# Discuss Gone For a Soldier (spoilers allowed)



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

I hope everyone will forgive me for my limited experience at doing this.
But.....

My strong enjoyment of Gone For a Soldier causes me to want to share my opinions and ask Jeffry Hepple to share some of his thoughts with all of us.

This is not a Book Klub it is a discussion thread, so welcome and enjoy.  I set no rules (other than the normal ones of KB and human decency).

Also SPOILER notice.  We will be talking about things that can enhance your enjoyment of the book but also can expose details if you have not read it yet.

I will start out by saying that I havce not finished this book yet. But am over 20% of the way through.

This book is a lot different in content from The Treasure of LaMalinche.  And we don't have the different threads going on at the same time either.

So the Van Buskirk's are part of your family tree, Jeff.  Can you tell us more?

Please  join in.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Geoff, I suggest you put "Spoilers Allowed" or words to that effect in the subject!  Depending on how people read (newest first or oldest first) they might not see your warning that spoilers can be here.

Thanks for starting this thread!

Betsy


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Hello, Geoff. Thank you for creating the thread.

Van Buskirk is my mother's family's name. The first Van Buskirk (who changed his name from Anderson) arrived in New York from Copenhagen around 1650. In order to create a family tree for my mother, I undertook the research that ended up in this novel about 40 years ago. My maternal great grandmother was very critical of the Van Buskirks as Tories and told stories about them which scandalized my mother. My great grandmother's low opinion was based mainly upon the notoriety of Dr. Abraham Van Buskirk and his son Jacob. Abraham's nephew, Thomas, who was a major in the British army and resigned his commission to join the rebellion was apparently overlooked by my mother's grandmother.

Since you've only read 20% of the book we can't discuss Abraham's misdeeds but we can see that he was spared from hanging by George Washington. Washington's Dispatch Journal Page 78, Page 79










The Van Buskirk family settled at Bergen Point on the New Jersey side of New York Bay. This map was drawn in 1700. You will recognize the ferry and the wooden causeway from the book.

The land was leased to John D. Rockefeller sometime in the 19th century and it became home of Standard Oil of New Jersey. A lawsuit was filed a hundred years later by the Van Buskirks who wanted it back. It remained in court until my aunt, who I believe was the last signatory, died. The graveyard was moved to Long Island where it is currently maintained by Exxon. The land now is a maze of oil storage tanks.

















We often speak of how the Civil War split families between North and South but rarely do we consider the even more difficult decision of remaining loyal to one's king or joining a rebellion to overthrow the legal government. Which side would you have chosen?


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> We often speak of how the Civil War split families between North and South but rarely do we consider the even more difficult decision of remaining loyal to one's king or joining a rebellion to overthrow the legal government. Which side would you have chosen?


Thanks so much for posting that info and the drawings, Jeff. It's amazing that Exxon is still maintaining the graveyard. Do tourists, such as revolutionary war buffs, still visit?

You asked a question above which reminds me that as I've been going through the book, I jotted down some points for possible discussion. That was one of them.

Geoff, I know you don't want to do a formal club, but since I haven't read all of the book either, these questions might help the discussion along. How you want to discuss this is up to you guys, but I'll post the questions here anyway.

*June 25, 1774 - Minutes of a public meeting held in Bergen County, New Jersey Location 61*

Why do you think the people in New Jersey were involving themselves in Boston's problems? Are they right to do so?

*December 6, 1774 - Portsmouth, New Hampshire Location 81*

After the conversation between Langdon and Van Buskirk, forgetting what you know about the American Revolution, who do you think is right? Why?

On the basis of the information in first two chapters of this book, would you have been able to decide which side you were on?

*August 23, 1774 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Colony Location 235*

What is your impression of Anna Livingston both before and after John Van Buskirk's fight with Cavanaugh?

What is your impression of William Livingston?

What is your impression of John Van Buskirk both before and after the fight with Cavanaugh?

*August 23, 1774 - Philadelphia Location 587*

What was your impression of John Adams?

What was your impression of Samuel Adams?

What did you think of the conversation between Anna and John while she tended his wounds?

Do you think Anna deliberately put John in a position where her father would insist that they marry? If so, what do you think of her actions? If not, what do you think she was doing?

*September 1, 1774 - Philadelphia Location 1064*

What do you think of he Congress changing all votes to unanimous? Do you think that will make Parliament believe that the colonists are in complete agreement and standing united?

What do you think of Abraham Van Buskirk's ambition to be an aristocrat? If the loyalists win, do you think he will be granted titles and lands by King George?

Were you surprised that some loyalists were willing to cause a war simply for their own ambitions and not out of loyalty to the King?

*September 17, 1774 - Philadelphia Location 1237*

Do you think John and William Livingston were in favor of the nineteen paragraphs?

*September 30, 1774 - Port Richmond, New York State Location 1326*

Were you surprised to learn that John was only sixteen and already deep into politics?

Do you think George King is a deserter or a spy? If he is a deserter, what do you think of his actions and his reasons for deserting.

* December 20, 1774 Elizabethtown, New Jersey Colony Location 1770*

What is your first impression of Jacob Van Buskirk?

What did you think of Anna's manipulation of Jacob?

What did you think of Jacob's assertion that the businessmen would fight leaving the "common" people free to "take over?" If you were a loyalist, would you think the same way?

*March 14, 1775 - Bergen Point, New Jersey*

Resolution of a meeting of some 37 Hackensack neighbors:

_Resolved:

1. That we are and will continue to be loyal subjects to his Majesty King George, and that we will venture our lives and fortunes to support the dignity of his Crown.
2. That we disavow all riotous mobs whatsoever.
3. That by humbly petitioning the Throne is the only salutary means we can think of to remove our present grievances.
4. That we have not, nor (for the future) will not, be concerned in any case whatsoever, with any unconstitutional measures.
5. That we will support his Majesty's civil officers in all their lawful proceedings. _

Which side do you think this resolution came from?

*April 17, 1775 - Boston, Massachusetts*

Do you think Thomas Van Buskirk was committing treason by telling Langdon how to deploy his troops? If not, why do you think he felt he was?

*April 19, 1775 - Massachusetts Bay Colony, Massachusetts*

"By the rude bridge that arch'd the flood, 
Their flag to the April breeze unfurled, 
Here the embattled farmers stood 
And fired the shot heard 'round the world."

What do you think is the significance of "the shot heard 'round the world?"


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Thanks so much for posting that info and the drawings, Jeff. It's amazing that Exxon is still maintaining the graveyard. Do tourists, such as revolutionary war buffs, still visit?


I doubt that anyone knows it exists and, now that I think about it, I don't really know if it's still being maintained. My information is over 30 years old.

Leslie also has an ancestor in that cemetery, maybe she knows. 

EDIT: Here's a link to the book:

​


----------



## Anju  (Nov 8, 2008)

Gertie - you are just determined my brain is not going to turn to mush    Gone was one of the first books I read on my kindle, and it was one I found difficult to put down, but I read it so fast I am sure I missed many points, so am going to read it again.  It was that good anyway, a re-reader  !


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Anju No. 469 said:


> Gertie - you are just determined my brain is not going to turn to mush  Gone was one of the first books I read on my kindle, and it was one I found difficult to put down, but I read it so fast I am sure I missed many points, so am going to read it again. It was that good anyway, a re-reader !


I've been so busy the last couple of weeks, I haven't had time to read much. I'm glad Geoff started this thread. It will get me back in the swing.

Can't wait to discuss it with everyone.


----------



## bkworm8it (Nov 17, 2008)

I really enjoyed the book myself. Read it a couple of months ago. Though I have to say I am miffed about one part of the story but I'll wait until you all have finished reading it.

theresam


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Well I am currently at 30% and loving every minute of it.

Gertie thank you so much for posting the questions.  It is not that I did not want a formal Book Klub but that I don't know how to do one.  If you would continue to post some thought provokers that we can answer to, I would love it.  Perhaps once per week.  It will take many of us that long to compose our answers.

I read a variety of types of material.  From the Greek classics, to the Durants Story of Civilization to Heinleins young adult series and Andre Norton's work. I found The Education of Henry Adams by Henry Adams most interesting.  But I mostly like fiction. And find historical novels great. It makes me then do research.  Mary Renault's Fire from Heaven about Alexander the Great did that. And I enjoy little known facts too. 

Well this book does that for me also.


----------



## tlshaw (Nov 10, 2008)

This is one of the early books I read on my Kindle and loved it. Now, with Gertie's questions, I think I need to reread it. Wonder if I have enough time before we get to the next book in the Outlander Book Klub? I am devouring books right now while I have a break from class and I have already finished Voyager.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Gertie thank you so much for posting the questions. It is not that I did not want a formal Book Klub but that I don't know how to do one. If you would continue to post some thought provokers that we can answer to, I would love it. Perhaps once per week. It will take many of us that long to compose our answers.


I don't know if I can stick to a schedule since I'm already leading the Outlander series, but I'll post as I can.



tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> This is one of the early books I read on my Kindle and loved it. Now, with Gertie's questions, I think I need to reread it. Wonder if I have enough time before we get to the next book in the Outlander Book Klub? I am devouring books right now while I have a break from class and I have already finished Voyager.


Soon, I will have everyone on the boards answering my questions.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Jeff,
So how about John - is this based on a real character?
And how about his wife?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Jeff,
> So how about John - is this based on a real character?
> And how about his wife?


Thomas Van Buskirk Sr. indeed had a son named John who was an officer in the Colonial Army. The John in _Gone For a Soldier_ is, however, a composite character. Some of his deeds are those of others, some are pure fiction.

Anna Van Buskirk is based upon a woman known only as Agent 355 of the Culper Spy Ring. It is believed that she was a member of a prominent New York family who had access to British secrets through Betsy Loring, Peggy Shippen (later Mrs. Benedick Arnold), Peggy Chew and the many other women that surrounded Sir William Howe and John Andre. *Don't look up Agent 355 until you're finished with the book or it will ruin the story for you.*


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Part of Thomas Van Buskirk's reasons for resigning his commission was the failure of the crown to protect his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren.  He obviously also considered himself an American and refused to fight against other Americans.  

Do you think he believed the Americans had a right to rebel?  Yes, he was on the American side, but was he a true rebel?  It seems to me his reasons were more personal than someone who believed in the general concepts espoused by the other leaders.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Jeff,
> So how about John - is this based on a real character?
> And how about his wife?


Anna Livingston Van Buskirk is quite a character. Jeff, did you have daughters who talked you around and left your head spinning?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Part of Thomas Van Buskirk's reasons for resigning his commission was the failure of the crown to protect his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren. He obviously also considered himself an American and refused to fight against other Americans.


I agree, but I would imagine that it was an extremely tough decision.



Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> It seems to me his reasons were more personal than someone who believed in the general concepts espoused by the other leaders.


Perhaps Thomas wasn't a firebrand like Sam Adams and I doubt that he had the passion for independence of Thomas Payne or Benjamin Franklin but to say it was personal when his wife and the majority of his family were loyalist might be an over simplification.



Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Do you think he believed the Americans had a right to rebel? Yes, he was on the American side, but was he a true rebel?


I truly doubt that the word _rebel_ every entered his head. It came down to the simple fact that when General Gage decided to subdue the Colonies by brute force, Thomas had to decide if the British or the Americans were his countrymen. His decision would have been filtered by these facts:

1. Thomas was a veteran of the French and India War where Colonists were pressed into service leaving their families exposed and unprotected on the frontier. (For more read Cooper's _The Last of the Mohicans_) 
2. When King George abandoned the settlers in Kentucky and went back on his word, Thomas rightfully felt betrayed.
3. Thomas served with Washington and would have been influenced greatly by his advice.
4. The Minutemen were woefully out gunned, poorly trained and lack professional leader while gage had 10,000 of, arguably, the best soldiers in the world poised to attack.

...and then there was the shot heard 'round the world. What would you have done?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Anna Livingston Van Buskirk is quite a character. Jeff, did you have daughters who talked you around and left your head spinning?


All women talk me around and leave my head spinning, Gertie. I've never been a match for any of them.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Perhaps Thomas wasn't a firebrand like Sam Adams and I doubt that he had the passion for independence of Thomas Payne or Benjamin Franklin but to say it was personal when his wife and the majority of his family were loyalist might be an over simplification.


When someone like Thomas takes a personal stand, it becomes a matter of honor to him. He would not be swayed by his family. He will always do what he perceives to be right.



> I truly doubt that the word _rebel_ every entered his head. It came down to the simple fact that when General Gage decided to subdue the Colonies by brute force, Thomas had to decide if the British or the Americans were his countrymen. His decision would have been filtered by these facts:
> 
> 1. Thomas was a veteran of the French and India War where Colonists were pressed into service leaving their families exposed and unprotected on the frontier. (For more read Cooper's _The Last of the Mohicans_)
> 2. When King George abandoned the settlers in Kentucky and went back on his word, Thomas rightfully felt betrayed.
> ...


I think his family having been in the colonies for several generations would also have influenced his decision.



> ...and then there was the shot heard 'round the world. What would you have done?


It had to be a very hard decision for those people. Abraham had his own agenda, which I found very interesting.

For me, it would have been personal also. As a single mother, I would have to look for the highest potential for freedom; the right to own my own property and control my own destiny. The Engish were notorious for suppressing the rights of women. The other consideration would be the safety of my children. No matter what my decision, my family could easily have been swept up in the war.

There are those who look at the global issues (Hancock, Adams, Franklin, Revere, etc.) and those who look to hearth and home. I'm among the latter. I like to think I would take the American side, but it's impossible to say without being there; without knowing there was a way to protect my children.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> I like to think I would take the American side, but it's impossible to say without being there; without knowing there was a way to protect my children.


I've given that a lot of thought and can't resolve it. I know for a fact that it would take an unimaginable chain of events to convince me today to take up arms in rebellion against the United States. If that's my nature I might not have chosen to rebel against my king.

Anyone else have thoughts about that? Join in, even if you have no intention of reading this book: Which side do you think you would have chosen in 1774 or 75?


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I've given that a lot of thought and can't resolve it. I know for a fact that it would take an unimaginable chain of events to convince me today to take up arms in rebellion against the United States. If that's my nature I might not have chosen to rebel against my king.


You know, the American situation was unique. These were free settlers who had been colonizing America for 150 years. They weren't transported convicts or soldiers posted to an English colony. I think it's hard to maintain loyalty to a king that is 2-3 months away who just takes and gives nothing back, not even protection. Would it have been different if the king was sitting in America and accessible? Yes. It's one thing to take up arms against a shadowy figure thousands of miles away in a different country, and another to rebel against a government that has a clear presence where we live.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> You know, the American situation was unique. These were free settlers who had been colonizing America for 150 years. They weren't transported convicts or soldiers posted to an English colony. I think it's hard to maintain loyalty to a king that is 2-3 months away who just takes and gives nothing back, not even protection. Would it have been different if the king was sitting in America and accessible? Yes. It's one thing to take up arms against a shadowy figure thousands of miles away in a different country, and another to rebel against a government that has a clear presence where we live.


Major Thomas Van Buskirk aside for a moment, what about the other British soldiers who joined the Colonials? Not those who were born in America but those like the George King character who were born in England or another part of the British Empire? Would you apply the same logic to them?


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Major Thomas Van Buskirk aside for a moment, what about the other British soldiers who joined the Colonials? Not those who were born in America but those like the George King character who were born in England or another part of the British Empire? Would you apply the same logic to them?


Again, America is a unique situation. Did the British soldiers join in the Mutiny in India? No. Even if they wanted to, they would not have been welcome. The Indian people were different from the English.

On the other hand, the Americans and English came from the same roots. It would be more natural for the British soldiers to join the colonists and for the colonists to accept them

What kind of opportunities for advancement were there in England in the 18th Century? Even in the army, commissions were purchased, and that avenue of advancement would be denied to the common soldier.

Yes, I would apply the same logic. These soldiers are far from home and they see an opportunity to break their bondage to the king. They see a chance for freedom and a new way of life. They would never rebel at home.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Enlistment in the British army was for life and the practice of flogging did little to ingrain long term loyalty. It's astonishing to me that the whole enlisted corps didn't join the Revolution. Maybe that's why there were so many Hessians.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Enlistment in the British army was for life and the practice of flogging did little to ingrain long term loyalty. It's astonishing to me that the whole enlisted corps didn't join the Revolution. Maybe that's why there were so many Hessians.


And look what happened to them at Trenton.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

The American success at Trenton, in my opinion, was a result of Washington's audacity and Colonel John Glover's Marblehead Marine Regiment. The Hessian officers who drank too much during the Christmas celebration probably played a much smaller role than most history books assert.

Did you read the entire text of Payne's pamphlet or quit with "These are the times that try men's souls." when you know what was coming?


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Did you read the entire text of Payne's pamphlet or quit with "These are the times that try men's souls." when you know what was coming?


40 years ago.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> 40 years ago.


I read it every Christmas.

We should continue this conversation by PM. I don't think there are any other American History buffs here.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I read it every Christmas.
> 
> We should continue this conversation by PM. I don't think there are any other American History buffs here.


American history isn't my favorite, but I enjoy any historical discussion. If someone else posts, we can always come back and talk to them.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> You know, the American situation was unique. These were free settlers who had been colonizing America for 150 years. They weren't transported convicts or soldiers posted to an English colony. I think it's hard to maintain loyalty to a king that is 2-3 months away who just takes and gives nothing back, not even protection. Would it have been different if the king was sitting in America and accessible? Yes. It's one thing to take up arms against a shadowy figure thousands of miles away in a different country, and another to rebel against a government that has a clear presence where we live.


Is that entirely true?
I thought that there were many groups of people who moved here (Heugonots -now I know I have mispelled that) as an alternative to continued religious persecution where they were. They did not really wan to come here. Also there was a significant population of indentured slaves - people who sold themselves into a certain number of years of servitude. There were also some instances of the prisons being emptied - go to America or the gallows. 
No it was not a strict penal colony such as Australia was, but it was still a place of high-borns being given land grants by the King and the lower class being dumped here rather than starve in England - or at least that is what I thought I read. No?


----------



## Anju  (Nov 8, 2008)

I like to think I would be for the revolution.

A lot of indentured servants were done so by the upper class in England and I thought it was a punishment.  Again the "king" was far away, and actually had no care for the people that had been colonists for over 150 years.  He appointed folks that would serve him, not the people.

I am not a history buff or even know all that much about American History, or have forgotten what I do know (aging brain cells doncha know), but love to read other peoples opinions. so please don't pm, keep it here!


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Emma Lazarus may have said it best:

...Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me...​


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Is that entirely true?
> I thought that there were many groups of people who moved here (Heugonots -now I know I have mispelled that) as an alternative to continued religious persecution where they were. They did not really wan to come here.


The huguenots were mainly persecuted during the reign of Louis XV, which would have been the 17th century. The massacre of the huguenots on St. Bartholemew's Day took place in 1572. It is most likely that those who came here to escape religious persecution did so in the 17th century, not the 18th century. So they would already have put down roots; many would have been born here.



> Also there was a significant population of indentured slaves - people who sold themselves into a certain number of years of servitude. There were also some instances of the prisons being emptied - go to America or the gallows.


Yes, that's true. Many of the Scots captured at Culloden in 1745 or in the aftermath were sent here as indentured servants. Some probably fled here, although my guess is that more of them went to France than America. Again, some 20 years before the revolution, so they would have had time to complete their indenture and take up land. There was nothing to go back to.

It is interesting to note that the Scots fought on the side of the British during the revolution. They had already seen first hand what the British did to those they defeated.



> No it was not a strict penal colony such as Australia was, but it was still a place of high-borns being given land grants by the King and the lower class being dumped here rather than starve in England - or at least that is what I thought I read. No?


Yes, that is also true, but there were many backwoods areas where even the poor could be given land. The rich were given the choice lands, of course.

Jeff, help me out, here. I saw a show on the History Channel the other day about these backwoodsmen, mostly Scots and Irish and how they formed a separate covenant among themselves to be independent, even before the Declaration of Independence. When the British went after them, the caught the British on a hill, surrounded them and won a decisive victory. I can't think of the name of the battle at the moment.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> The huguenots were mainly persecuted during the reign of Louis XV, which would have been the 17th century. The massacre of the huguenots on St. Bartholemew's Day took place in 1572. It is most likely that those who came here to escape religious persecution did so in the 17th century, not the 18th century. So they would already have put down roots; many would have been born here.


Colonel Francis Marion, known as the Swamp Fox and nemesis of Banastre Tarleton was a Huguenot. Marion was played by Mel Gibson in the somewhat fanciful film _The Patriot_. I rather hope his portrayal and that of Tarleton in _Gone For a Soldier_ is more accurate. Having said that it might be fair to mention that I received an email from an Englishman who accused me of slandering the name of an English hero (Tarleton). Anyone agree?



Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Yes, that is also true, but there were many backwoods areas where even the poor could be given land. The rich were given the choice lands, of course.
> 
> Jeff, help me out, here. I saw a show on the History Channel the other day about these backwoodsmen, mostly Scots and Irish and how they formed a separate covenant among themselves to be independent, even before the Declaration of Independence. When the British went after them, the caught the British on a hill, surrounded them and won a decisive victory. I can't think of the name of the battle at the moment.


You may be thinking of the "Overmountain Men", also knows as "Hillbillies" who were primarily Scots-Irish from Virginia the Carolinas. They defeated the British at the Battle of Kings Mountain in 1780 which led to the British abandoning the southern campaign.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Colonel Francis Marion, known as the Swamp Fox and nemesis of Banastre Tarleton was a Huguenot. Marion was played by Mel Gibson in the somewhat fanciful film _The Patriot_. I rather hope his portrayal and that of Tarleton in _Gone For a Soldier_ is more accurate. Having said that it might be fair to mention that I received an email from an Englishman who accused me of slandering the name of an English hero (Tarleton). Anyone agree?


It certainly depends on your point of view. I haven't gotten as far as your portrayal of Tarleton, yet, so I really can't say.



> You may be thinking of the "Overmountain Men", also knows as "Hillbillies" who were primarily Scots-Irish from Virginia the Carolinas. They defeated the British at the Battle of Kings Mountain in 1780 which led to the British abandoning the southern campaign.


That's it. I knew you would know.

_American settlers of largely Scotch-Irish descent settled west of, or "over," the Appalachians, and were thus known as the "Overmountain Men." They united into a semi-autonomous government called the *Watauga Association in 1772*, about four years before the United States Declaration of Independence._


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

We owe quite a debt to those Hillbillies. Lil' Abner wasn't in the *Battle of Kings Mountain* but John Crockett, who had a son named Davey, was.

Another interesting aside is that when the Loyalists tried to surrender, the Overmountain Men answered that they would give them "Tarleton's Quarter", meaning that they would take no prisoners. Dang. There I go slandering a British hero again.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> We owe quite a debt to those Hillbillies. Lil' Abner wasn't in the *Battle of Kings Mountain* but John Crockett, who had a son named Davey, was.


Good thing they won. I might never have worn a coonskin hat when I was 10 if they hadn't.



> Another interesting aside is that when the Loyalists tried to surrender, the Overmountain Men answered that they would give them "Tarleton's Quarter", meaning that they would take no prisoners. Dang. There I go slandering a British hero again.


Lest I offend ... I shall send you the emoticon in a pm.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Good thing they won. I might never have worn a coonskin hat when I was 10 if they hadn't.


Or "Remember the Alamo" might have been a Mexican battle cry.


----------



## Anju  (Nov 8, 2008)

It's ok with me if you slander a British hero?  At least you know more than just kindlers are reading your books.  Just don't slander a Texas hero


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Anju No. 469 said:


> Just don't slander a Texas hero


Wouldn't think of it.

Our British cousin claimed that the atrocities attributed to Tarleton were manufactured. My response to him was that Bloody Ban Tarleton was the only British officer who was not invited to a dinner hosted by George Washington after the surrender at Yorktown.


----------



## bkworm8it (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm really enjoying this thread and learning a lot!

theresam


----------



## tlshaw (Nov 10, 2008)

When the Revolution was heating up, a good portion of those who later became leaders were not anxious to "rebel". They still considered themselves English, but wanted to simply be left alone to live their lives. However, King George was determined to show his authority. I have often wondered how things would have been different had he not pushed so hard. We would most likely have continued to develop a separate nation, but it would take much longer. If this had happened, would people like the Van Buskirks been a part of the aristocracy?


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Near as I can remember, many of the colonists were originally second sons of well-thought of English Families.
They just wanted the "rights of an Englishman".  Which were mostly the opportunity to make a living off of other people.
But they found themselves the "other people".  Hey Kingy let me in on the game, hey.
Or am I oversimplifying it?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Near as I can remember, many of the colonists were originally second sons of well-thought of English Families.
> They just wanted the "rights of an Englishman". Which were mostly the opportunity to make a living off of other people.
> But they found themselves the "other people". Hey Kingy let me in on the game, hey.
> Or am I oversimplifying it?


Your description is probably accurate when referring to the planters in the south but the typical northerner was fairly far removed from European aristocracy. Most had come in search of religious freedom or the opportunity to create their own destinies.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> When the Revolution was heating up, a good portion of those who later became leaders were not anxious to "rebel". They still considered themselves English, but wanted to simply be left alone to live their lives. However, King George was determined to show his authority. I have often wondered how things would have been different had he not pushed so hard. We would most likely have continued to develop a separate nation, but it would take much longer. If this had happened, would people like the Van Buskirks been a part of the aristocracy?


You bring up a good point. Two hundred years later, would we be part of the Commonwealth with a Prime Minister instead of a President?



geoffthomas said:


> Near as I can remember, many of the colonists were originally second sons of well-thought of English Families.
> They just wanted the "rights of an Englishman". Which were mostly the opportunity to make a living off of other people.
> But they found themselves the "other people". Hey Kingy let me in on the game, hey.
> Or am I oversimplifying it?


Sometimes it's good to simplify a situation; look at the broader picture.



Jeff said:


> Your description is probably accurate when referring to the planters in the south but the typical northerner was fairly far removed from European aristocracy. Most had come in search of religious freedom or the opportunity to create their own destinies.


Perhaps the beginnings of the differences between the north and the south a hundred years later?

Northerners would have been more inclined to grant freedoms since they were a persecuted group looking for freedom themselves.

That would make the Southerners those who wanted to make a living off other people, as Geoff said.

Hence the difference in their outlook when it came to slavery. Does that seem plausible?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> When the Revolution was heating up, a good portion of those who later became leaders were not anxious to "rebel". They still considered themselves English, but wanted to simply be left alone to live their lives. However, King George was determined to show his authority. I have often wondered how things would have been different had he not pushed so hard. We would most likely have continued to develop a separate nation, but it would take much longer. If this had happened, would people like the Van Buskirks been a part of the aristocracy?


Sorry, Teresa, I somehow missed seeing your post. You're quite right. King George thought of the colonists as disobedient subjects who needed to be punished. It never occurred to him that they might actually mount a successful rebellion.

I don't think that the northern colonies would have stood for an American aristocracy but the south was quite the opposite. As Gertie suggests, those were the seeds of the Civil War, four score and seven years later.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Well I have been "quiet" because I decided to put my head down and read.
I have now finished this fine book.

Side track - Jeff it is nice to see your previous avatar back.  I found the white character cute, but enjoy the instant recognition of the book covers.  Thanks for going back to it.

Wow.

I am going to really dive into spoilers now that I am finished. I don't think we can "black-out" entire posts and keep the thread moving so I am just going to post.  Those who haven't finished - hurry up.

Jeff, I found why you made the remarks about Abraham Van Buskirk being bad. But he (as a character is nothing compared to Ban.  Is there documentation for his evilness - how much is fiction?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Side track - Jeff it is nice to see your previous avatar back. I found the white character cute, but enjoy the instant recognition of the book covers. Thanks for going back to it.


I stopped any promotions until the dust settled on the new author policies. Since I haven't noticed any reader complaints lately, I thought it might be time to at least put back the old avatar. Thank you for your support.



geoffthomas said:


> I am going to really dive into spoilers now that I am finished. I don't think we can "black-out" entire posts and keep the thread moving so I am just going to post. Those who haven't finished - hurry up.


I don't know how to handle that. Maybe Betsy or Gertie could offer a suggestion.



geoffthomas said:


> Jeff, I found why you made the remarks about Abraham Van Buskirk being bad. But he (as a character is nothing compared to Ban. Is there documentation for his evilness - how much is fiction?


Other than his conversations, everything about Abraham Van Buskirk is well documented. Here's an example:

Abraham Van Buskirk at Fort Griswold

As to "Bloody" Sir Banastre Tarleton, his boast of raping more women than any other British officer is well documented and that made it easy for me to demonize his character. On the other hand, there is a great deal of debate about his conduct in battle: For example: The American version of *Battle of Waxhaws*, sometimes called the *Waxhaws Massacre*, says that Tarleton ignored a white flag of surrender. The British version says that the Americans raised a white flag then fired a shot at Tarleton. Since there's no doubt that Tarleton was the most hated of all British officers, unless they were incredible, I chose to accept the testimony of the American witnesses to Tarleton's military engagements.

The church burning with all the villagers inside that was portrayed in the film *The Patriot* is probably not true.


----------



## Anju  (Nov 8, 2008)

I am glad to see the avatar back too!

Going to re-read this book fairly soon, enjoyed it the first time, but read it so fast to get to the end I know I missed a whole bunch.  A couple or three are ahead of it though.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Anju No. 469 said:


> I am glad to see the avatar back too!
> 
> Going to re-read this book fairly soon, enjoyed it the first time, but read it so fast to get to the end I know I missed a whole bunch. A couple or three are ahead of it though.


I Agree with Dona. I even found myself skimming over some of the letters from G. Washington to get back to the "story".

Here I bet that some other readers and I will disagree. I enjoyed the interlacing of fact and reprinted documentation with fiction story. I thought, just as in Treasure of La Malinche, that the facts made the fiction more interesting and the fiction sure spiced up the facts. But that is just me.

So I will re-read this book.
Jeff, after TLM, I expected to like this book but I was prepared for it to be "Jeff's scholarly work" by comparison. I am hard put to decide which I like more. And maybe I won't try to hard and will like them equally. 
Nicely done.

You knew it was coming.....
Just sayin....


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Thank you Geoff and Dona. I've been thinking about taking Leslie's advice and hiring a professional editor to help me split the existing books into a series of smaller books. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I don't know how to handle that. Maybe Betsy or Gertie could offer a suggestion.


I wouldn't put spoiler tags around any of the discussion. Firstly, people look anyway, so it ends up just being a courtesy that few take advantage of. Secondly, the title clearly states "spoilers allowed," so it's enter at your own risk.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

bkworm8it said:


> I really enjoyed the book myself. Read it a couple of months ago. Though I have to say I am miffed about one part of the story but I'll wait until you all have finished reading it.
> 
> theresam


Let's hear it, Teresa.



Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> I wouldn't put spoiler tags around any of the discussion. Firstly, people look anyway, so it ends up just being a courtesy that few take advantage of. Secondly, the title clearly states "spoilers allowed," so it's enter at your own risk.


Thanks, Gertie. Below, I'm quoting your earlier post which, I thought, might make Geoff's job easier.



Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> ...Geoff, I know you don't want to do a formal club, but since I haven't read all of the book either, these questions might help the discussion along. How you want to discuss this is up to you guys, but I'll post the questions here anyway.
> 
> *June 25, 1774 - Minutes of a public meeting held in Bergen County, New Jersey Location 61*
> 
> ...


----------



## bkworm8it (Nov 17, 2008)

OK since I'm able to post now, here goes. 

I was very miffed that Anna died and the way she died. I kept hoping with John that she was still alive and I actually cried when he found out she was really dead and later he gave his life because she was gone. They never got much of a chance at a marriage but even with their 'snide' banter it was obvious that they truly loved each other. 

Oh and bloody Banister deserved more than he got. I was so hoping John would have gotten a hold of him. I'm glad the French gal did him in. (Sorry, its been a while since I've read the book, most of the names have escaped me).

I was disappointed that the uncle threw Anna in jail and didn't seem too worried about what would happen to her. I had gotten the impression that he cared for his nephew but I guess not. 

Other than the sadness of loosing Anna and John, I really enjoyed the book and the facts and fiction that went into it. Helped to understand a little more what those people lived through.

theresam


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

bkworm8it said:


> I was very miffed that Anna died and the way she died. I kept hoping with John that she was still alive and I actually cried when he found out she was really dead and later he gave his life because she was gone. They never got much of a chance at a marriage but even with their 'snide' banter it was obvious that they truly loved each other.
> 
> Oh and bloody Banister deserved more than he got. I was so hoping John would have gotten a hold of him. I'm glad the French gal did him in.
> 
> ...


I felt the same way, Theresa, but that's the way it happened. I wrote _Gone For a Soldier_ in an attempt to educate while entertaining, so sticking as close to history as possible seemed important. That's why it contains complete (and often boring) documents such as the entire Declaration of Independence.

The real woman that Anna was modeled after was pregnant when she was imprisoned on the _Jersey_ but I left that out because it was too gut-wrenching.

The fact is that Abraham Van Buskirk was a cold individual as we've discussed earlier in this thread.

John was a composite character and I could have written his end differently. However I wanted to show how war changes a man and that John was nothing without Anna or a cause.

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## bkworm8it (Nov 17, 2008)

Well I'm glad you didn't say she was pregnant at the time. I used to throw my book when it made me cry but can't really do that with my kindle LOL.

I enjoyed the documents and the entire Declaration, if you ask me it's not read enough.fit

I didn't think there was any other ending for John. It seemed fit with the way he lived during the war.

theresam


----------



## tlshaw (Nov 10, 2008)

I have to admit that I cried when Anna died. It seemed so inhumane, and to think Abraham was responsible. I agree that the ending for John fit how he lived and fought, but was it rage at the British or despair over losing Anna that drove him?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> I have to admit that I cried when Anna died. It seemed so inhumane, and to think Abraham was responsible.


War is inhumane. Historically it was probably Andre who arrested the real Anna and sent her to the prison ship. Joshua Loring was responsible for the abominable conditions on the _Jersey_. British Parliament sent enough money to feed and clothe the American prisoners, but Loring and his cohorts stole it.



tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> I agree that the ending for John fit how he lived and fought, but was it rage at the British or despair over losing Anna that drove him?


He was ill, unsure if he would ever regain his strength and had nothing left to live for. What better way to die than leading a forlorn hope that would decide the future of his new country?

If I live long enough, Yank Van Buskirk will carry on in his parents' tradition before and during the War of 1812.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

When I dug into a quick historical read, I was thrilled to see that Gen Morgan really did contribute significantly to the win.

And we had grown to love outspoken Anna and John - they were matched nicely.  

The book ended as did the revolution really, bittersweet.  Got Independence but lost any piece of innocence that we had.


----------



## tlshaw (Nov 10, 2008)

Jeff said:


> If I live long enough, Yank Van Buskirk will carry on in his parents' tradition before and during the War of 1812.


Jeff, I can't wait to read it. I hope you get it written. I am anxious to see how much Yank inherits from John and Anna.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Jeff I have a question.
You have mentioned that Abraham was a meany.
And I think you indicated that he was responsible for Anna's final disposition.

But I did not see that in the book.

Did I miss it?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Jeff I have a question.
> You have mentioned that Abraham was a meany.
> And I think you indicated that he was responsible for Anna's final disposition.
> 
> ...


If I said that, I was having a senior moment, Geoff.

Betsy Loring's husband, Joshua, who was in charge of all the prisons and American POWs, must bear the responsibility for all those who died on _Jersey_.

The historical character upon whom Anna is based was probably arrested by John Andre. Whether or not Peggy Shippen (Mrs. Benedict Arnold) gave up Anna to Andre in order to secure Arnold's position with the English is pure speculation.


----------

