The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789

The Oxford History of the United States #3

by Robert Middlekauff

The first book to appear in the illustrious Oxford History of the United States , this critically acclaimed volume--a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize--offers an unsurpassed history of the Revolutionary War and the birth of the American republic.

Beginning with the French and Indian War and continuing to the election of George Washington as first president, Robert Middlekauff offers a panoramic history of the conflict between England and America, highlighting the drama and anguish of the colonial struggle for independence. Combining the political and the personal, he provides a compelling account of the key events that precipitated the war, from the Stamp Act to the Tea Act, tracing the gradual gathering of American resistance that culminated in the Boston Tea Party and "the shot heard 'round the world." The heart of the book features a vivid description of the eight-year-long war, with gripping accounts of battles and campaigns, ranging from Bunker Hill and Washington's crossing of the Delaware to the brilliant victory at Hannah's Cowpens and the final triumph at Yorktown, paying particular attention to what made men fight in these bloody encounters. The book concludes with an insightful look at the making of the Constitution
in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and the struggle over ratification. Through it all, Middlekauff gives the reader a vivid sense of how the colonists saw these events and the importance they gave to them. Common soldiers and great generals, Sons of Liberty and African slaves, town committee-men and representatives in congress--all receive their due. And there are particularly insightful portraits of such figures as Sam and John Adams, James Otis, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and many others.

This new edition has been revised and expanded, with fresh coverage of topics such as mob reactions to British measures before the War, military medicine, women's role in the Revolution, American Indians, the different kinds of war fought by the Americans and the British, and the ratification of the Constitution. The book also has a new epilogue and an updated bibliography.

The cause for which the colonists fought, liberty and independence, was glorious indeed. Here is an equally glorious narrative of an event that changed the world, capturing the profound and passionate struggle to found a free nation.

The Oxford History of the United States
The Oxford History of the United States is the most respected multi-volume history of our nation. The series includes three Pulitzer Prize winners, a New York Times bestseller, and winners of the Bancroft and Parkman Prizes. The Atlantic Monthly has praised it as "the most distinguished series in American historical scholarship," a series that "synthesizes a generation's worth of historical inquiry and knowledge into one literally state-of-the-art book." Conceived under the general editorship of C. Vann Woodward and Richard Hofstadter, and now under the editorship of David M. Kennedy, this renowned series blends social, political, economic, cultural, diplomatic, and military history into coherent and vividly written narrative.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, American Revolution, Military History, American, Politics

752 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1982

About the author

A specialist in colonial and early United States history, Robert L. Middlekauff was professor emeritus of at the University of California, Berkeley.

Reviews

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, you pick up a book about the American Revolution. And the first 20 pages talk about the coming of the war and glosses over such things as the Stamp Act and the Townsend Acts and the Intolerable Acts and never really discusses anything enough in detail for you to understand who these people (especially in Britain) were and why they kept to a course that angered the colonists and BOOM! You're at Lexington and Concord.

Not this time.

I've been reading history for over 50 years and this is the first book I've found that explained to me in detail why the British did what they did, why the colonists did what they did, and why it all led to war and independence. Want some illustration? We don't meet Samuel Adams until page 93. John Adams? He first appears on page 165. George Washington manages to make his first appearance on page 52. Thomas Jefferson: page 124. Patrick Henry: page 86. And when do we read about Lexington and Concord? That would start on page 273.

Okay... that's a strange way to make my point, but it's an important one to make. Mr. Middlekauff is clearly interested in the why's. Why did we go from a very loyal collection of colonies to a rebellious one in only a few years? Why was Washington such a great leader? Why did the Americans win... or, more to the point, why did the British lose? And, on the other end of the war, what made a collection of men decide to go against their instructions to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation and instead devise a whole new system of government?

The one other "oddity" I noticed is that Mr. Middlekauff stays with the big themes and avoids familiar but ultimately inconsequential stories. Would you like information about the treason of Benedict Arnold? Find a different book because Mr. Middlekauff only mentions it in passing months after it happens. I suspect that he did so because Arnold's treachery had so little effect on the outcome of the war.

In the end I would have to say that this was a great find. The only reason I kept it a four stars is because Mr. Middlekauff gets a little "dry" at times, but he more than makes up for it in solid substance.

On last thought: This is the third volume of the "Oxford History of the United States" — each by a different author — that I've read and each has been excellent. My sample size is enough for me now to lead me to the conclusion that any volume in the series that I haven't read so far should find its way onto my reading list. Three "Huzzahs" for Oxford University Press!

[Dmitri · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Men being by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” - John Locke ‘Two Treatises of Government’ (1689)

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” - Benjamin Franklin, based on earlier writing by Daniel Defoe in ‘The Political History of the Devil’ (1726)

“I am more and more grieved about the accounts in America. Where this spirit will end is not to be said.” - King George III, in a letter to his Secretary of State (1765)

“The words treason, anarchy and rebellion were spoken in describing American behavior. When the session began in December 1765 many members had set themselves against the repeal of the Stamp Act, evidently convinced that repeal would establish a dangerous precedent so as to adversely affect the power to govern.” - Robert Middlekauff

“As defined by PM Grenville, most problems can be reduced to one word: money. This is surely an oversimplification, and yet the need for money played an important part in every decision made regarding the colonies by him and ministers that followed until 1776.” - Robert Middlekauff

************

Robert Middlekauff, a former professor of colonial and early US history at Berkeley, wrote this third volume in the series ‘Oxford History of the United States’. It was shortlisted for a Pulitzer Prize in 1982. He begins with the Seven Years War (1756-63) when Britain battled France from Canada to India in a rivalry to establish colonies. Under MP William Pitt (the Elder) Britain pulled far ahead as the global economic and military leader. Once King George the III was crowned Pitt was pushed aside. A social and political situation is described where Parliament served only the King and landed wealthy. Decentralized agencies began to provide roads, sewers and clear vagrants from the streets, as the early precursors of local governance today.

Britain
In Britain and it’s American colonies the Enlightenment was in progress. New ideas of the relationship of government to the people were challenging the old ways of royalty and the aristocracy. Local towns and cities were left to make their own decisions, creating an autonomy from central authority, except where war and taxes were concerned. As costs of war increased the traditional taxes on land became insufficient. New revenues were imposed on consumer products, used by both rich and poor, and protests followed. Still not enough, the government resorted to borrowing from private sources, notably the Bank of England’s dividend paying stock. Bloated tax bureaucracy and military budgets had developed by the eve of Revolution.

America
In America the administrative structures governing colonies were loosely held by the Crown, separated by a vast ocean and limited communication. The authority of Parliament to legislate in the colonies went largely unexamined, except in protection of British trade interests. American subordination to British law and customs were assumed by colonists and Britons alike, but before 1763 assemblies and legislatures in county, town and parish were almost entirely self governing. It was perhaps inevitable a constitutional question would arise, whether as ‘free men’ the Americans should govern themselves. The thirteen colonies were divided with no common center, and London too far away to effectively provide one to them.

Cultures
Although the predominant culture was English, at the time of the Revolution 17% of the colonial people were African slaves. The next largest group were children of Scots who migrated in the mid 17th century to Ireland, to populate lands seized from Catholics by Anglicans and Cromwell. They were persecuted as Presbyterians after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and left for America. In the early 18th century German Lutherans came to escape religious bias with encouragement by William Penn. Many Europeans had a thing in common, not shared by compatriots who stayed, the desire to start anew. Between 1700 to 1775 the agrarian population grew, at the expense of native Americans, from 250,000 to 2,500,000.

Politics
Politics in Virginia and New Hampshire were tranquil, run by landed elites on the basis of patronage. In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania factional infighting was widespread. New York and Maryland also had issues wresting resources from powerful families. Connecticut and Rhode Island were the only ones that didn’t have governors appointed by the home country. Despite British governors, local interests seemed to get their way. The abundance of land and opportunity kept people from tearing each other apart. Since most men could vote it contributed to restraint; recent memories of civil wars in Europe helped too. Arguments between the Protestants and Anglicans fueled more discord than politics did during the mid-1700’s.

Policies
Middlekauf makes the case the British government created policies without understanding the opinions of the colonists, and worse assumed their subservience was a given. Wars with France and Spain ended, a 1763 decision was made to keep a standing army in America to pacify Indians and stop land grabbing settlers from cheating them. Other goals were to collect customs duties, control colonial society and protect against Frenchmen to the north and Spaniards to the south. As settlers pressed west to the Ohio River Indians raided. The troops were ineffectual deterring either. Britain was saddled with enormous debts that rose each year, putting pressure on the rosters of soldiers and the British public’s tolerance for rising taxes.

Actions
The pressing question on Parliament’s mind was how to get Americans to pay for royal army protection, especially since they were so efficient at evading taxes. Trading with other countries without first going through Britain to pay duties was prohibited and enforced by the navy, but smuggling was unabated. Revenue bills passed easily because Americans were not represented in Parliament. In the Sugar Act of 1764, Stamp Act of 1765 and Tea Act of 1773 colonists realized that they had no say. Legislative leaders and business men in America were willing to pitch in money for upkeep of the army, but argued as British subjects and by constitutional provision, they had a right to tax themselves rather than pay taxes imposed by others.

Reactions
As Patrick Henry passed the Virginia Resolves, asserting the right to be taxed only by consent, riots broke out in Boston led by the Sons of Liberty over the Stamp Act. Mobs began to attack excise collector’s offices across the colonies. British representatives and American royalists were harassed and threatened, causing many to flee. In Rhode Island the Royal Navy impressed crews of merchant ships for duty and a ship docked at Newport was burned by the mob. In Connecticut religious divisions were revived as political ones, effigies of tax men hung from trees were burned and their houses torn down. The reaction was so strong that all agents resigned, tax was never collected and the Stamp Act repealed in 1766 by the Parliament.

Problems
Lord Rockingham became the new PM, assisted by Secretary Edmund Burke, who was widely pressured to replace him by the King’s friends. Americans boycotted English products in hopes to repeal the Sugar Act, the key ingredient in rum, a crucial commodity. Pitt sided with repeal efforts in favor of business interests. Instead the Tea Act of 1773 was passed to help the failing British East India Company sell their product exclusively to Americans and replace Dutch tea smuggled in. During this time period, based on the political philosophy of Locke, Americans came to believe there were limits beyond which Parliament could not go, because as British subjects they had the fundamental rights and privileges of free men, a rallying cry.

Prejudices
In focusing only on rights of internal taxation, and acceding allegiance to Britain in all matters external, colonists who met in a first congress in 1765 ignored wider implications of their position. The outside sphere, presumably international trade and war, went unexamined. The driving motivation was fear of being reduced to slavery and the loss of liberty. Conspiracy theories proliferated about Ministers in league with the Devil. Rumors grew that Anglicans were doing the bidding of the Pope and House of Bourbon. Governors were agents of the King, who exercised powers the Crown lost in 1688, evidence of a persistent tyranny, seen through the lens of a struggle between liberty and power, Cato (the Younger) vs. Julius Caesar.

Repercussions
After the repeal of the Stamp Act and initial celebrations, a feeling of deep mistrust for Britain settled in with colonists. British merchants who had supported the repeal claimed they had saved the Americans, rather than their own profits, creating further resentment. Their overall conception of the colonists was of subjects and children to be dominated and manipulated as seen fit by Parliament and public. Although there was a clear sense of their seriousness about Charter and Constitutional rights there was no attempt to mitigate the misunderstanding. Colonists for their part saw British through Protestant eyes, offensive to ethics of work and thrift. When the 1773 Tea Act was passed their anger was predictable and avoidable.

A third of the way through this 750 page book war is finally declared. Middlekauff takes the reader through all of the big battles and key players. I’m no expert in military history, of this or other wars, but it seems a thorough and structured account. The strength of the book is the beginning 250 pages in its description of the two societies and causes for war. It covers the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation in some depth. Depending on one’s tolerance for detail it can become rather tedious at times but it offers a good introduction to events I knew relatively little about. It has a dry academic writing style, acceptable only in that you don’t get an impression that Middlekauff is allowing himself to leave anything out.

[Shannon · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book tends to be tedious even if informative with the occasional social commentary by the author. The typos don't help much either.

That said, there's some really good information here especially about the many battles and fumbles and stumbles made by Washington (mediocre to average military commander, better politician).

Where's a fair assessment of Benedict Arnold's turning on us? Don't expect it within. Middlekauff operates in black and white perspectives especially when it comes to deifying the "good" Founding Fathers.



The last 100 pages or so are all on the Constitutional Convention with actual speeches within. The earliest part of this book is all about the politics in the colonies leading up to the American Revolution.

I suspect this ponderous tome would have been better served if it had been broken up into a trilogy with certain points expanded rather than crammed into one tome.

I took a course on the American Revolution with the author, expecting some focus on the military aspects and surprisingly got almost nothing. Like the book Middlekauf's views of the Founding Fathers tended to be black and white. He tried to convince me that Aaron Burr was a wicked man and failed.

[image error]">

WRITING STYLE: C minus; HISTORICAL FACTS/EXTRAS: B; FOCUSES: B minus; WHEN LAST READ: 2000 (revised review 5/18/2013); OVERALL GRADE: C plus.

[Darwin8u · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic look at the American Revolution. This is the ONE book to read if you are fresh off the boat and looking for early American History. It is Vol 3. of the eventual 12 volume Oxford History of the United States (although it was first to be published). Middlekauff is balanced in his approach. He isn't looking to reinvent, revise, or revoke history. But you can't just call what he does a summary. His narrative captures the brilliance of, and the almost accidental start of, the American Republic.

Anyway, it was a great book. And even if you aren't fresh of the boat, it is a great review of the Revolutionary War and Continental Congress. It is definitely worth your time, your dollar, and your attention.

[Wick Welker · Rating 3 out of 5]

An Aristocratic Revolution.

I don’t know what it was about this book. It’s either I found the history presented in a boring manner or that I just find the American Revolution very boring. I think it’s both. This book spent like a third of the time talking about the Stamp Act and its ramifications on galvanizing the American people toward war. I’m not saying the Stamp Act, and Townsend and Sugar Act weren’t all extremely operative in what happened, but why spend so much time in a disjointed narrative about it? It was killing me.

But let me really cut to the chase: I cannot tell you how little I sympathize with a bunch of rich people complaining about paying taxes. And okay, perhaps that’s a bit too reductive with an unfair modern lens for the American Revolution but that’s really what it boiled down to. I just didn’t sympathize with their cause if I’m being totally honest. Now I don’t want to minimize what was achieved during and after the war: shedding the shackles of a monarchy and drafting a constitution with a parliament and a guaranteed list of civil freedoms? That is incredible. People weren’t throwing off monarchies till well into the 1800s. And the technological breakthrough of the constitution with three branches of government, designed to reduce power concentration, was also an astounding achievement.

But here’s the real question: did the material conditions and freedoms change for the average American after the revolutionary war and the drafting of a new government? No. Like, not at all. Now one could argue, “yeah well it opened up the pathway for those civil freedoms and abolition to be realized.” That argument would hold water if those exact things didn’t also happen in all other western countries, including Great Britain, either before they did in the US or roughly the same time. Slavery ended in Great Britain way before it did in the US and without a Civil War.

So the American Revolution was a revolution of the sitting aristocracy of slavers. They waged a war because they didn’t like the King’s taxes. They used the bodies of the underclass as fodder as well as keen strategy by really great leaders like George Washington. They achieved an independent government, with the incredible act of shedding itself of monarchy and then and nothing changed for any one else who lived in America. And in fact things got considerably worse for Native Americans and Black people. The real revolution that changed the lower class was the Industrial Revolution about 50 years later. Those really are kind of the facts and that’s why I find the revolution both boring and not something that I get that excited about. I know heaps of Americans buy into the lore that the Founders were inspired by God and that America is now some divine global instrument. Well, I believe that is propagandized nonsense and I say that as an American Christian.

[Creighton · Rating 5 out of 5]

About two weeks ago, I was in a rut about what I was going to read next. I had just finished an exceptional book on James Longstreet and the Civil War, and I couldn't find something that I truly could settle on at the moment. I kept gazing at my bookshelves, trying to find a book that would appeal to me, and then I just decided to stop trying to look, to wait and see if something came to my mind. Well, I happened to be watching TV with my mom, and we decided to watch the new season of the show Outlander, and I realized the new season is focused on the American Revolution. I immediately thought about this book, grabbed it off the shelf and without hesitation I read it and stuck to it. Props to Outlander for inspiring me to read this book!

I found that as I came to the end of this book, like most good history books I have read, I had just gone through a remarkable journey of 26 years of American History within a week and a half! I had began my journey witnessing the end of the Seven Years War, the author painting me a journey of England and America in the years leading up to 1763; Onwards to the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, the Boston Massacre, I followed intensely, and then once I got to Lexington and Concord I followed with great intensity all the way to Yorktown and then I began to realize the book was coming to an end, which it did at George Washington's inauguration. After finishing this book, I realized I had read one hell of a book that I should've read a long time beforehand. To say the American Revolution interests me is an understatement, because although I have a deep fascination with the Civil War, this era of history has always fascinated me. It is always exhilarating to come back to a subject that you have a deep appreciation for after you have taken a break from it, and this book was a great example of that.

I liked that the book talked about the campaigns at Sea and the campaigns on the frontier, however, I am disappointed that the Spanish involvement in the war was not covered, especially De Galvez's Gulf Coast campaign. I wish that Joseph Brant and the American Indian campaigns conducted during the war had been covered a little bit more than a section of a chapter, but I understand that the author had to cover a lot in 687 pages. I do like how the author still maintains that the founders, despite their faults, were exceptional men who managed to craft a government and defeat one of the most powerful empires in less than 20 years. I would definitely recommend this book to everyone interested in the history of the American Revolution, and I would recommend this at the book to start with.

[CoachJim · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789
by Robert Middlekauff

The fear and anxiety arose from one compelling conviction: a conspiracy existed to deprive Americans of their liberties and to reduce them to slavery, and the Stamp Act was merely the “first step to rivet the chains of slavery on us forever.” (Page 130)

Few in Britain had imagined that the Americans could pull themselves together and create a central government and an army — and then fight year after year. Fewer still sensed their “political enthusiasm,” as Burke had styled their near-fanaticism for self-government. (Page 595)

Americans making up the early colonies were emigrants or descendants of emigrants who fled the poverty and persecution of Europe to move to a New World that was hardly safe, comfortable or welcoming. This self character made them unlikely to submit to the slavery that they saw as the British policies. This required some bravery of character which might be attributed to the reason for their fight for independence.

This is the first of 5 volumes of the Oxford University Press series “The History of the United States” that I want to read this year.. If this book is an indication of what the other volumes are like I am in for a major test of endurance.

If you are looking for an extensive survey of the American Revolution this book might work. It covers the events leading to the Revolution, the action during the War, and the work following the Revolution to form the new Government. Along the way there is exhausting detail of the people, places and the circumstances of the time. This exhausting detail makes it a very tedious read at times.

The “No Taxation Without Representation” argument is described at length.
England was looking to cover some of the cost of maintaining troops in the colonies, but the Colonials had no elected officials representing them in Parliament. The distance at this time made it difficult for Britain to govern the colonies. Eventually the Stamp Act was repealed not because of colonial objections, but because British merchants wanted to resume trade. The Colonials were boycotting British goods.

There are interesting chapters describing the reasons why the colonials fought with such valor for while many ran and deserted, many more stayed and fought. They learned that while they may be defeated they could not be subdued. There are descriptions of the hospitals and medicine at the time. John Paul Jones gets a short but detailed portrayal.

A few GR readers have stated some opinions about Thomas Jefferson and Benedict Arnold. I was interested in reading how they were dealt with in this book, but they were barely mentioned and definitely not in an opinionated way. On the other hand, the descriptions of George Washington and James Madison were quite intriguing to me. I will be looking for some biographies of those two.

I had a couple of problems with this book. First, the detail described got in the way of some of the events. For instance, in the chapter “The Constitutional Convention” where the arguments were so mixed together as to lose their context. The second problem is that the 3 sections of the book I mentioned earlier — the events leading to the Revolution, the action during the War, and the work following the Revolution to form the new Government — left me wishing for more analysis.

[Aaron Million · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first entry, both chronologically (thus far) and in publication, of the Oxford History of the United States. While not as lengthy as all of the other volumes, save for Restless Giant, it still clocks in at close to 700 pages. Robert Middlekauf begins just after the end of the French and Indian War and goes up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the ratification of most of the states in 1788. Originally published in 1982, Middlekauf revised it in 2004 and added some sections. But as I went through the book, most of the footnotes refer back to works that are now fairly old (that doesn't mean they are bad, by any means!); therefore most of this book lacks any recent scholarship. That does not mean that the work is inferior, as the events even in 1982 were already 200 years old.

The first third of the book really focuses as much on England as it does on the then-colonies in America. And this is right, because the decisions made in London directly impacted the colonies. Middlekauf does a good job of showing how Britain blundered politically over and over again by the haughtiness and arrogance that they showed towards America. The British Parliament of then strikes me much as our own Congress: petty, vain, full of people who are not particularly bright nor learned but nonetheless wield power, and do so poorly. King George III's ministers were divided on how to handle the increasingly unruly Americans. This led to much political paralysis, influenced by a King who failed to grasp the urgency of affairs in his far-off colonies.

One point that Middlekauf makes several times in the book is that Britain didn't quite know what to do with the colonies. Were they trying to put down a rebellion? Or were they fighting a war? Your tactics and decisions are going to be different based on which one you think you are dealing with. I thought this was a good point, and one that I had never stopped to think about. And, really, how could the British have known which one it was in 1775? Things had been slowly simmering, in Massachusetts and Virginia especially, since the Stamp Act was first introduced in 1765. Gradually the simmer turned to a boil as Britain added more taxes, then repealed some, then sent over troops. I doubt hardly anyone in London thought this was a war prior to the Declaration of Independence being written. At that juncture, Britain should have shifted into all-out war mode but it had its ever-present enemy France nearby, and it had poor military leadership. The succession of generals that took command in the former colonies would have given Lincoln's incompetent Union generals a run for their money.

At this point, the war takes over and Middlekauf switches to describing the various battles that occurred from Canada down to Georgia. Several maps are included, most concerning battles. The maps are fine for the most part, although there is one on page 445 titled "Southern Campaigns" that has so many arrows and lines on it that I found it confusing to look at. Middlekauf was trying to show the overall layout of the southern battles, but there are too many to have on one map like that. In contrast to that, there is a map on page 37 titled "British North America" that shows the approximate line of settlement in all of the colonies. I very much liked this one; it gives the reader a sense of just how huddled most people were around the Eastern seaboard. Settlement, at least anything widespread, was nowhere close to Pittsburgh or Atlanta, if that gives you an idea of where everyone was located.

All of the major characters whom one would expect to be here are present, starting of course with George Washington. Add in Samuel Adams, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many on the British side such as the Howe brothers, Henry Clinton and Charles Cornwallis. Unfortunately, outside of Washington to a limited degree, all of these men (and this was mostly men here: Middlekauf does have a section about how women impacted the Revolutionary Army, and Abigail Adams makes a few brief appearances) came across as two-dimensional figures here. Most of them pop up here and there, then disappear for long stretches of time. Someone like Franklin, whom I would have thought would have gotten a lot of play here, really doesn't. The same goes for John Adams. I got the sense that Middlekauf did not want to focus too closely on personalities. Even with Washington, he writes on page 301 that following his service as a Colonel in the Virginia militia that he "...emerged with his reputation unscathed." Actually, it's more nuanced than that. Washington's reputation in Virginia, it is true, remained high. But across the Atlantic Ocean in London, British officials were less than impressed. A young Washington's impatience and lust for glory helped touch off a major, multi-continental war just a decade earlier.

A few people whom I would consider to be fairly significant figures are hardly mentioned. Joseph Warren in Boston was an influential figure in that city in the days leading up to the Battle of Bunker Hill. But you would not really know it from reading this book. Benedict Arnold's treason is mentioned in passing in a single sentence. Really? I do realize that, even in a compendium such as this series is, you can't include everything, but his defection has had books written about just that. I would think it would be deserving of at least a paragraph or two.

One area where I thought that Middlekauf really fell short was in his treatment of the Loyalists - those who remained loyal to Great Britain even though they lived in America. On page 564 he writes that approximately 16% of the population remained loyal to Britain, and about 19% of white males did so. This is a significant amount (about 500,000 according to Middlekauf). Yet he spends a total of nine pages on this book writing about them. It is as if he acknowledges their presence, but that is all. Middlekauf assumes that most Americans sided with the patriots in wanting to free themselves of what they felt was a tyrannical King and Parliament. On page 258 he writes "Congress was a popular body - it had the support of the majority of the American people, one suspects - but some opposed its measures." One suspects... based on what, exactly? On page 566, he writes that the Loyalists "...did not usually receive savage treatment. But they were convicted of treason and lesser offenses, and they were sometimes executed." Wait. So did they receive savage treatment or didn't they? Perhaps the word "usually" is the key here, but I consider execution and/or being convicted of treason to be pretty serious.

But did most people support Congress and the war effort, really? Obviously, many did. Of that there is no doubt. There was probably even a majority of people who felt that way, although sometimes I wonder if mob mentality was at work in early days, especially in Boston. But how many didn't really care one way or the other? Surely there had to be some people who, while not particularly liking Britain, weren't frothing at the mouth for independence either. Where are those people at? They are not mentioned here. And, what about all of the ruptured friendships and familial relations that occurred because of people having different political loyalties. Middlekauf doesn't mention this at all. I find that to be a glaring omission. Just look at the destroyed relationship between Franklin and his son William, who was the Loyalist Governor of New Jersey, as an example.

Also not given much space here are enslaved persons. Middlekauf keeps them on the periphery of events, only mentioning them here and there when citing divisions between the northern and southern colonies. This is more pronounced towards the end, as wrangling continues in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. I am not sure why Middlekauf did not focus on these areas more, especially given that this series allows for extended treatment of subjects resulting in large books.

While not a bad book, I found it overall to be disappointing as some of the other efforts in this series are outstanding. I think that Middlekauf more or less stuck to well-trod themes about the Revolutionary period, and avoided digging into other aspects that should have gotten more, or at least some, attention.

Grade: C+

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another excellent entry in the Oxford History of the United States. I didn't personally find it quite as engrossing as "Empire of Liberty" or "What Hath God Wrought," but still extremely interesting and informative. This book goes to some lengths to explain and document just how radical much of America was before the revolution (which flies in the face of some of my collegiate history instructors, who pitched the revolution as more of a minority driven phenomenon). Likewise, it at times adopts almost a fait accompli tone to the revolution's eventual success - though it is quite careful to point out at numberous points where the British blew it politically and militarily in attempts to contain and/or end the conflict on their terms. Middlekauff seems to hint that Britain lacked the political will to deploy the tremendous resources necessary to subdue the continent. There seems to be great truth in the argument, if accepting the aformentioned largely radicalized American populace as mentioned above. Based on my own larger reading, I still can't help thinking what an EXCEEDINGLY precarious enterprise the American Revolution was, prone to being snuffed out for any number of reasons throughout the long struggle. The Americans (and Britons) who ensured that it didn't are well detailed in many sidebars throughout.

The other interesting thing I continue to see again and again as I read more of the history of the United States is to see how so many of our current dilemmas, arguments, problems, etc were baked right into the United States from its earliest days - indeed, some even before the very founding of the republic. Likewise, it is amusing (if disappointing) to see some of the titans in the American pantheon wrestling luridly in the political mud with their opponents - right up to and incuding vitriolic personal attacks, doctrinaire thinking, and hyperbolic rhetoric. Everything old is indeed new again.

Strongly recommended for those interested in U.S. history and politics.

[Brian Pate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this volume in the US Oxford History series. Well written (by Robert Middlekauff) and well read (by Robert Fass). I listened to this book while traveling to language school in May 2019.

Things I learned:

- Most interesting was seeing the background that led to the conflict (e.g., Britain's disorganization, King George III's lack of preparation, etc.).

- Most alarming was hearing of the mob violence in the colonies (e.g., destroying property, murder, almost burying a guy alive, etc.).

- It wasn't just about taxes. The colonists acknowledged parliament's right to legislate and exact taxes. What they disagreed on was Parliament's right to enforce *internal* taxes. This idea was morphing in the 1760s. Soon it developed into the idea that they could not be taxed without their consent.

- Most boring (for me) were the final chapters about constitutional philosophy.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A comprehensive and ambitious work, with a good deal of primary and secondary research. It is a military history as well as a political history, and wanders into social commentary as well. Middlekauff does a great job of explaining how pivotal the Seven Years' War was in American History as it forced England to re-examine her relationship to her American colonies. Prior to that war the colonies had not provided England with the wealth that imperial nations desire from their colonies, but they hadn't really cost her anything either. But that war caused England to realize that money would have to be spent to defend her stronghold in the New World if she intended to keep it. That looked to be an expensive proposition, making it necessary to find a way to make the colonies produce revenue to offset the expense. Attempts at taxation without representation, a fundamental right of Englishmen, caused colonists to examine their status as citizens of their mother country, leading them to decide that they were not Englishmen at all.

Middlekauff also gives us a glimpse of figures of the pre-revolutionary period and shows our "patriots" as radicals and "revolutionaries," a far more accurate depiction of the men who were able to bring about so monumental a change in the course of history. Middlekauff delves into all the the parts of "pre-revolutionary" America you thought you knew about, such as the Tea Party, and reports what actually happened there.

The book also shows the human side of the American army, and how Washington wrestled with the fact that many were unwilling to fight. Due to the length of the book and the abundance of detail, it can be a bit tedious. Middlekauff does his readers no favor in trying to impress them with stuff like "Soldiers of all nationalities usually have a special fondness for profanity, and many have a special proficiency in its use" (p. 419). The book does provide a solid picture of the political and military history of the period. Middlekauff, however, doesn't include enough social, economic, and cultural history, and the book can become bogged down in details at the expense of the bigger picture.

There are also some minor issues here and therel he states that the British government "decided almost without thought to attack the French in the West Indies." He provides a footnote referring to pages 181-186 of Piers Mackesy's history; but Mackesy in those pages actually covers various cabinet meetings that the North ministry held to plan these attacks and explains why a good offense in the West Indies was the best defense for the British.

Middlekauff repeats a common misconception that the Hessian troops were mercenaries (they weren't, they were rented by the German princes to George III). He opens arguments here and there which are quite debateable, such as implying that the Revolution's impetus was spurred by the energy of the Great Awakening, and then provides no further elaboration or evidence. In his coverage of the Intolerable Acts, Middlekauff fails to say what the Quebec Act was, yet elsewhere he assumes you know. On page 340 he writes that "June also brought William Howe back to New York." I can't find where it says Howe had been in New York before. On page 462: "Some hint of what was coming was given ...when the victors, shouting 'Tarleton's Quarter,' shot and stabbed the wounded..." He doesn't cover what that really meant anywhere else. On page 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, with no explanation. In one section 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 (Ingersoll?) who thinks Barre's speech is "noble" is never identified.
On pages 406-7 he writes "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 the French 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, even for a relatively good book.

[Rindis · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a one volume history of the American Revolution, The Glorious Cause is nicely complete, but seems to assume some prior knowledge. Now, as there's plenty of 'everyone knows' bits about the American Revolution, that's not awful here, but this is definitely an introductory book, and I think it assumes too much on occasion.

It is at its best in the early chapters, which deal with the decade or more of political problems that lead up to the outbreak of hostilities. After that, it feels like Middlekauff's attention gets to split up, with important parts being handwaved aside, as it's just one too many things to handle at once. There's some interesting thoughts on how British efforts inevitably hurt the Loyalist cause, and then never really came to it's aid. Too little time is spent on it, but the major problem with the Loyalists would seem to be that they never got organized like the Patriots, and Pennsylvania is looked at in particular to show why they could not organize. The British are shown as never coming up with a coherent plan for how to conduct the war, but he never examines if the British ever formed a coherent idea of who they were fighting. Afterward, the drafting of the Constitution is examined... in comparatively speaking exhausting detail.

The book in microcosm: Good backgrounds given for many of the familiar names of the Revolution. They are quite informative, but this is also where Middlekauff seems to rely on 'everyone knows' information, as a few people like Benjamin Franklin are never examined. I wonder if it might skip over important information for someone truly unfamiliar with the war, even if it seems like such a person might not exist among people reading in English.

[Malum · Rating 2 out of 5]

Barely finished this one.

The best history books (in my opinion) almost read like fiction. They have a story arc and characters that grow and come alive on the page. This book, on the other hand, is written more like: "this happened, then this happened, then this happened". This made it a pretty dull read.

Also, it didn't really have a focus. Does it want to be a general overview of the American Revolution? It focuses far too much on some things and not enough on others for that. Does it want to be more specialized? It's far too "all over the place" to accomplish that, either. The first chunk of the book is all of the stuff leading up to the Revolution. Then we get a relatively brief overview of bits and pieces of the war. Then the last big chunk jumps around to various topics without much rhyme or reason (naval actions, laws, money, loyalists...topics are just thrown at us left and right), ending with a lot about the constitution. Despite all of this info dumping, Middlekauff barely spends any time on the founding fathers. They are mentioned here and there, but I wouldn't even rate them as side characters in this book.

What is Middlekauff's great takeaway from all of this? And I quote from the epilogue: "Revolutions usually appear as inevitable or as surprises". That's like me saying "Some people like peas and some people don't" is a deep and profound statement.

There are two main criteria I judge non-fiction history books on: was I entertained and did I learn something new. This book failed on both.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't read all of it, but the parts I didn't read I skimmed and I doubt I'll re-read it since it's so long and there's so much out there. But it's good.

There were some notable shortcomings and glaring omissions, such as the arrival of Martha Washington at Valley Forge, Adams' nomination of Washington, Benedict Arnold's treachery, etc. I think the main thing to note about the Revolutionary War is that it really was an accident. Nobody quite knew it was going to happen until they were in the middle of it. Somebody could easily do a Thucydidean analysis. The bit on the Constitutional Convention is very helpful, because he makes it clear that the Constitution was less of an agreed consensus and more of a truce, which is why issues like religion and slavery were left so open. The participants had very different intentions and it was the best they could do at the time.

Oh, and for those who want to get a de-hagiographized version of the war, this book is a decent shot. It's not revisionistic or critical (the fact that taxes were very low in America is generally underplayed), but it does make you see George Washington as the fallible human he was, while still generally admiring him. I wish there had been more personalities and more dialogue with the legends, such as Nathan Hale, even if to critique them. But it's solid.

[Piker7977 · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Glorious Cause is an exhaustive history of the late 18th century in North America. Events leading up to, during, and after the American Revolution are thoroughly examined for the most part. However, there are greater emphases placed on certain aspects of this time period that leave a misleading interpretation of why this era is so important.

What Middlekauff does very well is describe the build up to the Revolution within an international context. The reader gets a glimpse into the main figures involved in British foreign policy along with those who reacted to it (either approvingly or disapprovingly) in the colonies. We see things not only in terms of taxes and build up, but in larger terms of mercantilism and economics. Middlekauff also provides a great introduction to the Seven Years War. This leads well into the Revolution itself. However, the attention paid to the military campaigns and Washington's grand strategy becomes tedious and boring after repetitive chapters about battles and tactics. This does do a good job of highlighting the big idea behind beating the British: simply keeping the Continental Army together and surviving. The "war of posts" is necessary to grasp while studying this time period. Yet, the details about specific battles are so redundant that one would be well served to keep a list of what battle was fought when. The descriptions become very similar and it is difficult to tell events apart during these chapters.

There are a few sections that do work quite well. For instance, the pages dedicated to Valley Forge are among the best in the book. I'm not sure if that is due to the subject itself or Middlekauff's approach. Either way it served as an island of interest amidst pages of repetition.

The heavy emphasis on the Revolution and the war eclipse the Constitutional Convention and the ultimate lessons of the time period. Only about three chapters are dedicated to this important part of the history. This is where I disagree and dislike the book the most. When we think back on the birth of America, it is the intellectual seeds found in the Constitution that are most worthy of contemporary consideration and debate; not the tactics of 18th century standing armies and militia. The Convention and its product are the capstone of the Revolution and mark the beginning of the American experiment. With such a focus on the military history, readers lose sight of what were the most important outcomes of this prominent generation. This may also lead into bad lessons learned (i.e. America's military successes are what made the Revolution successful). Most of the Founders/Framers were not military experts. They were politically enlightened individuals who sought to avoid the traps of despotism and tyranny by establishing a large republic. The reader must also keep in mind that this federal system was built out of the ashes of a failed system of small republics that was forged during the Revolution.

To underscore this point we should consider the treatment of Madison in this book. Middlekauff does a fine job of talking about the merits of how a large republic will have some checks in balances built in if it encompasses a diverse population of factions. This is without a doubt one of the hallmarks of Madison's political ideology and is explained quite well in this book. Yet we do not encounter the shrewd nature of Madison's political prowess and how he was able to win over so many Anti-Federalists. In other words, the notion behind, and the writing of, the Bill of Rights is practically missing from The Glorious Cause. That is a pretty big omission to leave out, especially if this volume introduces what some consider to be the definitive series on American history.

Flawed, heavy and dense, this was an uphill read. On the other hand, heavy and dense serves as a good anchor to tether your understanding of America's birth. But don't let this be your only foray into the subject.

[George Matthews · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read!

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it took about three months, but I've finally finished this beastly tome chronicling the American Revolution in immense detail. For me it was a disappointment, despite the fact that the author did a remarkable job in his depth, breadth, and accuracy of information.

No one will ever accuse Middlekauff of not being thorough, that's for certain. And the quality of the information he provides in The Glorious Cause is indisputably excellent. But as far as how this actually reads? Well...it's a bit of a letdown. If you're just looking for reference material, Middlekauff's doorstop of a book would be an excellent source. But if you're looking for a read that is entertaining as well as informative, look elsewhere.

I'm a bit surprised this was a Pulitzer finalist. To that end, I would have expected something with better readability, less repetitiveness, and greater anecdotal content. This book is dry as a bone, and this is coming from someone who can usually slog through historical non-fiction that others describe as "too dry" with great joy and enthusiasm.

Some of my dissatisfaction on that point may just be about taste. As someone whose interests in history always come from a decidedly contextual approach largely based in social history, I felt this book was far too focused on governmental nuance and endless legal revisions, rather than what I see as the more interesting aspects of the Revolution, which are more rooted in the "Why" (social history of the era, military intelligence, biographical information on the Founding Fathers which sheds light on why they took on the roles they did in the process of American revolution and independence).

I suppose I was just hoping for more about life during the revolution and the consequences of it for American citizens, soldiers and leaders. Instead I ended up with extensive knowledge of the Stamp Act and a laundry list of fringe-y members of Parliament whose actions had negligible impact on the ultimate outcome of the Revolution.

None of this is the author's fault. His research is flawless and he neither speaks over the head of the reader nor dumbs down the information. But the editor might have either suggested the addition of better contextual information/social history/anecdotal passages to better engage the reader, or promoted this book for what it actually is, which is essentially a textbook.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Several decades ago, editor C. Vann Woodward and his collaborator Richard Hofstadter founded the Oxford History of the U.S. series, to bring rigorous historical scholarship to a wide reading audience. The subject matter would consist of a series of books by distinguished historians, each focusing on an important era of American History, from colonial times to the present day, in random order. Robert Middlekauff produced the first book in the series in 1982; it was expanded and revised into this new edition. Middlekauff succeeds in the editors' original goal of presenting a work of "interpretive synthesis" (p. xiv) of discoveries in modern research into valid and forceful narratives allowing the modern citizen to understand American history. He thus set the standard which has been followed by authors of later volumes in the series, which continues.

"The Glorious Cause," named after George Washington's label for the Revolutionary War, starts in the aftermath of the French and Indian Wars. It is most interesting, in my opinion, describing this period as it leads to the American break with Great Britain; it continues of course to the war, including the attempt by the Continental Congress to govern a country with a weak central government and thirteen politically powerful entities; and finally, covers the post-war period, including the Constitutional Convention and ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Casual observers of American history accept the standardized version of the hostilities which began in gunfire in 1775 as an intended, inevitable consequence of colonists suddenly rebelling against tyranny from England. Actually, no leading American, as late as the early 1770's, probably intended to be taking up arms. The Founding Fathers and their followers who brought on the Revolution were actually conservative-minded tradesmen, lawyers and farmers who uniformly, regardless of colony of origin, believed in a universal order of life. Various religious and deist faiths were followed, but most thinkers of the era believed passionately in adhering to a faith based on guidance derived from "Providence." The providential order in the 13 English colonies originally justified faith in the British empire. There were definite kinship connections between the ethnically most prevalent colonists and Englishmen; just as important, all colonists considered themselves fortunate to be governed by a legal system based on the ancient British constitution, including the protections contained in it for guaranteeing personal liberties.

As late as the French and Indian War (1754 to 1761), colonists and Brits worked and fought together toward a common destiny. It was expensive for Britain to operate its military forces in North America, and it was only fair that the recipients of this protection would pay toward the upkeep of the forces deployed. However, the Crown was not sensitive to American feelings of being slighted in having a say in what, and how much, should be assessed against them. The post-French and Indian years are represented by ever-more stringent authority imposed by Britain on the colonies, followed by American reactions, causing stronger British actions and leading to more aggressive American reactions. Thus, the Stamp Act and Tea Tax crises, leading to reactions from boycotting tea (in New York) to destruction of British East India property (the Boston Tea Party), followed by the Intolerable Acts of 1774 (closing the Port of Boston, quartering of British troops in American buildings, ,,,), to colonists storing munitions outside Boston, to Lexington and Concord.

During the time these events occurred, a change of thinking was happening across America. The British government and its heavy-handed ministers and Parliament were increasingly hated, especially as they were unable to appreciate, from their vantage point of 3,000 miles distance, that Americans had great expectations for their future. The numbers of Americans were constantly growing and the country's businesses were flourishing. Benjamin Franklin's view of the two countries' relationships experienced a pivotal change at this time. Franklin was employed to represent the interest of several colonies in London when the Tea Party caused outrage in the British government. Franklin had traveled to England as a willing subject of the King who was convinced that differences between the two countries could be worked out. The British perception of the ongoing colonial "excesses" led to Franklin's public humiliation at the hands of the angry solicitor general as he was forced to stand silent in a room filled with the British ruling elite. This business trip opened Franklin's eyes to the anger and unrest that his countrymen had already been feeling.

Thus occurred what Middlekauff calls one of the ironies of the Revolution: Its sources in a culture of practical, down-to-earth men, not unlike Franklin, who threw off their allegiance to the empire in 1776. This would have been uncommon madness a few years ago, but now, in Thomas Paine's phrase, it was "Common Sense" to do so. As Middlekauff states, it would be impossible to overestimate the ability of Paine's book to reflect the hardening attitudes becoming prevalent in the colonies, and its influence on developing political thought. This extremely timely book stated the revolutionary rationale clearly: the long-standing relationship between America and England was preposterous, being based on a rejection of the "natural order of things" (p. 3). Just as unnatural and ridiculous was the monarchy, as it derived its power from idolatrous, heathenish rationale. There no longer was room in the American universal order of thought for such an institution.

It was one thing to proclaim a new country's existence and to resort to arms to defend it; it was another thing to prevail in a war against the most powerful military in the world, and then to formulate a new government with its own constitution. Robert Middlekauff provides an account of these events in the best one-volume history available.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, solid overview of the American Revolution, but unlike the other books I've read in the Oxford History of the United States, not one I would recommend as an introductory text. Middlekauf seems to assume a prior knowledge about much of the personalities and events of the Revolution, and his narrative can be difficult to follow if you're not already familiar (sometimes very familiar) with the story of American Independence.

His choice of focus was at times curious as well: great detail is provided concerning the inner machinations of Parliamentary politics (something I knew little about, and was happy to explore), and yet the discussion of American politics is sometimes skimpy at best. There is no mention of the 1765 Currency Act, the Quebec Act is referred to only as part of the Intolerable Acts and is otherwise left unexplained, and Shays's Rebellion is brushed by in a few measly paragraphs with no substantial discussion of the public reaction to the uprising. The author seemed to write as though he were only repeating a story we've all heard a number of times before and was rushing to be done with the important bits "everybody knows." While this may be true for some history buffs, the purpose of the Oxford History is to provide a broad narrative accessible to the lay reader. James McPherson's masterpiece Battle Cry of Freedom provides a helpful comparison: one need know little about the Civil War to fully engage the scholarship he offers.

For the reader already familiar with the Revolution however, Middlekauf's book is a helpful overview to refresh your memory and perhaps explore some hidden corners of the Revolution not often discussed (e.g. the British politics mentioned above). Such readers will likely be not so much dismayed but rather baffled at the author's omissions and narrative elisions.

I should mention that I read the original edition published way back in 1982; since then a revised and expanded edition appeared in 2005, and perhaps these deficiencies are therein corrected.

[Rod Zemke · Rating 5 out of 5]

It gets a five because it is such a comprehensive history of the birth of the American Republic. This book is part of the Oxford Series on American History. Reading this book in 2017 reminds the reader that the Constitution was written by men and not Gods. Although the Constitution has served us well, it may need 21st-century revisions. The Electoral College is obviously out-of-date. Also, representation in Congress has to be addressed. How long can we continue to give Wyoming and California each two Senators. It is just not fair as it is obviously too undemocratic. Aside from that, this book should be required reading for anyone who wants to be a US Representative either in the House or Senate.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I continue my march through the ages, where I explore all the historical eras of the United States of America, I finally arrive at the age and event that would create the nation itself. Having finished Fred Anderson Crucible of War, I had already arrived at that generation of Americans, which we would describe as the Founding generation, and they were living under the man they would call tyrant, King George III. As I stated in an earlier post the biggest challenge in this little project is to find books whose authors try their best to explore from multiple perspectives to avoid just one narrow view, without at the same time surrendering a general narrative that is both readable and enjoyable. I found this book to meet those qualifications.

Robert Middelkauff's brings the conflict that gave birth to the United States of America to life in his classic work, The Glorious Cause. This book tells the story of thirteen colonies who revolted against the mother country of Great Britain to form their own nation. The story begins on the close of the French and Indian War (or Seven Years War) where the British Empire was triumphant,the greatest power of North America, and undisputed ruler of the sea. The story ends with George Washington taking office as the first President of the United States.

We tend to think of the American Revolution as happening from 1774-1783 but Middelkauff believes that it began in the 1760s. He argues this even though the American disagreement with the mother country during the late 1760s and early 1770s was about their rights as British subjects in the Empire, not trying to break loose from it. He also points out that the Revolution does not end at Yorktown or the Treaty of Paris but with the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution's ratification, and the inauguration of President George Washington.

One of the main sources of disagreement with Great Britain and her colonies was two very different views that were held on the unwritten constitution of the British Empire. One view, held by Americans, was that all British subjects could not be governed and taxed without their consent; and the other, held by many in Britain, was the British Parliament was the supreme legislature of all the inhabitants of the Empire whether or not that community was had representation in the House of Commons. With the insistence of the various ministers of King George III, with His Majesty's full support, Parliament attempted to level taxes on the colonies. The response from the colonies was resistance from all levels of colonial society.

"A single act of Parliament led by an evil ministry would not immediately fasten chains on colonial wrists, of course. As far as the American writers were concerned, the Stamp Act was simply the visible edge of the dared conspiracy. If the Act were accepted, they asked, what guarantee did the colonists have that their lands, houses, indeed the very windows in their houses, and the air breathed in America would not be taxed? A people virtually represented in Parliament would have no choice once they swallowed that pernicious doctrine which was in reality shackles for the enslaved. And there would be many hungry men in England eager to do the work of the enslavers. Colonial accounts of the conspiracy lingered over long and horrified descriptions of the officeholders, placemen, taskmasters, and pensioners who would descend upon the colonists ostensibly to serve His Majesty but in reality to eat out of the colonial substance. The corruption they would bring would complete the ruin of the colonies."p.132

This common cause of liberty was able to unite the colonies as nothing had ever had before; colonial legislatures sent representatives to a Continental Congress that would try to negotiate with Parliament. When negotiations failed and the war came at Lexington and Concord, this Congress would raise and Army and appoint a commander-in-chief. The next Continental Congress, when the time came, would go forth and declare their independence and form a new nation.

"What Americans thought and felt about the declaration's 'truths' which are presented as 'self-evident'--that all men 'are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights,' among them 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'--is not clear. There was no immediate discussion in public of these claims; nor was there of the contention that all men were 'created equal.' Thomas Jefferson wrote these words and though at the time, and since, no great originality was attributed to them and to the substance of the declaration, the declaration may in fact have possessed more originality than anyone suspected."p.335

One of the great elements of this book is the way it tries to cover all aspects of society, from the court of King George III to the farmers of Massachusetts. The stars of history still get there well-earned due, George Washington makes the most appearances, but also covered are Patrick Henry, Samuel and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Paul Jones, Thomas Paine, Nathanael Greene and, of course, Benjamin Franklin.

"Washington's judgment improved each year, as he assimilated the experience of the war. His confidence in himself also grew as he learned. When the war began he as full of concern that he would fail because his abilities were not of the first order. This belief persisted even though he also felt that he had been called by providence to lead the American army in the Revolution. By the end of 1776 with a year and a half of the war under his belt, and with the success of Trenton and Princeton, he was a much more confident commander. He was not arrogant, and he continued to consult his general officers before he made important decisions, but he no longer took advice against his better judgment, as he had, for example, in the autumn of 1776 on the Hudson."p.600

After the Revolutionary War comes to an end, the Revolution was still unfinished for a Revolution cannot be complete until something lasting has been built up to replace the old regime. The Articles of Confederation were not up to task and ultimately the Constitutional Convention would have to be held to create a lasting Republic in which the Federal Government was supreme and not the various state governments.

I would also like to point out a technical detail that I like about this book. All the footnotes are located at the bottom of the page they are on as opposed to either at the end of the book or the end of each chapter. I find this makes reading the book more enjoyable because that way I do not have to flip though pages to find the source of any particular fact or argument. I wish this method was mandatory.

The Glorious Cause is an incredible book and I would recommend it to the novice and the experienced historian alike.

[Andrew Morin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fine summary of the period. Did not quite enjoy as much as I have the later volumes in the series, and the centrality of the war certainly took away a lot from (potentially quite interesting) discussions of political, social, economic developments, though Middlekauff's updates do attempt to address this. Not bad overall

[Ray Palmer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Glorious Cause is a great objective history of the American Revolution. Its 700 pages cover approximately 20 years of history, so about a decade on either side of 1776. And it is about as detailed as one can expect within those constraints.

If you want jingoistic hagiography, it’s probably not the book for you. But by taking a fair and dispassionate approach the author is able to show just how unique and transformative the founding of the USA was in the history of the world. The story of the birth of the US becomes a more powerful thing, because, though as an event in time it was unprecedented, the principles that led to the formation of the USA are not unique or special. Anyone can take advantage of them and become a revolutionary for good.

If there is a weakness to the book, it is that the author assumes the reader has a pretty robust understanding of North American history prior to 1763. The current of the historical narrative simply starts at this point without hardly a preamble. At times I felt he was throwing around names like they are old friends, and assumes the reader knows them just as well. But that’s hardly the fault of the author. Each section of the book could be broken out into a big book of its own.

Some personal take-aways:

The revolution was surprising. Ten years prior to the Declaration of Independence, the colonists were happy in their place in the empire. Yet a war develops in short order due to many things, but largely due to poor understanding and lack of respect. Parliament never seems to fully understand the intentions and motives of the colonists. The colonists assume the worst in Parliament’s heavy handed policies.

You don’t have to win a battle to win a war. The main campaigning of the Revolutionary War started in Massachusetts; then moved to New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; then to the Carolinas. If you were to tally up British vs. American wins on a battle by battle basis, it would look like the British were dominant. The Americans had a few great victories. There were enough Saratogas and Trentons to maintain American morale. But it was the American ability to keep going in spite of the losses that ultimately led to victory.

Politics is hard, and politicians need to be experienced, skilled, smart, and well prepared. The chapters on the Constitutional Convention are some of the most challenging to read. Military campaigns you can follow on a map. Political debate is in many ways much more complex to follow. Faction A might strongly agree with faction B on issue #1, but strongly disagree on issue #2. Meanwhile Faction C is totally cool with issue #2 but can’t abide issue #1. The Convention was like this, only infinitely more complicated: Each colony’s delegation is a faction, and each delegation is divided into sub-factions. Yet all these people were able to trust each other in good faith to hammer out an unprecedented form of government.

Quotes:
“[R]ely on the plighted faith of your Country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress….And let me conjure you, in the name of our common Country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the Military and National character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the Man who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood Gates of Civil discord”
— George Washington, Glorious Cause pg. 604

“But underlying any successful constitutionalism there had to be a virtuous people. The founders, especially Franklin, Madison, and Wilson, believed that the Convention must risk all, indeed risk the revolution, by trusting the virtue of the American people.”
— Glorious Cause, pg. 673

[James Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. The Glorious Cause is the most comprehensive history of the American Revolution I know. Most general histories of it treat it more as a war and military events rather than as the overall political and social transformation it in fact was. Middlekauff's history covers every aspect of the war. For one thing, he begins the story in 1763, at the end of the French and Indian War, when he says the discontent which blossomed into open rebellion began. And he doesn't end his story until 1789 and the ratification of the Constitution and the true launch of the nation. Middlekauff's history is as huge as those 26 years.

The early chapters are busy with analysis of the causes of the Revolution and with debunking some myths. As Middlekauff tells it, some of the taxes levied were reasonable. Britain, for instance, expected the colonies to pay part of the maintenance of those army units provided for frontier defense following the French and Indian War. Some of the misunderstanding was partly to do with the British government's unfamiliarity with life in America and the great Atlantic distance involved in communicating. One of the most interesting threads the author follows is that of American fears for their political freedoms. Middlekauff writes that American character was inbred with the thinking that big government and its controls brought moral decay and that British power would subdue the liberty their legislatures provided. The taxation, the British underestimation of American resolve, and natural distrust spiraled out of control.

The account of the military campaigns is well told though I don't think the author has any fresh insight into the operations of the armies. Where he's finest is his analysis of how they fought, and why. The descriptions of the various armies involved is fascinating. His analysis takes in all aspects of American society. You want to know what life was like in the hamlets and towns away from the fighting? The answer's here. Do you wonder how the Indians were affected and what their attitudes were? Middlekauff tells us. And he writes insightfully about the slaves. Explaining how aware the founding fathers were of the differences between their idealistic declarations about the equal creation of all men and the economic dependencies they all felt bound by, Middlekauff spends some time on the rationales behind freeing the slaves in the north but not the South.

Middlekauff tells us the Revolution wasn't over until a Constitution was hammered out in 1787. His account of the politics and ideas swirling around the Constitution's creation and the struggle of 13 ratifications makes gripping reading. This is very good history. This is the most epic telling of these events and the complex men who made them, complete with all the political, military, and social effects. The book's glorious telling of such a broad, multifaceted political movement is its strength. The Americans themselves called it the glorious cause, and rightly so.

[Clinton Rice · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first book review, so the 4-star rating is a little tenuous; the book met many expectations in excellent fashion, but due the complexity of subject matter, there were parts that became a bit disjointed or left me hoping uncertainly that issues would be dealt with later (they almost invariably were, but foreknowledge would have been nice).

There were two primary facets that I cared about: the historical narrative of America's evolution from colonies to functioning nation, and ideological independence.

The narrative was typically strong, detailed and balanced. The only place I thought things got murky was during the war itself. From 1763 until Lexington/Concord, there was much focus on colonial society and politics, and on British politics, and the sequence of misunderstandings and angry responses that each side had to the other; the flow worked very well. Once the war started, the focus turned greatly to military tactics; I suppose that this demonstrated the fragility of our eventual victory, since things could have turned out differently at a number of points, but since I am not a great military enthusiast, I found that it distracted from the flow that I'd so enjoyed before. There are intermingled discussions of politics through this section, but they are greatly overshadowed by detailed accounts of various battles. Then, there are a couple of chapters of cross-sectional material describing generalities of life during the war and a little bit about politics, but those, while interesting at some level, seemed almost distracting since I hadn't seen them coming and didn't know where the book was to head after them. Finally, the narrative picks back up with the battle of Yorktown, Britain's surrender and the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. I really think that, had the chapters been organized into explicit sections, it would have worked perfectly.

My biggest hope heading into the book was to see into the minds of the founding fathers, and my biggest fear was that it would serve as propaganda for one modern ideology or another. There were certainly times where the relationship between various founders and modern dogma was so obvious that I wondered if the author had framed the story around relevance to today; yet each of those seemed to be matched by a counterpoint such that by the end, I concluded that the story roughly shows the timeless struggle between competing ideals and couldn't decipher what the author's views may be. Given that, I got exactly what I'd hoped in ideological terms - virtually nothing.

It is worth noting that this is the first in a series of eight books comprising the Oxford University History of the United States, and I intend to start immediately upon the second, Empire of Liberty. There are several different authors across the series, so I can't speak for how the rest of the series may work out yet.

[Carson Stones · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the Stamp Act to the Washington's Inauguration and everything in-between, Robert Middlekauff manages to capture the passion, sacrifice, and larger-than-life personalities which made the cause glorious. What really stood out to me about this narrative was the constant state of desperation and near-catastrophe in which the rebels found themselves. In fact, without the aid of French warships and materiel (not to mention Lafayette!), I'm not convinced that Washington and his Continental Army would have survived much past 1776.

What ultimately drew me to this book was the musical Hamilton and David McCullough's 1776. I wanted to fill in the gaps in the narrative and Robert Middlekauff did not disappoint. Picking up right where Fred Anderson's Crucible of War left off (tragically, not part of the Oxford series), The Glorious Cause is packed with anecdotes from pre-war Boston, soldier's journals from camp life, and useful battle maps of all the famous revolutionary battlefields and the main theaters of war. By relying heavily on the papers of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and others, Middlekauff constantly reminds us that the Founding Fathers were simply men put into extraordinary circumstances. Throughout the narrative, we get to read their self-doubt, frustrations, compromises, and occasional brilliance in their own words. Though we tend to deify these men today (to our detriment), it was refreshing to read through their struggles as they unfolded chronologically.

I'm sure there are dozens of wonderful books out there about the Revolutionary era, but for a well-written, scholarly, one-volume modern history of the whole era, I'm not sure the Oxford series can be beat. If the sign of a good book is the desire to learn more, then this volume succeeded. Not only do I desperately want to learn more about the French Revolution, but now I also can't wait to pick up the next volume in the series, Empire of Liberty by Gordon Wood - who, as it happens, also wrote a one-volume history of the revolutionary war as well as the Pulitzer winning The Radicalism of the American Revolution.

More to come on this era in future reviews!

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gina bought me this book for my Kindle awhile back, as I've expressed greater interest in exploring American history in the past few years.

The Revolutionary period is my favorite period of American history as the "idea" of America continues to exercise a powerful hold on my imagination. Sometimes, I wonder whose side I would have been on had I been alive at the time as the history reveals that it was not all good guys vs. bad guys.

I would not consider this an introduction, but more of a specialized overview. It is very heavy on military tactics, which often made for repetitive reading and far outweighed the political and ideological battles (which are more interesting to me). What I appreciated about it is that it covers the WHOLE era ... from the first rumblings of discontent with British rule all the way through each key battle of the war for independence and on to the attempts to define America through the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Convention.

I'm not remotely an expert on American history, so I can't comment much on content. But I will say this is definitely worth a read, and has the rare quality of being a reasonably unbiased source of information lacking any obvious political slant in its telling of what happened, how, and why. Who are we as Americans and where do we come from? The answers begin here.

[Jeff (Jake) · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a book with a massive amount of information to grasp and remember but since I love history I gave it my best and thoroughly enjoyed it. So I’m a nerd and a geek when it comes to history, sue me. This audiobook was over 26 hours long but it’s one of the best books I’ve found that really examines in detail the politics, the battles and the personalities of the American Revolution. I found this brief review sums it up better than I could.

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; 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.

[Brian Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This overview of the causes and results of the struggle for American independence takes 250 pages to detail the numerous causes and grievances that led to the conflict, 350 pages to detail the military history of the battlefield conflicts themselves, and the final 100 pages to enumerate the need and drafting of the Constitution. A fundamental claim, which I haven't encountered elsewhere, is that the socio-religious background of those Americans informed their opinions of the fallibility of humanity and the necessity for self-governance. The detailed war section is a strength, as most books covering this era tend to gloss over the details, as well as the blow-by-blow account of the Constitutional Convention itself. The causes of the war, as well as the political philosophical divide between the British and colonists, is also well documented. It would be hard to go wrong with this one volume account, which leaves us at Washington's Inauguration.

[Joel Arnold · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came to this book after reading 1776 by McCullough and wishing I could finish the war. Middlekauff did not disappoint.

This work is certainly written on a scholarly level and Middlekauff is a careful historian. As a result, the book is hardly as entertaining as 1776, but the picture it presents of the era is often more illuminating. Middlekauff includes chapters on religion, domestic life, international events, politics, and culture, in addition to the military events. I finished this book feeling as if I had lived through the era and had a limited understanding of the broader context.

If you are willing to read through passages that may not be immediately entertaining, and if you can stay interested for 687 pages you will be very glad you read this book.