The Day the American Revolution Began : 19 April 1775

Rating:
Summary: A Little Grit With Your Tea?
Review: As others have noted, this book can be a quick read, since it races from place to place and from person to person as it depicts the days and circumstances of pre-revolution America. It is indeed hard to put down.

This book surprised me, in that it showed me how much grass-roots rebel-rousing actually went on in the Colonies leading up to the revolution, much of which was instigated and lead by that hoodlum Sam Adams. The background information regarding the whys, wherefores, and thinking that led some of the lesser-known of our forefathers to take the actions they did made the book for me. Also most enlightening was how the loyalists were treated during all of this. Interesting too was how it seems that London just "didn't get it" and made every mistake (willful or otherwise) imaginable to force the war into being.

If you thought that at any time the American Revolution was some sort of paper affair, think again, read this book, and learn some of the story as it happened away from hallowed halls and the larger war scene, at the common man's level.

Rating:
Summary: A remarkable account...
Review: As this is the 19th of April, and therefore the anniversary of the great event commemorated in this book, I will reproduce the text of an e-mail I sent to Rich Lowry, editor of "The National Review," responding to an online column he wrote. It well expresses my feelings on this very impressive book. Here it is:

Dear Mr. Lowry,

Congratulations on a wonderful column about the day that marks the true dawn of the American independence movement, a date that most Americans unfortunately do not see as particularly important. May I suggest to you the book "The Day the American Revolution Began" by William Hallahan, which is most fascinating in its scope: Mr. Hallahan reminds his readers that the beginning of the Revolution was not the same day for everybody. New York did not hear of the news until April 23, 1775, when express rider Israel Bissel came galloping into town. Philadelphia was informed by Bissel on April 26th, and from there the news spread to all thirteen colonies. It may serve as a reminder of the triumph of the information age to note that Great Britain was not informed until fully a month after the event, well into May; the Americans sent out a notice(complete with horrifying affidavits of British atrocities) on a ship that managed to overtake the British liner and get the news to Britain first.

The great participants in this event are legion and their stories are brilliantly told: Bissel, Revere, Samuel Prescott, Billy Dawes, Joseph Warren, Patrick Henry, John Adams, Sam Adams, George Washington, John Hancock, Dr. Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, Nathanael Greene, Isaac Sears, Alexander McDougal, et cetera. Not to be forgotten are the hundreds of militia members who formed a well-organized information ring that spread the news: upon hearing Paul Revere's notice, the townmembers would themselves go out and alert others. Also vital to that great day was William Heath, a brillant general whose knowledge of military tactics was probably rivalled by only a few people in the entire world. He devised the "Ring of Fire" strategy that pestered the British on their seventeen-mile retreat to Boston from Concord; he would send up militias on either side to fire on the Redcoats, and then send up newly-arriving militias ahead of them to continue the attack as the Brits beat a hasty retreat. General Percy of the Redcoats (having taken over from the retreating Francis Smith, who himself took over at Lexington from Major Pitcairn) quickly realized he was facing a general every bit as good as he was, and the attack killed off 10% of his forces before they collapsed on Bunker Hill in Boston to face an astonished General Gage. Here's the best damn story I've heard in a long time: Samuel Whittemore was a 78-year old crippled war veteran who was part of the American militia. In the house-to-house fighting that took place in various towns amidst the British retreat (with the Americans, in true guerilla style, largely firing from behind buildings and stone walls), Whittemore took his saber and two rifles and began firing on the Redcoats. As they charged him, he dropped two Brits with his rifle and another with his saber. As he was raising his rifle for another shot, part of his face was shot off, and the British rushed over and subdued him, bayoneting him more than a dozen times. The doctor who cared for him thought his case was hopeless. Not only did he survive, he lived to be 96 years old and left a number of descendants. To the truth about Americans being honest, decent, and courageous, add another quality: Americans are serious badasses.

Rating:
Summary: The dark underbelly of the Revolution
Review: By sheer coincidence, I began reading this book on April 19, 2001, exactly 226 years after the events recorded in the first chapter. Reading this work reveals a fascinating, and little-known, tale of the beginnings of the Revolution. It reminds me of the scene in "The Wizard of OZ" where Dorothy and her friends are ushered into the presence of the Great and Powerful OZ. Smoke pours out, lights flash, loud voices are heard, but everything is manufactured by "the man behind the curtain". This appears to be the theme of this book, that Samuel Adams and a few others, by deft maneuvering, and some incredibly stupid moves by the British authorities, created the Revolution out of whole cloth. The facts are presented quite plainly, and while all readers may not accept the premise of the author, I must admit that he has made a very good case. The book is well-written, and worth reading, if only to learn a lot about how the Revolution began, facts that aren't the common inserts in school history textbooks.

Rating:
Summary: A UNIQUE AND CLEAR PERSPECTIVE!
Review: Just how important were Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, etc. etc. etc. in winning and even instigating the American Revolution? Also what was really happening in England at the time? Who was influencing King George IV? If you think you know it all-- you're in for a surprise. Read this book. It offers detailed unique, clear-cut, startling at times shocking little known facts about that turbulent era. It is a most enlightening view of the times and temperament of the men of the "pre-Lexington/Concord shots that were "heard around the world" . Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: The Day the American Revolustion Began
Review: This book was written to be easily read. Almost entertaining to the point it read like a story.

Not your typical history book but more of a history novel.

If you're looking for good stories on all the key player of the American Revolution about their where abouts, thoughts, and action during the start of the revolution then this book is for you.

It tracks the sequence of communication from the first days of the Revolution to the time it became official in England.

Also it has an excellent outline of all the historical events that lead up to the start of the revolution listed in the back of the book.

I highly recoment this book to all History buffs and non-history buffs looking for a good factual historical information.

Rating:
Summary: April 19th, plus
Review: This is a compelling historical tale, filled with well-sketched characters and a ton of detail about life and warfare in the 18th century. I know that some readers will disagree with some of its conclusions - Samuel Adams is portrayed as the single most important person in the Colonial drift toward revolution - but I found it to be a well-written and well-argued book.

Clarification on one point: Hallahan's book isn't actually about one day - it details the battles of Lexington and Concord, then goes on to describe what occurred in New York, Philadelphia, Williamsburg and London when word of those battles reached those cities.


Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but what about those errors?
Review: This is a well-written, easy to read book. But, while the book starts out exciting, it bogs down a bit in the middle with all those short biographies of the many various people involved and how they were affected. These are interesting, but some of them are just really minor characters, and it almost seems as if the author used them just to "fill-out" the book a bit more. But, overall, the book is very enjoyable to read, leads the reader along to the finish; and I would recommend it.
However, and this is a BIG one: the author is just plain misleading on some of his "facts." For example, in speaking of General Gage's war record, the author points out that Gage was with Braddock at Braddock's defeat during the French and Indian War. This is true, but the author states Gage was "On July 9, 1755, with Braddock during the French ambush near Fort Pitt." Well, kinda, but not really. It was actually Fort Duquesne. Fort Pitt was an English fort built near the same site after Fort Duquesne was destroyed. Fort Pitt didn't exist in 1755. And it wasn't an ambush. Anyway, the author goes on to state that Gage conducted a rear guard action that enabled the few survivors to escape. Nowhere in any historical writings is Gage given credit for any rear guard action, and Gage wasn't a hero here. He was the one that marched right past the "high ground," and when the French and Indians attacked, this is the ground that was used by the enemy to destroy Braddock's troops. If Gage had done his job and secured the high ground as would have been mililtarily prudent, Braddock might not have been defeated. Many placed much blame on Gage for this military blunder. And Gage really wasn't any hero in the retreat. In fact, had he held his ground at the beginning, as ordered, things may probably not have gone so bad for the English. The author implies that Gage saved George Washington's life by his actions in the retreat, but George Washington had as more to do with the successful retreat than Gage. In fact, Gage had retreated so far back already, that he was lated accused of cowardice. So while the author doesn't really write anything actually wrong, he is misleading in trying to make his point of Gage's "bright resume" (as the author calls it). The problem with this is now I am wondering what else he wrote in the book that is maybe not quite historically accurate. It is disturbing when an historian distorts the facts for the benefit of his own narrative.
For example, one of the main points the author tries to make in this book is that Sam Adams may have been the one who either shot or "hired" someone to make the first shot at the battle of Lexington. This is the shot "that was heard around the world." Now, considering that the author twists facts a bit to make his point in other areas, I wonder how much he twists things in this case also. The author spends much time in the book trying to lead the reader to believe that Sam Adams was a self-serving, villianous rogue. While this may be true to a degree, it really doesn't offer any evidence that Adams had anything to do with the mysterious shot. In fact, when it comes right down to it, the author offers absolutely zero evidence to back up this claim, other than that Adams might have had motive to do it. Again, this might be true, but so did many others. Therein lies my problem with this author--he tries to prove a point with no evidence to back it up.
Also, the author seems to leave out evidence that doesn't back the points he is making at the time. For instance, in speaking of the British General Braddock, the author states the General "in 1754 had condemned the colonials as cowards." That is true, but after Braddock's Defeat, he had changed his mind completely, and so stated. So the author is misleading here in stating Braddock's view of the "colonials."
Also, sometimes the author contradicts himself. Again in Gage's case, he states that Gage "was known to plan meticulously to avoid making mistakes." But on the next page, the author states "...Gage had begun making mistakes," "..he made the poor choice...," "To compound that mistake, and against the advice of other generals...." And earlier the author states, that after the Battle of Concord "...Gage needed a plan--and he didn't have one. Now this doesn't really sound like a man that plans well to avoid mistakes. Oh well.
In any case, this is really a reasonably decent book otherwise. I would have rated it higher were I not in doubt about his historical accuracy.

Rating:
Summary: Highly recommended
Review: This is the sort of history I enjoy : the day to day details of people and events that support and flesh out events. By following the events leading up to and just beyond the April 19 "shot heard round the world", Hallahan makes the Revolution and its central characters come alive. It's especially interesting to be reminded that it took several weeks, if not months, for that shot to be heard, the slower pace of news and the time being an important element in the story. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: good edutainment, mediocre history
Review: What a remarkable book this is! At first I was a little put off by the style.......a lot of quick cutting from one thing to the next, with a lot of short, snappy paragraphs. But I adjusted to the style and settled down to really enjoy the historical quilt that Mr. Hallahan has put together. The style works because it really conveys the excitement of the times, and the confusion of the times as well! The author writes about Lexington and Concord but also of the events leading up to April 19th, 1775- and the aftermath. He starts off in Boston, telling you what the patriots and the British were up to. This takes up about the first one-third of the book. Then he moves southward, following the news as it spread through the colonies. We move through New York, Philadelphia, Williamsburg and on to London. Along the way Mr. Hallahan provides wonderful, succinct descriptions of both the people and the places that are important to the narrative. The book provides almost an embarrassment of riches. You really get the feel of each place that is visited and in just a few paragraphs or a couple of pages you will feel that the author has truly captured the personality of whichever person he has chosen to zoom in on.

Let me get myself out of the picture for awhile and give you a few examples of how well Mr. Hallahan writes:

On John Adams's temper: "As he became more sure of himself and his philosophic view of the world, his temperament became more volcanic. In town meetings he often bellowed with fury at his opponents, hammering home his points by pounding his fist on his palm. He had become formidable. Frightening. He could not even read a book calmly. His 3,000 volume library bristles with his marginalia. 'Pitiful!', he scrawls. 'Thou Louse, Flea, Tic, Wasp or whatever Vermin thou art!'

The use and abuse of the press by the colonials (too bad they didn't teach us this stuff in school!): "The press distorted the news and also suppressed it at will. Significant events such as the vicious assault on customs inspectors by Sam Adams's mob were not reported...With a crowd of over 300 cheering, the inspectors were...pitched headlong into the harbor...the collector and the comptroller of customs (were) hauled through the streets with taunts and shoves and punches..."

A little gem of a description of General Nathaniel Greene: "During the war, while he was on military service, he had his ironworks converted into a cannon factory. His troops got used to seeing him halt a march, make a cup of tea, and, slipping a book out of his pocket, become totally lost in his reading. He was destined to become the most brilliant of all of Washington's generals."

John Hancock arriving in Philadelphia: "Clattering noisily through the streets of the city in his gilded carriage, he would ride preceded, flanked, and followed by a cadre of mounted horsemen. Restaurateurs would hate to see them coming for they were raucous, unsettling, quarrelsome, disturbing, and given to consuming great quantities of food and drink- especially drink. Then they would gallop off into the night without paying the bill."

Positively Dickensian in terms of plot and in terms of the fascinating, swirling cast of characters. You will finish this book wanting to read biographies of about 15-20 different people: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, Gen. Gage, King George III, and so on and so on........

A marvelous read.

Rating:
Summary: A Great Introduction to the Revolutionary War
Review: Whether you are well versed in the Revolutionary War or not, this book will provide you with a great introduction to the main characters (warts and all) who were instrumental in America's bid to become a free and independent country from England. Sam Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock, William Dawes, Samuel Prescott, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and numerous others are presented here as human beings with their failures, weaknesses, and jealousies. This book doesn't cover the entire war, just the beginnings at Lexington and Concord and how those beginnings affected goings on in New York, Philadelphia, and Williamsburg. What is especially interesting is the conclusion of the book mentions what happened to each of the characters who were instrumental in the Revolutionary War's beginnings. The book is easy reading and will be enjoyable to you even if you have only a rudimentary background in this subject. If you want to know more about our country's beginnings without going through the entire war, this would be a very interesting book for you to read.