What do you think?
Rate this book
If By Sea: The Forging of the American Navy -From the Revolution to the War of 1812
The American Revolution-and thus the history of the United States-began not on land but on the sea. Paul Revere began his famous midnight ride not by jumping on a horse, but by scrambling into a skiff with two other brave patriots to cross Boston Harbor to Charlestown. Revere and his companions rowed with muffled oars to avoid capture by the British warships closely guarding the harbor. As they paddled silently, Revere's neighbor was flashing two lanterns from the belfry of Old North Church, signaling patriots in Charlestown that the redcoats were crossing the Charles River in longboats. In every major Revolutionary battle thereafter the sea would play a vital, if historically neglected, role. When the American colonies took up arms against Great Britain, they were confronting the greatest sea-power of the age. And it was during the War of Independence that the American Navy was born. But following the British naval model proved crushingly expensive, and the Founding Fathers fought viciously for decades over whether or not the fledgling republic truly needed a deep-water fleet. The debate ended only when the Federal Navy proved indispensable during the War of 1812. Drawing on decades of prodigious research, historian George C. Daughan chronicles the embattled origins of the U.S. Navy. From the bloody and gunpowder-drenched battles fought by American sailors on lakes and high seas to the fierce rhetorical combat waged by the Founders in Congress, If By Sea charts the course by which the Navy became a vital and celebrated American institution.
536 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
55 people are currently reading
565 people want to read
About the author
George C. Daughan
6 books17 followersGeorge C. Daughan earned a Ph.D. in American history and government from Harvard University. He has taught at the United States Air Force Academy, Connecticut College, the University of Colorado, the University of New Hampshire, and Wesleyan University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
February 13, 2025
A well-written, balanced, and insightful work.
Daughan ably tells the tale of the early American navy’s troubled history. The narrative is clear and engaging, and the writing is crisp. The story moves along at a fast pace. Issues of politics, strategy, and tactics are covered well. He does a good job describing background and context. His account of the Revolutionary War is pretty good. The writing is lively and thoughtful.
The maps are pretty general and could have been more detailed, though. They’re also, annoyingly, all at the front of the book, rather than in relevant sections of the narrative. Daughan also sometimes engages in speculation or what-if scenarios, and even tries to use these to support some of his arguments. Sometimes he seems to imagine the thoughts of some of the characters he’s writing about. The book also seems to be based mostly on secondary sources, and if you’ve read up on these subjects you probably won’t find much new material.
At other times, Daughan covers, in detail, events in America and around the world that have very little to do with the US Navy, such as the Revolutionary War on land or the politics of the new American republic, or events like the Whiskey Rebellion, or the land campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars. Also, Daughan argues in the introduction that the Continental Navy’s contributions have not been adequately recognized, but the actual narrative confirms the traditional portrait that it didn’t do much good in the end. He also lays out some arguments in the introduction but doesn’t really return to them later. There’s also nothing on the 1815 Barbary war.
Some statements are also unsupported. Daughan claims that George III was hellbent on hanging the leaders of the American Revolution, for instance. George Cockburn is called “rabidly anti-American,” probably an exaggeration, and a description that better fits Cockburn’s superior Alexander Cochrane.
There’s a few errors as well. Daughan writes that Congress gave Horatio Gates command of the southern army despite Washington’s recommendation of Benjamin Lincoln (Washington recommended Nathanael Greene, not Lincoln) He also writes that Elbridge Gerry returned from a diplomatic mission to France in “1778.” Daughan writes that John Adams attended the Boston celebration of Isaac Hull’s victory over HMS Guerriere. Adams didn’t actually attend, though he did send toasts to be read on his behalf. The Niemen River is called the “Neiman.” Havre de Grace is called “Havre de Grasse.” John Rodgers is frequently called “Rogers” for some reason. Major General John Keane is called “Keene.” Joseph Brant is called “Brandt.”
Still, a comprehensive, well-researched and very readable work.
Daughan ably tells the tale of the early American navy’s troubled history. The narrative is clear and engaging, and the writing is crisp. The story moves along at a fast pace. Issues of politics, strategy, and tactics are covered well. He does a good job describing background and context. His account of the Revolutionary War is pretty good. The writing is lively and thoughtful.
The maps are pretty general and could have been more detailed, though. They’re also, annoyingly, all at the front of the book, rather than in relevant sections of the narrative. Daughan also sometimes engages in speculation or what-if scenarios, and even tries to use these to support some of his arguments. Sometimes he seems to imagine the thoughts of some of the characters he’s writing about. The book also seems to be based mostly on secondary sources, and if you’ve read up on these subjects you probably won’t find much new material.
At other times, Daughan covers, in detail, events in America and around the world that have very little to do with the US Navy, such as the Revolutionary War on land or the politics of the new American republic, or events like the Whiskey Rebellion, or the land campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars. Also, Daughan argues in the introduction that the Continental Navy’s contributions have not been adequately recognized, but the actual narrative confirms the traditional portrait that it didn’t do much good in the end. He also lays out some arguments in the introduction but doesn’t really return to them later. There’s also nothing on the 1815 Barbary war.
Some statements are also unsupported. Daughan claims that George III was hellbent on hanging the leaders of the American Revolution, for instance. George Cockburn is called “rabidly anti-American,” probably an exaggeration, and a description that better fits Cockburn’s superior Alexander Cochrane.
There’s a few errors as well. Daughan writes that Congress gave Horatio Gates command of the southern army despite Washington’s recommendation of Benjamin Lincoln (Washington recommended Nathanael Greene, not Lincoln) He also writes that Elbridge Gerry returned from a diplomatic mission to France in “1778.” Daughan writes that John Adams attended the Boston celebration of Isaac Hull’s victory over HMS Guerriere. Adams didn’t actually attend, though he did send toasts to be read on his behalf. The Niemen River is called the “Neiman.” Havre de Grace is called “Havre de Grasse.” John Rodgers is frequently called “Rogers” for some reason. Major General John Keane is called “Keene.” Joseph Brant is called “Brandt.”
Still, a comprehensive, well-researched and very readable work.
August 20, 2013
I thought this was an interesting look at the beginnings of the US Navy. Mr Daughan covers events from the Revolution thru the War of 1812. While he does cover the battles the Navy fought during those 40 yrs, I thought this is more of a political history of the Navy. The author goes into great detail on the differences in philosophy between the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists.
In his coverage of the Revolution Mr. Daughan is highly critical of the decisions of the Continental Congress' decision to create a deep water Navy and the strategy behind that decision. He feels the Navy should have been put under Washington and been mainly a brown water, to use modern terminology, navy. In some respects I agree with him. However his constant harping on whale boats and row galleys and how they could have defeated the Royal Navy gets tiring. He does bring up some of the deficiencies in the Royal Navy leadership during the Revolution; I personally am not convinced the whale boats and row galleys would have worked as he theorizes.
His coverage of the political battles between Jefferson and Washington/Adams on what the United States should do for a Navy is well done. To put is simply, Washington/Adams believed the new country needed deep water Navy. Jefferson/Madison did not. They favor a purely costal defense force (row galleys and whale boats again) the issue comes to a head in the Quasi War with France and the Barbary States. Even then Jefferson resisted putting all 6 of the previously authorized and built frigates into commission.
He finishes the book with the Navy’s strong performance against the Royal Navy early in the War of 1812.
One major criticism I have is Mr. Daughan tendency to beat a topic to death. During the Revolution it is bringing up whale boats and row galleys again and again and again. I found it annoying. During the political fights during the early years of the constitution, he attributes almost all of the motives behind the actions of the “Virginia Aristocracy”, Jefferson’s/Madison/Monroe, to the desire to protect slavery. He seems to discount genuine philosophical differences of the role of the military.
All in all this is a decent look at the creation of the American Navy.
If good reads allowed partial stars – 3.75.
In his coverage of the Revolution Mr. Daughan is highly critical of the decisions of the Continental Congress' decision to create a deep water Navy and the strategy behind that decision. He feels the Navy should have been put under Washington and been mainly a brown water, to use modern terminology, navy. In some respects I agree with him. However his constant harping on whale boats and row galleys and how they could have defeated the Royal Navy gets tiring. He does bring up some of the deficiencies in the Royal Navy leadership during the Revolution; I personally am not convinced the whale boats and row galleys would have worked as he theorizes.
His coverage of the political battles between Jefferson and Washington/Adams on what the United States should do for a Navy is well done. To put is simply, Washington/Adams believed the new country needed deep water Navy. Jefferson/Madison did not. They favor a purely costal defense force (row galleys and whale boats again) the issue comes to a head in the Quasi War with France and the Barbary States. Even then Jefferson resisted putting all 6 of the previously authorized and built frigates into commission.
He finishes the book with the Navy’s strong performance against the Royal Navy early in the War of 1812.
One major criticism I have is Mr. Daughan tendency to beat a topic to death. During the Revolution it is bringing up whale boats and row galleys again and again and again. I found it annoying. During the political fights during the early years of the constitution, he attributes almost all of the motives behind the actions of the “Virginia Aristocracy”, Jefferson’s/Madison/Monroe, to the desire to protect slavery. He seems to discount genuine philosophical differences of the role of the military.
All in all this is a decent look at the creation of the American Navy.
If good reads allowed partial stars – 3.75.
August 2, 2013
Finished, a good 3 1/2 Stars but probably not one to make my permanent collection. He does a good job of covering the fledgling Continental Navy, from the pork barrel effort to build the first batch of frigates to their eventual demise at the hands of the Royal Navy. His contention is the US Navy was born in the Revolutionary War rather than in the 1790's, as is commonly agreed. He covers many naval actions, large and small to make the point. As many other reviewers have noted, he beats a dead horse on the failure of the Continentals to build hundreds of "Whaleboats and row galleys" to use in guerrilla raids against the British Navy. He believes that would have been far more effective rather than trying to mirror the ships and tactics of the greatest naval power in the world, as the Continentals do. He brings some fair criticism to the conduct of naval operations and what the combatants could have done to succeed. He goes overboard when he gets down to individual battles and applies the same approach.
I did not find his post-Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sections to be thorough enough for me. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy is so much better in describing that era. One thing disturbed me was a definite anti-Jeffersonian slant. He uses a common tactic you see on cable TV...someone's different opinion is not honestly held but is underhanded and self-serving. Many did not want to build a large navy because once you start building, the naval proponents will just want more and more. And a large navy will provide the temptation to get involved in European conflicts. There is a conflict when a nation relies on a lot of seaborne trade but does not want to build a respectable force to protect that trade. Didn't feel he did that conflict justice.
A good book to read about the earliest days of our naval history but I'd recommend Six Frigates for a more exciting read.
I did not find his post-Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sections to be thorough enough for me. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy is so much better in describing that era. One thing disturbed me was a definite anti-Jeffersonian slant. He uses a common tactic you see on cable TV...someone's different opinion is not honestly held but is underhanded and self-serving. Many did not want to build a large navy because once you start building, the naval proponents will just want more and more. And a large navy will provide the temptation to get involved in European conflicts. There is a conflict when a nation relies on a lot of seaborne trade but does not want to build a respectable force to protect that trade. Didn't feel he did that conflict justice.
A good book to read about the earliest days of our naval history but I'd recommend Six Frigates for a more exciting read.
December 12, 2018
This is a thoroughly readable, engrossing and wide-ranging history of the creation and evolution of the United States Navy, beginning with its difficult and disorganized presence through the years of the Revolutionary War, its partial restoration in the Quasi-War with France, and its final successful and lasting establishment as a result of the War of 1812. The author's research and ability to relate a compelling narrative combine to make this immensely readable. The personalities and events affecting Navy establishment, resources, utilization, tactics and strategy are juxtaposed against the events, personalities and time-lines of the larger histories being written. The author's predilection for criticizing the naval resources and strategies of the Revolutionary War are oddly obsessed with the concept of "row galleys" - a 40-50 ft oared vessel mounting a single large cannon. I think his faith in the efficacy of vast numbers of row galleys during the Revolutionary War is arguable, at best - and it's repetition at length is a distraction to the reader, that fortunately ends with the Revolutionary War years. Regardless, this is a superb book that adds greatly to one's knowledge of those times. There is much to be learned here.
January 2, 2013
Basically, the American Navy could have been more effective if they had the same hindsight that Daughan writes with.
Daughan spent a lot of time describing the land battles of the Revolutionary War. Interesting, for sure, but I already knew a lot of these details, and I would have preferred he spent those pages describing the navy in more detail (or just remove them entirely. Why do historians feel the need to write such thick books when a shorter book would cover the material just as well?).
It's a pity that Jefferson's poor decision making extended to the creation of the Navy. In fact, Jefferson's poor judgment informed by his blind idealism is a recurring theme in just about every history book I've read in which he is a participant. Also, every time I read an account of the American Revolution, it becomes increasingly clear how ridiculously improbable it was for the Americans to win the War of Independence.
Anyway, this was a pretty interesting read, with a lot of detailed descriptions of naval battles that you can't really find descriptions of anywhere else, but it's hard to take Daughan's criticisms of Patriot leadership seriously.
Daughan spent a lot of time describing the land battles of the Revolutionary War. Interesting, for sure, but I already knew a lot of these details, and I would have preferred he spent those pages describing the navy in more detail (or just remove them entirely. Why do historians feel the need to write such thick books when a shorter book would cover the material just as well?).
It's a pity that Jefferson's poor decision making extended to the creation of the Navy. In fact, Jefferson's poor judgment informed by his blind idealism is a recurring theme in just about every history book I've read in which he is a participant. Also, every time I read an account of the American Revolution, it becomes increasingly clear how ridiculously improbable it was for the Americans to win the War of Independence.
Anyway, this was a pretty interesting read, with a lot of detailed descriptions of naval battles that you can't really find descriptions of anywhere else, but it's hard to take Daughan's criticisms of Patriot leadership seriously.
June 8, 2023
A great read for getting the Navy side of the Revolution and how are Navy got started going from the Revolution, to the War of 1812
March 1, 2013
George Daughan's "If By Sea: The Forging of the American Navy - from the Revolution to the War of 1812" tells a well researched version of the early history of the US Navy. In at times tedious but exemplary detail he traces the Navy from it's initial successes & failures during the Revolutionary War across the first 4 presidential administrations & the objections to the Navy's existence. The historical detail is very well done as we the reader get a chance to see some of the lesser known feats of this fledgling fleet of ships & witness the travails as it even tries to succeed in existence. It helps the fact that interspersed with this are the various crises in the Washington, Adams, Jefferson & Madison administrations that warrant not only the existence of such a branch of the military but the necessity of it. Overall a very well done early history of what is still at times one of the most important branches of our military.
June 14, 2014
A good book with a lot of interesting facts and information. It is well written and easy to read. However, it is somewhat marred by a lot of repetitive complaints about what might have been done if people had better looked at what they were doing and too much detail about maneuvers of the land based army that wasn't completely relevant to the narrative.
January 31, 2017
Thoroughly enjoyed this book. An amazing and well-written study on the overall picture of American military foundations and how the Navy is part of the country's earliest beginnings. Highly recommend!
April 3, 2021
This book was a tale of two sections.
The first part retells the Revolutionary War, with an emphasis on heretofore unheralded naval components of battles, and lesser-known naval battles themselves. To me, while parts were interesting, this section was something of a struggle to get through. And confusingly, at least on the Kindle edition, the publisher excluded a map of Philadelphia, befogging the reader's understanding of naval engagements there. The author becomes repetitious as well, noting several times that clusters of smaller American boats would have made a significant difference in several battles. To be clear, it's not that this part of the book was "bad," just extremely detailed -- to Daughan's credit.
After the Revolution, the book gets a strong wind in its sails. Daughan delves into a deep exploration of the often-difficult Anglo-American and Franco-American relations that bedeviled our young republic's existence through the war of 1812. The exploration of Haitian history -- and our ties with the Toussaint regime, plus naval manuevers therein -- was blistering and magnificent. At times, though, Daughan closely parsed the early slavery question in this country, with insufficient explanations as to what that had to do with the navy. Finally, the part about the War of 1812 showed a dangerous, yet outnumbered Navy in the teeth of the British leviathan.
Kudos to Daughan for the research and excavations the book must have involved. I wonder, though, whether his purpose would have been better served with two volumes: a first on the revolution, and a second leading to the war of 1812. And -- to the publisher -- please enhance the maps in the second edition.
The first part retells the Revolutionary War, with an emphasis on heretofore unheralded naval components of battles, and lesser-known naval battles themselves. To me, while parts were interesting, this section was something of a struggle to get through. And confusingly, at least on the Kindle edition, the publisher excluded a map of Philadelphia, befogging the reader's understanding of naval engagements there. The author becomes repetitious as well, noting several times that clusters of smaller American boats would have made a significant difference in several battles. To be clear, it's not that this part of the book was "bad," just extremely detailed -- to Daughan's credit.
After the Revolution, the book gets a strong wind in its sails. Daughan delves into a deep exploration of the often-difficult Anglo-American and Franco-American relations that bedeviled our young republic's existence through the war of 1812. The exploration of Haitian history -- and our ties with the Toussaint regime, plus naval manuevers therein -- was blistering and magnificent. At times, though, Daughan closely parsed the early slavery question in this country, with insufficient explanations as to what that had to do with the navy. Finally, the part about the War of 1812 showed a dangerous, yet outnumbered Navy in the teeth of the British leviathan.
Kudos to Daughan for the research and excavations the book must have involved. I wonder, though, whether his purpose would have been better served with two volumes: a first on the revolution, and a second leading to the war of 1812. And -- to the publisher -- please enhance the maps in the second edition.
June 16, 2020
Pretty good book about the beginnings of the U.S. Navy, from it's beginnings during the American Revolution, through the Quasi-War with France, the battles against the Barbary Pirates, and the War of 1812. He does a good job in describing the differences of opinions about the need for a navy, with Washington and Adams being among those in favor of building a strong navy, while others such as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe being against it. He describes the successes and failures throughout this time period, culminating with the successful use of the navy during the War of 1812 which cemented the need for a strong navy to be able to defend the nation, as well as deter the possibility of war. Interesting read if you are a fan of American history, but I think the book, "Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U. S. Navy" was a bit better read on the topic, although both were worth the read.
September 5, 2020
The author has picked a worthy period for study and does it in a manner including the naval events with events on land. Had he stuck to history this would be a great book. However the author decides to add his two cents on each engagement and what the characters should have done. This is a terrible mistake for a historian. No one cares for his opinions. No one wants them because he has no experience in naval warfare. Not only are his two cents not worth even one cent they are blatantly stupid. His constant refrain is if only the Americans had built three dozen row galleys! He literally states is 20 times. Yes that’s right strapped for cash and resources if only they had used money they didn’t have to build tiny boats to stand up to the Royal Navy. Furthermore he demonstrates a lack of knowledge when using various incorrect terms for ship of the line. They aren’t battleships or sail of the line but Ships of the line. I had such high hopes
January 9, 2019
This book provides a good survey of this period of American History in addition to covering the origins of the US Navy. I did note other reviewers complaints about the author's repeated assertions about whale boats and gunboats with little analysis of how likely they were to be successful and how quickly the Royal Navy would respond to this type of warfare. I think the RN would have adapted to this threat and that it wouldn't have been the war winner that the author contends although maybe it could have lead to an earlier settlement of the conflict; we'll never be able to say so for sure. I enjoyed this as a nice general overview of the period, but I would need to do additional reading to fully agree with the author's hostility towards Thomas Jefferson. One thing that I do know about this period is that the incompetence, selfishness, missed opportunities and even cowardice of many participants can be rather aggravating!
October 27, 2022
This was a very interesting read to see how the Navy came about and how people viewed the Navy especially when it came to the funding as well. Then to read how it fared in the multiple wars was exhilarating! Definitely recommend!
Read
September 2, 2024Very god history of little know birth/growth of US Navy
January 13, 2009
This book was a great read. I have been studying the Royal Navy and the early Continental Navy for the past six months and this provided some good insight into the early formation of the Continental Navy as well as identifying the constant struggle between the Washington/Adams view of "Armed Neutrality" during and post-American Revolution and the Jefferson/Madison view of "exhaustive diplomacy" pre and during the War of 1812. In the end, Madison did see that Armed Neutrality was the best course to take.
I want the reader to understand that this book does emphasize that it is a focus on the early American Navy formation, but it is not entriely about that. The author does take some time to address land battles, but these battles did lead to navy involvement or could have led to American victory's much quicker if the Navy was developed more speedily and without such a grand vision as the early Continental Congress had of creating a mirror image of the Royal Navy.
So understand that when reading this book the author is majoring in the history of the American Revolution with a minor in early American Navy formation.
I want the reader to understand that this book does emphasize that it is a focus on the early American Navy formation, but it is not entriely about that. The author does take some time to address land battles, but these battles did lead to navy involvement or could have led to American victory's much quicker if the Navy was developed more speedily and without such a grand vision as the early Continental Congress had of creating a mirror image of the Royal Navy.
So understand that when reading this book the author is majoring in the history of the American Revolution with a minor in early American Navy formation.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 6, 2012
Ugh is all I can say! I've been reading a lot on the War of 1812 and early American Navy history and this is the worst one I've read! The author is obsessed with the concept that it was wrong for the Continental Navy to build warships instead of "Row galleys and whaleboats." Seriously, he mentions them about once a paragraph. Every time the navy is defeated, it is "if only the navy had built more row galleys and whaleboats." Um, just guessing that a few dozen rowboats with 1 cannon would not have scared the Royal Navy. The fault lies more with the leadership of the Continental Navy. Also, he overgeneralizes waaaaaaay too much. Sigh.
February 27, 2014
The author's obsession with row galleries was enough to drive me insane, the author beats that horse to death time and time again. This also often goes from being a history of the navy, which is what I was trying to find, to a history of Revolutionary America's armed forces, with the details of the British army and navy thrown in for good measure. It is as though the author decided that a history of the US Navy from the Revolution to the war of 1812 was just not broad enough, and he needed to distract even more from the main topic.
October 24, 2015
Interesting history that reads quick
We all learned of our nation's founding fathers & The Minute Men of the Continental Army; but where did our nation's prowess as a naval power develop. In this book we get an interesting history & insight into the development of the American navy in a book that reads well & moves quickly.
We all learned of our nation's founding fathers & The Minute Men of the Continental Army; but where did our nation's prowess as a naval power develop. In this book we get an interesting history & insight into the development of the American navy in a book that reads well & moves quickly.
July 13, 2012
A good high level overview of the history of the US Navy from the Revolutionary War (well integrated with the land action), the quasi-war with France, the action in Tripoli and the War of 1812 (very abbreviated). Well written and easy to read; generally from original source.
May 17, 2015
If By Sea is a detailed history of the creation and first four decades of the U.S. Navy. It examines the politics involved and numerous naval engagements. This is an excellent read that is well documented.
Want to read
August 31, 2010k1685
April 16, 2015
Meticulously written and well researched, but somewhat dry and not really for the casual reader
December 14, 2014
A good telling of the early history of the U.S. Navy.
June 12, 2014
Worth reading, but a bit repetitive at times. That said it's well researched and an interesting perspective on the early days of America. Definitely 3.5 stars.
September 10, 2014
One of the worst history books I have read. He goes on and on about gunboats being the key to American success. Ridiculous.
March 4, 2012
Good account of early Navy.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews