I almost forgot to give myself credit for this one! Phew.
I love Scott O'Dell books, based on the 2.5 I've read. Not a huge sample, but his writing is consistent in all 3. No wasted words (which isn't always a good thing, but in children's historical fiction it absolutely is), quick plots, history, etc. His one flaw, which many others point out, and which I don't necessarily think is a flaw based on what he's trying to do (but if he was trying to get this book included in the Nobel prize sweepstakes I've have to ding him for it), is that his main characters are basically vehicles for the plot and not really people. The story in both books (Sing Down the Moon and Sarah Bishop) is told from the perspective of the main character in the first person. And you might be thinking, "well isn't that impressive that man writes all these books from a female perspective", but it's not that impressive because you could honestly have replaced both lead characters with a boy or an eagle or a lamp post and it would achieved the same effect. The lamp post would have only restricted the character's movement, but otherwise Sarah Bishop had about as much emotion and charisma as the metal object.
Her Dad gets tarred and feathered IN FRONT OF HER and she WATCHES HIM DIE and she's like "I need to go get my brother" (for dinner or to tell him YOUR DAD IS DEAD!?). Same for Sing Down the Moon. She has a couple of breakout moments, particularly when she's blaspheming the Bible (which was quite provocative for a children's novel), but otherwise she's pretty milquetoast (and I don't mean "timid and feeble" like the actual word, because she did live a freaking cave by herself with a bat and muskrat for over a year and part of that was with her almost rapist who she saved from dying....I mean actual Toast soaked in Milk).
The main reason I'd recommend including this book in a child's historical fiction reading list is because it doesn't paint a very nice picture of the early Americans. I picked it up expecting this to be a straightforward retelling of the revolutionary war. Instead her dad is loyal to the king and the revolutionaries are tyrannical. I really started to question if all of my understanding of early American history was a lie. And it did a really good job of depicting how much that war would have sucked. People starving, people dying of starvation, people dying of diseases related to being starved. People dying on ships because they caught diseases from people that were starving. (This is also why I'd recommend maybe a kid should be like 10 before he reads this...and also because it's insinuated at one point that she was going to be raped but she broke loose.).
About halfway through it stops really even talking about the war, which was also interesting and probably quite accurate. Most people probably discussed it, but since most of the battles took place in specific locales, the day to day existence of ordinary towns probably didn't change much. Even if the British took your town over, it's not like they shut down your business (assuming you weren't selling goods to Washington or instigating riots).
And there's some random interesting tidbits about quakers at the end, which pretty well followed my understanding of quakers. They kind of suck, but they're also kind of dope, but they're also super hypocritical slave-owning rich people, but they're also epic abolitionist prophets.