David Hackett Fischer

Washington's Crossing focuses in on what the author believes is the key turning point in the Revolutionary War. We start in 1776, after Lexington & Concord, and follow the fate of the Continental Army as they are routed in New York, retreat through New Jersey in the Fall, and escape across the Delaware to Pennsylvania. At this point, things look bleak for the rebels, and Washington has to find a way to take the initiative. So he orders a daring Christmas night re-crossing of the Delaware and surprise of the Hessian garrison in Trenton. Then we're taken through the next week, including more Delaware crossings and the Battle of Princeton.

The Americans were undermanned and undertrained, but had some advantages too- a committed citizenry, New Jersey residents angry about British military rule, and the vast spaces of American, impossible to fully garrison, along with some lucky breaks with the weather. But fundamentally, George Washington was a highly effective leader and an excellent military strategist and tactician, who knew how to spot an opportunity and seize it.

Good history, well written, and fun.… (altro)

Originally published in 1970.

5/25/2019 2ND READING ATTEMPT - With my second attempt, I made it to chapter 6 of this book for my 52 Bookmark Reading Challenge prompt #24/52 - "Book you never finished"...Still never finished!

It was highly recommended by Dr. Shane Bernard, historian on Avery Island, Louisiana. He claimed it was the most valuable book he's ever read. Great! This was exactly THE kind of book I had been looking for to help me determine a good history book (the truth) verses a bad one (propaganda), since we are having all these problems with the cancel culture and woke leftists trying to cancel out and change history. But, I need to search for another by a different author who writes in a language I can actually understand. On page 285, the author writes regarding a fallacy of many historians, a form of error is…”committed by scholars who never use a little word when a big one will do.” Well, this author could learn from his own writing. You need a dictionary handy just to decipher what it is he’s even talking about. But if you are a scholar, I'm sure you would actually rate this as top-notch. The 1-star is due to my own inadequacy for understanding, not for the quality of this book.

7/22/2018 - 1ST READING ATTEMPT - What the hell did I just read? You seriously need a doctorates degree to read and understand this book! I read through the first chapter a month ago and found it to be way over my head. So I put it down. I actually had it ready to go in the Goodwill box but just couldn't see it go just yet.

I did learn something substantial in that first chapter: That all historians write about history in their own biases and beliefs. Good or bad, right or wrong, their job is to present history to their readers, preferably backing up their writing with empirical proofs, and not their point of views. It is subjective and individual. Wow! I never even thought of it like that before. I've always just simply read and accepted every word in every history book as fact.

Because of this insight, I decided to go ahead slowly and painstakingly try to read through it again and try to gleen at least one important piece of information from each chapter in hopes of learning how to critically read history books, news reports or any other nonfiction piece of work, and to determine if what I'm reading can be a "trusted" source. I found that I'm not smart enough to determine a truth from a lie. But, I did at least learn a little bit about how historians write and the many fallacies that could make or break their reputation as great historians. I was only able to read through half of chapter 6 before totally giving it up for good because I literally couldn't understand one single word they were writing about. It's back in the Goodwill box for the next brilliant mind...… (altro)