Students Again

Colonial to 1865 Exams

Mid Term Exam

Question: Discuss the reality of the American Revolution for Colonial soldiers and Loyalists. How did the egalitarian ideals of the Revolution affect the treatment of Loyalists? Did soldiers subscribe to those ideals? What was life like in the Continental Army? Describe the way soldiers lived, ate, fought, and deserted. In comparison, what was life like for the Loyalists? Did they benefit from the Revolution’s goals and principles? Was their really a Revolution, or just a revolt and then a war for independence? Compare the general ideals of the Revolution with the reality of state constitutions formed after 1776. Did the Revolution manifest itself in those constitutions? What really changed?

Colonial soldiers and Loyalists may be perceived as having contradictory beliefs, but they shared a similarly tough existence during the time of the American Revolution. Although their challenges were in different context, both groups endured harsh living conditions (or at least ill treatment), atrocities, and fear of the ultimate price – death.

Loyalist, also known as Tories, is defined as people who remained loyal to England (Brown 112). Loyalists did not completely agree with the necessity of independence. Loyalists “opposed parliamentary taxation of the colonies” while maintaining the belief that “separation [from England] was illegal and was not necessary to preserve the colonists’ constitutional rights” (Boyer, et al. 107).

Loyalists had a tough life filled with ill treatment such as loss of property, imprisonment, ostracism, loss of services, and economic boycott. Loss of property was a common practice and was even condoned by the government of the United States; “In November, 1777, the Continental Congress recommended the confiscation of Loyalists estates…” (Brown 112).  This created an enormous hardship for Loyalists families. Some Loyalists not willing or able to deal with the loss of their estates attempted deceptive practices to preserve their properties by having a wife or third party act as purchaser (Brown 112). Aside from being displaced, Loyalists were often imprisoned for activities such as drinking to the king’s health and cursing the Congress. Some were socially ostracized, not able to converse with friends, contributing to a lonely and miserable way of life. Serious loss of services also created a problem. Many businesses refused to provide essential services to Loyalists. In addition, Loyalists businesses suffered economic boycott where non-Loyalist refused to supply materials and workers or purchase goods and services.

A Loyalist life was difficult, but they endured much more demeaning and threatening atrocities such as tarring and feathering, riding on a rail, mobbing, and execution (which could have been construed as murder in some cases). The punishment of being tarred and feathered was embarrassing and painful.

This practice was carried out by stripping the victim of their clothes and rubbing hot pine tar on their exposed skin. Then, while the tar was still warm so they would stick, goose feathers would be applied. When this process was completed the aggressors would attempt to light the feathers on fire (which didn’t work most of the time due to cold weather) afterward placing a rope around the victim’s neck and dragging them around crowded streets to be taunted. (Brown 116)

Riding on a rail was also another painful inhumane treatment of Loyalists.  This was a punishment that “sometimes followed tarring and feathering… [which] consisted of jogging the victim roughly along on “a sharp rail” between his legs” (Brown 117). Mobbing aroused the terror and fear of Loyalist. During a mobbing Loyalists would suffer a group of men chasing them down until seized at which time the mobsters would torture and taunt their victim. The ultimate price that could be paid for being a Loyalist was execution or murder. This “penalty was usually reserved for some overt aid to the British” (Brown 118). The controversies over the deaths of Loyalists have two schools of thought. The first is that they were legitimate executions for legitimate reasons and the second claims the acts to be blatant murder. It seems to be generally accepted that some of these punishments were “extra-legal,” but the number of “legal” executions will never be known (Brown 118).

All of these harsh living conditions, ill treatments, and atrocities created after effects beyond measure for Loyalists which left them with continued torture. “The history of the Revolutionary era is liberally punctuated with stories of Loyalists who succumbed to melancholia, became mad, died, or committed suicide” (Brown 114).

The egalitarian ideals of the Revolution did not apply to Loyalists. The egalitarian beliefs that were embraced only included a severed relationship of British control. The supporters of this war against England wanted to be considered politically, economically, and socially equal to other countries, especially Briton, with civil rights for all people. However, “the devil is in the details,” when the supporters of the war wanted to secure these recognitions they wanted to secure them for supporters of their cause not literally for everyone. Loyalists were not accepted as equals by war supporters. Their dissent was not tolerated and they would not enjoy any of the successes of the United States that may be realized. Loyalists were treated in the rudest, cruelest, and most inhumane manner with few exceptions. The Revolutionary War could be argued just as much a civil war between supporters of the war and Loyalists as it was a war against England. “Independence carried a heavy price… One out of every six Loyalists… had fled into exile” (Boyer, et al. 116).

Loyalists did not benefit from the goals and principles of the Revolutionary War. The goal of freeing the colonies of an oppressive Briton was reserved for people who wished to be freed from that perceived oppression. While war supporters were striving to avoid oppression they were imposing oppression on their own soil. Loyalists would not be politically, economically, or socially free and would have no civil rights in their own country. Only people who supported the severance from Briton were to benefit from the goals of a successful severance.

Life in the Continental Army was difficult. The food and living conditions were, at best, abysmal and the long work days were strenuous. Soldiers awaiting combat faced inner turmoil with a mind full of unanswered questions while soldier that had endured combat had images of carnage etched in their minds. Desertion overcame the thoughts of many soldiers wishing to escape the horrors in which they found themselves entangled.

Continental soldiers often had minimal provisions. The menu of the soldiers entailed three choices; disgusting, barely edible, and sustenance for the sake of survival. Some of the foodstuffs the soldiers indulged in were horse meat, bread (full of worms), salt pork and flour, and a water and flour mixture named “Lillipu” (Ferling 98-99). When the soldiers lacked provisions they ultimately “ate soap, candles boiled in water, gruel, wood, boiled rawhide and leather, carcasses of animals discovered in the forests, and even [some of the soldiers] pet dogs” (Ferling 99). Where each of these “food” items exists in the three choices of menu items must be left to the individual doing the dining. Living conditions were stressful with “numerous soldiers complain[ing] of endless cold nights, of sleeping under leaves, or huddling together in a vain attempt to stay warm” (Ferling 99). Soldiers who were at camp and were not sick, “never less than 16 percent of the troops were incapacitated by illness” (Ferling 100), had a long and intensely physical day to suffer. Fatigue duty consisted of twelve hours or more of cooking, cutting wood, and building entrenchments and barracks while the “Camp Colour men” looked forward to burying filth, bones, and the excrements of their fellow soldiers (Ferling 100).

Participating in combat resulted in fear and numbing to a carnage no sane person could rationalize. Some of the sights of war included mutilated bodies, mangled limbs, faces torn off by cannon balls, and musket balls flying through soldier’s cheeks tearing every tooth along the way (Ferling 101). As for the soldiers who had not yet experienced combat they “wondered how they would perform in combat, and they particularly speculated at whether they could kill another man” (Ferling 102).

Soldiers that were particularly sensitive to the horrors they witnessed during their service resorted to desertion. Statistics suggest that, during the course of the war, two out of every ten men deserted (Ferling 103). Other reasons for desertion were the lack of recruitment of other soldiers, danger, difficulties, and foreign born soldiers that did not identify with nationalistic sentiments (Ferling 103). Deserters, if caught, faced an array of punishments from lashings to executions (Ferling 105).

The American Revolution pronounced issues about equality among social class. Some of these issues were addressed in military life, “The war accelerated the erosion of class differences by forcing gentry-officers to respect ordinary men serving as privates… Soldiers followed commands, but not if they were addressed and treated as inferiors” (Boyer, et al. 116), and some soldiers carried their demand for respect back into civilian life. However, the comforts of a regular soldier and an officer often differed drastically. Intangibles such as respect may have erred closer to the side of equality, but when it came to material goods officers and soldiers were far from equal. Regular soldiers were often subject to a brutal regimen while officers had less demanding schedules. The common soldier often received substantially different supplies. In once case, officers received a quart of whiskey for every pint issued to the men. (Ferling 106). In addition, the food available to officers was much more palatable than that of an ordinary soldier.

The Revolutionary War had initially started as a revolt against taxes imposed to help relieve British debt, British tightened control over the colonies, and the British depriving the colonists of both prosperity and relative independence (Boyer, et al. 81). Most colonists did not oppose the British colonization until it threatened their way of life and their pocketbooks. The king was believed to rule by divine right which literally means god had placed him in his position of power. The king’s belief was that none of the colonist would inhabit the “New World” if he did not allow them to do so in the first place. The ideal of the king’s right to rule was not challenged by colonists until the thoughts of colonists during the Enlightenment¹ had led to a contradiction.

[John] Locke argued that in a state of nature, people enjoyed the “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. To form governments to protect these rights, people entered into a “social contract.” A government that encroached on natural rights broke its contract with the people. In such cases the people could resist their government. (Boyer, et al. 90-91)

After the dawn of these radical thoughts, the power of colonists to question British rule became possible. When England imposed a strain on the colonists’ finances and way of life the seed of dissent was sewn to test their new way of thinking. Initially the colonists didn’t want to go so far as to become independent, they just wanted relief from England’s harsh new policies. It wasn’t until England went too far with their policies that the revolt spawned into a war for independence. England’s relentless pursuit of the colonists with policies such as the Sugar Act², the Stamp Act³, the Declaratory Act⁴, the Quartering Act⁵, the Tea Act⁶, and the Coercive⁷ Acts had pushed colonists too far.

The general ideals of the Revolution began with the revolt of policies threatening prosperity to becoming and independent country striving to be recognized as equal to any of the rest of the world’s countries. However, the state constitutions formed after 1776 did not endorse the same idea of equality within the borders of the country that longed to be equal on a worldly scale. Some of the pre-revolutionary ideals remained that did not unite the country into one body of equal people:

Few questioned the practice of setting property requirements for voter and elected officials. Nine states reduced the requirements, but none abolished them. It was argued that property ownership enabled office holders and voters to act independently. As in the colonial era, eleven of the thirteen legislatures in the 1780s were bicameral and most were divided equally among all counties or towns, regardless of population distribution. This, of course, created unequal representation. These two-part legislatures resembled Parliament’s division into the House of Lords and the House of Commons and symbolized the assumption that a government should represent aristocrats and commoners separately. The idea of political parties as instruments for identifying and mobilizing public opinion was alien to the Revolutionary era, which equated parties with “factions” – selfish groups that advanced their interests at the expense of the public good (Boyer, et al. 119).

The general ideals of the Revolution did not become the reality of the state constitutions formed after 1776 for the general population of the country.

Aside from the lack of change equality practices among people in the state constitutions the Revolution did manifest itself in other areas of the constitutions which led to significant changes. Some of the “pathbreaking” features of the state constitutions included:

First, their adoption required ratification by the people. Second, they could be changed only by popular vote. The state constitutions were written compacts that defined and limited rulers’ powers. As a final check on government power, the Revolutionary constitutions contained bills of rights outlining fundamental freedoms beyond government control. Colonists had embarked on the Revolution dreading executive office holders. Accordingly, the state constitutions strictly limited executive power. The state constitutions also made the legislatures more responsive to the will of the people (Boyer, et al. 120).

All of these structures equated to real change as a result of the Revolution. This gave the people (people who could vote) more control over their government and protections from their government.

Notes

1. The Enlightenment – Eighteenth-century Anglo-America was probably the world most literate society. Ninety percent of New England’s adult white males and forty percent of its women could write well enough to sign documents. Ordinary Americans’ only had access to few books (almanac, psalter, and the bible). They inhabited a world of oral culture (conversations, debates, and sermons). However, member of the gentry lived in a world of print culture. Though costly, books and writing paper opened eighteenth-century European civilization to men and women of these classes who could read. Great advances in natural science seemed to explain the laws of nature, human intelligence appeared poised to triumph over ignorance and prejudice, and life itself would surely become more pleasant. For those with time to read and think, an age of optimism and progress had dawned: the Enlightenment.
2. Sugar Act (1764) – In 1764 Parliament passed the Sugar Act to offset part of Britain’s North American military expenses. The Sugar Act amended the Molasses Act of 1733, which constituted a 6 pence per gallon tariff on French-produced molasses.
3. Stamp Act (1765) – Revenues raised by the Sugar Act did little to ease Britain’s financial crisis. In March 1765, to force colonists to pay their share of imperial expenses, Parliament passed the Stamp Act. The law obliged Americans to purchase and use specially marked or stamped paper for newspapers, customs documents, wills, contracts, and other public legal documents. To the colonists, the Stamp Act demonstrated both Parliaments’ indifference to their interest and the shallowness of virtual representation.
4. Declaratory Act – In March 1766 Parliament revoked the Stamp Act. Simultaneously, however, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act, affirming Parliamentary power to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” This was devised to literally mean that the colonist were not exempt from any parliamentary statute.
5. Quartering Act – The Quartering Act of 1765 ordered colonial legislatures to pay for certain goods used by British soldiers stationed within their borders. The law aroused resentment because it constituted an indirect tax. Although it did not empower royal officials to collect money directly from the colonists, it obligated assemblies to raise revenue by whatever means they considered appropriate.
6. Tea Act – The tea act eliminated all import duties on tea entering England and thus lowered the selling price to customers. It also permitted the company to sell tea directly to consumers rather than through wholesalers. The Act alarmed many Americans, who recognized that the revenues raised by the law would place royal governors’ purses beyond the reach of colonial assemblies.
7. Coercive Acts (a.k.a. the Intolerable Acts) – Four acts that were used to corrode liberties in Boston because Britain was mad that the colonist realized that the Tea Act would have oppressed them.

Works Cited

Boyer, Paul S., et al. The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.

Brown, Wallace. The Good Americans: Loyalists in the American Revolution. n.p., 1969

Ferling, John E., A Wilderness of Miseries: War and Warriors in Early America. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Final Exam

Question: Write an essay that examines the reality of life in America for the Irish. What were the myths of America held by Irish and German immigrants in the early 19^th century? What was the reality of life in America for immigrants and the “native” poor? Be sure to discuss the realities of living conditions, employment, and the effects of disease and alcohol on the native and immigrant poor. Also consider the various sub-cultures formed by the urban working class. How did Irish men or women exercise agency within their respective worlds? Most importantly, what adaptive methods or strategies did groups and individuals use to cope with the various harsh realities of urban life in America?

Life in America for the Irish consisted of a stressful existence with days filled of long hours of hard labor, indeed, “life was work” (Sproul). Immigrants had many preconceived notions of a better life awaiting them in America, but would soon realize these notions to be myth. The reality of living conditions, employment, and the effects of disease and alcohol painted a picture that could hardly be construed as a better life. The idea of a melting pot, where all ethnicities blended together in harmony, in America was unrealized during the early 19^th century. The fact of the matter was that immigrants generally identified with other immigrants of the same ethnicity and interaction between different ethnic groups was usually met with friction. Through these hard times, Irish men and women did not lose all hope. They managed to maintain a certain amount of self worth through the use of agency[1]. In addition, immigrants used many strategies to deal with the less than savory reality of America.

There were many myths associated with America in the early 19^th century. Irish and German immigrants put so much faith into these myths that they were willing to endure tough travel conditions half way around the world in search of an improvement to their life. Immigrants believed in these myths because of “relatives’ letters [that were received that] assured Europeans that America was an ideal world, a utopia” (Boyer, et al. 252). Ships sailing to America had irregular departures. Many of the eager immigrants spent their life savings living in slums awaiting ships to arrive. Once the ships did arrive, immigrants were packed in tightly. These conditions were reminiscent of slave ships. The reason most immigrants came is because they wanted so badly to find that utopia that the letters from their relatives described. The conditions in Ireland and Germany were “ravaged by war, political upheaval, and agricultural consolidation” (Gerber 227) at the time and the people were longing for relief. However, “after landing [in America]… immigrants quickly discovered that farming was a perilous prospect” (Boyer, et al. 252). The days “where all a man needed was a gun and sufficient ammunition to live like a prince [in America]” (Boyer, et al. 254) were a thing of the past. The reality was that after the need for indentured servants had declined many people still wanted to come to America but their conditions and prospects were much worse (Gerber 227).

The reality of life in America consisted of harsh living conditions and back breaking employment. The poorest Irish immigrants “lived in huts no more than twelve feet to a side… and [were] constructed of waste boards” (Gerber 230). Poor Irish immigrants lived in housing known as tenements[2] which were also the habitats of free blacks (Boyer, et al. 218). The “better-off Irish workers lived in decrepit, small to medium sized dwellings” (Gerber 230). The Irish’s lack of urban job experience and skills coupled with businesses advertising that no Irish need apply left little opportunity for upward mobility (Gerber 230-1). Irish families often kept pigs, poultry, and dairy cattle in and around their residences. They used these animals to supplement their income by selling milk. Irish workers’ lives were less valuable than that of slaves. This reality was far removed from the expectation of the better life they had hoped for when coming to America.

The living and working conditions of German immigrants were not exactly enjoyable, but were an improvement over their Irish counterparts. The German’s also predominately lived in tenement housing. However, their tenements averaged about half of the residence per dwelling than that of the Irish tenements. German’s were mostly unskilled workers, like the Irish, but in the construction industry. The construction industry offered opportunities over other industries. The German construction laborers spent their work days intermingled with artisans and craftsmen which gave them the opportunity to learn and a hope for upward mobility. This was a stark contrast to the dead end unskilled labor industries that the Irish found their employment (Gerber 231).

The Irish drank a lot of alcohol due to a culture that used whiskey as the answer to many of their problems in Ireland. In Ireland whiskey was used for medicine, as a substitute for food, as a social tool, and to keep warm. In America, whiskey was also used as a social tool. Irish men would sit around and drink with fellow tenants while at their homes. While at work, employers often provided alcohol to keep them happy on the job. However, the use of alcohol and the wide acceptance of use led to a great deal of troubles:

Irish culture and American circumstances, therefore, both tended to legitimate drinking and to expand the opportunities in which it might take place. As a result, many men went down the road to impoverishment and lack of responsibility to those that depended on them, and ultimately to alcoholism and premature death (Gerber 235).

This Irish culture of drinking is one thing that perfectly meshed with America because everybody was drinking in the early 19^th century.

Immigrants had very little in common other than they came to American from a different country. They did not live, work, and socialize in harmony. As has been previously described, living and working conditions differed widely between different ethnic groups. The urban working class created different sub-cultures. These sub-cultures were made up of groups that had no opportunity to groups that had some opportunity for upward mobility. Ethnic groups were differentiated by status, ethnic background, residence, and many other factors. Immigrants did not peacefully socialize with different immigrants.

The Irish did retain some dignity by their enforcement of agency. Irish women, often working as domestic servants, loathed their employers and held the opinion that they would perish if it were not for them. Irish women took on an air of self confidence as she grew more comfortable with her circumstances:

As Bridget [Irish women] mastered her circumstances, she changed, and her confusion and incompetence gave way to self confidence. She took on those of her employer’s standards that served her needs… It was this confidence, which at its heart a greater valuation of herself and her labor, that led Bridget to quit when aggrieved or in response to a better opportunity (Gerber 237-8).

This new self confidence created an appreciation for ones self. The exercise of agency was a remarkable breakthrough in the Irish’s taking control of their place in America.

In addition to the breakthrough of agency, the Irish used many adaptive methods to better cope with their plight. One such adaptive measure was due to their employment difficulties. Irish laborers made use of their willingness to travel. They would take employment anywhere and though constant moving would create semi-steady employment. As an adaptive measure Irish women also worked. They commonly found jobs in domestic and personal service. Although, their employers did not hold them in high regard their wages were similar to work that other women may have taken during this period. In addition, they received benefits that were superior

to other jobs such as, “a private room, board, and Christmas bonus, and gifts of discarded clothing and other personal items from employers” (Gerber 232). Other adaptive measure include delayed or no marriage and celibacy. These measures were used to help deal with the poverty. It helped because of the avoidance of expenses incurred with having children.

The tumultuous life of an Irish immigrant (and immigrants in general) was riddled with challenges. After coming to America to flee oppressive conditions in their native land they soon found that the utopia of America was a mythical dream. Instead they found harsh living conditions and difficulties with employment. They found America related to their culture of drinking, but endured alcoholism and even premature death due to increased opportunity to drink. In light of all of these difficulties, the Irish immigrant did have positive aspects as they got used to their new environment. Through the use of agency they were able to regain some confidence, dignity, and self-respect. They also used many adaptive methods that helped them better navigate through tough times.

Works Cited

Boyer, Paul S., et al. The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.

Gerber, David A.., The Making of an American Pluralism: Buffalo, New York, 1825-60. University of Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Sproul, David. Lecture. Irish Immigration. n.d.

1865 to Present Exams

The Things They Carried – The Essay Portion for the Final Exam

Tim O’Brien wrote a series of gripping individual stories that were combined to create one book: The Things They Carried. This book recreated the emotion of a Vietnam War draftee before, during, and after the war. In a closer analysis of The Things They Carried the book explains the reason for writing the book, the strategies involved in this style of the writing, and an account of history from the perspective of the author through personal experience.

O’Brien’s thesis centers on the moral of a war story. This thesis is made evident by splitting the book into separate individual stories (vignettes). The stories contain a common argument that O’Brien makes through the use of his characters; morality does not fit within the context of the story. O’Brien makes it very clear throughout the book that the moral of a true war story is that there is no moral. If a war story is not fowl, evil, disgusting, and retched it is not a true war story. This fact is in contrast with the fact that war in itself is fowl, evil, disgusting, and retched. One of the reasons O’Brien wrote this book is answered in an excerpt from the chapter titled Field Trip. In this chapter he revisits Vietnam with his daughter, the character Kathleen, twenty years after the end of the Vietnam War. The reason is stated by his daughter rather than from his own character’s volition, “… Some dumb thing happens a long time ago and you can’t ever forget it (183).” Although his daughter’s character made this statement, the statement can be deduced as one of the reasons for writing this book considering that it was O’Brien’s decision to include this particular conversation in the book. The statement contains a revealing quality about the author. O’Brien, as the narrator, offers an explanation that provides more insight as to the reason for writing this book; “By telling stories, you objectify your own experience. You separate it from yourself. You pin down certain truths … but that nonetheless helps to clarify and explain (158).” These statements show that O’Brien wrote this book because it is an experience he cannot forget and he still needs to provide himself with some explanation as to the reasoning behind certain events that he experienced. He wrote stories about the past to better understand them. O’Brien’s thesis and reasons for writing the book solidify his argument that a war story is immoral and the reasoning behind war is not clear.

O’Brien presents his case in a set of stories because it shows particular instances, from his point-of-view, of others experiences as well as his own. All of these experiences show the emotional aspect of something that is horrific and unexplainable. The writing itself is emotional which aids this underlying explanation. O’Brien could have stopped writing after he stated that “a true war story is never moral (68),” but those words do not resonate as loudly as the emotion behind the stories themselves. The emotion used allows the reader to feel, not just read, that war is immoral. This also helps to explain why O’Brien wrote a novel and not a non-fiction account of these experiences. Through the use of novel style writing O’Brien is able to bring the reader into the story. A non-fiction account of these experiences would have been cold, dry, and forgettable. By writing a novel O’Brien makes his unforgettable experiences just as unforgettable for his readers.

O’Brien’s rhetorical style was that of a man who was opposed to the war. Nothing could have made clearer the hatred O’Brien harbored for the war than his statement in the chapter titled On the Rainy River. In this chapter he stated, “In June 1968, a month after graduating from Macalester College, I was drafted to fight a war I hated (40).” The tone of this book contains several elements. Some of these elements include confusion, hatred, fear, and rage. These elements all have negative aspects to them, but do not have that feel when reading the book. When reading the book, the reader is able to connect with the situations described as if they were there with the knowledge that they are not actually there. The book has a surreal tone to it. The reader can identify with the emotion of the situation without being able to believe what is happening in the situation. This is the motivation of the author; to make the reader feel like he felt. The story and its truthfulness are secondary. At times the feeling is aimed at being angry or being motivated to take action, but mostly the author tries to get the reader to identify with the emotion, whatever it may be at the time, of the story they are currently reading. Many readers may feel a certain amount of disgust for most stories in the book due to extremely graphic situations and emotions the characters of the book endure.

The rhetorical strategy of the author was extremely successful. O’Brien was masterful at making the reader emotionally involved in the story through the use of his prose. The emotion O’Brien invoked in the reader was hatred for the Vietnam War. This coincides with his rhetoric which makes his strategy successful. The surreal tone helped to enhance his argument. The unbelievable situations described aided in making the reader believe in the immorality of war.

From a historical perspective, the Vietnam War was underway during the final years of World War II (WWII). Europe and much of Asia were in ruins. Due to America’s geographical distance from the fighting it emerged from the war with a booming economy. America had also become the world’s first modern super power with exclusive control over the atomic bomb. When Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) suddenly died in 1945, while sitting at his desk writing a speech, Harry S. Truman acquired presidential power. Truman was entirely unprepared for the complex diplomacy of the Alliance and the rising post-war pressures. Truman had little knowledge of the conference at Yalta, a resort on the Black Sea coast, which FDR attended along with Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin. The Yalta conference allowed these leaders to reach a compromise on many important issues. Near the end of WWII, at the Postdam conference, Truman hinted to Stalin about the atomic bomb; a fact Stalin already knew. Truman never created a meaningful relationship with Stalin. The Truman Doctrine, which aided the Greek and Turkish military, was a turning point in American foreign relations. This helped facilitate the American steadfast belief in good versus evil. The Cold War was emerging. This war was a war that was fought by proxy; a war in which America and the Soviet Union would use other countries and their governments as threats to one another’s interest. America adopted a containment policy, advised by Soviet expert George Kennen, which stated that America and its European allies must contain Communism wherever it appears. Fearing the threat of the expansion of Communism the United States supported the French faction claiming control of Vietnam. After the U.S. military received fire from the North Vietnamese, President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized assault on Northern Vietnam. This escalated into the Vietnam War; although war was never officially declared by Congress. This war was the fruit of the war by proxy nature of the Cold War; an American effort to stop Communism wherever it appeared. (Professor Andy Kirk Lectures)

Reading fiction can help the reader to understand history. Fiction can contain the raw feeling of the historical event. It can help relate the truthfulness of an experience. An author of fiction can shape the story in such a way that a deeper truth or meaning, beyond a historical account, can become clear. For example, in this book there are no instances of morality which help to establish the belief of the immorality of war. In reality, there may have been instances within the war itself that were examples of personal moral behavior. If these examples were told, as would be the case with a historical account, it would cloud the overall truth that war, in its entirety, essentially is an immoral act.

Mitchell Sanders is one of the central characters in The Things They Carried. Sanders was the Radio Transmission Operator (RTO) for Alpha Company. He is the storyteller of the Company. O’Brien uses Sanders’ character to illustrate the truths of the experiences that the soldiers had in the war and to point out the immorality of war. After every immoral occurrence, Sanders immediately chimes in to state “there is a moral here.” O’Brien uses the Sanders character to present to the reader that there is no moral to be learned from these stories, but rather to expose an experience.

One of the things they carried was “USO stationary and pencils and pens (14).” The example of carrying stationary and writing utensils represent an American experience in Vietnam filled with a longing for home. Vietnam is many thousands of miles away from the United States and was a very unpopular war even during its time. The stationary and writing utensils show a connection to a homeland and vice versa with loved ones. The author seems to use these “things they carried” as a symbol of wanting to be reunited with familiar territory. These also represent loss of loved ones as an American experience in Vietnam. O’Brien makes this clear through his writings regarding Rat Kiley writing Curt Lemon’s family to inform them of Lemon’s death.

The Things They Carried was a cleverly written fictional novel that gleaned many instances of reality. O’Brien’s writing strategies allowed the reader to feel the emotional experience of a soldier thrust into the Vietnam War. This gives the reader an opportunity to learn a personal historical account beyond facts and figures.