Recommended by Language Hat as the "best history book I've read in a long time", recommended "to anyone who wants to understand the Revolution in anything other than the usual triumphalist terms."

Gary Nash’s 2006 book “The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America” might have been better titled “Short Stories of the Oppressed Proletariat.” Nash sets out to overturn the traditional narrative of the American Revolution, in which elite white males led, guided, and directed the lower class politically, philosophically, and governmentally. In some ways, Nash accomplishes his goal. By showing the actions of blacks, lower classes, Indians, and women, he demonstrates that there was more to the war than taxation without representation and the Stamp Act. He tells stories that deserve telling, not only for their overlooked historical value but for their entertainment value as well. Unfortunately, instead of choosing to tell their stories as they are, Nash often adds considerable commentary to them and superimposes his own neo-Marxist ideas onto Revolution-era Americans, attempting to make them pre-Marx Marxists. This, in addition to a presentation which is confusing at times and neglect in certain areas, makes the book less than it is promised to be. Though it is not presented this way, for discussion the work can most easily be broken down into four sections: blacks, the lower class, Indians, and women. Each of these sections contains its own positives and foibles, some more so and others less so.

By far, Nash’s coverage of blacks, both slave and free, is the best part of his work. He tells their stories in a way which is clear, simple, and emotionally resonant. Free from the glamorization that taints some of his other portions, Nash’s work here appears more honest than anything else. Some of his work here is incisive and insightful; a prime example of this is his discussion of prejudices held by the founding fathers themselves. Instead of brushing over the founding fathers’ arguments for their own freedom while suppressing their slaves, he points out the irony of arguing for freedom based on principle while denying freedom to others without any principle whatsoever.

Nash’s best tale about an African American is the story of Venture Smith. Nash is able to convey the synopsis of Smith’s life in only a scant three pages, but he is a powerful enough storyteller that the story feels complete, even though it clearly cannot be because of its restricted length . In this story, Smith was captured off the coast of Africa in 1736 and brought to America shortly afterwards. Upon arrival, he was sold to a farmer for whom he worked until he was abused so badly that, to defend himself, he beat his master’s son with his fists. Throughout his life and with many owners, this sort of event happened again and again; Smith would arrive at a farm, work peaceably, get attacked, and battered his assailants. There is more to this story than a slave who overpowered his masters though. Over time, through his strength and cleverness, Smith saves to purchase his family’s freedom. Besides its obvious allure as an interesting story, this piece demonstrates Nash’s ability as a storyteller and the power of his material when he chooses to let it explain itself. In this story, which is representative of most of his stories about slavery, he refrains from vilifying the owners or glorifying the slaves themselves. Later in the book, he covers multiple slave uprisings and does not shy away from the brutality in which they resulted.

Thus, Nash’s work on blacks is his best. Admirably, he gives many entertaining stories about a people group which was mostly illiterate and entirely looked down upon. Not only does he bring out a less told side of history, he does it in a manner which convinces a reader most; he lets the facts speak for themselves. Instead of superimposing his own ideas onto the people of the time, he relays their actions and allows the reader to think through the meaning and consequences of those actions.

Although Nash’s research on the lower classes is broader than his research on African-Americans (reasonably so since there were more of them to leave behind documents and more of them capable of doing so), his presentation of it flatters his heroes to the point of indulgence. Most of his stories about the lower class have them pitted against the upper class in some sort of semi-Marxist class struggle, into which Nash interjects his own political viewpoint heavily. None of these presents his own viewpoint more strongly than his discussion of military pay.

In 1783, after the American Revolution had been dragging slowly along for several years, military pay was badly in arrears. As a result, on more than one occasion, the military threatened to, or actually did, mutiny against its top commanders. This is a tale certainly worth telling, especially in light of the traditional narrative in which soldiers bravely followed Washington wherever he led them; always fighting for freedom, but the way in which Nash tells this story adds an unnecessary class struggle narrative. For example, when the enlisted men demand their back wages, it is because “Years of broken promises and shabby treatment brought [their] tempers to a boil.” Yet, when their officers revolt for the exact same reasons they were “mostly tending to their own interests.”

It is exactly this sort of disparity of treatment which makes “The Unknown American Revolution” a far lesser piece than it could have been. While the story of the lower classes has gone untold and been neglected, Nash makes the opposite mistake by choosing to denigrate the upper classes when they behave in the same manner as the lower class which he so greatly glorifies. Nash’s research, ability as a storyteller, and willingness to tell uncommon stories are all superb, but his endless interjection of his own political opinion adds little value and is distracting at best.

In his stories about Native Americans, Nash exhibits slightly different tendencies. Though he still glorifies Indians as much as the lower classes and justifies their actions, most of the problems in these stories come from the methodology of his story telling, not the stories themselves. The book as a whole is semi-chronological, which, combined with the fact that it is a collection of short stories and brief biographies, can be slightly confusing. Of no parts is this truer than in Nash’s discussion of Indians. Instead of breaking the stories up by person either person or event, he uses a jumble of several methodologies, sometimes separating his stories by time, sometimes by person, sometimes by event. Due to this, the stories seem to run together, and instead of creating memorable characters, he creates memorable story arcs. On a better note, the story that he tells is an often forgotten one. Nash’s discussion of the Native American’s plight reveals that the American Revolution did not bring freedom to all people, and to many it brought bondage. In this he succeeds in going beyond the popular narrative and into neglected history.

Although he ostensibly wishes to “view the American Revolution through the eyes of those not in positions of power and privilege,” Nash’s work on women reveals little information about anyone outside of Abigail Adams, who most certainly was in a position of privilege. Since women did play an important role in the revolution, did leave behind sources, and are, other than legendary figures such as Molly Pitcher and Phyllis Wheatley, often unmentioned in popular history, it is disappointing that Nash mostly writes of Abigail Adams. Seemingly, this would be one of the simplest places to include stories of many common people, but Nash neglects to do so, though in a few of his common-people stories main actors happen to be women. On the whole, Nash neglects to mention women as key figures, and though he provides flowery lip service to their role, he backs it up with little evidence.

Overall, though Nash’s attempt is noble, his resulting piece leaves much desired. In the individual stories, he demonstrates his ability as a writer, but in his commentary and presentation, he often falls short of excellence. Given the subject material, this is most disappointing. Nash is entirely correct in his assertion that all too often our understanding of the American Revolution is only knowledge of its leaders coupled with a vague knowledge of a few other characters. Nash succeeds in telling, and often in telling quite well, the stories of forgotten people, but his presentation and profuse commentary overshadow his characters.

Only read about 70 pages of this 500 pg book and I can’t bring myself to keep my going. The epilogue was great but once the detail of each chapter began, I couldn’t filter what points were important to his claims.

My biggest takeaway:

John Adams talked more shit about Franklin and Washington than I thought.

“When historians fix their gaze downward in the dark parts of historhy, they often offend people who cherish what they remember is a more coherent, worshipful, and supposedly a kneeling rendition of the past. Narratives of the glory will always have a market, and some people will always prefer an uncomplicated, single message from history. But empathy with less than oversize figures, as much in history as in literature, has a market as well.”

If you love to read rewritten American history that fits the liberal, progressive agenda...this is your book! Pure, 100% bullsh*t!

I felt like this was a very necessary book but I thought that the loose chronological organization was a poor choice. I think the ideas in the book would come across better thematically. I did like that it reminded me of Lies My Teacher Taught Me a little bit. I think there should be greater emphasis on the actual motivations of the founders, the revolutionary experiences of nonelites and the general disorder that occurred in the US government while the revolution was still occurring.

This book helps bring to life the complexity and strife of the colonies , patriots and founding fathers. Behind the myth of united front of the founding fathers, there were the familiar currents of conflict, greed, multi-factionalism, real estate scams, and pettiness that we commonly see today.

Those so inclined will see the "tea party" fighting back against an oppressive hi tax regime, and others will see the common man "leveling" the mansions of the greedy oligarch and "occupying" their misgoten lands.

Really, really enjoyed this book. Very informative and interesting!

An excellent book that discusses aspects of the American Revolution that aren't discussed in much detail. The introduction is something that all students of history should read - it offers an excellent discussion, sure to prompt thought and debate, on just what the creation of history means and entails.

The context that the author provides to the post-Revolutionary War currency issues (specie vs. paper currency) is one that is often glossed over, and something that makes the "they didn't want to pay taxes"-based analysis of Shays' Rebellion seem amateurish and wrongheaded.

One quibble that I had was Nash's qualification of Joseph Plumb Martin (possibly the best read private rank soldier's account in the world) as "penniless". Martin didn't have wealth himself, but had plenty of access to wealth and opportunity via his Connecticut family. Minor quibble, and an overall amazing book.

If you want to read about the "little guy" or the common man/woman's role in the Revolution, read this. As one who isn't into historical revisionism, this book made me pause and wonder how much of our history is skewed. The answer is, all history is skewed by the lens of the writer.

Incoherent and tiresome. The Unknown American Revolution is a jumble of vignettes designed to illustrate a paper-thin thesis that couples a cliché (most of the people caught up in the American Revolution were not elite white men) with an anachronism (these non-elite-white-men wanted radical democratic change). Nash culls stories of women, nonwhites, farmers, and workers from secondary sources -- a worthwhile endeavor, I suppose -- but simply piles them in narrative fragments instead of conducting a thorough examination of their ideas or their relationships to each other.

Unlike most of the books I have read on the American Revolution, this is a "bottoms up" history. The narrative follows groups usually left out of textbooks such as women, native Americans, African-Americans (both slave and free), and poor whites.
Nash makes compelling narrative, and emphasizes the chaotic nature of the Revolution.
I would recommend this to anyone who wants to know more about this period.

good nuggets but kind of dense.. and not completely up to date.