Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth

by Holger Hoock

A NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW EDITORS' CHOICE

A magisterial new work that rewrites the story of America's founding

The American Revolution is often portrayed as an orderly, restrained rebellion, with brave patriots defending their noble ideals against an oppressive empire. It’s a stirring narrative, and one the founders did their best to encourage after the war. But as historian Holger Hoock shows in this deeply researched and elegantly written account of America’s founding, the Revolution was not only a high-minded battle over principles, but also a profoundly violent civil war—one that shaped the nation, and the British Empire, in ways we have only begun to understand.

In Scars of Independence , Hoock writes the violence back into the story of the Revolution. American Patriots persecuted and tortured Loyalists. British troops massacred enemy soldiers and raped colonial women. Prisoners were starved on disease-ridden ships and in subterranean cells. African-Americans fighting for or against independence suffered disproportionately, and Washington’s army waged a genocidal campaign against the Iroquois. In vivid, authoritative prose, Hoock’s new reckoning also examines the moral dilemmas posed by this all-pervasive violence, as the British found themselves torn between unlimited war and restraint toward fellow subjects, while the Patriots documented war crimes in an ingenious effort to unify the fledgling nation.

For two centuries we have whitewashed this history of the Revolution. Scars of Independence forces a more honest appraisal, revealing the inherent tensions between moral purpose and violent tendencies in America’s past. In so doing, it offers a new origins story that is both relevant and necessary—an important reminder that forging a nation is rarely bloodless.

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

576 pages, Paperback

First published May 9, 2017

About the author

Holger Hoock is an award-winning historian of the eighteenth century, specializing in the history of Britain and the British Empire. He holds the Amundson Chair in British History at the University of Pittsburgh and serves as Editor of the Journal of British Studies. Trained at the Universities of Freiburg, Cambridge, and Oxford, he has been a Kluge Fellow at the Library of Congress, a Visiting Scholar at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at the University of Konstanz. Passionate about sharing his historical research as an author, educator, and a consultant for museums and TV, he lectures widely across Europe and North America.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The attack at Paoli had earned [General Charles Grey] the nickname ‘No-Flint Grey,” and it was as No-Flint Grey that he now went into battle. Grey’s redcoats used a socket bayonet. First invented by the famous French military engineer Vauban in the late seventeenth century, it attached to the musket via a collar that slipped around the barrel. Its triangular, pointed blade had a flat side towards the muzzle of the musket, and two outer fluted sides some fifteen inches long. With the full force of a soldier’s body behind it, a bayonet could cause terrible damage to tissue, arteries, and bones. The challenge was that the closer the soldier got to the enemy, the more psychologically difficult it became to kill him. The British military worked hard to teach its soldiers how to overcome that reluctance, explaining to new recruits that ‘in the hands of men who can be cool and considerate amidst scenes of confusion and horror,’ the bayonet is, by far, ‘more safe to those who use it, as well as more destructive to those against whom it is used, than powder and ball…’”
- Holger Hoock, Scars of Independence: America’s Violent Birth

A good history book is its own justification. When you tackle a subject from the past, it’s not necessary to prove a thesis or show how some event “changed” or “made” or “remade” the modern world. You just need to tell the tale, and if it’s told right, the reader will be able to draw the relevant connections for themselves.

I say this because Holger Hoock’s Scars of Independence – an analysis of America’s “violent birth” in the Revolutionary War – goes to great lengths to justify itself, and in so doing, vastly lessens its potential impact. It’s not simply that Hoock’s arguments are distracting, tenuous, and often rather weak. It’s that he structures his book around them, making them the central function of his presentation. The result is a lot of strong material and well-written components marshalled in the service of a ludicrous premise.

***

That aforementioned premise is Hoock’s belief that violence has been written out of the historiography of the American Revolution, and replaced by a vision of a restrained and orderly rebellion. More specifically, it makes the startling claim that it “is the first book on the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War to adopt violence as its central analytical and narrative focus.”

It’s hard to know where to start when you pick up a book about a war and literally the first thing the author says to you is that war is violent, presupposing you are somehow unaware of this basic reality.

The interesting thing about this charge is that Hoock levels it against both the average American and historians. He even names some names, accusing well-respected figures such as Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood of ignoring violence at the expense of ideas. Bailyn and Wood, of course, are not military historians, so faulting them for not providing detailed descriptions of death and destruction is like reproaching John Grisham because he does not write medical thrillers. If Hoock had bothered to pick up any standard volume on the Revolutionary War, he would have discovered the absurdity of his argument that violence has never been covered before, or that he is the first person to interpret the Revolution as a “civil war.” To take just one example (since it’s facing me on the shelf as I write), Benson Bobrick’s Angel in the Whirlwind features an entire chapter – called “Nabour Against Nabour” – devoted to this very notion. This is an extremely down-the-middle popular history published almost twenty-five years ago by a non-expert in the field. In other words, Hoock’s so-called insights actually approach common knowledge.

As to whether Americans in general actually believe – as Hoock posits – that their revolutionary genesis was clean and bloodless, I have serious doubts. Twenty years ago, Roland Emmerich’s The Patriot – a big Hollywood blockbuster – spent nearly three hours following Mel Gibson from 1776 to 1781 as he used a tomahawk to hack and grunt his way through the guerrilla war being waged in South Carolina. When your “big idea” has already been coopted by a blood-spattered Mel Gibson, it should give you pause.

***

Authorial condescension aside, violence as an angle to approach the American Revolution is a great idea. I was onboard for a close look at the vicious cycle of retaliation between Patriots and Loyalists; at the effect of the war on both free and enslaved blacks, women, and Indians; and at the way violence, both real and imagined, was used for propaganda purposes. Once I slogged through the first twenty pages of repetitious professor-speak, unsupported claims, and thinly-veiled shots at the perceived ignorance of Americans, things actually got a lot better.

***

Scars of Independence is entirely thematic in its approach. Each chapter takes on a different topic, and discusses it independently of everything else coming before and after. Invariably, these topics are really interesting. Different chapters cover the experience of prisoners-of-war (in both North America and in the British hulks floating in the Thames), the occurrences of sexual assault committed by soldiers (a difficult issue to explore, as records are thin), the instances of massacres and other battlefield atrocities (in general, Hoock grudgingly acknowledges that the Continental Army comes out better than the British redcoats), and the consequences for Loyalists that attended the loss of the war (including thousands who were forced to flee to England and Canada).

This method allows Hoock to bore deeply into issues that might have been diffused in an ordinary narrative. For example, he has a chapter on the experiences of blacks in the Revolution that explores the difficult choices faced in deciding which side to support. The British encouraged enslaved persons to escape, and even formed a black regiment to fight against the Patriots. In response, the Patriots accused the British of fomenting insurrection, and failed to employ blacks soldiers in a systematic way (many free black men served in the Continental Army, but no attempt was made to enlist the enslaved to fight in exchange for their freedom).

To be sure, I have never read a book on the American Revolution that entirely ignores this area. The tension between the existence of slavery in a war for liberty has always been highlighted, beginning with British observers during the war itself. In the usual Revolutionary War book, however, black perspectives are integrated into the overall story, where they can be lost or diminished. By devoting an entire chapter to this element of the Revolution, Hoock can maintain the spotlight without any distractions.

***

Within each of the themed chapters, Hoock often utilizes a case study to illustrate larger points. The first chapter, for instance, on Patriot crimes against Loyalists, begins with a descriptive passage on the tarring-and-feathering of customs official John Malcom. Though there is always the risk of drawing false conclusions from singular events, the vignette certainly grabs and keeps your attention. Indeed, Hoock is at his best when he is delivering a set-piece, whether that is the so-called Buford Massacre or the saga of Captain Charles Asgill, who was nearly executed by George Washington in retaliation for Loyalist outrages, even though Asgill took no part in them. The chapter on the Sullivan Campaign against the Iroquois is especially effective in delineating the pathways traveled by violence. Massacres by Loyalists and Iroquois in the Wyoming and Cherry Valleys beget a Patriot campaign of devastation in which Iroquois towns and crops were destroyed. Rather than breaking the Iroquois, this only set off another round of raids, even worse than before. Instead of settling the matter, the Sullivan Campaign fed into a self-perpetuating loop, and earned Washington the ignominious nickname of “Town Destroyer.”

***

The downside to Hoock’s framework is that it provides no overall context for the war, no chronology for events, and no real explanation as to how all the different pieces fit together. There is no effort to describe the ebb and flow of the war, to demonstrate how Britain’s loss of Boston flowed into its invasion of New York, how happenings in Europe drew France into the fray, or how the strategy in the south resulted in Lord Cornwallis getting bottled up in Yorktown.

I am not criticizing Hoock for not providing these things, as that is not his purpose. But it leads to a strange result. Scars of Independence will be useless to someone who is unfamiliar with the war. But for those who are familiar, much of what Hoock presents – despite his claims to the contrary – is already well-known and well-documented.

***

Revolutions are violent. They are scary. History has shown this time and again. Even when the cause is just, when a revolt is undertaken for the best of reasons, innocent people tend to get caught in the maelstrom, whether it’s the guillotines of Revolutionary France, the killing of noncombatants during the Indian Rebellion, or the Red Terror that followed the Russian Revolution.

Hoock insists that the American Revolution was no exception. There were extralegal murders, rapes, and the death of civilians. Property was stolen, structures were burned, and crops were ruined. It is not hard to imagine the dread one might have felt in attempting to navigate between two opposing forces as they warred in one’s front yard, knowing that the wrong choice might bring the ultimate consequence. The thing is, though, that Hoock’s argument is against a strawman. He is proving a point that no one disputes. While I mainly enjoyed this book, I kept thinking how much better it would have been if it had not been tethered to a proposition that no reasonable person with even a slight knowledge of the Revolutionary War has ever held.

[LIsa Noell "Rocking the chutzpah!" · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book. Am I surprised that the truth is not being taught in our school's? No. I do think that more Americans are aware of the fact that all side's in this war were barbaric. War isn't pretty, and humans do despicable acts when they're not at war, so why shouldn't they become even more monstrous? This was a good read, and well researched. Thanks to Crown/Random House, and Netgalley for the opportunity to read this gratis.

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 4 out of 5]

A big thank you to Holger Hoock, Crown Publishers, and Netgalley for the free copy of this book in exchange for an unbiased review.

I've recognized a deficiency in my knowledge base of the founding of my country having recently become great friends with a Canadian who is both politically and historically minded. With this in mind, I look for strong nonfiction on this topic from various points of view to broaden my horizon. Scars of Independence is just such a book. Hoock chose to focus on the violence of the war-"the perpetrators, witnesses, and victims". It's therefore a cultural study of the citizens who perished, the soldiers who invaded, the children who were stranded.

After the end of the Seven Years War in 1763, England wished to raise funds to pay the debt incurred by taxing the American colonies. First came the Stamp Act, a tax on printed paper. Then came the Townshend Acts, which taxed imports, including tea-a major staple. Riots ensued, which led to a heavy British force quartering on the large towns like Boston. A mob mentality became the norm with taunts escalating tempers leading to the bloody Boston Massacre. Soon after soldiers were being quartered in empty houses, the English government began appointing administrators. All of these Intolerable Acts led to the coming together of fifty-six great mind of the colonies called the Continental Congress.
The Continental Congress is taught in school as the leading body of men who were strong-willed but wordsmiths, not men of violent machinations; however because of them colonist persecuted colonist because one may have been a "Tory". A Tory, or British loyalist could be found in any walk of life. The terms "Patriot" and "Loyalist" actually shared many commonalities. But being labeled also split many families apart, some quite well known. It's a foreshadowing of the sorrow of the Civil War. Hoock does an excellent job here describing the atrocities experienced by the Loyalists. Not only did they suffer mutilation and death, but they suffered a character assassination.
In 1775 when the Royal Navy entered the foray, the admiral upped the ante. Cannon balls rained from the sky, grape shot was spewed forth, buildings and wharves burned. But that's not the worst of it. The Rebels took these opportunities to ransack Tory property, leaving families homeless and destitute.
Women and young ladies were not safe from the atrocities perpetrated by both the Loyalists or British soldiers. Ravishment was rampant in occupied cities. They connived their way into unprotected homes and taped any female occupants, some as young as ten years old.
Hoock has written an insightful, masterful work. I've learned a great deal. He's thorough, organized, and thought-provoking. A first-rate read!

[Faith · Rating 2 out of 5]

As the author claims, "this is the first book to adopt violence as a central analytical and narrative focus". Unfortunately, that is not the history of the American revolution that I want to read. Had I known that this was the focus I would not have requested this book. It strikes me that the author is someone who is desperate to find a fresh take on a subject that has been written about a lot. Maybe he just needs to publish in order to buff up his academic credentials. That's fine, but I'm really not interested in reading about the beatings and shootings and weapons of choice employed by the British or the Americans. I abandoned this book pretty quickly. I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author tells the reader at the beginning of this book that he wants to focus on violence in the American Revolution.
Quote: "It is the first book on the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War to adopt violence as its central analytical and narrative focus."
While he does mention some books that spoke of violence, mostly regional histories, his book is indeed the only one to offer a comprehensive history of the violence in this war. As he explains, it was a civil war, Patriots fighting Loyalists, with ever more cruelty. His claim that today's American public was not aware of the violence is not quite true. The Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" depicted some of the British cruelty. See below where I wrote about a regional history and my visit to Cowpens Revolutionary battlefield.
Cowpens National Battlefield Park is the site of a Revolutionary War battle (1-17-1780) between US soldiers under Gen. Daniel Morgan and British cavalry/dragoons under Colonel Banastre Tarleton, model for the chief bad guy in the Mel Gibson movie "Patriot."
In the movie, Gibson kills the bad guy. In real life, Tarleton went back to Britain, served in Parliament, became a member of Wellington's card playing group, and died a peaceful death of old age. More info can be found in an excellent book"Partisans and Redcoats" by Walter Edgar. Mr. Edgar spoke about his book on C-SPAN. He commented that some British newspapers protested about the brutality in the movie "Patriot." He said that, in fact, the movie toned down the British ruthless behavior. He further stated if the combatants were judged by today's laws, Tarleton would be considered a war criminal. However, he went to say that there was cruelty on both sides, with Loyalists/Tories and US soldiers burning each others homes. Tarleton is notorious for the battle of Waxhaws, SC (5-29-1780), where his dragoons attacked and overwhelmed about 400 Virginia patriots. They attempted to surrender. Tarleton's men, following their leader's example, killed every last one.
US soldiers under Morgan defeated Tarleton's dragoons at Cowpens. Tarleton escaped. Some US soldiers wanted to kill all the British soldiers, crying "Tarleton's Quarters!" but US officers managed to stop this. There is a loop trail about 1.5 miles long with interpretive signs. There is also a well done movie presentation of the battle, with a computerized map depiction of the battle. I also visited the King's Mountain Battlefield.

The author goes into considerable detail of Patriot and Loyalist cruelties against each other, starting about 1774 with tarring and feathering of British civilian officials. There are graphic descriptions of rape and gruesome killings/torture. I was not aware of the extent of Patriot /Loyalist violence which did not end with the defeat of the British at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781. It continued and a Loyalist execution of a Patriot leader in 1782 very nearly derailed the ongoing peace talks between the US and Britain.
The author is from Germany and points out that he is not biased towards the US or British interpretations of the Revolutionary War. There is no translator listed and he is evidently fluent in English as his writing is excellent. The author did a great deal of fresh research, much of it in primary sources, i.e., letters, diaries, contemporary newspapers and various US/British official reports. There are about 100 pages of footnotes(my kindle edition had locations, not pages).
I am one of those pedants who reads all the footnotes and I am impressed by the amount of research done by the author.
If you are squeamish, this book may not be for you. I rate it 3.5 out 5 stars. Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for sending me this book.

[Glen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won this book in a goodreads drawing.

With this book, Hoock tries to show that far from being an orderly separation, the American Revolution was a violent confrontation. He claims that violence is absent from the scholarship. This is false. For the last ten years at least, historian have been highlighting the violence of the revolution more and more.

And this is a problem throughout the book. He seems behind the times. I don't think Hoock has a deep understanding of either the colonies, or on eighteenth century England. While the stated purpose of the book to highlight the violence, he actually seems most hung up on diversity.

There is some value in this book, but I can't really recommend it as groundbreaking.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recently a GR friend (thanks Jay) tipped me off to an appearance of the author of this book on C-Span. Unfortunately, because of confusion over the starting time I missed the first half of the program. Hopefully it will be rebroadcast and I can view the entire presentation as it seemed to be quite interesting. I mention this because during the presentation the author said that he wrote this book as a cautionary tale for the benefit of America. Initially I thought his caution was in regard to the use of violence as a tool of national policy which it certainly is but now that I've finished the book the author clearly meant more. While it wasn't planned, the fact that I've finished this book and write its review on today's date of July 4 does seem poignant especially in the light of the intended purpose of this book.

The author is a German born academic that has spent considerable time in England lecturing on British history and has also spent significant time teaching in the U.S. He offers this review of our Revolution from the perspective of an outsider, a neutral, not affected by any feelings of nationalism. He believes that after over 200 years the history of our Revolution has been mythologized and sanitized and most of its American participants deified. He is probably correct on this point but certainly over the last few decades many of our Founders have had their lives more clearly and truthfully inspected and reported. So now we need to look at our Revolution through the eyes of an objective reporter and I am able to state that I did learn some things that made this a worthwhile endeavor.

To begin the book did start slow and was rather ponderous. I was concerned that I was getting another academic view of history in which the life of the subject would be drained away in the name of professional academic tradition. It never ceases to amaze me how people dedicated to advancing the knowledge of history can persist in writing only for other academics and not for the general reading public who they need to reach. My fear, however, was not realized. The beginning was only slow going because it dealt primarily with those events already well known to those with an interest in this period of history. When the author leaves this area and goes into subject areas not usually or never treated in any significant detail in other histories of the Revolution that the book really grabs your attention. The author's treatment of the conflicts between Patriots and Loyalists are immensely moving as it clearly depicts that civilian life during the Revolution was frequently chaotic, tragic, and violent. He also goes into our dealings with Native Americans and the violence practiced by both sides. In fact, that is really a benefit of this history being written by an author like this.

The author's examination demonstrates that our Revolution was not some sort of clean sanitized conflict between good and evil. There were abuses committed by both sides but it would appear that the British were the greater practitioners and, consequently, suffered for it. It was adequately proven that the Americans quickly discovered the PR and propaganda value of British depredations and exploited them to the fullest while the British never seemed to learn that the whip is a poor recruiter of loyalty. It is repeatedly posed by the author that the British actions probably did more to turn Loyalists and fence sitters into Patriots than anything the Patriots were ever able to do. Nevertheless, the Americans did commit their share of atrocities even while Washington recognized the negative affects of such activity and did all he could to curtail and prevent them. Washington was adamant about the need for the Revolution to hold the moral high ground no matter how extreme British outrages went. Unfortunately, our Revolution was not a well disciplined military exercise which the book details extensively. Much of the fighting that never made the respected histories was fought by civilians and gives clear understanding to why our Founders were more afraid of "the mob" than any foreign invasion. Away from the army and the battlefield anarchy seemed to be prevail. Loyalist and Patriot bands enforced their own rules and were responsible for many of the extremes of violence. This seemed especially true once the war shifted to the South were the actions degenerated into more of a guerrilla operation by the Patriots and bands of Loyalists under British command but without strict military discipline.

One area the author discusses has always been of particular interest to me. What happened during the period between Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown and the final Peace Treaty being signed? That was nearly a two year time lapse. Most Americans think the war ended after Yorktown. It did not but there were no more major military engagements during that period. What did happen was an unyielding period of civilian conflicts between local Patriots and Loyalists and more anarchy to be endured by innocent civilians who were not allowed to be neutral. The author even details events following the treaty signing and the independence of the U.S. being fully recognized. The subsequent treatment of Loyalists that tried to remain and those that tried to return to their homes is also the subject of continuing violence. This occurs inspite of the Treaty's specific agreement that Loyalists be protected and unharmed and that their property be returned.

While this book attempts to demonstrate the futility of extreme violence as a tool for political gain the lesson seems lost on the British. Their subsequent colonial history in India, Africa, and Ireland doesn't indicate anything but that they never put down their whip and employed it at the first showing of local unrest or belligerence. As a consequence their empire is no more and they have a history in which there is much to be shamed of. As for us, the U.S., the author's caution is expressed in his perception that we are heading down the same road traveled by the British with our attempts at nation building, involvement in the affairs of other nations, and imposition of democracy where uninvited. The author has his opinion and that can be discussed and debated as the reader wishes. What is clear to me is that Americans are becoming less and less aware not only of their own history but of all history. We can profit greatly from understanding the mistakes of Britain but only if we bother to learn them.

[Lance L · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Big Idea of this book is that the American Revolution was in fact a war in which people were sometimes mean and did Not Nice things. This will be a revelation to everyone whose sole knowledge of the American Revolution comes from watching Schoolhouse Rock. The argument is made through monotonous repetition of individual stories and rarely rises above the level of anecdote. It's not that his thesis is wrong, it just seems obvious and kind of pointless. I was truly hoping for an incisive look at the violent birth of the nation as a progenitor for all sorts of inherent flaws and continuing violence (as is hinted at the beginning). Instead, there were some rather tepid stories about how the Patriots were sometimes mean and the Torys (sorry, "Loyalists" because apparently Tory is not a p.c. word by 2017 standards???) sometimes left their towns because of it. Also, soldiers sometimes did bad things. Maybe I am jaded, having just read a history of Germany in WWII and the current war in the Congo (both of which contained VERY Bad Things committed against civilians), but I just could not find myself getting much worked up by the (numerous, repeated, overly-long and often meandering) anecdotes. Full disclosure - only made it through a little over half the book before giving up, so maybe the second half was better.

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won this book in a contest on Goodreads.

The author believes that we have romanticized the American Revolution because the path of the UK and the US have converged so often in subsequent years. It hasn't served the powers in those two countries to remember accurately what was a brutal conflict, and often a civil war between American Loyalists and Patriots. Even the numbers of killed and wounded, he says, are dismissed without realizing the larger proportion of a smaller American population they represented.

Other than this thesis, which is worth thinking about, the author doesn't contribute much. His phrasing is ordinary, and he doesn't offer a lot of details that make the reader feel present in the various scenes.

[Kristen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author seems to be surprised that war entails violence. Go figure.

Full disclosure: I won a free copy of this book in a Goodreads Giveaway.

[Shomeret · Rating 4 out of 5]

This historical study was not as earth shattering for me as it would have been if I had never encountered books that challenged the idealized perspective on the American Revolution that I imbibed during my years of schooling. Yet I still consider it illuminating. I received a digital ARC for free from the publisher via Net Galley in return for this review.

It occurs to me that the excesses of the American Revolution represent the self-perpetuating cycle of abuse writ large. The revolutionaries were either persecuted in England, or were descendants of people who fled England due to persecution. From these experiences, they learned to persecute others such as the Loyalists who were a larger proportion of the American population than I had imagined.

I was aware of escaped slaves who were freed as a result of fighting for the British, but I found out from this book that about half of them were re-enslaved by bounty hunters after the revolution. Yet 9,000 African American former slaves left America as free Loyalists.

My conclusion about this book is that violent means to achieve a worthwhile end will always detour the struggle so that it may not achieve the intended goals. I think that this has been the trouble with revolutions throughout history.

For my complete review see http://shomeretmasked.blogspot.com/20...

[Benjamin baschinsky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly researched, Mr Hoock's brings to life the conflict from its origin to the country uniting.
A bit of a slow read at times, however the raw violence is shocking .
Would recommend this book to someone who wants to educate themselves to the Patriots quest for independence.

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. A really interesting look at the revolutionary war as the nation's first civil war, with an emphasis on violence and how reports of violence were leveraged as propaganda, particularly to advance the cause of independence. The focus on tensions between loyalists and patriots is often overlooked in most histories (except the amazing tv show Turn) in favor of British-American aspects of the conflict, but they get a full exploration here.

The revolutionary war has been whitewashed by a subsequent focus on lofty ideals and founding fathers (including in the current political climate) but this book sheds new light of just how much blood and moral compromise came first.

On the whole, the book suffers from some uneven pacing, going way too far down a couple of rabbit holes (prisoners and some trial I can't even remember because I was so bored I stopped paying attention), but the parts that are on are spot on.

[Bren fall in love with the sea. · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK..So I have not finished this yet.

I had no idea when I decided to get this book how BIG it is. It says 4 50 or so pages on here. I think my copy is longer then that.

So I am about 100 pages in. I am enjoying it. But I am treating this as a "read off and on book". It is not the type of book I can finish quickly. I also have to be in the mood. It is very long, very wordy and sometimes I feel like I am back in High School History c lass. But I like it. It offers the writer's own perspective and that is always a good thing when it comes to History.

Will write an update when finished..if I ever am.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

My ARC courtesy of Crown/NetGalley - much thanks.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though I have read non fiction accounts of war since I was a teenager (military history is a favorite topic of mine) this book was particularly difficult for me to just breeze through. Chapter by chapter Holger Hoock breaks down the various elements of the American Revolutionary War and leaves no stone unturned, no victim unspoken for. It's a gut wrenching book.

The Colonies were divided up by the British, the colonists living in soon-to-be-America, and those who were for the future America (dubbed Patriots) vs those still loyal to the Crown (dubbed Loyalists). The interplay between these groups of people are difficult enough, then you add in all of the atrocities done to the women and children of these allegiances, plus the African slaves and Native Americans and you have a wide and tangled subject matter of brutality and exploitation. Rules of engagement varied based on who was in charge and were constantly broken, the treatment of prisoners of war docked outside New York alone makes for stomach churning nightmares, but I was probably most shocked by beloved George Washington's treatment of the Iroquois Nation of Peoples. The advancing Patriot soldiers were slow moving enough that most of the camps and tribe grounds were abandoned by the time they got there, but there was no end to the savagery that these Native Peoples would find when they returned home: the soldiers burned everything to the ground, looted, destroyed crops and orchards, left absolutely nothing whatsoever, and in some cases even sacred graves were destroyed and looted. Author Hoock points out that as a matter of principle Native Peoples didn't typically rape their enemy women, but sadly this was not the case for the Patriots when they found some of the tribe women still left behind in their camps. As the author points out the effects of what happened to the Iroquois in this war would be felt for decades after the war ended.

Economics as a result of atrocities was particularly interesting to me, from how "lost" slaves who were freed by the British were treated, to how Virginians behaved in their loyalties based on the fortune of their plantations and crops, to even how compensation was calculated after the war was over for the Loyalists who now had to try and reclaim their belongings in a community where many if not most of their neighbors had been fighting against them and had taken their things, including homes and businesses. It had to have been an awkward predicament to be fighting against your own country where you live and do business in for a bid for Crown rule only to be defeated. This was a pet cause for Alexander Hamilton and I found his compensation towards the Loyalists fascinating.

I recently watched a 60 Minutes episode where Leslie Stahl interviews 97 year old Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz about the grizzly details of all the crimes and misdemeanors he had to unfold in court over what the Nazi's did to fellow German and non German Jews. I'm going to copy and paste the transcript of what Benjamin had to say about the atrocities because I feel like his answers to Leslie sum up perfectly the exact same reasons for why things took place the way they did in this book on the American Revolutionary War, fought over 200 years before World War II. Here's the transcript:

Benjamin Ferencz: These (Nazi) men would never have been murderers had it not been for the war. These were people who could quote Goethe, who loved Wagner, who were polite--

Lesley Stahl: What turns a man into a savage beast like that?

Benjamin Ferencz: He's not a savage. He's an intelligent, patriotic human being.

Lesley Stahl: He's a savage when he does the murder though.

Benjamin Ferencz: No. He's a patriotic human being acting in the interest of his country, in his mind.

Lesley Stahl: You don't think they turn into savages even for the act?

Benjamin Ferencz: Do you think the man who dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was a savage? Now I will tell you something very profound, which I have learned after many years. War makes murderers out of otherwise decent people. All wars, and all decent people.

Note: **I received a free advanced ebook copy of this book from Netgalley in exchange for my honest review**

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I received a copy of this book through Netgalley.

I have read a lot about the American Revolution, in near equal parts military and political histories. Scars, however, gave me a whole new take on the subject. Hoock gives us a perspective through the lens of violence: American on British, British on American, American on Indian, Indian on American, and American on American. He strips away the varnish that too often glosses over the telling of this tale and shows us what was in so many ways American's first civil war, and a war that had profound international reach.

I highly recommend this book. It's brutal, insightful, and very thought-provoking.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The quaint, romanticized version of the American Revolution that many have grown up with through popular history and school curriculum is not the real life story that those living during those years experienced. In Scars of Independence, Holger Hoock looks past the good versus bad and underdog narratives so prevalent today to reveal the multifaceted struggle and very violent history of the American Revolutionary War from all its participants.

Hoock frames the American Revolution as not just a colonial rebellion, but first and foremost a civil war in which the dividing line of loyalties split family. The Patriot-Loyalist violence, either physical or political, began long before and lasted long after the military conflict. Once the fighting actually began, both the Americans and the British debated amongst themselves on the appropriate use of the acceptable violence connected to 18th century warfare and on the treatment of prisoners. While both sides thought about their conduct to those in Europe, the Native Americans were another matter and the violence they were encouraged to inflict or was inflicted upon them was some of the most brutal of the war. But through all of these treads, Hoock emphasizes one point over and over, that the American Patriots continually won the “propaganda” war not only in the press on their side of the Atlantic but also in Europe and even Great Britain.

One of the first things a reader quickly realizes is that Hoock’s descriptions of some of the events of the American Revolution remind us of “modern-day” insurgencies and playbooks of modern terrorists, completely shattering the popular view of the nation’s birth. Hoock’s writing is gripping for those interested in popular history and his research is thought-provoking for scholars. Another point in Hoock’s favor is his birth outside the Anglo-American historical sphere in Germany, yet his background in British history and on-off research fellowships in the United States has given him a unique perspective to bring this piece of Anglo-American history out to be consumed, debated, and thought upon.

Scars of Independence: America’s Violent Birth is a fascinating, intriguing, thought-provoking book on the under-reported events of the American Revolutionary War in contrast to the view of the war from popular history. Holger Hoock gives his readers an easy, yet detailed filled book that will help change their perspective on the founding of the United States by stripping the varnish away to reveal the whole picture.

I received this book via LibraryThing’s Early Reviewers in exchange for an honest review.

[Sara · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review through the LibraryThing Early Reviewers Program (I gave it 2.5 stars there, but 2 here).

I have been studying the American Revolution and, specifically, Alexander Hamilton for around 8 or 9 years now, so I was really excited to hear about this book and even more excited when I found out I would be getting a free copy. This is right up my alley and it was the only book I requested that month.

Hoock makes claims in the beginning and again in the end to be a neutral party since he is German but studied in both England and America. I don't know that I entirely felt this way, but I do think that he did give enough to both sides of the story to be close enough. Others have claimed a bias, but I didn't feel like there was too much of one.

I was intrigued by his concept that the American Revolution has been largely romanticized to seem more civilized than it was. I already had this opinion, but also knew that it was a war -- how civilized could it truly have been? The idea that this romanticizing of the war makes Americans completely ignorant to the brutality that occurred seemed equally ignorant on his part. Perhaps it was more violent than is taught, yes, but I don't think there are scores of Americans wandering around thinking that it was all peace and negotiation with little torture or death. All of that being said, I've studied the time period quite a bit and my own view of what people know about the Revolution might be skewed and I'm willing to admit to that.

Even being aware of the violence that accompanies war, I was not really knowledgeable in any specifics. I was excited to read a book on the AR that didn't focus on the founding fathers and the politics, but instead focused in on the soldiers and civilians who were out on the fronts and the actual treatment they underwent. On multiple different sites I have seen complaints about how this book is only about violence and how disturbing that is. These complaints are fine, but to take the rating down because of it seems to be folly. The book specifically tells us, as readers, that this is what it will be about. On top of that, these are the truths of the war and, disturbing as they might be, they should not be ignored or forgotten just because they might be upsetting.

So, although it was an interesting topic, perhaps I should explain my lower rating. Frankly, I felt this this was 400 pages of fact regurgitation with very little insight or analysis provided by the author. I was glad to read all of these hard facts, but I also would have liked for Hoock to give me his take on them and to embellish them with some sort of analysis to lighten the writing. Since it was so dry, I think it really could have benefited from some personality. Honestly, if I think a book about the American Revolution is dry or boring, then it really must be because I will eat that up in almost all cases.

In a similar vein, I feel that someone who has not studied might get lost in this book. It doesn't talk much about the major players or battles. I appreciated this, actually, as since the Hamilton musical it seems like every book is a chance to name drop now which can be irritating. That being said, it was easy to feel lost with all of the mentions that were not well-known. This book seemed to name drop in a different way -- insignificant (historically speaking) people and places that we may have never heard of kept popping up with no explanation of who or what they were as if we were expected to just know Random Soldier So-and-So. This isn't always a big deal, but there were moments where I felt additional context might have been helpful.

Since I had an ARC, I don't want to give too much to the format, but I had two bones to pick. The one that I didn't contribute to the rating was the lack of an index. I knew that would turn up in the actual publication, so I didn't hold it against the book but it was problematic. I also didn't like the use of end notes instead of footnotes. From what I've read in other places, this remained the same, so I am applying it to the rating. There was no way I was going to sit and flip back and forth between my reading and the back of the book to read more about the sources even if I truly wanted to know. This is not to mention that the end notes were always applied to the very end of the paragraph and I had a hard time figuring out which parts of the paragraph were being cited.

Overall, an interesting topic and attempt at giving us a different view of history. However, also very dry and dull and lacking in individual personality. It took me much longer to read than it should have, considering the page count, which tells me that I had to slog through it even if it didn't feel like it at the time.

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hoock aims to tell the story of the American Revolution by using violence as his central analytical and narrative focus. He argues that the story of the revolution has been subject to “whitewashing and selective remembering and forgetting.” Americans have chosen to portray the revolution as “an uplighting, heroic tale, as a triumph of high-minded ideas….” But as Hoock ably demonstrates from his well-researched account, the reality was much messier, marked by violence “in ways we don’t remember, and perhaps can’t even imagine, because they have been downplayed - if not written out of the conventional telling altogether.”

Why was this so? In all wars, narratives of one-sided violence (that is, violence by the “other” side) help to mobilize allegiance and support. Having a “moral” claim helps legitimize a nation both at home and abroad. And of course, with Americans averring that their primary interest was freedom, they needed a compelling message to counter the many ways their hypocrisy could be exposed - not only because of their enslavement of blacks and treatment of Natives, but because of the way the Patriots terrorized the Loyalists. Anglican churches and clergymen were singled out for even more abuse, because they prayed for the British king. Churches were smashed and priests tarred and feathered or covered with excrement. Some were killed, including one who was lynched by a mob in Charleston, South Carolina with his body subsequently burned on a bonfire. (Hoock writes that different regions in America “specialized” in different types of abuse.)

One of the worst places to be punished for Loyalist leanings was in Connecticut, where the accused could be taken to an underground prison located in a converted copper mine. This hell on earth (or in earth, as it was 60-80 feet underground) was dark, damp, squalid, with limited air circulation, and exceedingly unsanitary. Prisoners could not stand upright, and the political prisoners were mixed in with dangerous felons. Many of them went mad. As Hoock observes: “Psychological torment and physical violence played a far greater role in suppressing dissent during America’s first civil war than is commonly acknowledged.”

There were also “political” punishments. Hoock reports on extralegal Patriot “committees of safety” that policed members of their own towns, encouraging neighbor to turn against neighbor, and not discouraging vigilante and/or mob violence. Other Patriot actions against Loyalists included enactment of treason laws, confiscation and banishment acts, test laws (to test loyalty), and the banning of Loyalists from voting, holding office, practicing their professions, trading, serving on juries, acquiring property, inheriting land, or even traveling at will.

Confiscation of property affected tens of thousands of Loyalists during the war, allowing the states to accrue assets and condemn traitors to a social death without engaging in widespread executions.

But the Patriots in general, and George Washington in particular, were well aware that “in order to win the war on the moral front, with both American and international audiences watching, [they] must out-civilize the enemy.” Thus, not only were stories of American violence suppressed, but stories of barbarity by the British, while rare - particularly at the beginning of the war, became pivotal pieces of the Patriot atrocity narrative: “In their print media, the Patriots presented such atrocities as part of a broader pattern of British excessive violence.”

The American Congress published numerous reports of any British atrocity in order to persuade the population of “Britain’s moral inferiority and the righteous urgency of America’s cause.” The most effective propaganda took the form of charges of sexual predation. As Hoock observes, “The high proportion of references to girls and teenagers being raped does not correspond to verifiable data…” But of course, as he admits, “As is the case in most wars, and in most societies, the incidence of rape in the Revolutionary War is impossible to quantify.” Rape victims were intimidated by threats, social ostracizing, and humiliation. They lacked witnesses to corroborate their stories.

Regardless, the “Americans deployed rape as a political tool to discredit the British Empire…” (Sadly, Hoock points out, narratives of rape from the period highlight the injured reputation of dishonored fathers and husbands, and were said to symbolize the violation of the body politic. The abused women themselves didn’t seem to matter as much.)

Hoock also devotes a considerable amount of time to the problems of prisoners of war. Observing the conventions related to prisoners created a dilemma for the British: if they called captured combatants thusly, and agreed to be bound by conventions re prisoners, they would ipso facto be recognizing the U.S. as a sovereign state. [Lincoln faced the same issue during the Civil War vis-a-vis captured Confederates.] It is estimated that between 16,500 and 19,000 American prisoners died in British captivity - roughly half of all the Patriots under arms who died in the war.

Hoock also shows the way racism fed the violence of the war, not only against blacks, but against Native Americans. America used the mobilization of the war to wage a simultaneous campaign against the Iroquois Confederation. Washington himself laid out the Continental Army’s objective in the campaign against the Six Nations to Major General John Sullivan as “the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.” ….. As Hoock remarks, “Today we would consider this a form of genocide.”

Finally, Hoock reports on the period after the war was over, when treatment of former Loyalists was quite punitive. While 60,000 or so white Loyalists went into permanent exile after the war, several hundred thousand wished to stay in their homes. But animosity ran deep, and violence was often employed against them.

Alexander Hamilton realized that while the physical fighting was ended, the war for hearts and minds was not over. He urged tolerance, warning of “the diplomatic, political, economic, and moral costs of persecuting the Loyalists.”

To that end, Americans “scrubbed” their own Revolutionary war record, which they celebrated as “untarnished with a single blood-speck of inhumanity.” For their part, Loyalists remaining in the States had no choice but to hide their trauma, or there would be severe repercussions. In any event, no American publisher would spread their version of events. The Patriots controlled the history.

Discussion: Hoock uses multiple lenses to ferret out the real story of the American Revolution without the obfuscation of socially-constructed myth. In addition to accounts of American Patriots, he examines those of American Loyalists, the British, Native Americans, Black Americans, and German mercenaries. He also illustrates the ways in which the history of of the American Revolution was interpreted - first of all to serve the social and political agendas of the combatants at the time, and second, to readjust the understanding of the conflict in light of WWI, when it became especially important to minimize the legacy of violence between “kindred Anglo-Saxon peoples…”.

Hoock’s emphasis on the historical reconstruction of the war - i.e., the deliberate formation of the collective memory of the war - is critical to an understanding of how narrative was used by America to reshape what happened into a suitable foundation story. Not only do “the victors write the history,” but they tend to do so in a way that is more self-serving than accurate.

Evaluation: This book is a much-needed corrective to the many histories of the founding of America that only show the “noble” aspects of the struggle. It contains details of many violent incidents of the war that haven't made it into other accounts. As historian James Young famously observed, “Memory is never shaped in a vacuum; the motives of history are never pure.” As we now combat the divisions of the country after an election that emphasizes our divides rather than our commonality, we would do well to remember how easy it has been for this country to succumb to violence, discrimination, and cruelty, and then use "alternative facts" to cover it up.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disclaimer - I received a free copy of this book through the Goodreads Giveaways, in exchange for an honest review.
I am not a historian, but have enjoyed several histories of American and Global events. This book, while promising to address the particular violence of the American Revolution, actually goes much deeper and broader in exploring the events and persons involved. Surely, there are descriptions of brutality, both personal and to communities, but there is also information on the movements, the ideals, the terroristic strategies, and more. Terrorism is nothing new on our shores, neither foreign nor domestic. This book addresses many of the specific acts that were intended to frighten and intimidate either Patriot or Loyalist, and the outcomes of those strategies - usually steeling the resolve of the victims, rather than scaring them into complacency. On the larger scale, it gives the sequence of events to provide the context for that collection of horrors. We must never forget that the acts of war are horrific on their own, but that when people and policies disregard the conventions that allow us to pretend we are civilized during that warfare, then all is lost. The moral high ground seems to have been held by the Patriots, but there were atrocities on both sides before, during and after the official war for independence from Britain. What we learn is some of the details, what constitutes tarring and feathering and what are the physical and emotional scars that result, for example. The atrocities bred revenge killings and it is part of human nature to believe oneself to have evened the score only when one side is "up" on the other - it's never ended, even long after the war has been decided and it's time to move on.

What is perhaps most disturbing in this book is the contemporary nature of the hatred and enmity that grew between neighbors. Unlike the Civil War, in which geography and its attendant economic systems were prime determinants of which "side" one was on, here it was loyalties. As is pointed out, even Benjamin Franklin lost a relationship with his son, which never mended, due to being on opposite sides. Neighbors had varied opinions and intolerance grew to the point of murder, burning houses, pillaging, assault of men and of women, etc. What is so haunting is the increased heating up of the current social climate in the USA. It's not just people holding different opinions, but people who are bent on being extreme and intolerant of others. Families are torn apart over recent elections and social movements. The intolerance is nowhere near what is presented in this book, and the violence nowhere near, but the fear is that this history will repeat itself and the nation is torn apart again.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Kindle location 250:) “Although the American Revolution has been continuously invoked since the eighteenth century in the name of all manner of causes … its inherent violence has often been minimized. The result has been the perpetuation of an overly sentimental narrative of America's originary war.”

(Kindle location 260:) “To understand the Revolution and the war … we must write the violence, in all its forms, back into the story. This is my aim in this book.”

It would be a shame if this book is pigeonholed as an academic engaging in fashionable America-bashing, because it is really an invitation to look at the Revolutionary War like an adult, with all the headaches and rewards that involves. The founding fathers (especially George Washington, but also Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and others) in general come off rather well in this book. The acts of cruelty by all sides (frequently, but not always, by paramilitaries) are backstopped with evidence and given as much context as possible while still retaining enough coherent narrative drive to engage those who read history for pleasure. It was also interesting to see, in this day and age, how much political capital the leaders of the new-born USA were able to get out of presenting themselves as (and often being) on the morally correct side of the equation.

(Kindle location 5382:) “Concerned about preserving the Revolution's ideals and maintaining America's international reputation as an honorable, treaty-abiding nation, an increasingly vocal group of individuals, George Washington prominently among them, began pushing for reconciliation. After winning the moral war, they believed, America also had to win the peace by conducting itself in accordance with international law and enlightened ethical standards ...”

I received an free advance reader's copy of the ebook for review. Thank you to Netgalley and Penguin Random House for their generosity.

[Darcia Helle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scars of Independence is certainly well researched, containing a wealth of information on the American Revolution. Clearly, the author spent countless hours researching the subject.

That being said, I had a difficult time getting through this book. In fact, it took me a couple of months. I kept putting it aside in favor of something else, with little desire to get back to it. The writing has a dry textbook feel, often with too much focus on numbers and lists. Sometimes I felt I should be taking notes for the exam afterward.

The larger problem, for me, was in the presentation of the material. The author's stated focus is to write the violence back into the Revolution. His claim is that we glamorize this war, which, to an extent, is true, though I don't agree that we're all naive in believing this war was somehow a highly principled, gentlemanly event. Here, the author's intense focus on specific violent acts and skirmishes has the unfortunate byproduct of leaving out the humanity. For instance, his dry recitation of rape statistics had no more emotional depth than if I'd been reading about the theft of weapons.

This book works well as a textbook and/or for readers interested in a chronicle of events throughout the American Revolution. For readers like me, looking for an immersive experience, this is a more challenging read.

*I received an advance ebook copy from the publisher, via NetGalley, in exchange for my honest review.*

[Alberto Illán Oviedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Las Cicatrices de la Independencia es un gran libro sobre la violencia en los conflictos bélicos. Con el ánimo de desmitificar la Revolución Americana a la que define, con acierto, como la primera guerra civil, el libro analiza las diferentes expresiones de la violencia en el conflicto, desde el trato a lealistas por parte de los patriotas (y viceversa), al tratamiento de los prisioneros en ambos bandos, británicos y americanos, el uso de las violaciones masivas como arma de guerra, el trato de ambos bandos a los indígenas y a los esclavos negros, destacando el genocidio de los patriotas sobre la confederación iroquesa, así como, las rencillas y los problemas de convivencia que seguirían produciendo muertos, torturas y violencia. Otro aspecto muy interesante que analiza es el conflicto moral y ético que supone ejercer esta violencia, así como dejarse llevar por ella, hecho que ocurre en cualquier guerra lo suficientemente larga. El autor, alemán, escribe un ensayo ágil, usando fuentes primarias, archivos ingleses y estadounidenses, montando un relato francamente ameno y lleno de información, que invita a la reflexión. Una gran obra.

[Scottsdale Public Library]

This book is subtitled, “America’s Violent Birth,” for a reason. All wars are generally told in a way that leaves out the horror of it all. Maybe we don’t really want to know the truth about how we kill each other. The author, Holger Hoock, presents the Revolutionary War here in full glory, all acts of violence unabashedly depicted and described. Do we want to hear this? No. Do we need to hear this? Yes. Not one war escapes the revulsion of what a human being does to another. It can’t be ignored and Hoock doesn’t let us. - Anna Q.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an impressive, critical study of the loss of controls, the wastes, the violent components of a conflict too often taken for granted. The thematic chapters are quite different in their stories and examples. Sent a galley, by the publisher, I did not hurry, but lingered and malingered in this compelling and well-researched rethinking. This one is worth your time and thought.
Highest recommendation.

[Natxo Pistatxo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una obra fundamental para complementar la bibliografía básica sobre la independencia estadounidense. Rompe con toda la mitología de mesura y revolución pacífica con que ha gustado verse a los patriotas norteamericanos desde su evocación romántica, y pone en situación el otro bando afín a los británicos, tan desconocido para el gran público.

[Donna Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was invited to read and review this title by Net Galley and Crown Publishing. Thanks go to them for the DRC, and my apologies for being late, late, late. The title was published last month and is available now.

The strongest part of Hoock’s history, which seeks to set the record straight on the American Revolutionary War, is his research. He is an historian of some renown, and his entire life has been dedicated to studying and teaching about Britain. His sources are, as one might expect, thorough and impeccable. His thesis is that there was a great deal more violence over the course of this revolution than is commonly remembered, and

“By ‘violence’, I mean the use of physical force with intention to kill, or cause damage or harm to people or property. I also mean psychological violence: the use of threats, bullying tactics, and brutality to instill fear in people and influence their conduct and decisions…”

This is indeed a broad brush. In most courts of law today, a property crime is not considered a crime of violence, nor should it be. Better someone run away with your television set than shoot you, or knock you over the head, or hurt your family. And…bullying? Certainly such behavior gets more attention today, both legally and socially, particularly where young people are concerned; yet we are talking about a revolution here. A revolution! And this is part of what prevents me from engaging fully with the text. In the thick of a battle that will determine the futures of everyone concerned, a war to wrest control of its destiny from the mightiest naval power on Earth, it seems a bit of a stretch to expect that American Patriots and Loyalists would treat one another with perfect courtesy.

This brings me to the other part of this history that makes this reviewer cranky. The teaser suggests that this will be a balanced account, demonstrating that far more violence occurred on both sides than is widely taught in American schools, and it just isn’t so. In point of fact, although both Americans and Brits are discussed and shown to be more violent than most of us know, most of this book is dedicated to discussing the unprincipled, the unkind, the indecent ways British troops and loyal colonists were mishandled by brutal American Patriots. I went through my DRC with a highlighter, and far more space is given to bullying, demeaning, and other anti-British behaviors.

“Less careful individuals risked being investigated if they were overheard criticizing their local committee, if they drank a royal toast or sang “God Save the King” in the wrong company.”

My violin please.

There’s a lot of strong material here, and some of the tales of physical violence are graphic. In fact, the level of gory detail may be the summer reading dream of a nerdy teen with a strong reading level. And there is a lot of information that is new to me. Hoock depicts Lord North and King George III very differently from any other historian I have read; it would be easier for me to believe that Hoock’s viewpoint is the accurate one, had he admitted up front that he was writing from a largely Anglo-centric perspective.

The maps bear mention here. Rather than produce new maps that are legible on a DRC, Hoocks has chosen to use actual maps from the time period. This choice is hard to argue with; they’re primary documents, and although a second map that is more readable might be desired, I can’t argue that these maps should not be used. In fact, it’s interesting to see a map that includes what is now the Eastern USA and Eastern Canada with no line of demarcation, because nobody at the time regarded the US and Canada as separate entities. But I would say that those that want to read this book and that want the maps—which are important—should consider buying this title on paper rather than digitally, unless you intend to read it on large computer monitor.

Although the text isn’t as evenly balanced as the introduction implies, this is still a strong addition to the study of the American Revolution. It’s not an overview of the Revolution and does not pretend to be, so those looking to read just one book on the American Revolution should get something else. But for historians that want to deepen and enrich their understanding of this struggle and that think critically and independently, this book—in paper—is recommended.

[Stan Prager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some years ago, before it was shuttered to the public, my son and I took a road trip to check out the Old Newgate Prison in East Granby, CT, an abandoned copper mine that was turned into a prison in the late eighteenth century. We had the benefit of electric lights, and modern stairways have replaced the ladders that prisoners were forced down to the pit and tunnels some seventy feet underground, but even so the sense of claustrophobic isolation was palpable. Much of the cavern is narrow and cramped, with sloped floors and low rock ceilings. It is ever a cold and dank fifty-five degrees, and as penitentiary it was also dark, largely airless and no doubt horrifying for those confined there. [p49-52] That many of those hapless occupants were Loyalists imprisoned here during the American Revolution may have been mentioned by the guide, but hardly emphasized. Loyalists are the invisible actors in the drama that saw the colonies become a nation. While some estimates peg the Loyalist segment as high as twenty percent of the white population, perhaps some five hundred thousand colonists, they have largely vanished with little trace in American history.
Fortunately, a new generation of historians – most notably among these Alan Taylor – have rediscovered them, as well as the Native Americans and African-Americans long disregarded by more traditional studies. Now Holger Hoock neatly advances this trend in the historiography with Scars of Independence: America’s Violent Birth, slated for release in May 2017, which restores Loyalists – long relegated to inconsequential cameos – to central characters that once walked on that tumultuous stage. In this fine contribution to the latest scholarship, the author treats the American Revolution as a kind of “civil war,” not only between the colonists and the British, but more critically between Patriots and Loyalists. These were, after all, friends and neighbors and relatives, some of whom were banished to that hell hole at Newgate, others on both sides who were brutalized far worse than that.
As the book’s subtitle – America’s Violent Birth – suggests, Hoock not only revisits the tame, lamely whitewashed version of the Revolution that we have grown up with to resurrect the Loyalists and challenge the myth of consensus among the colonists in their bid for independence, but he strives to locate and identify the violence in the conflict that has somehow been excised from most of the history texts. That violence dominates the theme in this well-written narrative, on the battlefield and especially beyond it. The author reminds us, for instance, that to be tarred and feathered – a favored device for the public humiliation of Loyalists – was hardly benign, but that hot tar often seared and permanently scarred the flesh. And that was, tragically, the least of it, as Patriots and Loyalists and British regulars and Hessian troops often visited terrible cruelties upon one another, and exponentially worse brutalities upon the Native Americans and blacks, slave and free, that found themselves in the orbit of the struggle. Hoock, professor of history at the University of Pittsburg, brings a kind of fresh perspective to this subject especially because, as he notes in the “Introduction,” he is a “German born specialist in British history who did not grow up with the national myths of either Britain or America.” [p22]
There were certain accepted norms for rules of engagement and codes of conduct for eighteenth century war and the treatment of prisoners. These were routinely violated. Dubbing the angry incident between a snowballing-tossing mob and British regulars the “Boston Massacre” made for great public relations long before actual hostilities broke out, but during the War of Independence there were indeed massacres, mostly perpetrated by British soldiers and their Hessian allies that did not view rebels employing guerrilla tactics worthy of quarter. Bayonets made grim examples of men begging for their lives. Over the course of the war, many more were taken prisoner than executed, but their fate often made Old Newgate look like a nice place to visit. Those Americans who were captured were often condemned to horrific confinement in the fetid holds of British prison ships, replete with abysmal conditions and mortality rates that frequently ranged from forty to seventy percent! [p226] British prisoners typically received far better treatment by their colonial captors, due not only to Washington’s strict codes of conduct towards enemy forces, but also because Americans were better capable of caring and feeding captives within their lines than were their counterparts. Loyalists, of course, existed in a kind of grey area, and thus were subject to arbitrary treatment in local environments. The violence was hardly one-sided, and there were examples of “. . . sadistic American-on American cruelty . . .” manifested in torture and murder on both sides. [p324-25]
Hoock also draws attention to segments of the population typically overlooked. The British dangled freedom before the eyes of enslaved Africans willing to assist the war effort, an attractive offer that sent tens of thousands of blacks into British lines. [p310] The unintended consequence was that this acted as an incentive to rebellion for otherwise uncommitted white plantation owners, pregnant with fear of slave uprisings. [p100] Hoock notes that “Blacks were . . . used as a psychological cudgel.” A selective one. In one case a patrol whipped the overseer of a Patriot plantation in full view of the slaves. But Loyalist slaves were protected as property, and sometimes executed by the British for attempting rebellion. [p310-311] For their part, Patriots often inflicted terrible injustice upon African-Americans, slave and free, whom they suspected of inciting revolt or recruiting slaves to the British cause. [p98] For the most part, the British showed little loyalty to blacks when less than convenient, as when they abandoned a thousand dead or dying African-Americans on the Virginia coast following the bombardment of Norfolk. [p103] Native-Americans, drawn into the struggle primarily as allies of the British, fared little better. Their ways of war were seen as barbaric, and this barbarism was repaid tenfold by the victorious Patriots. [p280-299]
Something like one hundred thousand Loyalists fled the thirteen colonies during the war and its aftermath. Many settled in Canada, although some were to return in the coming years. Reconciliation, led by Alexander Hamilton and others, ultimately triumphed over bitterness and recrimination for the winning side. [p382] Many, but not all, of the Loyalists who remained after the Revolution assimilated back into society. This was also true for some who fled and later returned. But the unspoken mandate for reconciliation was unconditional silence. “The price for the losers’ reintegration into America was to keep their own scars hidden.” [p397] The disease of Loyalism was essentially expunged from the national consciousness. It was publicly forgotten, even by most historians. We can be grateful to Holger Hoock and Scars of Independence for helping us to remember.



[Note: My copy of this book is an Advance Reader’s Edition uncorrected proof that I received through an Early Reviewer’s program]

[More on Old Newgate Prison http://www.cultureandtourism.org/cct/... ; http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ol...]

[More on Loyalists http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/hi...]


My latest review, "Scars of Independence: America’s Violent Birth," by Holger Hoock, is live on the book blog https://regarp.com/2017/02/04/scars-o...

[Caleb Lagerwey · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I prepare to teach an early American history course next year, I appreciated Hoock's unvarnished take on the violence of the American Revolutionary War. Reading this so soon after Gary B. Nash's The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America meant that some of the stories, especially involving frontier violence and Tory vs. Patriot violence were familiar, but he nonetheless makes an important contribution to the literature by stressing the ratcheting up of violence, the delicate balances between military necessity and humanitarian honor, and the war's evolving character from a rebellion to a civil war to a world war and back and forth.

The best parts of the book included the details of British prison ships, the account of the Paoli Massacre and its effect on the war effort, the story of the 1779 Sullivan-Clinton Expedition and their ethnic cleansing of the Five Nations of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, and the difficulties of tying the nation back together after the 1783 Treaty of Paris (including the difficulties faced by Loyalists/Tories) given the violence of the southern campaign later in the war and the vigilante violence that permeated the period.

I recommend this book to educators and historians looking for stories to complicate placid myths of the American Revolution.