1776

1776, David McCullough (2005)

I read 1776 for a number of reasons.  First, the book details life-altering events in the lives of Washington, John Adams, and Jefferson, meaning that it fits perfectly into this project.  Second, McCullough is a tremendous biographer—his books on Roosevelt and Truman led me to the idea that reading a biography of every president would be a rewarding endeavor.  Third, and most importantly, I forgot my Washington book during a visit to my parents’ house and wanted something to hold me over until I received it in the mail (and I wasn’t going to move onto John Adams until I finished Washington).

1776 is an excellent read.  It’s fast pace.  It has compelling characters and interesting events.  And it has a solid level of detail—enough to introduce the reader to new people and new events, and provide many new details about people events with which we’re already familiar.  This isn’t scholarship.  McCullough isn’t breaking new ground and his ideas aren’t new.  But it’s wonderful popular history and it’s more detailed and more careful than a lot of the popular history that’s on the market today.  I study history mainly because I like it—history is supposed to be fun.  This book is fun.  Enough said.

1776, the year, was monumentous (I think that should be a word).  The book isn’t just about 1776—it begins in 1775 with the siege of Boston and the decision to position General Washington as the head of the Continental Army.  Washington arrived in Cambridge in July 1775 and took command.  And the book ends on a high point—the victory at Trenton was a morale booster and the last major American victory until Saratoga.  I won’t recap the history, but there are lots of cool things in this book.

Boston in 1775

Loyalist in the Colonies:  American’s tend to think of the Revolution as us (Americans) versus them (British), but that’s just not the case.  During the New York campaign, lots of colonists in Long Island assisted the British when they landed in August 1776.  And it appears that Staten Island was almost entirely loyalist—British troops landing there were essentially landing on home soil.  Even in Boston, the most revolutionary of cities, there were substantial numbers of loyalists that pulled up stake and left with the British Army (many of them settled in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia).  This certainly makes the conflict more interesting, and it also makes the American victory even more impressive.  This also makes the British strategy of trying to wait-out the perhaps isolated Continental Army and wait for the population to capitulate more understandable.  [This wasn’t a total surprise—I was previously well aware of the presence of loyalists in the colonies, but not to this extent.]

Continental “Army”:  I don’t think people realize how rag-tag this force was.  These guys didn’t even have uniforms for the most part—they just showed up and fought in whatever clothes they could get their hands on.  They were terribly trained, un-disciplined, and when they were near home (as the New Englanders were during the siege of Boston), went home at their leisure.  What’s also surprising is that they served for one year commissions, and were allowed to leave at the end of their commissions (many of them left at the close of 1775 and the close of 1776, as did my ancestor John Baxter).  This country recently extend the commissions of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan because we had difficulty getting enough troops to fight abroad—but Washington and the other commanders in the Continental Army thought highly enough of individual liberty to let soldiers leave in the throes of this nation’s struggle for its very existence.

Knox, Greene, and Putnam:  Washington didn’t do it alone, and he had able assistance from some exemplary generals.  These were creative and supportive commanders who worked cooperatively with Washington to develop overall strategy and battle tactics with the Commander (and ably represented southern New England in the leadership of the Continental Army).   

Henry Knox

This leadership style—consensus building and seeking the input of his advisers—also served Washington well as president.  And it’s fun to read about these guys.  There are hundreds of smaller heroes in American history that provide color and depth to this history.