About book The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (2007)
NOTE: This was a little more detail here than I wanted, but it was interesting enough to keep me going all the way through. Over the course of two months, I plodded through these six hundred pages with overall less enjoyment than I had hoped for, particularly during the order-of-battle sections, which I’ll admit I skimmed through. In truth I probably only really read about 3/4 of this book. If for some reason you ever find yourself in the vicinity of my hometown of Buffalo (NY), the coolest thing you can do there as a tourist (my opinion) is to see the Niagara Falls. The second coolest thing you can do is visit Old Fort Niagara- the British fort which controlled access to Lake Erie, and supplied naval forces on Lake Ontario. Growing up, whenever people visited my family from out of town, Fort Niagara was on the short list of places we’d show off. Typically staff would dress in period costumes and give little discussions about the Fort's assorted points of interest, but it never seemed as corny as it sounds when I describe it now.To be honest, Fort Niagara is hardly mentioned in this book, because it did not see much action in the Revolutionary War. It was, however, important in the “French and Indian War” (which British know better as the American theatre of the Seven Years War). I mention this because one of the facts which this book most impressed upon me was how important the French and Indian War was in setting the conditions which ultimately resulted in the Revolutionary War. From 1754–1763, British forces battled the French, Spanish and Native American proxies for control of fur trapping land in Canada, as well as a swath of land in Appalachia and the Gulf Coast. The British colonists of the time were frequently raided by the French, for supplies, and as a way of indirectly harassing the British. At the close of the conflict, France and Spain both ceded territory to the British, but- importantly- were not driven entirely from the continent. To assuage the colonists’ lingering fears that the war might heat up again, the British were obliged to maintain a standing army in North America, to secure their northern and western borders.The cost of maintaining this presence came at an inopportune time, as it was the beginning of a period of expansion of the British influence in India, and maintaining order on the subcontinent required sizable military expense. To offset this financial strain, the English parliament decided to levy taxes in the colonies. Surely the colonists’ wouldn’t object to funding the troops which kept them secure and prosperous- er, right? And so began the whole “taxation without representation” dispute. The British Empire in 1763It starts with the Stamp Act (of 1765)… but I’m not going to go too deeply into the nitty gritty. I just deleted four pages detailing the legal wrangling of the Stamp Act, the Townsend Act and other agitations which led up to war. Not because that stuff is boring; it isn’t.. but my telling of it is, and to a lesser extent, so was this book’s. I really just want to comment on the few most memorable points I got from it: 1)tThe Virginian legislature had something called “The House of Burgesses”… sort of a lower House of Delegates, if I understand correctly. When the Stamp Act was getting the rest of the colonies riled up in 1765, the HOB was the first and most audacious in its protest to the British parliament. Adopting (HOB member, and later celebrity patriot) Patrick Henry’s resolution, the HOB declared a) that parliament had no right to tax the colonies without representation; b) Virginians would not pay the tax proposed (!); and c) anybody who did pay would be deemed an enemy of the colony of Virginia! WOOO! That’s some pretty ballsy stuff! What’s funny about all this is that those resolutions would normally never have been passed, except the HOB was in late night session, with just barely a quorum present to approve the resolution, and it just happened that most members present were younger, less experienced politicians, many who had reputations as firebrands who were not expected to survive in office beyond the next election. No matter; once Virginia sent the document, other colonies found their courage to add their agreement and pass similar, more toned-down resolutions.2)tIn episode after episode following the above reaction to the Stamp Act, the British parliament demonstrated remarkable inability to fathom the attitude of the colonies. All sorts of parliamentary discussion followed about the colonists' ingratitude, and possible repercussions, including possibly pulling out the British army to “let the colonists face the French and Indians on their own”. Realistically, nobody wanted to do that, because it would invite a French invasion. Remarkably, never once does this book record any consideration of giving the colonies representation! It seems like a fairly reasonable response- at least worth talking about. Never came up, that I can see. In defense of the British side, communications were quite slow, and a poorly-worded statement by Parliament could take literally months to identify and clarify, while colonial rage on the other side of the ocean tended to escalate rapidly. If modern telecommunications had existed (or even a trans-Atlantic telegraph), it seems likely things would never have gotten so out of hand as to result in armed conflict and a Declaration of Independence. 3)tUsually the start of the Revolutionary War is drawn at either the shootouts at Lexington and Concorde (April 1775), or the more formalized clash of opposing troops at the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 1775), but in June of 1772, a bunch of incensed Rhode Island merchants blackened their faces, boarded the British blockade ship HMS Gaspee in Providence's Narragansett Bay, took control of the ship, ran it aground, and set it on fire... pretty clearly an act of war. When British officials demanded justice, they found nobody willing to cooperate with the investigation. Kind of the stereotypical mafia response “I didn’t see nuthin’.” This just confirms my longstanding impression that Rhode Island was, and still is, populated by spirited creatures filled with such vigor and enthusiasm for their principles, they can barely be described as sane, and certainly never characterized as reasonable.Don't fuck with Rhode Islanders4)tBoth the British and the colonist armies were reluctant to have an all-out showdown in a single confrontation. The British generals had been instructed that they should fight the campaign with the troops they had (i.e. not to expect a lot of replacement troops, because of troop demands elsewhere in the Empire). The American side was concerned the effect a large loss might have on retention and recruitment of men. As it was, American soldiers only enlisted for short periods (frequently less than a year) and maintaining high morale and a reasonable expectation of victory directly affected enlistment numbers.5)tThe British lacked a grand vision of how to prosecute the war. Early naval blockades of Boston and Newport, Rhode Island were not as effective as the British had hoped, because these cities could be supplied by overland routes, and the American Eastern seaboard was too broad for the allotted naval forces to blockade. Observing this, (British) General Howe led an army inland. Thinking that New England held the bulk of separatist activity, he planned on cutting off New England from the rest of the colonies, by taking New York City, and placing a large force along the Hudson River. This vision was never fully realized, because political events showed that it was really the entire colonies who meant to separate, not just New England.6)tThe importance of the Battles of Saratoga cannot be overstated. General John Burgoyne parlayed a minor victory at the Battle of Freeman’s Farm (September 1777) into a stunning defeat at the Battle of Bemis heights (October 1777). Burgoyne essentially overextended himself, ran out of supplies, and became surrounded by colonial forces, necessitating a complete surrender. The incident highlights the disadvantage British forces had keeping themselves supplied when fighting inland. The defeat was not only a huge loss of men and materiel, it was also a major blow to British morale, and it was the deciding factor which brought France into the war on the side of the colonies. Looking at the great British military power, it is clear the Crown could have pressed harder and brought the colonies to submission, if it had really wanted to, but doing so would have required a drawdown of forces in other theatres (read: India), which they were not willing to do. Besides that, most English still disbelieved the colonies would survive long as an independent state anyhow. True, some feared France might take over the colonies, or use them as a proxy to fight British forces, but it seems most believed the colonies would continue to trade with England, and since that really was their main value to the Empire, maybe all the acrimony about their soverignty vs. subservience was ultimately not worth fighting about. Battles of Saratoga7)tFollowing humiliation in the northern colonies, British General William Howe turned to more vulnerable military targets in Georgia and South Carolina, hoping to gain a momentum and break the colonists' will with large land gains in the South. This never happened, because the challenges of adequately supplying his forces turned out to be insurmountable. Military planners back in London had failed to appreciate the mood of the general American public; they had assumed that the separatists were a miniscule minority, and most Americans would happily supply the liberating British army. In reality, General Howe had difficulty buying food and other supplies from American merchants at any price, and those who did sell, often did so at exploitive prices.It's a little bit scattershot, but there you go. The book was good with broad principles. I wouldn't say it "made history come alive" as the kids are fond of saying, and it didn't cover specific individuals in great depth, but overall a solid 3 star read.
As I continue my march through the ages, where I explore all the historical eras of the United States of America, I finally arrive at the age and event that would create the nation itself. Having finished Fred Anderson Crucible of War, I had already arrived at that generation of Americans, which we would describe as the Founding generation, and they were living under the man they would call tyrant, King George III. As I stated in an earlier post the biggest challenge in this little project is to find books whose authors try their best to explore from multiple perspectives to avoid just one narrow view, without at the same time surrendering a general narrative that is both readable and enjoyable. I found this book to meet those qualifications.Robert Middelkauff's brings the conflict that gave birth to the United States of America to life in his classic work, The Glorious Cause. This book tells the story of thirteen colonies who revolted against the mother country of Great Britain to form their own nation. The story begins on the close of the French and Indian War (or Seven Years War) where the British Empire was triumphant,the greatest power of North America, and undisputed ruler of the sea. The story ends with George Washington taking office as the first President of the United States.We tend to think of the American Revolution as happening from 1774-1783 but Middelkauff believes that it began in the 1760s. He argues this even though the American disagreement with the mother country during the late 1760s and early 1770s was about their rights as British subjects in the Empire, not trying to break loose from it. He also points out that the Revolution does not end at Yorktown or the Treaty of Paris but with the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution's ratification, and the inauguration of President George Washington.One of the main sources of disagreement with Great Britain and her colonies was two very different views that were held on the unwritten constitution of the British Empire. One view, held by Americans, was that all British subjects could not be governed and taxed without their consent; and the other, held by many in Britain, was the British Parliament was the supreme legislature of all the inhabitants of the Empire whether or not that community was had representation in the House of Commons. With the insistence of the various ministers of King George III, with His Majesty's full support, Parliament attempted to level taxes on the colonies. The response from the colonies was resistance from all levels of colonial society."A single act of Parliament led by an evil ministry would not immediately fasten chains on colonial wrists, of course. As far as the American writers were concerned, the Stamp Act was simply the visible edge of the dared conspiracy. If the Act were accepted, they asked, what guarantee did the colonists have that their lands, houses, indeed the very windows in their houses, and the air breathed in America would not be taxed? A people virtually represented in Parliament would have no choice once they swallowed that pernicious doctrine which was in reality shackles for the enslaved. And there would be many hungry men in England eager to do the work of the enslavers. Colonial accounts of the conspiracy lingered over long and horrified descriptions of the officeholders, placemen, taskmasters, and pensioners who would descend upon the colonists ostensibly to serve His Majesty but in reality to eat out of the colonial substance. The corruption they would bring would complete the ruin of the colonies."p.132This common cause of liberty was able to unite the colonies as nothing had ever had before; colonial legislatures sent representatives to a Continental Congress that would try to negotiate with Parliament. When negotiations failed and the war came at Lexington and Concord, this Congress would raise and Army and appoint a commander-in-chief. The next Continental Congress, when the time came, would go forth and declare their independence and form a new nation."What Americans thought and felt about the declaration's 'truths' which are presented as 'self-evident'--that all men 'are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights,' among them 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'--is not clear. There was no immediate discussion in public of these claims; nor was there of the contention that all men were 'created equal.' Thomas Jefferson wrote these words and though at the time, and since, no great originality was attributed to them and to the substance of the declaration, the declaration may in fact have possessed more originality than anyone suspected."p.335One of the great elements of this book is the way it tries to cover all aspects of society, from the court of King George III to the farmers of Massachusetts. The stars of history still get there well-earned due, George Washington makes the most appearances, but also covered are Patrick Henry, Samuel and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Paul Jones, Thomas Paine, Nathanael Greene and, of course, Benjamin Franklin."Washington's judgment improved each year, as he assimilated the experience of the war. His confidence in himself also grew as he learned. When the war began he as full of concern that he would fail because his abilities were not of the first order. This belief persisted even though he also felt that he had been called by providence to lead the American army in the Revolution. By the end of 1776 with a year and a half of the war under his belt, and with the success of Trenton and Princeton, he was a much more confident commander. He was not arrogant, and he continued to consult his general officers before he made important decisions, but he no longer took advice against his better judgment, as he had, for example, in the autumn of 1776 on the Hudson."p.600After the Revolutionary War comes to an end, the Revolution was still unfinished for a Revolution cannot be complete until something lasting has been built up to replace the old regime. The Articles of Confederation were not up to task and ultimately the Constitutional Convention would have to be held to create a lasting Republic in which the Federal Government was supreme and not the various state governments.I would also like to point out a technical detail that I like about this book. All the footnotes are located at the bottom of the page they are on as opposed to either at the end of the book or the end of each chapter. I find this makes reading the book more enjoyable because that way I do not have to flip though pages to find the source of any particular fact or argument. I wish this method was mandatory.The Glorious Cause is an incredible book and I would recommend it to the novice and the experienced historian alike.
Do You like book The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (2007)?
Gina bought me this book for my Kindle awhile back, as I've expressed greater interest in exploring American history in the past few years. The Revolutionary period is my favorite period of American history as the "idea" of America continues to exercise a powerful hold on my imagination. Sometimes, I wonder whose side I would have been on had I been alive at the time as the history reveals that it was not all good guys vs. bad guys. I would not consider this an introduction, but more of a specialized overview. It is very heavy on military tactics, which often made for repetitive reading and far outweighed the political and ideological battles (which are more interesting to me). What I appreciated about it is that it covers the WHOLE era ... from the first rumblings of discontent with British rule all the way through each key battle of the war for independence and on to the attempts to define America through the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Convention.I'm not remotely an expert on American history, so I can't comment much on content. But I will say this is definitely worth a read, and has the rare quality of being a reasonably unbiased source of information lacking any obvious political slant in its telling of what happened, how, and why. Who are we as Americans and where do we come from? The answers begin here.
—Andrew
So, you pick up a book about the American Revolution. And the first 20 pages talk about the coming of the war and glosses over such things as the Stamp Act and the Townsend Acts and and the Intolerable Acts and never really discusses anything enough in detail for you to understand who these people (especially in Britain) were and why they kept to a course that angered the colonists and BOOM! You're at Lexington and Concord.Not this time.I've been reading history for over 50 years and this is the first book I've found that explained to me in detail why the British did what they did, why the colonists did what they did, and why it all led to war and independence. Want some illustration? We don't meet Samuel Adams until page 93. John Adams? He first appears on page 165. George Washington manages to make his first appearance on page 52. Thomas Jefferson: page 124. Patrick Henry: page 86. And when do we read about Lexington and Concord? That would start on page 273.Okay... that's a strange way to make my point, but it's an important one to make. Mr. Middlekauff is clearly interested in the why's. Why did we go from a very loyal collection of colonies to a rebellious one in only a few years? Why was Washington such a great leader? Why did the Americans win... or, more to the point, why did the British lose? And, on the other end of the war, what made a collection of men decide to go against their instructions to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation and instead devise a whole new system of government?The one other "oddity" I noticed is that Mr. Middlekauff stays with the big themes and avoids familiar but ultimately inconsequential stories. Would you like information about the treason of Benedict Arnold? Find a different book because Mr. Middlekauff only mentions it in passing months after it happens. I suspect that he did so because Arnold's treachery had so little effect on the outcome of the war.In the end I would have to say that this was a great find. The only reason I kept it a four stars is because Mr. Middlekauff gets a little "dry" at times, but he more than makes up for it in solid substance.On last thought: This is the third volume of the "Oxford History of the United States" — each by a different author — that I've read and each has been excellent. My sample size is enough for me now to lead me to the conclusion that any volume in the series that I haven't read so far should find its way onto my reading list. Three "Huzzahs" for Oxford University Press!
—Jeff
This book is an onerous, though rewarding, introductory historical text. It doesn't offer much commentary outside the battles and conventions--though I wouldn't expect as much from a general history from 30 years ago. Middlekauff acquits himself well, and he knows his stuff. The best moments (among the 600+ pages) are when Middlekauff lets his hair down a little bit and gently ribs the Founding Fathers as if they were his old school chums. I read about a half-hour every night (I don't recommend ploughing through), and it was overall a very enjoyable experience and a good initial foundation of the American Revolution. Now, I'm looking for texts that challenge, rather then expound, the traditional historical narrative.
—Dave
