I decided to read this book because it is on the best seller list and there are about 350 people who have reserved the book on line at the library. I am STILL baffled as to how many people have read and want to read this book. The book is about the Revolutionary war in the year 1776. It is well written. I feel like I missed a lot of school. I don’t remember anything about the Revolutionary war. I didn’t realize how much was fought in New York City and Long Island. I didn’t realize how long it lasted. I remember some of the names but vaguely and I didn’t know their importance. One of the main issues in this book is disease and how it really devastated a lot of the American troops. Mostly because they were filthy and didn’t clean themselves. The British troops were healthly. They were a well disciplined well established army and navy. They knew how to care for themselves and avoid disease. One of the interesting aspects of the book is the strategy of the leaders. William Howe and George Washington. Their successes and failures. My interpretation is the British were winners. The Americans had small successes here and there. I think the author gave to much credit for the battle at the end in New Jersey. Howe had left and went to NY. The Americans did win the battle but only a portion of the British were there. I did learn a lot reading this book, but I struggled to get through it. It didn’t really excite me or peak my interest.

It is obvious from the title, that McCullough will be describing the Revolutionary war events and participants that occurred in that year.

But at the start of the book, it is Oct 26, 1775. We meet King George III. He is in full royal regalia riding in his ornate coach to discuss the colonials at the House of Lords. The king’s attire was usually much less ornate. Rather than dalliance at court, he preferred a farmer’s life at Windsor and the company of his plain wife, to whom he was faithful.
My take-away from Chapter 1: George is described in a sympathetic manner. Not usually what I have read about this King.

In Chapter 2, we meet General Nathaneal Greene, Colonel Henry Knox, and the most important in this war, General George Washington. Greene and Knox are the most 'war-experienced'. Even Washington has less. But the Continental Congress sees in Washington a man with strength, fortitude, and wealth. His men looked up to him. This chapter devotes considerable time to George Washington, explaining his modest background and subsequent ascent through the social and political ranks. He was a remarkable man for being such an unremarkable man.

In Chapter 3, British commanders Howe and Gage debate their strategy for taking Boston. The British had won the battle of Bunker Hill, but at a great cost in lives. This chapter chronicles the siege of Dorchester Heights. The Colonials had the upper hand here; they were on the Heights, the British below. The British had to retreat, taking the loyalists of Boston with them.

Chapter 4: New York City is considered vital to the whole continent and should be protected. So, off the Continental Army goes, marching through MA, RI, and CT. They arrive in NYC in early April. For four months, both sides planned their efforts.

Chapter 5: In August, the battle occurred.

Washington could only watch the slaughter. The battle covered six miles and was the largest yet held on American soil. It lasted six hours, and the Continental Army was routed. After several false reports, Washington reported to the Continental Congress that 300 soldiers had died but 1,000 were taken prisoner.

August 29 – army retreated

Though some criticized Howe for not pursuing the “Sons of Liberty” and finishing them off, most only found cause for rejoicing.

This chapter is also notable for its more critical view of Washington’s military leadership. His forces were ill-prepared for the conflict, lacked proper support in the form of cavalry, failed to defend key positions, and made a hasty retreat that could have proved quite costly, given the manipulative way Washington organized this withdrawal. The text all but lambasts Washington for this defeat, the most humiliating failure thus far in the war.

Chapter 6

The British accused the rebels of starting the fire, which burned 500 homes, but none could ever prove it was arson.

The Continental Army retreated to White Plains. A battle ensued at Harlem Heights won by the Continental Army. A decision was made to defend Fort Washington. Washington had deferred to Nathanael Greene, though Greene had not yet fought or won a battle. Despite Greene’s keen acumen, his choice to defend Fort Washington proved disastrous, as every soldier stationed there was killed or captured, earning the colonists yet another crushing defeat in New York.

Chapter 6 is one of two places where McCullough relates a fable—something that could be true but probably is not. In all other places, he sticks strictly to documentable history. Both the legends recounted here describe women on the battlefield, including one who supposedly delayed the British by inviting Howe to tea, and one who volunteered to take her wounded husband’s place. These accounts offer a different depiction of women, since most others in the text are viewed through a one-dimensional lens as wives, mothers, daughters, or women of ill repute.

King George - Whether he was truly the tyrant traditionally depicted in American history books or just a simple old man who could not fathom anyone defecting the British Empire is not clear.

Chapter 7

This chapter describes the months leading to Washington's famous Crossing the Delaware. There they defeated the Hessian army and later Cornwallis. The tide of the war started to turn.

Final thoughts

McCullough clearly wonders how this group of rag-tag men could defeat Europe's best. David McCullough ultimately argues that the true miracle of this war was how these commanders and these men managed to do so much with so little.

The book reads well, almost like a novel.

Recommend to anyone who enjoys reading about and understanding American history.

4 stars

"1776" is a work of staggering simplicity and monumental achievement. This text gives one the appropriate sense of grandeur and history that the year 1776 richly deserves. Yet at the same time it brings such sweeping history into minute detail and humanity, making the reader realize that these giants of history were fully human, and like us, at times amazingly inspired and sometimes flawed.
Mr. McCullough is not only a wonderful historian, but he is also a very gifted writer and the prose leaps off the page. The readers mind easily finds accessible the scenarios which are described in the text. McCullough's masterly and vivid style is no small feat.
Mr. McCullough has said that "history is about people. ..time and human nature." and "1776" captures the essence of all of those qualities. Holding the book together is a well rounded and honest portrayal of George Washington, and McCullough's ability to find little know nuggets of personal history flesh out even further this well known father of our nation.
After reading this text, one realizes that this first year of our nation was nothing short of a miracle. McCullough does something in this book that is difficult to do. He does justice to a miracle.
This should be on the bookshelf of any serious student of America. Not only for its historical record, but also because it gives the reader an even greater appreciation for the beacon of freedom in the world that is America!

I very, very rarely finish non-fiction books - I start many, with good intentions, but am always getting distracted by my fiction TBR pile. It is a testament to the quality of writing in 1776 then, that I read it nearly as quickly as I would a decent crime thriller. The subject of the book is, unsurprisingly, the year 1776 - starting in January with the aftermath of the Battle of Bunker Hill and ending with the Revolutionary Army's surprising win in the Battle of Trenton at the end of the year. McCullough very much focuses on the characters and tells an incredibly human story.

McCullough could write about the history of indoor plumbing practices and I'd still be enraptured. He's that effective and engrossing as a historical writer. This work provides a one-year snapshot of the American Revolution (focusing a majority of text on military strategy and key players for both the Continental Army and British), and aside from the signing of the Declaration of Independence, it really wasn't the greatest of years for the Americans from a military perspective. But the "spirit" of the Revolution was born by year's end and the rest is history... A solid read for American history or military history buffs.

David McCullough has again exceeded all expectations in his latest book, "1776." Like most historical narratives, the reader often knows the ending well in advance. In "1776", every reader had to have expected that McCullough would close his book describing Washington's daring yet gallant crossing of the Delaware and the Continental Army's subsequent triumph at Trenton. Nevertheless, as I approached the end of the book I found myself anxiously awaiting that moment ... I literally read-on with bated breath.

David McCullough does a masterful job of describing with ease the events as they unfolded chronologically. Though as he does so, he more importantly provides acute analysis into the psyches of the main players. As much as this book was a narrative about the Continental Army from Bunker Hill, to Dorchester Heights, to Long Island and the Battle of Brooklyn, down through New Jersey and ulitmately victory at Trenton, the book could have as easily been a biography of sorts about His Excellency, George Washington.

McCullough's portrait of Washington is not unlike others that have been popularly written. Expectedly, the book portrays our first president as a man of faith and stellar, quasi-consecrated leadership. At the same time though, McCullough is careful not to deify the General and provides keen insights into Washington's probable feelings of self-doubt and diffidence, especially after the nearly catastrophic and ego-piercing defeats at Brooklyn and Fort Washington. Furthermore, McCullough exposes the fact that those close to Washington, General Charles Lee and Joseph Reed, lost much confidence in the General after the Continental Army's retreat across the Hudson and down through New Jersey.

With all of this provided as a backdrop though, a true picture of George Washington - his character, his dominion, his authority - is brought into sharp focus through McCullough's description of the Army's treacherous but euphoric victory over the Hessians at Trenton. I could literally picture Washington's animation and feel his exuberance when in the face of a potential call to retreat, he exclaimed to those under his command, "It's a fine fox chase, my boys!" One can only imagine the scene of chaos that filled the streets on that early winter morning; yet it is easy to picture General Washington sitting atop his horse, jubilantly inciting his troops to action. At the same time, because of McCullough's adroit description of the sometimes lackadaisical and even distracted British Commander, William Howe, one can only imagine Howe's consternation when learning of the defeat of the hired Hessian helpers.

Having mentioned Commander Howe, I also appreciated McCullough's determination in devoting a large portion of the book to characterizing British personalities and actions. Too few authors of the Revolutionary Period spend enough time measuring what was going through the minds of the British, the "enemy" at the time. Considering the fact that many living in the colonies during this period considered themselves loyal subjects of the King, it seems logical that a book describing the events of 1776 would adequately delve into British sentiment regarding the "rebels'" declaration of independence and the skirmishes and all-out war that followed. After all, the foot soldiers in the Continental Army were closely related, literally, to loyalists throughout the colonies.

In illustrating the overall British ethos, especially that of the King's Army, McCullough repeatedly denotes periods during the war where the Continental Army was and should have been on the cusp of ruin but for the seemingly high-minded haughtiness of the British leaders; most notably the aforementioned Commander Howe. Howe is painted as a somewhat apathetic and listless commander, severely lacking the killer instinct possessed by so many other leaders of the time on both sides. McCullough interestingly notes the stark difference between Commander William Howe and both his brother, Admiral Lord Richard Howe, and General Henry Clinton. Had General Clinton's thinking been adopted, the Continental Army probably never would have reached Dorchester Heights in the dead of night and thus would probably never have made it out of Boston.

In "1776", David McCullough has closely matched the superiority "John Adams" and his numerous other historical works. David McCullough truly is a "master of the art of narrative history." Like both of the late Stephen Ambrose and the late David Halberstam, David McCullough has become, in my mind, a national treasure.

Birth of a Nation.

Coming into this book, I don’t know what to expect. Critically acclaimed, but short, David McCullough’s 1776 in some respects has lived up to its reputation. The book provides a historical account of one of the most pivotal years in American history, with McCullough taking the reader through the critical events that defined the American Revolution. He focuses on the military campaigns, the struggles of the Continental Army, and the leadership of George Washington. Unlike many accounts of the Revolution that centre primarily on political debates and ideological battles, McCullough’s narrative is refreshingly focused on the war itself, shedding light on the human elements behind the grander historical events.

McCullough has an ability to make history come alive, which impressed me and has given me interest in his other work. He paints vivid portraits of the key figures on both sides of the conflict, from the resilient and often beleaguered George Washington to British General William Howe, whose strategic missteps greatly influenced the outcome of the war. McCullough doesn’t present these individuals as flawless heroes or villains, but as real people facing extraordinary challenges, with all their strengths, weaknesses, and uncertainties. This balanced portrayal adds depth to the story and humanizes the Revolutionary War in a way that many historical texts do not.

The research behind ‘1776’ is impeccable as one might expect. McCullough draws from a wide range of primary sources letters, diaries, and official document, to provide the reader with an intimate look at the events and decisions that shaped the year. This meticulous attention to detail enriches the narrative, offering a nuanced perspective of key battles like the Siege of Boston, the retreat from New York, and the surprise attack at Trenton. He presents the struggles of the ragtag Continental Army, often outnumbered and under-resourced, in a way that emphasises both the desperation of the cause and the resilience of its fighters.

While the book is focused primarily on the military aspects of the Revolution, it is not without its moments of reflection on the broader implications of the war. McCullough subtly weaves in themes of leadership, perseverance, and the uncertain nature of history, making ‘1776’ not just a historical account, but also a meditation on the factors that drive great change. Washington’s leadership, in particular, is a central theme, and McCullough skillfully demonstrates how his vision, moral strength, and tenacity were essential to keeping the Revolution alive, even in the bleakest of times.

If there is a critique to be made of ‘1776’, it might be that the book is somewhat narrowly focused on the American side of the conflict. While the British perspective is not entirely ignored, it is less developed compared to McCullough’s deep dive into the experiences of the Americans. This leaves some of the complexities of the British strategy and decision-making slightly underexplored. However, this choice can also be seen as a strength, as McCullough’s focus allows for a more cohesive and tightly woven narrative.

In conclusion, ‘1776’ is an engaging and accessible account of one of the most critical years in American history. It balances scholarly rigor with compelling storytelling, making it an excellent read for both history enthusiasts and general readers. McCullough succeeds in taking well-known events and breathing new life into them, reminding readers of the fragility and fortitude behind the American fight for independence. It’s a history book that reads like a novel, filled with tension, drama, and a deep respect for the people who shaped the nation’s early days. Overall I found McCullough’s analysis and viewpoint balanced which I appreciate, this was not a political pamphlet, just good storytelling.

A wonderful account about the good guys against the bad guys. Although the good guys didn't wear white hats.

After reading this book, I came to the conclusion that it was truly miraculous that we had actually won the American Revolution. It could be said, never had any ragtag army, under the worse of conditions been so lucky.

The Redcoats had us dead to rights. It was a no contest from the start. England had superiority on the land and at sea. But grave errors in judgment were made. If not for that, I'd probably be asking for a 'spot of tea'.

Learned a ton of details about this piece of history. It's amazing when you understand how some particular events, many times out of human hands, such as an unexpected storm, could change the course of history. This is a good book for those who enjoy history.

David McCullough passed away earlier this year. According to many he was one of the best working historians in the states. Those claims could be backed up with multiple Pulitzer Prizes under his belt. I had yet to read any of his books even though History is my preferred genre, so I thought I’d correct that by starting with 1776. 

This reads like you're being narrated a story by a much wiser elder…a great story-teller, filled with many small side-stories and interesting facts. One example I remember is the story of how the young American army regulars were almost constantly drunk, with a British surgeon observing “inordinate amounts of rum” surrounding rebel camps. McCullough digs into primary sources and estimates that the colonial soldiers were drinking a bottle of rum per day, per man. 

I was awed when trying to visualize the story of the complete British armada arriving off Staten Island…a force of nearly 400 ships large and small as well as 73 warships. McCullough makes the lofty claim that it was the largest most powerful force ever sent from any one nation in history! All told, 32,000 well armed, well equipped and well trained soldiers landed on Staten Island, more than the total population of the largest colonial city in America (Philly) at the time. And all that to quell a rebellion fought by farmers, fishers, sailors and skilled artisans…most with no prior combat experience! 

The book mostly focuses on Washington and a few of his close generals, and their counterparts in the British army. My interest is with the first nations of this land, but there wasn’t much mention of that particular aspect of the war. Nor is it required, of course, since that isn’t the focus of this book. Calloway’s 'The Indian World of George Washington' covers that base. But I was struck with a few related thoughts from two passages:

On page 99, McCullough notes that on March 9 1776, a new type of warfare was brought to New England such as was never before seen in those lands, with a thunderous all-night bombardment of Dorchester. By 1776, ‘New England’ was already fully conquered by the English. McCullough writes that Joseph Reed, a Philadelphia attorney would himself write of the British the following passage in a letter:


“I cannot help being astonished that a people should come 3,000 miles at such risk, trouble and expense to rob, plunder and destroy another people”. 


The cognitive dissonance is striking. He literally wrote that about the British empire destroying the “American” people…when just 100 years prior those “American”…(really British people), did the very same thing to the Narrangansetts, Pokanokets, Pequots, Nausets, Massachusetts, Nipmucks, Sakonnets, and many more (as I learned thanks to Philbrick’s magnificent book 'Mayflower'). 

The other passage, really a one-off sentence, that stayed with me, was on page 47, during the “character background” section of the book for Washington. McCullough mentions that Washington, from Virginia, was very wealthy at a young age, owning 54,000 thousand acres of land and 100 slaves. McCullough moves on after that, and doesn’t come back to the topic. But it's an amazing fact to me. For one man to own 54,000 acres, land that was so violently stolen not long prior (Powhatan land in Virginia), seems absurd. And to have 100 slaves, working for you every day all day. A large enterprise of free labor. Take away all the inhumanity for a moment. Just imagine if it was labor alone… that’s a 100 employee enterprise, a solid mid-size company, and not one penny of labor has to be recompensed. All profit. It was just amazing for me to think that most of the “founding fathers”, the heroes of the American republic, and especially George Washington, their whole way of lives was supported and made possible by the use of the first nation’s traditional lands and slave labor. Yes… I suppose I kinda knew this before, but I feel that knowing the facts (as much as possible) does matter. 54,000 acres and 100 slaves!

Anyways, I digress. Overall, I enjoyed this book. I really like David McCullough’s prose. His style of writing history is engaging. Indeed the literary world lost a great wordsmith. I look forward to checking out his other books, especially the one on the Wright Brothers and his book on the creation of the Panama Canal. 3.5 to 4 Stars.

Another book that presents the myth that the US is a great "democratic" country. A country that subjugated the Native Americans, discriminated against other minorities, and meddled in other countries to promote hegemony.

David McCullough - 1776 A história dos homens que lutaram na guerra pela independência dos Estados Unidos

Um livro curioso. Se procura nele uma abordagem da história da guerra da independência dos Estados Unidos, não é o livro mais adequado. Melhor, é um livro não recomendado. Tal como o título sugere diz respeito apenas aos acontecimentos ocorridos em 1776. A guerra pela independência iniciou-se em 1764 como reacção às tributações implementadas pelos britânicos e terminou em 1786 com a assinatura em Paris e o reconhecimento da independência pelas partes. O ano de 1776 foi o ano da declaração da independência, o ano do panfleto de Thomas Paine “Common Sense”, o ano que George Washington assumiu a chefia do exército continental, e a 01 de janeiro, já de 1777, o ano em o sentido do domínio militar virou.
Dito isto é óbvio que ficam fora do âmbito deste texto toda a informação relevante para construção da sociedade americana. A América atravessa nos dias de hoje uma clivagem da sua sociedade que me parece ter-se iniciado nesses tempos através de contradições que os séculos em comum não aplanaram e que com a crise desencadeada pelo neoliberalismo só se vieram agudizar. Pretendia eu compreender o que tinha levado essas 13 colónias a unirem-se num congresso em Philadelphia, quais os compromissos que os tinham unido e que elementos de nacionalidade tinham fabricado. Queria saber se uma guerra desencadeada por milícias tinha deliberadamente transposto para a constituição os espirito dessas mesma milícias, um espirito plasmado na segunda emenda constitucional e que faz dela uma nação com mais armas civis que população.
Queria ir à génese da nacionalidade para encontrar os fermentos que eclodiram durante a guerra civil, persistem na segregação social e são aos dias de hoje a génese de um populismo que extravasa no planeta.
Era isto que procurava, e como é óbvio, para isto não é este o livro mais adequado. Diz o autor e a editora que este é um livro restrito aos acontecimentos de 1776, mas mesmo no que a este respeita, um livro que o aborda pela história e vivência dos seus intervenientes, e que o faz numa perspectiva romanceada.
Ora quanto a este último aspecto, não sei bem o que significa. Se admito que não haja ficção no “timeline” dos acontecimentos, já a sua descrição, em particular, no que respeita ao sentir desses personagens e suas emoções, tenho, fiquei com muitas dúvidas.
Já em tempos tinha lido um outro de livro de história, “A Dança das Fúrias. A Europa na Eclosão da 1ª GM” de Michel S. Neiberg, uma abordagem semelhante, mas muito mais competente, pois as emoções e sentimentos aí retratados foram apresentados de forma convincente, enquanto os aqui recensados fico dúvidas se não traduzem mais o sentir do autor que a sua compreensão da realidade de então.
Este livro propunha-se ser um retrato dos homens que intervieram nesse conflito e foram os protagonistas. E este é um objectivo falhado pelo autor. Os intervenientes nas batalhas de Boston, Brooklyn, Baía de Kips, Forte Washington, Forte Lee, Tenton e Princeton, nomeadamente George Washington, Joseph Reed, Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox, Charles Lee, os britânicos William Howe, Henry Clinton, Charles Cornwallis e o líder das tropas mercenárias, o Barão Wilhelm von Knyphausen, o comandante dos Hessianos" são retratos ao longo do texto, mas de forma pouco objectiva, e em alguns casos com algumas insinuações que seriam dispensáveis. Se este era o objectivo deste texto, o retrato desses homens e a sua época, falhou-o tanto na descrição das personagens como o mundo que cada um deles personalizava. Contudo, e apesar destas apreciações mais negativas, devo reconhecer que na segunda metade em que o texto se dedica mais à descrição dos factos e das suas consequências, melhora substancialmente, e daí a classificação que lhe dou, um quatro mesmo no meio, nem para cima nem para baixo.