John Adams described the political unity of the colonies as “thirteen clocks made to strike together.” The author indicates that what helped mobilize Americans of different backgrounds come together in political solidarity is unclear. Economic and intellectual explanations are discussed by the author but it still remains a mystery. (Connor H).

The results of a lot of the battles were very bloody and costly. The war had encompassed restraint and influences of morality. America's Perspective of war came from the European perspective. The Americans took many of their ideas of war from the Europeans. Also during the war North Carolina needed support from South Carolina and vice versa. (Connor H.)

The author describes how the social tensions came about with the increase in import of British goods. Even though British goods were helpful to the colonists, it also made them dependent on the British merchants and credit. Once dependent, Britain decided to tax the colonies, which led to debates about colonial reliance on Britain. (Connor H).

The unrestrained nature of militias led to an unprecedentedly violent war. The “American” style of fighting shocked the British, replacing the centuries old European standard of marching in straight lines and returning fire one at a time. The brutality of the war was largely due to American armies refusal to practice these “expected” form of war but rather using strategy and at the time unconventional means to win battles. Declan F.

The European model of warfare was cast away by Americans largely due to the difficulty they had in forming united militias. With no official army it became difficult to enforce rules and laws amongst those willing to fight. A uniformed army would not form, but rather an effectively out of control militia helped win the Revolutionary War. Declan F.

The British and the Colonists took different war strategies when fighting the American Revolution. The British stuck with their traditional European form of combat. The colonists though, adapted more of a Native American style of fighting. (Hank L)

It is interesting that there was an expectation of fighting rules. This apparently began to break down. The rules seemed to have degrees of importance and specific levels of violence. The institutional structure of the militia, but there was a war of retaliation. Reports of violence to women and children and executions were not uncommon. There developed an idea that some actions were worse than others and it ranged from plunder, robbery, capture or killings. (Suzanne Ferraro).

By military tradition, the government and military officers also assumed that it was acceptable to impress on the enemies without payment. Soldiers not under the control of officers were more likely to plunder inappropriately. some militia groups seemed ashamed of their former behavior or wished to behave better than the Virginia troops. The killing of men trying to surrender during battle was considered more excusable than cold-blooded execution. It is interesting that some battles involved waiving the white flag of surrender or communication of surrender by the other party. Sometimes executions were justified by relying on events that happened at previous battles. (Suzanne Ferraro).

The idea that war developed a theory of killing by the rules also developed a message on the other side to accuse the other side of not killing by the rules or violating the rules of warfare. However, the rules just broke down, and retaliation was considered justified by parties in some situations. The law of retaliation involves both political and social aspects. (Suzanne Ferraro).

War is widely conditioned by issues of legitimacy. What does the culture being studied understand war to be? It's based on a broadly understood set of cultural expectations about the purpose of wars and the way that wars are waged. For example, at the beginning of the Revolution, people expected a “virtuous war”. (Ezra C.)

The European Way of war sought decisiveness in battle and wanted it to be clear-cut. There were ideas of conduct which protected noncombatants, made sure prisoners could be ransomed, and provided for communication between the two sides. Those who could not fight or harm others should not be killed. There were exceptions to these rules, but on the whole it was a very strict code of conduct. (Ezra C.)

The juridical works most commonly cited for the early modern period were those of Franciscus Vitoria (or Vitoria), Hugo Grotius, and Emmerich Vattel, Their writings began to provide a definitive list of rules that explained not only just and unjust wars (jus ad bellum), but also the rules of conduct within war (jus in bello). Many of those rules were not new, but merely formal restatements of developed practice. The jurists' work, however, helped codify tradition. (Guy.)

The European military shifted during the colonization of America, they grew in terms of efficiency and size. This led to a violent war. This type of violence was rejected as they led into the development of the nation states. The European military was searching for ways to foster favorable conditions and they later developed a new set of rules with corresponding punishments to limit the violence. The actual rules were called the “military laws” that were set in place to govern the behavior of the soldiers. (Annie Feck)

British forces began to incorporate the small scale warfare practices committed by Native American groups, such as the form of ambushes, surprise and raids, low cover operations to strike hard and fast against an enemy that typically didn't result in many casualties. Native Americans were almost symbolic in their battle strategies, as means to tell their frustration and feelings, rather than full scale war fare. (Scarlett).

Europeans also acknowledged the different types of warfare committed by Native American groups, somewhat in two categories, mourning wars and prisoner torture. Known from the Iroquois of New York, Mourning wars focused on replacing a member of a tribe that was deceased by integrating a prisoner into their space, or allowing grieving families to adopt them into the tribe and accept them as replacements. The other option was torture, in which prisoners were expected to take the full force of a grieving family's feelings and endure torture with the intent to kill (Scarlett).

Militias were the main military instrument during the American Revolution. Militias were viewed as American Institutions during this time. There were many weaknesses with militias, such as money to feed the militia and to properly equip them. The largest problem discussed though, was the resistance displayed by soldiers and by officers. (Hank L.)

The graduation of violence (the idea that some things are worse than others) can be analyzed through four broad categories that contemporaries also would have recognized. These categories were plunder; the definition and treatment of prisoners; the traditional formalities of war (such as truces, commissions, messengers, etc.); and the crimes of house burning, rape, and murder. (Guy)

One of the key problems that persisted in the revolutionary war was plundering and the impressment of supplies from the people, which caused resentment around. The thought of why it was okay to acquire supplies would vary depending on the location and situation, such as taking it from people who are loyal and should support the army that was fighting for them. Another case mentioned by Lee was that some militia officers believed it was okay to impress from people who were seen as the enemy, according to military tradition. (David Y.)

On the opposite side of the coin, it is mentioned by Lee that unlike militia, Officers and Soldiers were more restraint to plundering supplies from others. The countering for plundering with soldiers in the continental army was more of a way to avoid shaming themselves and the army. Though this was more effective towards soldiers, there wasn't that much of a feeling from militia. (David Y.)

Whig's were seen to be pretty aggressive towards British Loyalists (a.k.a Tories) as mentioned in the reading where executions through hanging were seen. Cornwallis had mentioned that such treatment against prisoners was barbaric and savage, saying that a criminal charge was necessary for such a punishment. Other causes of execution for people would often be from (is firing squad a proper term for this time period?), though plenty of other punishments were used during this war by both sides. (David Y.)

The violence was spinning out of control in North Carolina. The violence was perceived as legitimate and necessary, but each time another side pushed the boundary to what was subjectively “ethical” the opposing side was sure to retaliate, leading to an inevitable deterioration in war restraints. - Keller D

In the previous chapter, it touched on how the militias were unpredictable, particularly due to their reluctance to act at times, but lashing out at other times. This theme continued in this chapter, where the militia groups exercised their retaliations but lacked the knowledge of war restraints practiced by the British, causing further animosity and escalating the wars further leading to tactics such as plundering, night raids, and ambushes. - Keller D.

Violence dominated North Carolina between 1780 and 1782, and it was particularly extreme. The author notes, however, that despite the violence, militias still followed certain rules, including a gradation of violence—some types of violence were considered worse than others. For instance, disarmament and impressment were acceptable, where cold-blooded executions were not. The author also addresses the breakdown of these rules or restraints on violence as the war progressed,noting that retaliatory violence was accepted.The author points out that colonial Americans expected war to be restrained and virtuous. (Connor H)

Plundering was a major problem over the course of the world, armies were expected to take supplies where it was found almost as a formality for citizens, who were given a receipt for whatever was taken with the intent for it to be returned or value replaced after the course of the war. However, the public often complained of the unfairness of the tactic and the insolence of the people taking their goods, yet they resigned themselves to the authorized theft of their things. (Scarlett).

The violent nature of the southern conflict in the Revolutionary War can be understood as a clashing of different military cultures. There was the classic military culture of Europe and the very different culture of the Eastern Woodland Indians. These differing ideas about what was okay during war led to a spiral of retaliation until by the end of the war there were hardly any boundaries that remained uncrossed. - Ewan H