A People's Army

by Fred Anderson

A People's Army documents the many distinctions between British regulars and Massachusetts provincial troops during the Seven Years' War. Originally published by UNC Press in 1984, the book was the first investigation of colonial military life to give equal attention to official records and to the diaries and other writings of the common soldier. The provincials' own accounts of their experiences in the campaign amplify statistical profiles that define the men, both as civilians and as soldiers. These writings reveal in intimate detail their misadventures, the drudgery of soldiering, the imminence of death, and the providential world view that helped reconcile them to their condition and to the war.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, War, Military History, The United States Of America, American Revolution

292 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

About the author

Fred Anderson is an American historian specializing in early North American history, particularly the colonial and revolutionary periods. He earned his B.A. from Colorado State University and his Ph.D. from Harvard, later teaching at both institutions. Now Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder, he has held fellowships from the NEH, Guggenheim Foundation, and others. His acclaimed book Crucible of War received the Francis Parkman and Mark Lynton History Prizes. He co-authored The Dominion of War with Andrew Cayton and wrote The War That Made America, companion to the PBS series. Anderson is also a contributor to the Oxford History of the United States.

Reviews

[Travis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best explorations of the differences between British regulars and provincial troops I have seen, and it does an admirable job deconstructing the minutia of the often strained and somewhat contemptuous relationships which existed among the two categories of soldier. Organized broadly by context, experience, and meaning, the sharp analysis delves deep into the reasons for British and colonial differences while drawing inferences about how these relationships would come to have an effect on how British Americans would feel about the British as the Revolutionary War drew nearer.
Anderson's strict focus on Massachusetts provincials during the years of the French and Indian (Seven Years') War provide the boundaries for what could otherwise be a project far too ambitious. It would be interesting to see another author do the same with a colony much different than Massachusetts Bay, perhaps South Carolina, Virginia, or New York.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I finished my undergraduate degree in History in 1972, quantitative and statistical analysis was the coming thing in academic history (in part I think because of the pressure to find a new research question for your thesis!). This excellent 1984 work is based upon an earlier doctoral thesis that used those techniques as well as traditional historical analysis and study. The author presents the reader with an in depth study of the expectations, experiences, and subsequent attitudes of those who served in the provincial formations raised to defend the Massachusetts colony and its neighbors against the French threat in the form of regular troops, militia, and Native Americans allied with the French. It also shows how these experiences both illustrated the already distinct differences in attitudes and expectations between the British regular officers and their troops on the one hand and the Colonial Americans whose behavior and expectations in the field reflected decades of experience in generally managing their lives without frequent reference to either the Crown or Parliament in London. The differences exposed as well one of the major threads that runs through the later period of the American struggle for independence as the British and Americans repeatedly spoke past each other and the British Army repeatedly miscalculated the degree of threat posed by American colonists under arms and in rebellion. Fred Anderson ranges across the subjects of military tactics, operations, and administration as well the geographic and political framing to the conflict between Britain and France in North America. His research is reflected as well in the excellent 4 Appendices providing details on the Provincial forces raised and fielded by the Massachusetts Colonies. Highly recommended for the information and insights provided on both the 7 Years War and the American War for Independence.

[Schoppie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent social history of the Massachusetts militia in the Seven Years' War! Fred Anderson focuses on how the New England colonies constructed their militias, why men joined (including societal influences), daily life, discipline (both that imposed upon them by their own officers and that imposed by the regular British Army), the experience of battle, and Providentialism. However, the part of the book I found most interesting was the chapter on the centrality of contracts in New England and how it influenced the ways New Englanders understood military service. For Massachusetts militiamen, military service was a contract to be strictly observed by all parties. The soldiers signed up for specified terms of service, and were generally unwilling to serve longer without a new agreement. The soldiers were promised certain rations and equipment upon enlistment, and they were unwilling to serve without them. They signed up to serve only under their own officers, and were unwilling to serve directly under British regular leaders. If any elements of this enlistment "contract" were violated, the New England militiamen felt completely justified in mass desertion, defiance, or bargaining with their officers for new terms. While this shocked British regular officers, such as the arrogant Lord Loudoun, it made perfect sense to the New Englanders, who were increasingly aware that their society was much different than that of Great Britain, of whose empire they were a part.

While newcomers to the subject of the French and Indian (Seven Years' War) might find this book a bit dry (the book is a doctoral dissertation reworked into a book), it is a very valuable study of the Massachusetts militia, the like of which is not available anywhere else. First, read a narrative on the French and Indian War overall, then read this book afterward. It will change the way you understand the American experience in the conflict and help you understand, at least in part, why Massachusetts rebelled against Britain during the American Revolution.

[Bill Homan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A People’s Army is great text on the social history of the French and Indian War, America's part in the Seven Year's War. It was really a world war the likes of which was not seen again until World War I.
We see what it was like to be an American provincial soldier through excerpts from their personal diaries. It was a harsh life as the soldiers were frequently underfed which left them weak and susceptible to disease. It also documents the arrogance and brutal disciplinary procedures of the British Redcoats directed towards the American provincial volunteers. The Americans learned to hate the Redcoats. While no one envisioned that in 13 years they would be involved in a war of independence against Britain, but when the time came they remembered the lessons learned in this war and how to defeat the British.

[Dee W. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic read if you are at all interest in the build up to the American Revolution. I know I am biased as being native to Massachusetts, but I do subscribe to the idea that the actual revolution was the 20 years before the war. This books gives insight into that- from the first actual meeting of the British and their colonial counterparts since initial colonisation. Long before revolution we were two differant peoples.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Please Note: This is not going to be one of my better written or organized reviews - I'm trying to get down the essential points in a hurry to be used for an exam reference.
***
Reading this on the heels of Fred Anderson's The War that Made America was a useful decision as that work provided an overview of the Seven Years' War and this volume is a focused study of the provincial army from Massachusetts in contrast to the Britain's professional army who fought together in the war. Despite the 21 year gap between the two works, Anderson remained consistent with his thesis and findings, and the volumes reinforce each other.

Anderson's essential points are that:
1) The Seven Years' War is often misleadingly taught/condensed down to be a forerunner to the American Revolution, but this is an entirely false. The end of the Seven Years' War was instead a highpoint of British loyalty among the colonists - they were proud to be part of the mighty empire. (pg. 223) No one saw it as a harbinger of future war, instead it was seen as the ultimate end to fighting with the French that had dominated the North American social/political landscape for a century - the residents of Massachusetts had been fighting with the French and various groups of Indians for generations. This was just another chapter in that long and bloody history, but the first where they received any major assistance from the motherland. With the French presence subdued and their eliminated, the British expected a thousand years of peace. (pgs. 22-23)


2) What the Seven Years's War did provide (as seen in A People's Army was a chance for the British and continental soldiers to observe and assess each other, not merely militarily, but in character and essentials (to borrow a Jane Austin turn of phrase). In short, neither side was happy with the character of the other, and that is the subject of this work.

The Seven Years' War transformed the attitudes of the young men who would grow up and less than two decades later be the leaders of the American Revolution. Anderson writes that: "The veterans on the whole were less likely than their fathers to remember the war favorably and were unikely to be well disposed towards the redcoats with whom they had served. The Seven Years’ War had been, in effect, the greatest educational experience in their lives. It had transformed them from a mere group of contemporaries into a generation of men, whose common knowledge included a powerful set of lessons about themselves, about the British, and about war itself.” (pg. 25)

Anderson's choice of using the Massachusetts provincial army as the counterpoint to the British regulars was not incidental. The religious history of New England gives this region, and Massachusetts in particular, a very different cultural atmosphere than most of the other colonies. Mass. is a culturally distinctive region guided by extremist religious beliefs and tightly knit communities that operated under strategies that coped with limited economic resources. New England was not a region of self-sufficient farms, but rather of self-sufficient farm towns. (pg. 28)

Anderson noted how the communities were defined by a lack of cash and thus contracts and bartering was the primary means of trade, not actual cash. That doing a turn of service in the provincial army paid in cash, was the primary motivating factor for young men to serve - it was one of the only means through which they could earn cash in order to help establish their own households, until the death of their father/the division of the family estate. (pgs. 37-39) For younger sons who would not inherit property, it was perhaps their only chance at being able to acquire cash for land. But this cashless contractual society influenced men's service in other ways as well - where as British regulars were used to being duped into service and being stuck there for an undetermined and fluid duration, the provincial men were used to working according to contracts. When the contracts that they made to fight for the duration of a specific campaign or season were violated by British regular officers who did not hold contracts to be of importance (either by extending the term of service or by not fulfilling the promised provision of food and equipment), the provincial men rebelled, most frequently by refusing to work or deserting. Unlike solitary desertion where a soldier walked off anonymously, this was a very political desertion where the griefs had been presented to the superior ranking officer and when the men left, they did so en masse. (pgs. 185, 192, 194-195)

The Massachusetts men had a very different relationship with their officers than did the British regulars. Where British officers ruled through dissociative fear and brutality, provincial officers were obligated to become personally acquainted and take an interest in the lives of each of their men. That is if they weren't already known to them, and many were previously acquainted. Many of the men who served together were from the same town, and through the rules of conscription, men signed up for service under a specific officer and many provincial soldiers within a unit were related. Thus, officers and their men were often already acquainted, at least by reputation, which had a humanizing effect between the ranks of the provincial army. (pg. 44) Anderson notes that personal loyalties and kinship shaped the provincial army and explain many of the behaviors that the British came to see as erratic. (pg. 48) The British regulars did everything in their power to preserve the distinction of rank within their units.

Punishments doled out by the British were harsh and demeaning (whipping, riding the wooden horse), if not deadly. Many violations were subject to capitol punishment. However, the British were more willing than Provincials to forgive men of the death penalty at the last hour, especially if they could then use the reprieve as a way to guilt them into conscripting to the military for life. (ps. 121-123) The Provincial army rarely sentenced men to death for crimes, but they were very unlikely to grant a reprieve. (pg. 126) This difference speaks to the distinctive roles of and purposes of leadership between the two groups. Combined command in 1757, however, ended/severely curbed the ability of provincial officers to grant leniency. (pg. 131) "For regular officers, creating good discipline was analogous to the teaching of good manners. Provincials, who assumed conduct reflected character, tended to conclude instead that either men were good soldiers or they weren't. If a man proved refractory and unresponsive to exhortation or repeated chastisement, provincial officers consequently preferred to expel him from camp, not to make a gruesome spectacle of him. To hang or really beat an offender would not make the virtuous more virtuous, nor make the corrupt less corrupt." (pgs. 130-131) "Provincial disciplinary practices and the assumptions that underlay them reflected traditional New England ideals of community life– that men ought to be knit together as one in the common pursuit of God's will. Nothing could have been less consistent with British conceptions of military order, or less understandable to most Redcoat officers." (pg. 135)

"The British tended to conclude that New Englanders made bad soldiers because they were deficient in courage and moral fiber. That was a profoundly mistaken conclusion, but it was based on the indisputable fact that provincials often behaved unprofessionally sometimes acted in ways detrimental to the work effort." (pg. 167)

Other points of diversion included the Regulars' propensity toward fighting deals of honor among the officers (unheard of in NE), and regulars committing suicide, especially in the wake of wrongdoing. (pg. 116) Regulars also had women camp followers who the provincials roundly viewed as whores and loose women (never mind that someone had to do the laundry, and we know from the records that when the provincials were left to their own devices, they didn't!). (pg. 118-119) Regulars also observed holidays that NE'ers did not, and these celebrations were seen as culturally quirky. Most commonly commented upon in disgust by the Mass. provincials was the proliferation of swearing and breaking of the second commandment done by the regulars. (pg. 117) In NE these were offenses that would have had a person hauled before the local magistrate, that the regulars committed these sins so openly and *ahem* regularly led the provincials to view them as morally defective and not merely as culturally quirky. (pg. 118) For religious NE'ers, the moral defects of their British counterparts became cause for genuine concern. Would an alliance with such morally corrupt individuals cause God to punish them, and thus their cause to fail? (pg. ) Given that they ultimately won, I have to wonder how many of them chose to perceive the success despite the conditions. sow

This book was a reformulation of Anderson's dissertation. His primary source base consisted of a surprisingly large number of journals kept by soldiers during the duration of their service. This in itself is an interesting point - where as the bulk of British regulars were illiterate, NE was a highly literate society (part of its religious distinctiveness - good protestants needed to be literate to read and fully comprehend the Bible). (pg. 66) The (mostly) young men who set off to fight in the war clearly saw it as a distinctive period in their lives, and while most did not keep a journal before or after their service, many did so faithfully as a way to remember and reflect upon their travels and this unique phase of their lives, no doubt to be brought home to their families and recount the tales of their travels. (pgs. 69-72) Not that they were that disconnected from home - Anderson notes that many men sent and received letters regularly from their families. (See pgs. 108-109) Many of the men also used them in part to record religious devotions/reflections/observations of religious providentialsim - seeing the hand of God at work in daily events. (pgs. 196-197)

***
I'm left pondering the question, that while Anderson's overarching argument works for encounters between Mass and British regulars, can his argument that provincials and regulars met and didn't like each other be transposed to other colonies. I would tend to think that while Virginians, say, were equally untrained they would have been far more interested in rank preservation and wouldn't have cared or been concerned over the cursing and perceived uncouth behavior of the regulars in the way that NE'ers were. Surely, they would not have been concerned in the same way or to the degree that an alliance with ungodly people would endanger their cause.

[Alyssa Gee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fred Anderson’s A Peoples Army: Massachusetts Soldiers and Society in the Seven Years War is a compelling and insightful historical work that offers a detailed examination of the experiences of Massachusetts soldiers during the Seven Years' War. Anderson discusses the complexities of military service, the impact of war on society, and the formation of a distinct American identity during a critical period in colonial history.
The central focus is on the experiences of Massachusetts soldiers who served in the British army during the conflict. Anderson delves into the motivations of these soldiers, the challenges they faced on the battlefield and in camp life, and the interactions they had with other soldiers, both British and colonial.
One of the key strengths of A People’s Army is its use of many primary sources. Anderson pulls from military records, letters, diaries, and other firsthand accounts to offer readers a fresh and genuine portrayal of the lives of these soldiers. By centering on the experiences of common soldiers, Anderson challenged traditional narratives that often focus on the actions of military and political elites.
Anderson's argument goes beyond the military aspects of the war to explore its broader social and political impact on colonial society. He examines how the war affected families, communities, and the economy in Massachusetts. He also explores the tensions that emerged between colonial authorities and British military commanders.
Anderson also offers insights into the formation of a distinct American identity during the Seven Years' War. Anderson argues that the shared experiences of Massachusetts soldiers during the conflict contributed to a growing sense of unity and an American identity. He examines how the interactions among soldiers from different colonies fostered a sense of common purpose and a shared commitment to fighting for their rights and liberties.
Additionally, the monograph discusses recruitment and enlistment in the British army. Anderson explores the various motivations that led Massachusetts men to join the military, including economic incentives, a desire for adventure, and a sense of duty to their colony and the British Empire.
In conclusion, A People’s Army: Massachusetts Soldiers and Society in the Seven Years War provides readers with a deeper understanding of the experiences of common soldiers during the Seven Years’ War. Academics and general readers interested in early American history and military service during the Seven Years' War but do not want to read a typical military history approach should read this book.

[Bob Lundquist · Rating 4 out of 5]

Remember the Seven Years War? Also called the French and Indian War. The one George Washington started? Where the French were kicked out of Canada. The one where Great Britain got into debt fighting and wanted the colonists to pay for? And that led to the Revolutionary War? Yeah, that one. This book is not so much about the war, though it does have a nice little summary about, as it is about the relationships between the provincial or colonist army and the professional redcoats. They were not good.
This book explains how the two armies reacted to each other and why. The British soldier signed up and his life was not his own. He was ordered to wherever and do whatever his officers wanted. Discipline was severe. The provincial soldier signed a contract with the local authorities to server at a specified spot for a limited amount of time. If the provincial soldier thought the authorities violated the contract, then the soldier could go home with no consequences. One can imagine how the redcoats viewed this view of military life during war. Not favorably. On the other hand, the provincial soldier saw the redcoat as prideful and supercilious. Despite all this, they fought the war and won.
Anderson uses a ton of primary sources to explain how all this came to pass. He demystifies the language of the eighteenth century so we can understand it. He shows how the differing views of military life were never really reconciled. The provincials got an even better sense of shared experience that they had before the war due to their common colonial lifestyle. This would prove useful in the next war. Read this book.

[Derrick Lapp · Rating 4 out of 5]

A People's Army is essentially Anderson's PhD dissertation converted to a book and published. The theme is expanded into his great opus - The Crucible of War. This book is extremely useful for those who what to dig in to the data Anderson used to support The Crucible of War.

[Larry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent history of Massachusetts' colonists mobilized for war. Based largely on the diaries of provincial soldiers supported by solid analysis.

[Mills College Library]

973.26 A546p

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anderson's A People's Army is an excellent social history of the Massachusetts Provincial militia during the Seven Years' War. The only problem is that Anderson argues for New England exceptionalism by claiming that Puritan Christianity (and especially the concept of a covenant with God) decisively shaped why Mass. men volunteered, choose to fight, and decided to mutiny or desert. Too many of his claims seem less about Puritan-steeped traditions than practical military methods of sustaining morale, helping soldiers cope with battle, and soldiers generally resenting any outside force or authority reneging on the terms of their military service.

He concludes that the Seven Years' War confirmed New Englanders' Puritanical beliefs and also fostered a sense of uniqueness among its veterans. It's clear that chaplains appropriated Puritan doctrine in their sermons to help soldiers comprehend the war's chain of events, and this process probably contributed to a groundswell in renewed Puritan faith. I'm not sure that Anderson's scope can satisfactorily answer whether Puritan beliefs were renewed after the war because a) he focuses specifically on the MA militia and not on all New England provinces and b) He includes no data sets on church attendance before/during/after the war or other barometers of the Seven Years' War generally confirming or renewing Puritan fervor. I find the overlap between Fred Anderson and Robert Gross (Minutemen and their World) interesting because the latter mentioned almost nothing about the French and Indian War creating a veteran identity that fostered grassroots commitment to anti-British Republican politics in the 1770s. However, Anderson's throw away thesis in the final paragraph makes that claim. He argues that veterans reintegrated into society with a "shared set of reference points, a unifying groundwork of experience that knit their generation more closely together than any other in New England since the Great Migration" (223). Because these veterans shared ideas about the British Redcoats (authoritarian, immoral, aggressive, lewd) from their firsthand encounters during the Seven Years' War, Anderson concludes that these men more easily believed republican rhetoric emanating from Boston during the imperial crisis. That's an argument that I believe has gained more currency among historians since the 1980s, but I may be mistaken.

Overall, a good book with many intriguing ideas. It's also a classic example of the "New Military History" during the 1980s that eschewed tactics, strategy, generalship, etc. and instead focused on reconstructing the social makeup of soldiers who served during the conflict.

[JR Bricksfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those interested in the individual experiences and perspectives of the provincial soldiers from New England who fought in the Seven Years’ War, Anderson’s book is one of the best. From extensive primary source research, he endeavors to analyze the impact the war had on provincial soldiers by reviewing their journals, letters, and demographics to uncover their experiences and perspectives at the individual level. He then puts this analysis in the context of the wider British Empire, and even though they were all subjects of Great Britain, argues that colonial views on military service and war were incompatible with the traditions and policies of the regular British Army. Anderson comments on the opinions regular commanders had of provincials – riff-raff, dregs of society, et cetera – but spends most of his time analyzing the differences in recruitment, views on terms of service, class issues, and the daily challenges a provincial soldier endured. Anderson also touches on the battles New England provincials participated in and provides some commentary on how they were used as support and auxiliary forces, but focuses mostly on reviewing the diaries and letters of soldiers to reveal the horrors they encountered in combat. In the context of other historical works that examine the British forces in the Seven Years’ War, Anderson’s book is notable given his use of quantitative data to explain the composition of provincial units, his comparative examination of the differences in policies between colonial and regular army officials, the portrayal of the individual soldier’s experience, and ultimately, the impact the war had on New England society.

[Natalie Baer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Massachussetts soldiers in the French and Indian War