conorlarsen's review
5.0
“Liberty is Sweet” is a triumph and groundbreaking telling of the American Revolution. Rather than retreat into the traditional route of hero-worship or the more modern castigations of the founding fathers, Holton astutely forges a third path that renders them as complex individuals that were a part of a vast and inter-connected network of actors that included women, African Americans, and Native Americans.
adkwriter15's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.5
I will admit that, in the beginning, I rather wondered if this book had a point. I felt like it was rambling, and I really couldn't tell how it was different from any other retelling of the events of the American Revolution except for the tangent into fun trivia about women, African Americans, Native Americans, etc, at times. If you stick it out, the third and final section is quite strong, but to a point. It has a lot of interesting summary and evaluation in it, but that, too, seems to go on too long. Rather than a point, perhaps what this book is missing is another editing pass to make it sharper in exactly what it is hoping to convey. Again, it has an interesting and current conclusion, but if you want to read this then you have to be ready to devote some serious time to the middle section rather than a casual read.
socraticgadfly's review
3.0
Good in many details, but the big picture not always so much.
First, Holton devotes plenty of deserved space to African-Americans both slave and free. Unambiguous big kudo.
Second, I learned many tidbits. First goes back to Holton starting in 1755, and that’s that the majority of Braddock’s casualties were apparently friendly fire, and that this is why he didn’t want his troops fighting “Indian style.” Another was the number of English as well as Americans drinking smuggled Dutch tea. Third of note? Englander-cum-South Carolinian Francis Salvador, elected to the provincial congress in 1774, reportedly was the first practicing Jew to win elective office in the Western world.
There’s also expanded details on other things, like the Boston Massacre.
At the same time, some of his big ticket claims don’t totally add up, or they should have been phrased as “both and” rather than “either or.” No. 1 is the claim then Grenville and his successors were about imposing trade and taxation restrictions that the Crown and Parliament had really wanted to impose in the 1730s, before the War of the Austrian Succession. He says this, then the Seven Years War, interrupted such plans. Other than vague statements about some of the Austrian Succession’s battles extending (really?) he offers no hint as to why Britain didn’t try this between the two wars. Second, phrasing it as ONLY being about that, and not the expanding debt? Wrong. Enforcing more trade and tax rules would mean more Crown revenue, and a willingness to accept that. Part of this would pay for the 10K troops, most of which were in ports to enforce this, not on the frontier, but some of that revenue of course would … reduce the debt.
And, the claim that George III was “little more than a puppet” definitely rings false, as Andrew Roberts’ new bio shows. George never tried to veto an act of Parliament, but he did try to argue various prime ministers into different courses at times. Beyond that, as recently documented by the Guardian, Elizabeth II reportedly vetoed a 1999 bill on Iraq strikes, and either she or Charles has withheld consent on other bills, so even today's British monarchs aren't always quite the puppet. And, of course, George V told his cabinet to rescind its offer of exile to Nicholas II. Beyond that, compared to Roberts’ book, his take on the various PMs and their cabinets under George III just doesn’t wring totally solid.
The idea that colonies actually didn’t extend voting rights much when they became states may be true, but the idea that most white males could vote in most colonies is not. Weirdly, Holton ignores both pre- and post-1775 religious tests for voting and looks only at property issues.
And, in discussing the Declaration, he talks about Congress’ edits before approving it, but doesn’t mention the rest of Jefferson’s Committee of Five edits before it was submitted to Congress.
Then there’s other revisionist gotchas. His claim that Arnold’s shipbuilding in 1776, not the Battle of Valcour Island itself, delayed Carlton and set back the invasion of upper New York/New England a year, is of course true. His implication that traditional historians tout the battle itself is of course wrong.
So, while this is a deeper, and certainly, more broadly-ranged book than “Unruly Americans,” about the writing of the Constitution, it’s not a five-star book. Speaking of, the last 50 pages are about post-Revolution and even post-Constitution issues. Holton makes an argument for including them as “extended Revolution,” which I would more likely buy if the rest of the book were better written.
But, in reality, Holton needed more focus and perhaps a tighter editorial hand. Individual chapters within the larger parts,
Had he written a sociologically-focused history of the Revolution, with a reasonable amount devoted to politics on both sides of the Atlantic (but more accurate), and military issues a definite third, and written in broader swaths as part of that,, and trimmed to 400 pages, we’d have a five-star book. Unfortunately, we don’t. Like others, on the readability, I was finding this book a slog as I got into it more and more.
Arguably, it’s 3.5 stars, but with the overall average over four stars, and Goodreads’ redesign not giving us half-star ratings, it’s a 3.
First, Holton devotes plenty of deserved space to African-Americans both slave and free. Unambiguous big kudo.
Second, I learned many tidbits. First goes back to Holton starting in 1755, and that’s that the majority of Braddock’s casualties were apparently friendly fire, and that this is why he didn’t want his troops fighting “Indian style.” Another was the number of English as well as Americans drinking smuggled Dutch tea. Third of note? Englander-cum-South Carolinian Francis Salvador, elected to the provincial congress in 1774, reportedly was the first practicing Jew to win elective office in the Western world.
There’s also expanded details on other things, like the Boston Massacre.
At the same time, some of his big ticket claims don’t totally add up, or they should have been phrased as “both and” rather than “either or.” No. 1 is the claim then Grenville and his successors were about imposing trade and taxation restrictions that the Crown and Parliament had really wanted to impose in the 1730s, before the War of the Austrian Succession. He says this, then the Seven Years War, interrupted such plans. Other than vague statements about some of the Austrian Succession’s battles extending (really?) he offers no hint as to why Britain didn’t try this between the two wars. Second, phrasing it as ONLY being about that, and not the expanding debt? Wrong. Enforcing more trade and tax rules would mean more Crown revenue, and a willingness to accept that. Part of this would pay for the 10K troops, most of which were in ports to enforce this, not on the frontier, but some of that revenue of course would … reduce the debt.
And, the claim that George III was “little more than a puppet” definitely rings false, as Andrew Roberts’ new bio shows. George never tried to veto an act of Parliament, but he did try to argue various prime ministers into different courses at times. Beyond that, as recently documented by the Guardian, Elizabeth II reportedly vetoed a 1999 bill on Iraq strikes, and either she or Charles has withheld consent on other bills, so even today's British monarchs aren't always quite the puppet. And, of course, George V told his cabinet to rescind its offer of exile to Nicholas II. Beyond that, compared to Roberts’ book, his take on the various PMs and their cabinets under George III just doesn’t wring totally solid.
The idea that colonies actually didn’t extend voting rights much when they became states may be true, but the idea that most white males could vote in most colonies is not. Weirdly, Holton ignores both pre- and post-1775 religious tests for voting and looks only at property issues.
And, in discussing the Declaration, he talks about Congress’ edits before approving it, but doesn’t mention the rest of Jefferson’s Committee of Five edits before it was submitted to Congress.
Then there’s other revisionist gotchas. His claim that Arnold’s shipbuilding in 1776, not the Battle of Valcour Island itself, delayed Carlton and set back the invasion of upper New York/New England a year, is of course true. His implication that traditional historians tout the battle itself is of course wrong.
So, while this is a deeper, and certainly, more broadly-ranged book than “Unruly Americans,” about the writing of the Constitution, it’s not a five-star book. Speaking of, the last 50 pages are about post-Revolution and even post-Constitution issues. Holton makes an argument for including them as “extended Revolution,” which I would more likely buy if the rest of the book were better written.
But, in reality, Holton needed more focus and perhaps a tighter editorial hand. Individual chapters within the larger parts,
Had he written a sociologically-focused history of the Revolution, with a reasonable amount devoted to politics on both sides of the Atlantic (but more accurate), and military issues a definite third, and written in broader swaths as part of that,, and trimmed to 400 pages, we’d have a five-star book. Unfortunately, we don’t. Like others, on the readability, I was finding this book a slog as I got into it more and more.
Arguably, it’s 3.5 stars, but with the overall average over four stars, and Goodreads’ redesign not giving us half-star ratings, it’s a 3.
donaldleitch's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
"It seems clear for the founding generation, the American Revolution produced more misery than freedom."
"Many Americans brandish the Declaration (of Independence) as a trophy, but it owes its continuing relevance to those who take it as a challenge."
Dr. Woody Holton has written an accessible book that takes a fresh look at the events of the Revolution over approximately three decades. He writes about the battles of the war with clarity, but it is in his telling of the stories of indigenous peoples, African Americans and women during revolutionary times that this book shines brightest
"Many Americans brandish the Declaration (of Independence) as a trophy, but it owes its continuing relevance to those who take it as a challenge."
Dr. Woody Holton has written an accessible book that takes a fresh look at the events of the Revolution over approximately three decades. He writes about the battles of the war with clarity, but it is in his telling of the stories of indigenous peoples, African Americans and women during revolutionary times that this book shines brightest
More...