In this fascinating narrative about the American Revolution, Alan Pell Crawford focuses on the three years between the Battles of Monmouth and Yorktown and the many battles and critical figures from the Southern colonies. By focusing on a region and its people largely ignored by other American Revolution historians and texts, this book gives readers some fascinating new insights into activities like the Edenton Tea Party and the final battles of the Revolution from the perspectives of Eliza Lucas Pinckney and Henry and John Laurens (yes, that John Laurens from Hamilton). With a wealth of historical information from primary sources and quality historical analysis, Crawford is a masterful writer that really brings this part of the Revolution to life. The book focuses on a variety of social groups involved in the Revolution, creating a holistic and inclusive portrait of the war while also highlighting the misperceptions and contradictions present in other accounts of the war. This book was hard to put down because of the depth of the analysis and the fantastic historical detail present in the book, and fans of American history will definitely enjoy this riveting history book and its insights into the missing years of the American Revolution.

This Feirce People by Alan Pell Crawford talked about a side of the revolutionary war that isn’t much talked about and some people I’ve only heard of from the play Hamilton which I have since learned is fraught with inaccuracies. This book is full of first-hand accounts from segments of letters from general Washington himself to the negative points of being a quartermaster even talk about the horrible things the British did to those who weren’t loyalist we learned about brave men like John Lawrence,, Nathaniel Greene of course George Washington and so many more we also hear the opposite about the villains Tarlington and and evil loyalist name Howk we even hear about Napoleons fellow spy and his hanging I’m so sorry I forgot his name but either way this book is a great book we learned about the first time someone brought up freeing the slaves in the continental congress just an FYI it was John Lawrence. I could just go on and on this for such a good book ever since I saw the play Hamilton I wanted to know more about the revolutionary war and this book was my latest effort in doing that and although as I said Hamilton is full of inaccuracies and misleading history it was a great springboard to get me to read this great awesome book. I was surprised to learn Mr. Crawford isn’t a historian but a journalist and so kudos to him he is done a great job covering the southern part of the revolutionary war.#KnophPantheon, #NetGalley, #AllanPellCrawford, #ThisFiercePeople,

The southern colonies were central to the Revolutionary war, Alan Pell Crawford contends in this well-written analysis of the theater of war that often attracts less attention. The civil war in the south changed the attention of military leaders and overall military strategy. Crawford's writing unpacks this important claim, adding to our understanding of the war from not just a civil war between colonists but an evolving strategic operation to gain independence (or, to maintain allegiance, from the British perspective).
Crawford's work focuses on the divide between Loyalist and patriot, showing how the division truly led to an internal revolt between those who believed American fared better with continued relationships with Britain. Absent, though, is a wider discussion of internal disagreement between moderate and radical patriots. While this has been documented elsewhere, with regards to New England, it would be interesting to contrast that debate with whatever had been occurring likewise in the south.

With the focus on the British colonies in America, the Caribbean is absent from Crawford's work. This is understandable but it leaves one questioning how much could be contrasted in Barbados and Jamaica with what was going on in South Carolina or Georgia. The British ultimately lose the war not in America, but in the Caribbean; some mention in the epilogue could make the narrative come full circle.

The book provides a great overview of Tarleton. Crawford focuses on the Waxhaws district, but does not delve into the historiography of Andrew Jackson. While some of that story may be myth, I think it is an interesting narrative about some individuals and how his experience shaped him as a public servant. Recounted elsewhere, it isn't as central to the story, but again could add depth.

The focus is taken off of George Washington, who is still included, but Crawford writes with the focus on other people, particular other military leaders like DeKalb, Gates, Greene, and Richard Henry Lee. There is space devoted to Francis Marion, whom contrasts with the formal leadership of the former. These sketches make the book a great read for anyone interested in military history. Regarding locations in the book, Crawford makes a strong case for the importance of Charles Town (Charleston) to the larger revolutionary story. Absent is Valley Forge, New York, and the fighting around Boston.

This is an excellent overview of the Southern theatre of the American Revolution; one that includes all the major players, each leading into the next. There's Baron de Kalb, a German veteran who joined the American cause in 1777, fighting mostly in the South. Then at the Siege of Charleston, a brutal 42 days of bombardment, we meet Benjamin Lincoln and Gov. John Rutledge. Preventing support from Lieut. Col. Huger is Lieut. Banastre Tarleton, later known as "Bloody Ban." At the Carolinas border is Abraham Buford, whose forces would lose to Tarleton in the "Waxhaws Massacre." Between him, Patrick Ferguson, rank politics and state isolationism, the Americans are hard pressed to retrieve supplies. The Battle of Camden would be particularly devastating, but Francis Marion and his band of 25-30 men would be a scrappy thorn in the Loyalist side in the interim. The Battle of Kings Mountain and the Battle of Cowpens would come as surprising victories, with Nathaniel Greene now in charge of the "Southern Dept." Both proved significant in the lead up to the final Battle of Yorktown.

As Crawford acknowledges, many historians are understandably reluctant to acknowledge Southern revolutionary efforts. Crawford asserts that the Southern rebellion was based not in the preservation of slavery (that came later), but rather in defense of rights due as British subjects. They also called themselves "Whigs," not patriots in honor of those fighting a corrupt Parliament back in England. Still, it's a shameful contradiction of independence vs hundreds of thousands still in bondage. Loyalists also existed in far greater numbers in the South, resulting in an unrefined, plundering, neighbor-against-neighbor campaign that was wholly different from its northern counterpart. Tactics were unpredictable, messy, but effective. However, there are plenty of side skirmishes, dramatic encounters and first hand accounts that add a bit of flair to the narrative. With a lot of ground to cover, Crawford doesn't linger longer than necessary. This makes for an easy read for those who don't want heavy, academic dive. I thought the description of the Battle of King's Mountain was particularly well done!

4.5 / 5! Thank you Penguin Random House for approving my request on Netgalley!

This is a book that shines a light on the often overlooked Southern Theater of the American Revolution. Many books lately have been attempting the same thing, which is a good thing, but can prevent any one book from standing out from the crowd. This one takes its argument further by positioning the struggle between Loyalists and Patriots as America's first Civil War. It's convincing, and I hope more books, either by this author, or other historians, explore the same idea.

This book was well researched and contained a lot of detail on the players in the American Revolution in the South, to include Francis Marion, Daniel Morgan, John Laurens, Nathaneal Green, and Andrew Pickens. The author also provided detailed information on British leaders, such as Banastre Tarleton, who played a critical role in this campaign. The author supported the material with relevant politics as the war progressed throughout the southern campaign. I felt this book focused on people rather than battles. For example, there was more time spent on who owned slaves and how they felt about slavery than the actual siege of Yorktown. The actual battles fought at Cowpens and Ninety-Six felt glossed over. This created (for me) a difficult flow of information throughout the book. The author went forward and backward in time based on the person who was being discussed. The description of the book suggests Alan Pell Crawford's intent is to show the British surrender at Yorktown was the direct result of the southern campaign and to argue the battles fought south of the Mason-Dixon line between the loyalists to the Crown and the patriots who fought for independence can be attributed to America's first real civil war. The author did not successfully convince me of the first however did provide sufficient information to suggest the latter.

I thoroughly enjoyed this excellent history of the American Revolution in the South. Alan Pell Crawford is a very capable writer, with a huge gift for narrative. He isn’t a traditional historian, having worked as a journalist and speechwriter, and I think it shows favorably in how he structures this book. He weaves a compelling and well constructed history featuring numerous figures in disparate locations over a period of several years into a single seamless construct. Highly educational and immensely readable. I will seek out any book by Crawford.