The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789

The Glorious Cause is a sweeping account of the American Revolution, tracing events from the early tensions of the 1760s through the ratification of the Constitution. Although the book sets out to cover the full span of the era, it avoids becoming a mere survey. In part, this is achieved because Middlekauff pays close attention to the individuals who shaped the conflict, examining their backgrounds, circumstances, and characters.

That said, the book seems to give equal attention to each year from 1763 to 1789, an approach that may have drawbacks for readers seeking a more sustained treatment of the war itself. Much of the book's first half is absorbed by the dispute over taxation without representation, and the first shots aren't fired show more until about halfway through. The book then ends somewhat abruptly, with only a single chapter on the Constitutional Convention.

Still, Middlekauff offers fascinating, truly original historical analysis. One of the most compelling examples is his account of how the Continental Army kept fighting despite repeated defeats. His answer highlights the soldiers’ deep personal bonds with one another and the disciplined practice of “locking” together in the line, a linear maneuver by which soldiers interlocked limbs and stood shoulder-to-shoulder.

A recommended read for anyone seeking to refresh and deepen their understanding of the American Revolution. show less

Robert Middlekauff’s The Glorious Cause is a splendid read about the American Revolution. His account shows that the Americans had already wrested control of most of the local government. The British governors, though formally in charge, had to rely on the local oligarchy to execute their orders. The courts ruled not based of the laws but on family and political connections. Magistrates who tried to enforce the law were bullied and terrorized. A favourite tactic was razing their homes, a sort the colonial government was unable to prevent. The Boston “massacre” actually happened because the few British soldiers sent for protection were unable to control the mob. For all practical purposes, the Americans enjoyed a de facto show more independence which was disturbed by the inept and unplanned British efforts to suddenly exert control over “their” colonies. The government in England proclaimed stiffer regulations but failed to provide the necessary resources to enact them. The forces provided were used counter-productively: Similar to the Americans directly financing the Taliban in Afghanistan by paying for their services, the British soldiers paid their American opponents for rent and supplies. Thus, they both fuelled and financed the conflict.

Middlekauff’s narrative of the war is well done, shifting from Boston to New York to Philadelphia to Charleston and back to Yorktown. His account of 1776 offers quite a different view on the events than the hyperpatriotic impression created by McCullough in his “1776”. Again, like the Americans in Afghanistan, the British never had sufficient boots on the ground to control all vital areas. Their interventions exhausted their strength without achieving a strategic break-through. Inept British generalship resulted in the surrender of too many armies in the American wilderness.

After the military campaigns, Middlekauff shifts back to the political discussions that finally resulted in the US constitution. It is interesting to note that it took many years and multiple attempts to create the famous document and its political trade-offs. In the end, the oligarchies that had triggered the revolution enshrined their rule and created the framework for Western expansion. Recommended. show less

This was not the first time listening to 'The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. This is part of the Oxford History of the United States series and, like a couple of the others that I have read and listened to, Robert Middlekauff did a terrific job with covering such a dynamic and turbulent period of American history. Narrated by Robert Fass, this volume starts with the French and Indian War and, at times meticulous, and at others not so, Middlekauff continues through the election of George Washington as the first President of the United States of America.
I would give this a 3.5 star rating if I could and would most definitely recommend it for any American history, or history in general aficionado.

NOTE: This was a little more detail here than I wanted, but it was interesting enough to keep me going all the way through. Over the course of two months, I plodded through these six hundred pages with overall less enjoyment than I had hoped for, particularly during the order-of-battle sections, which I’ll admit I skimmed through. In truth I probably only really read about 3/4 of this book.

If for some reason you ever find yourself in the vicinity of my hometown of Buffalo (NY), the coolest thing you can do there as a tourist (my opinion) is to see the Niagara Falls. The second coolest thing you can do is visit Old Fort Niagara- the British fort which controlled access to Lake Erie, and supplied naval forces on Lake Ontario. Growing show more up, whenever people visited my family from out of town, Fort Niagara was on the short list of places we’d show off. Typically staff would dress in period costumes and give little discussions about the Fort's assorted points of interest, but it never seemed as corny as it sounds when I describe it now.



To be honest, Fort Niagara is hardly mentioned in this book, because it did not see much action in the Revolutionary War. It was, however, important in the “French and Indian War” (which British know better as the American theatre of the Seven Years War). I mention this because one of the facts which this book most impressed upon me was how important the French and Indian War was in setting the conditions which ultimately resulted in the Revolutionary War.

From 1754–1763, British forces battled the French, Spanish and Native American proxies for control of fur trapping land in Canada, as well as a swath of land in Appalachia and the Gulf Coast. The British colonists of the time were frequently raided by the French, for supplies, and as a way of indirectly harassing the British. At the close of the conflict, France and Spain both ceded territory to the British, but- importantly- were not driven entirely from the continent. To assuage the colonists’ lingering fears that the war might heat up again, the British were obliged to maintain a standing army in North America, to secure their northern and western borders.

The cost of maintaining this presence came at an inopportune time, as it was the beginning of a period of expansion of the British influence in India, and maintaining order on the subcontinent required sizable military expense. To offset this financial strain, the English parliament decided to levy taxes in the colonies. Surely the colonists’ wouldn’t object to funding the troops which kept them secure and prosperous- er, right? And so began the whole “taxation without representation” dispute.


The British Empire in 1763

It starts with the Stamp Act (of 1765)… but I’m not going to go too deeply into the nitty gritty. I just deleted four pages detailing the legal wrangling of the Stamp Act, the Townsend Act and other agitations which led up to war. Not because that stuff is boring; it isn’t.. but my telling of it is, and to a lesser extent, so was this book’s. I really just want to comment on the few most memorable points I got from it:

1) The Virginian legislature had something called “The House of Burgesses”… sort of a lower House of Delegates, if I understand correctly. When the Stamp Act was getting the rest of the colonies riled up in 1765, the HOB was the first and most audacious in its protest to the British parliament. Adopting (HOB member, and later celebrity patriot) Patrick Henry’s resolution, the HOB declared a) that parliament had no right to tax the colonies without representation; b) Virginians would not pay the tax proposed (!); and c) anybody who did pay would be deemed an enemy of the colony of Virginia! WOOO! That’s some pretty ballsy stuff! What’s funny about all this is that those resolutions would normally never have been passed, except the HOB was in late night session, with just barely a quorum present to approve the resolution, and it just happened that most members present were younger, less experienced politicians, many who had reputations as firebrands who were not expected to survive in office beyond the next election. No matter; once Virginia sent the document, other colonies found their courage to add their agreement and pass similar, more toned-down resolutions.

2) In episode after episode following the above reaction to the Stamp Act, the British parliament demonstrated remarkable inability to fathom the attitude of the colonies. All sorts of parliamentary discussion followed about the colonists' ingratitude, and possible repercussions, including possibly pulling out the British army to “let the colonists face the French and Indians on their own”. Realistically, nobody wanted to do that, because it would invite a French invasion. Remarkably, never once does this book record any consideration of giving the colonies representation! It seems like a fairly reasonable response- at least worth talking about. Never came up, that I can see. In defense of the British side, communications were quite slow, and a poorly-worded statement by Parliament could take literally months to identify and clarify, while colonial rage on the other side of the ocean tended to escalate rapidly. If modern telecommunications had existed (or even a trans-Atlantic telegraph), it seems likely things would never have gotten so out of hand as to result in armed conflict and a Declaration of Independence.

3) Usually the start of the Revolutionary War is drawn at either the shootouts at Lexington and Concorde (April 1775), or the more formalized clash of opposing troops at the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 1775), but in June of 1772, a bunch of incensed Rhode Island merchants blackened their faces, boarded the British blockade ship HMS Gaspee in Providence's Narragansett Bay, took control of the ship, ran it aground, and set it on fire... pretty clearly an act of war. When British officials demanded justice, they found nobody willing to cooperate with the investigation. Kind of the stereotypical mafia response “I didn’t see nuthin’.” This just confirms my longstanding impression that Rhode Island was, and still is, populated by spirited creatures filled with such vigor and enthusiasm for their principles, they can barely be described as sane, and certainly never characterized as reasonable.


Don't fuck with Rhode Islanders

4) Both the British and the colonist armies were reluctant to have an all-out showdown in a single confrontation. The British generals had been instructed that they should fight the campaign with the troops they had (i.e. not to expect a lot of replacement troops, because of troop demands elsewhere in the Empire). The American side was concerned the effect a large loss might have on retention and recruitment of men. As it was, American soldiers only enlisted for short periods (frequently less than a year) and maintaining high morale and a reasonable expectation of victory directly affected enlistment numbers.

5) The British lacked a grand vision of how to prosecute the war. Early naval blockades of Boston and Newport, Rhode Island were not as effective as the British had hoped, because these cities could be supplied by overland routes, and the American Eastern seaboard was too broad for the allotted naval forces to blockade. Observing this, (British) General Howe led an army inland. Thinking that New England held the bulk of separatist activity, he planned on cutting off New England from the rest of the colonies, by taking New York City, and placing a large force along the Hudson River. This vision was never fully realized, because political events showed that it was really the entire colonies who meant to separate, not just New England.

6) The importance of the Battles of Saratoga cannot be overstated. General John Burgoyne parlayed a minor victory at the Battle of Freeman’s Farm (September 1777) into a stunning defeat at the Battle of Bemis heights (October 1777). Burgoyne essentially overextended himself, ran out of supplies, and became surrounded by colonial forces, necessitating a complete surrender. The incident highlights the disadvantage British forces had keeping themselves supplied when fighting inland. The defeat was not only a huge loss of men and materiel, it was also a major blow to British morale, and it was the deciding factor which brought France into the war on the side of the colonies. Looking at the great British military power, it is clear the Crown could have pressed harder and brought the colonies to submission, if it had really wanted to, but doing so would have required a drawdown of forces in other theatres (read: India), which they were not willing to do. Besides that, most English still disbelieved the colonies would survive long as an independent state anyhow. True, some feared France might take over the colonies, or use them as a proxy to fight British forces, but it seems most believed the colonies would continue to trade with England, and since that really was their main value to the Empire, maybe all the acrimony about their soverignty vs. subservience was ultimately not worth fighting about.


Battles of Saratoga

7) Following humiliation in the northern colonies, British General William Howe turned to more vulnerable military targets in Georgia and South Carolina, hoping to gain a momentum and break the colonists' will with large land gains in the South. This never happened, because the challenges of adequately supplying his forces turned out to be insurmountable. Military planners back in London had failed to appreciate the mood of the general American public; they had assumed that the separatists were a miniscule minority, and most Americans would happily supply the liberating British army. In reality, General Howe had difficulty buying food and other supplies from American merchants at any price, and those who did sell, often did so at exploitive prices.

It's a little bit scattershot, but there you go. The book was good with broad principles. I wouldn't say it "made history come alive" as the kids are fond of saying, and it didn't cover specific individuals in great depth, but overall a solid 3 star read. show less

The Oxford history of the American Revolution – a part of their US history series.
It’s a bread and butter version with no fire or excitement and none the worse for that. The facts, in so far as they are known, the causes, in so far as they are known, and the people, in so far as we have information on their motivations and actions.

It is dispassionate, accurate and thorough in its presentation of facts. For my taste it probably gives too much information about the battles but then I’m not wild about military history and it was a war! It does not press the facts further than they will reasonably go. He presents the slide to war but shows that it was in no way inevitable and was definitely given hefty pushes by those, initially at show more least a small minority, who wanted a confrontation. He leaves open how many, even at the end, were committed to the cause. We certainly know of instances where the patriots organised mobs to attack individuals, burn down their houses and/or tar and feather them. Most people would keep their heads down after that. ‘British’ officials were by and large rather timid and ineffectual.

The actual war seems to have been a muddled affair with neither side covering themselves with glory. In the end the political side seems to have been the deciding issue with too few in Britain caring much either way, the French pulled in and the pro-independence Americans clearly holding the dominating position in America politically.

The closest the book comes to the legend is in its presentation of the American participants. He rather sees a halo around many of the major ones but there is no harm in that. Washington may not have been a great general or politician, for instance, but he was a decent man who kept his army going through thick and thin (mostly thin it must be said). Many of the other founding fathers were consummate, manipulative politicians so no change there either. show less

I found this book and Middlekauff's description of narrative history odd, but perhaps I've been tainted by reading too many academic books. There is little discussion of source material other than secondary sources (I routinely glanced at the bottom of the page only to encounter a recommendation for a book published in the 30s), and it seems doubtful that your average reader would reach for a 700+ page book on the American Revolution for a little recreation. I certainly got some incredulous looks as I toted it around for a few weeks. However, the story of the revolution is pretty compelling stuff, and Middlekauff dexterously handles the personal (both famous characters and ordinary soldiers, patriots and loyalists) and the tide of show more history. If you've got a few volumes of Bruce Catton, you'll love this book.

A few minor irritations: typos scattered about (don't publishers employ copy editors any more?), the tacked-on chapter about women, Indians and slaves (leaving it out would have made it less obvious that our traditional story of the birth of the United States is completely dead-white-male-focused), and the phrase "to be sure," which sounds dismissive and unintelligent. Witness this waste of space: "In a sense no one in America escaped the war, even those in areas remote from it. To be sure much went on as usual... Yet the war could not be forgotten." [p. 650] In what sense? How sure are you? show less

I am slowly working my way through the Oxford History of the United States, mostly by audiobook. I previously reviewed What Hath God Wrought, which covers the years from 1815-1848; at that point I decided I'd better get up to speed on the earlier years before moving on to Battle Cry of Freedom, which I own in paper format. Based on what was available from Audible, I went back to the American Revolution; next, at some point in the future, will be Empire of Liberty.

The Glorious Cause begins some years before the Revolution, giving a lot of background about George II and III, the British Parliament, the French and Indian/Seven Years' War, and the first stirrings of unrest in the American colonies. Sometimes I felt that I was learning more show more than I really cared to know, but this is a serious, though quite accessible, work of history. It definitely filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge of the period. My junior high and high school history teachers were both Civil War enthusiasts (on opposing sides) and I didn't take U.S. history in college, so my view of the Revolution came mostly from a Landmark book (Our Independence and the Constitution, by Dorothy Canfield Fisher), Johnny Tremain (by Esther Forbes), and a few other historical novels and a PBS series. The Glorious Cause offers a much less simplified and sanitized version of events.

For instance, I hadn't known before how Boston mobs attacked the houses of officials connected to British tax policies in the 1760s. The Revolution was much longer a-brewing than I had realized.

The audio format may not have been the best for this particular book. I'll be trolling the used book sales for a paper copy. I expect there'll be diagrams and maps that will help me understand the many battles, which I find confusing at the best of times.

To sum up, this is a fine, detailed biew of the years 1757-1789 in our history and nearly everyone would learn a lot by reading or listening to it. Highly recommended. show less