What do you think?
Rate this book
Whirlwind: The American Revolution and the War That Won It
Amid a great collection of scholarship and narrative history on the Revolutionary War and the American struggle for independence, there is a gaping hole; one that John Ferling's latest book, Whirlwind , will fill. Books chronicling the Revolution have largely ranged from multivolume tomes that appeal to scholars and the most serious general readers to microhistories that necessarily gloss over swaths of Independence-era history with only cursory treatment.
Written in Ferling's engaging and narrative-driven style that made books like Independence and The Ascent of George Washington critical and commercial successes, Whirlwind is a fast-paced and scrupulously told one-volume history of this epochal time. Balancing social and political concerns of the period and perspectives of the average American revolutionary with a careful examination of the war itself, Ferling has crafted the ideal book for armchair military history buffs, a book about the causes of the American Revolution, the war that won it, and the meaning of the Revolution overall. Combining careful scholarship, arresting detail, and illustrative storytelling, Whirlwind is a unique and compelling addition to any collection of books on the American Revolution.
Written in Ferling's engaging and narrative-driven style that made books like Independence and The Ascent of George Washington critical and commercial successes, Whirlwind is a fast-paced and scrupulously told one-volume history of this epochal time. Balancing social and political concerns of the period and perspectives of the average American revolutionary with a careful examination of the war itself, Ferling has crafted the ideal book for armchair military history buffs, a book about the causes of the American Revolution, the war that won it, and the meaning of the Revolution overall. Combining careful scholarship, arresting detail, and illustrative storytelling, Whirlwind is a unique and compelling addition to any collection of books on the American Revolution.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published May 5, 2015
141 people are currently reading
1298 people want to read
About the author
John Ferling
22 books203 followersJohn E. Ferling is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia. A leading authority on American Revolutionary history, he is the author of several books, including "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic", "Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence", and his most recent work, "The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon". He has appeared in television documentaries on PBS, the History Channel, C-SPAN Book TV, and the Learning Channel.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
May 19, 2021
This book is a masterpiece by one of the best known Historians called John Ferling. The main emphasis of this book is on the events which happened nearabout 1000 years before World War I: A rigid history is delivered regarding the instant events proceeding the French and Indian War through the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783. A detailed account surrounding the figures, wars, strengths and motives that emerged in the beginning of the American Revolution is brilliantly represented. This is a well-researched book that gives a delightful read to the “History”/“Historical fiction” genre readers.
There is also another detailed history preceding to the World Wars I and II which is not possible to cover in high school and intermediate levels' history subject syllabus. British established colonies in almost 80% of the world's countries. Surprisingly, America was also a colony. After long period of British possession, a demand started arousing about making America an independent nation. The rebel British soldiers of American continent were too naive to fight battle against their own masters. But they fought against them 5 times and got defeated. Finally, they were successful in the 6th time. Whirlwind is particularly a military history that also encompasses relevant and valuable political reflections. The significant study of this period in such a way enriches the readability:
** The political reflections give depth to the history and more essentially causes for things proceeding in the directions they went.
** A detailed description of the combined efforts – and inefficiencies – of both the political intellectuals and naive military of the then proposed new nation is well represented.
It was difficult to put down till the end. Ferling’s content is full of heart throbbing battle sequences and twists and turns in every corner: numerous twists and turns are even in the last 20 pages. I will give it 5 stars rating. John Ferling delivered a strong history and a brilliant book. Cinematic adaptation will be a small thing to mention as the content is too vast for a single film to encompass everything in it. But yes. If budget is not a constraint, it can be adapted into a film franchisee of 4–5 parts.
I will definitely look forward for other books by John Ferling.
There is also another detailed history preceding to the World Wars I and II which is not possible to cover in high school and intermediate levels' history subject syllabus. British established colonies in almost 80% of the world's countries. Surprisingly, America was also a colony. After long period of British possession, a demand started arousing about making America an independent nation. The rebel British soldiers of American continent were too naive to fight battle against their own masters. But they fought against them 5 times and got defeated. Finally, they were successful in the 6th time. Whirlwind is particularly a military history that also encompasses relevant and valuable political reflections. The significant study of this period in such a way enriches the readability:
** The political reflections give depth to the history and more essentially causes for things proceeding in the directions they went.
** A detailed description of the combined efforts – and inefficiencies – of both the political intellectuals and naive military of the then proposed new nation is well represented.
It was difficult to put down till the end. Ferling’s content is full of heart throbbing battle sequences and twists and turns in every corner: numerous twists and turns are even in the last 20 pages. I will give it 5 stars rating. John Ferling delivered a strong history and a brilliant book. Cinematic adaptation will be a small thing to mention as the content is too vast for a single film to encompass everything in it. But yes. If budget is not a constraint, it can be adapted into a film franchisee of 4–5 parts.
I will definitely look forward for other books by John Ferling.
January 25, 2021
This is a solid history of the events immediately following the French and Indian War through the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783. Ferling provides much detail about the figures, battles, momentums, and ideas that spawned the beginning of the American Revolution.
Whirlwind is primarily a military history, but includes relevant and important political considerations as well. This makes it all the more readable and important to the study of this period. Many other books that focus heavily on the military aspects of the Revolution are as dry as unbuttered toast. The political considerations give the history depth and, all the more important, reasons for why things went in the directions they did. Ferling strips down much of the myth and romance surrounding the Minutemen and Continentals exposing the more honest, and at times precarious, nature of the Revolution. It was an all out effort involving both the political geniuses, and their flaws, along with the infant military of the new nation.
To be honest, this is probably a five star book in a worldly view. Revolutionary military histories are a struggle for my attention. Others will find much more information and enjoyment out of Whirlwind than I did. It's a sound history and a good book.
Whirlwind is primarily a military history, but includes relevant and important political considerations as well. This makes it all the more readable and important to the study of this period. Many other books that focus heavily on the military aspects of the Revolution are as dry as unbuttered toast. The political considerations give the history depth and, all the more important, reasons for why things went in the directions they did. Ferling strips down much of the myth and romance surrounding the Minutemen and Continentals exposing the more honest, and at times precarious, nature of the Revolution. It was an all out effort involving both the political geniuses, and their flaws, along with the infant military of the new nation.
To be honest, this is probably a five star book in a worldly view. Revolutionary military histories are a struggle for my attention. Others will find much more information and enjoyment out of Whirlwind than I did. It's a sound history and a good book.
February 13, 2025
The two big ideas of this book:
- The Revolution and its war were not the same. The Revolution started much earlier and the war was just the struggle to realize its ideals.
- The primary motivation for the Revolution was economic.
The first point is demonstrated pretty well by considerable coverage of events before the war. The second, while reasonable, is not really addressed.
This is a very idiosyncratic telling of the story of the war, which often omits important information. It also has plenty of mistakes, sometimes not offering enough nuance, at others, being just plain wrong. Over time I stopped being able to trust what I was being told.
Some of the footnoting is quite bad. After reading one rather astounding claim, I went to see what the source was, and found twenty sources listed, without page numbers. Which one of those twenty actually contained the data, and where?
The writing is ponderous as well, not flowing smoothly from point to point.
Although I've greatly appreciated a lot of the author's works, it feels like this time the subject was simply too large and sprawling to result in an effective work.
But the chapters covering the period before the war are not much found elsewhere and make this at least somewhat worthwhile.
- The Revolution and its war were not the same. The Revolution started much earlier and the war was just the struggle to realize its ideals.
- The primary motivation for the Revolution was economic.
The first point is demonstrated pretty well by considerable coverage of events before the war. The second, while reasonable, is not really addressed.
This is a very idiosyncratic telling of the story of the war, which often omits important information. It also has plenty of mistakes, sometimes not offering enough nuance, at others, being just plain wrong. Over time I stopped being able to trust what I was being told.
Some of the footnoting is quite bad. After reading one rather astounding claim, I went to see what the source was, and found twenty sources listed, without page numbers. Which one of those twenty actually contained the data, and where?
The writing is ponderous as well, not flowing smoothly from point to point.
Although I've greatly appreciated a lot of the author's works, it feels like this time the subject was simply too large and sprawling to result in an effective work.
But the chapters covering the period before the war are not much found elsewhere and make this at least somewhat worthwhile.
March 30, 2017
And what a whirlwind it was! I've often thought it miraculous that the Americans were able to achieve victory in this war, and go on to forge a powerful nation. At what heavy a cost did this victory come about! Ferling's book is a comprehensive and unflinching look at how it all played out, a detailed account of the harrowing conflict that brought about the United States of America, from the earliest stirrings of discontent to its eventual end after long, difficult years of fighting, and its culmination in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 (another miracle in itself!). I especially liked learning not only about goings on in America leading up to the fighting and during the war, but about events in Great Britain, in France, on the American frontier, and other locales; how the enslaved and native Americans were affected; and as a Southerner, how especially difficult the war in the South was to win (I'm frankly surprised that Georgia and the Carolinas are not still British). Above all, I can finally understand just how extraordinarily difficult this war was on those living through it in North America during that time -- the horrible conditions soldiers endured; how families were torn apart (patriots vs loyalists); how deeply it changed people in all walks of life as the war went on; how Americans from different classes and walks of life defined "freedom," and the different things they expected from "independence" should the war be won...which was definitely not a foregone conclusion. It was a horrifically deadly war, resulting in a shockingly high death toll yet to be surpassed in our country's wars. Many terrible mistakes were made by those in command on all sides, and yet somehow the American patriots were able to claim their hard-won victory. In the end, although I previously felt I had a decent grasp of the events of the war before I read this book, I learned so very much more, and more than ever can appreciate the miracle which led to the beginning of our country as an independent and unique nation. I highly recommend this book to those looking for an in-depth, gut-wrenching look at the events of the Revolutionary War.
October 13, 2022
A crisp, well-researched, and well-written history of the Revolution.
Ferling emphasizes such factors as economics, imperial discontent, and the political situation in the British isles. These are mostly covered in the first part of the book, with the rest becoming a standard military history, with brief coverage of the experience of blacks, women, lower classes, and Tories. The narrative is brisk and concise, moves along at a quick pace, and focuses more on personalities than events.
Ferling makes it clear when whatever he writes about is a subject of dispute among historians, and he covers all of the war’s generally accepted turning points without indulging too much in the way of what-if scenarios. He also brings home the massive death toll of the war and its scale (the British assembled expeditionary forces that wouldn’t be matched until the First World War). While the fighting in other theaters (the Caribbean, Africa, India, etc.) tends to be ignored by American historians, Ferling thankfully does not neglect it; he doesn’t detail all of these actions, but their inclusion is welcome and refreshing. Ferling is also able to cover both battles and political developments in both North America and England without losing the story’s balance. He also emphasizes the effect of the tremendous distance between London and the colonies. He also does a great job covering the story as it happens, and emphasizes how uncertain the outcome was and the massive obstacles faced by all sides of the war.
A nuanced, vivid and colorful history, with a smooth, clear narrative.
Ferling emphasizes such factors as economics, imperial discontent, and the political situation in the British isles. These are mostly covered in the first part of the book, with the rest becoming a standard military history, with brief coverage of the experience of blacks, women, lower classes, and Tories. The narrative is brisk and concise, moves along at a quick pace, and focuses more on personalities than events.
Ferling makes it clear when whatever he writes about is a subject of dispute among historians, and he covers all of the war’s generally accepted turning points without indulging too much in the way of what-if scenarios. He also brings home the massive death toll of the war and its scale (the British assembled expeditionary forces that wouldn’t be matched until the First World War). While the fighting in other theaters (the Caribbean, Africa, India, etc.) tends to be ignored by American historians, Ferling thankfully does not neglect it; he doesn’t detail all of these actions, but their inclusion is welcome and refreshing. Ferling is also able to cover both battles and political developments in both North America and England without losing the story’s balance. He also emphasizes the effect of the tremendous distance between London and the colonies. He also does a great job covering the story as it happens, and emphasizes how uncertain the outcome was and the massive obstacles faced by all sides of the war.
A nuanced, vivid and colorful history, with a smooth, clear narrative.
October 24, 2023
Definitely a great one-volume account of the American Revolution and especially of the war itself. Concise, yet detailed enough to satisfy curiosity. The only issues with the book seem to be the strange personal animus Ferling has with George Washington, as he never hesitates to include a fact that Ferling believes cuts Washington down to size. This treatment is not given to other Founding Fathers mentioned, with the exception of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton on an occasion or two.
Ferling, like many Baby Boomers, liberal or conservative, is enchanted with the Jeffersonian ideal of democracy, and this colors his characterizations of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. Any allusion to a critique of the masses, or of democracy by any of these figures is gleefully included, once again, to demonstrate how snobbish and elitist these gentlemen were. Jefferson emerges, from Ferling’s pen, as the true hero of the Revolution. Jefferson is the one who truly loves liberty and equality, unlike the contemptible Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. Of course, Adams and Hamilton never owned slaves, and were abolitionists, and Washington, unlike Jefferson, actually freed his slaves by the end of his life. But you would never have known this from Ferling’s descriptions.
It is uncouth and perhaps dangerous now to say that “Democracy” is not a god to whom we should direct our worship and pay tribute to. It is good that the will of the people ought to prevail, but how easily the masses are swayed to believe what isn’t so, and to enact what hurts them. Don’t believe me? Just remember the tens of millions of voters who are registered to the party you find abhorrent.
It is this very thinking which undergirded the philosophy of Washington, Hamilton, and Adams. They were not gods, nor angels, nor saints. Nor were they demons. If, prior to writing, Ferling had been woken from his dream of Jeffersonian Democracy, in which the average man is a sage, saint, and scholar, perhaps he would have given more respect and understanding to the aforementioned men. It is their actions, their thinking, and their beliefs that propelled America and laid the foundations for its prosperity, which has been unraveling for some time now.
Ferling, like many Baby Boomers, liberal or conservative, is enchanted with the Jeffersonian ideal of democracy, and this colors his characterizations of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. Any allusion to a critique of the masses, or of democracy by any of these figures is gleefully included, once again, to demonstrate how snobbish and elitist these gentlemen were. Jefferson emerges, from Ferling’s pen, as the true hero of the Revolution. Jefferson is the one who truly loves liberty and equality, unlike the contemptible Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. Of course, Adams and Hamilton never owned slaves, and were abolitionists, and Washington, unlike Jefferson, actually freed his slaves by the end of his life. But you would never have known this from Ferling’s descriptions.
It is uncouth and perhaps dangerous now to say that “Democracy” is not a god to whom we should direct our worship and pay tribute to. It is good that the will of the people ought to prevail, but how easily the masses are swayed to believe what isn’t so, and to enact what hurts them. Don’t believe me? Just remember the tens of millions of voters who are registered to the party you find abhorrent.
It is this very thinking which undergirded the philosophy of Washington, Hamilton, and Adams. They were not gods, nor angels, nor saints. Nor were they demons. If, prior to writing, Ferling had been woken from his dream of Jeffersonian Democracy, in which the average man is a sage, saint, and scholar, perhaps he would have given more respect and understanding to the aforementioned men. It is their actions, their thinking, and their beliefs that propelled America and laid the foundations for its prosperity, which has been unraveling for some time now.
April 20, 2024
A well-written book covering the start of the American Revolution through the end of the War. It was mainly a political and military history, with much of the political (at least leading up to the war) focused on England and the role of Parliament. I think Ferling was fair and critical of many key players when appropriate, although I couldn't help but notice his consistent criticisms of Washington creeping into the writing (he wrote a political biography of Washington that was relentlessly negative about his character). A recommended read.
August 21, 2023
A detailed and well written account of this major event in world history
December 31, 2018
This incredible book has lots of details and information, and perfectly sets a tone for this turbulent time period.
May 29, 2018
An appropriate measure of politics, personalities, societies and the battlefield.
The author has an exemplary style of writing
Best one volume history of America's fight for independence that I've read
The author has an exemplary style of writing
Best one volume history of America's fight for independence that I've read
April 27, 2018
As is obvious from the title, the author, Professor Ferling, considers the American Revolution to be distinct from the Revolutionary War, unlike the popular usage that treats the two concepts as synonymous. The book covers the time period from the Stamp Act of 1763 to the Treaty of Paris of 1783 and is a rather good survey of that history. Although I am a native southerner, I have had a better grasp of the New England and Mid-Atlantic theaters of the war than of the southern theater, excepting Yorktown, and the book want a long way toward producing an exceptional big picture framework in which all theaters and campaigns of the war fit together.
So, what does Professor Ferling consider the American Revolution to be? It is the gradual change in values and attitudes starting with the Stamp Act crisis and continuing up to and beyond the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. Although culturally distinct from Britain, the colonists still considered themselves to be loyal British subjects, their gradual recognition that Parliament would always prioritize the economic and other interests of Britain over the interests of the colonies caused them to increasingly see themselves as Americans, not British, who needed independence so they could look after their own interests. Furthermore, the joint efforts of people from all social and economic strata in the common cause of liberty tended to break down class barriers to produce a more egalitarian ethos than had existed before.
I find it interesting how the revolution impacted the institution of slavery. When war broke out, slavery was legal in all the colonies. However, the strong emphasis on freedom and rights caused many to notice the dissonance of colonists fighting for freedom while simultaneously keeping slaves in bondage. As a result of this the northern states, whose economies were not dependent on slavery, outlawed it. The southern states, whose economies were dependent on slavery, chose to maintain the institution. If you are interested in better understanding that dependency, I would recommend reading Charles Mann’s book 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created. It includes a lengthy discussion of why slavery made economic sense in the southern colonies but not in the north.
I was impressed by the scholarship in the book and found it both easy to read and hard to put down. Scholarly and fun. A good combination.
So, what does Professor Ferling consider the American Revolution to be? It is the gradual change in values and attitudes starting with the Stamp Act crisis and continuing up to and beyond the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. Although culturally distinct from Britain, the colonists still considered themselves to be loyal British subjects, their gradual recognition that Parliament would always prioritize the economic and other interests of Britain over the interests of the colonies caused them to increasingly see themselves as Americans, not British, who needed independence so they could look after their own interests. Furthermore, the joint efforts of people from all social and economic strata in the common cause of liberty tended to break down class barriers to produce a more egalitarian ethos than had existed before.
I find it interesting how the revolution impacted the institution of slavery. When war broke out, slavery was legal in all the colonies. However, the strong emphasis on freedom and rights caused many to notice the dissonance of colonists fighting for freedom while simultaneously keeping slaves in bondage. As a result of this the northern states, whose economies were not dependent on slavery, outlawed it. The southern states, whose economies were dependent on slavery, chose to maintain the institution. If you are interested in better understanding that dependency, I would recommend reading Charles Mann’s book 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created. It includes a lengthy discussion of why slavery made economic sense in the southern colonies but not in the north.
I was impressed by the scholarship in the book and found it both easy to read and hard to put down. Scholarly and fun. A good combination.
October 24, 2019
Books like this are why I became a historian. Ferling delightfully covers a truly remarkable time in American history, showing one of the distinctions that I try to make to my students every semester; the ideology of the Revolution and the war were two different things. They did, however, serve the same end of American independence.
The book carries a familiar narrative full of rich and rewarding characters. But what I love about Ferling's retelling is that he incorporates high level scholarship, primary sources, and an overall zest for the subject. The reader can tell from opening to concluding lines that the author painstakingly added and subtracted to get to the perfect prose. It's difficult to write a single volume on a complex subject, but Ferling's gift seems to be for concision as much as historical analysis, making the book a thoroughly enjoyable read.
This book rises above the mythological stories but does not get bogged down by some of the trivialities of pedantic academic scholarship. It lives, appropriately, in a well-written and convincing middle ground. The approachable prose combined with the blend of political and military history makes it a perfect fit for afficionadoes of US history. I found the balance between stories of common army life and grand strategic commentary to be skillfully executed.
I would assign this for a survey class, an upper division course for graduate students, or would read again personally. I would also buy it for a friend or family member as a gift without thinking twice. This is a gem that I'll be keeping in my collection for a long time.
The book carries a familiar narrative full of rich and rewarding characters. But what I love about Ferling's retelling is that he incorporates high level scholarship, primary sources, and an overall zest for the subject. The reader can tell from opening to concluding lines that the author painstakingly added and subtracted to get to the perfect prose. It's difficult to write a single volume on a complex subject, but Ferling's gift seems to be for concision as much as historical analysis, making the book a thoroughly enjoyable read.
This book rises above the mythological stories but does not get bogged down by some of the trivialities of pedantic academic scholarship. It lives, appropriately, in a well-written and convincing middle ground. The approachable prose combined with the blend of political and military history makes it a perfect fit for afficionadoes of US history. I found the balance between stories of common army life and grand strategic commentary to be skillfully executed.
I would assign this for a survey class, an upper division course for graduate students, or would read again personally. I would also buy it for a friend or family member as a gift without thinking twice. This is a gem that I'll be keeping in my collection for a long time.
August 11, 2015
I received a prerelease e-copy of this book through NetGalley (publication date May 5, 2015) with the expectation that I will post a review on their site and others (my blog, Goodreads, Facebook, Google +, LinkedIn, Twitter, Amazon, etc.).
I requested this book as I am an avid of United States history including several on the Revolutionary War. I have read several books by John Ferling.
This is a well written and researched book that is an enjoyable read as many of the other books written by this author. While there is not much new in this book to a comprehensive reader of the Revolutionary War, it is presented in a logical, straight forward style. It covers the events leading up to the War starting with the conclusion of the French and Indian War and ends with the establishment of the United States of America.
This book will be particularly enlightening to those who have not read much about the Revolutionary War or the main players in the events surrounding it. It will also resonate with those who have extensively read about the time period due to its exhaustive research and Ferling's easy to read style.
I requested this book as I am an avid of United States history including several on the Revolutionary War. I have read several books by John Ferling.
This is a well written and researched book that is an enjoyable read as many of the other books written by this author. While there is not much new in this book to a comprehensive reader of the Revolutionary War, it is presented in a logical, straight forward style. It covers the events leading up to the War starting with the conclusion of the French and Indian War and ends with the establishment of the United States of America.
This book will be particularly enlightening to those who have not read much about the Revolutionary War or the main players in the events surrounding it. It will also resonate with those who have extensively read about the time period due to its exhaustive research and Ferling's easy to read style.
September 20, 2015
This is a must read for all with an interest in the Revolutionary War. I have read many histories of the war, and this book provided material I had not seen before.
Most of the histories I have read provided just a few lines describing the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party as the root causes of the war.
This book provides some 200 pages, the first half of the book, describing in detail the background from both the British and the Colonists side of the British actions that transformed the Colonists from loyal subjects to rebellion.
The book details the British as, by today's standards, a totally corrupt society and government. A society in which birth was everything. As a result of their blundering stupidity they triggered the revolution and created the modern world of the West in which merit trumps birth most of the time.
The second half of the book is a nice coverage of the war itself which is very engaging as well.
Most of the histories I have read provided just a few lines describing the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party as the root causes of the war.
This book provides some 200 pages, the first half of the book, describing in detail the background from both the British and the Colonists side of the British actions that transformed the Colonists from loyal subjects to rebellion.
The book details the British as, by today's standards, a totally corrupt society and government. A society in which birth was everything. As a result of their blundering stupidity they triggered the revolution and created the modern world of the West in which merit trumps birth most of the time.
The second half of the book is a nice coverage of the war itself which is very engaging as well.
August 27, 2019
A well-referenced survey of the Revolutionary War and the decade that preceded it.
I was expecting more of a military history, but there was more depth to the political and societal background of the colonies going back to the roots of the rebellion in 1765.
A few campaign maps would have been nice. I had to have my computer beside me to cross-reference against what I was reading.
I was expecting more of a military history, but there was more depth to the political and societal background of the colonies going back to the roots of the rebellion in 1765.
A few campaign maps would have been nice. I had to have my computer beside me to cross-reference against what I was reading.
Read
January 2, 2016I've enjoyed two other John Ferling works: Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 [2004] and Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation [2013]. I can now add Whirlwind: The American Revolution and the War That Won It [2015] to that group. Ferling, a retired history professor from the University of West Georgia, has compiled a masterful study of the Revolutionary War. There are two main themes to the book. The first is that the colonial unrest from 1765-1775 was not one, uninterrupted natural progression leading to a 'declaration' of independence. The second theme is to that there was nothing preordained about an American victory in the war. While most wars seem easier to predict with the hindsight of knowing who won, the Revolutionary War has been particularly susceptible to that temptation. Because the Revolutionary War became so tied to the story of our birth as a nation we - subconsciously perhaps - simply treat it as a given that "we " were going to win.
Ferling places the blame for the war solely on Great Britain. He argues that - from the very beginning of the American protests against the Stamp Act in 1765 straight through the entreaties of redress sought by the Continental Congress ten years later - Britain's leaders never even attempted to reconsider how they governed the colonies - a refusal that Ferling aptly calls "a fatal intransigence". Britain gambled that they could keep everything the way it was by "bludgeoning" the colonists in what they felt would be a short and easy war.
Ferling maps out the pre-war history and how we got to Lexington and Concord. The colonial anger over the Stamp Act in 1765 is often cited as the beginning of the move for independence. Ferling argues, though, that in 1765 there was no movement for independence. First, the colonies were not united and political leaders in one colony were largely unaware of the leaders in other colonies. Second, in 1765 there were no citizen militias. Finally, there was still a war-weariness among colonists after the Seven Years' War, which had concluded only two years earlier. .
Even after the Boston Massacre in 1770, Ferling argues that anti-British feeling had actually settled down.. Indeed, Sam Adams was doing all he could to find an issue that would reignite popular resistance. One such effort was the very public and solemn anniversary remembrance of the Boston Massacre that Adams orchestrated every March 5th from 1771-1775. Adams - perhaps more than any other revolutionary - realized the need to connect the city of Boston's popular revolutionary leadership with residents of the backcountry communities in New England, to create a sustained insurgency. To do so, Adams created a critical organization, the Boston Committee of Correspondence, in 1772. British effrontery would now quickly be communicated from Boston throughout New England.
Continual bungling by the British toward the colonists - and the firing of shots at Lexington and Concord - quickened the desire for independence. As Ferling writes, "nothing reshaped [colonial] thinking so profoundly, and so quickly, as the War" itself.
Ferling's opinion of George Washington as a general is favorable, He praises Washington's strategy of keeping the army alive to fight another day - called the Fabian strategy. The theory was that, so long as there was an army, then there was a revolution. That theory was put to the test, as for almost four years - from 1777-1781 - Washington's troops fought no battles whatsoever. Considering the high mortality rates during the war [more on that in a moment] it makes one wonder just how high those numbers might have risen had there been battles during those four years. Troops died during those years from disease, certainly; but the carnage that didn't occur from four years of battle that never happened is immeasurable.
One of the most interesting aspects of Ferling's work is his study of the British government's strategy and policymakers - an angle often overlooked by American historians studying the war. According to Ferling, by 1778 [after British disasters at Battle Road, Trenton-Princeton. and Saratoga] the British government and most members of Parliament had concluded that Britain could not win the war as it was currently being fought. That gave birth to a new strategy: Britain abandoned the idea of conquering New England and the mid Atlantic. Instead British forces would concentrate on the pacification of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. True, if the strategy was successful it could still result in an American nation. But that new nation would have been made up of only nine states and would have been surrounded by Britain to the north (Canada) south, and west.
While initially the British strategy worked, and they retook Georgia and South Carolina and made significant inroads into Virginia, the British army made several missteps. Ferling cites as a key error a decision made by Sir Henry Clinton in South Carolina: after taking Charleston in 1780, he kept the inhabitants under military rule instead of restoring a central civil government. The dread of military law alienated a considerable portion of a population that had Tory leanings and might have remained loyal to England had civil law been returned.
Britain's southern strategy was costly. Lord Charles Cornwallis fought five major battles with Americans between June 1780 and March 1781 - Charleston, Camden, King's Mountain, Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse. Between those five, Cornwallis lost 3,500 men - about half of his total force. This led to Horace Walpole's famous quote, "Lord Cornwallis has conquered...himself out of troops."
Ferling does a wonderful job of outlining the war's final months and explaining just how the war was won. By the summer of 1781, Washington was determined that he would make his stand by retaking New York City. Others argued that fighting Cornwallis in the south was the best strategy to end the war. It all hinged upon the French fleet led by Francois Joseph comte de Grasse - where would he and his troops land? If in the north, then Washington would use these reinforcements to try to retake New York City. If de Grasse and his desperately needed troops landed closer to the south, then Washington would agree to a southern campaign. When de Grasse and his fleet arrived at the entrance to Chesapeake Bay on August 14, 1781, the decision was made to head south.
Once Washington knew where de Grasse had landed, he created a complicated and effective illusion for the British troops around New York City, making them think that he was coming to retake the city. In the meantime, Washington's troops began heading to Virginia and a showdown with Cornwallis. The Battle at Yorktown began October 9, 1781. Cornwallis had 7% of his men killed or wounded and by October 17th he waved the flag of truce.
The war - for all intents and purposes - was over.
In looking back at the numbers, Ferling says that more than 100,000 men served in the Continental army; thousands more served in the navy and in state militias. Most historians believe about 30,000 in the army died - a percentage roughly equal to the toll of regulars killed in the Civil War; but nearly ten times greater than in World War II. It's important to note, though, that nearly a third of those deaths were non-battle related and came from disease. Historian Elizabeth Fenn has estimated that another 130,000 noncombatants died just from small pox alone. On the other side, 10,000 British and 7,500 Germans died in the war, as did about.4,000 American Tories. Taken as a whole, over 50,000 who served Great Britain around the world died, as did more than 20,000 Frenchmen. Adding in Spanish dead takes the death toll close to 100,000 - and that doesn't include civilians, where accurate tallies have proven impossible to get.
Ferling concludes that the American Revolution - as outlined above in the tallies of dead - was truly a world war. There were many factors that influenced the conduct of the war. But, at it's very heart, the genesis was the idea that Americans would not allow themselves to be governed by a distant government; and that distant government simply refused to change how it governed. The ideas led to the war, but the war took those ideas to places where few if anyone could have seen when they first bubbled up in 1765 with the Stamp Act. The revolution and the war that won it are indivisible, as documented in this excellent work from John Ferling.
December 28, 2020
p. 18: Greenville was "the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time"
p 108: "[Jeffferson] denied Parliament had any authority over the colonies, including the regulation of trade or restraints on manufacturing. Americans, he said, had a "natural right" to "a free trade with all parts of the world"; he labeled bans on manufacturing "instance[s] of despotism."
p. 120: According to Thomas Jefferson, Adams was the "ablest advocate and defender" of American independence.
p. 149: Siege of Boston ends
p. 152: Moore's Creek Bridge
p. 161: "With peerless eloquence -- and in simple and uncluttered language -- Jefferson's Declaration of Independence glided effortlessly, like a vessel on placid water."
0. 164: "In its role as editor, Congress consummated the deal by striking Jefferson's assault on the African slave trade -- that the king had abridged the 'most sacred rights of life & liberty' of Africans by 'captivating & carrying them into slavery.' Expunging that momentous passage would have a telling impact on the course of American history and the lives of millions who would have to live as slaves within the United States."
p. 174: "The tone of Washington's letters suggest that he had slipped into the grip of a black depression that left him at a standstill. 'I am bereft of every peaceful moment' and devoid of 'all comfort and happiness,' he wrote. Never had he been so unhappy."
p. 187: "At least one observer judged [Burgoyne] 'more sail than ballast.'"
p. 187: "Burgoyne was neither the first nor the last British general to be led astray by the belief that large numbers of zealous Tories would take up arms to fight for their king."
p. 193: Battle of Saratoga
p. 197: Battle of Brandywine
p. 200: Battle of Germantown
p. 203: Valley Forge
p. 215: "Even Hamilton thought the public's perception of Washington as a great general was 'unfounded.'"
p. 218: France declared war
p. 219: Battle of Monmouth
p. 244: Battle of Stony Point
p. 249: "When Washington took command in 1775, he found a handful of blacks in the army, New England men who had earlier enlisted in the Grand American Army, some after having fought as militiamen on the first day of the war. Washington had not wanted them or any other black men in the army. He had feared that the arms they bore would find their way into the hands of insurrectionary slaves, and he had also been apprehensive that the presence of blacks might hinder recruiting or encourage the British armed forces to enlist slaves and free blacks."
p. 259: Charleston captured
p. 262: Battle of Waxhaus with Banastre Tarleton
p. 264: Battle of Camden
p. 280: Battle of Huck's Defeat
p. 282: Battle of King's Mountain
p. 287: Battle of Cowpens
p. 290: Battle of Guildford Courthouse
p. 292: "As Horace Walpole in London caustically observed: 'Lord Cornwallis has conquered ... himself out of troops.'"
p. 297: Battle of Hobkirk's Hill
p. 297: Battle of Eutaw Springs
p. 303: Battle of the Virginia Capes
p. 304: Battle of Yorktown
p. 317: Paris Peace Treaty
p. 317: Armistice Day, April 19, 1783
p. 324: New York City occupied
p 108: "[Jeffferson] denied Parliament had any authority over the colonies, including the regulation of trade or restraints on manufacturing. Americans, he said, had a "natural right" to "a free trade with all parts of the world"; he labeled bans on manufacturing "instance[s] of despotism."
p. 120: According to Thomas Jefferson, Adams was the "ablest advocate and defender" of American independence.
p. 149: Siege of Boston ends
p. 152: Moore's Creek Bridge
p. 161: "With peerless eloquence -- and in simple and uncluttered language -- Jefferson's Declaration of Independence glided effortlessly, like a vessel on placid water."
0. 164: "In its role as editor, Congress consummated the deal by striking Jefferson's assault on the African slave trade -- that the king had abridged the 'most sacred rights of life & liberty' of Africans by 'captivating & carrying them into slavery.' Expunging that momentous passage would have a telling impact on the course of American history and the lives of millions who would have to live as slaves within the United States."
p. 174: "The tone of Washington's letters suggest that he had slipped into the grip of a black depression that left him at a standstill. 'I am bereft of every peaceful moment' and devoid of 'all comfort and happiness,' he wrote. Never had he been so unhappy."
p. 187: "At least one observer judged [Burgoyne] 'more sail than ballast.'"
p. 187: "Burgoyne was neither the first nor the last British general to be led astray by the belief that large numbers of zealous Tories would take up arms to fight for their king."
p. 193: Battle of Saratoga
p. 197: Battle of Brandywine
p. 200: Battle of Germantown
p. 203: Valley Forge
p. 215: "Even Hamilton thought the public's perception of Washington as a great general was 'unfounded.'"
p. 218: France declared war
p. 219: Battle of Monmouth
p. 244: Battle of Stony Point
p. 249: "When Washington took command in 1775, he found a handful of blacks in the army, New England men who had earlier enlisted in the Grand American Army, some after having fought as militiamen on the first day of the war. Washington had not wanted them or any other black men in the army. He had feared that the arms they bore would find their way into the hands of insurrectionary slaves, and he had also been apprehensive that the presence of blacks might hinder recruiting or encourage the British armed forces to enlist slaves and free blacks."
p. 259: Charleston captured
p. 262: Battle of Waxhaus with Banastre Tarleton
p. 264: Battle of Camden
p. 280: Battle of Huck's Defeat
p. 282: Battle of King's Mountain
p. 287: Battle of Cowpens
p. 290: Battle of Guildford Courthouse
p. 292: "As Horace Walpole in London caustically observed: 'Lord Cornwallis has conquered ... himself out of troops.'"
p. 297: Battle of Hobkirk's Hill
p. 297: Battle of Eutaw Springs
p. 303: Battle of the Virginia Capes
p. 304: Battle of Yorktown
p. 317: Paris Peace Treaty
p. 317: Armistice Day, April 19, 1783
p. 324: New York City occupied
May 5, 2015
By Ferling’s own words, Whirlwind differs from other histories of the American Revolution in emphasizing the causal role of economic factors (along with rage against Britain and a desire for a freer world), its position that Americans were happy with the imperial relationship until the 1760s, it focus on the war rather than the political rebellion, the attention it pays to what was happening in England, and by beginning in the 1760s and ending with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Ferling is also very critical of British handling of the colonies and their prosecution of the war, and he is relatively critical of Washington, especially as a military leader.
The focus on what was happening in England is particularly notable. Unfortunately, much of that attention tails off after war breaks out and from then on we mostly just hear about the generals on American soil. Ferling needs the space, though, because he also hits on the experiences of black Americans, women, the lower class, and Loyalists well, if only briefly.
For example, the British threatened the southern states by offering freedom to slaves who fled their masters and threw in with the British. Washington, southern planter that he was, was initially very reluctant to tap America’s black population for military support but quickly changed his opinion. Eventually around 5,000 blacks enlisted in the Continental army, accounting for roughly 5% of Continentals. Moreover, “they served in integrated units, something that would not occur again in the United States Army until the Korean conflict 175 years later.” And while independence did not lead to the end of slavery as many Founding Fathers erroneously believed it would, the free black population in Virginia jumped from 1% in pre-Revolution Virginia to 7% in 1810, with “[t]he percentage of free blacks within the United States doubl[ing] within the same period, jumping to nearly 14 percent of the total number of African Americans.” Female camp followers, many of them wives of soldiers, “averaged about 3 percent of the number of soldiers,” and many followed the men into battle despite Washington’s best efforts.
Ferling is an advocate for poor Americans. He can’t see them as mere cats’ paws in the Boston riots. They may not have read Locke, but Ferling thinks they appreciate the basics of the arguments. (I tend to agree.) And Ferling points out, for example, that the soldiery evolved over the course of the war from “something of a cross-section of freemen in America” to “young, poor, single men who owned no property.” Loyalists don’t get a high level of attention but neither are they ignored. How could they be? Roughly 19,000 Loyalists bore arms for the British. 4,000 died. Another 60,000 fled in exile. Innumerable Loyalists lost their lands and their livelihoods.
Granted Ferling’s focus is not on the political rebellion, but I wish he had more to say about an ineffective initial government that couldn’t properly support the prosecution of the war (he does touch on Congress’ failings regarding the quartermaster service). The committees of correspondence and the Association committees, which I knew little about, are covered. Both were important. They built a new political infrastructure and were highly effective at organizing the boycott of British goods—“the value of British imports during 1775 was just 5 percent of that of the previous year.” And the formation of the Continental Congress was followed by a surge of new, more radical men into local American politics
Ferling continues to a good job at one of my favorite things about his biography of John Adams—flagging where there is significant disagreement among historians. He also makes frequent mention of possible turning points in the war without getting bogged down in counterfactuals. Absent my quibble above, I have little-to-no complaint with how Ferling allocated the pages of a single volume covering a long war.
And what a war it was, one of the bloodiest in American history. Something like 200,000 American men served in some capacity, which works out to roughly…all of them, free and of military age (positively Towton-esque). 30,000 died, “a percentage roughly equal to the toll of regulars in the Civil War and nearly ten times greater than among those who soldiered for the United States in World War II.” Some 10,000 of the men fighting for independence (counting militiamen and privateers as well as Continentals) died in confinement. And it wasn’t just those fighting for American independence who died. A quarter of the British and German soldiers did (roughly 17,500 men).
It was a big war. The expeditionary force the British put together to seize New York wouldn’t be matched until WWI. It was also a world war. We Americans tend to see the war entirely through the lens of our own revolution. But there was also fighting in the Caribbean, Africa, and India. A lot of Americas know, for instance, that the French provided material support (they provided nearly of our artillery and about 90% of the weapons and ammunition). But they also drew British soldiers away to the Caribbean, etc. This is by no means a history of that world war, but it provides a context that is welcome.
The names that every school kid in America hears show up: Paul Revere, Trenton, Valley Forge, Saratoga, Benedict Arnold, Cornwallis, but Ferling also covers plenty of other important battles and persons. I would love to read a book just on the war in the southern states, but Ferling gives what I think is a too often neglected theater of the war the attention it is due. But first we see a catastrophic week and a half for the British from December 25, 1776 to January 3, 1777, during which the British lost 1,730 soldiers to America’s 155. We see Washington lose one in five of the men who entered Valley Forge that ugly winter (almost 7% of the American soldiers who died in all of the eight-year war). We see Washington fiddle while America burns (ok, it wasn’t that bad, but Ferling is harshly critical of Washington’s inactivity for the middle of the war). Ferling includes my very favorite story from the Revolutionary War, starting with a bombastic proclamation from the British and ending with their humiliation by my hillbilly forebears at the Battle of Kings Mountain (casualties included the geographical apostrophe). We see that battle and four more (with mention of innumerable skirmishes), engagements that were, win or lose, too costly for the British to continue, leading up to Corwallis’ surrender at Yorktown.
Let’s talk about individuals. Washington, of course, looms large. John Adams finds frequent mention, unsurprising given that Ferling wrote a biography of the man. Benjamin Franklin is another frequent flier. Ferling juxtaposes Franklin’s many reasons to be partial to the British against his public humiliation by the government. Alexander Hamilton appears briefly but in usual overachieving fashion. He was writing tracts by the time he was nineteen, arguing that Britain could not win a war against the colonists because France would give aid and the colonists could “harass and exhaust” the British through Fabian, insurgent tactics. The less well known Pennsylvanian Joseph Galloway is the most prominent Loyalist (who notably argued that the colonies needed a stronger, more centralized government in America).
Disclosure: I received a complimentary advance copy of Whirlwind via NetGalley.
The focus on what was happening in England is particularly notable. Unfortunately, much of that attention tails off after war breaks out and from then on we mostly just hear about the generals on American soil. Ferling needs the space, though, because he also hits on the experiences of black Americans, women, the lower class, and Loyalists well, if only briefly.
For example, the British threatened the southern states by offering freedom to slaves who fled their masters and threw in with the British. Washington, southern planter that he was, was initially very reluctant to tap America’s black population for military support but quickly changed his opinion. Eventually around 5,000 blacks enlisted in the Continental army, accounting for roughly 5% of Continentals. Moreover, “they served in integrated units, something that would not occur again in the United States Army until the Korean conflict 175 years later.” And while independence did not lead to the end of slavery as many Founding Fathers erroneously believed it would, the free black population in Virginia jumped from 1% in pre-Revolution Virginia to 7% in 1810, with “[t]he percentage of free blacks within the United States doubl[ing] within the same period, jumping to nearly 14 percent of the total number of African Americans.” Female camp followers, many of them wives of soldiers, “averaged about 3 percent of the number of soldiers,” and many followed the men into battle despite Washington’s best efforts.
Ferling is an advocate for poor Americans. He can’t see them as mere cats’ paws in the Boston riots. They may not have read Locke, but Ferling thinks they appreciate the basics of the arguments. (I tend to agree.) And Ferling points out, for example, that the soldiery evolved over the course of the war from “something of a cross-section of freemen in America” to “young, poor, single men who owned no property.” Loyalists don’t get a high level of attention but neither are they ignored. How could they be? Roughly 19,000 Loyalists bore arms for the British. 4,000 died. Another 60,000 fled in exile. Innumerable Loyalists lost their lands and their livelihoods.
Granted Ferling’s focus is not on the political rebellion, but I wish he had more to say about an ineffective initial government that couldn’t properly support the prosecution of the war (he does touch on Congress’ failings regarding the quartermaster service). The committees of correspondence and the Association committees, which I knew little about, are covered. Both were important. They built a new political infrastructure and were highly effective at organizing the boycott of British goods—“the value of British imports during 1775 was just 5 percent of that of the previous year.” And the formation of the Continental Congress was followed by a surge of new, more radical men into local American politics
Ferling continues to a good job at one of my favorite things about his biography of John Adams—flagging where there is significant disagreement among historians. He also makes frequent mention of possible turning points in the war without getting bogged down in counterfactuals. Absent my quibble above, I have little-to-no complaint with how Ferling allocated the pages of a single volume covering a long war.
And what a war it was, one of the bloodiest in American history. Something like 200,000 American men served in some capacity, which works out to roughly…all of them, free and of military age (positively Towton-esque). 30,000 died, “a percentage roughly equal to the toll of regulars in the Civil War and nearly ten times greater than among those who soldiered for the United States in World War II.” Some 10,000 of the men fighting for independence (counting militiamen and privateers as well as Continentals) died in confinement. And it wasn’t just those fighting for American independence who died. A quarter of the British and German soldiers did (roughly 17,500 men).
It was a big war. The expeditionary force the British put together to seize New York wouldn’t be matched until WWI. It was also a world war. We Americans tend to see the war entirely through the lens of our own revolution. But there was also fighting in the Caribbean, Africa, and India. A lot of Americas know, for instance, that the French provided material support (they provided nearly of our artillery and about 90% of the weapons and ammunition). But they also drew British soldiers away to the Caribbean, etc. This is by no means a history of that world war, but it provides a context that is welcome.
The names that every school kid in America hears show up: Paul Revere, Trenton, Valley Forge, Saratoga, Benedict Arnold, Cornwallis, but Ferling also covers plenty of other important battles and persons. I would love to read a book just on the war in the southern states, but Ferling gives what I think is a too often neglected theater of the war the attention it is due. But first we see a catastrophic week and a half for the British from December 25, 1776 to January 3, 1777, during which the British lost 1,730 soldiers to America’s 155. We see Washington lose one in five of the men who entered Valley Forge that ugly winter (almost 7% of the American soldiers who died in all of the eight-year war). We see Washington fiddle while America burns (ok, it wasn’t that bad, but Ferling is harshly critical of Washington’s inactivity for the middle of the war). Ferling includes my very favorite story from the Revolutionary War, starting with a bombastic proclamation from the British and ending with their humiliation by my hillbilly forebears at the Battle of Kings Mountain (casualties included the geographical apostrophe). We see that battle and four more (with mention of innumerable skirmishes), engagements that were, win or lose, too costly for the British to continue, leading up to Corwallis’ surrender at Yorktown.
Let’s talk about individuals. Washington, of course, looms large. John Adams finds frequent mention, unsurprising given that Ferling wrote a biography of the man. Benjamin Franklin is another frequent flier. Ferling juxtaposes Franklin’s many reasons to be partial to the British against his public humiliation by the government. Alexander Hamilton appears briefly but in usual overachieving fashion. He was writing tracts by the time he was nineteen, arguing that Britain could not win a war against the colonists because France would give aid and the colonists could “harass and exhaust” the British through Fabian, insurgent tactics. The less well known Pennsylvanian Joseph Galloway is the most prominent Loyalist (who notably argued that the colonies needed a stronger, more centralized government in America).
Disclosure: I received a complimentary advance copy of Whirlwind via NetGalley.
September 11, 2020
This was a good, balanced history that didn't beatify any figures but also didn't strike a tone of willful condescension or iconoclasm toward the "traditional narrative" and American heroes involved.
For example, the severe missteps Washington made when defending New York are pointed out, but it is also acknowledged that Washington was a novice and thus inexperience is an adequate explanation without needing to accuse him of general incompetence. He also acknowledges Washington's superlative leadership keeping the army together and serving as a figurehead rallying public support. In summarizing Washington's role, he writes the following:
His inexperience led him to blunder frequently, most egregiously in 1776 and 1777 when he came within a hair of suffering fatal defeats. Until Yorktown four years later, he never again fought a major battle, whether from shrewd military calculations or from fear of his own deficiencies. At times, Washington’s strategic vision was flawed, nearly fatally so with regard to his obsession with retaking New York. On the other hand, Washington brought crucially important traits of leadership to his position as commander. He was sober, industrious, and virtuous, not given to unnecessarily risky conduct, a decent administrator, an extraordinary judge of men, and an excellent politician and diplomat. [...] Washington was the best man that Congress could have chosen to lead the army and, all things considered, a better leader than any who commanded the British army. America was at once fortunate to have had Washington and lucky to have survived him.
This book was at a level of detail deep enough to be informative but not so deep as to be tedious. It was a bit dry in places which would have slipped it to 3 stars normally, but for a proud American, the content pushed it back to 4 stars.
For example, the severe missteps Washington made when defending New York are pointed out, but it is also acknowledged that Washington was a novice and thus inexperience is an adequate explanation without needing to accuse him of general incompetence. He also acknowledges Washington's superlative leadership keeping the army together and serving as a figurehead rallying public support. In summarizing Washington's role, he writes the following:
His inexperience led him to blunder frequently, most egregiously in 1776 and 1777 when he came within a hair of suffering fatal defeats. Until Yorktown four years later, he never again fought a major battle, whether from shrewd military calculations or from fear of his own deficiencies. At times, Washington’s strategic vision was flawed, nearly fatally so with regard to his obsession with retaking New York. On the other hand, Washington brought crucially important traits of leadership to his position as commander. He was sober, industrious, and virtuous, not given to unnecessarily risky conduct, a decent administrator, an extraordinary judge of men, and an excellent politician and diplomat. [...] Washington was the best man that Congress could have chosen to lead the army and, all things considered, a better leader than any who commanded the British army. America was at once fortunate to have had Washington and lucky to have survived him.
This book was at a level of detail deep enough to be informative but not so deep as to be tedious. It was a bit dry in places which would have slipped it to 3 stars normally, but for a proud American, the content pushed it back to 4 stars.
February 1, 2021
A huge canvas of events, with lots of medium- and large-sized details, where military history intertwined with politics and civil lives. A healthy reading about American Revolution.
To some degree, the outcome of the conflict was more a case of Britain having lost the war rather than America having won it. Nevertheless, the rebels, with French help—assistance that Congress had come to understand in 1776 was America’s linchpin for success—earned their victory.
There were civilian casualties as well, though the number of United States residents that perished from war-related causes is impossible to quantify. ... However, far more civilians died from diseases unwittingly spread by nearby armies or furloughed and discharged soldiers who carried camp maladies to loved ones and neighbors at home. Smallpox was the major culprit, but assorted fevers and pneumonia, always a danger to the vulnerable, were killers as well. There were instances when diseases spread from the army to civilians must have led to death rates that equaled, or surpassed, the mortality rate experience by the soldiery. ... Rebels, Tories, neutrals, slaves, and Indians who never took up arms suffered from the spread of disease. Historian Elizabeth Fenn concluded that smallpox—first transmitted in this war from soldiers to civilians during the siege of Boston in 1775—spread relentlessly. Variola, the virus that causes smallpox, coursed throughout every state, into Canada and Florida, beyond the Appalachians and across the Mississippi, striking one Indian tribe after another all the way to the Pacific coast; by 1782, according to her estimate, some 130,000 noncombatants had perished in the maelstrom, the lion’s share the victim of someone else’s war, a war waged between belligerents that most who died had no knowledge of.
November 10, 2025
Great book with an expansive examination of the Revolutionary War, the social and political changes in the colonies that led to the war, the personalities of the era, the war itself and its immediate aftermath.
I gained new insights on several of the players whom I’ve long known, but not as fully as I should have. Samuel Adams, far from being an uncouth agitator, was a well-known “force of nature” who was adroit at managing rebel factions and was (initially) far more established than his cousin, John.
George Washington, instead of a figure of superb generalship, was temperamentally incapable of making rapid decisions in the early years and made serious blunders.
One in 15 men of military age died fighting as Continentals, and militiamen died in high numbers also. Disease took men in arms, noncombatants, civilians and Black men who fought on both sides of the war.
Some 50,000 British and 20,000 Frenchmen died in battle in a war that Britian might not have lost had its initial armed forces been able to launch the kind of strikes that would have sent rebels reeling. General Howe let many chances slip through his fingers and gaining French support was crucial to America’s success.
That the union held in the fragile years following the war is remarkable, as divisions between north and south were already growing.
Americans are lucky so much did go well for them But, where might we have been 100 years later, if slavery had been dealt a death blow during the Revolutionary War?
I gained new insights on several of the players whom I’ve long known, but not as fully as I should have. Samuel Adams, far from being an uncouth agitator, was a well-known “force of nature” who was adroit at managing rebel factions and was (initially) far more established than his cousin, John.
George Washington, instead of a figure of superb generalship, was temperamentally incapable of making rapid decisions in the early years and made serious blunders.
One in 15 men of military age died fighting as Continentals, and militiamen died in high numbers also. Disease took men in arms, noncombatants, civilians and Black men who fought on both sides of the war.
Some 50,000 British and 20,000 Frenchmen died in battle in a war that Britian might not have lost had its initial armed forces been able to launch the kind of strikes that would have sent rebels reeling. General Howe let many chances slip through his fingers and gaining French support was crucial to America’s success.
That the union held in the fragile years following the war is remarkable, as divisions between north and south were already growing.
Americans are lucky so much did go well for them But, where might we have been 100 years later, if slavery had been dealt a death blow during the Revolutionary War?
November 8, 2021
The words of the American Revolution echo far wider than its military feats. Jefferson's lyrical breaking of the political, economic and social bonds between America and Britain reinforced the rising sentiments of betrayal, but also unleashed a whirlwind of social change and equality that, like mystic chords, run through the rise, progress, and follies of American history. Those high-sounding notes, though, were elevated by the begrimed, underpaid, malnourished Continental Army, a force led by Washington that successfully defeated the British through a mix of luck, solid Fabian tactics and an alliance with France and Spain.
John Ferling has made an interesting, detailed and thoughtful addition to the history of the American Revolution and "the war that won it." What should strike modern readers is not the beauty of the Revolution's philosophes, but rather the close calls of the war effort, whether on the banks of the Delaware in December 1776, at Valley Forge in 1777-78, lying idle in 1779-80 around New York City, and even through the Yorktown Campaign when success may have evaded the coalition forces of Washington and Rochambeau.
Revolution, and success in achieving that end, was not inevitable in the thirteen colonies in 1776. Inevitability, it seems, is purchased at a high contemporary price, with much suffering. Ferling does excellent work in teasing out that lack of inevitability.
John Ferling has made an interesting, detailed and thoughtful addition to the history of the American Revolution and "the war that won it." What should strike modern readers is not the beauty of the Revolution's philosophes, but rather the close calls of the war effort, whether on the banks of the Delaware in December 1776, at Valley Forge in 1777-78, lying idle in 1779-80 around New York City, and even through the Yorktown Campaign when success may have evaded the coalition forces of Washington and Rochambeau.
Revolution, and success in achieving that end, was not inevitable in the thirteen colonies in 1776. Inevitability, it seems, is purchased at a high contemporary price, with much suffering. Ferling does excellent work in teasing out that lack of inevitability.
June 17, 2017
Without being overly detailed, Ferling tells the whole story: from the end of the Seven Years' War through the oppressive new laws Britain imposed in the 1760s on the American colonies and every step of the way through the war and its resolution. It was an amazing time period, with huge cultural change occurring in just a few years, bringing about a war in which numerous mistakes were made, opportunities missed, and events that could have played out very differently. We get a closeup--and not always complimentary--look at George Washington as a military leader, along with other major political and military figures of the time, including the shocking treachery of Benedict Arnold.
I was surprised to learn that Thomas Jefferson included an unmistakably anti-slavery paragraph in the original Declaration of Independence, but it was deleted by the Continental Congress in exchange for getting South Carolina's vote in support of independence. The author comments: "Expunging that momentous passage would have a telling impact on the course of American history and the lives of millions who would have to live as slaves within the United States" (p. 164).
I recommend Whirlwind for anyone wanting a deeper understanding of America's founding.
I was surprised to learn that Thomas Jefferson included an unmistakably anti-slavery paragraph in the original Declaration of Independence, but it was deleted by the Continental Congress in exchange for getting South Carolina's vote in support of independence. The author comments: "Expunging that momentous passage would have a telling impact on the course of American history and the lives of millions who would have to live as slaves within the United States" (p. 164).
I recommend Whirlwind for anyone wanting a deeper understanding of America's founding.
November 30, 2024
Maybe someone better versed in the history of the American Revolution would have been less taken with this book, but it was just what I needed. Ferling gives a comprehensive view of the war, both what led up to it and to a lesser extent its aftermath. And as he explains, the book has to stop somewhere. His account could have continued since the American Revolution hardly ended at the last battle or even when the last treaty was signed. Some could say it has never ended. I particularly liked Ferling's analysis that the primary catalyst for the uprising was money. Yes, the citizens (and non-citizens since citizenship was far more limited in those times) were patriotic and imbued with the concepts of democracy to which Britain gave much lip service but little actual deference, but the foremost motivator was that Americans suffered financially from Britian's policies. You could almost say that Britain's stupidity caused the Revolution. It is hard to understand that King George and the members of Parliament and the House of Lords didn't see that their every action included a reaction. It just proves my pet theory that pretty much every mess can be explained by ego and, in this case, greed. The English were virtually blinded by it.
January 17, 2020
Though the book is a little skimpy with details in the various battles of the revolution, it does do something else which I found to be a great addition to the story... it told what was happening in London before the outbreak of the war. It went through the various ministries between the Stamp Act and the outbreak of the war and how they handled the crisis that was developing. The book went even further. In school we are usually taught the events in succession to the point where bloodshed happens. However, between the various protests (and even the Boston Massacre), the people cooled down. Calmer voices kept control. Colonists still considered themselves Britons and still held the King in high esteem. Independence, though in the minds of some, was still in the minority. Most wanted to find a way to reconcile their differences with England. Even after blood was shed at Lexington and Concord, it would still take a year before independence would become the majority opinion... that there was no longer any hope of saving the Anglo-American union.
December 17, 2021
This book felt uninspired. It reads like a cliff notes version of the revolution and tries to cover too long a time period in too short a book. The author’s attempts at narrative are awkward and he is more at home in the historian’s voice than the novelist’s. The back and forth between narrative and historical commentary left me unsure what the book was trying to achieve. The author is a John Adams scholar and he cites his writings and observations about people and events frequently, at the expense of sources who were closer to the action, like Washington, Hamilton, Franklin and Jefferson. He also has a bizarre dislike of Washington that comes through more and more strongly as the book progresses, to the point that it’s somewhat distracting. Ultimately I can’t recommend this book even for someone looking for a very brief history of the revolution.
October 8, 2017
If you are not entertained by history...this is not the book for you! If you ARE entertained by history, this is an excellent comprehensive account of the events leading up to, during, and following the American Revolution. Ferling has a great hand for getting all the facts and writing them as if he is talking to you about them over coffee...however he sometimes jumps from year to year...forward and back which can get confusing. The last few chapters seemed both rushed and too crammed full of names and events that seemed to blur together, and Ferling's habit of time-hopping makes those chapters especially difficult to navigate. That being said...I learned a lot. And that was the whole point of the book.
December 30, 2018
I've just finished reading "Whirlwind: The American Revolution and the War That Won It" by John Ferling and it's one of the best histories that I've read. The book covers the years 1759 to 1783 and shows how the thirteen colonies became disaffected with Great Britain, the train of events resulting in the battles of Lexington and Concord, the resulting Revolutionary War, and the peace that resulted in the creation of the United States. I learned about some aspects of the Revolutionary War I wasn't aware of, such as the fighting in the southern colonies. If you're looking for a good one-volume history of both the revolution and the war, give "Whirlwind: The American Revolution and the War That Won It" a look.
January 7, 2023
This history of the American Revolution is very succinct, and it may be too succinct. I would have appreciated more details in some places of the narrative, although I'm certain I may find some of those details in the author's other works. John Ferling displays his expertise throughout this book and has a more critical approach than other historians towards some of the major figures involved in the revolution. In particular, I liked his inclusion of some of the British politicians and the up and downs of Parliament, as that played a huge role in why the war ended when it did and is a perspective I often missed in my very American-centered history classes.
July 31, 2025
This is a fantastic sweeping history of the revolution and why it was fought. This is not necessarily aimed at someone with a deep knowledge of it, however. Rather, I think this is the book I would recommend to someone interested in the revolution that hasn’t really read anything on it but wants a total overview of it and doesn’t need as much of a gentle narrative history as something like 1776. As someone who does read a lot about this period, I appreciated the emphasis on the economic rather than simply idealogical reasons for revolution as well as how it handles the issues of slavery and native peoples.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews