Revolution on the Hudson: New York City and the Hudson River Valley in the American War of Independence

This book is exciting and insightful and a must-read for anyone who enjoys learning about the American Revolution. It is also great if you have an interest in the history of NYCity and State. It is a compelling read by a top-notch historian.

Many authors have demonstrated the seemingly infinite ways the story of America’s revolution may be told and re-told by concentrating, for instance, on pivotal battles (see, Richard Ketchum’s superb “Saratoga: Turning Point of America’s Revolutionary War”) or locales (see, Richard Berleth’s splendid “Bloody Mohawk: The French and Indian War and American Revolution on New York’s Frontier). From the title of this work, I assumed that Author Daughan’s approach was going to be similar to Berleth’s, that is, a concentration, both geographical and events-oriented, on the Hudson Valley. I was incorrect. But that’s not to say that I was necessarily disappointed. One doesn’t get far into the book to realize that Daughan’s account is going to be more far-ranging and comprehensive than the title suggests. In fact, what the reader is presented is a well-told story that (whether the author intended it or not) amounts to a strategic view of the war, particularly from the British standpoint. In discussing the give’s and take’s on both sides of the struggle, Daughan indulges in a good deal of supposition and inference, coming down hard, for instance, on Washington’s early misjudgments and especially on the British military leadership’s inability to work together (to say nothing of their relations with their London overseers), with eventually cataclysmic results. While the author’s frequent conclusory dispositions largely accord with my understanding of the actors’ strengths and weaknesses, I found Daughan’s unrelenting “rights” and “wrongs” adjudications slightly off-putting. Having said all that, the author does an excellent job of relating the ebb’s and flows of the war in a relatively short work. And the lessons never learned by King George III and his ministers are once again manifest; their hilariously optimistic take on the loyalists’ willingness to rally to the Jack, never mind their fighting dispositions; the tenacity of the “rebels,” and their inconsistent but always-improving ability to fight; and, lastly, the sheer size of America which absolutely precluded the investiture and maintenance of control of any significant part of the country. And if a reader is intrigued by the wrong-headedness of Britain’s ambitions and strategic shortcomings, I highly recommend Andrew O’Shaughnessy’s “The Men Who Lost America,” a simply delightful recounting of the roles of the principal King’s actors in the loss of the continent. So, while I was slightly disappointed by the author’s not sticking to his purported subject, I must say that I was impressed with his digressions, and suggest that this would be a fine introductory work for someone new to the history of the war which would undoubtedly whet the reader’s appetite for more specialized treatments.

A very good read about the Revolution not just on the Hudson (North) River but pretty much about the entire war. He goes in details in some of the battles from both sides where some authors stress one side. The only negative I’ve found was the lack of maps. I kept “A Battlefield Atlas of the American Revolution by Craig Symonds nearby to reference the locations and the sequences of many of the battles. Otherwise a great book, well done. Four stars due to a lack of maps. Other wise it would be five.

Incredible book that should be read by anyone interested in American history. Very revealing read, interesting and reads like a novel. I purchased this book for myself and then bought two more copies to give as gifts to my history buff friends.

Great book. Obviously very well researched and detailed. I felt that the lack of good maps of the period was the weakness of the story. However, I am a map freak who enjoys seeing the campaigns visually. I have already recommended it to friends.

Although it was a detailed history of the Revolution, I found it boring to read because it had so much small detail, it became almost overbearing. It read like a history book written for historians. No doubt the author had done a great amount of research to uncover such detail about the battles, it just didnt flow well. It did give a very interesting picture into the court of King George and the assumptions they made about America, which lead them to underestimate the desire of the patriots to be free of English rule. The descriptions of the difficulty that George Washington had in obtaining funds to pay the army was an eye opener. The book was just not an easy read.

Interesting read. While not totally it does cover quite a bit of the Hudson Valley.

Not a bad overall history of the Revolution, but not specifically about the Hudson River or Valley. It includes an overview of battles fought in that region and why it was important to both sides, but only as a general overview. I didnt find it overloaded with detail and didnt learn anything goes new but I do recommend it for someone looking to read a good, general book about the war.

Great book-very informative and well written--about an interesting era in our History. As a History buff, I enjoy reading about the Revolution and how it could have gone very wrong for the future of our country. Especially interesting was the part pl;ayed by Benedict Arnold in this book as well as other books concerning his history and why he chose to betray his country. George Rosner

This is a good page turner for a history. Very complete, although with a misleading title. While the original English strategy was to control from New York City to Canada, the book covered the whole war. With all of the good research the author did, the book could have been so much better. There were no illustrations or diagrams of any of the engagements. Further, there was an overemphasis on the fact that much of the English fleet’s ships had copper plated hulls (as opposed to copper bottomed). The reason why the copper plating was done (to protect the hull from torredo worm attack. It also discouraged marine growth on the hull thus making the hull cleaner hence lower drag) was never explained. I didn’t need to be reminded that they had copper plated hulls nearly every time a naval engagement was discussed. Further, the author leads the reader to believe that the copper plating was the primary reason why the Royal Navy was usually the superior force. Being faster was not always an advantage. Better gunnery, tactics, and training are big factors as well. I understand that the leaders did not get along and in several instances either didn’t cooperate or were working counter to each other. Being told that ever time they were discussed was unnecessary. Finally, maybe an issue in only the digital edition, footnotes are all in one section at the end of the book. I found this very cumbersome and frankly unworkable. With some limitations I still recommend this book.