A good but somewhat superficial study of the summer of 1776 and the events leading up to the Declaration of Independence. Ellis writes very well. Ellis is good at providing portraits of the major figures like John Adams, but I felt he profiled too few of them.
Still, his portrait of General Howe was good. The Howe brothers had insisted on being named as peace commissioners, with wide-ranging powers to grant pardons and offer concessions. They had also, as members of Parliament, opposed many of the more unpopular laws imposed on the colonists. Americans love our historical adversaries to be right out of a movie script: "evil tyrant", "brutal arrogant general", etc. George Washington was certainly not a skilled general and repeatedly found himself bested by Howe. But it is strange how many times Howe failed to follow up his victories and allowed Washington to retreat with his army mostly intact. Washington won only two battles out of eight in the entire war, and spent much of his time retreating, and was rash and over-aggressive. His decision to defend New York against the vastly superior British army nearly lost the war. Washington's offensive plans were overly complicated. Washington was often more concerned about his own reputation than he was about the survival and welfare of his men. When retreats were called, he delegated this responsibility to subordinates, again to protect his reputation.
Interestingly, one of the reasons the Continental Army was able to keep going was due to their own false propaganda. American newspapers never mentioned the defeat at Brooklyn; some even described it as a victory. "Loyalty to 'The Cause', " Ellis writes, "trumped all the conventional definitions of the truth so completely that journalistic integrity became almost treasonable."
Also, similar to what happens in America today, whenever Britain's commanders suffered failure, the public looked for someone in the army or the government to blame. The Continental Congress was not any better in terms of harmony; they knew what they were against, but not what they were for.
Many of the Continental Army's soldiers were idealists, upholding romantic notions of their moral supremacy and the righteousness of their cause: the so-called "Spirit of '76." Washington himself was too much of a realist to embrace this attitude. He had little confidence in his troops or in his own ability to lead them to victory. The spirit of '76 was dying even before the Declaration of Independence came around. As the Declaration itself was passed, the Continental Army was on the verge of annihilation.
Continental Army soldiers were, of course, "citizen-soldiers", a romantic way of saying amateurs. In our own popular imagination, the army was a legion of selfless heroes. In fact, most of them were amateurs, and more loyal to their states than to the "nation"; mainly because service in the state militia paid better than the Continental Army. Many recruits enlisted in one regiment and then re-enlisted in others for an extra helping of bounty money. Recruiting proved difficult; the majority of the colonists wanted nothing to do with the conflict. In most towns, revolutionaries created vigilante groups to intimidate loyalists and force the locals to swear loyalty oaths.
"The idealistic, quasi-religious political mentality suggested by elevated expressions like 'The Cause' and moralistic references to the superiority of American virtue as contrasted with British corruption, " Ellis writes, "had provided a rhetorical platform on which the different and disparate state and regional interests could congregate as a self-proclaimed collective...The exalted and almost operatic character of this mentality was heartfelt but unsustainable. It was the honeymoon phase of a marriage, blissfully romantic but of short duration."
We usually picture the signing of the Declaration of Independence as a single event that took place on July 4, 1776. In reality, the document was presented to Congress on June 28, Congress voted on July 2, and afterwards Congress spent a few days editing what was basically a press release. The document was not ready for publication until July 4, and the actual "signing" took months (John Hancock signed on August 2, and the others followed suit in the tiny space that was left). For some reason, Jefferson claimed that there was a signing ceremony on July 4.
Ellis, unlike other historians of this period, also deals with the question of slavery. The revolutionaries claimed to stand for government by consent, a principle rooted in colonial society and history but blatantly contradicted by slavery: 20% of the colonial population were blacks, and 90% of these were slaves. One of the grievances listed in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence accused George III of inciting slave insurrections.