I just finished reading Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer. This book was definitely worthwhile. I am giving it "Five Stars." I confess to reading it fast, slower than a skim but much faster than I usually read a book. The reason is that much of the material concerning the famous crossing of the Delaware that stormy Christmas night and the surprise attack on the British and the Hessians at Trentown (now Trenton, New Jersey) was described in detail in Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow and 1776 by David McCullough, which I previously read.

A major distinction is that Chernow and McCullough are primarily writers, whereas Fischer is primarily a professor.

Fischer posits convincingly that the revival of the Revolution, almost sundered in the loss of New York City during the summer and fall of 1776 started before the Crossing of the Delaware and the Battle of Trenton, and that revival made those victories possible. A brief excerpt from what I think was the most stirring chapter, "The Great Revival":

There is an old American folk tale about George Washington and the Crossing of the Delaware. It tells us that the new American republics nearly failed in the winter of 1776, that George Washington crossed the Delaware on Christmas night, and that his victory at 1renton revived the Revolution. All of this story is true, but it is not the whole truth. There was more to it. The great revival did not follow the battles of Trenton and Princeton, important as they were. It preceded them, and made those events possible (though not inevitable).
*****
This great revival grew from defeat, not from victory. The awakening was a response to a disaster. Doctor Benjamin Rush, who had a major role in the event, believed that this was the way a free republic would always work, and the American republic in particular. He thought it was a national habit of the American people (maybe all free people) not to deal with a difficult problem until it was nearly impossible.

That view of the best of America being brought forth by crisis is true to this day.

Another focus of Washington's Crossing is in part on the uniquely American system that Washington and Continental Congress helped pioneer of placing elected representatives in overall charge, but delegating to experts a major amount of discretion in how they discharge their duties. Washington was given overall charge of the conduct of the Revolutionary War, for example. Fischer takes this analogy further, to having boards of directors of corporation selecting operating officers, and Boards of Education selecting superintendents operating independently but under supervision.

He also retells the thrilling stories of Washington's flexible and then-unique war strategy of avoiding pitched battles, but making the British and Hessians die the proverbial "death of a thousand cuts" though he does not use that phrase.

One quibble; I was constantly looking up words. One was "celerity" which turns out to mean "rapidity of motion." Another was "anabasis" which means "a military advance." And another jarring reference was his reference to "the Jamestown and Sagadahoc Colonies of 1607." The latter was a short-lived colony in Maine. This book may be more for history buffs, but it makes great reading. ( )

nonfiction (history--Revolutionary War). Great narrative reading. I still have trouble absorbing all of the battle/tactical information, but it is getting easier, and DHF does a nice job with incorporating the humanity of the soldiers and officers through inclusion of their personal letters and writings--I especially remember and appreciate the intro (about the famous painting and its history, as well as how it may or may not be inaccurate) or the concluding chapter. ( )

This was good, even very good, but not "fantastic" in the way it seemed to be hyped up. There's a bit of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" to the whole thing that I find a bit off-putting, but maybe that's just me. ( )

Great story telling ( )

This book was selected in my top three books for the first quarter of 2012.

Why study history? What does it matter to me? Because it shows the contingency in events that unfold in time and place. The book explores the author's viewpoint on a contingency in history; "people making choices, and choices making a difference in the world."363. The choices were made from what the participants felt about the events that were unfolding. The Brits viewed the rebels as a bunch of yeoman farmers. The Americans viewed the British as an enormous dinosaur that did not know its tail form its nose.

Had Washington not been General? Had General Charles Lee not been captured? (Lee would have stalled Washington from crossing the river, as he was the typical overcautious general.) Had the Hessian Forces and Brits not been overconfident? Had a woman not kept the Hessian General at home, instead of in his key position on the battle front? Then the American Story would have been quit different.

The book was great in displaying the way that Washington's Story was told by different authors with different purposes. He shows with honesty how the facts can be skewed to prove the point of any political platform. Before reading this book I always believed that the Hessian Army was drunk when Washington attacked it. From the facts assembled this has proven to be not true. But somewhere the myth has replaced the facts. We now believe that the Hessian Army was a bunch of drunken dolts.



I loved this book. I discovered a lot about this event that I did not know before. He writes in a way that is truly a pleasure to read.



The only draw back was that on my kindle the maps were hard to read. But that is what they created magnifying glass for. ( )