What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cause: The American Revolution and its Discontents, 1773-1783
In one of the most “exciting and engaging” (Gordon S. Wood) histories of the American founding in decades, Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Joseph J. Ellis offers an epic account of the origins and clashing ideologies of America’s revolutionary era, recovering a war more brutal, and more disorienting, than any in our history, save perhaps the Civil War.
For more than two centuries, historians have debated the history of the American Revolution, disputing its roots, its provenance, and above all, its meaning. These questions have intrigued Ellis—one of our most celebrated scholars of American history—throughout his entire career. With this much-anticipated volume, he at last brings the story of the revolution to vivid life, with “surprising relevance” (Susan Dunn) for our modern era. Completing a trilogy of books that began with Founding Brothers, The Cause returns us to the very heart of the American founding, telling the military and political story of the war for independence from the ground up, and from all sides: British and American, loyalist and patriot, white and Black.
Taking us from the end of the Seven Years’ War to 1783, and drawing on a wealth of previously untapped sources, The Cause interweaves action-packed tales of North American military campaigns with parlor-room intrigues back in England, creating a thrilling narrative that brings together a cast of familiar and long-forgotten characters. Here Ellis recovers the stories of Catherine Littlefield Greene, wife of Major General Nathanael Greene, the sister among the “band of brothers”; Thayendanegea, a Mohawk chief known to the colonists as Joseph Brant, who led the Iroquois Confederation against the Patriots; and Harry Washington, the enslaved namesake of George Washington, who escaped Mount Vernon to join the British Army and fight against his former master.
Countering popular histories that romanticize the “Spirit of ’76,” Ellis demonstrates that the rebels fought under the mantle of “The Cause,” a mutable, conveniently ambiguous principle that afforded an umbrella under which different, and often conflicting, convictions and goals could coexist. Neither an American nation nor a viable government existed at the end of the war. In fact, one revolutionary legacy regarded the creation of such a nation, or any robust expression of government power, as the ultimate betrayal of The Cause. This legacy alone rendered any effective response to the twin tragedies of the founding—slavery and the Native American dilemma—problematic at best.
Written with the vivid and muscular prose for which Ellis is known, and with characteristically trenchant insight, The Cause marks the culmination of a lifetime of engagement with the founding era. A landmark work of narrative history, it challenges the story we have long told ourselves about our origins as a people, and as a nation.
For more than two centuries, historians have debated the history of the American Revolution, disputing its roots, its provenance, and above all, its meaning. These questions have intrigued Ellis—one of our most celebrated scholars of American history—throughout his entire career. With this much-anticipated volume, he at last brings the story of the revolution to vivid life, with “surprising relevance” (Susan Dunn) for our modern era. Completing a trilogy of books that began with Founding Brothers, The Cause returns us to the very heart of the American founding, telling the military and political story of the war for independence from the ground up, and from all sides: British and American, loyalist and patriot, white and Black.
Taking us from the end of the Seven Years’ War to 1783, and drawing on a wealth of previously untapped sources, The Cause interweaves action-packed tales of North American military campaigns with parlor-room intrigues back in England, creating a thrilling narrative that brings together a cast of familiar and long-forgotten characters. Here Ellis recovers the stories of Catherine Littlefield Greene, wife of Major General Nathanael Greene, the sister among the “band of brothers”; Thayendanegea, a Mohawk chief known to the colonists as Joseph Brant, who led the Iroquois Confederation against the Patriots; and Harry Washington, the enslaved namesake of George Washington, who escaped Mount Vernon to join the British Army and fight against his former master.
Countering popular histories that romanticize the “Spirit of ’76,” Ellis demonstrates that the rebels fought under the mantle of “The Cause,” a mutable, conveniently ambiguous principle that afforded an umbrella under which different, and often conflicting, convictions and goals could coexist. Neither an American nation nor a viable government existed at the end of the war. In fact, one revolutionary legacy regarded the creation of such a nation, or any robust expression of government power, as the ultimate betrayal of The Cause. This legacy alone rendered any effective response to the twin tragedies of the founding—slavery and the Native American dilemma—problematic at best.
Written with the vivid and muscular prose for which Ellis is known, and with characteristically trenchant insight, The Cause marks the culmination of a lifetime of engagement with the founding era. A landmark work of narrative history, it challenges the story we have long told ourselves about our origins as a people, and as a nation.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published September 21, 2021
623 people are currently reading
5236 people want to read
About the author
Joseph J. Ellis
40 books1,321 followersJoseph John-Michael Ellis III is an American historian whose work focuses on the lives and times of the Founding Fathers of the United States. His book American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson won a National Book Award in 1997 and Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for History. Both of these books were bestsellers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 270 reviews
June 21, 2021
“Do we really need another book about the American Revolution?” “What’s left to say?” These were my first thoughts when I read the description of this book. We already have 1776 by David McCullough, the (in progress) Revolution Trilogy by Rick Atkinson, Nathaniel Philbrick’s American Revolution Series, Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow, and Ellis’s own significant contributions to the subject, including the Pulitzer-winning Founding Brothers. But Ellis’s prowess made me pick it up, and I’m grateful I did.
A book charting the single fraught decade between 1773-83 could easily have been three times as long, and an author as capable as Ellis could have taken this opportunity to display his considerable research and writing skills. Instead, Ellis focused on only the elements most essential to an accurate retelling of the narrative, uncovering forgotten characters and motivations along the way. He succeeded at cutting through myths and modern perceptions to allow the reader to “occupy the past” and experience it as it was lived. One result of his restraint and self-editing is that every paragraph yields interesting information to be pondered and digested, making this single 300-page volume feel weightier than many multi-volume works on the subject.
The clarity of the writing allowed me to appreciate Ellis’s major themes of sovereignty and liberty. He understands the revolutionary struggle as a battle for sovereign control, first by the King George III and the British Parliament, and then by the leaders of the fledgling United States. Ellis also emphasized the importance of the idea of liberty for the revolutionaries, but asks the obvious question, “How did a liberty-obsessed rebellion fail to extend liberty to all its constituents?” Ellis provides adequate answers to this question, and makes a point to recount the contributions and experiences of many factions of American society involved in the Cause, including African American slaves, Native Americans, and women.
If I have any complaint at all, it is with the profiles of minor figures that separate each chapter of the book. I believe I understand the purpose of them, as some of the profiles highlighted individuals from the disadvantaged groups listed above, and I usually really enjoy creative formats. But these entries felt like little more than Wikipedia articles. For some, they may be welcome glimpses into the personal lives of lesser known individuals. To me, they were a bit cumbersome and not quite long enough to enrich my reading.
In all, an excellent book that managed to find something fresh amid well-trodden ground.
Thank you to NetGalley and W. W. Norton & Company for the advance copy!
A book charting the single fraught decade between 1773-83 could easily have been three times as long, and an author as capable as Ellis could have taken this opportunity to display his considerable research and writing skills. Instead, Ellis focused on only the elements most essential to an accurate retelling of the narrative, uncovering forgotten characters and motivations along the way. He succeeded at cutting through myths and modern perceptions to allow the reader to “occupy the past” and experience it as it was lived. One result of his restraint and self-editing is that every paragraph yields interesting information to be pondered and digested, making this single 300-page volume feel weightier than many multi-volume works on the subject.
The clarity of the writing allowed me to appreciate Ellis’s major themes of sovereignty and liberty. He understands the revolutionary struggle as a battle for sovereign control, first by the King George III and the British Parliament, and then by the leaders of the fledgling United States. Ellis also emphasized the importance of the idea of liberty for the revolutionaries, but asks the obvious question, “How did a liberty-obsessed rebellion fail to extend liberty to all its constituents?” Ellis provides adequate answers to this question, and makes a point to recount the contributions and experiences of many factions of American society involved in the Cause, including African American slaves, Native Americans, and women.
If I have any complaint at all, it is with the profiles of minor figures that separate each chapter of the book. I believe I understand the purpose of them, as some of the profiles highlighted individuals from the disadvantaged groups listed above, and I usually really enjoy creative formats. But these entries felt like little more than Wikipedia articles. For some, they may be welcome glimpses into the personal lives of lesser known individuals. To me, they were a bit cumbersome and not quite long enough to enrich my reading.
In all, an excellent book that managed to find something fresh amid well-trodden ground.
Thank you to NetGalley and W. W. Norton & Company for the advance copy!
February 26, 2022
I will read any book that Joseph Ellis writes. His "Founding Brothers" is still one of my favorite books and has been extremely influential in shaping my understanding of our history and culture. The title of the present book captures precisely what it is but it does nothing to convey the richness of what Ellis does here. Over the distance of centuries, many of us see the American Revolution as a kind of narrative, a succession of events and battles leading to an inevitable end. But it was nothing like that at all. It could have gone any number of ways depending on which group was able to win a debate, how certain events played out against expectations, and what decisions were made in places thousands of miles from each other. What Ellis does is explore all the conflicts, large and small -- the "discontents" of the title -- that are hidden by the grand narrative.
For one thing, there is "the Cause" itself. No one thought of what was being discussed as revolution. The "American Revolutionary War" was not a phrase they would have used. Even as events were taking place, there wasn't even any agreement as to what end(s) they were working towards. Independence? War? A re-framing of their relationship with Parliament? Ellis writes, No such thing as an American national identity yet existed. The term they used to describe their war for independence was The Cause, a conveniently ambiguous label that provided a verbal canopy under which a diverse variety of political and regional persuasions could coexist, then change shape or coloration when history threw choices at them for which they were unprepared.
As Ellis shows, although the outcome of the discontents remained to be known, the fractures were real and hard to ignore. "America and Britain had become two fundamentally different societies," he writes. "Although the colonists were basing their constitutional argument on their historic rights as Englishmen, those rights had assumed a newer and more expansive meaning on American soil over the preceding century."
The differing attitudes of Parliament and the colonists, the vast distance of ocean between them, led to numerous obstacles to understanding. Ellis quotes a prescient observation made by Edmund Burke in 1768: “The Americans have made a discovery, or think they have made one, that we mean to oppress them. We have made a discovery, or think we have made one, that they intend to rise in rebellion. We know not how to advance; they know not how to retreat. Some party must give way.” The clash at Lexington and Concord confirmed the conspiratorial mentality on both sides: for the British, that the Americans were in open rebellion; for the Americans, that the British were fully prepared to impose their imperial agenda with military force. The interactive dialogue between the two conspiratorial mentalities had become a death spiral.
"The Cause" shed light on the many conflicts that marked the period: the disagreements over whether the goal was independence or something else; whether it was war or diplomacy that was needed to achieve this uncertain end; was there to be a confederation of sovereign states (with very different cultures and economies) or something new? North vs South; loyalist vs patriot; stingy state legislatures vs American soldiers who had little to eat, lacked shoes, and hadn't been paid for months; petty squabbles and power struggles; misunderstandings and conflicted feelings; would Washington somehow manage to hold onto the trust of the Continental Congress when so many wanted him replaced? All this and more needed time to play out.
One case in point: Ellis writes about the period after the war, when major decisions were being contemplated. When we look back at that time, we believe we are seeing the formation of a country called the United States. Consciously or not, there are echoes of our Fourth of July celebrations in our thoughts. The reality was nothing like that at all. "What they were... witnessing was the opening round of the postwar debate for control of the narrative about the true meaning of The Cause. Most of the histories written in the wake of the war were state based. The star of that story was the militia, which gushed forward at Lexington and Concord, rallied to entrap Burgoyne at Saratoga, and stymied Cornwallis in the Carolina interior. What was definitely NOT the "star of the story" was the Continental Army led by George Washington and others.
The book is filled with countless observations, analyses, and bits of trivia I found both enlightening and fascinating. A sampling:
Take a moment to mentally picture yourself a citizen of the time. Now take this into account: Shortly before the referendum on independence was launched, word reached the colonies that Great Britain was gathering the largest amphibious force ever assembled by any European power, more than 400 ships to transport 32,000 soldiers, to include 8,000 mercenaries from several German principalities, along with 10,000 sailors... Ordinary Americans were being asked to deliver their opinion on American independence just as the largest armada ever to cross the Atlantic was coming to render those opinions irrelevant.
People today speak of those days as if Great Men were aware of the magnitude of what they were doing and saw themselves as if guided by some divine hand. Not so: On June 11 the Continental Congress appointed a five-man committee to draft a document to announce American independence. None of them regarded the assignment as particularly important. The significance we bring to the moment was not present for the Committee of Five.
One of the first recorded deaths at Valley Forge was a former slave named Jethro, one of 750 African American soldiers in camp, who was found face down in his tent on Christmas Day, the victim of malnutrition and exposure.
Even though dueling was illegal in the Continental Army, it became commonplace at Valley Forge: “The rage for dueling has reached an incredible and scandalous point,” one French visitor observed. “This license is regarded as an appendage of liberty.”
And this, about the only major American-led attack at Yorktown: Washington had chosen Lafayette to lead an elite company of African American troops from the mostly Black Rhode Island regiment to conduct the assault. Hamilton persuaded His Excellency to let him lead the charge, which was the combat assignment Hamilton had been craving for years.
There is more I'd like to share, but I'll stop here. I was fascinated to learn things I never knew before. I was aware of the nearly disastrous mistakes Washington made early in the war and the miraculous escape of his army from the British, but I hadn't known that the escape was primarily the result of the fact that the men who were leading the attack against Washington's men -- the Howe brothers -- absolutely did not want to stage a bloody final attack to begin with: they were very fond of the Americans and wanted a diplomatic solution rather than a military one.
"The Cause" is a revealing and engaging look at events that are now seen by most Americans through the lens of a national mythology.
For one thing, there is "the Cause" itself. No one thought of what was being discussed as revolution. The "American Revolutionary War" was not a phrase they would have used. Even as events were taking place, there wasn't even any agreement as to what end(s) they were working towards. Independence? War? A re-framing of their relationship with Parliament? Ellis writes, No such thing as an American national identity yet existed. The term they used to describe their war for independence was The Cause, a conveniently ambiguous label that provided a verbal canopy under which a diverse variety of political and regional persuasions could coexist, then change shape or coloration when history threw choices at them for which they were unprepared.
As Ellis shows, although the outcome of the discontents remained to be known, the fractures were real and hard to ignore. "America and Britain had become two fundamentally different societies," he writes. "Although the colonists were basing their constitutional argument on their historic rights as Englishmen, those rights had assumed a newer and more expansive meaning on American soil over the preceding century."
The differing attitudes of Parliament and the colonists, the vast distance of ocean between them, led to numerous obstacles to understanding. Ellis quotes a prescient observation made by Edmund Burke in 1768: “The Americans have made a discovery, or think they have made one, that we mean to oppress them. We have made a discovery, or think we have made one, that they intend to rise in rebellion. We know not how to advance; they know not how to retreat. Some party must give way.” The clash at Lexington and Concord confirmed the conspiratorial mentality on both sides: for the British, that the Americans were in open rebellion; for the Americans, that the British were fully prepared to impose their imperial agenda with military force. The interactive dialogue between the two conspiratorial mentalities had become a death spiral.
"The Cause" shed light on the many conflicts that marked the period: the disagreements over whether the goal was independence or something else; whether it was war or diplomacy that was needed to achieve this uncertain end; was there to be a confederation of sovereign states (with very different cultures and economies) or something new? North vs South; loyalist vs patriot; stingy state legislatures vs American soldiers who had little to eat, lacked shoes, and hadn't been paid for months; petty squabbles and power struggles; misunderstandings and conflicted feelings; would Washington somehow manage to hold onto the trust of the Continental Congress when so many wanted him replaced? All this and more needed time to play out.
One case in point: Ellis writes about the period after the war, when major decisions were being contemplated. When we look back at that time, we believe we are seeing the formation of a country called the United States. Consciously or not, there are echoes of our Fourth of July celebrations in our thoughts. The reality was nothing like that at all. "What they were... witnessing was the opening round of the postwar debate for control of the narrative about the true meaning of The Cause. Most of the histories written in the wake of the war were state based. The star of that story was the militia, which gushed forward at Lexington and Concord, rallied to entrap Burgoyne at Saratoga, and stymied Cornwallis in the Carolina interior. What was definitely NOT the "star of the story" was the Continental Army led by George Washington and others.
The book is filled with countless observations, analyses, and bits of trivia I found both enlightening and fascinating. A sampling:
Take a moment to mentally picture yourself a citizen of the time. Now take this into account: Shortly before the referendum on independence was launched, word reached the colonies that Great Britain was gathering the largest amphibious force ever assembled by any European power, more than 400 ships to transport 32,000 soldiers, to include 8,000 mercenaries from several German principalities, along with 10,000 sailors... Ordinary Americans were being asked to deliver their opinion on American independence just as the largest armada ever to cross the Atlantic was coming to render those opinions irrelevant.
People today speak of those days as if Great Men were aware of the magnitude of what they were doing and saw themselves as if guided by some divine hand. Not so: On June 11 the Continental Congress appointed a five-man committee to draft a document to announce American independence. None of them regarded the assignment as particularly important. The significance we bring to the moment was not present for the Committee of Five.
One of the first recorded deaths at Valley Forge was a former slave named Jethro, one of 750 African American soldiers in camp, who was found face down in his tent on Christmas Day, the victim of malnutrition and exposure.
Even though dueling was illegal in the Continental Army, it became commonplace at Valley Forge: “The rage for dueling has reached an incredible and scandalous point,” one French visitor observed. “This license is regarded as an appendage of liberty.”
And this, about the only major American-led attack at Yorktown: Washington had chosen Lafayette to lead an elite company of African American troops from the mostly Black Rhode Island regiment to conduct the assault. Hamilton persuaded His Excellency to let him lead the charge, which was the combat assignment Hamilton had been craving for years.
There is more I'd like to share, but I'll stop here. I was fascinated to learn things I never knew before. I was aware of the nearly disastrous mistakes Washington made early in the war and the miraculous escape of his army from the British, but I hadn't known that the escape was primarily the result of the fact that the men who were leading the attack against Washington's men -- the Howe brothers -- absolutely did not want to stage a bloody final attack to begin with: they were very fond of the Americans and wanted a diplomatic solution rather than a military one.
"The Cause" is a revealing and engaging look at events that are now seen by most Americans through the lens of a national mythology.
September 4, 2023
The American Revolutionary period, between 1763-1802, is the period of history I have studied and read about the most. On the walls around my desk, I have framed pictures of President Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and President Lincoln (yes, I know he was not alive during this period but like President Washington we might not have a country if not for these two men). There are many more individuals that I do not have framed pictures of during this period but who I also admire greatly, especially John Jay, Nathaniel Greene, John Laurens, John Adams, Lafayette, and Madison.
And of course, I have a number who are quite famous and have monuments to their greatness in Washington D.C. who I feel are undeserving, especially Thomas Jefferson.
"The Cause," written by framed historian Joseph J. Ellis is the type of book I would tell people interested in this period, but who know very little about it, that this would be a great book to start off with, and for individuals familiar with this period that it is definitely worth reading because it does highlight situations and individuals that are very seldom mentioned but proved to be very important.
In 1763 the literacy rate in the thirteen colonies, excluding the slave population and Native Americans, was an astonishing 90 percent. The highest rate in the world at the time. This is of major importance because even though it took months for articles, in Boston about Bunker Hill to reach places like Georgia, when it did pass through the colonies the majority of the citizens were able to read about the heroic militias who were fighting the brutal British (and make no mistake the British were brutal in ever sense of the word).
Also Benjamin Franklin calculated that the American population from 1763 onward was going up by 25 percent every 5 years which is also an astonishing rate of growth. Add to this, the size of the 13 colonies combined and one might ask, "Why not give into the Colonists' demands of representation and more independence and not go to war?"
Well, a number of prominent British members of the Parliament and framed historian Edward Gibbon, who was in the process of writing "The History of the Decline and Rise of the Roman Empire," pleaded with parliament not to go to war with the American colonies for the reasons stated above.
But King George III and his puppets in the Parliament refused to listen. How dare those subjects in the colonies challenge the mighty British Empire?
These are just a few of the interesting facts that Mr. Ellis' book, "The Cause," brings to light and it's interesting bits and pieces of non-fiction like this that made this book such a joy to read.
And of course, I have a number who are quite famous and have monuments to their greatness in Washington D.C. who I feel are undeserving, especially Thomas Jefferson.
"The Cause," written by framed historian Joseph J. Ellis is the type of book I would tell people interested in this period, but who know very little about it, that this would be a great book to start off with, and for individuals familiar with this period that it is definitely worth reading because it does highlight situations and individuals that are very seldom mentioned but proved to be very important.
In 1763 the literacy rate in the thirteen colonies, excluding the slave population and Native Americans, was an astonishing 90 percent. The highest rate in the world at the time. This is of major importance because even though it took months for articles, in Boston about Bunker Hill to reach places like Georgia, when it did pass through the colonies the majority of the citizens were able to read about the heroic militias who were fighting the brutal British (and make no mistake the British were brutal in ever sense of the word).
Also Benjamin Franklin calculated that the American population from 1763 onward was going up by 25 percent every 5 years which is also an astonishing rate of growth. Add to this, the size of the 13 colonies combined and one might ask, "Why not give into the Colonists' demands of representation and more independence and not go to war?"
Well, a number of prominent British members of the Parliament and framed historian Edward Gibbon, who was in the process of writing "The History of the Decline and Rise of the Roman Empire," pleaded with parliament not to go to war with the American colonies for the reasons stated above.
But King George III and his puppets in the Parliament refused to listen. How dare those subjects in the colonies challenge the mighty British Empire?
These are just a few of the interesting facts that Mr. Ellis' book, "The Cause," brings to light and it's interesting bits and pieces of non-fiction like this that made this book such a joy to read.
August 7, 2023
Joseph Ellis gives us the story of the American Revolution in this book, but he does not make any effort to give us all of the details or provide an exhaustive narrative of everything that happened. Most Americans are familiar with the chronology from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown with Valley Forge and Saratoga somewhere in the middle; and Ellis assumes his readers have this basic knowledge. His main thesis deals with what the Americans were fighting for. Once independence was declared, it became the primary rallying cry, but many Americans were unwilling to install a federal government to replace the British administration. They were content with their local and state governments and thought any further levels were a threat to the liberties they enjoyed, even if one of those liberties was the right to enslave others.
It is possible that the author overstates the opposition to a federal structure, since a federal Constitution was ratified by all the states a few years later. However, although Ellis does not draw comparisons, it is easy to see similarities with contemporary opposition to the federal government. Although there is much talk about the need for a smaller federal government, the proponents seem to care about this only when their opponents are in power. They never seem to get around to making the federal government smaller when they are in control of it.
It is possible that the author overstates the opposition to a federal structure, since a federal Constitution was ratified by all the states a few years later. However, although Ellis does not draw comparisons, it is easy to see similarities with contemporary opposition to the federal government. Although there is much talk about the need for a smaller federal government, the proponents seem to care about this only when their opponents are in power. They never seem to get around to making the federal government smaller when they are in control of it.
January 27, 2022
"Keep in mind that the past is not history, but a much vaster region of the dead, gone, unknowable, or forgotten. History is what we choose to remember."
This statement by Ellis in the preface to this insightful account of what we today call the American Revolution and what its participants termed "The Cause" challenges many of the popular and romanticized histories we've been taught about the founding of the nation.
As early as 1751 Benjamin Franklin imagined a future Anglo-American alliance and not an independent American nation. This was a view shared by a majority of his compatriots. They envisioned a place for the United States in the British Commonwealth similar to that later played by Canada and Australia.
What changed this was two major factors--the rapid rate of growth of the colonies and the Seven Years' War, known here as the French and Indian War.
In 1763, George III and his ministers recognized the difficulty of governing a colony in which the population doubled every 20 years, twice the rate of growth of Great Britain. The first part of a new imperial policy aimed at restricting the burgeoning population to a region between the Atlantic Coast and the Appalachians where it could be controlled by British troops. This did not sit well with the Irish and Scotch-Irish immigrants who were already surging over the mountains into territories claimed by Native American tribes.
Second, three acts aimed at easing the economic problems created by the late war were passed. The Stamp, Sugar, and Townsend acts imposed taxes and duties to reduce the enormous debt imposed by the long war and the additional expense of the 10,000 troops needed to police the colonies. Since these tariffs imposed were aimed at reducing the debt of a war fought on their behalf, it seemed fair to the authorities. The colonists felt otherwise.
Their reaction, beginning with the Boston Tea Party and other protests, precipitated the breach between Britain and the colonies, a breach many on both sides hoped could be resolved diplomatically. Even after the first shots were fired, some states were reluctant to enter the fray.
The colonists were wary of a standing army and early pinned their hopes on the militia units that had been so successful in the Indian wars. Soon after Washington was appointed commander in chief it became apparent to him and others with military experience a more disciplined force modeled on the British army was needed. Despite the successes and loyalty of the Continental Army officers and troops, Washington fought a constant battle with the politicians to pay, supply, and give them the moral support needed to survive the challenges facing them.
Ellis skillfully traces both the political and the military maneuvers with insightful sketches of the major participants.
"Neither an American nation nor a viable national government existed at the end of the war," Ellis tells us. This was the result of the niggling of those in power over state's rights rather than a united purpose. The vision of Washington and a small group of men, many of them military officers, created the nation despite those who saw it as a betrayal of The Cause. And it is to them we owe our debt of gratitude.
One minor quibble I might point out is that Ellis refers to the Susquehanna River and the Wyoming Valley as being in western Pennsylvania. Geographically, both are actually in central Pennsylvania. Still, at the time, the river and valley were at the western edge of civilization since both were only opened to settlement in 1769. So, historically, the reference is correct.
This statement by Ellis in the preface to this insightful account of what we today call the American Revolution and what its participants termed "The Cause" challenges many of the popular and romanticized histories we've been taught about the founding of the nation.
As early as 1751 Benjamin Franklin imagined a future Anglo-American alliance and not an independent American nation. This was a view shared by a majority of his compatriots. They envisioned a place for the United States in the British Commonwealth similar to that later played by Canada and Australia.
What changed this was two major factors--the rapid rate of growth of the colonies and the Seven Years' War, known here as the French and Indian War.
In 1763, George III and his ministers recognized the difficulty of governing a colony in which the population doubled every 20 years, twice the rate of growth of Great Britain. The first part of a new imperial policy aimed at restricting the burgeoning population to a region between the Atlantic Coast and the Appalachians where it could be controlled by British troops. This did not sit well with the Irish and Scotch-Irish immigrants who were already surging over the mountains into territories claimed by Native American tribes.
Second, three acts aimed at easing the economic problems created by the late war were passed. The Stamp, Sugar, and Townsend acts imposed taxes and duties to reduce the enormous debt imposed by the long war and the additional expense of the 10,000 troops needed to police the colonies. Since these tariffs imposed were aimed at reducing the debt of a war fought on their behalf, it seemed fair to the authorities. The colonists felt otherwise.
Their reaction, beginning with the Boston Tea Party and other protests, precipitated the breach between Britain and the colonies, a breach many on both sides hoped could be resolved diplomatically. Even after the first shots were fired, some states were reluctant to enter the fray.
The colonists were wary of a standing army and early pinned their hopes on the militia units that had been so successful in the Indian wars. Soon after Washington was appointed commander in chief it became apparent to him and others with military experience a more disciplined force modeled on the British army was needed. Despite the successes and loyalty of the Continental Army officers and troops, Washington fought a constant battle with the politicians to pay, supply, and give them the moral support needed to survive the challenges facing them.
Ellis skillfully traces both the political and the military maneuvers with insightful sketches of the major participants.
"Neither an American nation nor a viable national government existed at the end of the war," Ellis tells us. This was the result of the niggling of those in power over state's rights rather than a united purpose. The vision of Washington and a small group of men, many of them military officers, created the nation despite those who saw it as a betrayal of The Cause. And it is to them we owe our debt of gratitude.
One minor quibble I might point out is that Ellis refers to the Susquehanna River and the Wyoming Valley as being in western Pennsylvania. Geographically, both are actually in central Pennsylvania. Still, at the time, the river and valley were at the western edge of civilization since both were only opened to settlement in 1769. So, historically, the reference is correct.
February 25, 2023
A well-researched, insightful and nuanced history of what Ellis calls “the American Evolution.”
Ellis does a good job explaining issues of politics, diplomacy, culture, slavery and race. He provides balanced and human portraits of leading figures.One of his main themes is the lack of unity on the rebels’ side.The description of the battles is vivid. He also draws some parallels to modern times, such as the importance of conspiracy theories in American politics. He also notes the conservative views of many Americans, who viewed the British government as the revolutionary ones.
The narrative is engaging and straightforward, and moves along at a fast pace. He also provides short biographies of some lesser-known figures in between the main chapters; these are interesting, but they’re only two to three pages long and will probably strike you as superficial. The book definitely takes a higher-level view of things.
Some readers may wish for more coverage of certain campaigns like Saratoga or Newport. He argues that Britain’s prospects of victory were always dim, but that could have been developed more, and seems suspect anyway. Ellis also includes the disputed story of Cornwallis firing artillery into his own troops at Guilford Courthouse. He also calls Spain’s contribution to the American side “quite limited, virtually non-existent,” and doesn’t cover it in much detail. Curiously, there is nothing on the Boston massacre or the Quebec Act. At one point Samuel Graves is called “Gates,” and he attributes the “shot heard ‘round the world” to Longfellow (I thought it was Emerson) The book also ends a bit abruptly.
A thoughtful, compelling, and well-written work.
Ellis does a good job explaining issues of politics, diplomacy, culture, slavery and race. He provides balanced and human portraits of leading figures.One of his main themes is the lack of unity on the rebels’ side.The description of the battles is vivid. He also draws some parallels to modern times, such as the importance of conspiracy theories in American politics. He also notes the conservative views of many Americans, who viewed the British government as the revolutionary ones.
The narrative is engaging and straightforward, and moves along at a fast pace. He also provides short biographies of some lesser-known figures in between the main chapters; these are interesting, but they’re only two to three pages long and will probably strike you as superficial. The book definitely takes a higher-level view of things.
Some readers may wish for more coverage of certain campaigns like Saratoga or Newport. He argues that Britain’s prospects of victory were always dim, but that could have been developed more, and seems suspect anyway. Ellis also includes the disputed story of Cornwallis firing artillery into his own troops at Guilford Courthouse. He also calls Spain’s contribution to the American side “quite limited, virtually non-existent,” and doesn’t cover it in much detail. Curiously, there is nothing on the Boston massacre or the Quebec Act. At one point Samuel Graves is called “Gates,” and he attributes the “shot heard ‘round the world” to Longfellow (I thought it was Emerson) The book also ends a bit abruptly.
A thoughtful, compelling, and well-written work.
June 24, 2021
This is Ellis' most comprehensive work, covering the causes or rebellion and the ensuing fight for freedom. I struggled to understand what difference he was bringing to the discussion; the description of the book did not make clear exactly what unique contribution to historiography the book would provide, nor did Ellis explain in his introduction. After finishing the book, I found it hard to name it. Much of what Ellis includes would already be known to many scholars. He does, however, synthesize the arguments of past historians (Ch. 1 discusses Bailyn and Wood), so there is that significance.
This is a great book for a popular audience who is looking to bridge the gap between academic work and History Channel "history", but again, for most historians, what Ellis has to say is nothing new. The characters he mentions he is giving voice to are names that most historians are already familiar with: Dickinson, Mercy Otis Warren; although, again, for a popular audience, maybe not so.
Ellis does a good job at making the military history readable, particularly with the southern campaign in the war. His final chapter on the legacies of the Revolution also bring in new research into the larger impact of the revolution.
This is a great book for a popular audience who is looking to bridge the gap between academic work and History Channel "history", but again, for most historians, what Ellis has to say is nothing new. The characters he mentions he is giving voice to are names that most historians are already familiar with: Dickinson, Mercy Otis Warren; although, again, for a popular audience, maybe not so.
Ellis does a good job at making the military history readable, particularly with the southern campaign in the war. His final chapter on the legacies of the Revolution also bring in new research into the larger impact of the revolution.
October 27, 2021
Read it! Be “Cause” it’s revolutionary! A new way of looking at the Revolutionary War.
This is the work of a master historian, looking through a new lens and giving you a capstone course synthesizing and demonstrating what he’s learned through his career-long study of America’s Founding. Specifically, the author gives you an overall picture of the American Revolution’s decade — 1773’s Boston Tea Party to 1783’s US/Great Britain US Treaty of Paris and GB/et al.’s Peace of Paris treaties. The narrative covers a wide range, from high-level grand strategy to the curious carrying of cooking kettles (with nothing to cook)!
First, a comment about the title: “The Cause: The American Revolution and Its Discontents.” The one word translation of the “Cause” (the term used at the time) is “independence,” with the “Discontents” being the Continental Army, Native Americans, Slaves, and the many others who knew what they were against (but not for), and the engine of discontent being Town Meetings.
Armed with many rare, out-of-print works, Ellis starts his book by mentioning that certain figures he covers (in particular: John Dickinson, Nathanael Green, John Jay, and Robert Morris) were more highly regarded by their contemporaries than by posterity. The book’s chapters then progress time-wise throughout the decade, with each of the seven chapters ending with a brief profile: 1. Joshua Loring 2. Mercy Otis Warren 3. Harry Washington 4. Catharine Littlefield Greene 5. Joseph Brant 6. William (Billy) Lee 7. Joseph Plumb Martin.
A common theme throughout the book is the tension between those wanting local colonial/state control versus “national” continental/federal control. In the former case, local control came with local defense and the glorification of the Minuteman. In the later case, national control came with increased ability to mount a truly successful defense and to gain the international financial credit to sustain that defense. The concern of many of the Founders was that the unity shown in the face of a common enemy (Britain) would turn into troubling disunion and vulnerability when that enemy apparently left the scene. Others, for various reasons, thought the benefits of state (versus federal) supremacy easily outweighed the costs and risks at any time. The author clarifies these issues with example after example.
One of the author’s assertions that I thought both intriguing and questionable was one he made starting on Kindle page xiv: “In truth, Great Britain never had a realistic chance to win the war, despite its military and economic superiority. American victory was not a miracle; it was foreordained. How that end happened, however, was a function of chance, accident, and what Washington called providence.” Later, on page 233, Ellis also says: “Even if the British maintained a ground force of fifty thousand troops in country for several decades, a logistical impossibility, the American resistance would have persisted until the British realized that the game was not worth the cost.” — Yes, I agree that the British approach was bound to fail, even if Cornwallis had escaped the trap at Yorktown. However, the case could be made that English colonies would not easily transition to a peaceful commonwealth. While continuing to subject America, Britain could have likely changed itself, becoming increasingly more despotic over all its citizens and leaving America as a collection of failed colonies, no longer able to provide England with the prosperous flow of trade they had previously provided, with a very good chance of never being able to go back. As the author said, Washington might have headed off to the backcountry and lived in a wigwam (before the Indians or a British raiding party got him). Thus, America, as we have now come to know it, would have lost its Indispensable Man, its Primus inter Pares, its General, its President of the Constitutional Convention, and its first national President, and along with him, highly likely the country’s freedom. You don’t think Great Men have a place in history, that it’s just chance, accident, and Providence? Think about all the foreign intrigues that could have later gone forward and led to disunion under the banners of Burr and Wilkinson. Nevertheless, the thought that America was bound to win (and/or be the kind of place it is today) is fascinating.
Speaking of fascinating, the book contains uncommon mention of the importance of the Committees of Correspondence, which facilitated colonial defense and allowed the colonies to set up shadow governments. The book also mentions the rise of “True Whigs” (propagandistically positive branding of those against Morris’ unifying financial plans), reminiscent of today’s “Real Americans.” The book also contains any number of “Wow, I didn’t know that’s!” One example is that Hamilton’s unit charging Yorktown’s Redoubt #10 contained Black troops [the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, regarded as the first Black battalion in US military history]. Another of many is that 400,000 souls, the less noticed and almost invisible, but the vast majority of Loyalists, did not leave America but chose to remain in the United States.
Despite my high praise for the book, there are some issues about which the reader should be aware. For the record and the author’s possible use in future editions, here are some of them:
P 174. “With daily practice, soldiers could double their firepower by loading and firing their muskets four times a minute instead of two.” — By on-line observing a very well-practiced reenactor, I see that in a timed test, an excellent reenactor (not under fire) got off three shots in 46 seconds. With luck, he just might have made it to 4 shots within a minute if he’d have somehow hurried even more. Or, he could have made 4 shots a minute if he had started with a loaded musket. Just saying: it would be very difficult for a soldier to get off four rounds a minute under fire. Most commentators are comfortable saying three rounds a minute.
P. 222. “Once ensconced on Kings Mountain, he [British Major Ferguson] issued a warning to the local populace that men should expect to be executed, their wives and daughters abused by marauding loyalists if they refused to pledge themselves to the British side.” — IMHO, it is dubious that Ferguson made such a threat while briefly locating himself at Kings Mountain (SC), immediately before he was surrounded by Overmountain Men (from now TN & KY). More likely, it was his notices put out a month earlier while in NC to warn the Overmountain Men that if they didn’t lay down their arms, he would “march his army over the mountains, hang their leaders, and lay waste the country with fire and sword.”
P. 230. “’In this situation, wrote his aide,’ Charles O’Hara….” — General O’Hara was not Cornwallis’ aide, but his adjutant and his second-in-command.
P. 231. “…even ordering his [Cornwallis’] artillery to fire on his own troops when they first engaged with Greene’s last line of defense at the courthouse.” — “Not intentionally,” wrote historian North Callahan: “That’s one of the biggest myths about the battle. At one point in the battle, he [Cornwallis] came upon a melee in close combat between the 2nd Battalion of the Guards and 1st Maryland and ordered his soldiers to use a 3-pounder [cannon] to fire on Lt. Col William Washington’s light dragoons [cavalry] that had attacked the Guards and in so doing had come between Cornwallis and his troop.” It’s also been said that Colonel Henry Lee, who was not present on that part of the battlefield, blew the incident out of proportion in his memoirs, from which the unfair charge spread.
P 244 “As Gates approached the Yorktown peninsula….” — It was British Admiral Graves.
P 248. “…[O’Hara,] the talkative Irishman who had served with him [Cornwallis] throughout the Carolina campaign. O’Hara attempted to surrender his sword to Rochambeau, who declined and pointed him toward Washington, who declined to accept the sword of a subordinate officer and pointed O’Hara to Benjamin Lincoln, who accepted it….” — There are various accounts of what happened, but the most important commonality was that it was Cornwallis’ sword, not O’Hara’s, that was offered at the surrender.
P 266. “Howe also chose a bafflingly roundabout maneuver to reach Philadelphia, sailing south to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, then marching north through Delaware. (The maneuver mystified everyone, including John Adams. “We might as well imagine them gone around Cape Horn into the south Seas to land at California,” Adams confided to Abigail.)” — This move by Howe, which was cited as the reason he wasn’t able to support Burgoyne in time before the Saratoga surrender (which brought in the French), was the work of Washington. Washington had ensconced himself at the Middlebrook Encampment (NJ), which would have threatened Howe’s flank should he have tried to march (not sail) from New York to Philadelphia. Howe, wanting to capture Philadelphia, was forced to take the sea route, thus delaying his arrival in Philadelphia and preventing him from helping Burgoyne.
P. 273. “…Jay needed to know what Spain as the price for its quite limited, virtually nonexistent contribution to The Cause.” — Wikipedia has an extensive page on the importance of Spain to the independence of the United States. Through its siege of Pensacola, Spain most notably seized West Florida from the British, securing trade routes and precluding the British from attacking eastward from the Mississippi River. In addition, Spain gave the Americans numerous loans, uniforms, weapons, and gunpowder. Spanish money was used to pay for critical supplies for the siege of Yorktown and to fund the payroll for the Continental Army, much arrears in pay.
P. 303. “When word reached George III, he expressed disbelief. “If he does that,” he declared, ‘he will become the greatest man in the world.’ He did, and at least for the moment, he was.” — Actually, according to information obtained from painter Benjamin West, George III, when told that Washington was giving up power, said that if he did that, he would be “the greatest character of the age.”
P. 318. “…where Lafayette urged Washington to take the lead by establishing a haven for freed slaves in what is now West Virginia….” — This assertion comes from an out-of-print book. Search as much as I could, I find no other source mentioning this. There are plenty of sources documenting a haven in the West Indies (French Guyana) but not what is now West Virginia.
P 328. The author mentions the book’s cover as proposed by Norton Publishing, that it took two friends to help him appreciate it, but, to my knowledge, doesn’t explain the cover. For those curious, here are the results of my research: The musket to the left is a breech-loading Ferguson (invented by the aforementioned British Major) Rifle musket, the one to the right is an 18th century, left-handed, fowling (hunting) musket. The cover’s picture is likely from an out-of-print book and depicts Washington at the Battle of Princeton.
Be aware that that book uses endnotes (without a separate bibliography), sorted by chapters with the notes numbered. Notes provided within the chapters themselves use graphic symbols.
Bottom-line: Any minor issues such as those listed above aside, the book, in challenging many old views of the Revolutionary War, is a very rewarding read. Highly recommended!
Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key - the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul, a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!” and
Strategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation
This is the work of a master historian, looking through a new lens and giving you a capstone course synthesizing and demonstrating what he’s learned through his career-long study of America’s Founding. Specifically, the author gives you an overall picture of the American Revolution’s decade — 1773’s Boston Tea Party to 1783’s US/Great Britain US Treaty of Paris and GB/et al.’s Peace of Paris treaties. The narrative covers a wide range, from high-level grand strategy to the curious carrying of cooking kettles (with nothing to cook)!
First, a comment about the title: “The Cause: The American Revolution and Its Discontents.” The one word translation of the “Cause” (the term used at the time) is “independence,” with the “Discontents” being the Continental Army, Native Americans, Slaves, and the many others who knew what they were against (but not for), and the engine of discontent being Town Meetings.
Armed with many rare, out-of-print works, Ellis starts his book by mentioning that certain figures he covers (in particular: John Dickinson, Nathanael Green, John Jay, and Robert Morris) were more highly regarded by their contemporaries than by posterity. The book’s chapters then progress time-wise throughout the decade, with each of the seven chapters ending with a brief profile: 1. Joshua Loring 2. Mercy Otis Warren 3. Harry Washington 4. Catharine Littlefield Greene 5. Joseph Brant 6. William (Billy) Lee 7. Joseph Plumb Martin.
A common theme throughout the book is the tension between those wanting local colonial/state control versus “national” continental/federal control. In the former case, local control came with local defense and the glorification of the Minuteman. In the later case, national control came with increased ability to mount a truly successful defense and to gain the international financial credit to sustain that defense. The concern of many of the Founders was that the unity shown in the face of a common enemy (Britain) would turn into troubling disunion and vulnerability when that enemy apparently left the scene. Others, for various reasons, thought the benefits of state (versus federal) supremacy easily outweighed the costs and risks at any time. The author clarifies these issues with example after example.
One of the author’s assertions that I thought both intriguing and questionable was one he made starting on Kindle page xiv: “In truth, Great Britain never had a realistic chance to win the war, despite its military and economic superiority. American victory was not a miracle; it was foreordained. How that end happened, however, was a function of chance, accident, and what Washington called providence.” Later, on page 233, Ellis also says: “Even if the British maintained a ground force of fifty thousand troops in country for several decades, a logistical impossibility, the American resistance would have persisted until the British realized that the game was not worth the cost.” — Yes, I agree that the British approach was bound to fail, even if Cornwallis had escaped the trap at Yorktown. However, the case could be made that English colonies would not easily transition to a peaceful commonwealth. While continuing to subject America, Britain could have likely changed itself, becoming increasingly more despotic over all its citizens and leaving America as a collection of failed colonies, no longer able to provide England with the prosperous flow of trade they had previously provided, with a very good chance of never being able to go back. As the author said, Washington might have headed off to the backcountry and lived in a wigwam (before the Indians or a British raiding party got him). Thus, America, as we have now come to know it, would have lost its Indispensable Man, its Primus inter Pares, its General, its President of the Constitutional Convention, and its first national President, and along with him, highly likely the country’s freedom. You don’t think Great Men have a place in history, that it’s just chance, accident, and Providence? Think about all the foreign intrigues that could have later gone forward and led to disunion under the banners of Burr and Wilkinson. Nevertheless, the thought that America was bound to win (and/or be the kind of place it is today) is fascinating.
Speaking of fascinating, the book contains uncommon mention of the importance of the Committees of Correspondence, which facilitated colonial defense and allowed the colonies to set up shadow governments. The book also mentions the rise of “True Whigs” (propagandistically positive branding of those against Morris’ unifying financial plans), reminiscent of today’s “Real Americans.” The book also contains any number of “Wow, I didn’t know that’s!” One example is that Hamilton’s unit charging Yorktown’s Redoubt #10 contained Black troops [the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, regarded as the first Black battalion in US military history]. Another of many is that 400,000 souls, the less noticed and almost invisible, but the vast majority of Loyalists, did not leave America but chose to remain in the United States.
Despite my high praise for the book, there are some issues about which the reader should be aware. For the record and the author’s possible use in future editions, here are some of them:
P 174. “With daily practice, soldiers could double their firepower by loading and firing their muskets four times a minute instead of two.” — By on-line observing a very well-practiced reenactor, I see that in a timed test, an excellent reenactor (not under fire) got off three shots in 46 seconds. With luck, he just might have made it to 4 shots within a minute if he’d have somehow hurried even more. Or, he could have made 4 shots a minute if he had started with a loaded musket. Just saying: it would be very difficult for a soldier to get off four rounds a minute under fire. Most commentators are comfortable saying three rounds a minute.
P. 222. “Once ensconced on Kings Mountain, he [British Major Ferguson] issued a warning to the local populace that men should expect to be executed, their wives and daughters abused by marauding loyalists if they refused to pledge themselves to the British side.” — IMHO, it is dubious that Ferguson made such a threat while briefly locating himself at Kings Mountain (SC), immediately before he was surrounded by Overmountain Men (from now TN & KY). More likely, it was his notices put out a month earlier while in NC to warn the Overmountain Men that if they didn’t lay down their arms, he would “march his army over the mountains, hang their leaders, and lay waste the country with fire and sword.”
P. 230. “’In this situation, wrote his aide,’ Charles O’Hara….” — General O’Hara was not Cornwallis’ aide, but his adjutant and his second-in-command.
P. 231. “…even ordering his [Cornwallis’] artillery to fire on his own troops when they first engaged with Greene’s last line of defense at the courthouse.” — “Not intentionally,” wrote historian North Callahan: “That’s one of the biggest myths about the battle. At one point in the battle, he [Cornwallis] came upon a melee in close combat between the 2nd Battalion of the Guards and 1st Maryland and ordered his soldiers to use a 3-pounder [cannon] to fire on Lt. Col William Washington’s light dragoons [cavalry] that had attacked the Guards and in so doing had come between Cornwallis and his troop.” It’s also been said that Colonel Henry Lee, who was not present on that part of the battlefield, blew the incident out of proportion in his memoirs, from which the unfair charge spread.
P 244 “As Gates approached the Yorktown peninsula….” — It was British Admiral Graves.
P 248. “…[O’Hara,] the talkative Irishman who had served with him [Cornwallis] throughout the Carolina campaign. O’Hara attempted to surrender his sword to Rochambeau, who declined and pointed him toward Washington, who declined to accept the sword of a subordinate officer and pointed O’Hara to Benjamin Lincoln, who accepted it….” — There are various accounts of what happened, but the most important commonality was that it was Cornwallis’ sword, not O’Hara’s, that was offered at the surrender.
P 266. “Howe also chose a bafflingly roundabout maneuver to reach Philadelphia, sailing south to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, then marching north through Delaware. (The maneuver mystified everyone, including John Adams. “We might as well imagine them gone around Cape Horn into the south Seas to land at California,” Adams confided to Abigail.)” — This move by Howe, which was cited as the reason he wasn’t able to support Burgoyne in time before the Saratoga surrender (which brought in the French), was the work of Washington. Washington had ensconced himself at the Middlebrook Encampment (NJ), which would have threatened Howe’s flank should he have tried to march (not sail) from New York to Philadelphia. Howe, wanting to capture Philadelphia, was forced to take the sea route, thus delaying his arrival in Philadelphia and preventing him from helping Burgoyne.
P. 273. “…Jay needed to know what Spain as the price for its quite limited, virtually nonexistent contribution to The Cause.” — Wikipedia has an extensive page on the importance of Spain to the independence of the United States. Through its siege of Pensacola, Spain most notably seized West Florida from the British, securing trade routes and precluding the British from attacking eastward from the Mississippi River. In addition, Spain gave the Americans numerous loans, uniforms, weapons, and gunpowder. Spanish money was used to pay for critical supplies for the siege of Yorktown and to fund the payroll for the Continental Army, much arrears in pay.
P. 303. “When word reached George III, he expressed disbelief. “If he does that,” he declared, ‘he will become the greatest man in the world.’ He did, and at least for the moment, he was.” — Actually, according to information obtained from painter Benjamin West, George III, when told that Washington was giving up power, said that if he did that, he would be “the greatest character of the age.”
P. 318. “…where Lafayette urged Washington to take the lead by establishing a haven for freed slaves in what is now West Virginia….” — This assertion comes from an out-of-print book. Search as much as I could, I find no other source mentioning this. There are plenty of sources documenting a haven in the West Indies (French Guyana) but not what is now West Virginia.
P 328. The author mentions the book’s cover as proposed by Norton Publishing, that it took two friends to help him appreciate it, but, to my knowledge, doesn’t explain the cover. For those curious, here are the results of my research: The musket to the left is a breech-loading Ferguson (invented by the aforementioned British Major) Rifle musket, the one to the right is an 18th century, left-handed, fowling (hunting) musket. The cover’s picture is likely from an out-of-print book and depicts Washington at the Battle of Princeton.
Be aware that that book uses endnotes (without a separate bibliography), sorted by chapters with the notes numbered. Notes provided within the chapters themselves use graphic symbols.
Bottom-line: Any minor issues such as those listed above aside, the book, in challenging many old views of the Revolutionary War, is a very rewarding read. Highly recommended!
Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key - the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul, a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!” and
Strategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation
December 27, 2021
Joseph Ellis gives new insight into characters from the start of the American Revolution that have been waylaid by history. A thoroughly enjoyable retelling of the decade that witnessed the dissolution of the bonds between Great Britain and the American colonies, and what came afterward before the constitution was even thought of. Definite recommend.
April 14, 2022
Ellis writes in an intriguing history in a digestible format. If you loved the Seeds of America series by Laurie Halse Anderson or Hamilton, this book might be for you.
November 7, 2021
Honestly, I'm torn (half way through) with making a 5 star review like most folks here already. I don't doubt your judgement. It's just that I've felt antagonized numerous times during the read, like the author was trying to supplant history with modern, political agenda. In early chapters, I get the sense the author is trying to make significant allusions to the early cause as something akin to the rise of communism. Perhaps this whole affair did take on some of history's greatest human flaws, but to imbed this thought into the birth of our great nation feels disingenuous. Then, as Washington becomes the focal figure, he is abused often with instances of what this author clearly thinks is either cowardice and/or incompetence. I, of course, want to discover a Washington less flawed, but perhaps this is a better view of history made by flawed individuals? I just don't see this in many other characters. I just get the sense (at least half way through) that Ellis is trying to disparage and insult Washington. I hope this is simply to make his later achievement that much more resplendent. Regardless, as a conservative and admirer of freedom fighters everywhere, I still get these little pokes of "wokeness" injected into the story. It's a bit caustic and annoying to my senses. Am I wrong?
June 15, 2022
A very interesting book on a topic I have read a great deal about. Ellis looks at the Revolution through the lease of "The Cause" and how that shaped the decisions of the colonists throughout the Revolution. The final parts of the book really struck me as you see Washington, Morris, Hamilton and others supporting the powers of a potential nation, while others like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry wanted nothing to do with national powers. Ellis' point that the colonists had no reference whatsoever in their lives of government beyond what they knew locally. A national government capital located far away from their homes would be considered "foreign" no matter who was in charge. A solid read.
February 18, 2022
I've only read two other books that deal with the American Revolution. One is Atkinson's The British Are Coming, which only covers 1775-77 and has a military focus. The other is Chernow's Hamilton. So The Cause is the first and only book I've read that covers the prelude to the war, the conflict itself, and the subsequent peace negotiations. I can't put myself in the shoes of people who have read more deeply about the Revolution, but for me the book was a revelation.
My biggest surprise was the lack of support Washington's Continental Army received from the Continental Congress. The states contributed next to nothing to the national army, mostly because they viewed it as a potential threat to their independence. Washington spent the entire war begging the Congress for funds. In the end, France provided crucial financial and military support. A wealthy private citizen, Robert Morris, wrote personal checks to each of 6000 veterans, giving them 3 months salary, a small fraction of the two years of backpay they were owed. This helped dampen support for a coup that was brewing during the peace negotiations.
Ellis does a great job explaining the runup to the war and how Americans' attitudes toward the British quickly became radicalized thanks to Parliament's (and George III's) tone-deaf response to the colonists' protests. He also nicely ties the political divisions during the Revolution to today's polarized country, where millions of citizens are in the thrall of conspiracy theories and forcefully reject the idea of a strong national government. Ellis is also adept at highlighting the non-inevitability of history. He points out lots of situations where a different prime minister, a disabling bout of gout, or a different weather event could have altered the course of history.
My biggest surprise was the lack of support Washington's Continental Army received from the Continental Congress. The states contributed next to nothing to the national army, mostly because they viewed it as a potential threat to their independence. Washington spent the entire war begging the Congress for funds. In the end, France provided crucial financial and military support. A wealthy private citizen, Robert Morris, wrote personal checks to each of 6000 veterans, giving them 3 months salary, a small fraction of the two years of backpay they were owed. This helped dampen support for a coup that was brewing during the peace negotiations.
Ellis does a great job explaining the runup to the war and how Americans' attitudes toward the British quickly became radicalized thanks to Parliament's (and George III's) tone-deaf response to the colonists' protests. He also nicely ties the political divisions during the Revolution to today's polarized country, where millions of citizens are in the thrall of conspiracy theories and forcefully reject the idea of a strong national government. Ellis is also adept at highlighting the non-inevitability of history. He points out lots of situations where a different prime minister, a disabling bout of gout, or a different weather event could have altered the course of history.
September 18, 2021
THE CAUSE, Joseph Ellis’ newest book, is by turns fantastic, engrossing and mired by small details. It manages to provide insight on a truly large scale over a series of events that we are still reckoning with, and on that level it is one of the best books I’ve ever read. However, the tendency to get lost in minutiae, intentionally, overwhelmed me. I wanted more of the great synthesis and much much less of the detail about figures lost to history. I have a better understanding of the issues that continue to animate the U.S. than I did before reading this book, yet I almost stopped reading it multiple times. I recommend it but urge patience; it is worth the struggle. I received my copy from the publisher through NetGalley.
June 9, 2023
the sentence structure and turn of phrase are great. the content is a new book, yet nothing new. no new ideas or research. in a few places, the author tries to engage women’s history and Black people, though never their intersection. the assertion that lost me was toward the end when the author claims that although George Washington viewed Black people as property before the war, he came around to their place in “the cause” after the war bc they fought in it. I recommend INDEPENDENCE LOST by Kathleen Duval and Kathleen Duval’s brilliant review of THE CAUSE in WSJ.
October 4, 2021
More an intellectual history of the revolution, with a few asides for significant battles. It’s an interesting book.
April 20, 2024
Dr. Ellis appears to have the most enthusiasm for personalities and character analysis. Thus, he is not in his natural element when writing not a biography, but the description of an entire war. The result is very idiosyncratic, concentrating on the personalities and omitting tons of information about the course of the war. This should not be anyone's first book on the revolution.
Besides the many gaps, I took issue with some of the narrative, such as the Battle of Monmouth (Courthouse), which appears to take the traditional line and does not reflect more modern scholarship. The perspective on General Greene seems unbelievably positive, never mentioning, for example, that while quartermaster general, he set up his own supply company and would use government money to buy commodities from it, a clear conflict of interest.
I tend to disagree with Ellis referring to Robert Morris as an immigrant. Yes, he moved from Liverpool to Maryland, but was still in the same empire. Same for Hamilton.
He writes confusingly about the Bank of the United States being capitalized at $40K, which seems preposterous considering that the earlier Bank of North America got $400K, but it is good to see an admission that the financial program that Hamilton receives so much praise for was in fact originated by Morris. Too few mention this. That delegate James Madison opposed the bank even at this stage is not mentioned, leading to another myth: that after the Constitution Madison was weaned away from Hamilton's ideas by Jefferson. In fact Madison always thought for himself.
Ellis seems far off the mark on the subject of Washington's compensation after the war. The general famously refused any salary, but agreed to work on an expense report basis. After the war he turned in a report totalling, according to most sources, $449,261. This was no small sum, considering that the value of the entire national economy at the time was worth only $25 million. Among the expenses claimed were a new, fancy coach and horse team, plenty of expensive wine and other exotic items. Congress thought this over and granted him $100,000 and $500 a month for life. In addition, in 1832 it offered his heirs another $200,000. What does Ellis say? That Washington charged a mere 8,422 British pounds. Seems misleading at best.
On the plus side, Ellis writes in a very compact, yet meaningful way that is easy to read and comprehend, as well as generally warm and often amusing.
By the way, the Discontents of the title, mainly discussed in the last chapter, are all those who lost out as a result of the war: the British, the loyalists, the Indians, the enslaved and the proponents of decentralized government.
Besides the many gaps, I took issue with some of the narrative, such as the Battle of Monmouth (Courthouse), which appears to take the traditional line and does not reflect more modern scholarship. The perspective on General Greene seems unbelievably positive, never mentioning, for example, that while quartermaster general, he set up his own supply company and would use government money to buy commodities from it, a clear conflict of interest.
I tend to disagree with Ellis referring to Robert Morris as an immigrant. Yes, he moved from Liverpool to Maryland, but was still in the same empire. Same for Hamilton.
He writes confusingly about the Bank of the United States being capitalized at $40K, which seems preposterous considering that the earlier Bank of North America got $400K, but it is good to see an admission that the financial program that Hamilton receives so much praise for was in fact originated by Morris. Too few mention this. That delegate James Madison opposed the bank even at this stage is not mentioned, leading to another myth: that after the Constitution Madison was weaned away from Hamilton's ideas by Jefferson. In fact Madison always thought for himself.
Ellis seems far off the mark on the subject of Washington's compensation after the war. The general famously refused any salary, but agreed to work on an expense report basis. After the war he turned in a report totalling, according to most sources, $449,261. This was no small sum, considering that the value of the entire national economy at the time was worth only $25 million. Among the expenses claimed were a new, fancy coach and horse team, plenty of expensive wine and other exotic items. Congress thought this over and granted him $100,000 and $500 a month for life. In addition, in 1832 it offered his heirs another $200,000. What does Ellis say? That Washington charged a mere 8,422 British pounds. Seems misleading at best.
On the plus side, Ellis writes in a very compact, yet meaningful way that is easy to read and comprehend, as well as generally warm and often amusing.
By the way, the Discontents of the title, mainly discussed in the last chapter, are all those who lost out as a result of the war: the British, the loyalists, the Indians, the enslaved and the proponents of decentralized government.
September 2, 2024
Ellis’ “The Cause: The American Revolution and its Discontents, 1773-1783” offers a riveting dive into one of the most transformative periods in American history. Known for his engaging narrative style, Ellis delivers a thorough examination of the American Revolution, revealing the complexities and contradictions that have often been glossed over in more celebratory accounts. Ellis begins by setting the stage in the early 1770s, a time when the colonies were simmering with discontent. He expertly unpacks the ideological and practical grievances that fueled the revolution, from unfair taxation to the quest for self-governance. Ellis portrays the rebels as larger-than-life heroes and as real people grappling with profound uncertainties and conflicting motivations. Ellis doesn’t shy away from highlighting the moral and social contradictions of the era. For instance, he points out the irony of a fight for liberty being led by individuals who were, in many cases, slave owners. This nuanced perspective enriches the reader’s understanding of the period, painting a more complete and, at times, unsettling picture of the revolution. Ellis also excels in bringing lesser-known stories and perspectives to the forefront. The experiences of women, Native Americans, and loyalists are woven into the larger narrative, providing a holistic view that goes beyond the conventional focus on military battles and political maneuverings. This inclusivity helps to illustrate the wide-ranging impact of the revolution on various segments of society. “The Cause” is both informative and entertaining, maintaining a lively pace that keeps readers engaged from start to finish. Whether you’re a history buff or a casual reader, Ellis’ masterful storytelling and insightful analysis make this book a compelling read. It’s a valuable addition to the literature on the American Revolution, offering fresh insights and a deeper appreciation for the complexities of America’s fight for independence.
September 30, 2022
Well written and decently engaging, this really just reads like a college level history textbook on what happened during the revolution. The Goodreads blurb for this really oversells the personal perspective from all sorts of different characters, as those different biographies are just 2-3 pages at the end of each chapter. I guess it mentions the conflict and hypocrisy of the declaration of independence with slavery briefly which is better than most history classes I've been in but really it just follows general Washington roving around the country fighting the British for a majority of the book. I like military history so I was able to not fall asleep during those parts but man besides that the American Revolution is a lot less interesting I thought it was lmao. This either needed to be 700 pages longer to give a more thorough history of the conflict (which I definitely would not have read), had a much smaller scale and told more personal stories about perspectives from slaves and natives and loyalists you don't often hear about (which is what I assumed this would be from reading the blurb), or actually confronted the contradictions of the revolution instead of just mentioning them without offering any real insight. Because while the back of the book says it takes a more "real" look at the conflict and the important figures behind it the last 30 pages basically just jack off Washington the entire time.
November 3, 2025
Joseph J. Ellis proves once again he's among the best history writers today. Of his works, I've only so far read The Quartet, his examination of four important founding fathers as they pushed for the establishment of a new U.S. constitution, and I was thoroughly impressed by it. This volume is impressive not just in a biographical or military history sense (Ellis covers the individual backstories and escapades of major and minor American Revolution figures as well as provides a very well done retelling of the entire war to a decent degree of detail) but also provides astute political analysis I've found very enjoyable among the best history authors out there.
While the reader may certainly treat this as yet another American Revolution history book, which is certainly fair, Ellis's motivation to write this volume is to examine the political phenomenon of "The Cause" and the way this cause influenced decision making in the rebelling colonies as well as in Great Britain. The coverage of British parliament and King George's deliberations on the war were very interesting to me as I am already quite thoroughly familiar with much of the American side of the war.
All in all, there really isn't much more for me to say about this book besides the fact that it is genuinely an excellent one volume history of the American Revolution. A high recommend from me to anyone interested in American Revolutionary history, US history, and military and political history.
While the reader may certainly treat this as yet another American Revolution history book, which is certainly fair, Ellis's motivation to write this volume is to examine the political phenomenon of "The Cause" and the way this cause influenced decision making in the rebelling colonies as well as in Great Britain. The coverage of British parliament and King George's deliberations on the war were very interesting to me as I am already quite thoroughly familiar with much of the American side of the war.
All in all, there really isn't much more for me to say about this book besides the fact that it is genuinely an excellent one volume history of the American Revolution. A high recommend from me to anyone interested in American Revolutionary history, US history, and military and political history.
September 26, 2021
With The Cause, Joseph Ellis proves that he is among the country's most insightful historians of the Revolutionary Era. His book presents a penetrating analysis of the political, military, social and (most interesting) psychological forces--both British and American--that underlied the principal events of the transformational decade that began on the streets of Boston and ended on the shores of the Chesapeake. In just 300-plus pages of limpid and witty narrative, Ellis unearths insights about the thoughts and deeds of the protagonists that I had not fully appreciated before. Throughout, Ellis takes a fresh look at the convulsive events of the decade and keeps his readers mindful of the all-too-human passions and prejudices that had a decisive effect on its successes and failures on both sides of the Atlantic. As Ellis sees it, The Cause had both tragedy and irony built into its fabric--the failure to put an end to the tragedy of slavery and the brutal dispossession of Native Americans and the irony of a revolution determined to win independence that failed to create a unified American nation. This book is an engrossing read for anyone who wishes to understand more deeply the whys and wherefores of the cause for American independence--warts and all.
May 19, 2023
Absolutely outstanding monograph on the American Revolution and the origin of a nation. Joseph J. Ellis argues that two levels of groups worked to accomplish the Revolution and maintained loyalty to “THE CAUSE.” Elite, educated men wrote pamphlets that were published around the colonies—and with the highest literary rate in the world, everyone in the colonies was reading and discussing these tracts. Secondly, groups of ordinary citizens patrolled their communities and demanded loyalty to the cause, forcing out loyalists from their homes and businesses. It was brutal, but effective. This incredible devotion to the cause meant that England could not win, despite its superior military force, greater numbers, and extensive assets. Even though the British won battle after battle, they could never retain much of what they won—with the exception of New York.
Ellis uses the literature of the day both in England and the colonies to show how “The Cause” spread. He uses letters and military records as evidence in his discussion of the war.
One weakness is that Ellis tends to talk about the elite more than the ordinary—probably because of the evidence that remained.
Highly recommend this book on the Revolutionary War. Remarkable.
Ellis uses the literature of the day both in England and the colonies to show how “The Cause” spread. He uses letters and military records as evidence in his discussion of the war.
One weakness is that Ellis tends to talk about the elite more than the ordinary—probably because of the evidence that remained.
Highly recommend this book on the Revolutionary War. Remarkable.
October 6, 2022
Ellis’s latest book is well written and engaging, providing a wonderful overview of the political and military movements of the Revolution. This would be great for an introductory course on the American Revolution, and is also a good read for the average history-loving layperson. It’s hard to argue against anything in the book due to Ellis’s credentials.
The book is far from woke as a few have accused it of being. (Sometimes reading reviews on Goodreads is like reading the comments… don’t do it.) Though the book’s description claims it will tell the story from all sides, it does not. In fact, very little of substance is said of the enslaved and native Americans until the epilogue. A post script only a few pages long. Even less is said about women outsides of Abagail Adams infamous correspondence with her husband imploring him to not forget the women. The story of the enslaved during the main part of the book is told from the POV of the white men above them. Ellis mistakenly calls one of Washington’s enslaved a “servant.” The founding fathers are applauded for being founding fathers and some are applauded for wanting slavery to end. But then they are all excused because they didn’t know what to do about it.
These are real shortcomings but I can’t use them to give the book an even lower rating because it is still very informative, well researched, and best I can tell, historically accurate. If you’re looking for a different perspective you’ll need to find a different book.
The book is far from woke as a few have accused it of being. (Sometimes reading reviews on Goodreads is like reading the comments… don’t do it.) Though the book’s description claims it will tell the story from all sides, it does not. In fact, very little of substance is said of the enslaved and native Americans until the epilogue. A post script only a few pages long. Even less is said about women outsides of Abagail Adams infamous correspondence with her husband imploring him to not forget the women. The story of the enslaved during the main part of the book is told from the POV of the white men above them. Ellis mistakenly calls one of Washington’s enslaved a “servant.” The founding fathers are applauded for being founding fathers and some are applauded for wanting slavery to end. But then they are all excused because they didn’t know what to do about it.
These are real shortcomings but I can’t use them to give the book an even lower rating because it is still very informative, well researched, and best I can tell, historically accurate. If you’re looking for a different perspective you’ll need to find a different book.
December 15, 2021
Full disclosure: The publisher sent me a free copy of this book as part of a Goodreads-related giveaway. They asked me to review the book on Goodreads to increase awareness. Joseph Ellis is one of my favorite nonfiction American history authors and I had planned to read the book anyway.
The Cause is almost like a prequel to Ellis's best known books. As its subtitle says, it covers the period before the Constitutional Convention. Its cast of characters include the big names like Washington and Franklin, but it also includes lesser known figures whose contribution to the Revolution were also important.
One thing that sets this book apart is its treatment of the British side of the sovereignty debate. All too often, Americans only know about the British during this era through cartoonish popular depictions such as those in Miranda's Hamilton or "Schoolhouse Rock." The Cause sets some of these simplified narratives straight, but it is impossible to read it without rooting for the Patriots.
The Cause is almost like a prequel to Ellis's best known books. As its subtitle says, it covers the period before the Constitutional Convention. Its cast of characters include the big names like Washington and Franklin, but it also includes lesser known figures whose contribution to the Revolution were also important.
One thing that sets this book apart is its treatment of the British side of the sovereignty debate. All too often, Americans only know about the British during this era through cartoonish popular depictions such as those in Miranda's Hamilton or "Schoolhouse Rock." The Cause sets some of these simplified narratives straight, but it is impossible to read it without rooting for the Patriots.
October 30, 2021
After reading this book by Ellis, I can hardly believe that we actually won the Revolution against England. Both sides went into the war thinking it would end quickly, but like the Civil War, it dragged on. Both sides made drastic mistakes in how they conducted the war. The interesting take away was how divided the population was -- with many loyalists and as many patriots -- with many who wanted everything to just return to the way it was before 1773 and just as many wanting us to be free -- and with most colonies not supporting the Army or the idea of a becoming a "United States". In some ways it was a time much like we are going through now divided in how to proceed. Great read!
January 23, 2022
Author, Joseph Ellis in his latest book, The Cause: The American Revolution and it's Discontents, 1773-1783, does a masterful job of detailing the myriad of problems facing the birth of our nation. Ellis makes known the struggle amongst the individual states as to logistical, financial, and manpower support for the war effort as well as the longstanding resistance of the states to unite under a central federal authority. I heartily recommend 'The Cause' to those whom would know the true trials and tribulations involved in the forming of our republic.
April 24, 2022
"Wherever one chooses to take a stand, there can be no question that we must come to terms with an unusual kind of political animal, the prudent revolutionary."
"Legacies [of the Cause] gave American political thought a decidedly oppositional edge, much surer about what it was against than what it was for, prepared to block any hostile takeover from above by any aspiring dictator or domestic version of British tyranny, but incapable of decisive action at the national level to face or resolve the two embedded tragedies of slavery and Native American genocide in slow motion."
"Legacies [of the Cause] gave American political thought a decidedly oppositional edge, much surer about what it was against than what it was for, prepared to block any hostile takeover from above by any aspiring dictator or domestic version of British tyranny, but incapable of decisive action at the national level to face or resolve the two embedded tragedies of slavery and Native American genocide in slow motion."
June 15, 2025
On its surface, this is another re-telling of the Revolutionary War; but this one is from a more political slant, the titular cause being the cause of liberty and independence. One thing different, is Ellis basically says the outcome was preordained; only, in his opinion, the British had no chance of winning this fight. Some of the more interesting things are actually post-war, when the country had a very weak federal government, and to many, strengthening it was anathema to the cause. The book is very well written, the prose flows and it's an easy book to read big chunks of at once. Another thing I liked was his approach to the 2 biggest sins of US history; slavery and Native American genocide. He doesn't make any excuses for what happened, but he also frames events in the book and events to come within the context of the times.
June 21, 2022
So many quotable moments..A final take away
"There were, then, two enduring political legacies firmly embedded in the American founding at the very start: first, any robust expression of government power, most especially at the federal level, was placed on the permanent defensive; second, conspiracy theories that might otherwise have been dismissed as preposterous shouts from the lunatic fringe enjoyed a supportive environment because of their hallowed association with The Cause."
"There were, then, two enduring political legacies firmly embedded in the American founding at the very start: first, any robust expression of government power, most especially at the federal level, was placed on the permanent defensive; second, conspiracy theories that might otherwise have been dismissed as preposterous shouts from the lunatic fringe enjoyed a supportive environment because of their hallowed association with The Cause."
November 9, 2022
This account gave some very different viewpoints of the war than I'd encountered before, and helped answer some long-time questions I'd had, including:
**why the colonists refused to pay taxes, even though Britain had just fought a war in their behalf;
**why the Howe brothers weren't more aggressive;
**the sequence of events that led to the Yorktown victory;
**how this ragtag group of mostly untrained soldiers came to win against the most impressive and highly trained army in the world; and
**how difficult it was later to unify the 13 independent states into a nation.
Readers experience more deeply how very difficult this war was--both for the Continental Army, who were continually criticized, sometimes starving, and unpaid, while the militia volunteers were admired--and for George Washington, who often found himself in situations that were desperate and impossible to negotiate.
The book was well-written, and I especially appreciated that it was kept to a manageable length, 375 pages, rather than going on to 500 or so. The profiles at the end of each chapter--of lesser-known figures involved in the war--added interesting sidelights.
**why the colonists refused to pay taxes, even though Britain had just fought a war in their behalf;
**why the Howe brothers weren't more aggressive;
**the sequence of events that led to the Yorktown victory;
**how this ragtag group of mostly untrained soldiers came to win against the most impressive and highly trained army in the world; and
**how difficult it was later to unify the 13 independent states into a nation.
Readers experience more deeply how very difficult this war was--both for the Continental Army, who were continually criticized, sometimes starving, and unpaid, while the militia volunteers were admired--and for George Washington, who often found himself in situations that were desperate and impossible to negotiate.
The book was well-written, and I especially appreciated that it was kept to a manageable length, 375 pages, rather than going on to 500 or so. The profiles at the end of each chapter--of lesser-known figures involved in the war--added interesting sidelights.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 270 reviews