most of whom were in more or less adequate circumstances but who were inspired by a call to liberty indicates what power the concept had in those days when it was so exciting and new.  Ken Burns’ The American Revolution seems timely indeed at a time when many Americans seem to be turning toward authoritarianism and it is necessary once more to raise the banner militantly declaring that in America we want no kings.