| Title | : | Iron Tears: Americas Battle for Freedom, Britains Quagmire: 1775-1783 |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0743226879 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780743226875 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 375 |
| Publication | : | First published January 18, 2005 |
For generations, Americans have been taught to view the Revolutionary War as a heroic tale of resistance, exclusively from the perspective of the Continental army and the Founding Fathers. Now, in Iron Tears, master historian Stanley Weintraub offers the first account that examines the war from three divergent and distinct vantage points: the battlefields; the American leadership under George Washington; and—most originally—that of England, embroiled in controversy over the war.
Iron Tears renders an unprecedented account of the fight for American independence through British eyes, while dramatically narrating the battles that were waged across the Atlantic from Lexington to Yorktown and beyond. As the general, whom the British snobbishly and demeaningly referred to as “Mr. Washington,” rallied to keep his ragged and overmatched Continentals together and create a nation, “iron tears” fell from redcoat muskets and cannons, as well as from the demoralized eyes of the defeated British. Weintraub's multifaceted analysis will forever change and expand our view of the American Revolution.
Iron Tears: Americas Battle for Freedom, Britains Quagmire: 1775-1783 Reviews
-
A refreshing and fascinating account of the revolutionary war from the perspective of British policymakers and military commanders. Though compact, this book is admirably comprehensive.
The British ministry existed in a fantasy world of self-delusion and its military command was divided.
Weintraub also reveals the disunion and political rifts among the colonists. Many in the British ministry viewed the colonists as self-righteous hypocrites, stealing land from each other and yapping about liberty while owning slaves. When the British ended slavery at home, the American colonists continued it. And tax rates were higher in England than they were in America.
When we think of the original Tea Party Guys, we think of a bunch of decent, hardworking people who were treated unfairly and had every right to rebel against their oppressors. That's sort of a harder pill to swallow when it turns out the "oppressors" were more like "laid back goons," and the "opressees" were more like "whiney assholes." True, Great Britain did impose taxes on the colonies without representation, but the British rarely bothered collecting them. Hardly anyone was paying the tax that the colonists were so pissed off about.
London was an ocean away and there just wasn't an efficient way to manage an entire empire across seas. Not to mention the smuggling. Lord, the smuggling. The British taxes were only on trade, and it was just ridiculously easy to get away with simply not paying them. This was because the layout of the Virginia coast allowed merchants to sail past the authorities and just pull their boats right up to their customers. As a result, many merchants built their businesses on smuggling.
The British tried to put a stop to this, but how could they? Imagine if, instead of just losing a portion of your paycheck to taxes every month, you had to literally hand money over to an IRS agent who wouldn't chase you, didn't keep record of you and was incredibly easy to sidestep. Would you pay that guy?
Great Britain understood this inefficient system, but they also understood that they didn't really need the taxes they were asking for. So unofficially, it was decided that as long as the colonies were doing well, the British were just going to loosely enforce the trade laws, lest they risk accidentally starting a rebellion. This is the same discipline philosophy held by parents who think that the point of having children is so that you can finally be invited to high school parties.
Weintraub chronicles the British ministry's growing dissent with the war, as more and more members of Parliament and the public saw the war as pointless and unwinnable. Discontent got to the point that the British admiralty building and the home of Lord George Germain (who, oddly, was unknown to most of the mob) were attacked and ransacked. in fact, the Hessians were enlisted by the British only because the war was so unpopular among the British public. The British government mismanaged the war not because they were tyrants, but because they were struggling to manage the most democratic government the world had at the time. The British government was paralyzed by partisan politics and were hounded by a free press.
Paradoxically, George Washington was more a hero to the London press than anyone engaged in putting him down.
The book is well worth reading just for the way it brings alive the professionals like Clinton, the Howe brothers, and Burgoyne who tend to be faceless and cardboard characters in most world that look at the Revolution entirely from the US perspective. It has a real villain -- Lord Germain -- among the most dangerous of Britain's many dangerous upper-class twits. It adds useful and vivid details about Franklin, who is better known for his work in the French court than for his equally skilled politicing and propogandering in London. It's a shrewd book. I think it is also indispensable for anyone interested in the history of the Revolution. (And, yes, this Brit agrees that the right guys won.) -
Probably a 4.5 star book, but it gets the bump upward because of the number of people low-rating it.
I've read many, many books that are overviews of the war, or about individual aspects, and I still learned new things from this.
One was just how much Howe really didn't want to "crush" the rebellion.
A second was just how much the French entry led Britain to keep the status quo on the number of troops it would have in North America.
Third, a smaller one, but still good, were detailed insights on the personality of Sir Henry Clinton.
Related? Just how careful Washington was to avoid pitched battle, and how much this frustrated Clinton from the summer of 1778 on.
Fourth, and related in detail? Despite images of Washington exploding at Charles Lee for not pushing the attack at Monmouth more, Weintraub notes that Washington wasn't more aggressive in pushing pre-Monmouth battle against Clinton.
Fifth was the 1780 riots led in London by George Gordon (no relation to Lord Byron against parliamentary acts that would have removed many civil liberties burdens from Catholics. The furor of these riots led some of the Opposition in Parliament to cool their jets for several months.
Related? Weintraub discusses details of parliamentary divisions, as in vote counts, on a number of major issues.
Worth a read.
Note: This is not to imply that Weintraub is in general a five-star writer. I've grokked a couple of his books and read through one other one. Probably about 3.8 on average. -
For some time I have indulged my suspicion that the British never really tried very hard to win the Revolutionary War.
Stanley Weintraub’s Iron Tears isn’t the first book that has reinforced my understanding of this most iconic event in American history. If you’re interested, try Nick Bunker’s An Empire on the Edge or Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy’s An Empire Divided.
Weintraub offers a solidly researched and richly anecdotal account of the military details and the political wrangling that prolonged the war for several years until the British ministers and politicians finally admitted to themselves that they couldn’t win the war.
King George III was fatuously optimistic and persistently unrealistic—to the bitter end—about the prospects for winning a war that he desperately identified with his own persona and his royal stature. (Remind you of any U. S. president?...)
Weintraub makes it irrefutably clear that at no time during the Revolutionary War did the British send enough men and ships to win in North America, that is, to put down the rebellion and re-establish full constitutional Parliamentary control of the 13 colonies. Hint: the British “sugar island” colonies in the Caribbean were more important, and the British never stopped looking over their shoulders at prospective and real war with France, Spain and other countries.
On October 18, 1781, General Washington accepted the capitulation of the army of General Cornwallis at Yorktown. In November 25, an official dispatch with the bad news finally reached Lord North, the British prime minister, at Downing Street. It is reported that he exclaimed “Oh God! It is all over!”
Quite possibly he was overcome with grief and relief.
Read more of my book reviews on my website:
http://richardsubber.com/ -
This was a very interesting book about the American Revolution from the British point of view. I was very surprised at some of the information presented since it's never taught in the United States or at least wasn't when I was in school. I suppose I should have realized that it would be extremely difficult to conduct a war when the only method of communication was via messages brought over on ships that required a few months to make the voyage. However, that was a surprise, as was the fact that most of the food, supplies, even horses, for the British had to be brought over from England. Also surprising was the lack of enthusiasm for the war in England.
My only issue with the book and the reason I gave it 3 stars was the extremely dry writing style, other than that, it is definitely a must read for those wanting to know more about the American Revolution. -
Tolerable read though not the most scintillating storytelling.
The overall desire to picture how Britain felt about the war is well developed. Weintraub presents events of two-hundred-thirty-some years ago as immediately as the Washington Post might have described Iraq War controversies.
Weintraub appends a fifteen-page listing of "Participants" that with four or five lines of biographical information for each. This helps to keep minor characters clear. He also has some errors. I noticed a misidentification of the Earl of Effingham on pp. 45-46. Furthermore Weintraub attributes the title King in Hanover to George III on p. 317. George did not receive that title until after the events of the American Revolution.
I recommend the book to someone interested in the time period but not to someone who is just looking for a random good history. -
This book really requires a solid understanding of the American Revolution, a topic about which I am no expert. The book mostly focuses on the governmental and leadership struggles within Britain with details of the conflicts only hinted at. That would not have been a huge problem had the narrative about those internal squabbles been tricky to follow. Maybe I struggled because I am so unfamiliar with British history and the figures being discussed in the book but I also think it has to do with the way the author tackles the subject.
That said, I found some of the insights of this book very interesting, especially how strong and vocal those opposed to the war in Parliament were and how France's entry into the war almost entirely turned Britain's attention away from America. I just wish those insights had been conveyed more clearly and concisely. -
Iron Tears is an excellent introduction to the eight years struggle for American freedom from British rule. All the main players, both military and political on both sides of the Atlantic receive good, clear coverage, with use of contemporary press reports and comments.
Particularly well covered is the British Government of King George III, Lord North and Lord George Germain.
1775-1783 proved to have huge importance, not just for the United States and Britain, but also for France, Spain and the Netherlands. -
A great balanced history of our Revolution.
-
Not too long ago I learned that the American Revolution is barely covered in British Schools! It pretty much constitutes a little blip on their radar given the enormously long history to be taught. Of course Americans think of our Revolution as a world changing event....The Great American Experiment, etc....So I went searching for material to show the view from the British side. Iron Tears was the result of my search. While it was written by an American, I've yet to find a volume written by a Brit, It pretty much exclusively covers the view from across the pond.
I am not yet done with the book, yet it has me very intrigued. The information presented comes from Parliament records, as well the official records, notes , letters of the main players in that country as well as newspaper articles, pamphlets, private journals and other letters and broadsides that were written during that time.
While I new there were some in sympathy with the Americans, I didn't realize there were a great number of persons across the social classes in England who were very much against this war......it was very unpopular to say the least!
While some think it is dry reading, I don't find it so. It is based on historical record so does not read like a work of fiction yet is not so dry as put one to sleep.
If anyone out there knows of an account covering in such depth of this event written by an author "Across The Pond", I would appreciate being directed to it. -
This book is very readable on a subject that I am very interested in, but it could have been much better. The author needed a moe rigorous editor -- the author is far too fond of pronouns. A time line of events and when the British learned about them would have been helpful.
And then to top it all off, at several places he asserts that under no circa ranches could the British have won the war ( a conclusion I disagree with), but then on page 104 he asserts that the British could have made the rebellion unwinnable for the Continentals if only Howe had joined up with Burgoyne. And this man is a scholar! Unbelievable! -
I've always been interested in the American Revolution, and I tend to read a lot about it. This book took a different approach- it focused on the events in England during the war. I had no idea how unpopular the war was in England, or about the various riots that broke out in London during it. The various international pressures, and the lack of results from a lot of our notional allies were interesting to read about.
It's a very well-researched book. It can be a bit academically dry at points. I think it was worth the read, but I'm sure some people might not enjoy it.
Recommended for people interested in history, and specifically the American Revolution. -
The majority of this book covers the American Revolution from Lord Germain’s viewpoint (he was Secretary of State for America; think of him as sort of a Secretary of Defense). As events happened, they were reported in the newspapers of the time which the author quotes. There isn’t much that is new to RevWar aficiandos, although such interesting tidbits of information or wording can be gleaned about sailing times across the North Atlantic and the resultant slowness of news; that “Howe had hibernated with (Mrs. Loring) in New York”; and “…attempting to cover his posterior, Howe….”
-
A look at the American Revolution from what's going on in Great Britain at the time. I didn't know how much opposition to the war there was in England at the time.
