Pages

Friday, September 28, 2018

Independence Lost by Kathleen DuVal

Independence Lost: Lives on the Edge of the American Revolution by Kathleen DuVal was first published in 2016. The author is a professor of early American history at the University of North Carolina. The subject of this work is Spain’s war with Great Britain in the Gulf of Mexico. This conflict was part of the American Revolution. Over the last couple of years, this book has gotten a lot of buzz among those who read and talk a lot about the American Revolution. DuVal has taken what is, on the surface a military history, and turned it into a study of people, culture and long term historical impact. In the end, she draws an unusual combination of conclusions. 

A little background on the situation in the Gulf of Mexico during the American Revolution helps one to understand what this book is about. The thirteen rebellious colonies that formed the young United States were not the only European colonies in the region. Over the course of decades, European colonies in the Gulf of Mexico had been traded with some frequency, as a result of war and diplomacy, between Great Britain, France and Spain.  At the time of the American War for Independence, Louisiana and Cuba were Spanish colonies. East Florida and West Florida were British colonies that did not join the rebellion against Great Britain. 

This book is about the Spanish invasion, launched from Louisiana and Cuba, into British West Florida and its aftermath. Adding to the complexity of the situation was the fact that the British had native American allies that played a major part in the conflict. The book also covers the years after the war. Peace saw the emergence of the new United States as well as a resurgent Spain, which controlled large parts of North America, including Florida and New Orleans. Spain attempted to set up a system of alliances with Native American tribes in an attempt to prevent the United States from further expansion. DuVal argues that this strategy actually worked until instability in Napoleonic Europe weakened the Spanish Empire. 

Though the subjects involve military and political events, this book is very much a social history. Duval focuses on individuals. Many residents of the region are put under the microscope. These include natives and immigrants from Great Britain, France and Spain, the first Cajuns who settled around New Orleans, slaves and Native Americans.  The region was a hodgepodge of these groups. Individuals and families needed to choose which side to take and how they would participate in the conflict. 

The lives of some fascinating people are explored. For instance, Amand Broussard was a settler living in Louisiana. He was an Acadian of French ancestry whose parents had been exiled from Canada and treated harshly by the British in what was known as the Great Expulsion. He and his fellow exiles thirsted for revenge against Great Britain and enthusiastically volunteered for military service with the Spanish to fight against the British. The descendants of Broussard’s people are today called Cajuns. 

Another person highlighted was Alexander McGillivray. His father was a slave-holding plantation owner in Georgia. His mother was a Creek woman from a prominent family. McGillivray grew up in both Native American and Colonial American worlds. When the American Revolution broke out, his father chose to stay loyal to Great Britain. McGillivray went on to lead the Creeks in support of Great Britain against the Spanish and later allied himself and his people with Spain against a young United States. 

Many other men and women are the subject of the narrative. DuVal points out that records and sources on women are sparse but she tries to paint a picture of some individuals. 

The author tends to focus on motivations. She argues that few people in the region were concerned with theoretical concepts of liberty and were generally not debating independence. Instead, relationships and interdependence were valued by many. She writes,

“For most, advantageous interdependence was a more logical goal. Leaders of all kinds of polities struggled to establish a balance in which they might have more control over dependent relationships. Sovereign states involved networks of dependency. Families and individuals measured their freedom according to how much less dependent they were on others than others were on them.”

Lately, I have read several books on Spain’s role in the American Revolution, including Brothers at Armsby Larrie D. Ferreiro. My commentary on that work is here. I have also read Gibraltar, The Greatest Siege in British History by Roy Adkins and Lesly Adkins. My commentary on that work is HERE.  These books have filled in a lot of gaps for me. For instance, over the years I have encountered many sources that acknowledged that Great Britain was very generous towards the new United States in ceding large tracts of land east of the Mississippi River after the Revolution. I always wondered why that was the case. In this book, DuVal contends that the British did so to keep the territory from being taken over by the Spanish. The British were more concerned with Spain’s empire than they were with the new United States. 

DuVal tries to make several points in this book and takes some surprising twists in her conclusions. She successfully shows the American Revolution and its effects from the point of view of groups that had in the past been neglected. That is, slaves, Native Americans and women. In recent years, many authors who write about the Revolution have begun to highlight these groups, as they have been neglected in the past.  In this spirit, this work is a very effective and interesting examination of a whole host of diverse people and groups.  

Next, DuVal tries to show that the foundation of the United States was, in the short to medium-term, harmful to women, slaves and native Americans.  She points out that the Revolution really meant liberty for white men. However, she does acknowledge that the ideals embodied and codified in the American Revolution eventually contributed to the concepts of equality and freedom for a diverse group of people. Ultimately, however, this book is highly critical of Revolutionary America and the early United States for excluding the majority of people from its concept of liberty. 

Whenever issues such as this are touched, we enter the territory of the cultural debates, or what some call culture wars, that are going on today. Up to this point, DuVal takes a course that is characteristic of a certain ideology that is popular in quarters on the left. That is, she highlights groups that in the past were unrepresented, and is negative about the young United States for being dominated by white men. However, DuVal next takes a very unusual turn. The author goes on to contend that women, nonwhites, slaves, Native Americans and other groups were better off under the imperial colonial powers of Great Britain, France, and Spain than they were under Republican America. Championing colonial powers is anathema to the historical criticism that I referred to above. Thus, I was surprised that the author made this argument. 

DuVal points out that Republican America bestowed most of its benefits on white men. It went on to virtually destroy numerous native American societies.  Furthermore, she argues that while all these societies - the United States, the Colonial Empires and Native Americans - had slaves, that the slavery in the United States was particularly brutal and did not allow slaves to buy or earn their freedom as the other systems did. She also argues that women had more rights under the colonial systems. Furthermore, the author maintains that the empires had developed an interdependent system of commerce and alliances with Native American groups that would not have involved the overrunning of these groups as the United States eventually did. 

This is an unusual mix of contentions. Duval initially takes what is a left leaning position and mixes it with what seems to be a take that is pro-colonialism. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the author, it cannot be said that she is afraid to go out of the box and take on controversial positions that do not all fall within a particular ideology. I should also note that Duval’s controversial conclusions only comprise the concluding pages of the book. The majority of the work is more or less straight history. This is not uncommon with a lot of history books. 

My take on all of this is as follows: the American Revolution was indeed centered on white men and involved a lot of hypocrisy. It goes without saying that slavery was a source of terrible injustice and misery and represented a terrible hypocrisy at the heart of the American Revolution. Many of the founders, such as Alexander Hamilton, recognized this themselves. The expansion of America was also a cataclysm for Native Americans. It is important that historians like DuVal point these wrongs out and examine these issues. For all this, the American Revolution was a vital advancement in human progress. It laid the groundwork for so much progress and liberty that eventually provided enormous benefits to many groups. DuVal does point this out. In  my opinion, while not completely dismissing them,  she does not give enough credit to these positive aspects of the Revolution. 

I also think Colonialism was morally wrong. However, as much as imperial systems were oppressive, DuVal makes a persuasive point, that the systems that the empires set up in North America, similar to the systems that were set up in India and Africa, did not involve Europeans overrunning the entire continent and this wiping out entire cultures. Thus, Native Americans of North America would likely have fared better under these colonial systems. This is a point that Fred Anderson also made in The Crucible of War.

Finally, DuVal does seem to minimize some of the terrible things that both the empires and the Native American tribes did. She downplays their systems of slavery. She ignores many violent and repressive things that the empires, especially the Spanish Empire, engaged in. This may be the biggest flaw in DuVal’s argument. 

Though its subject is fairly narrow, this is a terrific history book. The way that it focuses on individuals as well as social history, while not ignoring the political and military, makes this work a very compelling read. Whether one agrees with Duval or not, she is not afraid to challenge convention.  At the very least, she encourages her readers to think. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the American Revolution, as well as seventeenth-century history in general. 


45 comments:

  1. Great commentary as ever, Brian. This sounds like a very well-researched and thought-provoking insight into a complex period of history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jacqui - The research put into this book must hand been extensive given the number of individuals covered.

      Delete
  2. Interesting and an aspect of the Revolutionary Wars I was completely unaware of. Thanks for enlightening me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi CyberKitten - I also knew almost nothing about this theater of the American Revolution.

      Delete
  3. in my more or less surface understanding of the history of that era, i've been surprised that Spain, having occupied the Caribbean surround for 200 years before the other Europeans, accomplished so little in the way of settling and invading in a permanent way, the main body of continental America... they overran Mexico and South America and then seemed to have stopped... maybe because there not enough material incentives, like gold and silver? perhaps they were discouraged by the deserts and swamps of the southern subcontinent? anyway, this sounds like a fascinating and informative read; tx for the expert analysis...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Muddlepuddle - You raise a really good question about The Spanish Empire. As per this book, by the late Eighteenth Century The Spanish were happy holding the coasts and trading with Native Americans in the interior. In Empire of the Summer Moon, SC Gwynn talked about how the Camache’s provided a formadible obstacle to The Spanish when they tried to move North from Mexico. I think that I would need to know more before I had a strong opinion on this.

      Delete
  4. Thanks for sharing more of aspects of American history that are on the periphery of the traditional story of the Thirteen Colonies. I find it interesting that before the end of the Nineteenth Century the United States would be at war with Spain over her Caribbean colonies and the Philippines.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really wonderful review, Brian.

    I think the first part of the book would really interest me. However, the "evil white" colonists and "victimized women, slaves, and Native Americans" is kind of an old saw and does not really shed light or provide a perceptive analysis of the time period.

    By what moral paradigm is the author comparing that era that she can judge them to be wrong? I don't find this type of contemporary judgement on a past time enlightening.

    Also, it is not complete. Slavery originated in Africa and the Middle East. All countries have had slavery from Iceland throughout China. It is also important to remember that indigenous people enslaved each other and tribal women's function was largely as vehicles for procreation.

    It is also important to remember that men and women did not view themselves the way they do now. Back then men and women saw themselves as one unit in a marriage and in their family. Women enjoyed the rights of property and wealth through their husbands. That sounds awful to us today and certainly it wasn't a perfect system, but it's simplistic to paint that time period with a broad brush.

    I would like to see people like the author write about all those abominable practices from that time period and show how they are still being practiced in a huge part of the world today, called the third world.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, I meant to ask. What do you mean by "Republican America". Are you referring to the King of England?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It sounds fascinating! I do need to read more American history, since obviously the perspective is very different today from that of my teachers decades ago. Oddly, I am more likely to pick up a biography of the Tudors than a book about the American Revolution. Jill Lepore has published a new American history, from the roots to the present, and that is getting a lot of buzz now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi James - Indeed The United States and Spain entered into conflict over territory throughout the world. It all started in what is now The American Southeast.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Sharon – The issues that you raise are so interesting. I have a blog started on it but I got a bit bogged down on some research that I felt that I wanted to do related to it. This gets at the culture war issues that we have discussed before. I think that some criticism of people’s actions in the past is helpful. For instance, I think that it is important to look at people who sis not benefit and were hurt by The American Revolution is important. I also think that when some people of the time were talking about the plight of women, slaves, Native Americans, etc. Means that we also should also address these issues. Similarly, examining and talking about the condition of these people is not the same thing as being critical of the established powers. However, as you point out, there is an intellectual trend, that seems to put no value in the achievements that our civilization made in the past, consigning it to just something that “straight white men” did. As you point out, those who make this argument tend to ignore or downplay the terrible things that Europeans did. This movement, which emanates from the left, and many are now calling Post – Modernism, has brought this line of thinking into current events. As I think that you can tell, I strongly disagree with this sort of thing as I think that it flies in the face of the realities behind human progress. In all fairness to Duval, while her arguments do display some stains of this, they are complex and as I wrote, she goes off into some unexpected directions.

    I was referring to the new Independent America when I refried to Republican America.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Kat - There is so much to history. One cannot be knowledgeable about everyone. I went to an American, middle class public school system, it is interesting that my curriculum did include a lot about slaves, native Americans and other groups. With that, we did not learn much these seemingly peripheral theaters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Brian, excellent commentary and you continue to show us that no matter what period we choose in history there is always so much more to know, so many different ways one can approach early American history. The author poses an interesting question. Would the situation for Native Americans, African Americans, Women etc have been better if Britain had been able to keep control of US into the 19th century? Britain would have wanted to expand Westward and I can forsee wars breaking out between Britain, France and Spain well into the 19th century as they fought over which region of the US they would control. History is filled with these what ifs but it doesn't necessarily mean things would have turned out better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fascinating review of what sounds like an interesting book. I've been frankly ignorant of Spain's doings during the Revolution, so this would certainly fill some holes in my knowledge. I'm also curious about Loyalists in general and their various motivations for wanting to remain British.

    From your Revolution readings, is it true that the American rebels were actually the minority of the population in the colonies? I heard that recently but have not verified it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is indeed an interesting question. Duval contends, perhaps correctly, that the British would have been mostly content with trading with native Americans in the interior of North America. This may have been the case as it was at least their plan. However, as I recall, Fred Anderson Fred Anderson in Crucible of War made the point that had the British won The American Revolution, they would have found it nearly impossible stopping the American Colonists from migrating west in large numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Marion - I thought that Tories: Fighting For the King in America's First Civil War by Thomas B. Allen was the best book on Loyalists during the war. For a long time a lot of historians contended that the breakdown of citizens during The Revolution was one third rebel, one third loyalist and one third neutral. If I recall, Allen's book contended that the percentage of Loyalists were a bit lower. Either way, The Loyalists were a lot less organized organized then the rebels.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm glad you enjoyed this one, it sounds interesting for those who like reading about the American Revolution. It's fascinating to think about how our country was shaped. I watched The Men Who Built America Frontiersmen, on the History Channel which started from the American Revolution onward and it was really interesting. It's hard to imagine living in that era.

    Amazing commentary as always. Enjoy your week!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I know very little about this part of the world during the 18th century, so this book does sound like it would be interesting and enlightening. The combination of social, political, and military history sounds like the right balance--you really cannot understand any one aspect without the others.

    Excellent review--your posts are always interesting and reflect the journey your reading is taking you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks Naida - It really is hard to imagine what it was like to have lived in the past. I must catch The Men Who Built America Frontiersmen. It sounds so interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks Jane. This seems to be an obscure time and place even for folks who have an interest in The American Revolution. One really does need to understand all the various aspects mentioned in order to begin to understand an era.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Brian Joseph, this sounds like a fascinating, well-researched and well-rounded history book. Thank you for your thoughtful review. I'd like to learn more about Spain's war with Great Britain in the Gulf of Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Suko - There are not a lot of popular accounts of this conflict around. But this is a good one.

      Delete
  20. This is a book I need to take note of, I have been saying for ages I want to read more books with history, thanks Brian this sounds good xxx

    Lainy http://www.alwaysreading.net

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lainy - This was a really good history book. With that, its subject is a little obscure.

      Delete
  21. Thanks for such a thorough and well-written review. This is all new to me, and I read a lot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for stopping by Ron. Even for folks who are interested in The American Revolution, these events tend to be not that well known.

      Delete
  22. Hmm. I guess I hadn't thought of that: that Britain's colonialism would not have overrun the country's native territories as much. Revolutionary America seemed particularly harsh and relentless to various groups, so maybe some parts of colonialism was softer. I like that DuVal wrote part of it as a social history -- how fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Susan - One of the reasons that The Colonies rebelled was thaf Great Britain was trying to keep the colonists out of the Western Territories. Several historians have suggested that the native Americans would have fared better had most of North America remained under thier control.

      Delete
  23. Well, as a postmodernist and postcolonialist (hee hee) I have a different view than you about history in general. I wish we could read proper accounts by slaves, women, and Native Americans, and see what they thought about the whole situation. This does sound like an interesting take on things, though. However, I think that maybe the colonists just should have stayed at home and not stolen other people's lands and imposed their values on other cultures and social systems. Greed and the lust for power are terrible things, and humans are a despicable species in many ways. Yep. We do have differing views! :)

    ReplyDelete

  24. Hi Violet - Ths big area that we do agree Is thaf I believe that colonialism was imoral for all the reasons that you mentioned. So was slavery, discrimination against women and other groups, etc. But, where I differ with the Post - Modernists is that I believe that America’s Founders, as well as many other historical figures from many other places and cultures, laid the groundwork for an ideology and a civilization that has been enormously beneficial to billions of people. I also think it is true that non European cultures were just as barbaric, violent and oppressive as the Europeans. Humans have been pretty dispicable, but I think that we are getting better. I guess that my position can be charterized as traditional Liberalism as opposed to Post - Modernism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. (I removed my previous comments because of a couple of typos.....)

    What FASCINATING commentary, Brian!!

    You know, every time I read one of your reviews of history books dealing with the American Revolution, I learn something new. And it's a sad commentary on the textbook I read on this subject in high school, since none of these topics regarding the rights of women, Native Americans, slaves, and other non-whites were touched upon at all. Of course, at the time, none of these things were even taken into account. So I'm very much interested in reading this book! I'm adding it to my Goodreads shelves! Thanks for putting it on my radar! :)

    This is a very timely topic for a blog post, by the way. Monday is Columbus Day, and historians have discovered in recent years that Columbus was not the noble, heroic explorer he had been perceived as in earlier years. Florida is now one of the states that no longer celebrates this day, although some private schools in the state still do. Public schools don't, though, so I do have class on Monday. I'm going to distribute handouts to my ESOL students that will deal with the real history behind Columbus.

    In light of this, let me tell you that the Spanish conquerors almost totally wiped out the indigenous populations in Cuba. This was due not only to Spanish brutality, but also to the fact that the Spanish brought with them diseases that were totally unknown to these indigenous tribes. Their near extermination was also due to mixed marriages of Spaniards and Native Cuban Indians, though.

    There are still descendants of one of these tribes, the Taino, living today in Cuba. Of course, these people are a mix of Spanish and Taino. As for the other tribe, the Siboney, I'm not sure if they were totally wiped out. I would have to do some googling on that.

    Here's an interesting article on the subject, from The Chicago Tribune:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-08-10-0408100264-story.html


    From your comments, it looks like Duval's book should have been a bit more balanced in detailing the abuses of the European colonial systems. However, she was right to point out that the American Revolution benefited white men, and that was it. But, as you say, the Revolution did lay the groundwork for later progress in the area of human rights and social justice.

    I will end by stating that it's very ironic that it's usually the Left which is interested in social justice, as well as the plight of the poor. I say this because the Right always portray themselves as "the good guys", and demonize the Left. Although I abhor communism, I have to admit that many of our social and moral advances are due to activism by leftists. Heck, we have a Democrat to thank for the creation of Social Security -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom I greatly admire.

    As you know, I consider myself a moderate, and totally dislike extremes. So I also dislike fascism, of course. However, in the past two years, I've begun to lean more toward the Left in many respects. (Trump has been largely responsible for this.) Our world has changed dramatically in the past century and a half, and it's no longer one in which power is exclusively in the hands of white men. Women and other marginalized groups, such as minorities, are increasingly wielding more power. This is only fair. And we do have to thank mostly the Left for this.

    Thanks for another very insightful, terrific post!! Hope you enjoy your weekend!! <3 :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks Maria – What is interesting is that my High School curriculum did, at least to some degree address the plight of Native Americans, African Americans, Women, and other groups. I graduated in 1985. Maybe my school district was ahead of its time. Thanks for the link. The story of The Taino is interesting. The Spanish and other Europeans were indeed genocidal and brutal. As I mentioned, I think that it is important that we recognize these things.

    As for the left right thing. I am a liberal. I think that moderate liberalism is the best way to maintain and benefit of humanity. I agree that communism was abhorrent. It is leftist totalitarianism and it is a good thing that it is almost gone. As you mention, moderation is a good thing. Too much government control of the economy, even when it is not communism, is not generally good for society either.

    Have a great weekend!

    ReplyDelete
  28. PS Maria - I was thinking about Columbus. Though I believe in recognizing past achievements, he really was responsible for so many bad things in regards to the native people of the regions that he visited. I understand not celebrating his birthday.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well, there you go! I had no idea that the conflict between Spain and Britain in the Gulf of Mexico was part of the American Revolution.

    What sounds like an interesting read to those who are perhaps new to this conflict HOWEVER I can imagine the author downplaying, even ignoring, many of the less savoury things that both empires engaged in, would leave those more familiar with the conflict feeling frustrated.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Tracy - This angle of The American War for Independence is so little know, evsn among those interested in the conflict. Duval’s downplaying of the evils perpetuated by the empires is a bit puzzling.

      Delete
  30. Sometimes I think narrow history books are the best, because they can delve at depth into an issue rather than function as a broad survey. Through your posts I'm becoming more and more aware of how little I know about the American Revolution, partly because not being American I've read about it mostly from other perspectives, such as its impact on the French Revolution. I certainly didn't know much about the Spanish aspect OR, even more investing, the involvement of Native Americans.

    PS I love the cover too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi WP - There is something to be said for narrow history books. I do like to have a basic view of the big picture stuff before I read them. I would say that most Americans do not know that much about The American Revolution. As for folks who are interested in the subject, I would say that The role of Native Americans is fairly well known, but not the role of the Spanish.

      Delete
  31. PS WP - That really is a great cover.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Return of the Native" is yet another book you have reviewed, the titles of which I remember from the distant past, undoubtedly mentioned by my father who was an Anglophile, among other literary interests. It does me good to gain insights to my father's early-age interests from your reviews, and thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ron - It was as very British book. I did not even get to mention the picture of all the minor characters who populate the English countryside.

      Delete
  33. To be honest as much as i know about American revolution i find myself compelled to be agreed with writer's controversial conclusions dear Brian

    Though when it come to patriotism or provincialism we feel stuck in our ideology but ground realities are different whether we accept it or deny

    each revolution suck blood of so many innocents and benefices whom did not sacrificed but used the played with emotions of people

    worst about this game is that after taking over the power they mostly be harmful to same group who sacrificed for the liberty by following the green branch of dream that freedom will be their at the end

    good and bad go parallel on this way either

    i liked the book through your opinion so much!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Baili -The thing is, I strongly agree that a lot of awful things came out of The American Revolution. This is true if many historical events. But also like many historical events, an enourmous amount of positive things came out of it. In fact, I think that many things that are good in the world can be traced to the values that were developed during the American Revolution.

      Delete