What do you think?
Rate this book
Campaigns and Commanders #54
Fatal Sunday: George Washington, the Monmouth Campaign, and the Politics of Battle (Campaigns and Commanders Series) by Mark Edward Lender
Historians have long considered the Battle of Monmouth one of the most complicated engagements of the American Revolution. Fought on Sunday, June 28, 1778, Monmouth was critical to the success of the Revolution. It also marked a decisive turning point in the military career of George Washington. Without the victory at Monmouth Courthouse, Washington's critics might well have marshaled the political strength to replace him as the American commander-in-chief. Authors Mark Edward Lender and Garry Wheeler Stone argue that in political terms, the Battle of Monmouth constituted a pivotal moment in the War for Independence. Viewing the political and military aspects of the campaign as inextricably entwined, this book offers a fresh perspective on Washington’s role in it. Drawing on a wide range of historical sources—many never before used, including archaeological evidence—Lender and Stone disentangle the true story of Monmouth and provide the most complete and accurate account of the battle, including both American and British perspectives. In the course of their account it becomes evident that criticism of Washington’s performance in command was considerably broader and deeper than previously acknowledged. In light of long-standing practical and ideological questions about his vision for the Continental Army and his ability to win the war, the outcome at Monmouth—a hard-fought tactical draw—was politically insufficient for Washington. Lender and Stone show how the general’s partisans, determined that the battle for public opinion would be won in his favor, engineered a propaganda victory for their chief that involved the spectacular court-martial of Major General Charles Lee, the second-ranking officer of the Continental Army. Replete with poignant anecdotes, folkloric incidents, and stories of heroism and combat brutality; filled with behind-the-scenes action and intrigue; and teeming with characters from all walks of life, Fatal Sunday gives us the definitive view of the fateful Battle of Monmouth.
Hardcover
First published April 12, 2016
25 people are currently reading
161 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 28, 2016
The battle of Monmouth took place on a blazing hot Sunday, June 28, 1778. On the one hand, it was a relatively modest fight--the British rear guard against a force sent by George Washington to give battle if the situation was propitious. Tactically, not necessarily of great import. But strategically? It provided justification for George Washington to continue serving as Commander-in-Chief. It heartened the patriot cause, and boosted the morale of Washington's forces. In short, the whole may have been greater than the sum of its parts.
The background: British commanding general, Henry Clinton, had been headquartered in Philadelphia after the British army had captured the Americans' capital. The victory was somewhat barren, however, and it was decided that the British forces, including German troops and Tories, should return to New York. Some forces traveled by ship; the bulk of Clinton's army marched from Philadelphia to New York.
The forces of Washington had spent a hard winter in Valley Forge.. However, the German von Steuben had "coached up" the colonial troops over the winter. They were a better trained body than before.
Washington left Valley Forge on June 18, 1778. He wished to, if possible, develop a battle against Clinton's army. The American army shadowed the retreating British horde. Near Monmouth, Washington took action. He sent an advance force under Charles Lee to--if sensible--engage the British rear guard. Lee engaged in battle, and here the book portrays Lee somewhat differently in other renderings of this battle. Makes for some provocative thinking, although Lee did not end up being portrayed positively in the aftereffects of the battle. In the end, the American forces rallied and treated the British rear guard somewhat roughly. The battle would probably be best described as a draw--with the Americans gaining more from the draw as the British.
This a well told history of this conflict. We get a good sense of key players on both sides of the field. We also come to be aware of the political side of a rear guard action.
All in all, a satisfying tale of a battle that was more important than one might have guessed from a "rear guard action."
The background: British commanding general, Henry Clinton, had been headquartered in Philadelphia after the British army had captured the Americans' capital. The victory was somewhat barren, however, and it was decided that the British forces, including German troops and Tories, should return to New York. Some forces traveled by ship; the bulk of Clinton's army marched from Philadelphia to New York.
The forces of Washington had spent a hard winter in Valley Forge.. However, the German von Steuben had "coached up" the colonial troops over the winter. They were a better trained body than before.
Washington left Valley Forge on June 18, 1778. He wished to, if possible, develop a battle against Clinton's army. The American army shadowed the retreating British horde. Near Monmouth, Washington took action. He sent an advance force under Charles Lee to--if sensible--engage the British rear guard. Lee engaged in battle, and here the book portrays Lee somewhat differently in other renderings of this battle. Makes for some provocative thinking, although Lee did not end up being portrayed positively in the aftereffects of the battle. In the end, the American forces rallied and treated the British rear guard somewhat roughly. The battle would probably be best described as a draw--with the Americans gaining more from the draw as the British.
This a well told history of this conflict. We get a good sense of key players on both sides of the field. We also come to be aware of the political side of a rear guard action.
All in all, a satisfying tale of a battle that was more important than one might have guessed from a "rear guard action."
August 28, 2017
Fatal Sunday is a well-researched and balanced study of the Monmouth Campaign of 1778. It takes advantage of the latest archaeological research, and a skeptical examination of previous scholarly research, to peel back much of the mythology surrounding this important chapter in the story of the American Revolution.
Part of this work is an hour-by-hour, and sometimes minute-by-minute, narrative of the battle. I must admit that it took me sitting down and comparing the convenient timeline with several of the maps to be able to say I understood the sequence of events in time and space.
Perhaps more importantly the book seeks to rehabilitate the reputation of Major General Charles Lee, Washington's second-in-command. The authors argue convincingly that Lee performed well given the circumstances, but that his lack of tact and political savvy ran him afoul of General Washington. Lee made a convenient foil; Lee the villain enhanced the reputation of Washington the "indispensable man."
Ultimately Monmouth was a tactical draw which Washington turned into a decisive political and strategic victory.
The Monmouth of popular memory would be unrecognizable to the participants. Fatal Sunday brings us a little closer to that blistering day in June when armies clashed under the New Jersey sun.
Part of this work is an hour-by-hour, and sometimes minute-by-minute, narrative of the battle. I must admit that it took me sitting down and comparing the convenient timeline with several of the maps to be able to say I understood the sequence of events in time and space.
Perhaps more importantly the book seeks to rehabilitate the reputation of Major General Charles Lee, Washington's second-in-command. The authors argue convincingly that Lee performed well given the circumstances, but that his lack of tact and political savvy ran him afoul of General Washington. Lee made a convenient foil; Lee the villain enhanced the reputation of Washington the "indispensable man."
Ultimately Monmouth was a tactical draw which Washington turned into a decisive political and strategic victory.
The Monmouth of popular memory would be unrecognizable to the participants. Fatal Sunday brings us a little closer to that blistering day in June when armies clashed under the New Jersey sun.
June 8, 2025
For those in dire need of some American history, this book is for you. Well researched and presented. Comes off as more of a college lecture series, which is not a bad thing. It is just light on the fun-read-factor.
May 2, 2022
One cannot ask for a more thoroughly investigated study of the entire campaign. Indeed, the battle doesn't even start until page 233. By then you've already read an entire book.
Some of the interesting things to learn from this work:
It was 96 degrees there that day. Major General Charles Lee with this forces already tired, found himself greatly outnumbered as Clinton sent about 10,000 against his force of less than a thousand. Having been captured and out of the army for some time, Lee didn't know most of the regimental commanders or units and had few aides able to deliver orders to them. Morgan's rifle group got an unfortunately worded message that made him think the battle was to be the next day and they did not participate. Lee started sending messages via people not his aides and in some cases they were not believed and in another case the person simply failed to deliver the message. The units started retreating on their own to avoid getting outflanked. Washington took a leisurely 90 minute breakfast and was late bringing up the main body of the arm. He also had made little to attempt to find out what was going on at the front. By the time he had reached Lee several bedraggled soldiers had passed, telling stories of gloom and doom. Washington took charge to direct units to various defensive positions, many of the same positions Lee was trying to send them to, and then put Lee back in command. This is a much more nuanced portrayal of Lee's situation than one usually gets.
Another very interesting aspect is that three future notables: James Monroe, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton were all in this battle. Who acquitted himself best?
Not much is written about Monroe. He probably saw little action.
Burr must have been in the thick of it as he had a horse shot out from under him while directing his men.
Hamilton also had a horse shot out from under him. Hamilton provided a signal service on the day as he advised an advancing group that the way forward was narrow and that it would be profitable to split and take two separate paths in order to make faster progress.
He also made himself look ridiculous when Washington asked Lee to supervise a holding action. Hamilton volunteered to join, unsheathing his sword and saying something about how he was not afraid to die. Lee looked at him like he was crazy as it had by no means come to that.
In the final evaluations I think there was more to be said about Washington's performance. While he is credited for being inspirational to the troops while Lee was not and for being political enough to manage the aftermath, there are also reasons to doubt his ability. First, he allowed the British to escape Philadelphia scot-free, despite it being a very complicated operation with a huge baggage train. He didn't even bother to leave Valley Forge on the day of evacuation. During the exodus across New Jersey, he failed to nip at Clinton's heels with forces sufficient to make a difference when surely there were times that Clinton's baggage train would have made him vulnerable. On the morning of the battle he did not ensure that he had good intelligence about what was going on in front of him, or that he would have the bulk of his force on the scene in the event Lee should need it. He seems to have failed to anticipate that Clinton might turn and attempt a major counterstroke and was lucky that when he did it things didn't go far worse for him. He also chose to attack on a day when it was 96 degrees out, one gets the idea, more because he needed to answer his critics who claimed he wasn't doing anything, than because it was a good idea. When most evaluators rank Washington as a mediocre general at best, these are some of the reasons.
Misspellings noted:
p. 372 - General Knyphausen's name is misspelled.
p. 399 - "ad hominem" is misspelled.
Some of the interesting things to learn from this work:
It was 96 degrees there that day. Major General Charles Lee with this forces already tired, found himself greatly outnumbered as Clinton sent about 10,000 against his force of less than a thousand. Having been captured and out of the army for some time, Lee didn't know most of the regimental commanders or units and had few aides able to deliver orders to them. Morgan's rifle group got an unfortunately worded message that made him think the battle was to be the next day and they did not participate. Lee started sending messages via people not his aides and in some cases they were not believed and in another case the person simply failed to deliver the message. The units started retreating on their own to avoid getting outflanked. Washington took a leisurely 90 minute breakfast and was late bringing up the main body of the arm. He also had made little to attempt to find out what was going on at the front. By the time he had reached Lee several bedraggled soldiers had passed, telling stories of gloom and doom. Washington took charge to direct units to various defensive positions, many of the same positions Lee was trying to send them to, and then put Lee back in command. This is a much more nuanced portrayal of Lee's situation than one usually gets.
Another very interesting aspect is that three future notables: James Monroe, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton were all in this battle. Who acquitted himself best?
Not much is written about Monroe. He probably saw little action.
Burr must have been in the thick of it as he had a horse shot out from under him while directing his men.
Hamilton also had a horse shot out from under him. Hamilton provided a signal service on the day as he advised an advancing group that the way forward was narrow and that it would be profitable to split and take two separate paths in order to make faster progress.
He also made himself look ridiculous when Washington asked Lee to supervise a holding action. Hamilton volunteered to join, unsheathing his sword and saying something about how he was not afraid to die. Lee looked at him like he was crazy as it had by no means come to that.
In the final evaluations I think there was more to be said about Washington's performance. While he is credited for being inspirational to the troops while Lee was not and for being political enough to manage the aftermath, there are also reasons to doubt his ability. First, he allowed the British to escape Philadelphia scot-free, despite it being a very complicated operation with a huge baggage train. He didn't even bother to leave Valley Forge on the day of evacuation. During the exodus across New Jersey, he failed to nip at Clinton's heels with forces sufficient to make a difference when surely there were times that Clinton's baggage train would have made him vulnerable. On the morning of the battle he did not ensure that he had good intelligence about what was going on in front of him, or that he would have the bulk of his force on the scene in the event Lee should need it. He seems to have failed to anticipate that Clinton might turn and attempt a major counterstroke and was lucky that when he did it things didn't go far worse for him. He also chose to attack on a day when it was 96 degrees out, one gets the idea, more because he needed to answer his critics who claimed he wasn't doing anything, than because it was a good idea. When most evaluators rank Washington as a mediocre general at best, these are some of the reasons.
Misspellings noted:
p. 372 - General Knyphausen's name is misspelled.
p. 399 - "ad hominem" is misspelled.
November 29, 2017
Coming out of the winter at Valley Forge, Washington was needing a fight and more importantly, he needed a win. British General Clinton was also wanted a fight so that he could finish off Washington's army. Clinton decided that when evacuating Philadelphia in 1778 that some of his troops would travel to New York City via ships while the rest marched across New Jersey... which is where the two armies would eventually meet.
The battle started off between Washington's vanguard and Clinton's rear guard. It would eventually involve more troops throughout the day. The tide of battle that day would swing to favor both sides throughout the day. By the day's end, Washington's army held the field of battle... and Clinton's army left in the cover of darkness.
Though the battle was a draw, both sides claimed victory. Washington claimed victory since he had engaged the British army and still held the field after the battle while Clinton had retreated. Clinton claimed victory because he had checked Washington during the battle and allowed enough time for his baggage train to get to safety which was his main concern.
The battle was key in another area. It allowed the Continental Army a chance to see if the new military drills and procedures, which they were trained in by Gen. Steuben that spring, would hold up. Steuben had introduced new drills and procedures that spring to get the Continental Army to think of itself as a single unit instead of several. So men of one unit could go to another and still know the commands. The Battle of Monmouth was that test. Though there was some confusion at times during the battle, those new procedures largely held together.
The book largely lays all of this out from setting up the battle from both perspectives to the back-and-forth of the battle with maps showing troop movements throughout the day. Though the battle wasn't a turning point in the war it did mark a point in the way the Continental Army operated as a whole.
The battle started off between Washington's vanguard and Clinton's rear guard. It would eventually involve more troops throughout the day. The tide of battle that day would swing to favor both sides throughout the day. By the day's end, Washington's army held the field of battle... and Clinton's army left in the cover of darkness.
Though the battle was a draw, both sides claimed victory. Washington claimed victory since he had engaged the British army and still held the field after the battle while Clinton had retreated. Clinton claimed victory because he had checked Washington during the battle and allowed enough time for his baggage train to get to safety which was his main concern.
The battle was key in another area. It allowed the Continental Army a chance to see if the new military drills and procedures, which they were trained in by Gen. Steuben that spring, would hold up. Steuben had introduced new drills and procedures that spring to get the Continental Army to think of itself as a single unit instead of several. So men of one unit could go to another and still know the commands. The Battle of Monmouth was that test. Though there was some confusion at times during the battle, those new procedures largely held together.
The book largely lays all of this out from setting up the battle from both perspectives to the back-and-forth of the battle with maps showing troop movements throughout the day. Though the battle wasn't a turning point in the war it did mark a point in the way the Continental Army operated as a whole.
August 14, 2016
This is a very detailed account of one of the major battles of the Revolutionary War along with its prelude and aftermath. I was afraid at first that the book would be too "academic" in nature, but it is actually quite well written and would be of interest to a general reader of American military history. It is certainly the best description of Revolutionary-era warfare that I have ever seen, covering everything from the makeup of the opposing armies to the backgrounds of the officers to all the details of logistics and battlefield management. There are maps to make it easier to follow the flow of the battle, but at times I found it almost as hard to follow as it would have been for the original participants in their "fog of war" situations.
The book does a lot to de-mythologize the Revolutionary War in general and provide a more realistic picture of the personalities and politics. As is described in this book, the Battle of Monmouth was more valuable to George Washington and the patriot cause for political reasons that for its effect on the progress of the war in general.
One aspect of the battle that was very timely were the continual references to the weather conditions, which were extremely hot and humid -- temperatures in the mid-90s and above -- to the degree that many of the troops on both sides collapsed and died from heatstroke and dehydration. Since we were going through similar weather as I was reading the book (in my air-condition den), it was easy to picture the hardships that they underwent.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the way that wars were fought in that era, down to the smallest details of command and control.
The book does a lot to de-mythologize the Revolutionary War in general and provide a more realistic picture of the personalities and politics. As is described in this book, the Battle of Monmouth was more valuable to George Washington and the patriot cause for political reasons that for its effect on the progress of the war in general.
One aspect of the battle that was very timely were the continual references to the weather conditions, which were extremely hot and humid -- temperatures in the mid-90s and above -- to the degree that many of the troops on both sides collapsed and died from heatstroke and dehydration. Since we were going through similar weather as I was reading the book (in my air-condition den), it was easy to picture the hardships that they underwent.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the way that wars were fought in that era, down to the smallest details of command and control.
February 18, 2021
The main three, intertwined components of the book that I observe are a battle study of the fighting near Monmouth Courthouse, an analysis of the political challenges to George Washington before the battle vs the consolidation of his commanding role after the battle, and an investigation to challenge and revise the historically poor reputation of Charles Lee and his performance during the Battle of Monmouth.
Ever since the Battle of Monmouth ended popular opinion has sought to denigrate Charles Lee for his actions during the battle. The book mentions how at a centennial celebration of the battle in 1878 a speaker at the event devoted more than 10 pages of his speech to "General Lee's Incompetency." Even in recent years Charles Lee has appeared in the video game Assassin's Creed 3 (2012), the tv show TURN Washington's Spies (2014-2017), and the Broadway musical Hamilton (2015), all of which I happen to personally enjoy, but in all of which Lee is actively cast as a villain. In those works of pop culture as well as by an untold number of history writers, Lee's performance at Monmouth is regularly portrayed as gross incompetence if not outright treachery.
This work seeks to patiently reexamine Lee, his character, and what really happened under his watch at Monmouth. From looking at the sequence of events, the book posits that while Lee was the head of a frustrated situation on the morning of June 28, Lee was only at fault for not being more clear with his orders and likely en route to restoring the situation for the Continentals, atleast partially, when General Washington arrived on the scene. Lee's virulent accosting by Washington is also largely apocryphal. Washington was certainly frustrated and Lee was duly unnerved by the tone of Washington's unexpected interrogation, but Washington's rage did not 'tremble the leaves on the trees,' nor was Lee ordered to the rear of the army. Seeking to redeem the morning's mistakes, Lee immediately sought to make a critical holding defense to buy time for Washington to form the main army on the high ground of Perrine Hill that Lee himself had previously chosen as an optimal location for his command to reform.
So why does everyone hate Lee? I mean aside from his poor disposition, volatile temper, lack of social grace, slovenly appearance, philandering habits, and inability to stop talking (or writing) when it was prudent for him to do so... Aside from all of those things Lee was also known to be critical of George Washington's role as commander of the army. While Lee's esteem fell after the battle, Washington's rose with the aid of newspapers, pro-Washington members of Congress, and Washington's own "military family" of talented young aides including Alexander Hamilton, John Laurens, James McHenry, Tench Tilghman, and others. Up to this point in the war Charles Lee was held in such high regard by both sides that it was politically impossible to remove him. But in the aftermath of Monmouth, Lee sought a court martial to formally exonerate his conduct, a common tactic of military commanders whose honor had been questioned. However, this provided the crucial opportunity for the supporters of Washington to be rid of Lee.
One can almost imagine Hamilton, Laurens, and McHenry wearing pink and telling Charles Lee "you can't sit with us." Washington for his part never publicly denounced Lee, nor did he have to. Washington played no direct influence when Congress ruled that Lee had disrespected his superior officer and was suspended from command for one year. But after years of doubts about whether Washington was the best man to lead the Continental army, his position was now thoroughly consolidated. Though Charles Lee didn't deserve public reprimand for his role at Monmouth, he did have a genuine pattern of creating animosity among the Continental high command. It's possible that his removal was better in the long run, instead of allowing the friction of his criticisms and conduct to sow an ever increasingly toxic environment in the Continental army.
Ever since the Battle of Monmouth ended popular opinion has sought to denigrate Charles Lee for his actions during the battle. The book mentions how at a centennial celebration of the battle in 1878 a speaker at the event devoted more than 10 pages of his speech to "General Lee's Incompetency." Even in recent years Charles Lee has appeared in the video game Assassin's Creed 3 (2012), the tv show TURN Washington's Spies (2014-2017), and the Broadway musical Hamilton (2015), all of which I happen to personally enjoy, but in all of which Lee is actively cast as a villain. In those works of pop culture as well as by an untold number of history writers, Lee's performance at Monmouth is regularly portrayed as gross incompetence if not outright treachery.
This work seeks to patiently reexamine Lee, his character, and what really happened under his watch at Monmouth. From looking at the sequence of events, the book posits that while Lee was the head of a frustrated situation on the morning of June 28, Lee was only at fault for not being more clear with his orders and likely en route to restoring the situation for the Continentals, atleast partially, when General Washington arrived on the scene. Lee's virulent accosting by Washington is also largely apocryphal. Washington was certainly frustrated and Lee was duly unnerved by the tone of Washington's unexpected interrogation, but Washington's rage did not 'tremble the leaves on the trees,' nor was Lee ordered to the rear of the army. Seeking to redeem the morning's mistakes, Lee immediately sought to make a critical holding defense to buy time for Washington to form the main army on the high ground of Perrine Hill that Lee himself had previously chosen as an optimal location for his command to reform.
So why does everyone hate Lee? I mean aside from his poor disposition, volatile temper, lack of social grace, slovenly appearance, philandering habits, and inability to stop talking (or writing) when it was prudent for him to do so... Aside from all of those things Lee was also known to be critical of George Washington's role as commander of the army. While Lee's esteem fell after the battle, Washington's rose with the aid of newspapers, pro-Washington members of Congress, and Washington's own "military family" of talented young aides including Alexander Hamilton, John Laurens, James McHenry, Tench Tilghman, and others. Up to this point in the war Charles Lee was held in such high regard by both sides that it was politically impossible to remove him. But in the aftermath of Monmouth, Lee sought a court martial to formally exonerate his conduct, a common tactic of military commanders whose honor had been questioned. However, this provided the crucial opportunity for the supporters of Washington to be rid of Lee.
One can almost imagine Hamilton, Laurens, and McHenry wearing pink and telling Charles Lee "you can't sit with us." Washington for his part never publicly denounced Lee, nor did he have to. Washington played no direct influence when Congress ruled that Lee had disrespected his superior officer and was suspended from command for one year. But after years of doubts about whether Washington was the best man to lead the Continental army, his position was now thoroughly consolidated. Though Charles Lee didn't deserve public reprimand for his role at Monmouth, he did have a genuine pattern of creating animosity among the Continental high command. It's possible that his removal was better in the long run, instead of allowing the friction of his criticisms and conduct to sow an ever increasingly toxic environment in the Continental army.
March 29, 2021
If I could, I would give this book 6 stars. It is the most informative and engrossing Revolutionary War history I have ever read (and I have read quite a few). Before reading Fatal Sunday, I had not appreciated just how critical the Monmouth Campaign was to the political and military fate of the American Revolution (after Monmouth, Great Britain diverted its resources to the South and never again attempted a major battle in the Northern colonies). As the book so well explains, Monmouth did away with the lingering effects of the Conway Cabal and enshrined Washington as the undisputed leader of the American cause. What makes this book so unusually captivating is the lucid and critical analysis of the American political scene of 1778, as well as the descriptions of battle maneuvers and performance of the Continental and British armies and their officers as General Clinton beat his retreat to New York from Philadelphia. It also sheds extraordinary clarity on the hostility between Washington and his second-in-command, General Lee, on the hills surrounding Monmouth Courthouse and thereafter, a dispute much more significant to the outcome of the Revolution than I had understood. This is a brilliant piece of historical research and writing. No student of the Revolution should miss it.
September 4, 2023
This deep dive into the Battle of Monmouth was absolutely FANTASTIC. Lender & Stone paint an engaging narrative that goes well beyond the bloodshed of that hot summer day, detailing the politics, follies & victories that lead Washington across NJ.
The painted narrative tells of a decisive victory with Washington and his men holding the battlefield; however, the full story is much more complex with both sides feeling satisfied with the outcome (despite the British taking more losses). Either way, this was an important engagement for the colonials that kept our soldiers in the fight and ensured ongoing support for Washington from our fledgling government.
The authors did a wonderful job pulling primary source documents such as pension notes from the veterans and letters from the battlefront. Not only did this flesh out the well known characters such as Lee, Clinton & Steuben, it brought to life the courage and terror of the average soldier.
In particular, I loved digging into the roles that Philemon Dickinson, David Rhea, and the local militia played in supporting the main army throughout their journey from Valley Forge to the Jersey Shore.
Highly recommend!
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️/5
The painted narrative tells of a decisive victory with Washington and his men holding the battlefield; however, the full story is much more complex with both sides feeling satisfied with the outcome (despite the British taking more losses). Either way, this was an important engagement for the colonials that kept our soldiers in the fight and ensured ongoing support for Washington from our fledgling government.
The authors did a wonderful job pulling primary source documents such as pension notes from the veterans and letters from the battlefront. Not only did this flesh out the well known characters such as Lee, Clinton & Steuben, it brought to life the courage and terror of the average soldier.
In particular, I loved digging into the roles that Philemon Dickinson, David Rhea, and the local militia played in supporting the main army throughout their journey from Valley Forge to the Jersey Shore.
Highly recommend!
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️/5
June 4, 2023
One of the best histories of the revolution I’ve read. Certainly the best covering a single campaign. Not only does it provide a balanced account of both the political and military situation, but most importantly it busts some big myths about the battle. This book has permanently changed how I view Charles Lee. It’s always amazing just how much of the history you think you know stems from propaganda or misconceptions at the time. That was certainly the case with Lee’s conduct at Monmouth. Under the circumstances his command was flawed, but not the utter failure many of his fellow officers thought. That’s just one example of many that makes Fatal Sunday an exceptional book.
May 1, 2024
Military history buffs will appreciate the enormous detail and history of the Monmouth Campaign in "Fatal Sunday." The Civil War often receives the attention and focus of regimental and battle histories, leading contemporary Americans to better imagine Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and the derring-do of Union and Confederate soldiers more than the rebels organized under George Washington. The authors impressively demonstrate that Monmouth's tactical consequences were minimal, but the strategic and political results were decidedly in favor of George Washington, owing much to the spin he and his friends put on the battle in the coming months and years.
May 25, 2018
Considering that my 5X Great Grandfather, Joseph Fox, of the 11th Virginia Regiment fought here, I just had to read this book. I’m so glad I did. The battle is wonderfully described and analyzed in all its detail, and now I know where my ancestor fought during the battle. The authors left nothing out, and subjectively were very fair in their assessment of the battle, the personalities, and the politics. This book was amazing.
April 26, 2019
I was hoping to like this book, but then, at the very beginning, the author says Washington lost the Battle of Brandywine on September 9, 1777. The Battle of Brandywine was fought on September 11, 1777. From then on I couldn't really trust anything I read. The best, and most interesting part of the book, was the epilogue. Lee's court-martial was interesting, too.
February 27, 2021
Excellent account of the events leading up to and the Battle of Monmouth. A new perspective on Charles Lee's role in the vanguard debacle and how some of the other generals may have misread what was happening during those moments (i.e. Charles Scott) and Washington's reaction and actions afterward.
April 7, 2025
This is one of the best books on military history that I have read. It explains and dissects the Revolutionary War Monmouth Battle. The book goes much further than just a narrative of the battle, which is excellent. The author discusses the politics of the time and the importance of the battle. It ends by describing the creation of the battlefield park.
March 15, 2024
Great over view of the battle of Monmouth. Love all the information about new jersey militias operating leading up to the battle. The continued defense of General Lee derailed the book in my opinion. Would rather a separate book to defend Lee rather then continued harping on that point.
March 12, 2021
This book helped me a lot with my project or school. I would highly recommend it. it is a really good book to read.
September 17, 2016
Thorough and entertaining. I knew little about the Monmouth Campaign.
Well edited.
Well edited.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews