The General Lee

jtilley

Thanks for the lecture.

You sort of answered a question I have always had about the Colonial Army's reputation for being steadier under fire vs. the Colonial militia.

A core of "semi-pro" regiments would have been a very useful source of trained military personnel for training a professional Colonial army.

PBS could have used your help in creating a follow up to The American Adventure series many years ago. 

jtilley

One aspect of the American Revolution that most people don't get is that, for at least the first year and a half of the fighting, the people who wanted to separate from Great Britain were a small minority. It's hard to estimate such things, but a common guesstimate among historians is that in late 1776, when the British were driving Washington's army from New York, about 10% of the population favored the Revolution, about 10% were loyalists who opposed it, and the other 80% didn't care.

Professor Tilley, are these figures the result of recent research?  The texts I use for teaching, and other sources I have, usually described the difference in colonial opinions as roughly a third each; as in 1/3 were pro-"Patriot", 1/3 remained loyal to the crown and another third indifferent to the contemporary politics.  While quite brief, I've enjoyed this book about the revolution:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Short-History-American-Revolution/dp/068812304X

That 10%-10%-80% ratio has been knocking around among historians for a long time. I guess 33%-33%-33% is also possible. There simply isn't enough data to say for sure.

One thing a lot of people ignore is the huge number of loyalists who, in their zeal to get away from the revolutionary government, emigrated to Canada. Lots of towns along the St. Lawrence River are named after loyalists who originally settled them. The 1783 Treaty of Paris stipulated that the U.S. would compensate those people for their financial losses. (The U.S. never did.)

The people who glorify the role of the militia (and such people are quite numerous) forget that George Washington spent the entire war trying to build a traditional, European-style army. He didn't have one, really, until after the winter at Valley Forge, when Baron von Steuben played a major part in training and disciplining the troops. (Among other things, von Steuben wrote a simplified version of the Prussian drill manual that could be learned in a hurry.) And Washington never won a large-scale battle until, at Yorktown, he had a trained, European-style army - most of it French - under his command.

Somehow or other the American colonial militia has been mythologized into something it never was. The image of "the Embattled Farmer" pops up everywhere, from Congressional military policy to National Guard recruiting posters to ads for insurance companies. The truth is that at several points in the war (most natably, maybe, in the Saratoga campaign of 1777) the militia did play a highly significant role in harassing the British (and Hessians), but it was professional soldiers who decided the outcome.

Years ago (I think it was right after the fiasco of the 2000 presidential election) I ran into an interesting document on the web. It was a proclamation from Queen Elizabeth II, informing the U.S. that, in view of its obvious inability to govern itself, Britain was revoking its ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris and reclaiming the U.S. as a colony. The proclamation was accompanied by several orders. I don't remember them all, but one was "You shall cease calling your baseball championship a 'World Series.'" Another was "Meg Ryan is to report to the Prince Andrew's bedchamber at 10:00 p.m."

jtilley

.......George Washington spent the entire war trying to build a traditional, European-style army. 

 

So you are saying the "semi-pro" state units were actually useless? 

Two things.

1. Yes the King was provoked into a reaction by the actions of the Colonists, however there's substantial debate about the proportion of the reaction. See Tuchman: The March of Folly.

2. Another professional outside force that fought with the Colonists was the militias of the Republic of Vermont. To some effect as well.

After todays rather remarkable events in Washington D.C., it's worth remembering that many see no harm in playing fast and loose with fire.

GMorrison

.............

After todays rather remarkable events in Washington D.C., it's worth remembering that many see no harm in playing fast and loose with fire.

An increasing number of folks have substantial and guaranteed pensions no matter what the results of their on the job behavior .............

Sprue-ce Goose

 

 

jtilley

.......George Washington spent the entire war trying to build a traditional, European-style army. 

 

 

 

So you are saying the "semi-pro" state units were actually useless? 

 

I'm not saying that at all. The "semi-pro" units were raised to deal with specific occasions, such as the Cartegena expedition and the one that captured Louisbourg in King George's War. So far as I know, they were gone (i.e., the colonial legislatures had stopped funding them) by the end of the French and Indian War.

But a lot of military men got their experience and training in such outfits. The most prominent example is Washington himself. Of the subordinate generals, I think Horatio Gates had served in a Rhode Island "semi-pro" regiment. (Nathanael Greene apparently hadn't; that surprised me a little.) I don't know of a source that would nail down how many officers and enlisted men from "semi-pro" regiments wound up in the Continental Army, but the number must have been considerable.

Take Barbara Tuchman with a big grain of salt. I respect her as a fine writer of narrative history, but when it comes to analysis she has a rotten reputation among professional historians. I like The Guns of August, but her book on the American Revolution, The First Salute, is a hopeless, sloppy, poorly-researched mess. I haven't read The March of Folly, but if she says the British response to the brewing American Revolution was excessive she's over-simplifying the story. From the British standpoint, such things as the Coercive Acts (known in America as the Intolerable Acts) made perfect sense.

The British on quite a few occasions showed remarkable restraint. Governor Thomas Hutchinson, for example, made the decision to have the "perpetrators" of the "Boston Massacre" tried in a civilian court, rather than court-martialed. (The court found eight of the ten soldiers innocent, and let the other two off with the minimum punishment for manslaughter: branding on the right palm. The Sons of Liberty rewarded Hutchinson by tearing his house down and forcing him and his family out of Massachusetts.)

If I had to single out one cause of the Revolution as the most important (which wouldn't be a smart thing to do), I'd say it was Failyuh to Communicate. There are dozens of examples in the period up to 1775 of people on both sides of the Atlantic simply misunderstanding each other. On the other hand, I find it hard to swallow the notion that if the British had done things differently, what's now the U.S.A. would still be part of the British Empire.

Arved

"The first three Georgia Lees had a set of crossed flags (a Confederate flag and checkered flag) on the panel between the rear window and trunk lid. Although four sets were created, only three were used. They were discontinued due to the continuity of the General Lee graphics, making it one less thing to be used. The three surviving cars went back to California and had the crossed flags removed upon reconditioning."

Anyone make this as a decal (for either the 1/16th or 1/25th scale models - I'd be interested in one for my 1/25th scale model)?

Answer, yes, but I believe it's useless. A couple available via eBay, but all are printed on white decal stock. That's fine for the flags themselves, but horrid for having to cut them out perfectly. Edit: I think I figured  out how to use them. Use just the flags, and use black decal stripes for the flag staffs.

I deeply regret not buying an ALPS MD series printer back in the day, although getting it to behave with today's OSs might prove tricky (perhaps the greatest understatement on this board).

I am not impressed with the kit's molded on windsheild wipers. It's going to take some work to remove them and replace with PE.

The brush guard is also going to take some work/refabrication:

Note: First 5 episodes filmed in GA, with LEE1 through 3 plus 2 to 3 more, and these had the crossed flags on the rear valance panel. Template for the brush guard was published in January 2002 Scale Auto magazine, and available here. That looks more like the "wide California" than the Georgia version. The "Georgia" version was simply welded to the front bumper. The "Wide California" version had to be trimmed to clear jump ramps on those cars used for jumps.

Note: First 5 episodes filmed in Georgia with LEE1 through LEE3.

A 6 point roll cage is included in the kit. All references I've found state the roll cage was a 3 point, but it looks like a 2 point. That is, it's a simple inverted U with a diagonal brace, lacking any strut to restrict fore/aft bending. For the TV series, the roll cage was bent from exhaust tubing and had padding added. Makes sense: it was for looks only, and as noted above, there were hundreds of cars eventually used for the series. Roll cages were ommited on some cars used for interior shots, so those of you ommitting the roll cage have precedence.

"Engines in the TV show General Lees varied; 318, 383, 440-cubic-inch engines, and one 511 Hemi was used in Bo's GENERAL LEE. None of the TV series cars had the 426 Hemi, although in the 2005 The Dukes of Hazzard motion picture, Cooter replaced the "General's" original engine with a Chrysler 426 Hemi engine. However, the "close-up" Lees (except for the first one) were 383-powered. The special purpose built "Ski Car" (the car that was used for stunts involving driving on the left side or right side wheels with the opposite side wheels in the air) had a 318, as it was lighter weight. Most of the 'workhorse' stunt cars had 383s and 440s. The stunt drivers tended to prefer 440s (a higher performance engine) for jumps, so 440-powered stunt Lees were often saved for the higher bobby and longer jumps. Also, though early sound effects led many people to believe otherwise, only a handful of Chargers had manual transmissions; most had 727 TorqueFlite automatic transmissions." - Wikipedia

LEE1 had a 383. Here's a photo from it's auction:

The car was nearly destroyed filming the opening scene jump, but because it was in that opening scene, it's also the only one of the cars used to be seen in each and every episode. :-P

"After General Lee LEE1 was reused later in the show in episode 4, "Repo Men". It was painted a dark blue/green color with a big "71" on the top and had Nascar sponsor decals on the side. The American Racing Vectors were replaced with gold painted steel rims." - On Screen Cars

Back to the engine. I think the kit engine is a 426 Hemi? Any good Mopar guys confirm or deny? If so, what's the best 1/25 383 I can substitute for a more accurate model?

426 Hemi has the spark plugs in the center of the combustion chamber, requiring the spark plugs and wires to go through the valve cover:

The 383 (and 440, both commonly used on General Lees) did not:

Then there are  the wheels, but I'll leave that for another day. I may have to reconsider this model. The more you know, the more impossible to model. LOL 

Arved, this is great! It'd be like modeling the Tiger tank from "Kelley's Heroes". You'd have to get a post war T-34, then go about changing the profile with plastic sheet to match all the sheet metal they stuck on the thing. What a task!

John, well I am embarrassed to say, I had not read "The March of Folly" in probably the 30 years since it was published. Reading the NY Times review from then by Lehman-Haupt, and a few others, it was just savaged!

More recently, I've read about 75% of "Bunker Hill" by Philbrick. A tar and feathering or two, some waterlogged tea, stolen cannons and general bellicose behavior meant war, somehow.

What is most interesting to me, and you touched on it above, is while we can intellectually appreciate the time involved in non-electrical communication, I think we often forget what happens during that time. I guess what I mean by that is first the obvious point that circumstances move forward faster than response, and also more subtly that the mind conjures up all of the what-if responses before the actual one ever arrives.

Taking this poor guy who got stabbed the other night in Sacramento, three hours before there was any comment by the police, one (ahem) major network was already opining that "they're now attacking our heroes within our own country". Factually accurate, but what is "they" supposed to mean?