Scars of Independence certainly does what it sets out to do: take away our sanitized perspectives of the Revolutionary War, and let us know the ugly truth. There was death, of course, as in any war; there was also theft, spying, rape, and outright murder.
As a history buff I like to imagine what the topic was like for those who lived it, and you can't help but flinch at some of the atrocities Mr. Hoock recounts here. While the war may have been fought by gentlemen, it was not fought in a gentlemanly way. This book certainly dispels the myth of all soldiers loading their muskets, firing, then calmly waiting while the other side took their turn.
While a bit dry sometimes, this is certainly a book worth reading for an honest, hard look at the many events and battles that formed the Revolutionary War, especially if you already enjoy history of this time period.

Thank you, NetGalley and the publisher for the opportunity to read this title.
This massive beast is a general historical summary of how brutal and violent the American Revolution was. It gives so many accounts from all sides that as the reader you can tell how much time and effort the author put into this. As a history major, I really respected this piece of study.
As I was going through this, I kept comparing the events that happened then and relating them to current events around the globe. It was quite compelling to look more into.
I think this one should be read by Revolutionaries, people who like reading about one's experiences during wartime and anyone who appreciates honesty and truth regarding war in general.

A big thank you to Holger Hoock, Crown Publishers, and Netgalley for the free copy of this book in exchange for an unbiased review.

I've recognized a deficiency in my knowledge base of the founding of my country having recently become great friends with a Canadian who is both politically and historically minded. With this in mind, I look for strong nonfiction on this topic from various points of view to broaden my horizon. Scars of Independence is just such a book. Hoock chose to focus on the violence of the war-"the perpetrators, witnesses, and victims". It's therefore a cultural study of the citizens who perished, the soldiers who invaded, the children who were stranded.

After the end of the Seven Years War in 1763, England wished to raise funds to pay the debt incurred by taxing the American colonies. First came the Stamp Act, a tax on printed paper. Then came the Townshend Acts, which taxed imports, including tea-a major staple. Riots ensued, which led to a heavy British force quartering on the large towns like Boston. A mob mentality became the norm with taunts escalating tempers leading to the bloody Boston Massacre. Soon after soldiers were being quartered in empty houses, the English government began appointing administrators. All of these Intolerable Acts led to the coming together of fifty-six great mind of the colonies called the Continental Congress.

The Continental Congress is taught in school as the leading body of men who were strong-willed but wordsmiths, not men of violent machinations; however because of them colonist persecuted colonist because one may have been a "Tory". A Tory, or British loyalist could be found in any walk of life. The terms "Patriot" and "Loyalist" actually shared many commonalities. But being labeled also split many families apart, some quite well known. It's a foreshadowing of the sorrow of the Civil War. Hoock does an excellent job here describing the atrocities experienced by the Loyalists. Not only did they suffer mutilation and death, but they suffered a character assassination.

In 1775 when the Royal Navy entered the foray, the admiral upped the ante. Cannon balls rained from the sky, grape shot was spewed forth, buildings and wharves burned. But that's not the worst of it. The Rebels took these opportunities to ransack Tory property, leaving families homeless and destitute.

Women and young ladies were not safe from the atrocities perpetrated by both the Loyalists or British soldiers. Ravishment was rampant in occupied cities. They connived their way into unprotected homes and taped any female occupants, some as young as ten years old.

Hoock has written an insightful, masterful work. I've learned a great deal. He's thorough, organized, and thought-provoking. A first-rate read!

Good book. Am I surprised that the truth is not being taught in our school's? No. I do think that more Americans are aware of the fact that all side's in this war were barbaric. War isn't pretty, and humans do despicable acts when they're not at war, so why shouldn't they become even more monstrous? This was a good read, and well researched. Thanks to Crown/Random House, and Netgalley for the opportunity to read this gratis.

The author tells the reader at the beginning of this book that he wants to focus on violence in the American Revolution.
Quote: "It is the first book on the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War to adopt violence as its central analytical and narrative focus."
While he does mention some books that spoke of violence, mostly regional histories, his book is indeed the only one to offer a comprehensive history of the violence in this war. As he explains, it was a civil war, Patriots fighting Loyalists, with ever more cruelty. His claim that today's American public was not aware of the violence is not quite true. The Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot depicted some of the British cruelty. See below where I wrote about a regional history and my visit to Cowpens Revolutionary battlefield.
Cowpens National Battlefield Park is the site of a Revolutionary War battle (1-17-1780) between US soldiers under Gen. Daniel Morgan and British cavalry/dragoons under Colonel Banastre Tarleton, model for the chief bad guy in the Mel Gibson movie "Patriot."
In the movie, Gibson kills the bad guy. In real life, Tarleton went back to Britain, served in Parliament, became a member of Wellington's card playing group, and died a peaceful death of old age. More info can be found in an excellent book"Partisans and Redcoats" by Walter Edgar. Mr. Edgar spoke about his book on C-SPAN. He commented that some British newspapers protested about the brutality in the movie "Patriot." He said that, in fact, the movie toned down the British ruthless behavior. He further stated if the combatants were judged by today's laws, Tarleton would be considered a war criminal. However, he went to say that there was cruelty on both sides, with Loyalists/Tories and US soldiers burning each others homes. Tarleton is notorious for the battle of Waxhaws, SC (5-29-1780), where his dragoons attacked and overwhelmed about 400 Virginia patriots. They attempted to surrender. Tarleton's men, following their leader's example, killed every last one.
US soldiers under Morgan defeated Tarleton's dragoons at Cowpens. Tarleton escaped. Some US soldiers wanted to kill all the British soldiers, crying "Tarleton's Quarters!" but US officers managed to stop this. There is a loop trail about 1.5 miles long with interpretive signs. There is also a well done movie presentation of the battle, with a computerized map depiction of the battle. I also visited the King's Mountain Battlefield.

The author goes into considerable detail of Patriot and Loyalist cruelties against each other, starting about 1774 with tarring and feathering of British civilian officials. There are graphic descriptions of rape and gruesome killings/torture. I was not aware of the extent of Patriot /Loyalist violence which did not end with the defeat of the British at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781. It continued and a Loyalist execution of a Patriot leader in 1782 very nearly derailed the ongoing peace talks between the US and Britain.
The author is from Germany and points out that he is not biased towards the US or British interpretations of the Revolutionary War. There is no translator listed and he is evidently fluent in English as his writing is excellent. The author did a great deal of fresh research, much of it in primary sources, i.e., letters, diaries, contemporary newspapers and various US/British official reports. There are about 100 pages of footnotes(my kindle edition had locations, not pages).
I am one of those pedants who reads all the footnotes and I am impressed by the amount of research done by the author.
If you are squeamish, this book may not be for you. I rate it 3.5 out 5 stars. Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for sending me this book.

While other histories of the American Revolution hint at the violence during the start of our nation, this book gives it with both barrels - literally. There is no sugar coating here. This is a comprehensive look at a destructive as well as a productive time in our history. If you want the honest story with all the details then this is definitely the book to add to your shelf of history. If, however, you are uncomfortable with the unpleasant details that led to our country then stick to one of the many sanitized versions in other American History books.

I thoroughly enjoyed this violent and sad but realistic account of things that we have long since forgotten about. This author told the truth in a way that I haven't read about it and even though it hurt at times to read what I was reading I feel that everyone should read this book to know exactly how things really were. I would read another book by this author in a heartbeat.

I have read a lot about the American Revolution, in near equal parts military and political histories. Scars, however, gave me a whole new take on the subject. Hoock gives us a perspective through the lens of violence: American on British, British on American, American on Indian, Indian on American, and American on American. He strips away the varnish that too often glosses over the telling of this tale and shows us what was in so many ways American's first civil war, and a war that had profound international reach.

I highly recommend this book. It's brutal, insightful, and very thought-provoking.

The Dark Side of the American Revolution

War is hell, and the American Revolution was no exception. Although textbooks laud the orations about liberty and the equality of man, the revolution was as bloody as any other war. The fierce partisanship of Patriots and Loyalists created a volatile situation where each side committed violent acts against the other. Neighbors were caught on each side and ended fighting each other, as in the Civil War. The British were equally brutal in their treatment of the colonists.

This is an eye-opening book if you’re unfamiliar with the darker side of the Revolution. The author does an excellent job of choosing incidents to illustrate how each side mistreated the other. The book is largely stories featuring colonists, slaves, and the British. Each incident illustrates how the opposing sides injured individuals.

The book in addition to being scholarly is easy to read for a general audience. The use of stories involving individuals makes the book feel more personal. The narrative is easy to follow and the well drawn maps allow the reader to follow the action and pinpoint the activity to areas in the US today. I found that helpful.

I highly recommend this book. Even if you’re not a historian, it’s good to discover what the founding of the country was like. This book is a realistic corrective to the rosy picture of pure colonists and violent Brits.

I received this book from Net Galley for this review.

I confess that the American Revolution is not a period of history I studied as well as I should. My interests were with the American Civil War, or second civil war as the author calls it, and World War II. Reading Professor Hoock's book showed me a truism that the victors write the history. I have read several articles concerning the British prison ships and how Patriots were impressed into the Royal Navy both in the Revolution and the War of 1812. Unfortunately, I had read little about how Patriots treated Loyalists. For clarification, Patriots were supporting American independence and Loyalists were loyal to King George III.

This book highlights "man's humanity against man." The author says that psychological torment and physical violence played a far greater role in suppressing dissent during "America's first civil war." The Americans and British attempted to codify the rules of war to include how to treat prisoners. Although the code was in place, it was not always followed. Patriots were captured and kept in untenable conditions in prisons and on prison ships. Patriots threatened, intimidated, and assaulted Loyalists and, many times, those who didn't actively support the fight for independence. Tarring and feathering was a popular form of torture that, sometimes, led to hanging.

The British organized a number of Loyalist brigades and much of the war, especially in the South, was fought American Patriot against American Loyalist. The British, as did Lincoln, attempted to free the slaves and many did make it to the Loyalist side where they fought for the King and a promise of freedom. The Scars of Independence made me realize how similar The Revolution was to the American Civil War.

Although this is a scholarly work, it is easy to read with facts and figures to substantiate the author's assertion that the most violent action against each other may not have been on the battlefield but in the communities of Patriots and Loyalists. I would recommend a hardcopy version of this text because the several included maps were difficult to read on my Kindle Fire. No matter your version of the text, it is most important that it is read. The similarity between so many of the world's most recent conflicts in places like Syria, Iraq, Niger, and Sudan is striking. Neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend. The inhumane quality of man to each other continues to show its ugly head.

More information than you ever thought possible about the ugliness of war and the mob scenes that occurred during the American Revolution.

Scars of Independence is a fascinating book. And I mean "fascinating" in the way one can't look away from a train wreck. Which, while the book is definitely NOT a train wreck, the material within the book definitely is.

If you're a believer that America can and has never done any wrong to anyone and that the Revolution was a bunch of ragtime farmers sticking it to The Man, this book is not for you. If you're ready for the truth behind all of the romanticized imagery that currently surrounds the Revolutionary War, then yes, pick this book up.

Hoock does a fantastic job of delving past the years of prettying up the Revolution and giving his readers the truth. Which, yes, is not pretty. Both sides did horrendous things to each other, all in the name of war. Hoock does not spare his reader; the book at times is very graphic.

I give credit to Hoock; this book is well-researched and well-written. He does a fair job of painting both sides as being both victims and perpetrators. Additionally, the book is very well organized. Hoock does a great job of organization the book both chronologically and thematically. He also discusses the atrocities that happen to different people - he doesn't whitewash the book at all - women, men, whites, blacks, Native Americans, etc. all have their (unfortunate) time to "shine".

Overall, while this book is not meant for every lay person, if you have an interest in the truth behind America and her wars, then this is a can't miss.

Meticulously researched and clearly written, this book gives the real picture of how the Revolutionary War was fought. It gives an unabashed look behind the "gentlemanly war" curtain, allowing the reader see the violence that really occurred. This book should be required reading for anyone studying that time in American history. (Just my opinion.)

American history is a messy, complex thing. This review of the American Revolution concentrating on the violence shines a fresh light on this vitally important era in our nation's early days. Familiar stories retold in unsettling ways illustrate a thesis remembering and misremembering.

War is hell, brutal, uncivilized. Humans, despite sometimes semi-rational brains, are too near to their evolutionary roots to be anything on the average but violent creatures. No manner of romanticizing can change that. The American Revolution has been washed, sanitized, mythologized, simplified...glorified through deliberate omission and revision and far too many people have no clue that they have been fed a pack of partial truths at best.

Mr. Hoock claims in the second sentence of his Preface that his is the "first book ... to adopt violence as a central analytical and narrative focus." I don't know if that is true, but I do think that it may be the first to aggregate the knowledge. Some of this I knew from other readings. Some, while clearly not specific, can be inferred from any study of war and violence. To think that the British were any different than any other power suppressing an insurrection would buy into a sadly persistent myth of the civilized benevolence of the great British (or other, whether European or not) Empire. To think that the Revolutionaries, angry and feeling disenfranchised (evidence the stunning lack of reason that precipitated 2016), would revolt politely and orderly would buy into that romantic portrayal found in The American Pageant, Land of Promise, Triumph of the American Nation and their kind.

So what Hoock does is remove the curtain...expose the truths, as documented...offer logical supposition (and qualify them as such) where documents are scant or untrustworthy. This is not your grandfather's history...but it *was* your great times maybe eight grandfather's. Well researched. Well written.

Hoock has definitely done his research on a topic that many people continue to have a romanticized version of our nations beginnings. Describing it more as a civil war with the Loyalists vs the Patriots. These were people torn apart by their loyalty to the Crown and those who wanted total separation from the Crown. Brothers fought brothers and Slaves and Native Americans all chose sides.

While General George Washington was waging a cruel war on the Native Americans, the rest of the country was having birth pains.

Not all the colonies were on board with this uprising and meeting to write our Continental Association. Georgia did not send delegates to the Continental Congress.

This is the unvarnished version of the birth of a nation. And it was ugly and mean and violent. As America constantly intervenes in other countries civil wars, we would do well to remember our own violent past and present and maybe take care.

Scars of Independence is certainly well researched, containing a wealth of information on the American Revolution. Clearly, the author spent countless hours researching the subject.

That being said, I had a difficult time getting through this book. In fact, it took me a couple of months. I kept putting it aside in favor of something else, with little desire to get back to it. The writing has a dry textbook feel, often with too much focus on numbers and lists. Sometimes I felt I should be taking notes for the exam afterward.

The larger problem, for me, was in the presentation of the material. The author's stated focus is to write the violence back into the Revolution. His claim is that we glamorize this war, which, to an extent, is true, though I don't agree that we're all naive in believing this war was somehow a highly principled, gentlemanly event. Here, the author's intense focus on specific violent acts and skirmishes has the unfortunate byproduct of leaving out the humanity. For instance, his dry recitation of rape statistics had no more emotional depth than if I'd been reading about the theft of weapons.

This book works well as a textbook and/or for readers interested in a chronicle of events throughout the American Revolution. For readers like me, looking for an immersive experience, this is a more challenging read.

Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth by Holger Hoock is a look at the more violent side of the American Revolution. Hoock holds the Amundson Chair in British History at the University of Pittsburgh and serves as Editor of the Journal of British Studies. Trained at the Universities of Freiburg, Cambridge, and Oxford, he has been a Kluge Fellow at the Library of Congress, a Visiting Scholar at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at the University of Konstanz.

I was in middle school for the run-up to the bicentennial celebration. The Revolutionary War was taught with a great deal of idealism and although there was a war the violence was minimal. There was the Boston Tea Party, Bunker Hill, and Saratoga but the battles seemed very civilized. Much emphasis was placed on the ideals of the revolution. Liberty, representative government, and the right to determine one’s own future were key issues. What was not mentioned was what the British were quick to point out -- Slavery. The American colonists were also unhappy with British troops occupying their property, much like the native Americans were feeling for and fighting for in the West.

At the time warfare was still very violent and personal. Muskets had little range and the bayonet was still used often in close quarters. Bayonets used by the British were triangular rather than bladed. The shape was used to cause the most damage going in and coming out. Grapeshot (picture a canon sized shotgun) was used to attack massed troops. The killing was done close in. The navy was the only force that could shell from a great distance.

What made the American revolution so violent is perhaps best seen from the British view. It was not so much a revolution but a civil war -- British against British. The Colonists were seen as traitors more than an enemy nation. In fact, the British had to look as the colonists as traitors, something far worse than enemies of another nation. To consider them otherwise would mean recognizing American independence. Captured colonist combatants were considered criminals rather than soldiers. This created another problem for the British. If colonists were captured and detained, they still had rights as British citizens to habeas corpus, bail, and a trial. Trying to suspend habeas corpus for the colonists also would mean suspending it for those in Britain too. The American Revolution became a legal as well as a military problem for the British.

On the American side, British loyalists and officials were poorly treated by those “liberty groups” which seemed like roaming bands of thugs than patriots. Looting and beatings were very common. Rape was not uncommon (a charge leveled at both armies). Some patriot groups looted both loyalists and rebel homes and property. Military discipline was seriously lacking in many actions. The British in lower commands were just as bad at times. Most ranking military leaders, however, chose to abide by the European standards of warfare although this didn’t always happen, a serious effort was made by both sides.

Prisoners perhaps bore the worst treatment. Britain held American colonists on prison ships in appalling conditions. Others held in occupied territory received little in the way of food and clothing. Although, in some circumstances opposing leaders allowed humanitarian aid to prisoners. This was unofficially done between commanders and Britain was unwilling to take any action that might be seen as recognition of an independent America. Logistics was a major problem with prisoners. Neither side could support the care and feeding of huge numbers of prisoners; it was difficult and expensive to keep the fighting armies fed and cared for, let alone prisoners.

The American Revolution was a violent and bloody affair. It was not only the armies engaged in a violent struggle. It was colonist against colonist. It was colonists against native Americans. The war was more than a simply fighting a few battles. It was seven years of bloodshed which involved more than the Colonists and the British. Hessians were used by Britain since the king could not keep a large standing army. France joined America after the Battle of Saratoga and Spain seeing a distracted Britain declared war also. Hoock uses both American and British source material in his research and dedicates almost a third of the book to cited sources. A well done and enlightening history.

As the author claims, "this is the first book to adopt violence as a central analytical and narrative focus". Unfortunately, that is not the history of the American revolution that I want to read. Had I known that this was the focus I would not have requested this book. It strikes me that the author is someone who is desperate to find a fresh take on a subject that has been written about a lot. Maybe he just needs to publish in order to buff up his academic credentials. That's fine, but I'm really not interested in reading about the beatings and shootings and weapons of choice employed by the British or the Americans. I abandoned this book pretty quickly. I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.

Kindle location 250:) “Although the American Revolution has been continuously invoked since the eighteenth century in the name of all manner of causes … its inherent violence has often been minimized. The result has been the perpetuation of an overly sentimental narrative of America's originary war.”

(Kindle location 260:) “To understand the Revolution and the war … we must write the violence, in all its forms, back into the story. This is my aim in this book.”

It would be a shame if this book is pigeonholed as an academic engaging in fashionable America-bashing, because it is really an invitation to look at the Revolutionary War like an adult, with all the headaches and rewards that involves. The founding fathers (especially George Washington, but also Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and others) in general come off rather well in this book. The acts of cruelty by all sides (frequently, but not always, by paramilitaries) are backstopped with evidence and given as much context as possible while still retaining enough coherent narrative drive to engage those who read history for pleasure. It was also interesting to see, in this day and age, how much political capital the leaders of the new-born USA were able to get out of presenting themselves as (and often being) on the morally correct side of the equation.

(Kindle location 5382:) “Concerned about preserving the Revolution's ideals and maintaining America's international reputation as an honorable, treaty-abiding nation, an increasingly vocal group of individuals, George Washington prominently among them, began pushing for reconciliation. After winning the moral war, they believed, America also had to win the peace by conducting itself in accordance with international law and enlightened ethical standards ...”

I received an free advance reader's copy of the ebook for review. Thank you to Netgalley and Penguin Random House for their generosity.