Interesting side o f history for our country, but way to descriptive of the horrors for me.

In-depth history and primary documents without an ounce of personality. The prose is so incredibly dry, it made each chapter a struggle to get through no matter how interesting the topic being discussion. I would have used it as source material in college for research but it made for very dull pleasure reading. Violence is a topic ripe for storytelling and the information is there but the presentation fell flat, even for someone who enjoys reading history non-fiction for enjoyment. Two stars.

Note: I received a free Kindle edition of this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

An interesting topical history of the American Revolution. I've read quite a few books about the military strategy and battles of the war, as well as biographies of several of the prominent leaders, but I've never read anything quite like this. The author, Holger Hoock, is a German-born professor and historian specializing in the history of the British Empire. He wrote this book to examine how the violence on both sides affected the course of the war and public opinion. It's a fascinating subject to study! Hoock argues that much of the violence has been whitewashed from history, but that the Revolution was in effect a Civil War between Patriots, Loyalists, British, and Native Americans, and that an incredible amount of violence took place both on the battlefields and among civilians. The Americans, needing to claim moral high ground to avoid being perceived as merely rebels and traitors to their king, focused on propaganda (much of it true) about British violence in order to marshal public opinion in their favor. This approach paid dividends both within the colonies and abroad in Europe. Largely because of George Washington's concern and discipline, American soldiers appear overall to have treated civilians and prisoners better than the British soldiers did. However, many Patriot civilians became involved in mob violence against Loyalists, who were almost always the minority in their communities. Tarring and feathering appears to have been more common than we might like to admit. Also, Patriots were often quite violent toward the black population in the South, as well as the Native Americans to the west. The British treated these minorities better, though they were largely motivated by pragmatism and not morality.

In my opinion, Holger Hoock chose a fascinating topic, researched it exhaustively, and managed to be balanced and interesting in his conclusions. If you are interested in American history, this book is well worth your time.

I received a digital copy of this book for free from the publisher and was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I express in this review are entirely my own.

This was just too grisly for me to finish--I felt like I was reading a Dexter novel.
The book focuses on giving a no holds barred view of the realities of the Revolutionary War, particularly from the rebel's point of view.
I understand the author's desire to deromanticize the revolutionaries, bit I felt a certain wallowing in sensationalistic details.
If a graphic page long description of what tarring and feathering entails intrigues you, go for it!

It's probably not too much of a stretch to say that quite a few people probably don't think of the American Revolution in any more complex terms than a matter of the original Thirteen Colonies versus the British, with an eventual win by the former and the elimination of rule by the latter. While it's a very understandable viewpoint (as American culture and also the history lessons that many had on the subject don't tend to go much further beyond this narrative), that doesn't change the fact that it's also a very oversimplified viewpoint at best.

That's what makes "Scars of Independence" such a wonderful read. With coverage of everything ranging from the voices in the British government who vouched for reconciliation and sharply criticized the handling of the war, to the Native American tribes and the black population of the colonies who were caught between the two sides, and to the tensions and open conflict between the revolutionary forces and loyalist segments of the colonial population that made the war a near-civil war in many situations, the author makes it perfectly plain that the American Revolution was incredibly far from a black-and-white matter. However, while showing all the various shades of grey that the war consisted of, Holger end up accidentally overwhelming or confusing; the intricacies are all excellently organized in a way that takes the reader on a clear path to a fuller understanding of what went on in the colonies' struggle against the mother country for independence. Simply put, this is a fantastic work for those who want to be filled in on the very, very, VERY many details about the American Revolution that tend to get left out in the classroom.

What's it's about:
magisterial new work that rewrites the story of America’s founding

The American Revolution is often portrayed as an orderly, restrained rebellion, with brave patriots defending their noble ideals against an oppressive empire. It’s a stirring narrative, and one the founders did their best to encourage after the war. But as historian Holger Hoock shows in this deeply researched and elegantly written account of America’s founding, the Revolution was not only a high-minded battle over principles, but also a profoundly violent civil war—one that shaped the nation, and the British Empire, in ways we have only begun to understand.

In Scars of Independence, Hoock writes the violence back into the story of the Revolution. American Patriots persecuted and tortured Loyalists. British troops massacred enemy soldiers and raped colonial women. Prisoners were starved on disease-ridden ships and in subterranean cells. African-Americans fighting for or against independence suffered disproportionately, and Washington’s army waged a genocidal campaign against the Iroquois. In vivid, authoritative prose, Hoock’s new reckoning also examines the moral dilemmas posed by this all-pervasive violence, as the British found themselves torn between unlimited war and restraint toward fellow subjects, while the Patriots documented war crimes in an ingenious effort to unify the fledgling nation.

For two centuries we have whitewashed this history of the Revolution. Scars of Independence forces a more honest appraisal, revealing the inherent tensions between moral purpose and violent tendencies in America’s past. In so doing, it offers a new origins story that is both relevant and necessary—an important reminder that forging a nation is rarely bloodless.

My Thoughts
5 stars
The perfect book to finish reading on July the 4th or any time you want to read about our history and our past, Mr.Hoock has a way that brings this story to life , it's like you can see and feel every thing they went through, it brings to life how colonial citizens split between Loyalists, Rebels and those who just wanted to be left alone. , How prisoners during the revolutionary war, with examples including Loyalist and British subjects was imprisoned in an abandoned mine in Connecticut underground, to American patriots serving sentences aboard the HMS Jersey in New York Harbor, as well as how malnutrition and poor treatment caused many unnecessary deaths for prisoners. It even includes black and white drawings .With that said I would like to say thinks to NetGalley for giving me a chance at read Mr.Hoock's book and find out more about our history,in change for my honest opinion.

I was invited to read and review this title by Net Galley and Crown Publishing. Thanks go to them for the DRC, and my apologies for being late, late, late. The title was published last month and is available now.

The strongest part of Hoock’s history, which seeks to set the record straight on the American Revolutionary War, is his research. He is an historian of some renown, and his entire life has been dedicated to studying and teaching about Britain. His sources are, as one might expect, thorough and impeccable. His thesis is that there was a great deal more violence over the course of this revolution than is commonly remembered, and

“By ‘violence’, I mean the use of physical force with intention to kill, or cause damage or harm to people or property. I also mean psychological violence: the use of threats, bullying tactics, and brutality to instill fear in people and influence their conduct and decisions…”

This is indeed a broad brush. In most courts of law today, a property crime is not considered a crime of violence, nor should it be. Better someone run away with your television set than shoot you, or knock you over the head, or hurt your family. And…bullying? Certainly such behavior gets more attention today, both legally and socially, particularly where young people are concerned; yet we are talking about a revolution here. A revolution! And this is part of what prevents me from engaging fully with the text. In the thick of a battle that will determine the futures of everyone concerned, a war to wrest control of its destiny from the mightiest naval power on Earth, it seems a bit of a stretch to expect that American Patriots and Loyalists would treat one another with perfect courtesy.

This brings me to the other part of this history that makes this reviewer cranky. The teaser suggests that this will be a balanced account, demonstrating that far more violence occurred on both sides than is widely taught in American schools, and it just isn’t so. In point of fact, although both Americans and Brits are discussed and shown to be more violent than most of us know, most of this book is dedicated to discussing the unprincipled, the unkind, the indecent ways British troops and loyal colonists were mishandled by brutal American Patriots. I went through my DRC with a highlighter, and far more space is given to bullying, demeaning, and other anti-British behaviors.

“Less careful individuals risked being investigated if they were overheard criticizing their local committee, if they drank a royal toast or sang “God Save the King” in the wrong company.”

My violin please.

There’s a lot of strong material here, and some of the tales of physical violence are graphic. In fact, the level of gory detail may be the summer reading dream of a nerdy teen with a strong reading level. And there is a lot of information that is new to me. Hoock depicts Lord North and King George III very differently from any other historian I have read; it would be easier for me to believe that Hoock’s viewpoint is the accurate one, had he admitted up front that he was writing from a largely Anglo-centric perspective.

The maps bear mention here. Rather than produce new maps that are legible on a DRC, Hoocks has chosen to use actual maps from the time period. This choice is hard to argue with; they’re primary documents, and although a second map that is more readable might be desired, I can’t argue that these maps should not be used. In fact, it’s interesting to see a map that includes what is now the Eastern USA and Eastern Canada with no line of demarcation, because nobody at the time regarded the US and Canada as separate entities. But I would say that those that want to read this book and that want the maps—which are important—should consider buying this title on paper rather than digitally, unless you intend to read it on large computer monitor.

Although the text isn’t as evenly balanced as the introduction implies, this is still a strong addition to the study of the American Revolution. It’s not an overview of the Revolution and does not pretend to be, so those looking to read just one book on the American Revolution should get something else. But for historians that want to deepen and enrich their understanding of this struggle and that think critically and independently, this book—in paper—is recommended.

Ill be honest. i did not finish the book. I found the narrative boring and could not finish it

A different take on the not so auspicious beginnings of the United States. Interesting!

I learned so freaking much from this book (And I thought I knew quite a bit about this time period!) So well written. Thought provoking and engaging. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in history. 5 out of 5 stars.

If you like history, especially the period of the American Revolution, then this is a must read. It is the first I have read that goes beyond the romantic view of the Patriots fighting for freedom. The author comes across as anti-American at first, but as you read you realize he is only trying to show us some 250 years later that there was a lot of violence against the Loyalists before the "shot heard 'round the world' ever happened. This book is not for the faint of heart, as it goes into details of the tar-and-feathering of Loyalists, along with other violent acts. It is a good thing the US Constitution includes the 1st Amendment, but perhaps the Patriots would have done well to practice "Freedom of the Press" before the war, as Hoock tells of several instances where before war was declared, Loyalist publishers were closed down and sent packing just because they supported the British royalty and not the Patriots.

I have only been able to get through the first two chapters, but so far my recommendation stands: get this book if you want to know the complete history of the American Revolution. It is well documented with numerous primary sources and quotes form period documents.

I did not finish so I will not review (see note to publisher)

My undergraduate major was history specializing in the 18th century. I got through that program still believing that the American Revolution should be considered a shining example of a revolution that was true to its ideals. Oddly enough, it was fiction that put me on the road to discovering that the implementation of the American Revolution's principles was flawed. I'm not talking about current day America. I mean that there were signs that the revolution was not proceeding completely as intended during the struggle, and that there were abrogations of liberty and justice during the initial founding years of the republic.

The novels that I would particularly like to mention in this context are the Hannah Trevor historical mysteries by Margaret Lawrence which begins with Hearts and Bones. They showed me that ordinary people didn't necessarily reap the benefits of independence and that the violence of the period was really quite horrifying. I would also like to bring up the duology with the overarching title The Astonishing Life of Octavian Nothing by M. T. Anderson which forcefully brought home to me that African Americans had no reason to celebrate American independence. This was an obvious conclusion that was obscured for me by white privilege.

So the historical study Scars of Independence by Holger Hoock was not as earth shattering for me as it would have been if I had never encountered books that challenged the idealized perspective on the American Revolution that I imbibed during my years of schooling. Yet I still consider it illuminating. I received a digital ARC for free from the publisher via Net Galley in return for this review.

It occurs to me that the excesses of the American Revolution represent the self-perpetuating cycle of abuse writ large. The revolutionaries were either persecuted in England, or were descendants of people who fled England due to persecution. From these experiences, they learned to persecute others such as the Loyalists who were a larger proportion of the American population than I had imagined.

On the other hand, James Rivington, who is mentioned by Hoock only as a victim of violence against his Loyalist newspaper, played a more complex role in the American Revolution. Since I am interested in the history of journalism, I did some research on Rivington. I discovered an article in The Journal of the American Revolution here by Todd Andrlik which discusses some good contemporary evidence that Rivington passed crucial intelligence to Washington that was highly instrumental in achieving the American victory at Yorktown. So apparently Rivington did change his loyalties. I recognize that Rivington's espionage is outside the scope of Scars of Independence which deals with violence during the American Revolution. So I didn't expect Hoock to deal more fully with Rivington.

Yet Hoock did present me with a more complete portrait of George Washington in this book. I was glad to learn that Washington was very scrupulous about the treatment of POWs in the American Revolution, but Hoock reveals that he wanted to redeem himself. His reputation had been tarnished during the French and Indian War when his Native allies tortured and killed French prisoners including a French diplomat. Washington was later faced with signing an agreement with the French without knowing any French. He discovered afterward that he'd signed a confession of guilt for the death of the French diplomat. This incident shows Washington as a fallible human being who made mistakes and had limitations.

I was aware of escaped slaves who were freed as a result of fighting for the British, but I found out from this book that about half of them were re-enslaved by bounty hunters after the revolution. Yet 9,000 African American former slaves left America as free Loyalists.

I also discovered African American slave James Armistead who spied for the Continental Army working under the Marquis de Lafayette. His Wikipedia article says that he delivered information about Benedict Arnold and the plans of Cornwallis, the British General who commanded at Yorktown. Despite this significant assistance to the cause of the American Revolution, he was returned to his master, and was only freed at the request of Lafayette. James Armistead added Lafayette to his name in gratitude.

Below is a public domain image of James Armistead Lafayette based on a painting by John B. Martin that is located at the Virginia Historical Society.

Hoock also deals with the portrayal of the American Revolution in later periods. What stood out for me most was the fate of The Spirit of 76, a film that was released during WWI. It was seized and the filmmaker was arrested for including British atrocities in the during the American Revolution. Apparently, U.S. censors were very conscious of any criticism of an ally during WWI. I know very little about the U.S. during this period, so I found this harsh reaction to a historical movie eye opening.

My conclusion about this book is that violent means to achieve a worthwhile end will always detour the struggle so that it may not achieve the intended goals. I think that this has been the trouble with revolutions throughout history.

Scars of Independence by Holger Hoock strips away much of the myth and mist from the conduct of the American Revolution. It is an unvarnished recounting of the cruelties each side inflicted on the other during the course of that conflict as well as the justifications claimed by both remote and direct perpetrators for those cruelties. The author is a German with seemingly no ax to grind, although he tends to wield his ax more liberally against the English than the Rebels. The text is stained with the blood and plight of the defenseless, the prisoner, and the surrendering combatant. Once the reader becomes inured to the gruesome details, it is an eminently readable, eye-opening work that sheds much light on the dark side of the conduct of one of America’s finest hours.

I didn't realize the premise of this book was "to adopt violence as a central analytical and narrative focus". I wouldn't have requested this book, had I known. I have no desire to read about violent shootings, beatings, and the weapons used in the Revolutionary War.

Scars of Independence offers a different way in which to approach the study of the war for Independence. I enjoyed the way in which the author does not shy away from the ugliness of war by giving an unvarnished narrative about the widespread violence and atrocities both on an off the actual battlefields. Hoocks ability to analyze the facts as we know them [sharing details I know I was never taught in school} creates a vivid, unflinching portrait of the atrocities on and off the battlefield. Scars of Independence is a book that I believe would attract teachers, history buffs and anyone, really, that wants a thoroughly researched, well written account of the war for Independence.

History is too often simplified and condensed, told from one point of view and then retold as the whole story from one generation to another until it becomes the only version.

Hoock's well researched, in-depth look back at our country's formation doesn't sugar coat it, but instead tells us what we don't want to know, that war is violent, destructive and complicated.

I received a free Kindle copy of Scars of Independence by Holger Hoock courtesy of Net Galley and Crown, the publisher. It was with the understanding that I would post a review to Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon, Barnes and Noble and my history book review blog. I also posted it to my Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and Google Plus pages.

I requested this book as I have read a great deal about the Revolutionary War but the description lead me to believe that this would be a different take on the events. This is the first book by Holger Hoock that I have read.

The author claims that "this is the first book to adopt violence as a central analytical and narrative focus". While Hoock does go into more detail about the violence that occured during the Revolutionary War and the events leading up to it (such as tar and feathering), he does not uncover anything that is new or shocking.

I found his writing style to be adequate, but not on a par with a number of other Revolutionary War authors. I found myself skimming pages in order to get through the book which is never a good sign.

I can't really recommend this book, unless you have time and a fascination with the more gory details of war.

I have always been squeamish about war. Growing up in a classroom, you tend to be desensitized to the effects of war. It's just words on a page when you're a child, but I remember, even at a young age, never really liking to learn about wars past. The loss of life, the anger and hatred that fuels each battle, and the utter destruction of everything that is connected with each encounter is hard to swallow. Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind many of the battles, but it's still a tough subject for me to grasp.

When I sat down to start reading Scars of Independence by Holger Hoock I had little bit of a pit in my stomach. What was this book about the Revolutionary War going to teach me that the history books haven't already?

I have read books about the Revolutionary War before but so many of them are hardened, strictly sticking to the facts, and not giving any indication to the thoughts or feelings of those that participated, or were witness, to these battles. Scars of Independence is different and you realize that from the first few pages that you read. You see viewpoints from different people and their reasons for fighting for what they believed in. You see the stages being set and the battle lines being drawn. You can hear the cries of the wounded and the screams for victory. Yes, it is hard to read the bloody details of the Revolution but it is a story that we should all hear and not one that should be romanticized. This is where we came from! This is the birth of our nation!

Mr. Hoock must have done hours of research with all of the details that are within these pages. He has a wonderful writing style that captures the imagination and is easy to understand, though I will say it is hard to sit down and read it cover to cover. It has a dry, textbook feel to it which makes it hard to not feel like you're studying. In saying that, Scars of Independence is a wonderful resource that could easily be used in a classroom setting and taken apart piece by piece to be studied.

If you love studying about the Revolutionary War, or American wars, I would highly recommend this book. The research that was done and details about the war are well worth the effort!