Our First Civil War: Patriots and Loyalists in the American Revolution

by H.W. Brands

New York Times bestselling historian H. W. Brands offers a fresh and dramatic narrative of the American Revolution that shows it to be more than a fight against the British, but also a violent battle among neighbors forced to choose sides, Loyalist and Patriot.

What causes a man to forsake his country and take arms against it? What prompts others, hardly distinguishable in station or success, to defend that country against the rebels?  That is the question H. W. Brands answers in his original new narrative history of the American Revolution.

George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were the unlikeliest of rebels. Washington in the 1770s stood at the apex of Virginia society. Franklin was more successful still, having risen from humble origins to world fame. John Adams might have seemed a more obvious candidate for rebellion, being of cantankerous temperament. Even so, he revered the law. Yet all three men became rebels against the British Empire that fostered their success.  

William Franklin might have been expected to join his father, Benjamin, in rebellion but remained loyal to the British. So did Thomas Hutchinson, a royal governor and friend of the Franklins, and Joseph Galloway, an early challenger to the Crown. They soon heard themselves denounced as traitors--for not having betrayed the country where they grew up. Native Americans and the enslaved were also forced to choose sides as civil war broke out around them.

After the Revolution, the Patriots were cast as heroes and founding fathers while the Loyalists were relegated to bit parts best forgotten. Our First Civil War reminds us that before America could win its revolution against Britain, the Patriots had to win a bitter civil war against their sons and neighbors.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, American Revolution, War, American Revolutionary War, American

486 pages, Hardcover

First published November 9, 2021

About the author

H.W. Brands is an acclaimed American historian and author of over thirty books on U.S. history, including Pulitzer Prize finalists The First American and Traitor to His Class. He holds the Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin, where he earned his PhD. Originally trained in mathematics, Brands turned to history as a way to pursue his passion for writing. His biographical works on figures like Franklin, Jackson, Grant, and both Roosevelts have earned critical and popular praise for their readability and depth. Raised in Oregon and educated at Stanford, Reed College, and Portland State, he began his teaching career in high schools before entering academia. He later taught at Texas A&M and Vanderbilt before returning to UT Austin. Brands challenges conventional reverence for the Founding Fathers, advocating for a more progressive and evolving view of American democracy. In addition to academic works, his commentary has featured in major documentaries. His books, published internationally and translated into multiple languages, examine U.S. political, economic, and cultural development with compelling narrative force. Beyond academia, he is a public intellectual contributing to national conversations on history and governance.

Reviews

[Blaine DeSantis · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of our leading historians tackles the Revolutionary War in his newest book, and while it is not quite up to the level of his prior works it is a solid work on that period in US history that we all know about (We Won!) but of which little is really known of all the behind the scenes work that went on in the US, with the military, in London and Paris. One of the main issues I had with this book is the title. I had expected a much more detailed look at those people living in America at the time and the contrast between the Revolutionaries and the Loyalists. It never really meets the standard laid out in the title. We do have lots of information on Washington, Franklin, John Adams, as well as the politicians in London and Paris, but as to the average loyalist in America there are very few glimpses of their lives. Yes one or two do shine through but this book is basically about the elites and how things maneuvered during this period. Fascinating book in that regard, with a heavy emphasis on personal correspondence and diaries of these individuals (sometime a tad bit too much verbatim quotations). And we see the highs and lows among the rulers in England, the Congress in Philly, our military leaders and the difficulties that all parties had during his momentous period of World History. Very good book, not his best, but it does shine a light on a topic that Brands has not really delved into in his previous works.

[Ben Denison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok, spent the three day weekend with this (audio) book, based on the knowledge my two main history guides, Peg on the History Shelf (book tube) and Bill Ruttenberg (booktuber) both have on their TBR’s for a buddy read later this year, but I couldn’t wait. Both are excellent follows I highly recommend.

The book “Our First Civil War” was a very interesting book, but it was NOT what I expected. The book focused mainly on Washington and Ben Franklin and provided a lot of information that I did not know before. Especially about Franklin and his Loyalist son, William. Also seemed a lot of time devoted to his role as Ambassador to England and/or France in negotiations before and after the war started.

I expected more of a recounting of the fighting between loyalists and rebels/patriots. And there was some good stuff on the Appointed Governors and politicians that were obviously part of the motherland England’s organizational structure but from and living amongst the Americans and the divided feelings and loyalties. Also some information on emancipated slaves during the Revolutionary War (I had no clue) that England promised them freedom to take up arms against the patriots.

But the bulk of the book was about Franklin and some on Washington and while good, I wanted more on the loyalist common man vs patriot common man. The last 3-5% of the book was a great recounting of what happened to many of the loyalists after American Independence.

Overall a good book, but I think the synopsis fooled me, or I heard what I wanted to hear. It was good, but not what I was hoping for or expected.

[La Crosse County Library · Rating 4 out of 5]

Our First Civil War gives a new perspective on American history surrounding the American Revolution, emphasizing how contentious independence was and examining the motives surrounding those who fought under the banner of the Patriots or Loyalists.



Far from the simplistic narrative taught about this moment in American history, Our First Civil War reveals the inherent complexity of this time. Brought into this narrative is the often glossed-over experience of slaves forcibly removed from Africa and the indigenous peoples of America, forced to take sides in a conflict between the erstwhile United States of America and the British.



For slaves, the British offered freedom in exchange for helping them in the fight against the rebel colonists, something that the American side was not as willing to do, and then, only when need was greatest, open recruitment to enslaved Africans under terms less favorable than the British offered.

Meanwhile, indigenous peoples wanted their ancestral lands secured as various imperial powers fought over the continent. Various tribes ended up switching sides when it became clear that the power promising them to preserve their rights to their territories and keep marauding settlers from intruding on their lands was on the losing side in the struggle.

Although we hear mostly from elites supporting the Loyalist cause more than the commoners, the correspondence and personal writings shared by leading figures of the time reveal that each side was fighting for what it believed was right, with motives that cause readers to ponder what they would do in such a situation. History rarely is as simple as the leading historical narratives we are taught in school.



One thing that I had not previously learned in my history courses was the poignant divide in the Franklin family, with Benjamin Franklin of inventor and statesman fame firmly on the side of the Patriots, while his son, William, equally fervent in his support of the British. William was at one time a colonial governor and believed that he was doing the right thing for his country and his family; he saw a split from Britain to be disastrous. Imperial protection had ensured prosperity and safety for the fledgling colonies, who otherwise would be hard-pressed to defend themselves against the rest of the world. Not to mention that revolution was basically treason against king and country.



Meanwhile, the elder Franklin, who'd been publicly scorned when going to testify before the Crown's administration in London, absolutely detested Britain and put all his efforts towards securing American independence. It was the Loyalists who were committing treason against the American colonies by supporting the arbitrary rule of the British Parliament and Crown.



The surprising thing was that Benjamin Franklin had been, up until that pivotal moment in London, working for reconciliation with the mother country, even when it became evident that popular sentiment against taxation without representation was reaching a boiling point. Even early on in the American Revolution, Franklin held out hope that a peaceful settlement could yet be arranged where the colonies could secure representation in Parliament without further bloodshed on either side.



This book covers much of the time leading up to the Revolution, prophesizing the divides that would eventually determine the military power one fought for. For example, mercantile interests (unsurprisingly) went with whatever side could secure its commerce, which was the British at the outset. Britain had a formidable navy that allowed it to project its power around the world.



Until the bite of the newest taxation measures proclaimed by the Crown to pay off the significant debts it accrued in the French-Indian War made lower level players, such as artisans and farmers lean revolutionary. Although, it must be noted that some large landholders, like George Washington, also went with the revolutionary cause, even though much of their stature (economic and socially) was gained under British rule.

It was fascinating getting a closer look at the political wranglings of the American colonies that would lead to violence later on in the Revolution. While the Revolution was covered as well in the book, I found more intriguing the political dynamics of the American colonies pre-Revolution.

While starting off slowly and sometimes meandering, Our First Civil War is an enlightening read on the American Revolution and its very complicated history. Well worth the read for history buffs like myself.

Find this book and other titles within our catalog.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Brands has been hit-or-miss for several years now, and while this book isn't as bad as his one a few years ago about Dugout Doug MacArthur in Korea, it's not that good. (Change that; as I finish writing the review, I think it's as bad, and maybe worse in some ways. "Goes to character, your honor." See below.)

Having recently read Stanley Weintraub's "Iron Tears," I already knew a fair amount about Loyalist-Patriot divisions, and MUCH more about divisions within British leadership and thought leaders.

I picked up two new things of note from this book, one questionable.

The first, and unquestionable, was the information about Joseph Galloway eventually going Loyalist. I knew he had, but hadn't before read the details.

The second, is of two parts.

First, on the good side, is to have Brands showing Franklin originally asking for reparations, as well as for Canada, at the start of peace negotiations.

But, later in the peace talks narrative, Brands appears to be dipping into revisionist history. Revisionism isn't necessarily bad, but it is when it doesn't appear to be based on anything.

Brands claims that Vergennes gave Franklin his blessing to pursue independent peace talks, shortly before Adams and Jay arrived in Paris. He claims Vergennes said this would help France as well as the US. He goes on to portray Vergennes as having total equinamity when the results came in.

NEVER heard that before. The story I've always heard is that Jay as well as Adams thought Franklin was too wedded to Vergennes and persuaded him that they needed to strike out on their own. The American team then presented the British offer as a fait accompli to France.

And, I'm three-quarters right and one-quarter wrong, but right on the bigger part. It is true that after the Battle of the Straits, Vergennes said France had grown tired but couldn't get Spain to back off yet. BUT ... Brands omits that Vergennes said his plan was for a USofA to be east of Appalachia with the Ohio Country an Indian-held neutral ground. He also omits that Jay approached Shelburne right after this and started the process of what were not just independent but SEPARATE negotiations. And, Jay and Adams had a significant part in them, unlike in Brands' telling, which makes negotiations into almost entirely a work by Franklin.

It's all at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...

Or more details, and a bit more nuance, at a site specifically devoted to the Treaty of Paris: https://www.treatyofparis.org/

With that, I can note that this is when I moved my review from three stars to two.

I'll add, per the "goes to character," that the Treaty of Paris section comes off as mendacious. Brands has lost some serious credibility.

[Anne Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting book on the American Revolution, although not as good as previous Brands books that I've read. It went on longer than I thought it needed to go, included a lot more than I thought it needed (including a lot about the French and Indian War that, while interesting, was far more than I really needed for setting the stage for a book on the American Revolution), and while I liked how lots of primary sources were used, I thought there were times, especially towards the end, where there was far too much unneeded direct quoting from diaries. A strange thing to say, but there it is. While there was a lot of interesting information here, especially regarding the relationship between Benjamin Franklin and his Loyalist son, I was expecting a lot more detailed information about the daily experience of Americans who remained loyal to Britain in the lead up and throughout the war. I never really felt like I got that. There was a lot about Washington, his troubles with Congress, military maneuvers that I never quite understood how they fit into the book, but not as much of the experience of the Loyalist in America overall. I did appreciate how Brands charted Ben Franklin's changing views on American and British relationships, but overall I found myself a bit disappointed with the book overall. Perhaps more based on what I expected than the book itself.

I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

[Jon · Rating 2 out of 5]

A book I expected to deliver a detailed discussion of Patriot vs Loyalist conflicts but which turned out to be a light history of the period with extensive quotes of Franklin's correspondence. Interesting at times but failed to deliver on its thesis.

[Brant · Rating 2 out of 5]

At the beginning of the book, Brands poses these compelling questions: What causes people to forsake their country and take up arms against it? What promotes their neighbors, hardly distinguishable in station or success, to defend that country against rebels? I just wished he answered them.

My gripe is that this book, an unoriginal “top-down” narrative history of the Revolutionary War, proposes itself to be something that it is not. In light of the Jan. 6th riot and continued media pronouncements of impending civil war, I wanted a bottom-up history of the reasons colonists sided with England and fought against family, friends, and neighbors. That was the book I thought I was getting when I read the title, book sleeve, and introduction. But that never came. Instead, I read of Franklin, Adams, and Washington, which is fine, but it is a story told so many times before.

[BookOwlDevoursBooks (Cora) (Review Hiatus) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Our First Civil War gives a new perspective on American history surrounding the American Revolution, emphasizing how contentious independence was and examining the motives surrounding those who fought under the banner of the Patriots or Loyalists.



Far from the simplistic narrative taught about this moment in American history, Our First Civil War reveals the inherent complexity of this time. Brought into this narrative is the often glossed-over experience of slaves forcibly removed from Africa and the indigenous peoples of America, forced to take sides in a conflict between the erstwhile United States of America and the British.



For slaves, the British offered freedom in exchange for helping them in the fight against the rebel colonists, something that the American side was not as willing to do, and then, only when need was greatest, open recruitment to enslaved Africans under terms less favorable than the British offered.

Meanwhile, indigenous peoples wanted their ancestral lands secured as various imperial powers fought over the continent. Various tribes ended up switching sides when it became clear that the power promising them to preserve their rights to their territories and keep marauding settlers from intruding on their lands was on the losing side in the struggle.

Although we hear mostly from elites supporting the Loyalist cause more than the commoners, the correspondence and personal writings shared by leading figures of the time reveal that each side was fighting for what it believed was right, with motives that cause readers to ponder what they would do in such a situation. History rarely is as simple as the leading historical narratives we are taught in school.



One thing that I had not previously learned in my history courses was the poignant divide in the Franklin family, with Benjamin Franklin of inventor and statesman fame firmly on the side of the Patriots, while his son, William, equally fervent in his support of the British. William was at one time a colonial governor and believed that he was doing the right thing for his country and his family; he saw a split from Britain to be disastrous. Imperial protection had ensured prosperity and safety for the fledgling colonies, who otherwise would be hard-pressed to defend themselves against the rest of the world. Not to mention that revolution was basically treason against king and country.



Meanwhile, the elder Franklin, who'd been publicly scorned when going to testify before the Crown's administration in London, absolutely detested Britain and put all his efforts towards securing American independence. It was the Loyalists who were committing treason against the American colonies by supporting the arbitrary rule of the British Parliament and Crown.



The surprising thing was that Benjamin Franklin had been, up until that pivotal moment in London, working for reconciliation with the mother country, even when it became evident that popular sentiment against taxation without representation was reaching a boiling point. Even early on in the American Revolution, Franklin held out hope that a peaceful settlement could yet be arranged where the colonies could secure representation in Parliament without further bloodshed on either side.



This book covers much of the time leading up to the Revolution, prophesizing the divides that would eventually determine the military power one fought for. For example, mercantile interests (unsurprisingly) went with whatever side could secure its commerce, which was the British at the outset. Britain had a formidable navy that allowed it to project its power around the world.



Until the bite of the newest taxation measures proclaimed by the Crown to pay off the significant debts it accrued in the French-Indian War made lower level players, such as artisans and farmers lean revolutionary. Although, it must be noted that some large landholders, like George Washington, also went with the revolutionary cause, even though much of their stature (economic and socially) was gained under British rule.

It was fascinating getting a closer look at the political wranglings of the American colonies that would lead to violence later on in the Revolution. While the Revolution was covered as well in the book, I found more intriguing the political dynamics of the American colonies pre-Revolution.

While starting off slowly and sometimes meandering, Our First Civil War is an enlightening read on the American Revolution and its very complicated history. Well worth the read for history buffs like myself.

[Arminius]

Our First Civil War was a very interesting book in that we have often forgotten that there were many loyalists that were in America at the time of the American Revolution. Most of them had experienced a bad time during the Revolution. One such women was Grace Growden Galloway. Her husband worked for General Washington but switched sides to join the British. When the British had occupied Philadelphia, the Galloways home town, everything worked out good for their family. However when the British pulled out of Philadelphia and occupied New York things changed for this poor women. Joseph, her husband, left to go to New York taking their daughter with him but leaving Grace to watch over their house in Philadelphia. The Patriots kicked her out of her home. So she moved to a seedy part of Philadelphia however she felt that she was freer than she had ever been in her life being poor with no commitments made her apparently happy.

Another loyalist was Benjamin Franklin’s son, William. William had been the appointed governor of New Jersey. However when war broke out he was taken by Patriot forces and imprisoned. Dr. Franklin at the time was in France working to get France involved. William was imprisoned for most of the 8 year war. When the war ended he had fared much better than most of the other loyalists. He was given a British pension. He had attempted to smooth things over with his famous father but that also failed.
Most of the loyalists, some fifty to a hundred thousand, sailed of the England, Canada or West Indies and settled in those areas.

One of the more interesting parts of the book is where General Washington’s Officers were on the verge of mutiny because they weren’t being paid by the Congress when the General spoke to them. After Washington spoke his first paragraph then he fumbled for his glassed so he can read his statement but he said ‘’ having grown gray in this service, I mow find myself going blind.” After congress heard this they released money to pay the officers.

The book lays out the War as well. But no one can appreciate how much George Washington had done to win this War to create what would become the World’s greatest country.

[Pam · Rating 1 out of 5]

Too much of the books is quotations, and I mean long ones, of the correspondence written by Franklin, Washington, Adams. I learned a few things but doubt I’ll finish the book, I am finding it difficult to listen to.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise, well-written and well-researched work, though the title is misleading.

The narrative is vivid, straightforward and moves along at a brisk pace, though it is a bit disjointed. The writing is clear. Much of the book is taken up by lengthy excerpts from letters, especially Washington and Franklin. In fact, Washington and Franklin take up much of the book. Like I said, the title is rather misleading. Other topics covered include Washington’s service in the French and Indian War (this conflict actually takes up about sixty pages), Franklin’s Albany Plan, John Adams’ legal defense of the British soldiers in Boston, Franklin’s time in London, Continental Army deserters, and Franklin’s diplomacy in Paris, and the course of the peace negotiations. The stories of Benedict Arnold and Joseph Brant are also covered, even though they weren’t really American “loyalists.”

Brands stresses the theme of the war being a civil war; sometimes this is fleshed out well, sometimes not so much. No doubt many readers will pick up this book for an exploration of Loyalists’ ideas, actions and role in the war, but those readers will no doubt be disappointed; Brands mostly illustrates these with anecdotes. If one wanted to write a history of the war focusing on Loyalists, the war in the southern colonies can’t be ignored, but Brands’ treatment of that theater is surprisingly brief. It also seems to be based mostly on secondary sources. The book also includes lengthy word-for-word excerpts of people’s conversations.

A comprehensive and engaging work, but the actual subjects covered may puzzle you.

[Joe Kessler · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a solid history of the American Revolution, with plenty of specific details that I didn't previously know. It's burdened with a misleading title, however, as there's no real attempt here to apply an analytic lens of rebellion-as-civil-war upon events and only a minimal effort to explore the loyalist perspective, especially post-1776. Author H. W. Brands also has a tendency of reifying the 'great men' of the era, such that we hear a lot about George Washington and Benjamin Franklin in particular and less regarding lower-profile individuals and common citizens.

I would say the core strength of the text is in its scholarly rigor, which leads to excerpts of many primary documents that flesh out the conflict. I appreciate the early accounts of how those two future Founding Fathers gradually came to support independence too, as well as the explanations of why the British tax situation grew so steep (beyond the simplistic motive of greed that's often attached to that story). This isn't a bad book overall, but it wasn't what I expected given the name and ultimately doesn't distinguish itself much from other works on the subject.

[Content warning for slavery, racism, and gore.]

Like this review?
--Throw me a quick one-time donation here!
https://ko-fi.com/lesserjoke
--Subscribe here to support my writing and weigh in on what I read next!
https://patreon.com/lesserjoke
--Follow along on Goodreads here!
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6...
--Or click here to browse through all my previous reviews!
https://lesserjoke.home.blog

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was interesting, but it was much less the story of the Patriots versus Loyalists than the Continental leaders (wealthy people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington) versus the British government. The Loyalists were sort of mentioned in passing on occasion, but they were not given anything like the extensive examination afforded to the Continental leaders or the British government.

A much more thorough treatment of this topic - featuring not only the average farmers and small businessmen who made up most of those fighting on both sides but also the Spanish, the French, and the Indians (all of whom were independent actors rather than side characters, with their own motivations and influence) - is Alan Taylor’s American Revolutions, still by far the best book I’ve ever read about this fascinating conflict.

The most enjoyable part of Brands’ book for me was the pre-revolution section, in which he detailed the various efforts of American colonists to drive the French out of the Ohio valley, and how these efforts eventually led to increased conflict with Britain. Although I knew the basics of this subject, there was considerably more detail here than I’ve previously encountered and it was quite interesting.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This si a fascinatingly human analysis of the Revolutionary war focused on the difficult and divisive choices faced by Patri0ts and Loyalists. The author shows the struggle that each side faced, helping us to see that the Loyalists were really acting to support their government as they understood it. The great strength of the book is is use of long quotations from the participants on both sides that give us rich insights into the way they came to their different choices. He also details the cost those choices bore. Battles and strategy are described quickly so the focus can be kept on the decisions people faced. My only objection to the work is that he could have done a better job of erecting a scaffold of dates to help understand where we are in the narrative. But that aside, it still opens a new perspective on the3 war and its costs.

[Carey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. Cherry picks a handful of loyalist/patriot conflicts (like Franklin and his son, William) and fills in the gaps with a thumbnail sketch of the war. Very disjointed and uneven. Also relies on long first person passages from letters, which comes across as an effort to fill pages and achieve a word count.

[Kenneth Murray · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading this book I am convinced that the gaining of independence from the British and formation of this country was an act of Providence. The division between the Loyalist, those loyal to Great Britain, and the Patriots, those seeking freedom from Great Britain, separated states, communities and families, such as Benjamin Franklin and his son, William. George Washington was sometimes a general whose leadership was successful more so because of good fortune rather than military prowess. Still, we won!

There are many people referenced in this book who were not familiar to me, but they played roles in helping to secure our independence. There were some referenced that seemed to be more of a rabbit chase rather than important to the story.

Not always an easy book to read, still I learned information not previously known to me about our struggle for freedom from England.

[Susan Morris · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars for being a comprehensive history of the Revolution. The many quotes from the Founding Fathers made it an impressive but slow read. I just feel like I’ve read other well researched histories that read easier.

[John Poth]

Excellent review of the differences between the to Loyalist and Patriot factions during and leading up to the Revolution. Very insightful.

[Brooke · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some authors that I enjoy them being interviewed about their books more than I enjoy the books. Russell Brand is one.

"What causes people to forsake their country and take up arms against it? What prompts their neighbors, hardly distinguishable in station or success, to defend that country against the rebels?"

That is advertised as the premise of the book. I made it to page 287 with little insight into the answer. Except for the reasons for the choices made by the indigenous people like Joseph Brant. Mostly we have endless letters from Ben Franklin and George Washington.

I wanted to know what the average person living in revolutionary America was thinking - i still don't know. I may try to skim the remainder since I need to return it to the library.

Addendum - I did start skimming the rest and finally found the personal stories of Joseph and Sara Galloway, more information on Joseph Brant (spared villagers from death because one had a Masonic tattoo), and the fate of the relationship of Ben Franklin and his son William.

[JS · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve been reading this for a long time. Glad I finished it. I’ve read a bunch of book about American independence and this was not the best but not the worst either

[William · Rating 2 out of 5]

I gave this book 2 stars fundamentally because it misrepresents its coverage. The book positions itself as a hard look at a contest between patriots and loyalists, which I was eager to explore, but it is no such thing. There are certainly some elements of the book that dig deeper into this contest, but most of the book is a standards tract about the revolutionary war, with a lot of coverage of battles between the colonial and British forces that has been written about better by other authors. It took me such a Lon g time to finish the book because I was so disappointed. Frankly, it looks like the publisher, Doubleday, decided to pitch Brands' book as a patriots vs. loyalists contest more as a marketing ploy than an honest description of the writing.

[Gretchen Hohmeyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite frustrated with this book, to be honest. It's pretty cool if you want to hear a whole bunch of primary source letters and stuff from many leading figures on both sides, but they often feel like vignettes produced with little context or connective tissue from Brands. Perhaps the written book has footnotes that might provide sources, but the audiobook sometimes left me wondering when a certain letter or recollection had been written or the veracity of the story described with no way to know.

[Brandon Westlake · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always appreciate H.W. Brands work of combining good historical scholarship and presenting it in a popular history vein. If more historians were to craft well researched, narrative histories, perhaps we wouldn't have such esoteric work that is seen as inaccessible to people outside of the profession.

Brands incorporates some well known stories (Hutchinson), some not as well-known (the Franklins' relationship). All touch on a very important part of the revolution that gets overlooked by popular America-huzzahing histories. He does a great job of looking at a complicated story and unpacking it for a wider audience.

[Lissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

What causes people to forsake their country and take up arms against it? What prompts their neighbors, hardly distinguishable in station or success, to defend that country against the rebels?

Well, danged if I know the answers to these in any more depth than I did before picking up this book. In spite of this being the first two sentences for the summary, the author never really manages to impart much about those questions.

I went into this book thinking that this was going to be some thought-provoking analysis of what caused some colonists to remain loyal to Great Britain while others rebelled against the homeland. Weirdly, this book barely addresses this topic. Instead, this book should have been subtitled something along the lines of "The Revolutionary War through the Eyes of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and occasionally some other dude, but not for very long, because this book is all about quoting George Washington and Benjamin Franklin for paragraphs at a time." This is a much better assessment of what is in this book.

The most irritating thing for me is that there are some glimpses of the supposed premise in a few chapters, and they're good and interesting and I want more, and then I just get wall'o'text from George Washington about something totally unrelated.

Like...what is this even supposed to be? I was AMAZED that so little treatment was given to the southern states' conflicts, because, above anywhere else in the colonies except the "Neutral Zone" in New York, THAT was the location of some serious loyalist vs patriots rage. Waxhaws and King's Mountain are briefly discussed in the prologue, and Banastre Tarleton is even more briefly mentioned three hundred pages later, and that was it. I mean these people were forming their own militias and attacking and killing their own literal neighbors, and they get less than ten pages in a 500 page book? Why was this left out in favor of a discussion of John and Abigail Adams finding the French people vulgar? The only reason I could think of is that it was because Washington and Franklin weren't directly involved with this fighting, so it was just ignored. Seriously, this book is ALL about those two.

The usage of quotes is bonkers overboard here. I can think of no other way to describe it. I'd bet that a good two-thirds of this book is nothing but direct quotes. Perhaps more than that. They go on for paragraphs and paragraphs, with all of their meandering and oblique references. It became tiring.

Also, why is there no analysis in this book? There is practically no synthesizing of information, no analyzing trends or data (why were some people more likely to be loyalists when compared to their similar neighbors, who became patriots?), etc. That was disappointing, to say the least.

Do you know what else is disappointing? The author's lack of in-depth evaluation of Benedict Arnold. Here's a guy who I think should be the subject of more scholarly study. What REALLY makes a man turn from a dedicated patriot to a loyalist? What makes him turn his coat?

I just read The Tragedy of Benedict Arnold: An American Life a couple of months ago, and while I think the book needed better editing and perhaps a more balanced view when it comes to Arnold, the author makes some very good points. Brands declares that "Arnold had never been devoted to the Patriot cause; his service was more about the personal opportunity it afforded" (p. 344). I kind of want the author's sources on this statement, because I don't think it's well supported. I do believe that the preponderance of evidence shows that Arnold was, indeed, a committed patriot at one point, but he soured along the way. He gained very, very little from being a patriot. His men loved him, of course, but that was mainly because he was a "lead from the front" officer and not a "lead from the back" type. And then he lost his business, spent years away from his children, lost pretty much all of his money, paid for his soldiers' supplies with his own money so they didn't starve and then had to BEG Congress to reimburse him (which they never did fully), was denied pay, was denied a promotion that he well deserved on flimsy grounds (a denial of a similar promotion caused Washington to resign from the Virginia militia, but the author doesn't really fault him for that), and then denied the seniority when he was finally promoted, wounded numerous times in the leg, and had his name impugned constantly as he squabbled with Congress? Yeah, I can kind of see how even the most devoted patriot might sour a bit on the cause if that stuff happened. So, no, I don't think that Arnold was just in it for the "personal opportunity," whatever that was supposed to be.

Another thing that really, really, REALLY irked me is the treatment of the Battle of Jumonville Glen during the French and Indian (or the Seven Years) War. The author says, in so many words, that a young Washington, then in the Virginia militia, led a surprise attack on a French column. Several soldiers were killed, including their commander, Jumonville. The Native American allies of the Virginians scalped the dead, and then they left. Washington was later "tricked" (debatably) into signing an agreement in which he took responsibility for l'assasinat du Sr de Jumonville (the assassination of Jumonville, the commander), an accusation which he always denied.

*record screech*

Say what?

Are we not going to talk about the accounts from other people who were there or who spoke to and recorded down the testimonies of those who were? Are we not going to talk about John Shaw, who didn't witness the action itself but wrote down what others who had been there had seen, and the fact that he wrote that Jumonville was tomahawked by one of Washington's allies and then the guy washed his hands with his brains? No? We're just not going to talk about that. Okay.

Brands' account, sanitized as it is, of Jumonville's death makes the French look rather comically stupid. Why would they call the death of a commander, no matter WHO his brother was, an "assassination" if it was just a surprise attack? That doesn't make any sense at all. But their reaction to events doesn't seem so dramatic if Shaw is correct (not to mention the other accounts that give a similar description).

Yikes.

That happened early in the book, and I still kept going. I was hoping it would get better, but it didn't. Like I said, there were a few chapters that were REALLY GOOD. But those were few and far between, and I was left feeling rather disappointed after finishing this book.

[David Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book tells the story of the American Revolutionary War, but in a different way from a “normal” history. Its focus is on the tension between the Patriots, those who favored separation from Great Britain, and the Loyalists, those who wanted to remain loyal to England and its king. More accurately perhaps, the division was between those who supported the revolution itself as a means of redressing the colonists’ grievances with England, and those who would rather avoid a war and find some other way to resolve the differences.
Brands tells the story well, and in the process outlines the key developments in the war as well as in the parallel diplomatic efforts to, at first, avoid the war, and then later, to bring it to an end with a fair settlement. He focuses on certain key individuals, either as key players in the struggle – which took an astonishing ten years from the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord to the final evacuation of the last British forces from New York – or people and forces that exemplified the tensions and the activities.
One slight oddity was that the early chapters of the story were often vague about dates, and events were not necessarily laid out in strict chronological order. Dates were often given only in months, omitting the year. I found myself looking at the end notes to clarify what year I was reading about. Since the story was focused on the split between the two sides as they emerged, that worked n=well enough, but might trouble someone looking for a strict timeline.
Even though the book’s focus is on the “civil war” story, it seems to give a fairly thorough account of the Revolutionary War. If I had previously read a full history of the Revolutionary War, it was so long ago that I would have forgotten it. Most likely I had not read a proper history but learned it in bits and pieces – high school American history, visits to historic sites, perhaps a film or two. So, this may well have been the first full portrayal of the war.
My impressions of the war include the following.
• We all have understood that George Washington led the revolutionary army and is regarded as the “father of our country.” Brands shows how true it is that Washington deserves credit for his military leadership. But it also shows how the early part of war did not go well for the Patriots, and Washington made some serious errors.
• Brands ties in what is called the French and Indian war (also called the Seven Years War) to the issues underlying the Revolutionary War. That precursor to the colonies’ rebellion against England was part of how Washington gained his reputation, but also fed into colonial resentment against the Native Americans and to a lesser extent, the French (because the French eventually came to their aid).
• Benjamin Franklin emerges as a major character, more important than I had understood. He is portrayed as renowned widely as a scientist, and very popular among both the British and French citizenry. He sent most of the war in England (at first), working to influence British opinion about the colonists’ grievances and avoid war until it was too late, and then later in France, trying feverishly to obtain financial, political and military support for the struggling colonial war effort. It seems clear that Franklin’s influence was a major contributor to obtaining the military and naval support that essentially turned the tide and enabled the rebels to win.
• I never appreciated before how pivotal the Battle of Yorktown was. Washington and his armies were able to defeat the British armies in a decisive battle, resulting in a humiliating surrender by General Cornwallis. This American victory not only was militarily important, but it also had a major effect on the British public’s opinion of the war and ultimately on the political support for it.
• Curiously, Brands seems to have underplayed the role of French Admiral DeGrasse’s defeat of the British fleet off the Virginia capes, which prevented Cornwallis from escaping by sea and thus ensured his army’s loss. The French navy were absolutely pivotal in Washington’s victory at Yorktown, and conducted the sea battle without any American forces. DeGrasse also supplied Washington with 2,000 French troops aboard his fleet, which contributed to the Yorktown victory as well. It is also noteworthy that DeGrasse made his ships available despite his assignment to activity in French West Indies. It seems he took the initiative in the absence of guidance from home, and yet I had not heard his name in my memory.
• I was reminded again of how terrible the conditions were for the American army. The soldiers were barely clothed, hardly fed enough, poorly equipped, and rarely paid. Many deserted and more would have if it were not for their love of and loyalty to Washington as a leader. It is truly astounding that Washington was able to hold together enough of an army that they could win a few battles and eventually help win the war.
• Much of the narrative is told in quotations from journals, reports, correspondence, and other contemporary writing of those involved. It always astonishes me how eloquently the people of that era could and did express themselves.
• In the end tens of thousands of Loyalists left the American colonies, either during or after the war. Some, such as colonial governors or other important officials, received pensions or other recognition from the British government, but most received nothing more than transport elsewhere – to Canada, England or the West Indies.
All in all, an informative book, telling quite a story. Brands has clarified my understanding of the way the Patriots and their actions emerged from the early resentments of how the British government was treating its colonial citizens, and of how the divisions among us led to war and eventual victory.

[Andy Dorsey · Rating 2 out of 5]

I can think of two main reasons to write a history book: You have uncovered new sources, or you are applying a new approach to existing sources. "Our First Civil War," though pleasantly divided into bite-sized chapters, offers neither of these. The title and cover blurb certainly promise a novel approach to the American Revolution: let's not view the war as a struggle between independence-minded Americans and the British, but rather as a kind of internal struggle between two sets of Americans -- Patriots and Loyalists. Unfortunately, H.W. Brands fails to deliver on this promise. This book is told from the Patriot point of view, with a few brief dalliances among famous Loyalists such as Benjamin Franklin's son. Overall, we learn just about as much about the Loyalists' viewpoint as we do about the politics of the British or French courts. Like the short anecdotal examinations of a Loyalist-leaning Quaker woman or an enslaved man, these brief insights simply serve to round out the book's narrative about the Patriots, but hardly make a convincing case for viewing the revolution as a civil war.

Instead, this is a book about George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Benedict Arnold, white American men whose participation in the revolution has already been documented in two or three -- thousand -- other books, and probably better. I'm not so bold as to claim that there isn't more to be examined about Washington, Franklin, or Arnold, but it can't be done using Brands's methodology. An unduly large portion of the book consists of direct (and lengthy) quotations from the men's letters and speeches, interspersed with some helpful paraphrasing and explanation of antiquated terms. The result is too dry and detailed to be gripping as a popular history book, yet too brief and superficial to allow the deep analysis that, say, a curated collection of correspondence would.

A far more interesting approach than "Great Men in the Own Words" would have been to examine Americans' perceptions of themselves in the period leading up to and including the war. For instance, did Patriots consider themselves to be uniquely American, while Loyalists felt fundamentally British? Or was the situation more complex? The colonies had generally been founded by British subjects, after all, yet by ones who wanted to *leave* Britain for one reason or another. What exact legal status did these colonies have in the 150 years before the war, and how much of a role did that actually play in the settlers' daily lives? The early chapters on Benjamin Franklin hint that he felt himself to be both American and British at the same time -- perhaps culturally American and politically British, though to some extent vice versa as well. His proposal of a mutually beneficial union between the North American colonies and Great Britain suggests that he recognized America as a unique and to some extent separate entity, yet one that undoubtedly belonged in the British sphere. While it might be too much to ask Brands to evaluate the feasibility of Franklin's proposal (using, for example, the constitutionally complex case histories of British-sphere entities such as Wales, Scotland, and the Channel Islands), there is no doubt in my mind that the question of identity and belonging must be at the heart of any attempt to approach the American Revolution as a civil war.

Also nearly entirely absent from the book are the stories of those people living in America who did not choose sides during the conflict. If I remember correctly (and I have to rely on memory, because Brands doesn't touch on the matter), about one-third of the population could be labeled Patriots, one-third Loyalists, and another third adopted a strategy of wait-and-see. Though it's not at all surprising that some people remained on the fence, this fact certainly deserves mention in a book examining the revolution as an internal conflict between two factions.

While Brands does attempt to provide some degree of shading by including the perspectives of a woman and a black man, these chapters feel more obligatory than genuinely thought-provoking -- boxes that needed to be checked before he could publish. African Americans pretty much only appear in the book in relation to the strategic military importance of both sides promising freedom to the other side's slaves. Brands's treatment of slavery also seems terribly antiquated for a history book released in 2021. He writes, for instance, that "Since the arrival of the first African slaves in the English colonies in America -- in Virginia in 1619 -- slaveholders had taken pains to keep weapons out of the hands of slaves" (242). Though it's clear to all that slavery was bad, this wording makes the practice seem predetermined; these people were slaves, and they arrived one day. I'm not demanding that Brands shift the focus of his book to the history of slavery in America, but even without devoting too much more time to the topic, he could more accurately have written: "Since the first people had been kidnapped in Africa and forcibly brought over to a life of enslavement in America -- arriving in Virginia in 1619 -- [...]"

Overall, I enjoyed the readable structure of this book; the chapters are short and further subdivided into sections brief enough to match your attention span on a particular topic. Brands has to some extent rekindled my interest in the period of the American Revolution, though in doing some quick research to write this review, I learned that the Wikipedia article goes into greater depth on the topics I find interesting than this book did.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve always been a fan of Brands, so I was excited to receive this NetGalley ARC, and this is a solid overview of the American Revolution. It does tend to stray from its stated “First Civil War”/Patriots vs. Loyalists theme fairly often, and when it hits it, it tends to involve the Franklins.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

You will have heard before this reaches you of the commencement of a civil war." – Benjamin Franklin to David Hartley, May 8, 1775

In Our First Civil War, historian H.W. Brands argues that the American Revolution was not just a war between Britain and its colonies, but a civil war among Americans themselves. After the conflict, it suited the victors to frame the Revolution as a unified struggle against British rule. Patriots became national heroes and Founding Fathers, while Loyalists were marginalized, their stories largely forgotten. Yet before the colonies could defeat Britain, the Patriots first had to win a battle for allegiance among their own people. Brands sets out to explore why some colonists remained loyal to the Crown while others risked everything for independence.

Like all great historical narratives, Our First Civil War is built around the lives of individuals. Brands begins his story a quarter-century before the battles at Lexington and Concord, tracing the ideological and political shifts that led to revolution. His central figure in these early years is Benjamin Franklin, whose life and diplomatic efforts illustrate how the colonies’ relationship with Britain gradually unraveled.

The Revolution is often oversimplified as a response to taxes and British overreach, but Brands digs deeper, showing how colonial grievances were ignored or misunderstood by Parliament. For much of the 18th century, Britain largely allowed the American colonies to govern themselves, leading many colonists to see their assemblies as sovereign. Britain, on the other hand, viewed its colonies primarily as economic assets. The two sides had vastly different expectations of what their relationship should be.

Franklin, a key player in colonial diplomacy, initially sought reconciliation. As early as 1751, he attempted to organize mutual defense among the colonies, a cause that gained urgency after Washington’s defeat at Fort Necessity in 1754. Over time, Franklin came to believe that Americans deserved full equality within the British Empire. His 1766 testimony before the House of Commons—recounted in fascinating detail by Brands—showcases his wit, intelligence, and evolving political stance. It’s one of the book’s most compelling moments and left me wanting to read Brands’s book on Franklin.

As revolution shifts from theory to armed conflict, the book’s focus moves to George Washington. Brands does not provide a blow-by-blow account of every battle but instead highlights key moments like the Boston Massacre and the Tea Party through private letters and firsthand accounts. This personal approach emphasizes how ordinary people experienced and interpreted revolutionary events in real-time.

What sets Our First Civil War apart from many other histories of the Revolution is its attention to the Loyalists—those who opposed independence and remained faithful to Britain. Brands includes excerpts from the diaries and letters of notable Loyalists like William Franklin (Ben’s son), Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson, and Grace Galloway, a Philadelphia Loyalist. Their writings provide a rare look at the Revolution from the losing side, revealing the persecution and exile many Loyalists faced.

William Franklin’s disillusionment is particularly striking. After Cornwallis’s surrender at Yorktown, he was furious that the British abandoned their Loyalist supporters, believing this betrayal weakened their resistance to the Patriots. While these accounts add depth to the book, they don’t fully answer the question at the heart of Brands’s thesis: why did some Americans stay loyal while others rebelled? The book suggests loyalty was often a matter of personal conviction, but it does not explore other possible factors—such as fear of Patriot reprisals, economic interests, or distrust of revolutionary leadership. The question remains unresolved.

Our First Civil War is a well-crafted and highly readable history that brings the American Revolution to life through its key players (particularly Franklin father and son). Brands successfully repositions the conflict as a civil war, a lens that adds valuable nuance to our understanding of the period. His use of personal letters and firsthand accounts strengthens the narrative, making the events relatable.

However, the book does not fully deliver on its central thesis. Brands highlights the division between Patriots and Loyalists but stops short of analyzing why individuals made the choices they did. The result is a compelling but somewhat incomplete exploration of loyalty and rebellion in revolutionary America.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

[Jud Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent one-volume treatment of the American Revolution, just not the book promised by the title, which should be revised to be Their Dozenth Civil War (Not Even Counting Bonnie Prince Charlie): Whigs and Tories in the American Colonial Rebellion.

Overall a solid, general history of the AR from its formation through its conclusion with the departure of the British army from New York, the book's strengths make it a good choice for a non-academic book club: whether describing the colonial reaction to the Stamp Act, or Benjamin Franklin's career as the American spokesman in Britain (before the war) and France (during the war), or the manner of George Washington's accomplishment as the Patriots' military leader (basically he held his army together through years of disappointment and lackluster performance until the masterstroke of the Yorktown campaign), Brands has the ability to render the force of key events in such a way that the reader feels their repercussions.  These events are often not ones that are in the common coin of remembrance (e.g. Franklin's diplomacy), or if they are (e.g the Boston Massacre), Brands's deft hand with the key detail transforms and deepens their meaning.

Wonderful as it is, however, it isn't the book promised by the title. At least I didn't think so. For one thing, there's only a sprinkling of Loyalists, among them Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson, Benjamin Franklin's son William (governor of NJ), eventually of course Benedict Arnold, and a small-but-diverse cast of individuals including women and a slave freed by his service to Britain (Mohawk Joseph Brant is counted as a Loyalist, which seems arguable given his non-colonial status). Fascinating stories, all of them -- especially the fraught Franklin one -- but they are mostly the experiences of the leadership class, and even there, for the most part, the narrative and the explication center on the Patriot camp with Washington, Franklin, John Adams, etc. Where are the rank and file, either Patriot or Loyalist? I was expecting more in the way of bottom-up history (who were the patriots/loyalists and why) but there is very little.

One example: following a chapter (the chapters are uniformly short, btw--a good thing!) on John Sullivan's campaign against the Iroquois in New York--Brands turns to the South. Or at least seems to. It is generally known -- as Brands has already alluded -- that the Loyalists were strong in the South, which explains the British strategy to move the war into that theater in 1780. Here is Brands:

"The summer and autumn of 1780 produced the murderous Battle of Waxhaws, in which the Loyalists kept killing long past the point of Patriot surrender, and the Patriots' equally brutal rejoinder at Kings Mountain. Sandwiched in between was a stunning defeat of a Patriot army under Horatio Gates at Camden, South Carolina, by Lord Cornwallis, which laid the South wide open to the British and the Loyalists -- besides destroying the reputation of Gates and erasing any chance he might replace Washington. ¶ The Camden result appeared the most decisive of the outcomes that season. Cornwallis wouldn't be stopped by Patriot militia, and he had routed the regular Continental soldiers Washington sent against him. The British southern strategy was making a prophet of Joseph Galloway, who had claimed the Loyalists would provide the difference in the war; even the most ardent Patriot had to wonder if the dream of independence was slipping away." (p. 343)

At which point Brands segues to … Benedict Arnold in Philadelphia, scarcely to return to the non-Yorktown southern war, except to attribute solely to Cornwallis a rising Loyalist tide there. This may be an arguable notion. But the point is that the theater could have provided a laboratory of the political, ideological, economic, or social forces that pushed people to one side or the other (and back) of the "civil war" of the book's title. As it is, it gets only two paragraphs. A single chapter looking into the example of Kings Mtn. -- the overwhelming majority of combatants on both sides were American -- would've gone far to redress the balance.

The irony of providing this kind of treatment is that the "civil war" being described is less an American one than a British one. On the one side are the colonials -- Franklin and Washington; on the other are His Majesty's government-- a parade of ministerial lords, generals, negotiating go-betweens, a sprinkling of actual American bureaucrats, and spies: the tale cannot be told, apparently, without the gallantry of Major André.

[Martin Koenigsberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

My son gave me this book- after we both listened to the author, HW Brands talk to Ryen Russillo on the Ryen Russillo Podcast. I was hoping for a book on Loyalism in the AWI- and was hoping this would be it. The Book is not what I was looking for- an in depth study of loyalism in the American war of Independence- but I think the book HW Brands has written has a wider appeal to more readers on this topic. Brands, a professor of history at UT, is really telling the story of the whole war through the lens of a few select characters- who chose different sides in the conflict. Central to his narrative are Ben Franklin and his son William who fell out on different sides- and a several other families rent by the rift. Once over my initial disappointment, I came to appreciate the book and its writing- so I think I will read more from this author. I learned a little bit more about the war- and I enjoyed the telling.

This book really reminds the reader how both sides blundered into the war - the Colonies trying to get out of paying the costs of the 7 Years /French and Indian War- the Crown's government trying to apply taxation to the colonies to bring them up to the English levels. Never do the Colonies offer to pay the costs- in their own way. Whitehall never really understands the colonies' desire to run their own budgets and affairs. The two sides talk past each other- never address the real issues- and then the extremists on both sides take over. Invariably, once blood has been spilt- it turns into a conflict- with the Colonists willing to involve their old enemy France to handle the heavy lifting. Brands shows you the whole sad tale for what it was- a war between two societies that would be lauding their "special relationship" and alliance within 200 years. It's well told, well written and well worth any readers time.

There are a lot of adult themes and some graphic injury passages so this is best for the Junior reader over 13/14 years with a historical bent. For the Gamer/Modeler/Military Enthusiast this is really more of a background book than a primary resource. The gamer does get some battle reports and information on raids and counter raids- but this is really about the wider sweep of the history and not focused on the warfare. For this reason too, the Modeler will get a few build and diorama ideas- but not that much- its more about understanding the underpinning of the struggle. The Military enthusiast gets a lot of Washington's thoughts- and a really good narrative review of the whole war- but will find other sources better for tracking tactics and organisation tables. I recommend this book to the novice history reader though- they will benefit from looking at our history in this way.