I became interested in the Howe brothers while reading “Washington’s Crossing” by David Hackett Fischer. “Whispers” is a fascinating complement to that rebel-centric volume, and focuses on the performance and politics of the British War after America declared independence. This is a very readable history, filled with personal details. I particularly liked the setting as Howe’s personal defense in the House of Commons played out at the beginning of every chapter.

David Smith's Whispers Across the Atlantick what he calls an "unapologetically narrow view of the first two campaigns of the War of Independence, mostly considering events through Howe's eyes." His preface opens by giving us the idea that within Whispers we will discover more about Howe, the general who commanded two successful years of campaigning in the American War of Independence. He questions how it is possible that Howe is a nearly forgotten general among the British military annals, and posits that the lack of primary material from Howe and his family available to us today (the Howe family papers having been destroyed in a fire) are what have kept him in the shadows, seen only through the eyes of others. Smith then says that newly discovered draft of Howe's speech to the House of Commons in 1779 will help offer "telling insights into some of Howe's biggest decisions" and the Ph.D thesis he had been working on turned into a book attempting to make Howe a more complex historical figure for the reader.

A highly promising beginning for any history lover! However, Smith largely fails to deliver on his promises. Chapter by chapter we follow Howe through taking command of the British armies in America, through the capture of New York, to Philadelphia and White Plains. Two years of campaigns are briefly touched on, the details of any given engagement largely left out. Presumably the author thinks that if you're reading Whispers, you have already read extensively on these battles, their conditions, and the importance to both sides. Each chapter begins with a quote from Howe's House of Commons speech and then an imagining of what his audience thought or might have reacted. Readers like me, who picked up Whispers knowing virtually nothing about Howe except his name, may spend as much time wondering why he's going to be presenting to the House in 1779 as we do wondering what he's doing in 1777. The answer comes at the very end of the book: Howe's resignation has been accepted and he has returned to England, but is unhappy with how things have been left. It is hard for a modern reader to understand, based on Smith's explanation, exactly what Howe was so upset about that he pushed to have a hearing in the House, or what that hearing was supposed to resolve. You get the feeling that Howe and his contemporaries may not have known either.

There are some brief, interesting comparisons between the speech Howe originally wrote and the one he actually gave, although despite Smith's tantalizing promises nothing really comes from it. Howe does not become a fully formed person for the reader, there are no striking insights into his character. The conclusion Smith comes to seems, to me at least, to be a confirmation of what Smith expected to find and what others had already deduced: Howe is not recognized as a British military genius because he wasn't one. He knew how to play the game and say the right words to the right people to get the promotion, but in fact had no idea what he was doing when he took command. The only real question seems to be: why did Howe want a job he was so supremely unqualified for, and why did he feel insulted when it became obvious to everyone else that he didn't know what he was doing?

A book with an interesting premise, Whispers Across the Atlantick fails to deliver on any front. While Whispers may provide minute new details to readers already intimately familiar with the battles and the players, it is largely a dry and uninteresting read that delivers nothing special to the casual American Revolution/military history reader.

The war with the American Colonies was a black hole for the British Officer Corps. There was a crafty enemy who didn’t play by the rules, a chronic shortage of manpower, a good chance of losing, and even victories weren’t all that valued when they were against British subjects. Some officers refused to take command positions, some did their best to avoid the duty, and yet others, for whatever their reasons, took the assignments.

General William Howe was the British Commander in the colonies from Lexington and Concord through the first two years of the war. He didn’t really lose the war during this time, but he didn’t really win it. As a result, he was not especially well thought of, and sought to clear his name in front of the British Parliament. This book is the story of his service in America, and his “trial” in front of the House of Commons.

=== The Good Stuff ===

* David Smith writes in an easy-to-read style, and avoids overly complicated sentences, long paragraphs and obscure vocabulary. The book was easy to read, and it made its point clearly. There was a minimum of direct quotations from 18th century journals, something that I always have trouble understanding very well. Even the direct quotes that are in the book seem selected for their ease of comprehension by modern readers.

* The author does his best to tell the tale from the point of view of the British generals in command. George Washington is a minor figure in the book as we concentrate on the actions and motivations of Howe, General Sir Henry Clinton, General John Burgoyne, General Cornwallis and a few lesser British Generals and Admirals. There is also enough of the correspondence between the military and political leadership (Lord Germain, Lord North) to give a feel for the conflicts and struggles between these groups.

* The book is written around Howe’s defense of his actions in front of Parliament. He was accused of being overly cautious, squandering his troops and resources, neglecting the official British strategy and of losing--- or at least not winning --- the war in two years. During this defense, we see General Howe throw his German allies under the bus, cast aspersions on other British Generals, and be abandoned by his supposed friends in the officer corps.

=== The Not-So-Good Stuff ===

* Howe either comes across as naïve, confused, and not too smart. It seems unlikely that such a person would rise to the level of theater commander in the British Army, so the reader must wonder if we just do not understand Howe’s position and motivations. He gives a less than convincing defense of his own actions and you can help but wonder if he has another agenda. Perhaps covering up for someone else, or avoiding conflict with his political masters for some future payoff, or maybe he just didn’t want to risk too many British subjects in what he felt was a “civil” war. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall, and wants to be relieved of his command before the final British defeat. David Smith abandons the readers to solve this for themselves.

* The needed material is likely lost to history, but a portrait of General Howe never really emerges. He is described as having a great temper, of being somewhat naïve in his understanding of tactics versus strategy, and we see his difficulty in dealing with talented subordinates. But the book comes up a bit short on what makes the man tick.


=== Summary ===

I enjoyed the book, and found it to be a refreshing look at the American Revolution from the other side of the battle. None of the British Generals seemed to consider Washington a master tactician, even if he did get lucky on occasion. They point out the many fundamental errors he made in the battles of Long Island, Brandywine, and others. However, as the author points out, they never quite caught on to the strategy of Washington-he could afford to lose almost every battle and still win the war, as long as he didn’t lose too badly.

Generals Giap and Westmorland would re-enact this same scenario 200 years later.