The Birth of American Independence - Revolutionary Summer

Joseph J. Ellis once again takes his quill pen to answer the continuing astonishment that our nation emerged against such overwhelming odds. He invites us to understand exactly how the Founding Brothers managed it.

An excellent perspective on the initial stages of America's pursuit of freedom. The book provides both personal and macro insights that have been well researched by the author. I would recommend it to anyone who seeks to understand this important period of time at greater depth.

Ellis has combined two very important concurrent events in 1776 during the early American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the Battle of Long Island. The first everyone knows, or at least think they know, but the last is usually overlooked because it was a humiliating American defeat. Ellis shows how the two played together and gives the battle the importance it deserves. The American army was indeed defeated but it escaped destruction at the hands of the British partly from luck, partly from Washington's leadership, and partly from British mistakes. Had the British destroyed the new Continental Army or worse, captured Washington himself, no one can imagine the fate of the Revolution or even of the United States. Ellis is a marvelous writer. Once started, one can hardly put the book down.

Well done,with lots of interesting details about some of the most basic fundamentals of our experiment with Democracy. The
founding fathers would be "blown away" by the evolution of the Federal Government. It has clearly reached a point that
they were desparately trying to avoid.

This book should be required reading for college students. Excellent summary of how and why we are an independent republic. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin "they gave us a republic, if we can keep it". Unfortunately that seems less and less likely, but it has been a good run.

VERY WELL WRITTEN-TOUCHING TO REALLY FEEL HOW THE BEGINNERS OF OUR COUNTRY WERE ABLE TO GET US STARTED IN A VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT OF HOW TO LIVE NOW AND FOR THE FUTURE. SAD BUT WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HOLD THE STATES TOGETHER IF SLAVERY WAS BROUGHT UP. ELLIS DID A REMARKABLE JOB IN INVESTIGATING AND PUTTING TOGETHER WHAT HAPPENED. I WAS VERY EMOTIONALLY MOVED AND SO SO GRATEFUL FOR WHAT WAS DONE.. IT IS TO BE ENJOYED AND AND APPRECIATED.

This is a really well-written and fascinating telling of how American Independence was born. After reading this account of the summer of 1776, you have to wonder how in the world it all worked. But Ellis puts in all together in fascinating storytelling. Makes a great gift for lovers of American history.

Ellis weaves together the events happening in the Colonies and at the same time in England. He has more background on the British military and politics than most books about these times that I've read. But he has a kind of supercilious, condescending tone that I find off-putting. So four stars for content and two for tone.

While I enjoyed an earlier Ellis book, this one promised more than it delivered. In my view the tale ends rather abruptly, leaving even the casual reader wanting more. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the early days of the Revolution would have already been aware of the base assumptions he makes; the possible exception being his emphasis on the reasons behind the Howe brothers' reluctance to press the attack in New York. Moreover, the book reeked of pedagogy, perhaps better suited for the classroom than distribution for common consumption.

In reading this book by Joseph Ellis, I admit upfront I was not looking for a major historical treatise but more a good summer read during my daily commute. As I read I wasn't wholly disappointed until I came across a passage on page 153 regarding Col. Thomas Knowlton where Ellis wrote:

"Knowlton was a thirty-six-year-old veteran of the French and Indian War whose heroics at Bunker Hill had already become legendary. (John Trumbull saw fit to make Knowlton the central figure in his depiction of the battle, which currently hangs in the Capitol Rotunda.)"

While Knowlton is portrayed in Trumbull's fanciful painting, "The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill" the very title suggests Knowlton is not the central figure of the painting. More importantly, however, the painting is located at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and not the U.S. Capitol Building -- and especially not in the Rotunda where 4 prominent Trumbull works do hang.

Those works are the "Declaration of Independence," "Surrender of General Burgoyne," "Surrender of Lord Cornwallis," and "General George Washington Resigning His Commission."

Such an easily researched question being so egregiously ignored or overlooked puts this entire book in the same league as Dan Brown who similarly took "editorial liberty" in some of his fictional works regarding the Capitol Building. The primary difference is Brown's work wasn't presenting history. Ellis' book does that, though, I stopped reading at the point of such a huge error and ponder what other inaccuracies exist?

It seems in Ellis' hero-worship of Knowlton he is playing fast and loose with the facts similarly to his earlier troubles regarding his false claims of military service and anti-war protests and it discolors an otherwise enjoyable read.

I was particularly excited about reading Joseph J. Ellis' Revolutionary Summer because I had just recently finished Kevin Phillips' 1775. The two books have different focuses: Ellis looks at 1776 as the crucial year of the American Revolution while iconoclastic Phillips puts the emphasis on 1775. Ellis writes that after 1776, "Many fateful decisions and challenges remained ahead - Washington's inspired bravado at Trenton, Howe's bizarre decision to capture Philadelphia rather than seal the Hudson corridor, the endurance test at Valley Forge, the crucial French entry into the war - but they all played out within the strategic framework created in the summer of 1776."

Ah yes, Phillips seems to say, but the events of 1776 played out within the strategic framework created in 1775.

Phillips says, rightfully, I think, that "If 1775 hadn't been a year of successful nation building, 1776 might have been a year of lost opportunity, quiet disappointment, and continued colonial status." In Phillips' view, "1775 is the crucial, early-momentum year of the Revolutionary era" - not 1776. Ellis, on the other hand, like other historians before him (for example, David McCaullough) looks to 1776 as the crucial year of the Revolution. But Phillips argues that this is a distortion and that we in the twentieth century are "excessively" immersed in 1776 "as a moral and ideological starting point." The Fourth of July says it all.

Phillips says he started out to prove that 1775 was as important as 1776 only to discover, the further he got along in his research, that 1775 was more important than 1776. Joseph Ellis, on the other hand, barely mentions 1775. He calls 1776 the "crescendo moment in American history" - particularly the five months between May and October. This is the period when, he says, "a consensus for American independence emerged and was officially declared." Phillips does not necessarily disagree. He admits that the Declaration could not have come earlier than it did because "certain preconditions had to be met."

This is true, and Ellis says that "the political consensus" for independence was formed in June and July; but as Phillips points out in his book, that independence was largely already a fact. British government in North America was, by the end of 1775, reduced to Boston. The rest of the thirteen colonies were governing themselves. "Royal authority had been replaced by "de facto American self-rule through local committees of correspondence and safety, trade monitoring committees of inspection, oath -swearing associations, militia organizations, and provincial congresses." We can focus on July 1776, but as Phillips points out, these bodies began to exercise power twelve to eighteen months before the Declaration of Independence.

We could ask, and it would be a good question, if we have focused too much on 1776. And I would recommend that if you read Ellis' book you also read Phillips'. Ellis stresses the importance of the Declaration of Independence but Phillips has a section entitled "The Limited Role of the Declaration of Independence." Phillips argues that "Understanding what the document was - and more important, what it was not - is vital to understanding what happened during the spring of 1776. By doing so, we can move beyond the worshipful preoccupation with the Declaration and the year 1776, which has distorted the study and memory of the early stage of the American Revolution." Phillips argues that "Once read to the soldiers and other crowds, the Declaration, while not forgotten, seems to have receded in importance" until the 1790s.

Ellis' book is both about the political and the military events of the summer of 1776. Phillips has a somewhat larger canvas, addressing not only the political and military aspects of the revolution, but religion, race, and economics as well - even logistics. Ellis writes that his contention is "that the political and military experiences were two sides of a single story, which are incomprehensible unless told together. They were both happening at the same time, events on one front influenced outcomes on the other, and what most modern scholarship treats separately was experienced by the participants as one."

This is a happy approach and Ellis deftly weaves the narrative from front lines to halls of Congress, from the thoughts of private soldier Joseph Plumb Martin to the correspondence and innermost thoughts of John Adams. Nor is the British side ignored. Ellis has quite a bit to say about the Howe brothers and their approach to the grand campaign of 1776, as well as the place of the American Revolution in British memory. There is quite a bit packed into his 240 pages and it is an enjoyable read.

Stylistically, I found Ellis' book to be superior. Revolutionary Summer is very well written and conversational in tone. He is never dry or pedantic and you won't find his book overburdened by footnotes, only some 19 pages of footnotes compared to Phillips' 41 (personally, I love long and conversational footnotes but I know many readers harbor a horror of them). Ellis has a way with words and the ability to turn a memorable phrase at need. His is the shorter book, at 240 pages (Phillips' is 628). They both have maps, though my uncorrected proof of Ellis' book did not have them so I cannot compare them. Ellis' book is also going to have 8 pages of color plates (I counted 16 pages of plates in Phillips' book, none of them in color). I look forward to purchasing a copy of the book in its published form. It is definitely deserving of a place on my shelf, right in between McCullough and Phillips.

This is an interesting and well-written book concerning the summer of 1776, but let me say at the outset that this is not a military history book, so if this is your primary interest this would perhaps not be the best choice for you. The discussion of the battles on Long Island and on Manhattan in the summer and fall of 1776 are skimpy at best. This is more of a book about the "revolution" in the conceptions that all the participants had about the war. Washington came to realize that with the army he had he could not defeat the British in a traditional battle on open ground. He is depicted as viewing the defeat on Long Island as being personal, but eventually came to realize that so long as he could keep his army from being destroyed he could eventually prevail. He realized that he would have to swallow his pride and fight a war characterized by scattered and defensive actions, and that he would win the war by keeping his army as a fighting force, even if it meant continual retreat from a superior British army. The British commanders, the brothers Admiral Richard Howe and General William Howe, thought themselves as peace ambassadors who could end the war by just demonstrating the superiority of the British army and navy and that it would not be necessary, nor preferable, to completely destroy Washington's army. There also was a revolution in the view of the war on the part of the Continental Congress, who came to realize that this was going to be a long war, requiring much more sacrifice than they had imagined. This aspect of the war is told largely from the viewpoint of John Adams, and his struggle to prevent the rest of the colonists from being so dispirited by the failure in the summer of 1776 that they would give up.

Since it covers much the same ground as David McCullough's 1776, I think it would be helpful to compare the two. McCullough's book begins with some background material concerning the events of 1775 and discusses the capture of Dorchester Heights and the resulting retreat of the British from Boston in the spring of 1776. While these events are mentioned in Revolutionary Summer, they are only mentioned in passing. Whereas McCullough focuses on the military aspects of all the fighting in 1776, Ellis focuses much more on the non-military aspects of the conflict and mostly confines his attention to the events of the summer and fall of 1776. Revolutionary Summer also focuses on the Declaration of Independence, the struggles to create a unified government, to get military and financial support from the various colonies and on Adam's formulation of a fledgling foreign policy with respect to France.

All in all I found this to be an interesting book, which I would recommend to those interested in learning more about the US Revolutionary War. However, it is written for a general audience as opposed to scholars of the US Revolutionary War, so they may find little new here and those who are largely interested in military history may likewise be disappointed.

Ellis is a first rate historian who effectively uses the venue of popular history to address the larger issues that really interest us. In this case, the question presented is what was the turning point of the Revolution and could the British have done something different to win the war? Ellis' answer is the Summer of 1776 when Washington escaped New York with the Continental Army intact -- and when sentiment for any peace terms died for good.

The British followed a strategy eerily resembling American efforts in Iraq and Vietnam: one of shock-and-awe via overwhelming force and a confidence that the natives could be compelled to negotiate. The British did not underestimate the need for overwhelming force, but probably were a year too late in deploying it. Too much blood and too much hatred for the nastiness of the war (which included no quarter to wounded) made any reconciliation impossible. And like the North Vietnamese 200 years later, the Americans were confident that could wear out their militarily superior invader.

Washington's tactics are criticized as bolder than that required by the strategy of playing not to lose the war (as opposed to playing to win) -- but this strategy was not evident until after the summer, and the politics and moral code of the time required Washington to stand and fight in New York. What could the British have done differently? Short of launching the invasion a year earlier, the best shot was to take more risks in New York and try to wipe out the Continental Army. Howe was more cautious, thinking he could wipe out the Americans whenever he wanted to and hoping that shock-and-awe would motivate peace terms.

The British arrogance -- including playing fox hunt bugles when the Americans retreated and complete contempt for the Americans -- is infuriating. And the quips of Franklin at a parlay with Howe as well as the occasional good fighting done by the Americans (at Harlem Heights and Throgs Neck) are heart warming. Yet, over the past 200 years, we have become a lot like the British. We cannot accept our own limitations and have all the irritating superiority of the old British Empire -- and we've made the same mistakes with shock-and-awe and with the idea that we can actually conquer the territory of a militiarily inferior enemy who maintains the will to win.

A very interestng, subtle, and well-written book.

What a wonderful way Pulitzer Prize-winner Ellis has of distilling complicated historical events and people into a readable narrative! I’ve read his His Excellency, George Washington, too, and for the first time truly appreciated our first President. Both books are relatively short—around 200 pages—so if you need a doorstop, you’ll have to look elsewhere.
In Revolutionary Summer, Ellis takes the reader through the events of 1776, both before and after the Declaration of Independence. He says most histories of that era concentrate either on the political machinations within Independence Hall or on the travails of George Washington leading the ragtag Continental Army. Ellis’s contention is that the two threads—military and political—are inextricably intertwined, and the fates of each depended on the other.
As an example, the individual colonies-cum-states put their local political autonomy (an early manifestation of “states’ rights”) above the needs of the combined entity that the delegates in Philadelphia were promoting. While they’d occasionally contribute a few ill-trained and ill-equipped militias to the cause, they wouldn’t necessarily respond to Washington’s pleas for more.
On the political side, says Ellis, “Virginia regarded itself as the most important player in this political crisis, and the Virginians sent their resolutions [regarding independence] to all the other colonies on the assumption that they set the standard for others to imitate.” This mindset accords perfectly with genealogical research I’ve done about my family, in which early Georgia settlers from Virginia generally held themselves in much higher esteem than the “uncouth and rowdy” settlers from the Carolinas (my people!).
On the military side, Ellis makes the interesting point that “both (the British and American) armies would have been better served if their respective commanders had exchanged places. For Howe, in targeting the territory rather than the Continental Army, pursued the cautious strategy when he should have been bold. And Washington, in his very decision to defend New York, pursued the bold strategy when he should have been cautious.”
This book is a highly readable refresher if you’ve neglected your American History since, say, 10th grade. The United States has a great historical legacy, but by and large greatness is not necessarily found in the teaching of history nor in its textbooks. Revolutionary Summer is a bracing corrective.

While the book is titled “Revolutionary Summer” early in the book the author makes it clear that this is a history book on the latter half of 1776 in Colonial America and the pursuit for American Independence. The author noted that often books on the War of Independence would focus either on the political aspect of things or the military side with the war but for the founding fathers these two were intertwined and were part of any founding father’s holistic experience. The book covers various figures in the colonies such as George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson while also exploring important figures from the British side notably the Howe brothers and General Clinton who led the military campaign against the Continental army. I learned quite a bit from the book such as how George Washington lost New York to the British and also how among the thirteen colonies New York probably had more British sympathizers. I also learned how the British could have crushed the Continental Army but both Howe brothers wanted to pursue a path of reconciliation and diplomacy rather than pursue a victory that is purely military. The Howe brothers explained that the reason was to avoid unnecessary bloodshed—but it was also because of their desire to seek future political opportunities as diplomats for the British government. It is easy to see things in hindsight but the book makes you feel the tension and uncertainty during the summer of 1776 when the colonies took the course that would change world history by seeking independence. This book also explains the difficulties George Washington and his army faced with bad supplies and always short of soldiers. An excellent read.

This book seeks to be three things: first, an examination on how military developments in the opening days of the Revolutionary War affected political developments in the former colonies and vice versa. Second, a Barbara Tuchman-style examination of the opening days of the war. And third, a description of the war through the eyes of regular soldiers, especially of a man called Joseph Plumb Martin.

Ellis succeeds most completely in this second goal. I very much appreciated the nuances in his descriptions of the political postures of leaders in both Britain and the colonies before the war. The strength of the debate in parliament against fighting surprised me, but once George III stated his desire to respond with massive force, no opposition was possible. Ellis argues as well that this ambivalence on the part of many in the English elite explains why William Howe, Commander-in-Chief of British forces during the war, prosecuted the war with such little aggression. He (and his brother, who was leading the English naval forces in the war) believed that a negotiated settlement was best, and likely, once the might of the British army was made clear. He therefore failed to follow up on several opportunities to destroy the continental army in the early days of the war, figuring it would soon surrender to him anyway.

The book describes battles well, and the discussion of the American evacuation from Brooklyn Heights, for example, is nail-bitingly tense. Ellis describes complex engagements cogently, making clear the positions of the troops, and the tactics being used, and the progress of the fighting. I think the discussion of the Battle of Harlem Heights in this book is better than any other I've read.

Ellis lays bare the political difficulties faced by the Americans in clear and memorable terms. He describes the result of the meetings of the Continental Congress in the perfect phrase, "They knew what they were against, but they didn't know what they were for."

I found that two sections of the book held unexpected parallels for modern politics -- first, American commitment to the revolution did not decrease after the continental army's defeat in Brooklyn. Why? It turns out that most American newspapers declined to mention the loss, or even described it as a win. Even in an era with much faster and more comprehensive media saturation, we remain dependent on our choice of news sources and history changes if enough people believe the wrong narratives. Second, the English response to Howe's defeat resembles the process that the United States went through after Vietnam, and may some day go through with regard to our wars in the middle east, trying to apportion blame between the military and the civilian leaders who directed them into a unwinnable war. In the English case, this was complicated by the impossibility of blaming the king.

The book is dense, covering military history, political economy, parliamentary politics, the biographies of the major characters, and more, in only about 180 pages of text. In lesser hands, this might have resulted in a muddle, but in this case I was delighted to see this period in American history explored well from so many angles.

The New York Times Book Review described the book as being mostly a defense of the importance of the continental army, relative to state militias during the war, and criticized the book for being unduly concerned with the social and political elite. I think both points are wrong; while the relative importance of the continental army is discussed in the book, this is only one of many themes. And Ellis discusses popular opinion in his dissection of the coverage of the war in the newspapers of the day and how people responded to the news they received.

The text is appropriate for any reader, and is extensively footnoted for those who want to dig deeper into Ellis's rendition of events.

Make no mistake, Mr. Joseph Ellis is a living legend among historians and his contributions to the field of American history are measureless. Mr. Ellis’ most recent book Revolutionary Summer chronicles the struggle for American independence from the sweaty interiors of Independence Hall in June and July to the snow-packed alleys of Trenton, New Jersey in December. Many great historians have tread this ground before in their attempts to capture the revolutionary spark, so let’s look at Mr. Ellis’ attempt: Mr. Ellis’ positives are as follows: (1) Recognition of Washington as the essential link in the Independence process as he remained in command from start to finish, (2) Analysis of the Battle of Brooklyn as being the realistic end of the Revolutionary Summer if not for a certain opportunity, and (3) identifying Nathaniel Greene as Washington’s premier lieutenant commander. However, Mr. Ellis’ negatives provide a contrast and are as follows: (1) Boston, New York, or New Jersey are the principal geographic focus and Mr. Ellis neglects to inform readers of events happening south of Trenton and Philadelphia, (2) Mr. Ellis provides no new theories here and most of the information has been covered before (David McCullough’s 1776 comes to mind), (3) Frequent citations are made between the written correspondence of Washington and John Hancock; yet Hancock is barely mentioned outside this format and his role in the Revolutionary Summer remains mysterious….why? In summation, Revolutionary Summer is correctly marketed as a quick digestion of popular history. Interesting, well-written, organized, insightful at times, but ultimately failing shed new light on a familiar topic.

As a reader of American history, one wonders how many different times and ways we can revisit the "Revolutionary Summer". It seems that, as of late, many authors have taken to dabble in during this monumental time, to explain their unusual insights, and highlight different aspects of years that gave birth to our country. Joseph Ellis' "Revolutionary Summer" stands proudly among the best, if not entirely revolutionary in itself.

Ellis' take on this story of America's start is that we cannot divorce the Continental Congress' work in Philadelphia from the hardscrabble efforts of George Washington and the Army fighting the British. He is right in asserting that often, either just one side of the story is told, or if they are both included, it's almost as if each is happening absent from the other. Ellis' marriage of the two works, primarily, because of his knowledge of the events and his ability to reflect one off the other so interestingly and brilliantly.

Dense book, yes. One of many? Yes. But if you are looking at the slate of possible books to highlight your summer, or even your fourth of July, this may be just the book for you.

True to form, in the Preface, Joseph Ellis "sets the table" for the material to follow with these two passages. First: "There are two intertwined strands to this story [of events leading up to and following the Declaration of Independence] that are customarily told as stand-alone accounts in their own right. The first is the political tale of how thirteen colonies came together and agreed on the decision to secede from the British Empire. Here the center point is the Continental Congress and the leading players, at least in my version, are John Adams, John Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin."

Then: "The second is the military narrative of the battles on Long Island and Manhattan, where the British army and navy delivered a series of devastating defeats to the American army of amateurs, but missed whatever chance existed to end it all. The focal point of this story is the Continental Army, and the major pact ors are George Washington, Nathaniel Greene, and the British brothers Richard and William Howe."

These two passages identify the separate but interdependent plots" to the multi-dimensional stories and the primary "characters" in each. With regard to major conflicts other than the obvious such as British professionals versus Colonial "amateurs," they include federal consolidation and unification versus autonomous states, professional ("standing") military forces versus volunteer or conscripted militias. As Ellis observes, there were two oddly shaped features of the terrain during the expansively defined summer of 1776: The first is a distinctive sense of honor, a lingering vestige of the medieval world that was still alive and pervasive, especially within the military culture of the eighteenth century." Also, although we know that the American Revolution eventually led to the creation of a consolidated nation-state and subsequent world power, "in truth, no shared sense of nationhood existed in 1776, even though the Continent al Congress and the Continental Army can be regarded as embryonic versions of such."

After having read the book and then reviewed highlighted passages, my own take on all this is that an undeclared war throughout 1775 need not have led to the Declaration of Independence had the British monarch and parliament negotiated all reasonable grievances in good faith, accepted taxation with appropriate representation, and accommodated other legitimate needs and concerns. Instead, a huge British fleet was preparing to sail across the Atlantic as Ellis's riveting narrative begins.

These are among the dozens of subjects of greatest interest to me, also listed to indicate the scope of Ellis's coverage.

o King George III's rejection of reconciliation initiatives (Pages 10-12)
o John Adams and "the pieces of a puzzle" of unanimity (13-24)
o Drafting of the Declaration of Independence (57-67)
o Washington's preparations to defend New York (72-78)
o Richard Howe's friendship with Benjamin Franklin (81-84)
o Franklin's unique combination of prescience and patience (104-107)
o The Battle of Long Island & Washington's evacuation (110-118)
o The decision to defend Manhattan (138-140)
o The Battle of Harlem Heights (152-155)
o Evacuation of Continental Army from Manhattan (165-170)

In the final chapter, "Postscript: Necessary Fictions," Ellis cites Washington's opinion --expressed in a letter to Nathaniel Greene -- that the true story of the improbable American victory would never get into the history books, that "it will not be believed that such a great force as Great Britain has employed for eight years in this country could be baffled...by numbers infinitely less, composed of men oftentimes half starved, always in Rags, without pay, and experiencing, at times, every species of distress which human nature is capable of undergoing." (8 July 1783)

This opinion proved false, of course, but it addresses one of the "necessary fictions" that Ellis discusses. They are best revealed in context. However, I feel comfortable when disclosing Joseph Ellis's deference to "the balance of historical scholarship over the last forty years." I hope that he examines various "necessary fictions" in much greater depth in another book yet to be written.

Not many folks today (aside from historians or history buffs) realize that the Revolutionary War might have been strangled in its infancy in the summer and early fall of 1776. The author has a well written book that takes two tracks: one that follows the military action, and one that follows the political action in Philadelphia that led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

When the British were compelled to leave Boston because of Washington's gun emplacements overlooking their position, people were ecstatic, not really realizing the British Army had not really been defeated, but forced to make a strategic retreat. They would be back.

The Continental Army (if it can be called that) then moved South and West to defend New York, the obvious place for a new British attack. Even though Washington was informed that the city could not adequately be defended, he stubbornly stood his ground and ordered defensive works to be erected. Once the British arrived, it was only too obvious that Washington had made a strategic mistake, and the Continental Army was soundly thrashed in several places.

Even with these defeats, Washington's 18th century sense of honor kept him from retreating, as he felt it would stain his honor in the eyes of others. Once he was compelled to realize there was no other option, he agreed to the retreat, but by that time it was almost too late, and a very harrowing time began with the troops attempting to leave Manhattan island for White Plains.

There are excellent character sketches of the main personalities involved in both the military and civilian aspects of this book, and the ones on the British Howe bothers are especially compelling, for they give insight into why the Army was allowed to slip away, when it could have, and should have, been demolished at New York.

This is an excellent book that takes a very short period in our history and fleshes it out in a very readable manner for the average reader. It's definitely highly recommended.

Once again Joseph J. Ellis has provided us with an example of the way history should be written: vividly, with an eye for small human details that illustrate the larger picture. Unfortunately we don't often see that sort of writing, which makes feasts like Revolutionary Summer even more delectable.

Ellis loosely defines the summer of 1776 as the months from May through October, during which a series of military and political events took place that were to define the future progress of the Revolutionary War. On the battlefield General George Washington and his Continental Army filled with untrained and fractious recruits faced the powerful fighting machine of the British Army, supported by the even more imposing Royal Navy and augmented by Hessian mercenaries. Not surprisingly, Washington and his men were soundly defeated on Long Island but then managed to escape to Manhattan, primarily because of the failure of the British to press their advantage. In Philadelphia the Continental Congress had slowly and somewhat reluctantly moved to full consensus on declaring independence from Great Britain and then had to face new complexities as it simultaneously tried to govern and establish a framework for governance.

Throughout Revolutionary Summer the interplay of political and military requirements is skillfully depicted. I gained new admiration for men like Washington, Adams, and Franklin while reading with much interest about the actions of men like Admiral Lord Howe, his brother General Sir William Howe (both of whom had a certain amount of sympathy for the colonists.) In the end Ellis well sums up his central theme: that the war was unwinnable militarily by the Americans, but just as unwinnable politically by the British.

There are innumerable histories of the Revolution, but few manage to make the central issues and dilemmas of its early stages so clear and so succinctly as Ellis in Revolutionary Summer.

I love reading about American History, so I was really excited to read this book. Although it isn't quite as easy to read as David McCullough's 1776, it is still well written and packed full of information. I liked the different viewpoint that it took. I like that it looked at the political angles, the Continental Army viewpoint, and the British viewpoint. Mr. Ellis tied them all together very well, and brought the story to life. I learned a lot about the Howe brothers and how their uncharacteristic missteps cost the British the war. This is a great book, and would be perfect for a high school English class. Although there is no profanity or "intimacy," I would still say it isn't appropriate for readers younger than 14 or 15. War is not pretty.You may read my full review on my book blog: the-readathon.blogspot.com.

This slim book (182 pages of text plus notes, acknowledgements and index) possesses all the qualities one has come to expect in a historical study by Joe Ellis: mastery of the sources, an eminently pleasing and smooth prose style, and above all, ease and grace in explaining.

Ellis is a masterful explainer. He keeps both ends of the historical spectrum in sight while writing history, summarizing and analyzing the larger scale dynamics that move events along and the disparate thoughts and actions of the individual actors. In this book, that means, among others, Washington and Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Dickinson, the Howes, and Clinton. Ellis's observations throughout are sage and wise. He doesn't underrate the role played by individuals in history but doesn't inflate it either. He`s a very reliable guide to the times, events and actors about whom he writes.

The summer in question is the summer of 1776. It's an extensive `summer.' It starts in May with the Continental Congress's passage of Adams's resolution calling for the colonies to draft constitutions and discard their colonial charters of governance. That was passed on May 12. Three days later, the Congress passed a preface to the resolution, also drafted by Adams, enumerating its grievances against the King. (Adams always felt that this was the original declaration of independence, not the later one signed in July.) The `summer' ended, or rather petered out, sometime in October, with the evacuation of Washington's troops from Manhattan, accomplished by October 24. Between these two dates, May 12 and October 24, changes took place, both military and political, that shaped the course of the long hard bloody war for independence.

Ellis's narrative shuttles back and forth between the Continental Army and the Continental Congress. The protagonists on both sides are far from omniscient. Washington was perpetually frustrated by the miserable condition of his army. After the British landing and a crushing defeat, he seemed at a loss for what to do next, confused and ineffective. He was, besides, deeply flawed as a strategist: he committed his troops in a hopeless cause too long. (On the other hand, Ellis writes, Washington's evacuation of his troops from Brooklyn Heights on August 29-30 was "one of the most brilliant tactical withdrawals in the annals of military history.)

Fortunately for the Continentals, Howe was worse. Ellis observes, in one of many mots justes in this book, that both generals, Washington and Howe, pursued the wrong strategy for their own army but the right one for the other man's army. Washington wasn't as cautious as he should have been, given the condition of his troops and the inequity in the size of the armies, and Howe threw away his advantage by delaying in following up on it.
In Congress, not even the hyper-energetic John Adams was able to control the flow of events. Cannier than Adams, and also older, Franklin gauged the sentiment of his peers before acting. Rather than waste his political capital in futile argument, he concentrated his efforts on nudging events along in the direction he wanted them to take.

Arguably the most important action the Congress took during this critical period was to embrace the cause of independence from Britain. The debates that followed in the colonies concerning the nature of the new state constitutions opened up politics to more players, and more of them radicalized. Why didn't that support disappear in the wake of the military defeat on Long Island at the end of August? One reason, Ellis explains, is that few colonials heard of it: the newspapers, in a burst of patriotism -or ignorance--chose not to report it.

Certain points come through clearly in Ellis's account. Eighteenth-century ideas made it difficult for Washington to adopt a realistic combat policy (e.g., abandoning a post once established there). The absence among the delegates to the Congress of a coherent, shared vision of a new republic foretold future debate: they disagreed on all sorts of issues, from how to deal with slavery to how the colonies should be represented in the new confederation to what powers the central government should have. Neither of these is s completely new revelation but Ellis presents both issues well and they deserve a hearing.

If I commented on all the insights in this book, this review would be interminably long. So I'll mention just one: in a chapter entitled "Dogs That Did Not Bark," Ellis notes that the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence didn't draw attention at the time -they were seen as window dressing, not the heart of the document. But that's where all the dynamite was in the document: in subsequent generations, those paragraphs would shape our constitutional debate, particularly on the subject of citizens' rights.

A brilliant and detailed perspective on the interrelatedness of the political and military strategy - if it can be called strategy - of the summer of 1776. With no previous experience or instruction manual to guide them, Ellis weaves a fascinating account of the key founding fathers' struggle to form a new nation based upon a new concept while at the same time engaged in a war against the most powerful army on earth. All this with a homespun militia and military leaders whose only experience of the art of was through books. To complicate matters, they must contend with not only loyalist citizens but moderate factions within the Continental Congress who still believe they can repair the damaged relationship with England and not break away from her authority.

What separates Ellis' narrative from previous accounts is just how much the political influenced the military and vice versa. Despite ten years of grievances leading up to the critical moments of 1775, the founding fathers were woefully unprepared for declaring independence and creating an army capable of a longterm engagement with Great Britain. That Washington was able to endure defeats, disease, desertions and a quasi-government incapable of supporting his troops and missions is truly a testament to divine providence. And that this fledgling government, forced to move locations on a moments notice as well as endure the diverse opinions and objectives of 13 separate colonial interests, could not only survive but achieve something never done before, is nothing less than a miracle as well.

The relationship of these two entities during that summer, while less than perfect and at times counter productive, somehow managed to develop into that perfect whole being greater than the sum of its parts. How they influence and complement each other is at the crux of Ellis' well told story.

Lovers of books concerning America's Colonial/Revolutionary past (I am one) know the name Joseph Ellis as a gifted author. His books Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation and American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson were excellent portraits of America's founding fathers. Ellis, Gordon Wood, Bernard Bailyn and John Ferling, are creating a renaissance in American Revolutionary studies. Their books thus far have been more than mere popular history without becoming leaden tomes of academic interest only. Ellis' latest book, Revolutionary Summer, concentrates on the epochal summer of 1776 when the American nation was literally born. In clear but densely packed prose, Ellis paints a picture of a new nation created not out of high-flown rhetoric and lofty intentions, but small, incremental and perilous steps. Ellis emphasizes the incrementalism of our birth, its improvised nature and the often uncanny luck of our nation's midwives.

As the founding fathers exhibited great wisdom in their construction of a new republic, they also knew they were putting their heads in a noose and fear can be a great motivator in getting things done quickly. That is a lesson those currently in government may need to re-learn. Revolutionary Summer can be savored by newcomers to reading about our revolutionary history as well as old hands because Ellis often provides some new insight, some previously unknown relevant fact that keeps us interested. I enjoyed this book immensely. It is never boring and often quite thrilling as we marvel once again at how the revolutionary generation managed the miraculous feat of turning a small, powerless colonial outpost into the first self-governing republic in a world of powerful monarchies.

Not many folks today (aside from historians or history buffs) realize that the Revolutionary War might have been strangled in its infancy in the summer and early fall of 1776. The author has a well written book that takes two tracks: one that follows the military action, and one that follows the political action in Philadelphia that led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

When the British were compelled to leave Boston because of Washington's gun emplacements overlooking their position, people were ecstatic, not really realizing the British Army had not really been defeated, but forced to make a strategic retreat. They would be back.

The Continental Army (if it can be called that) then moved South and West to defend New York, the obvious place for a new British attack. Even though Washington was informed that the city could not adequately be defended, he stubbornly stood his ground and ordered defensive works to be erected. Once the British arrived, it was only too obvious that Washington had made a strategic mistake, and the Continental Army was soundly thrashed in several places.

Even with these defeats, Washington's 18th century sense of honor kept him from retreating, as he felt it would stain his honor in the eyes of others. Once he was compelled to realize there was no other option, he agreed to the retreat, but by that time it was almost too late, and a very harrowing time began with the troops attempting to leave Manhattan island for White Plains.

There are excellent character sketches of the main personalities involved in both the military and civilian aspects of this book, and the ones on the British Howe bothers are especially compelling, for they give insight into why the Army was allowed to slip away, when it could have, and should have, been demolished at New York.

This is an excellent book that takes a very short period in our history and fleshes it out in a very readable manner for the average reader. It's definitely highly recommended.

Once again Joseph J. Ellis has provided us with an example of the way history should be written: vividly, with an eye for small human details that illustrate the larger picture. Unfortunately we don't often see that sort of writing, which makes feasts like Revolutionary Summer even more delectable.

Ellis loosely defines the summer of 1776 as the months from May through October, during which a series of military and political events took place that were to define the future progress of the Revolutionary War. On the battlefield General George Washington and his Continental Army filled with untrained and fractious recruits faced the powerful fighting machine of the British Army, supported by the even more imposing Royal Navy and augmented by Hessian mercenaries. Not surprisingly, Washington and his men were soundly defeated on Long Island but then managed to escape to Manhattan, primarily because of the failure of the British to press their advantage. In Philadelphia the Continental Congress had slowly and somewhat reluctantly moved to full consensus on declaring independence from Great Britain and then had to face new complexities as it simultaneously tried to govern and establish a framework for governance.

Throughout Revolutionary Summer the interplay of political and military requirements is skillfully depicted. I gained new admiration for men like Washington, Adams, and Franklin while reading with much interest about the actions of men like Admiral Lord Howe, his brother General Sir William Howe (both of whom had a certain amount of sympathy for the colonists.) In the end Ellis well sums up his central theme: that the war was unwinnable militarily by the Americans, but just as unwinnable politically by the British.

There are innumerable histories of the Revolution, but few manage to make the central issues and dilemmas of its early stages so clear and so succinctly as Ellis in Revolutionary Summer.

I love reading about American History, so I was really excited to read this book. Although it isn't quite as easy to read as David McCullough's 1776, it is still well written and packed full of information. I liked the different viewpoint that it took. I like that it looked at the political angles, the Continental Army viewpoint, and the British viewpoint. Mr. Ellis tied them all together very well, and brought the story to life. I learned a lot about the Howe brothers and how their uncharacteristic missteps cost the British the war. This is a great book, and would be perfect for a high school English class. Although there is no profanity or "intimacy," I would still say it isn't appropriate for readers younger than 14 or 15. War is not pretty.You may read my full review on my book blog: the-readathon.blogspot.com.

This slim book (182 pages of text plus notes, acknowledgements and index) possesses all the qualities one has come to expect in a historical study by Joe Ellis: mastery of the sources, an eminently pleasing and smooth prose style, and above all, ease and grace in explaining.

Ellis is a masterful explainer. He keeps both ends of the historical spectrum in sight while writing history, summarizing and analyzing the larger scale dynamics that move events along and the disparate thoughts and actions of the individual actors. In this book, that means, among others, Washington and Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Dickinson, the Howes, and Clinton. Ellis's observations throughout are sage and wise. He doesn't underrate the role played by individuals in history but doesn't inflate it either. He`s a very reliable guide to the times, events and actors about whom he writes.

The summer in question is the summer of 1776. It's an extensive `summer.' It starts in May with the Continental Congress's passage of Adams's resolution calling for the colonies to draft constitutions and discard their colonial charters of governance. That was passed on May 12. Three days later, the Congress passed a preface to the resolution, also drafted by Adams, enumerating its grievances against the King. (Adams always felt that this was the original declaration of independence, not the later one signed in July.) The `summer' ended, or rather petered out, sometime in October, with the evacuation of Washington's troops from Manhattan, accomplished by October 24. Between these two dates, May 12 and October 24, changes took place, both military and political, that shaped the course of the long hard bloody war for independence.

Ellis's narrative shuttles back and forth between the Continental Army and the Continental Congress. The protagonists on both sides are far from omniscient. Washington was perpetually frustrated by the miserable condition of his army. After the British landing and a crushing defeat, he seemed at a loss for what to do next, confused and ineffective. He was, besides, deeply flawed as a strategist: he committed his troops in a hopeless cause too long. (On the other hand, Ellis writes, Washington's evacuation of his troops from Brooklyn Heights on August 29-30 was "one of the most brilliant tactical withdrawals in the annals of military history.)

Fortunately for the Continentals, Howe was worse. Ellis observes, in one of many mots justes in this book, that both generals, Washington and Howe, pursued the wrong strategy for their own army but the right one for the other man's army. Washington wasn't as cautious as he should have been, given the condition of his troops and the inequity in the size of the armies, and Howe threw away his advantage by delaying in following up on it.
In Congress, not even the hyper-energetic John Adams was able to control the flow of events. Cannier than Adams, and also older, Franklin gauged the sentiment of his peers before acting. Rather than waste his political capital in futile argument, he concentrated his efforts on nudging events along in the direction he wanted them to take.

Arguably the most important action the Congress took during this critical period was to embrace the cause of independence from Britain. The debates that followed in the colonies concerning the nature of the new state constitutions opened up politics to more players, and more of them radicalized. Why didn't that support disappear in the wake of the military defeat on Long Island at the end of August? One reason, Ellis explains, is that few colonials heard of it: the newspapers, in a burst of patriotism -or ignorance--chose not to report it.

Certain points come through clearly in Ellis's account. Eighteenth-century ideas made it difficult for Washington to adopt a realistic combat policy (e.g., abandoning a post once established there). The absence among the delegates to the Congress of a coherent, shared vision of a new republic foretold future debate: they disagreed on all sorts of issues, from how to deal with slavery to how the colonies should be represented in the new confederation to what powers the central government should have. Neither of these is s completely new revelation but Ellis presents both issues well and they deserve a hearing.

If I commented on all the insights in this book, this review would be interminably long. So I'll mention just one: in a chapter entitled "Dogs That Did Not Bark," Ellis notes that the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence didn't draw attention at the time -they were seen as window dressing, not the heart of the document. But that's where all the dynamite was in the document: in subsequent generations, those paragraphs would shape our constitutional debate, particularly on the subject of citizens' rights.

A brilliant and detailed perspective on the interrelatedness of the political and military strategy - if it can be called strategy - of the summer of 1776. With no previous experience or instruction manual to guide them, Ellis weaves a fascinating account of the key founding fathers' struggle to form a new nation based upon a new concept while at the same time engaged in a war against the most powerful army on earth. All this with a homespun militia and military leaders whose only experience of the art of was through books. To complicate matters, they must contend with not only loyalist citizens but moderate factions within the Continental Congress who still believe they can repair the damaged relationship with England and not break away from her authority.

What separates Ellis' narrative from previous accounts is just how much the political influenced the military and vice versa. Despite ten years of grievances leading up to the critical moments of 1775, the founding fathers were woefully unprepared for declaring independence and creating an army capable of a longterm engagement with Great Britain. That Washington was able to endure defeats, disease, desertions and a quasi-government incapable of supporting his troops and missions is truly a testament to divine providence. And that this fledgling government, forced to move locations on a moments notice as well as endure the diverse opinions and objectives of 13 separate colonial interests, could not only survive but achieve something never done before, is nothing less than a miracle as well.

The relationship of these two entities during that summer, while less than perfect and at times counter productive, somehow managed to develop into that perfect whole being greater than the sum of its parts. How they influence and complement each other is at the crux of Ellis' well told story.

Lovers of books concerning America's Colonial/Revolutionary past (I am one) know the name Joseph Ellis as a gifted author. His books Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation and American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson were excellent portraits of America's founding fathers. Ellis, Gordon Wood, Bernard Bailyn and John Ferling, are creating a renaissance in American Revolutionary studies. Their books thus far have been more than mere popular history without becoming leaden tomes of academic interest only. Ellis' latest book, Revolutionary Summer, concentrates on the epochal summer of 1776 when the American nation was literally born. In clear but densely packed prose, Ellis paints a picture of a new nation created not out of high-flown rhetoric and lofty intentions, but small, incremental and perilous steps. Ellis emphasizes the incrementalism of our birth, its improvised nature and the often uncanny luck of our nation's midwives.

As the founding fathers exhibited great wisdom in their construction of a new republic, they also knew they were putting their heads in a noose and fear can be a great motivator in getting things done quickly. That is a lesson those currently in government may need to re-learn. Revolutionary Summer can be savored by newcomers to reading about our revolutionary history as well as old hands because Ellis often provides some new insight, some previously unknown relevant fact that keeps us interested. I enjoyed this book immensely. It is never boring and often quite thrilling as we marvel once again at how the revolutionary generation managed the miraculous feat of turning a small, powerless colonial outpost into the first self-governing republic in a world of powerful monarchies.

What I liked about Revolutionary Summer is the short timeframe and the depth of insights that were possible by limiting the work to a short period of time. I also greatly enjoyed Ellis's plotting two parallel activities side by side, almost like a crime novel. One set of activities has to do with the war - the Minutemen and Colonials who are organizing to fight the British, and the comedy of errors on both sides that led to Washington's escape from New York. The other set of activities recount the actions in the political realm, in the colonies and in England and France. The book points out many things that we've forgotten or neglected: the significant divisions between the colonies on political matters, the number of people in the colonies who were Loyalists, the division and disagreement about the prosecution of the war in Parliament.

For a short book that covers just a few summer months, Revolutionary Summer does a great job of making the history of the beginning of our country interesting, compelling even. It will make you wonder how we ever managed to win, and glad that we did.

The author explains his scope and thesis in his Preface. He plans to cover the period from approximately May through October 1776. He contends that neither the political nor the military events of that period can be understood without considering the other. This is exactly what he provides, in a relatively short, easily digested volume. It is true, as others have stated, that David McCullough's 1776 covered similar ground in more depth, but then McCullough also took a much longer book to do it.

I appreciated the amount of time the author spent on the British side of the story, much of which is unknown or misunderstood by us Americans. I also appreciated his explanation of Washington's decision to defend New York City. He explains that at first Washington misunderstood his orders as requiring a defense of New York, and later he felt his honor would be tarnished by any retreat. This concept that honor required standing one's ground was important to many soldiers of the time, and it gave me a new way to understand the strategy of the Continental Army.

On the whole, this is a well written book. There are a few maps that help to visualize the military action, and clear descriptions of the battles and maneuvers. He does a good job of weaving the political and military situations together and showing how each was influenced by the other.

I recommend this book for the short course on the summer of 1776.

"Revolutionary Summer" examines the crucial summer of 1776 from intertwining political and military perspectives. This was the time when Congress confronted the crucial question of Independence or reconciliation while Gen. Washington faced the challenge of how to keep the Continental Army intact by avoiding the traps set by brothers Gen. William and Adm. Richard Howe. It was a time when either a loss of military forces or political will could have dropped America back into the British Empire and an unknown future.

That summer the military scene focused on New York City. Under orders from Congress to hold New York, Washington was torn between holding the city and protecting his Army. In doing this he escaped entrapment on Long Island only, he thought, through the intervention of Providence. The Howes likewise were torn between their mandates to achieve military victory and political reconciliation.

Author Joseph Ellis draws on his Revolutionary Era expertise in describing the shift in personal views and war aims as the summer progressed. He explains in a clear manner the competing political philosophies of a sovereignty residing in Parliament versus one residing in numerous entities united by allegiance to a common monarch. He tries to uncover what public opinion polls, had they existed, would have shown about the people's opinion on independence and reconciliation. 1776 is portrayed at the year in which each side tested the other and made changes necessary to continue the war. The events in New York dashed both sides' hopes for a short war and convinced them that they were in for a long haul. This required a different type of Continental Army. It was a year in which the Continental Congress looked beyond the War to establish the form of national government for its duration and beyond.

Ellis inserts quotes to leaven each chapter. I will include a couple to give an idea of the witticisms awaiting the reader. As John Adams is quoted as reporting to Abigail, "In general, our Generals were out generaled." After Gen. Howe told American peace commissioners that "if America should fall, he should feel and lament it like the loss of a brother" Benjamin Franklin replied "My Lord, we will do our utmost to save your Lordship that mortification."

Ellis raises questions for which there are no clear answers. Prominent among them is whether the revolution could have survived the defeat of the Continental Army or, put another way, whether the Spirit of Independence was blowing so strongly that it could not be put back into the bottle. Even if the British had conquered the Army, would they have won back the people? "Revolutionary Summer" leaves us to ponder that question and, if we chose, to apply it to recent wars. If military victory could not have been sufficient in America in the 1770s, could it have been sufficient in Vietnam in the 1970s or Iraq and Afghanistan in the Twenty-first Century? A book that can draw parallels like that is worth a read.

Joseph Ellis's REVOLUTIONARY SUMMER tells about the summer of 1776 and how it was the turning point of U. S. independence from England. Ellis takes several perspectives; he takes readers from battlegrounds where the ragtag colonial forces are struggling against the highly trained British forces, and also takes readers to meetings of the Continental Congress, where other great men we learn about in history classes are trying to decide what kind of nation they want to create, whether it will be a loose alliance of the colonial states or have a stronger federal government.

The style of this book can be described as scholarly but quite readable. The non-historian can easily delve right into it and understand, but it is well-researched, with twenty pages of notes and an estimated ten pages shown for a future index in my advance copy. The nine chapters are fairly even in length, at about twenty-five to thirty-two pages each. Important maps were absent yet from my advance copy; I'd like to see how these turned out in the final copy.

All in all, though this book can get deep, it is an interesting, not overly-long read, even for non-historians, about the beginnings of our nation.

Obtained advance copy from publisher.

Excellent text which simultaneously covers that summer from both the context of the Continental Army, and British Army and the political tightrope walked by the Continental Congress and the Assumptions in Parliament. It is amazing that we won our independence from the Crown at all.
The thing that struck me most was the contempt the general population had for the Continental Army to whom they owed their very existence, and the seeds of that contempt and distrust which has lead to a pattern of broken promises to Veterans in war after war, that plagues our nation to this day, where people were only too glad to beat the drums of war and adorn their cars and trees with yellow ribbons while simultaneously not providing funds and structural systems to protect even our wounded veterans, who to this day have to wait up to 8+ months to even get their disability benefits reviewed, wait to get needed medical care, and jobs while our Congress votes to cut retirement benefits for Veterans in the quest of balanced budgets while they retain for themselves full retirement benefits for a length of service to Congress that any soldier would envy.
I was aware of the shabby way we treated our WWI vets, but had not realized where the seeds of this behaviour were sown.

Revolutionary Summer portrays the events during the epic summer of 1776. Written by Pulitzer Prize winning author Joseph Ellis, Revolutionary Summer takes the reader along side the Continental Congress, the British militia, and the Continental Congress. The books main theme was that the American side was committed to "The Cause," and the British were resolute to keep the colonies subordinated. I was amazed at the legal and political questions faced by the Founding Fathers and the absolute improbable victory that Washington achieved during the Revolution.

A few highlights are:

Washington's quote on page 67 where he is full aware of the gravity of the revolution- "The time is now at hand which must probably determine, Whether Americans are to be, Freeman, or Slaves...The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the conduct of this army..."

Page 101 - Jefferson's idea that Senators should not be elected by their representatives but by their state elected representatives.

Page 113 - Washington dictating to his militia that "Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty...if any man attempt to sulk, lay down, or retreat without orders, he will be instantly be shot down as an example."

Page 136 - If the Americans had lost the war - Washington, Adams, Franklin and other patriots would have gone to the gallows (hung).

This book will invigorate a lost apathy at the sacrifice of early American Patriots and give the reader a hallowed look at how precarious the political course was for the new colonies. In addition, I am in awe how George Washington with the rag-tag army and the gravity that he faced.

It's good but I wish there were more maps, charts, & documents.

Geoff Boltach

This is a concise and fast-paced narrative of the "summer" (May through October) of 1776. Ellis's thesis is that the military and political events of this summer influenced each other ultimately changing what had been the Cause of a minority of radicals into a Revolution with majority support. The weaving of the two sides of the story (military and political) is fairly seamless and flows naturally. The personalities of the major players are brought to life and reveal three dimensional characters wrestling with the issues in front of them as they forged a path that had never before been trod. This is a book that would appeal to fans of both military and political history because each side of the story complements and deepens the understanding of the other. My only complaint with this book (a minor one) is the author's occasional use of slangy and colloquial speech. As most of the writing was well crafted and precise, I tended to find these jarring. Overall, this is an interesting book that would appeal to both newbies and those with a lot of knowledge of Revolutionary War history.

Joseph J. Ellis is the current expert on the Revolutionary era. His books always combine a lucid narrative with insightful analysis. This book is no different. In examining the summer of 1776, Ellis says that one can't study the military situation without including the political. They are "the two sides of a single story, which are incomprehensible unless told together." And so he proceeds to do just exactly that. The result is an intelligent and scholarly study of our country as it declares independence and fights to achieve it in that summer of 1776. To me, the most compelling part of the book is the narrative of the battles for New York City between the Continental Army under Washington and the British under Lord Howe. Ellis contends that the British had an excellent opportunity to win the war by destroying the Continental Army, but that they blew their chance.

Of course, much of the ground covered here has been tilled many times before (see, for instance, 1776 by David McCullough). And Ellis' thesis is nothing earth-shattering. Indeed, one might call it (with apologies to Thomas Paine) common sense. Still, this is an enjoyable read and well worth the effort.

"Revolutionary War - The Birth of American Independence" by Joseph Ellis is a somewhat brief (less than 200 pages) yet sufficiently detailed summary of the actions of the summer of 1776 during the American Revolutionary War. Ellis covers both the military and political aspects of the time and does a good job of describing the actions taken in both areas.

Among the topics covered include:

1. The challenges the Continental Congress and Continental Army faced in establishing policies and procedures for a new nation.
2. Political figures: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, etc.).
3. Military figures: George Washington, Nathanael Greene, Israel Putnam, Richard and William Howe, Charles Lee, etc.
4. Main battles of 1776: Long Island, Kip's Bay, Harlem Heights, Pell's Point, and others.

While I enjoy reading the military aspects of a war rather than the politics, Ellis does a good job of keeping the readers's interest. The narrative is very readable and is very informative for anyone wanting to know more about the Revolutionary War, especially of events in 1776.

Recommended.

Ellis writes fluidly and with insight. Interesting obseravtions on the Declaration(no one thought the first paragrphs were importnt, including Jefferson); Wahsington's struggle to reconcile his personal honor with the need to eavcuate New York(he ultiamtley subordinated his ego to the greater good); the near miracle of the evacutaion from Long island. Some of the best writing is on the Howe brothers were torn between needng to wage war and trying to bring about a reconcilition. The Big Takeaway: independence was fraught with real peril for those who sought it.

If you have read any of Ellis' previous books you know the author has an uncanny knack/ability/talent in telling an historical tale without wasting any words - concise is an understatement. Providing perspective, context, analysis and brief biographical sketches, he gives the reader - if not a new insight - a clearer one as to how and why things happened as they did. Revolutionary Summer is no exception.

Focusing on the major players - Washington, Jefferson and Adams on the American side and the Howe brothers on the British - during the "Summer of 1776" - Ellis provides a new twist by tying together the political machinations with what was occurring on the military front; connecting the seemingly obvious dots and highlighting a cause and effect if you will, between the two. There is also a very engaging narrative here - All of this in a little less than 200 pages.

Regardless if you're a novice or someone who has read extensively on this topic - recommended.