The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America

by Gary B. Nash

The Founding Fathers may have lead the charge, but the energy to raise the revolt that culminated in the victory of the American Revolution emerged from all classes and races of American society. The Unknown American Revolution plunges us into the swirl of ideology, grievance, outrage, and hope that animated the Revolutionary decades.

It tells of the efforts of a wide variety of men and women who stepped forward amidst a discouraging, debilitating, but ultimately successful war to inscribe on a clean slate their ideas for the kind of America they hoped would emerge from the blood-soaked eight-year conflict.

Millennialist preachers and enslaved Africans, frontier mystics and dockside tars, disgruntled women and aggrieved Indians--all had their own fierce vision of what an independent America could and should be. According to Nash, the American Revolution was truly a people's revolution, a civil war at home as well as an armed insurrection against colonial control.

"No one who reads this compelling book will ever again call the American Revolution a conservative affair orchestrated by great white men in great white wigs.…[Nash] reveals the churning cauldron of political and social discontents--white, red, and black, rich and poor, male and female--that was 18h-century North America. From it flowed the many and often contradictory streams that created the United States. Nash's is a real revolution, with winners as well as losers, with as many dreams dashed as dreams fulfilled." -- Daniel K. Richter, University of Pennsylvania

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

512 pages, Hardcover

First published June 23, 2005

About the author

Gary B. Nash was a distinguished American historian known for his scholarship on the American Revolutionary era, slavery, and the experiences of marginalized communities in shaping early U.S. history. A graduate of Princeton University, where he earned both his undergraduate and doctoral degrees, Nash also served in the U.S. Navy before embarking on an academic career. He taught at Princeton and then at UCLA, where he became a full professor and later held key administrative roles focused on educational development.
Nash's work highlighted the roles of working-class individuals, African Americans, Native Americans, and women in the nation's founding, challenging traditional narratives centered solely on elite figures. His inclusive approach often sparked debate, notably with historian Edmund Morgan, who questioned the broader impact of the grassroots movements Nash emphasized.
Beyond academia, Nash was instrumental in shaping history education in the United States. He co-directed the development of the National History Standards and led the National Center for History in the Schools. A past president of the Organization of American Historians, he was also a member of numerous esteemed scholarly societies. Throughout his career, Nash authored or contributed to dozens of influential books, articles, and essays that left a lasting mark on the field.

Reviews

[Diogenes Grief · Rating 5 out of 5]

For those who may not know, New Historicism is a field of research that bloomed in the 1980s, hot on the heels of feminism, ethnic studies, social psychology, and other “new” academic fields that sought to overturn the old standards of scholarship. There’s a nice description here: http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtu...

I was first introduced to Dr. Nash in a graduate-level history course on slavery in the Americas, and with a Master’s in English Studies, New Historicism fit nicely with my moral and ethical core. Instead of the revered top-down approach to history most of us grew up with, Nash and many others look at historic events from the bottom up. Instead of Queens and Presidents, Generals and Popes, New Historicism excavates the lives of the commoners—foot soldiers, farmers, women, slaves, and native populations. It throws History on its ear, showing how complex, fragile, and explosive life events are for the majority, the marginalized, the impoverished, the enslaved, the voiceless, and the vilified.

Nash highlights the true bedlam of the Revolutionary Age, the fratricidal war interwoven with genocidal episodes towards native Americans, the blatant hypocrisy of the fight for “freedom” undergirded by institutionalized slavery and political misogyny, the pawn-playing of Africans by both sides of the conflict, the elitist-based consolidation of power, the ravenous greed of capitalism and war profiteering, and a general screwing-over of the enlisted soldiers that shed blood and tears (never mind endured starvation, frostbite, and bone-breaking musket balls) on the front lines, as well as their widows and families in the aftermath. The sweet lies our teachers taught us so long ago about heroism and nobility, virtues and freedom are nothing short of a rose-colored chimera that still vainly lives on today for some (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/...).

I do not believe that history repeats itself, but I know human behavior does. This, to me, is why it’s important to understand historic events so that we may try to derail the train of consequences so deeply entrenched in societies near and far.

Nash ends the book on poignant point: “Revolutions are always incomplete. Almost every social and political convulsion that has gone beyond the first disruptions of the [i]ancien regime[/i] depended on mass involvement; and that in itself, in every recorded case of revolutionary insurgency, raised expectations that could not be completely satisfied. In this sense, there has never been such a thing as a completed revolution. So it was with the American Revolution.”

[Josh Maddox · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gary Nash’s 2006 book “The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America” might have been better titled “Short Stories of the Oppressed Proletariat.” Nash sets out to overturn the traditional narrative of the American Revolution, in which elite white males led, guided, and directed the lower class politically, philosophically, and governmentally. In some ways, Nash accomplishes his goal. By showing the actions of blacks, lower classes, Indians, and women, he demonstrates that there was more to the war than taxation without representation and the Stamp Act. He tells stories that deserve telling, not only for their overlooked historical value but for their entertainment value as well. Unfortunately, instead of choosing to tell their stories as they are, Nash often adds considerable commentary to them and superimposes his own neo-Marxist ideas onto Revolution-era Americans, attempting to make them pre-Marx Marxists. This, in addition to a presentation which is confusing at times and neglect in certain areas, makes the book less than it is promised to be. Though it is not presented this way, for discussion the work can most easily be broken down into four sections: blacks, the lower class, Indians, and women. Each of these sections contains its own positives and foibles, some more so and others less so.

By far, Nash’s coverage of blacks, both slave and free, is the best part of his work. He tells their stories in a way which is clear, simple, and emotionally resonant. Free from the glamorization that taints some of his other portions, Nash’s work here appears more honest than anything else. Some of his work here is incisive and insightful; a prime example of this is his discussion of prejudices held by the founding fathers themselves. Instead of brushing over the founding fathers’ arguments for their own freedom while suppressing their slaves, he points out the irony of arguing for freedom based on principle while denying freedom to others without any principle whatsoever.

Nash’s best tale about an African American is the story of Venture Smith. Nash is able to convey the synopsis of Smith’s life in only a scant three pages, but he is a powerful enough storyteller that the story feels complete, even though it clearly cannot be because of its restricted length . In this story, Smith was captured off the coast of Africa in 1736 and brought to America shortly afterwards. Upon arrival, he was sold to a farmer for whom he worked until he was abused so badly that, to defend himself, he beat his master’s son with his fists. Throughout his life and with many owners, this sort of event happened again and again; Smith would arrive at a farm, work peaceably, get attacked, and battered his assailants. There is more to this story than a slave who overpowered his masters though. Over time, through his strength and cleverness, Smith saves to purchase his family’s freedom. Besides its obvious allure as an interesting story, this piece demonstrates Nash’s ability as a storyteller and the power of his material when he chooses to let it explain itself. In this story, which is representative of most of his stories about slavery, he refrains from vilifying the owners or glorifying the slaves themselves. Later in the book, he covers multiple slave uprisings and does not shy away from the brutality in which they resulted.

Thus, Nash’s work on blacks is his best. Admirably, he gives many entertaining stories about a people group which was mostly illiterate and entirely looked down upon. Not only does he bring out a less told side of history, he does it in a manner which convinces a reader most; he lets the facts speak for themselves. Instead of superimposing his own ideas onto the people of the time, he relays their actions and allows the reader to think through the meaning and consequences of those actions.

Although Nash’s research on the lower classes is broader than his research on African-Americans (reasonably so since there were more of them to leave behind documents and more of them capable of doing so), his presentation of it flatters his heroes to the point of indulgence. Most of his stories about the lower class have them pitted against the upper class in some sort of semi-Marxist class struggle, into which Nash interjects his own political viewpoint heavily. None of these presents his own viewpoint more strongly than his discussion of military pay.

In 1783, after the American Revolution had been dragging slowly along for several years, military pay was badly in arrears. As a result, on more than one occasion, the military threatened to, or actually did, mutiny against its top commanders. This is a tale certainly worth telling, especially in light of the traditional narrative in which soldiers bravely followed Washington wherever he led them; always fighting for freedom, but the way in which Nash tells this story adds an unnecessary class struggle narrative. For example, when the enlisted men demand their back wages, it is because “Years of broken promises and shabby treatment brought [their] tempers to a boil.” Yet, when their officers revolt for the exact same reasons they were “mostly tending to their own interests.”

It is exactly this sort of disparity of treatment which makes “The Unknown American Revolution” a far lesser piece than it could have been. While the story of the lower classes has gone untold and been neglected, Nash makes the opposite mistake by choosing to denigrate the upper classes when they behave in the same manner as the lower class which he so greatly glorifies. Nash’s research, ability as a storyteller, and willingness to tell uncommon stories are all superb, but his endless interjection of his own political opinion adds little value and is distracting at best.

In his stories about Native Americans, Nash exhibits slightly different tendencies. Though he still glorifies Indians as much as the lower classes and justifies their actions, most of the problems in these stories come from the methodology of his story telling, not the stories themselves. The book as a whole is semi-chronological, which, combined with the fact that it is a collection of short stories and brief biographies, can be slightly confusing. Of no parts is this truer than in Nash’s discussion of Indians. Instead of breaking the stories up by person either person or event, he uses a jumble of several methodologies, sometimes separating his stories by time, sometimes by person, sometimes by event. Due to this, the stories seem to run together, and instead of creating memorable characters, he creates memorable story arcs. On a better note, the story that he tells is an often forgotten one. Nash’s discussion of the Native American’s plight reveals that the American Revolution did not bring freedom to all people, and to many it brought bondage. In this he succeeds in going beyond the popular narrative and into neglected history.

Although he ostensibly wishes to “view the American Revolution through the eyes of those not in positions of power and privilege,” Nash’s work on women reveals little information about anyone outside of Abigail Adams, who most certainly was in a position of privilege. Since women did play an important role in the revolution, did leave behind sources, and are, other than legendary figures such as Molly Pitcher and Phyllis Wheatley, often unmentioned in popular history, it is disappointing that Nash mostly writes of Abigail Adams. Seemingly, this would be one of the simplest places to include stories of many common people, but Nash neglects to do so, though in a few of his common-people stories main actors happen to be women. On the whole, Nash neglects to mention women as key figures, and though he provides flowery lip service to their role, he backs it up with little evidence.

Overall, though Nash’s attempt is noble, his resulting piece leaves much desired. In the individual stories, he demonstrates his ability as a writer, but in his commentary and presentation, he often falls short of excellence. Given the subject material, this is most disappointing. Nash is entirely correct in his assertion that all too often our understanding of the American Revolution is only knowledge of its leaders coupled with a vague knowledge of a few other characters. Nash succeeds in telling, and often in telling quite well, the stories of forgotten people, but his presentation and profuse commentary overshadow his characters.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

With the dark state of politics and society in the US at present, I decided it was time to go back and see where we came from. How did we deal with difficult times in the past. This is the second book in my stack of 10 on American history that I want to read this year. The first book was an outstanding account from the first arrivals in the colonies up to the Revolutionary War. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
This book takes us from the 1760’s to the end of the war. But it is not a “war story”. Nash writes revisionist history. This is a book about how bad America was at its founding, a fine addition to the execrable 1619 theme. He is quite proud and excited with the movement as many areas of history now being written/rewritten. This book is a collection of accounts reflecting the American revolution from the bottom. The little guy on the pointy end of the spear, the slaves of the North and South, the wives and widows left behind, the Native Americans on both sides of the conflict and those who tried to stay neutral, the militia men and, to a lesser extent, the British and their exploits. There are almost no accounts of fighting, except many accounts of attacks on the Indian tribes. The war itself is in the background but never comes to fore. A major weakness in his book. In this guy’s story the generals and Founding Fathers are basically corrupt, only fighting to acquire riches or property in the west. Nash’s Revolutionary War is a struggle of the lower classes to overthrow the oppressive elites which only partially succeeds. In the end, the patriot elites are not “leveled”, even though the British are defeated.

Why give it 4 Stars? Nash does present a side of the society that is interesting and one you will not get in popular history. I never felt Nash was presenting a fair account but it’s important to know these stories. Nash may be slanted but you can round out your knowledge of the beginning of the US by reading this book along with other books. This is definitely not a one volume reference on the war. In fact, unless you are well acquainted with the Revolutionary War and the American governmental system, natural rights, etc, you will not get much out of this book. It is dense and not exactly riveting. It is a book for Americans.

The pages that follow mostly view the American Revolution through the eyes of those not in positions of power and privilege, though the iconic founding fathers are assuredly part of the story. In reality, those in the nether strata of colonial society and those outside “respectable” society were most of the people of revolutionary America. Without their ideas, dreams, and blood sacrifices, the American Revolution would never have occurred, would never have followed the course that we can now comprehend, and would never have reverberated around the world among oppressed people down to the present day. Disinterring these long-forgotten figures from history’s cemetery, along with their aspirations and demands, along with the events and dramatic moments in which they figured so importantly, is offered as an antidote to the art of forgetting.

Nash cites seven events that were crucial to the road to revolution. The “Regulators” in North Carolina, the efforts of coastal elites to take title to land worked by backwoods farmers, the “Great Awakening”, the impact of the Seven Years’ War as some Indian tribes lost access to French supplies of arms and the reduction of British “gifts” after the war; the fight for voting rights for men without property; the conflict of slavery and abolition are some of the factors.
This book is strong in relating the what the lower classes were doing and thinking. He also gives you plenty to think about. The idea of “freedom” resonates. While the eastern coastal elites wanted freedom from Britain, they also wanted to retain their upper-class life above the “commoners” and riff-raff. The language of freedom had immense impact on the slaves in North and South. The story of how slaves gained freedom or not, went over to the British in great numbers, were rewarded or betrayed for service the British were careful not to offend the Loyalist support they so badly needed. When the fleeing slaves of southern Loyalists reached their lines, British commanders regularly returned them to their owners as soon as they discovered the slaves’ identities. In many cases, they sold slaves captured from patriot masters back to the Americans in order to purchase supplies for the army with no qualms of conscience. The generally tragic impact of the war on the Native American tribes is a major theme throughout. The role of women in society is also well covered, with stories about dealing with inflation and lack of money while trying to raise a family with the man off to war.
The rise of abolition is written about extensively. I was surprised at the extent of slavery in all communities and the Quakers were no exception. It was just a part of the environment. Ben Lay wants a reckoning:
Such a man was Benjamin Lay. Born to poor Quakers in England, Lay spent seven years at sea and then a few more in Barbados, where he and his wife witnessed the barbaric conditions of African slavery. Coming to Philadelphia, the hunchbacked, dwarfish Lay was shocked to see fellow Quakers practicing slavery. So began what some called crazed zealotry, but what others admired as an uncompromising display of conscience. Lay was a strict vegetarian, refusing to eat anything provided through the death of an animal. He sometimes lived in a cave on his small farm outside Philadelphia. He and his wife made homespun clothes to avoid materials made by enslaved Africans. He publicly smashed his wife’s teacups to discourage the use of slave-produced sugar. Taking his cause to the quiet Quaker meetings, Lay made himself impossible to ignore. On one occasion, he stood outside a meeting with one bare foot buried in deep snow to dramatize how badly slaves were clothed in winter. He also kidnapped a Quaker child to bring home to Friends the grief suffered by African families when their children were abducted…

The common people in the colonies were highly engaged in reading newspapers and books…and talking about what they read:
But political awareness and the eagerness to jump into political debate was hardly less pronounced. In New York City in the 1750s, a visiting gentleman described “how common it is to see a shoemaker, tailor, or barber, haranguing with a great deal of warmth on the public affairs.” Askance at this, he complained that the artisans had only “knowledge from the newspapers.” But that in itself was a sign of political maturity. The visitor blinked at how a workingman would “condemn a general, governor, of province with as much assurance as if he were of the [king's] privy council.”

Philadelphia’s ordinary people exhibited the same thirst for political knowledge and the same yen for political debate. “The poorest laborer upon the shore of the Delaware,” declared the Anglican clergyman Jacob Duché “thinks himself entitled to deliver his sentiments in matters of religion of politics with as much freedom as the gentleman or scholar.” ……. “Cringing servility,” observed Duché, was not in style and “such is the prevailing taste for books of every kind that almost every man is a reader; and by pronouncing sentence upon the various publications that come in his way, puts himself upon a level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors,”

Women in early America have their stories told. They are not shrinking violets:
From the earliest waves of immigration, life in frontier North America put a premium on women’s hardiness. In colonial courts, wives gained more control over property they brought into marriage than in England and Ireland. They also enjoyed broader rights to act for and with their husbands in business transactions. Large numbers of women worked alongside their husbands in competent and complementary ways. They had limited career choices and restricted rights, but they also shouldered broad responsibilities. In towns and on farms, daily routines of husband and wife overlapped and intersected far more than today. “She is a very civil woman,” wrote one visitor to the southern colonies, “and shows nothing of ruggedness or immodesty in her carriage; yet she will carry a gun in the woods and kill deer and turkeys, shoot down wild cattle, catch and tie hogs, knock down beeves with an ax, and perform the most manful exercises as well as most men in those parts.” “Deputy husbands” and “yoke mates” were revealing terms used by New Englanders to describe eighteenth-century wives. Women clearly helped shape the world around them,

…gave notice that they were made of oak, not willow. “We the widows of this city,” wrote a group of New York women in 1733, “protest the failure to invite us to court. We are housekeepers, pay our taxes, carry on trade and most of us are she Merchants. ... We have the vanity to think we can be fully as entertaining and make as brave a defense in case of invasion and perhaps not turn tail as soon as some of the men.”

The common soldier (or how the hell did we ever defeat the strongest power on earth?):
For all his obscurity, the foot soldier was, in fact, one of the main reasons that the Americans were able to sustain a series of disheartening defeats in the first two years of the war and still continue the fight. Washington and his generals relied on the poor unsung youth—the guerrilla fighter whose capacity to survive in horrendous conditions proved crucial. Washington understood what would later become a famous dictum of war, one that also applied in Vietnam two centuries after the American Revolution: The standing army that does not win, loses; the guerrilla army that does not lose, wins. Private Joseph Plumb Martin, an out-of-work farm laborer who joined the Eighth Connecticut Regiment, was the kind of young, penniless soldier who made all the difference. In plainspoken but penetrating prose, inscribed in a diary kept through several enlistments, the seventeen-year-old Martin, born in the tiny farming village of Becket in western Massachusetts, showed what the common soldier faced, endured, and—sometimes—survived. “We had nothing to eat for two or three days previous, except what the trees of the fields and forests afforded us,” he wrote in mid-December 1777, as Washington’s army marched along a rutted road from Gulph Mills, on the Schuylkill River west of Philadelphia, to the Valley Forge encampment where they would spend the winter. “But we must now have what Congress said,” Martin recalled, “a sumptuous Thanksgiving to close the year of high living we had now nearly seen brought to a close.” They did not get turkey with all the stuffing and side dishes…

African-Americans played a role in the Revolutionary War that should be celebrated:
Boston poet a century later of the muscular Attucks, who had charged the British soldiers with a stout cordwood stick. At Lexington and Concord, Prince Easterbrooks was one of the first wounded patriots. After this, many more black New Englanders joined up, including one of Venture Smith’s sons. Some of them were free but many were slaves, fighting alongside or in place of their masters. White Americans were fighting to protect their liberty; enslaved Americans fought to attain it.

Those who fought as slaves held the hope that their masters would reward them with freedom. Sometimes they were actually promised it. Peter Salem signed up in the village of Framingham with his master’s pledge of granting his freedom. Salem served at Lexington and a few weeks later at Bunker Hill, where he killed Major John Pitcairn of the British marines, who led the attack on the patriots’ fortifications. Salem later fought at Stony Point, Monmouth, and Saratoga, survived the war, and built a cabin in Leicester, Massachusetts. In another case, Salem Poor fought alongside his master, Lieutenant Thomas Grosvenor, at Bunker Hill. So honorable was Poor’s performance that fourteen Massachusetts officers petitioned the Continental Congress to award freedom to this “brave and gallant soldier.” Poor went on to fight with Washington’s army at White Plains, New York, in 1776, and endured the trying winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge. He became a small property owner after the war. In still another case, Prince Whipple, the slave of a New Hampshire officer, pulled the stroke oar on a small boat carrying George Washington across the Delaware River in a piercing snow and sleet storm on Christmas night in 1776.

Peter Salem, Salem Poor, and Prince Whipple were the kind of men celebrated by William C. Nell, the first African American historian of the black revolutionary experience. Writing in the 1850s, while he worked to integrate Boston’s public schools, Nell hoped to further the abolitionist crusade by pointing to the blood shed by black Americans for the “glorious cause.” Nell Meant to stimulate racial pride while countering the white Negrophobia that had spread rapidly throughout the North in the early nineteenth century.

One area that is seldom covered is the domestic and financial impact of the war:
The War of Independence entered a new military phase as the action moved South in late 1778, as we will see below. But at the same time it entered another phase: A meltdown of the fiscal structure undergirding the war effort....Dislocations in an economy have been endemic to most wartime societies, shortages of essential commodities occur: A gallon of molasses costing 2 shillings in early 1776 cost 20 shillings in early 1778 and 200 hundred shillings at the end of 1779; the price of a bushel of corn rose from 3 shillings in mid-1776 to 100 shillings in April 1779 to 180 shillings in February 1780.

[Craig Huddleston · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book by Gary Nash wonderfully tells the story of the American Revolution. He doesn't tell it from the perspectives of elites like Washington or Jefferson, but from the perspectives of the everyday person (e.g. Poor whites, women, African Americans, and Natives) Nash shows that this revolution was fought from the bottom up, not the top down.

After reading this book, I believe that we need to teach our children about THIS revolution. The revolution OF the people.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this boldly revisionist history, Nash recasts the American Revolution as a populist movement born of private citizens, working-class people and popular sentiment. As a corrective to the elite image of the affair as the business of aristocratic founding philosophers, this notion is a necessary piece of the puzzle and illuminating counter-perspective to history as usual. As a cohesive thesis to a substantive study, I found it a bit lacking. That the Revolution was a broadly populist affair is proven thoroughly and quickly; the implications of this fact are not followed through to much insight. Nash, having handily made his major point, seems content to then sit back and merely relate facts, a weird and jarring shift, given the contrariness of his thesis. It's not that the following evidence contradicts his original thesis, but it fails to develop it beyond a more than obvious and superficial level.

That's a shame, because the impact of this new perspective carries the book, which admittedly needs a little help with its bulky and ponderous narrative. Nash is enthusiastic enough, but he is enthusiastic more about the ideas behind the events, rather than the people behind the events. That means the writing lacks a little humanity and tends to the coldly academic. Not a fatal error to be sure, but one that keeps the story from becoming the epic adventure it could have been.

Still, worth a read for the new angle; an interesting companion read would be Gordon S. Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution.

[Brad Hart · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books on the American Revolution in recent years. Gary Nash has always been one of my favorite historians. You can almost guarantee that any book he writes will be groundbreaking. In this book, Nash takes a look at the American Revolution from the perspective of those that are often forgotten (Blacks, women, Native Americans, etc). It is an excellent view of the American Revolution from a perspective other than the traditional Founding Fathers. A must read for any fan of early American history.

[Jonathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Incoherent and tiresome. The Unknown American Revolution is a jumble of vignettes designed to illustrate a paper-thin thesis that couples a cliché (most of the people caught up in the American Revolution were not elite white men) with an anachronism (these non-elite-white-men wanted radical democratic change). Nash culls stories of women, nonwhites, farmers, and workers from secondary sources -- a worthwhile endeavor, I suppose -- but simply piles them in narrative fragments instead of conducting a thorough examination of their ideas or their relationships to each other.

[Lily P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Audible)

This is the first book I've read that looks far and wide for the seeds of revolution, not just the continental congress and Sons of Liberty. Beyond Thomas Paine and Common Sense--where did the ideas, attitudes, and courage come from?

Detailed research and connections for how the Great Awakening religious movement gave not only spiritual independence to citizens, but the gift of oratory and laid the foundation for the assumption that if mankind can experience their own spiritual relationship with God without intervention from priests or ministers--then the next logical step was that mankind could govern themselves without the "little Gods on earth" royalty.

What these ideas meant to the white landowners and upper class--the educated elite who made up the continental congress--and what these ideas meant to artisans, enslaved, variety of Indian tribes and nations, women and recent immigrants from non-British countries is eye opening.

Highly researched, the author is excellent at pulling the threads together to create the tapestry of the movement.

I was surprised that there was a brief period where women could vote before the finalized constitution took those rights away again.

I shouldn't have been surprised at the ugly, horrific, despicable, acts that swirled around this noble idea of freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty for some, but not women, not the poor, not people of color, and especially not Indians.

The variety of Indian tribes, allegiances, leaders, Nations and consistency of ruthless extermination all in a quest for land is nauseating. I had to take breaks as I listened to the book on my commute. The injustice of these acts; the injustice of burying this history--it was so much to face. I found myself crying in the car. Crying for the appalling treatment of human beings perpetrated by champions of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I grieved the loss of my own idealism.

How our nation treated the soldiers who fought the war is particularly egregious. The soldiers were promised pay, and never received it, or if they did it was in paper script that was worthless. Not feeding or supplying the soldiers--in a land of plenty, where crops abound--how is this possible? Why wasn't this addressed? And when soldiers, starving, barefooted in winter, shivering without shelter, blankets--without adequate CLOTHING--rebelled they were shot immediately as mutineers--I'm just appalled.

And then I think of our current VA and what happens to our servicemen and women now. How can we, as a country, ask so much of those in the service--and provide so little--and then renege on that.

I thought the founding fathers meant what they said.
I knew slavery was a clear indicator that they didn't really mean what they were saying, but I glossed over that. It was complex. Economic. Compromises had to be made in order to create a union.

Oh hell no. There's no glossing over this.

Our nation was birthed with the dreams of many peoples. And sadly, today we continue to fight for what should have been given at the very start-- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Like "A People's History of the United States" this book is a cornerstone of context, thoughts and facts that reorder my understanding of who we are as a nation and why we are the way we are today.

It ain't pretty.

We can do better.

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

[Laurie · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you read only one book on the American Revolution (I'd go so far as to say 'only one book on American history') make it this one.

I borrowed this from the library to take on vacation because my family history searches made me curious to know more about this period than I did. Much of the history we were taught about this period was "great men" and "great battles", accompanied by examining hagiographic paintings made either at the time (Benjamin Rush) or later, in the 19th Century. In a way, none of it made real sense. Was the Stamp Act the only thing the American colonists got excited about? Or quartering troops? What did it really mean to say 'no taxation without representation'? Why could Jefferson write the preamble to the Declaration of Independence yet continue to hold slaves?

There's no straight answer. The 35 years leading up to the outbreak of the Revolution were times of great change, upheaval and complexity. The 'people' weren't even 'a people' but a diverse lot of different groups: wealthier and poorer, newer immigrants and old settlers, farmers and countrymen and city-dwellers, merchants, artisans, workers, land-owners and tenants, slaves, a few free blacks and Indians, men and women, scattered over different colonies with different settlement patterns, religious orientations, and different histories. When some people said: 'no taxation without representation' they weren't talking about representation in the British Parliament, but about the narrow franchise that limited voting rights, including locally, to landholders with estates valued at at least £40, and about local taxes and local impositions, though these were exacerbated by fiscal policies emanating from the British crown and Parliament. At the outset of the crisis, there were no cries for abolition, but these quickly began, first from religious conviction and then because many found themselves in the quandary of advocating 'freedom' from British oppression when they themselves were oppressors of black Africans forcibly taken from their homeland to live in perpetual and inheritable servitude forever. And Native Americans were faced with the difficulties of living with encroaching white settlers.

Nash does a great service for the reader in bringing to one work all these (and other) disparate influences: class, location, economic woes, slavery, a distant government with local support (the Loyalists), women who began to believe that they too should have the rights to a say in their own government, Native Americans seeing their lands and livelihoods (and often their lives) snatched away.

My only niggle was that there are a few annoying editorial slips here and there.

Since originally posting this review I have found that those of my ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War weren't as overjoyed with what they were left with after 1789 as the standard histories would have us believe. A sheaf of over 50 pages of letters has come into my hands, and the writers (farmers and artisans all) all, clearly, believed themselves let down in the long run. I thank Gary Nash's book for prompting me to look further, in primary sources.

[Ed Allen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book helps bring to life the complexity and strife of the colonies , patriots and founding fathers. Behind the myth of united front of the founding fathers, there were the familiar currents of conflict, greed, multi-factionalism, real estate scams, and pettiness that we commonly see today.

Those so inclined will see the "tea party" fighting back against an oppressive hi tax regime, and others will see the common man "leveling" the mansions of the greedy oligarch and "occupying" their misgoten lands.

[Mark Singer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unlike most of the books I have read on the American Revolution, this is a "bottoms up" history. The narrative follows groups usually left out of textbooks such as women, native Americans, African-Americans (both slave and free), and poor whites.
Nash makes compelling narrative, and emphasizes the chaotic nature of the Revolution.
I would recommend this to anyone who wants to know more about this period.

[Lois Plale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book for history buffs. Tells how it was actually the "little people" who fought the Revolutionary War - the farmers, Indians, African-americans, women, the poor - and how each one believed that the result of the war would help their own plight.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

The story of ordinary people and how they helped, hindered and were impacted by the revolution and its aftermath. Included are blacks, Indians and women, something you'd never find in books from 50 years ago. It also shows how radical the revolution was when it started out, Pennsylvania had a unicameral house with none of this Senate nonsense along with fairly liberal voting laws. After the war, rich, white, northern industrialists and southern plantation owners had to put a stop to that nonsense.

Along with depressing parts, there are some happy notes: Elizabeth Freeman freed herself via court action. John Adam's son, pushed for property rights for women, something his father refused to do even though he knew his wife capable of running his affairs as well as her own. Thomas Paine pops up from time to time, he's still one my favorite founders and has aged much better than Jefferson, Washington, etc.

And as for those Modern Militia twits, I have a simple description for them: Summer Soldiers. Most of them didn't fight or never show up. The revolution was not done with 3%, many more than that were active participants.

All in all an excellent book,

[Mary Brace · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent review of the experiences of native Americans and slavery during this monumentally complicated struggle! Highly recommended.

[Caleb Lagerwey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gary B. Nash is one of the best historians for early American history, and this book solidifies that opinion. This sumptuously-written book is a scholarly people's history of the American Revolution--perhaps a hair too long for popular consumption--that showcases the stories of those from below who played crucial and yet subsequently overlooked roles in the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers are not covered in exhaustive detail here because that is not Nash's purpose: he covers groups including women, African Americans (enslaved and free), Native Americans, enlisted soldiers, and working class farmers and mechanics who all contributed to the spirit of change swirling around before, during, and after the American Revolution.

Perhaps my scholarly reading has just been down certain paths and not others, but I particularly appreciated and learned from Nash's stories about the struggles and numerous mutinies of the Continental Army and state militias. The story of women, Native Americans, and African Americans getting pushed to the periphery of the new US is somewhat more widespread, but the stories of how fragile and negotiated the actual fighting forces of the colonists were shocked me and left me even more surprised that the American Revolution ended in American victory (and reinforces the importance of stressing the role of the Spanish and French in this victory).

This book is a great choice for an early American course of study and parallels well with Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth in its broadening and complicating of the traditional 1776 narrative. If one is seeking a more comprehensive look at the era, this would pair well with American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 or The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789.

[Michael Hattem · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a collection of stories about marginalized groups during the American Revolution, Nash's book is informative and could be even enlightening to a general reader. For the more academic reader, Nash's book includes no new research. Nash obviously aims the book for the general audience as he writes in the preface that he hopes the book will prove an "antidote to historical amnesia." Yet, all the things Nash discusses are drawn from the work of other historians over the last 30+ years. Indians, women, slaves, and other minorities have hardly been ignored. In fact, they have dominated the field of early American history for the past 35 years. When a preeminent scholar puts together a book like this, which brings together different strands of recent scholarship, one expects some kind of synthesis. However, Nash never really ties any of his groups or stories together in any coherent way. Nash is forced to give each group its own chapter and self-contained narrative. Because of the this, the book reads more like a compendium than a synthesis. Overall, the book could be good for a general reader of books on the period seeking to break away from all the biographies of the founders to get a more rounded view of the time, but students of the period will find nothing new in either fact or insight.

[Lindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nash examines often-overlooked parts of the American Revolution to reconstruct a "democratic" history that avoids the grand narrative styles of other historians such as Gordon Wood, and presents an every man's story of the Revolution. The introduction, wherein Nash reacts to a number of historical myths that have cropped up over the roughly two centuries since the Revolution, presents a new and enlightening aspect of the Revolution that Nash feels gets lost under the gloss of the Founding Fathers. In the end, the Revolution itself was much less of an earth-shattering event for the majority of individuals who hoped to cash in on the promises of rights and happiness but found themselves excluded from participating in the new republic (notably the Native Americans in the Northwest hinterlands and enslaved Africans in the south). Nash's history is less the triumphant progress of the American nation, but the dark side of liberty.

[A.J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nash focuses his history of the American Revolution not on the Founding Fathers handed to us by the mainstream historic memory, but instead on the middle and bottom of American colonial society. Why did the rock farmer in Connecticut or the cooper in North Carolina decide to make society anew? Who were the soldiers that Washington had to fight (and fight with)? Why did the Native Americans side with the British? Nash explores these questions in detail and provides a fresh look at what else was going on in the colonies as they broke away from Mother England. Nash's history challenges conventional thoughts on just how "great" the great men of the era (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc) actually were. But it also explains why these greats acted in the manner they did - and what exactly was motivating their own self-interests in a free America. Nash concludes that our revolution is unfinished and I agree. We see it being fought in every era of our history, right down to today.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nash's retelling of the American Revolution focuses on the disenfanchised: women, Negroes (slave and free), Native Americans, and men of modest means--mariners, artisans, small merchants, farmers. He relates these people's stories to the received narrative to describe how the people that won the war may have lost the revolution, as a real possibility existed at the time for the abolition of slavery, enhancement of the rights of women (though probably not full citizenship), honorable treatment of the natives and construction of a political/economic system that did not privilege wealth.

Nash doesn't denigrate (nor do I) what was achieved in the American Revolution, but only recounts what may have been a series of lost opportunities. My take is that although the War for Independance has been over for centuries, the Revolution is still underway. I highly recommend this book.

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gary B. Nash takes a fresh look at the American Revoution by focusing on the forgotten participants of the Revolution and by examing the impact of patriots from every class and race in American society. He includes stories of ministers preaching milennial visions, slaves, women, and Native Americans who all had their individual reasons for supporting the quest for independence for the English colonies. Nash demonstrates that the new American nation was founded on a foundation of a wide variety of attitudes and opinions and demonstrates that the view of the American Revolution held by most Americans is, in fact, a myth.

[Barbara · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book focuses on the role that African Americans, Native Americans, and common, poor laborers had in making the American Revolution successful. It had some very interesting information and portions were wonderful, but it dragged in parts to the point where I alternated between it and another book to keep myself reading it. Also, it did not seem as unbiased and fair as some other books I've read. The author's political views seemed to take precedence in how things were presented.

[Jane Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

To British readers like me it's the "American War of Independence" and we know little about it except from the British point of view. Similarly, the Americans have little interest in the British perspective.
Nash's book, therefore, is an interesting slant on the subject. He tells the story through the struggles of the poor, the slaves and the "Indians" who fought for emancipation and democracy in the course of the revolution.

[Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not the first book you should read on the movement for American independence, but provides a detailed, edgy corrective to getting carried away with revolutionary myths. Nash shows how revolutionary leaders throughout this period sought to manage, and in some cases betrayed, the poor, nonwhite and women inspired by the revolutionary rhetoric. Shameful treatment of native populations is not overlooked.

[Andee Nero · Rating 4 out of 5]

I felt like this was a very necessary book but I thought that the loose chronological organization was a poor choice. I think the ideas in the book would come across better thematically. I did like that it reminded me of Lies My Teacher Taught Me a little bit. I think there should be greater emphasis on the actual motivations of the founders, the revolutionary experiences of nonelites and the general disorder that occurred in the US government while the revolution was still occurring.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This history of the American Revolution is written from an egalitarian perspective. It focuses less upon the Founding Fathers and more upon poor farmers and artisans, slaves, and Indians, all embroiled in the political ferment and the war. I learned a lot from this book, especially how violent a struggle and upheaval it was. It’s a bit long, but there is lots of storytelling as well as analysis. I’m no egalitarian or SJW, but these are stories worth telling.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, this guy goes into amazing detail about the pulse of the nation as it's about to start a revolution. He does a great job of setting the tone and looking at the most unlikely characters. I'm sure Washington, Adams, and Jefferson will show up in here eventually, but for now its all about the people. Can't wait to see how it turns out. ;-P

[Spencer Moffatt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Looking deep into the pages of American History reveals those who are left out of the history books. This book opens up how broad and diverse America was during the Revolution beyond patriarchs such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Read and fully become aware of those who dreamed and died for true liberty.

[Colleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate the detail Nash included in the work, and I thought the greater context of the Revolution was helpful. I did however, have a hard time following his train of thought and thought that his points were uneven at times. The work did not have a good sense of flow; I thought that the reader had to jump around at some points.

[Carmela Ortiz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Insightful history from the eyes of the people. Unfortunately does not carry through with this POV into his conclusion and can be hard to follow due to his lengthy points. All in all, a great history that could have been more concise.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

interesting topic, interesting anecdotes, but it wasn't organized very well.