1775: A Good Year for Revolution

by Kevin Phillips

Overview
The contrarian historian and analyst upends the conventional reading of the American Revolution

In 1775, iconoclastic historian and bestselling author Kevin Phillips punctures the myth that 1776 was the watershed year of the American Revolution. He suggests that the great events and confrontations of 1775—Congress’s belligerent economic ultimatums to Britain, New England’s rage militaire, the exodus of British troops and expulsion of royal governors up and down the seaboard, and the new provincial congresses and hundreds of local committees that quickly reconstituted local authority in Patriot hands­—achieved a sweeping Patriot control of territory and local government that Britain was never able to overcome. These each added to the Revolution’s essential momentum so when the British finally attacked in great strength the following year, they could not regain the control they had lost in 1775.

Analyzing the political climate, economic structures, and military preparations, as well as the roles of ethnicity, religion, and class, Phillips tackles the eighteenth century with the same skill and insights he has shown in analyzing contemporary politics and economics. The result is a dramatic narrative brimming with original insights. 1775 revolutionizes our understanding of America’s origins.

Genres: History, American Revolution, American History, Nonfiction, American Revolutionary War, War, 18th Century

656 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 27, 2012

Reviews

[Brett C · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a well-researched and well-written historical account about a very crucial point in American history. The author gave all angles and explanations about why 1775 boiled over into the sparking the American Revolution. I especially found the Virginia and South Carolina aspects incredibly interesting. This was loaded with heavy details, places, names, and events. My only thing is I wouldn't suggest this as a primer on Colonial and pre-Revolutionary America. It was a good read but there was a lot to comprehend. Thanks!

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I learned a great deal from 1775, and more importantly, managed to finish it, despite Kevin Phillips’ best efforts. Phillips sets out to examine the year or so (more on that in a moment) just prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence with a particular eye to debunking most of the myths that have cropped up in the following years. Of this, he does a good job. The lengthy volume focuses largely on economic and religious causes. It also examines the different waves of immigrants from various locations within the British Isles (and their loyalties) and shows how divided the country really was. It provides a great deal of information, and is very through.

All of that being said, this book is horrible written, and the basic premises are totally flawed. Phillips explains he wants to focus just on the year 1775, but the long 1775. I’m well acquainted with long centuries and decades, but I’ve never heard of a long year, particularly one lasting 2 to 3 years, and through half of 1776, which seems to directly contradict Phillips’ premise. Phillips also had apparently written a book comparing the English Civil War, American Revolution, and American Civil War. He references it quite frequently for reasons that seem, at best, tangential. I’m not sure if this is an advertisement or what, but it is a bit odd. In general, he doesn’t really firmly make a point, instead he throws a ton of detail and example at you without ever wrapping things up. He also tends to get focused on the trees, but has no concept there is a forest.

However, the main flaw of this book is the actual writing style. This book could have easily been cut down by half. He repeats most ideas presented (including word for word antidotes) a half dozen or more times. There seems to be no reason for this. Moreover, he seems to believe if he discovered something in the course of his research, he must provide it to the reader. On countless occasions, he’ll provide a dozen nearly identical and very long examples then make the comment ‘if this seems like it is rather repetitious and dull, it is, and that is the point…’ It almost seems as if he believes the reader is an idiot. This book is by no means (ignoring how it was marketed) some sort of popular history or analysis of the Revolutionary War, and the intended audience doesn’t need to be treated as a high school student. Similarly he is forever mentioning which chapter things will be discussed in, often numerous times per page. A reader will assume, if you haven’t talked about ports yet, but reference them a couple of times, that perhaps a later chapter will discuss ports in depth or at least touch on them in relation to, say, trade. Finally, the syntax and word choice just seems plodding, and makes the whole work difficult. Reaching the end, while it does feel as if you have a firmer understanding of pre-American Revolution causes, you don’t feel as if he has made a successful argument (or any argument at all). Kevin Phillips has certainly proven his intellectual credentials, but you wouldn’t believe it from this work.

In short—don’t read it unless you really must understand minutia of pre-Revolutionary War America, and even then, don’t read the complete work.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

It would be easy to hate this book. In fact those people that say they hated studying history in school could point to books like this to justify their attitudes. I have always loved history and can't seem to get enough of it. However, this book had me nodding off on more than a few occasions. I give it one star for readability but 5 stars for research and insight which averages to my 3 star rating. To begin with let's start with the title and apparent premise that 1775 is some how unappreciated or ignored in our history compared to 1776. Really? Is that important? Isn't that like asking which of your two eyes is more important or which of your limbs or organs is more important? What's important is the whole and not its parts. As this author so ably illustrates our Revolution's origins can be traced back to the English Civil War and more precisely to shortly after the French and Indian War. From start to finish our Revolution spanned some 20 years of history in which some years were more eventful than others but all had their purpose. So I didn't care for the approach taken especially after wading through this overly long discourse that had more to do with the origins, foundation, and direction of the Revolution as viewed from both sides of the conflict than it did with the importance of 1775. What I found most objectionable was the unnecessary length and copious detail used to support the author's insights. I frequently lost sight of the author's point because of depth of detail he used to support or illustrate it. Had the author made the same points in a book half this one's length I think a much more readable book would been the result. I do believe this author enjoyed his research a great deal more than his writing and was reluctant to edit much of what he discovered during his search. So I would have to say this book is definitely not for the casual reader of history or anyone looking for a quick insight into the origins of the Revolution.

[Dave Schoettinger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Phillips starts with the premise that July 4, 1776 wasn't the beginning of the American Revolution, but the beginning of the end. He describes in detail the heavy lifting done in the 20 months leading up to 7/4/76 that made American independence a fait accompli and resulted in the next five years being an unsuccessful attempt by the British to regain control. If you always thought that the contributions of Connecticut to American independence were understated, Phillips couldn't agree with you more. He nominates Jonathan Trumbull for inclusion in the pantheon of those Founding Fathers that even Sarah Palin should be aware of. More relevantly, he notes the degree to which independence was not the choice of an overwhelming majority of Americans. Many would have opted for remaining within the British Empire for commercial, religious or political reasons. It was the aggressive manipulation of events and information by a relative few activists which brought about independence for the 13 colonies and the Declaration of Independence was the result of their success rather than their call to action. If your interest in 18th century American history runs to something deeper than Parson Weems, you will find Phillips' insights fascinating.

[John Long · Rating 3 out of 5]

The information about the Revolutionary time period was well written. Phillips gave a lot of information and background. Where the book fell apart was in his determination to make sure the reader agreed with his premise that 1775 was the most important year of the American Revolution. One of the most bothersome parts to his point was that part of 1774, all of 1775 and 1776 up until July 4 were part of 1775. Had this just been a book about those periods, without trying to "win an argument" about the importance of a year, I would have rated it much higher.
The other issue that bothered me about this book was the few times he tried to compair the events of the Revolutionary War with modern events. It seemed he used the time to make personal political commentary on today's topics. It also happened so few times that when it happened it distracted from the rest of the book. If he wanted to write a book comparing the Revolution to today, then make a book about that subject.
I am highlighting my problems with the book, but if you overlook these infrequent problems, then you have an excellent history of the early years of the American Revolution.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

1775: A Good Year for Revolution by Kevin Phillips is an ambitious book that fulfills its ambitions. Phillips demonstrates in documented detail that the critical mass of the American Revolution came together in 1775, not 1776. Indeed, he traces the development of revolutionary sentiment and action well back into the 1760s and spends a good bit of time on 1774.



Like many histories, this book isn’t for everyone because it is so full of detail and information, designed to bolster its argument, that is difficult for the non-specialist to keep track of who did what and when.



Phillips’s point in one sense can be summarized as follows: we date our birth as a nation on July 4, 1776; indeed the birth had been going on for some time; there is little in the Declaration of Independence that had not been said repeatedly in previous years; King George III already had declared the colonies in rebellion; a great deal of fighting already had taken place...and most importantly....most importantly...the colonies had begun long since a process of coming together by means of committees of correspondence and conventions so that a political compact among them, and in defiance of the King, was inevitable.



What is described here wavers between civil war, insurrection, rebellion and outright war. Most importantly there was a meeting of the minds in the colonies and a muddle in London. Many more colonists were loyal to the King than commonly thought, and many more rebels were amenable to a new arrangement of affiliation with England than one might suspect. Phillips documents this. But there was preponderance of mistrust and resentment in the colonies that the King kept inflaming. Each time the colonies did something offensive, the King did something more offensive. The English attitude was that the colonies were there to support England economically and geopolitically; the English intruded upon and controlled almost all of the colonies’ commercial arrangements; they gave no weight to the colonies’ political sentiments. The colonies, viewed from London, were independent of one another; London did not see that they were coming into a form of union that would ultimately bring independence.



The importance of this book today is threefold: 1) we really ought to know our own history; we ought to know the key roles of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia and South Carolina; we ought to understand the ambivalence of New York and Pennsylvania; we ought to understand the religious divisions within the populace, and so forth; 2) we ought to recognize the difficulty of conducting small-bore wars thousands of miles from home where we don’t know the shoals, be they cultural or maritime, much less the ethnic and sectarian divisions that can aid or defeat us, and 3) England had alienated most of the European continent in the previous twenty years; it had no allies or sympathizers; this set the stage for France and Spain and Holland to provide the rebels with indispensable assistance, the lesson being that if your more general foreign relations are roiled, you’ll suffer through indifference, the provision of arms and money, and assistance through diversionary disruptions.



There are some little known heroes in this book. Connecticut governor Jonathan Trumbull comes to mind. There are some well-documented boobs. Virginia governor John Murray Dunmore comes to mind. There are generals who didn’t know how to fight, and of course, there are fighters like Benedict Arnold who was an exceptional fighter, but also a traitor. The descriptions and quotes relating to George Washington are impressive without exception. He spent much of the prelude to 1776 tied up in Massachusetts, far from Mt. Vernon, but he seems seldom to have made a miscalculation. The English, by contrast, made a terrible miscalculation by concentrating on Boston in the pre-1776 years. If you stand almost anywhere on the rim that surrounds Boston today, you will see it is a kind of bowl. It is not a good idea to fight from the bottom of a bowl. The English ultimately gave up on this idea and then spread their forces north and south and ended up being defeated in the middle, in Yorktown.



At the time--1774 to 1775--no one could be sure of anything, just as no one can be sure today of what will happen in Syria or Tunisia. One might have thought, erroneously, that Canada would be brought into association with the colonies. This proved not to be the case, and in hindsight we can see it could never have been the case. Phillips’ triumph in 1775 is looking back through the fog of war and picking out the key facts and major muscle movements that made it, more than 1776, the critical year of Revolution for the colonies.



Since this is a dense, data-rich, closely argued book, I think its audience will be limited. Readers fascinated by the American Revolution will find it fascinating. Others won’t. The question is whether it ultimately will broaden our understanding of the complex commercial, legal, military, cultural, geographic and other factors that led to what we think of as a war of political principle more than anything else; political principle, codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, played its role, but its enactment was much, much less clear cut than we tend to think. The fact is, we don’t even get the year right. By 1775 we were shedding blood to become independent, lots of it. 1776 was an important year, too, but it wasn’t the year when the birthing pains were beginning to yield a new nation.

For more of my comments on contemporary writing, see Tuppence Reviews (Kindle.)

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to this book on tape, and I did fairly well, but it was difficult to keep track of all the different names and people. Plus, it is a bit on the dry side. Nonetheless, I did learn some amazing things about early Americans.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kevin Phillips wrote this book to counter the “consensus-driven accounts of the Revolution.” I would recommend this book only to readers who are intensely interested in the origins of the United States. Those familiar with Phillips’s writing know of the intricate—sometimes excruciating—detail that characterizes his approach to his chosen subjects. This book is no different. It takes work, it takes patience, but like every other book of his that I’ve read, it is ultimately worth the journey. His writing does not have the poetic grace of, say, David McCullough’s book 1776. But taken together, the narratives provide a complete picture of the founding of the United States. I feel I have a greater understanding and appreciation of forces and tensions of the time. For historical revisionists who would rewrite (and fictionalize) facts that the birth of the U.S. was based on a straightforward mythology, to paraphrase Phillips, “It ain’t that simple.” I rate it 3 stars for prose—again, not an easy book to read—and 5 stars for substance and thought provoking ideas about the range of issues the American Revolution impacted.

Phillips does seem to obsess about the claim that 1775 (or more precisely, “the long year” from the summer of 1774 through the spring of 1776) was more significant in U.S. history than 1776. But this is a minor stylistic quibble on my part. Ultimately, Phillips does succeed at the heart of his argument that the historical theology of 1776 is somewhat overblown given the decisive events of the long year of 1775. Indeed, as he points out, contemporaries did not imbue July 4, 1776 as a legendary date until both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died exactly 50 years later on July 4, 1826. He also convincingly argues that “de facto independence” of the American colonies had been achieved by 1775.

Phillips sets the stage by exhaustively describing and classifying the major forces of the age: the predominant states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, and South Carolina; the organizing roles of various religious factions ranging from the rebellious Protestant Congregationalists to the relatively neutral Quakers and culturally German churches to the mostly Loyalist influence of the organized Anglican Church; the economic and mercantile interests that tended to divide between rebellion- and Loyalist-oriented world views (and the important part that the irregular valuation, stability, and supply of currency played); the functional tasks of “…communications, opinion molding, ruling elites, political transformation, and the incipient nation building” that took place in the cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston, especially the seafaring trades and; that the colonial militias were well-trained and disciplined—nothing like the prevailing myth of a ragtag group of inspired volunteers; and five “ideologies” that acted as coalescing influences to shape a collective American identity well before 1776.

Writing an exhaustive review on the rest of the book might turn out to be as laborious a process as the composing the book itself. So I’ll focus two of the topics I found most interesting: the American desire and incursion into Canada and the British decision to deploy significant military resources to overpower the Carolinas—both of which tend to be neglected in histories of the American Revolution. Phillips convincingly shows how, with better planning and coordination, the American rebels might well have taken possession of the key parts of Canada in 1775. One can only imagine the long-term implications this might have had on North American history and economic development had the campaign been successful. Although ultimately not successful, it did have a substantial short- to medium-term effect by distracting the British and causing them to deploy military resources to defend Canada that might have been more effective to engage their ambitions in Massachusetts and New York.

As for the Carolinas, Phillips demonstrates how the ineptitude of the Royal governor Dunmore, led Britain to divert military resources from a potentially more decisive effort to subdue Virginia. Instead, they felt—wrongly—that the Loyalist enclaves in the Carolina backcountry, could be merged with a sea-borne military tactics to establish an effective base move north through Virginia and then into the middle colonies. Unfortunately for the British, a combination of hubris, inflated expectations, underestimation of the rebels and, most decisively, a flawed, uncoordinated and inept military campaign, all contributed to setting back the larger strategy from which it could never adequately recover.

Without the successes and pattern-setting actions of long year of 1775, the mythology of 1776 might never have been realized. That recognition alone makes this book a valuable resource for anyone deeply interested in understanding the full scope of the American Revolution.

[Jud Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

What does a revolution make? Not just a Declaration of Independence. So says author Kevin Phillips in providing this comprehensive look at how the ingredients of the independent American pie were assembled and baked.

The title is sharply rhetorical, and reflects Phillips's own determination to jolt us out of our naive, mythological focus on 1776 and its neat narrative whereby the Declaration sowed dragon's teeth and generated soldiers who fought to a Yorktown finish. Phillips corrects this reductive view by showing how, in fact, the Declaration marked the end of the beginning by announcing to the world that the United Colonies had already transformed themselves into an independent nation and now dared Great Britain to prove otherwise.

The purpose of Phillips's book is to show how that transformation occurred. Not all of the events can be squeezed into 1775--Samuel Adams dated the galvanization of Patriot separation resolve to May, 1774, when news arrived of the Boston Port Act, a.k.a. the Intolerable Acts; and the Declaration itself bookends the other chronological remove. The year, then, serves as the center-point for the effective creation of an independent America.

The book is quite a gallery of narrative, from the grand canvas of imperial juggling and international arms smuggling down to the miniature of kilted Highlanders--exiled after the '45, but fighting on the side of George III--charging with broadswords across the bridge at Moores Creek, NC, in the face of cannon and musket fire from patriots who had already removed the bridge planking (the broadswords lost).

Every element is here: political (the jettisoning of colonial structures and the creation of state and local governments), economic (the organization of both an import and an export boycott of Great Britain), military (the ouster of British officials, the Quebec invasion, the patriot victory in Boston, privateers and the smallwater navy, the "civil war" aspect of the conflict), demographic (who was more or less likely to be patriot or Tory depending on religious, racial, economic, or social status), geographic (the influential considerations of the frontier and of the Atlantic coastline), historical (the significance of inherited ideologies and legal structures), and biographical (the characters of important leaders on both sides, e.g. Samuel Adams, the Machiavelli of Massachusetts, and Virginia's colorful royal governor, Earl Dunmore).

The depth and comprehension of this account are such that no reader will see the fireworks of July 4th in quite the same way again.

[Nestor Rychtyckyj · Rating 3 out of 5]

1775 is not an easy book to read but the effort is worth it. This analytical view of the American Revolution focuses on the year 1775 and provides ample evidence that this was the pivotal year where the American colonies made all the decisions that would lead to independence and the birth of the United States. The level of detail here is extraordinary; each colony is disected and the population is described in terms of religion, ethnicity, economic status and other factors that often determined where their loyalties would lie. The British side is also put under the microscope and the decisions that would ultimately cost them the colonies are described. The role of France and Spain (as well as other European powers) is covered on detail. The differences between the colonies and the somewhat pivotal role that Virginia and Souch Carolina (as well as New England) played is highlighted. This is an awesome work of scholarship that covers virtually everything that possibly played a role in the American Revolution. All of the founding fathers are here (Washigton, Jefferson, Adams, etc) but many others whose role was critical but whose names are not as well knowm.

However, this book is not your typical narartiveof the revolution filled with heroic stories of battles and military campaigns. It goes much deeper than that and at times overwhelms us with the amount of data that is diaplyed to show why events unfolded as they did. It is cetainly a whorthwhile addition to any library dealing with American History, but will require a bit more from the casual raeder to fully appreciate it.

[Timons Esaias · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kevin Phillips (you've seen him on TV) is a Republican political operative and commentator who periodically gets fed up with his own Party and goes off to write a history. One of them compared the English Civil War with the American Revolution and American Civil War. This one (as may be obvious from the title) treats the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and for the serious reader of history I'd put it on the "essential" list of books on that war.

One is tempted to compare _1775_ to David McCullough's ¬_1776_ (which I also admire), but they aren't the same animal. McCullough was narrating the events of the year, with all the footnotes you'd need to learn more. Phillips has more extensive scholarly notes, because he's analyzing the history while he's also giving you a summary of it.

Phillips's contention is that the signing of the Declaration in 1776 has drawn historical attention away from the importance of what went before, namely the period from September 1774 when King George III decided that the Colonies needed to buckle under to his punitive laws, and the First Congress decided instead to boycott British trade; and late spring of 1776 when Boston was evacuated by the British. Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill and other battles are part of this period, but Phillips wants to tease out more than just the military threads from the fabric of History.

And that's what makes this an essential book. There's lots of complex demographic analysis, for instance. Why some of the Colonies were in the vanguard of Revolution, and others (including my own Commonwealth of Penn's Woods) hung back. Why Catholics went this way, and Protestants that; yet in other Colonies they reversed the division. The national origin of the locals had much to do with Loyalty or Patriotism, as did their length of time in the country. Class, and source of income also worked on one's political thought. Coastal cities disagreed with the backcountry; plantations didn't align with farmers; and so on. I truly admire a historian who is willing to look at the crosscurrents, and is more than willing to both show them, and not to insist on the primacy of one over the other. That's how cultures actually work, and ignoring it produces false history.

He also has key chapters on important subjects that had an impact on that year's history. There's the invasion of Canada, which failed, but which also kept the British on their heels. There's the governor of Virginia's bizarre counter-revolution. The world-wide search for gunpowder and munitions, and the Royal Navy's failure to stem the flow of these essentials into the Colonies. (One thing that the Americans couldn't do in those years is produce enough gunpowder on their own, to fight a war.) There are all those fledgling navies, many of them made up mostly of whaleboats, which actively attacked the British Army and Navy. (Interesting fact, but the Revolution had at least 14 navies fighting for it, before the French and Spanish joined in. Congress had a navy, but so did every single colony.)

I'm widely read in the history of the period, but I learned quite a bit from this book. That's quite something, and I am pleased and grateful.

[Gary Baughn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Our education about the American Revolution in this country is so scant and filled with self-serving half-truths that any decently objective and well-rehearsed book can be a revelation. Such a book is 1775, which uses as an organizational excuse the author's premise that 1775 was a more important year for the the Revolution than the often heralded 1776.
Since Phillips' definition of 1775 stretches back into 1774 and onward into 1776, it is hard to argue with his thesis, and who would want to, since it is just an excuse to talk about many aspects of the Revolution that you don't hear about in History classes, including the role of religion in determining revolutionary or loyalist fervor, the differences between each colony and also between areas within those colonies in terms of loyalty to the crown, militia participation, etc.
It is a very detailed book, which makes it slow going, but, like I said, I am so undereducated about this important time that I welcomed the detail, even though I would probably be hard-pressed to parrot back those details.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this volume, Phillips argues that 1775 was more important than the year that came after it, and looks at many of the assumptions about this year.

Phillips shows how local revolutionaries influenced the decisions of local governing bodies, the militancy of the New England colonists vs. the more lukewarm attitude of the other colonies, the revolutionaries' willingness to muzzle Loyalist press organs, and their paranoia about local slave revolts and Indian wars. He also covers how unoriginal, in one sense, the Declaration of Independence was, and how little it actually accomplished on its own.

The social aspects of the story can get pretty dull. Also, the whole "1775 vs. 1776" line of argument can get pretty dull and tiresome. Also, he never really covers the fundamentals of the conflict or why Britain's crisis with the Americans evolved the way it did.

[John Behle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was, for me, a 19 day college course in The American Revolution. Don't worry, the 656 page length flows easily. Phillips sprinkles in deft wordsmithing and even some wry dry humor that highlights his well researched prose along the way. We covered every facet of the era, from religious influence to economics, to London Whitehall logistical nightmares to sheer patriot fervor.

I recommend this book. No movie screenplay, no novel, no fiction could ever match this pageant for human devotion, sweat and blood passion and gritty resolution.

I feel more proud than ever to be an American after enjoying this crackling fire, this Yankee doodle dandy drama.

[Bob Schmitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The books premise is that this is that though we celebrate 1776 as the banner year of the American Revolution, the success of the revolution was actually set in 1775. If you are interested in the political complexities of the American Revolution as opposed to the standard book on various battles this is a great read.

Unlike the monolithic grand unified story of the American Revolution the book describes the various factions and complexities of that time. For instance Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, and South Carolina were the major colonies pushing for revolution. They were all chartered in the 17th century by Protestants. Other states were more or less reluctant followers, New York in particular being quite pro-British Tory. Troops from New England states had to be stationed in New York to maintain control for the revolutionaries. Other colonies were charted to Baptist, Quaker or Catholic sectarians and their charters extended all the way to the Pacific Ocean which gave them an imperialistic view.

Before revolutionary colonies had a long history of self-government particularly the Virginia House of Burgess. South Carolina's early contribution to the Revolutionary war efforts is shown by the repeated rejection of British appointed governors and essentially self government by 1771. She supplied significant arms to Washington's army Massachusetts during the battles in 1775.

Because of an unusual charter Connecticut had elected its own government since the 1600's and so there was no need for fights with extralegal assemblies in Connecticut’s slide toward revolution. Connecticut served as a major troop source for Washington as well as an armory and food store for the Continental Army. It had troops on four fronts, the seacoast, and the New York, Massachusetts and Canadian border. It protected the colonies imports from British predations and sent troops into New York to sustain order and suppressed Tory rebellion. It had a remarkable role in the Revolutionary War. Settlers from Connecticut established settlement in Newark, New Jersey and Suffolk County, Long Island which became hotbeds of revolution.

The British recruited most of their soldiers from Celtic speaking peoples, Catholics or Hessians as it was difficult to get English-speaking Englishman to fight their brethren in the colonies. Similar ethnic divide complicated recruitment for the colonial armies. In Pennsylvania one third of the population was German and there was strong anti-German sentiment among the Englishmen. Thomas Jefferson an early draft the Declaration of Independence's criticized Scotch immigrants as they were deemed too pushy. Dutch immigrants had little interest in fighting for the rights of Englishmen.

There was a prominent religious aspect of the American Revolution. Two thirds of colonial citizens were people disaffected with the state religion in Europe. There was a feeling among colonists that the New World was for God's chosen people who were leaving behind corrupt Europe. Earlier in the century the great Enlightenment movement proposed that you did not need intermediaries or state religion to deal with God. You could do it on a personal level, by being born again. The Protestant churches the Protestant church ministers were often great proponents of the revolutionary cause some in fact raising regiments among the parishioners and leading them into battle.

[Brent Ranalli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-written, fascinating, and convincing: the Declaration of Independence in the summer of 1776 was just one milestone on the path to independence, and the die was cast long before. The opening phase of the war in the "long 1775" (summer of 1774 to spring of 1776) was critical. Philips offers a wealth of detail on economic, political, geopolitical, and religious factors, the fighting on land and sea from the Bahamas to Canada, the race for supplies and munitions, the force of particular personalities (Lord Dunmore, Sam Adams, Benedict Arnold, Joseph Turnbull), etc. He synthesizes the best recent scholarship without being tedious. Some reviewers complain about the length, but I found Philips' storytelling compelling & could easily have gone on for another hundred pages without tiring. (It may have helped that I was listening to the audiobook version.)

Most interesting, I thought: (1) How close New England came to conquering Canada at the very outset of the war. (2) How unique were the circumstances in each colony, and the importance of very, very local factors (rival Dutch factions in New Jersey, the struggle between Virginia and Pennsylvania for Pittsburgh, the critical differences in the histories of the Regulator movements in the two Carolinas, the skirmishing between arch-patriot Connecticut and arch-loyalist Long Island, the distinct personalities of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia). (3) The importance of committee work. The real revolution was not accomplished in declarations or even in fighting, but in organization: at the Continental Congress's prompting, ostensibly to enforce trade embargoes, communities formed extra-legal "associations" and these simply assumed de facto power by stacking militia leadership and muzzling, jailing, or expelling loyalists. Entire colonial legislatures disbanded and reconstituted themselves as conventions outside the legal reach of Royal governors. This long before the fighting began. (4) What made 1775 a "good year for revolution": some easy early victories and naive economic misconceptions gave colonists the stomach to take the fatal step toward independence. If they had known how long the war would last, what it would cost in economic hardship, and what the real odds were, they might have held back. Unique circumstances of 1775 drew the colonies into the long struggle.

[Keith Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had hoped Phillips' 1775 would be a sort of prequel to David McCullough's excellent 1776, but it is actually something else entirely. Phillips delves deeply into the causes of the American Revolution, focusing particularly on the economic and religious factors instead of the ideological factors that get most of the attention in popular histories of the war. The title references Phillips' thesis that the war was well underway by 1775. Most histories use the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to mark the start of the revolution, but while the Declaration was an important political document fighting had already begun by 1775 in New England and in the Carolinas between patriots and loyalists. By 1775 only 2 of the 13 colonies were actually being governed by their British appointed governors, most of the others having been forced to flee for their own safety. The local militias were entirely dominated by patriots. The British were in fact attempting to recapture territory of which they had already lost control.

Phillips spends a fair amount of time on Benedict Arnold's failed invasion of Quebec in 1775. He points out how close Arnold came to success and how his actions forced the British to waste precious troops defending Canada against a second attack that never came. He also spends quite a bit of time discussing the political machinations of Samuel Adams, a topic which is often ignored. Phillips argues that Adams may have manipulated the British into concentrating their forces in Boston which was arguably the worst possible location. Boston had a high concentration of patriots and a port that froze in the winter trapping the British fleet in hostile territory. If the English had concentrated their forces at New York they might have found a much friendlier populace and been able to cut off New England from the southern colonies by controlling the Hudson River.

[Mmetevelis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was really two books. The author combined what was a really good analysis of the causes of the revolution with a tortuously fumbling narrative of the first year of the war. The individual insights the author had into the causes and realities of the conflict were excellent - especially in identifying both the social and political energy and cohesion of the revolutionary movement. However, the constant way that the author repeats himself, cites data instead of expounding on his conclusions, and kept referring to other parts of his book gave this book a lack of cohesion which was only bearable due to the skill of Phillips as a writer. This book tried to do to much, parroted much that had been written before and spent a torturous amount of pages in trying to make a point that has been made before ad nauseum - that the declaration of independence was not as important during its time as it was later made to be. John Adams lamented this reality later in his career, and plenty of historians have agreed to the point which Phillips' thesis is pure redundancy. Phillips has put together a work that is unimpressive when taken as a whole, but in parts is incredibly insightful. I appreciated the attention Phillips gave to the divided nature of religious sentiment toward the war.

[Sally Monaghan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love reading about history, particularly Revolutionary era America. However, I realllllly did not like this book. I did learn some new information about the Revolution, such as the role that the Spanish played, and the twice failed effort of the British to invade the south. That did not make up for the fact that the author provides innumerable tedious details, repeats himself frequently, and, in the end, did not really prove his thesis that the key year for the American Revolution was 1775 and not 1776. I do not think any one is under the impression that the Revolution just sprang forth in 1776 without a basis, although the author seems to think people are. I think most people know that the issues grew over the years and that fighting actually began in 1775. I don't think he proved anything more than that. I don't think his effort to write a revisionist history succeeded.

[Nick · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought the topic interesting, and I think it could have been. However, instead of being interested in the topic I was more interested in getting to the end of this. There were a couple of things that made this unbearable to read. First, they entire piece is written as if it was incoherent stream of consciousness notes for a first draft. Additionally there was next to no organization or transitions between topics or colonies. One paragraph would be about clergy in Connecticut, next would discuss farmers in South Carolina. Finally most of the work was “here’s what will happen in later chapter” but doesn’t or “here are several things other published authors said about said topic, footnoted.” I’m convinced that this was only published because both the editor and author had to meet a quota and railroaded this to print. Please don’t waste your time.

[Rachelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author more than makes his point that the American Revolution really began in 1775, not 1776. Phillips is a dogged researcher and goes through infinite details on economics, international politics, the power of early "Manifest Destiny" philosophy, early battles on the sea and land, the Committees of Safety, the strategies to win the hearts and minds of Americans and so much more. I know that I will use this book for reference in years to come. Unfortunately, Phillips does not have the same storyteller skills that Ellis or McCullough have. Perhaps he was covering too much ground? Or maybe there wasn't a central heroic figure to tie all the facts to? I felt like I ate a lot of healthy vegetables, but no dessert.

[Maryellen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a critical look at the year prior to the Declaration when war and the separation from England really began. The Declaration, Phillips argues, was just putting a legal hat on it. Phillips takes you through the social strata and who was for which side and why. He breaks it down economically and religiously, down to the occupations of the period.
He talks about the attempt to invade Canada and the race to keep the army supplied in gunpowder. This is a global look at the revolution. It is not an easy read but it is a mature look at a complicated and far more sophisticated road to independence than the Disney version.

[Elizabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author's point is that July 4, 1776 is an arbitrary date and then he proves it at great length and incredible detail. Seriously. He is a very academic writer who has done his research. I didn't enjoy reading the book because of his writing style. However, he describes the causes of the revolution (which were many that did not include freedom) clearly, and the importance of the southern colonies, specifically Virginia and South Carolina.

This is a book for people who have more patience than I do....and are interested in the detail of the American Revolution.

[Colin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a bad book, but a bit dry. A look at 1775 as the beginning of the Revolution.

[Laura Baisas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great info, but the writing was meh.

[Heddy Panik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book!

[June · Rating 2 out of 5]

2 Stars for the research. It is a well researched book. I would have liked a less condescending tone from the author. He basically says here is my research you figure out why I think 1775 (actually closer to 2 years) is so important.
As someone who was a guide for almost 10 years in Lexington, MA, I was looking to add to what I know. I was looking for more than "here's the research".

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

he cheated and counted half of 1776 as 1775 and also was very boring but informational so 2.5 stars

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book, but would have given it four stars instead of three if it had been about 100 pages shorter. The author, Kevin Phillips, makes a very convincing argument that the year 1775 was the pivotal year in the War for Independence. We are taught to give some much credence to July 4, 1776, but in this thoroughly researched book, Mr. Phillips argues that the events of 1775 were much more critical to success. He cites the economic, religious and political events that were so important.

There was a lot I learned from reading this book, that I don't remember ever having read about in my prior readings of the American Revolution. Benedict Arnold, for example, whose claim to fame is his treachery, was a brilliant field tactician and his early successes were instrumental in giving the British fits. Mr. Philips argues that if the Continental Congress had adopted Benedict Arnold's strategy for the invasion of Canada, it would have been a huge success instead of the debacle it turned out to be.

In this book, Mr. Phillips also makes a strong argument that the American Revolution can in fact be referred to as the Second Civil War, because the first was in the late 17th century in England and the third was in the 1860s in North America. I'd never heard this argument before but when you think about it, the inhabitants of North America at that time were in fact British citizens.

The other surprising fact to me was the impact that Spain had on the success of the Americans. We always hear about the contributions of the French. And while the Spanish did not fight alongside the Americans as much as the French did, Spain's actions on the western frontier caused the British to maintain large armies there, which meant less British forces in New England and in the Southern colonies.

My complaint about this book is the level of detail and minutia Mr. Phillips describes. At times I found it difficult to follow. If I had to write a journalistic review of this book, I would have had to take copious notes. His descriptions of the economic situation, for example, was so detailed that I found it hard to read through.

If you are a history buff, especially one of the American Revolution, then I highly recommend this book. But be prepared to get bogged down at times.

[Darren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm glad I listened to this book as an audio book rather than tried to read a text copy. I would have never made it through it otherwise. I think this book would serve well as a reference text, but it is not very easy to read cover to cover. The first half of the book is in no chronological format and covers religious background, economics, agriculture, artisan demographics, race demographics, maritime influences, etc. It seemed like every minute tidbit of information, pertinent to the 1775 argument or not, was included in this first half of the book.

For a more meaningful, more fluid depiction of 1775 (or related) events, the reader could start around the middle of the book and read to the end without missing anything. So much of the information included in the first half of the book is repeated when covering events more chronologically.

The title is also misleading. The supposed argument is that 1775 was a more crucial year on the road to America's independence than any other. However, the author explains that the year cannot be bound by calendar months and therefore must be considered a long year that runs from mid-1774 to mid-1776. I understand the concept, but it completely debunks the argument. If one looks at 1776 in the same manner, including half of 1775 as part of that influential year, then how is this not many of the same events used in the argument for 1775 being the crucial year. For this type of argument, the year must be set by the calendar. Discussion of enabling events that set the stage for events within that calendar year are great for supporting information, but I felt that this book spent so much time discussing events that happened before or after 1775 that the credibility of the thesis was lost.

Overall, I would not recommend this book, especially if you are just interested in learning more about colonial america and the events leading up to the American Revolution. However, if you're a history major writing a thesis paper on the outset of the American Revolution and the factors, events, etc. that influenced and lead up to America's bid for independence, then this book may be one to consider... as a reference.