<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not Worthy of Association With Others in The Oxford Series
Review: After reading the other three works from the Oxford Series, I was expecting something similar (well-wriiten and readable history). Unfortunately, this book falls short for the following reasons:
1) Boring (and I really like reading history, this says something)
2) The writing style makes it difficult to follow events (one becomes even more confused about the Revolution from reading this book)
3) overanalysis on events (4 chapters just on the Stamp Act is a bit much)
The American Revolution is a great story, filled with interesting events and characters. Why doesn't Middlekauff include more of these? His book is more focused on trivial details and overanalysis which lessen the "big picture". Anyone looking for a good and readable book on the revolution should aviod this one!
Rating: 
Summary: A Bookend Account--best at start and finish
Review: Enthralling, but probably not the book for someone who's read extensively on the subject already. And since the title describes, without irony, Middlekauff's overall attitude toward the American Revolution, not for someone seeking a radical or revisionist history of the events.Nor is it an exhaustive social, political, or military study. (The text runs under 700 pages.) Yet as it shifts between those disciplines, Middlekauff adapts his vocabulary to the task. Descriptions of military actions employ the terms of the battlefield and I doubt that Stephen Ambrose or Max Hastings could bring the actions more to life than Middlekauff. Larger-than life men are described in human terms that also inspire. I felt perfectly confident with his expertise, whether describing the demographics of the colonies, the debates in the Continental Congress or the bloodshed on the battlefields. To get a flavor for Middlekauff's style, read the section on George Washington's early life, or von Steuben's role in training the army at Valley Forge. This is writing with red blood in its veins. Not the complete story, but what a great place to start!
Rating: 
Summary: Not quite up to standard for the Oxford History of the U.S.
Review: I was candidly overwhelmed by the military nature of this historical work. I was hoping for a great deal more in the political, social and economic areas than Profesor Middlekauff was able to deliver. If this well researched historical text were to be part of the Oxford MILITARY History of the United States one would be less surprised at the laborious details the author gets into on the various battlefields. I have previously read two voumes of the Oxford History of the United States: James McPhearson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" and David Kennedy's "Freedom from Fear" dealing with the Civil War and World War II, respectively. Both of these authors deliverd strongly where Middlekauff fell far short, namely away from strictly military matters. I would strongly urge those interested in military history to read this book. Those less interested should search out some other work with a broader analytical framework.
Rating: 
Summary: This is the best overall book about the Revolutionary War
Review: Middlekauff has read deeply in the history of the American revolution and the early republic. Moreover, he is interested in more than just a simple narrative; he is interested in causes and motives, as he shows in chaps. 20 and 21 of this book, which discusses why soldiers fought instead of ran. Unfortunately, the narrative in this book has holes, and Middlekauff often fails to put people and personalities into context, making the reading less interesting than it should be. He also makes high demands on readers' attention; this, plus the holes, made the book heavy going at times. Here are some examples of holes: 1) In his discussion of the Intolerable Acts, Middlekauff fails to say what the Quebec Act was, yet on pp. 239 and 280 he assumes you know. 2) 471: "They all knew what happened to Buford's men at Waxhaws when they tried to run away." This is the only time "Buford" and "Waxhaws" are mentioned in the book. 3) 340: "June also brought William Howe back to New York." I can't find where it says Howe had been in New York before. 4) 462: "Some hint of what was coming was given ...when the victors, shouting 'Tarleton's Quarter,' shot and stabbed the wounded..." There is no explanation of this anywhere in the book. 478: "... Lee's Legion rode in. Greene once more had his army in one piece." This is the first time that "Lee's Legion" is mentioned. I had to look in the index to find out that "Lee" was Henry Lee. It never explains how he got a legion. The last time we saw him, on 417, he was foraging in Delaware. No context for people and personalities: Isaac Barre gives a speech supporting the colonies in parliament (74-75), but Middlekauf never tells us who he is or why he speaks so strongly.
Directly below, the American who thinks Barre's speech is "noble" is never identified. Apparently it was Jared Ingersoll, who appears in a very different light in other parts of the book. Demands on reader's attention: 406-7 "Amherst told the king..." This is Jeffrey Amherst. The last time we met him, also identified only as "Amherst", was page 276, where he was fighting Montcalm in Quebec for all of one sentence. Look up Amherst in the index, see where he appears, and see how easy it is to connect these references. This is very tough, demanding writing. Middlekauff knows the period, is a very intelligent writer, has interesting views and judgments which he backs up effectively. However, if you want to understand what is going on, you will have to go to other books in addition to this one, and you will have to pay very close attention to Middlekauff, with pencil in hand and constant reference to the index. As an example of a book which brings people and personalities strongly into context, I recommend Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly" which has an outstanding chapter on "The British Lose America." This will tell you who Barre was, why they were drinking toasts to John Wilkes in South Carolina in 1768, and what the Quebec Act was. It's only a tiny fragment of the history Middlekauff tries to cover, and occasionally falls down as well (Tuchman mangles the text of Barre's speech), but is a great example of fascinating historical writing which historians would do well to study.
Rating:
Summary: Out of Touch with Modern Historiography
Review: Middlekauff's book aims to be an in-depth overview of the Revolutionary War period but falls short in many areas. The Oxford series seem to be written for the average reader who wants to get an introduction into the time period and events. Middlekauff's book, although not difficult to understand, will probably only be best understood by those who have studied the American Revolution before (besides in your eigth-grade history class). Some key figures are given fairly good descriptions, but others simply appear without any sort of introduction. The events are not presented in the chronological narrative structure that newcomers to the subject will be able to follow easily. In an attempt to surround events to understand them fully, Middlekauff jumps around a lot. This leads to not only gaps of information that other reviewers have detailed, but repetition of information. The book is uneven in its studies - some events are detailed with extreme clarity and others are muddled through or skipped over. The most well-written parts of the book involve the Stamp Act crisis and the details of the major conflicts. Middlekauff's attempts to explain what was happening in Britain during the time period are mixtures of insightful analysis and huge gaps. Because he does not consistently follow events in Britain, the passages concerning them usually begin with a short, confusing explanation that the political scene changed a lot since the last time it was discussed. The thesis revolves around the spread, fight over, and the eventual embodiment of the revolutionary ideals in American government. Overall, Middlekauff succeeds in his descriptions of how a varied political landscape of separate colonies evolved into a confederation and then nation, without making the process seem the obvious and only path available. It was a difficult and uncertain adventure, which Middlekauff excels at capturing. The biggest problem with the book is that it is reminiscent of a time when history was the study of white men and their wars. Almost no time is spent discussing the role of women, blacks, or Native Americans in the Revolution. The homefront is generally only discussed in terms of how they supplied (or failed to) the American soldiers, and this is mostly about the men. Slaves are given only a few paragraphs and Native Americans are reduced to the shadowy evil-threat to civilization that was far too common in old history. Almost nothing is mentioned of Native American allies, but much is said about the threat they presented to Geogian settlers. This treatment is almost unheard of in modern historiography, and was out of date when Middlekauff published the book. You cannot get a complete overview of the time without addressing these people and the issues that effect them. How they are involved in the Revolution's ideals is never discussed, despite the fact that this is the thesis. This failure makes the astounding amount of research that went into the book look incomplete and should be taken into account by anyone interested in reading about the period.
Rating:
Summary: Out of Touch with Modern Historiography
Review: Middlekauff's book aims to be an in-depth overview of the Revolutionary War period but falls short in many areas. The Oxford series seem to be written for the average reader who wants to get an introduction into the time period and events. Middlekauff's book, although not difficult to understand, will probably only be best understood by those who have studied the American Revolution before (besides in your eigth-grade history class). Some key figures are given fairly good descriptions, but others simply appear without any sort of introduction. The events are not presented in the chronological narrative structure that newcomers to the subject will be able to follow easily. In an attempt to surround events to understand them fully, Middlekauff jumps around a lot. This leads to not only gaps of information that other reviewers have detailed, but repetition of information. The book is uneven in its studies - some events are detailed with extreme clarity and others are muddled through or skipped over. The most well-written parts of the book involve the Stamp Act crisis and the details of the major conflicts. Middlekauff's attempts to explain what was happening in Britain during the time period are mixtures of insightful analysis and huge gaps. Because he does not consistently follow events in Britain, the passages concerning them usually begin with a short, confusing explanation that the political scene changed a lot since the last time it was discussed. The thesis revolves around the spread, fight over, and the eventual embodiment of the revolutionary ideals in American government. Overall, Middlekauff succeeds in his descriptions of how a varied political landscape of separate colonies evolved into a confederation and then nation, without making the process seem the obvious and only path available. It was a difficult and uncertain adventure, which Middlekauff excels at capturing. The biggest problem with the book is that it is reminiscent of a time when history was the study of white men and their wars. Almost no time is spent discussing the role of women, blacks, or Native Americans in the Revolution. The homefront is generally only discussed in terms of how they supplied (or failed to) the American soldiers, and this is mostly about the men. Slaves are given only a few paragraphs and Native Americans are reduced to the shadowy evil-threat to civilization that was far too common in old history. Almost nothing is mentioned of Native American allies, but much is said about the threat they presented to Geogian settlers. This treatment is almost unheard of in modern historiography, and was out of date when Middlekauff published the book. You cannot get a complete overview of the time without addressing these people and the issues that effect them. How they are involved in the Revolution's ideals is never discussed, despite the fact that this is the thesis. This failure makes the astounding amount of research that went into the book look incomplete and should be taken into account by anyone interested in reading about the period.
Rating:
Summary: The war of "The Children of the Twice-Born"
Review: The inaugural volume of the highly honored but still unfinished "Oxford History Of The United States" series is "The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789," a superbly written, scholarly, and highly literate account of the America's War for Independence. Written by Robert L. Middlekauff, Professor of History... this is the finest account of the Revolutionary War I've found to date... even better than Benson Bobrick's "Angel in the Whirlwind," which I've already reviewed. "The Glorious Cause" is a comprehensive account of the American Revolution designed to give readers a well rounded overview of not only the causes of the war, but also of how the war was fought. The book succeeds admirably at its task. After finishing "The Glorious Cause," I felt a much greater appreciation for the men and women whose struggle for freedom brought forth on the North American continent a new and independent nation - the United States of America. "The Glorious Cause" begins by examining the causes of the American Revolution. In one of the book's earliest chapters, entitled "The Children of the Twice Born," Middlekauff carefully lays out his closely reasoned and well argued thesis: that the seeds of revolution were planted long before the war was actually fought. Those seeds, embodied in the economic, social, political, and religious fabric of American society, made the evolution to democracy on the North American continent almost inevitable. The earliest settlers came to the New World because of their disenchantment with authoritarian English laws and what they viewed as centralized, overly ritualistic, dogmatic Anglican religion. When the settlers arrived with their ideals of political and congregationalist religious democracy, they found land cheap and plentiful. Whereas only about 20 percent of all Englishmen were landowners, and hence were eligible to participate in England's parliamentary democracy, over 50 percent of American colonists owned land and therefore could take part in colonial parliamentary government. The result: provincial representative assemblies tended to do the bidding of their constituents rather than the royal governors. After the Seven Years' War, tension between American political and economic interests and the interests of the British government was exacerbated by Parliament's intent to restore Britsh prerogatives in America. Tension was bound to lead to conflict, and that conflict wasn't long in coming. The American colonies were left pretty much to their own economic and political devices during the Seven Years' War, so long as they provided support for Britain's war against the French. The colonists bore the brunt of the fighting during the war against the French in North America; at war's end, they expected to be permitted to return to some semblance of self-government. It was not to be, however. Under Britain's new King and a Parliament with a new-found awareness of the American colonies' potential to enrich their colonial masters, Parliament began enacting a series of laws (Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Sugar Act, etc.) designed to bring the colonies to heel. The colonists, thoroughly imbued with the ideals of democracy and liberty, rebelled, first through political means, and finally, inevitably, through violence. Once "The Glorious Cause" completes its assessment of the causes of the war, it takes the reader on a fascinating journey through the war itself. The way the American Revolution was fought is frequently shrouded in the mists of legend, with great American heroes standing tall against the overwhelming might of the British and Hessian armies. There are strong elements of historical truth to that legend, but Middlekauff does an excellent job of portraying the war exactly as it was: a very closely contested fight between colonial masters and those who wished to throw off the yoke of colonialism. There's really almost nothing to criticize in "The Glorious Cause." It is, in nearly every respect, an outstanding work of history. It's comprehensive in its scope; thorough in its approach; obviously very well researched; and imbued with careful, thoughtful, and incisive historical analysis. Middlekauff's descriptions of Revolutionary War battles are first-rate. The author completely captures the flavor of eighteenth century warfare in general, and of the battles of the American Revolution in particular. When I finished reading "The Glorious Cause," I felt as if I had actually been there at some of the great battles of the war. One very minor caveat: because "The Glorious Cause" takes a fairly academic approach to studying the American Revolution, the book's somewhat lofty and scholarly sounding language may not appeal to readers with only a passing interest in history in general, and the American Revolution in particular. That's not to say the book has only a narrow appeal to academics and history scholars, however; it is definitely written for the general reader with a love of American history. It will, in my view, prove a most satisfying experience for the vast majority of history lovers who decide to read it. "The Glorious Cause" is a winner of a book in every respect. With a dearth of excellent books about the American Revolution currently in print, this volume fills a crucial need for those who wish to learn about America's struggle for independence. As the inaugural volume of the "Oxford History Of The United States," "The Glorious Cause" also sets the tone for the whole series... highly readable, thoroughly imbued with first-rate scholarship and a polished, eloquent writing style; and simply a pleasure to read.
Rating:
Summary: A book worth reading
Review: This is the best account of the American Revolution that I have read. I was particularly impressed with the detail of events leading up to the war. If there is a quibble, it is that the book contains too few maps.
Rating: 
Summary: Dissappointing
Review: This was a weak effort, esp. considering that the book is part of the Oxford History of the US. It offers no new insights, has very little arguement in it, and as such, there are far better single-volume works out there to be read. The book starts out very well in describing life in the 18th century on the eve of the war; it quickly goes down hill from there. Middlekauf does not seem to understand the British Army of the time either, as he frequently refers to British regiments by their Victorian-era names. I recommend John Alden's book instead.
<< 1 >>
|
