MovieChat Forums > Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) Discussion > So weren't the British in the Revolution...

So weren't the British in the Revolutionary War?


........Watching this movie you could get the idea the Colonists were fighting for their independence from the Mohawks. True, there were a number of references to the British in connection with the off camera battle and at the end, when the British surrender, off camera of course, but they were totally missing in action when their Mohawk allies were trying to take the fort. Certainly their would have been at least one British officer present as an adviser if not in charge

I'm aware this movie was released in 1939, when Great Britain was threatened by the very real barbarism of Nazi Germany so there was little desire to depict the Brits as the bad guys. Still they could have had a British character showing his displeasure at the brutality of his Native American allies at the fort. At least it would have kept the story in historical context.

TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.

reply

[deleted]

Remember that during the time of this movie, the major population centers in the colonies were along the eastern seaboard. This was where the bulk of the British army in America was based. Take a look at the major battles of the Revolution. They all took place in the East: Massachusetts, Vermont, Benedict Arnold's failed campaign through Maine and into Canada, eastern New York, eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey. After the Colonial victory at the Battle of Saratoga, the British shifted their focus to the southern colonies: South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia.

There were many settlements in what was then the West -- western Virginia, western Pennsylvania, and, as in the movie, western New York. With the major population centers and the bulk of the Continental Army both in the East, it wouldn't make sense for the British Army to place huge numbers of their fighting men in the West. Since these areas were strongly Patriot, the British would have no reinforcements, since all their soldiers had to come from Canada or England. They would have extremely long lines of supply, which is risky for any army. However, by sending a small number of soldiers and officers west, they could create a larger army out of their Indian allies, allies who had ready reinforcements and could live off the land.

reply

As a local historian here in the Mohawk valley, I can help you to understand that while there were redcoated British soldiers to the west, in the Niagara Falls and Oswego area, the " white" soldiers doing the fighting alongside the Iroqouis Indians were the " Tory" or loyalists who were commanded in part by the descendants and kin of the most powerful man in colonial America- Sir William Johnson. Sir William was the hero of the Battle of Lake George, and was the only man in North America powerful enough to speak on behalf of King George. They really did not need redcoated Brits as these loyalists were very powerful and commanded the Iroqois in battle. Do some homework on Johnson, Joseph Brant (an Indian himself) and Walter Butler. You will find that these British loyalists were men of stature and were commissioned officers in the King's military in more than name only.

reply

My grandfather was part Choctaw Indian from Mississippi. His ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War under Gen Bernardo Galvez (Galveston Texas is named for him). They helped capture British forts on the lower MississippiRiver and British forts at Mobile, Alabama, and in Florida. The fighting was done by our Spanish allies, Indians, and some colonialists.

The Choctaws also fought at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 along the old Northwest Frontier with Gen Mad Anthony Wayne and others against the British and their Indian allies. This area had been ceded to the US in the treaty at the end of the Revolutionary War but the other side did not give it up without a fight.

I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else

reply