In Washington's Crossing, Fischer covers the New Jersey Campaign of December 1776 through the spring of 1777.  He also explains the lead-up to th the battles in New Jersey and the Continental Army's disastrous actions during 1776 and how and why control of the war shifted from the British to the Americans during the few months of December '76 through April '77.   This enlightening analysis of the war helped me to understand some of the reasons why the Americans ended up victorious in the conflict.  To be sure, the Continental Army had more trials to face in the later years of the war, but these few months showed that they could face the British and win battles against this mighty foe. I highly recommend this book to Revolutionary War History buffs.

Took longer than it should have to read this one.
Very good

Washington’s Crossing is a real page turner. It is well researched and filled with detail yet never becomes tedious. An added bonus is the historiography at the end showing all the ways the same events have been interpreted over the years by historians and artists of different nations. For someone who is weary of constant references to American exceptionalism by the clearly unexceptional, Fischer’s genuine depiction of American revolutionary leaders who deserve the accolade is wonderfully refreshing. Standing out above the rest was George Washington.

Fischer depicts the American victories at Trenton and Princeton as a turning point in the war. The British had driven the Continental army out of New York. They along with their Hessian mercenaries occupied New Jersey in a display of overwhelming strength. Loyalists were emboldened and as the revolutionaries became disheartened, capitulation seemed possible. Instead the loyalists soon lost faith. Washington’s quick precision strikes at Trenton and Princeton showed the Americans could fight and the British could lose.

Cornwallis was forced to retreat settling into enclaves near New York as local militias supported by the Continental Army operated with guerilla tactics. While thoroughly professional, the British and Hessians were limited in imagination and flexibility due to their strict hierarchy. Their arrogance caused them to underestimate the fighting ability of their opposition making them vulnerable. Their troops were constantly harassed outside their bases and became dispirited as the death toll mounted. Support for the war in England suffered as its costs rose and the prospect of quick victory faded. General Howe exaggerated his wins and minimized his losses in his reports to Parliament. However, his requests for thousands of additional troops made many back in England realize they were not getting the straight story. All of these things make one instantly think of the Viet Nam War.

George Washington demonstrated remarkable leadership. He had the capacity to grow into the job and to learn from experience. His presence and his calmness under pressure enabled him to lead by example. His openness, the ability to draw out, to absorb new ideas and reach consensus made him highly effective. His brilliance was in his ability to recognize and adopt the best available ideas regardless of their origin. He was always mindful of public opinion. This coupled with his deep morality led him to minimize casualties and treat prisoners and loyalists humanely drawing a sharp distinction with the British and Hessians. Their widespread plundering turned the local population against them.

Washington adopted a mobile, flexible military strategy that looks thoroughly modern. He had a great sense of timing, of maintaining the initiative and keeping his opponents off balance. His tactic of concentrating his army on isolated elements of enemy positions was effective and well executed. Before the idea had a name he was clearly proficient in the use of force multipliers.

In this time when so many heroes seem tainted, here we have this highly credible account of the exploits of an American who deserves the title and our respect. George Washington was truly an exceptional leader and Fischer gives us an exceptionally vivid account. This is historical writing at its very best.

Fischer's skill as a writer made the subject come alive and is the most interesting story of war and battles I've ever read. I truly did not want to put it down, something very rare to say about a non-fiction work. I appreciated Fischer correcting the mythologies we Americans learn in school about the crossing, the battles and the aftermath.

Fischer starts with the painting, so familiar to many Americans, of Washington Crossisng the Delaware. Detractors have mocked Washington standing, virtually, on one leg in the boat, crossing an icy river. The fact is that the type of boat shown in the painting is not the type of boat used for the troops to cross that icy river. The boats used actually had nowhere to sit. Not only was Washington standing, so was everyone! On another note, I was interested in the symbolism Fischer identifies in the painting, something of which I was completely unaware.

I was keenly interested in Fischer's delineation of the significant differences in leadership styles of the British and Hessians versus the Americans. Also different was responsibility of commanders of the Europeans that went back to their Heads of State. The American military responsibility went back to a mix of Congress and public opinion, the latter having no real effect on European military leaders. This pattern of the American military being responsible to and ultimately headed by, with agreement of that military, to civilian authority continues today as it was established then.

What I particularly liked was Fischer's ability to engage the reader with a human story. One gets to know the people involved; they aren't just names. As an example he relates a story which I summarize. The battle of Trenton is done, Americans clearly the winners, the Hessians furiously livid, the next battle looming and the Hessian commander orders his troops "Take no prisoners.", an order the soldiers are happy to obey. As he rides along, an American civilian spots a group of Hessian soldiers slightly before they see him. The American turns and gallops away as one of the Hessians takes off after him. But the Hessian war horse is faster than the American horse. Gradually the Hessian gains on the American, closer and closer and getting into firing range. A shot rings out. I have no idea why I put my hands over my eyes as I listened to the audio book.

By Christmas Day 1776, the Revolutionary War looked like it was already over. Ninety percent of the troops had gone home. The British and the Hessians had won every major battle. The way Washington turned that around saved the cause of independence. That turn around is the focus of this book. Don't be put off by the size. There's a huge appendix at the end, complete with order of battle and bibliography. It reads much faster than it looks. I liked that the maps and the portraits are scattered throughout the book, rather than stuck on just a few pages in the beginning or middle, as seems to be popular now. Especially once the action started, I would turn a couple of pages back to the map so I could refer to that and understand what was going on. Well written, great subject, extensively researched. Highly recommended.

Excellent report of the famous crossing of the Delaware. Shows you a very detailed account while also laying out tremendous groundwork for explaining why things happened as they did.

Well-told and fascinating. Once again I was struck by how miraculous the outcome of the American Revolution was in many ways, and what a man for the mission George Washington was. Fischer brings a story we all think we know (but obviously don't!) to life, and painted a very clear picture of all the people who fought in the Revolution--British, Hessians, and colonists--and how personalities and cultural norms affected the outcome of the battles and ultimately the war. I had to return the book before I could read all the appendices, so I will have to check it out again. This book reinforced my original opinion (based on the book Albion's Seed) that Fischer is one of the best history writers around.

In Washington’ Crossing, David Hackett Fischer has given us a fresh view of the events, motivations and consequences surrounding the New Jersey Campaign of 1776, pitting the British and Hessian army under General William Howe against the Continental Army and attached militia under General George Washington. Extremely well written and extensively documented, using numerous primary and secondary sources as well as many very helpful maps, Fischer has produced a book that, in my opinion, will be definitive on this subject for many, many years. Not only has he given us an extremely detailed and lucid account of the military maneuvers encompassed by this campaign, but he has also elucidated a cogent framework for understanding the motivations of the two armies, the leadership styles of the commanders on each side, particularly Howe and Washington, and the effect of this campaign on the future success of the American army. In addition, and most importantly for the accurate representation of historical events, Fischer has challenged many of the long held beliefs we have about certain aspects of this campaign and its participants.

The driving narrative of this work is the detailed description of the New Jersey Campaign of 1776. Contained in it are numerous corrections of long held beliefs about the campaign and its participants. Fischer begins with a description of the participating armies and their motivations, devoting one chapter each to the Americans, British regulars, and Hessians. Over the years stereotypical notions about the motivations of the British and Hessians have taken root. Our need for a villain in every story has led us to demonize not only the British and Hessian armies , which are thought of alternatively as a tool of a tyrannical dictator, and a brutish mercenary army, but also men such as Charles Cornwallis, William and Richard Howe, and Johann Rall. As Fischer makes clear, though flawed in many ways, these men were honorable and were trying to do their best to serve their countries. In many cases, particularly with the Howes and Cornwallis, British leaders sympathized with the Americans and were working not to defeat them utterly, but to bring them back to their loyalty to the crown.

It has become fashionable to denigrate the motivation of those fighting for American independence. For many, it is a trite cliché to say they were fighting for freedom and liberty, yet as Fischer shows, along with other factors, these notions were the primary motivator for most Americans. Fischer does an excellent job of not only describing the structure of each army, but also in taking an objective look at each of the participants, highlighting the positive and negative attributes of each.

As Fischer describes it, the British Army was not only “one of the finest ever seen,” but was also an army full of paradoxes.(Fischer, 33) As an institution and as its “regimental badges and colors proclaimed, it served the King. (Fischer, 33) Yet, it was actually a creation of Parliament, subject to re-authorization every twelve months. As occurred later in the United States, the British people were very proud of the accomplishments of their military, yet were distrustful of a standing army and “kept it on a short leash.” (Fischer, 33) In organizational terms, it was both bureaucratized and decentralized, more like an army of separate tribes, with their own rules and customs. Most importantly however according to Fischer, is the mistaken notion that the British army was simply the bludgeon by which King George III intended to defeat America. In reality, for the British army, like their American counterparts, the war “was a clash of principles in which they deeply believed.” (Fischer, 50) Primary among those beliefs was loyalty to the British monarchy. As Fischer points out British soldiers swore a personal oath “to be true to our Sovereign Lord King George.” (Fischer, 50) For these soldiers, this loyalty and the rituals that celebrated it represented Ideals of loyalty, fidelity, honor, duty, discipline, and service…” (Fischer, 50)

The motivation for the Hessian armies in America, though different from those of the British and Americans, was nevertheless quite different than the simpleminded pursuit if money that is ascribed to them by most people. While the army was paid handsomely for their services in America, this was not their prime motivation for agreeing to serve. In reality, the Hessian army was created as part of an enlightened culture that prized “reason and order, fidelity and loyalty, discipline and regularity.” (Fischer, 54) Friedrich Wilhelm II viewed his Hessian army as a school of discipline, and encouraged all able-bodied men to join, even those of aristocratic families. The result was the largest army in proportion to population in the world. And, while the average Hessian underwent far stricter discipline than their British and American counterparts, their motivation, according to Fischer were the values of “order and discipline…service and honor.” (Fischer, 61)

As noted above, it has become almost cliché to say that those fighting for American independence were doing so for freedom and liberty. It has become fashionable to ascribe motivations of greed and selfishness as the primary motivation for these soldiers. As Fischer makes very clear, this is simply not the case. He has marshaled an impressive array of primary evidence that clearly indicates that Americans were primarily fighting for their notions of freedom and liberty, first to regain their rights as Englishman, and later to gain their independence from Britain altogether. Fischer does not discount other inducements. For the soldiers from Marblehead, Massachusetts, for example, profit was most definitely on their mind in their desire to return home and join the privateers plundering British shipping. And, clearly, the depredations committed by many British and Hessian soldiers during the New Jersey campaign motivated thousands of men to join the militia. In addition to making a persuasive case that these notions of freedom and liberty were the driving motivations for most American soldiers, Fischer does an excellent job of describing how men from different parts of the country viewed those notions, and then tying that to a description of how George Washington was able to adapt to this and create an American way of fighting.

Notions of freedom and liberty in 1776, for which most Americans fought, was understood differently based largely on where one resided. From “the collective rights of New England, [to] the reciprocal rights of Philadelphia Associators, the individual rights of back country riflemen, and the hegemonic rights of the Fairfax men,” all viewed freedom as their primary motivator. (Fischer, 364) As Fischer ably demonstrates, George Washington, largely as a result of his experiences in the French and Indian War, was able to accommodate these different views and in so doing create an American way of “war-fighting,” characterized by the notion that all the American army had to do was to survive, by a willingness to take chances with success, with a prudence in risking the lives of the soldiers, a reliance on religion as a motivating factor, and most unique of all, a concern for popular opinion. It is this last, Fischer argues, which characterizes an army subservient to civilian authority.

At the center of this new way of fighting was George Washington. It was his ability to accommodate himself to its realities that made this new way successful in the end. This is evidenced by the way in which he took advantage of the New Jersey militia following the victory at Princeton; by submerging his moral distaste for the lack of discipline among the militia and allowing them to engage in the type of guerrilla war that brought success.This Forage War caused almost as many enemy casualties as did the New York and New Jersey campaigns combined. It was also evidenced, according to Fischer, by the style in which Washington conducted his councils of war. In contrast to Cornwallis’ which were characterized by extreme deference and a pre-ordained outcome dictated by Cornwallis himself, Washington’s reflected a “diversity of cultures…the pluralism of elites…a more open polity…a less stratified society, and especially by expanding ideas of liberty and freedom.” (Fischer, 315) In his councils, Washington encouraged a free exchange of ideas, listened more than he talked, and took freely from the ideas of others. The result was an enthusiastic consensus for the course of action, of which the decision to attack Princeton in an excellent example, and more importantly, a growing respect and admiration among the officers for George Washington as their leader.

The heart of Fischer’s book of course is the detailed narrative of the New Jersey campaign itself. It is often very easy to get lost in the description of battles and maneuvers, especially if one does not have a military background. However, Fischer was able to describe the campaign in a very detailed way that did not leave me totally confused. Important here were some very well placed battle maps which aided in the comprehension of the detailed narrative. In addition, Fischer was able to dispel some well established misconceptions about this campaign, and to illuminate some aspects of it that were overlooked. Most importantly as I described above, are the myths surrounding the motivations of the different participants. However, events such as the Second Battle of Trenton and the Forage War, almost universally ignored in other works, are described in detail here. The myth persists that the Hessians were nursing hangovers when Washington attacked. Fischer clearly demonstrates that this is not true, and in so doing elevates what the Americans accomplished, as well as dispelling the notion that the Hessians were incompetent. He also shows that the Americans did not lack ammunition, and in fact, were better armed in many ways than the Hessians. He also takes issue with those who mock the notion that Washington would be standing in the Durham boat as they crossed the Delaware River as depicted in Emmanuel Leutze’s painting, noting that had he been seated, it would have been in a puddle of frozen water. Finally, is the notion that Washington was more lucky than gifted. As Fischer makes clear, Washington learned from his mistakes in the New York campaign, and clearly out generaled his opposition.

He concludes his book with an excellent summary, along with a description of the importance of this campaign. Disputing the notion that these were symbolic victories, Fischer notes that the New Jersey campaign inflicted severe damage on the British and Hessian armies. It was also of course a shot in the arm for the American cause. As the result of these victories, Washington was able to force the British from New Jersey, cause British leaders to look to the defensive, and most importantly, it allowed Washington to recruit enough men to carry on the fight, It also instilled in the American public a new confidence in heir army and its leaders, particularly Washington, and it gave the army new confidence in themselves.

Fischer also includes an excellent section describing the humanity in which American leaders fought. It was not enough to win, but it was necessary to win “in a way that was consistent with the values of their society.” (Fischer, 375) In contrast to the attitudes of many British and Hessian leaders, this meant quarter would be granted to all who surrendered, and that prisoners would be treated humanely. While there were those who did not agree, Washington set the standard.

There is little to fault in this book. It is extremely well sourced, clearly written, and makes very persuasive, almost unassailable arguments. Fischer includes an exhaustive appendix that includes many details not found in the main narrative, and the index is one of the best I have seen.

Very highly recommended.

I liked this author. He does a good job of describing the context and events surrounding the famous painting Washington's Crossing, but I liked the beginning of the book the best. Towards the middle there were a few too many details for me, but ultimately it did help me understand more of the times, people, circumstances and turning points during the years of 1776 and 1777 in the American Revolution. I particularly enjoyed learning about General Washington and his leadership, how he worked together with others, and how it really was a team effort in so many ways that lead to an American victory. It was definitely not a sure fight. I'm always impressed by the courage of those who stood up for freedom and liberty in such an uncertain time. I liked how the author finished by reminding us of how history is made by the choices of individuals who decide to act and make a difference in the world.

I thought that an important and inspiring turning point was the council that met on the night of December 27. After their success at Trenton, NJ in the cold the last thing anyone wanted to do was to continue further in the cold the next day, but that's exactly what they all decided to do. They came together and recognized the importance of their efforts and sacrifices. The author points out that their initiative, tempo and speed were important in their ultimate victory. I'm impressed by their examples and grateful for their sacrifices. It so interesting to be reading a book like this when I feel like we live at another turning point in history. We must be responsible about the choices we make that do change the world.

A few inspiring quotes:
"[George Washington's creed he followed all his life] valued self-government, discipline, virtue, reason, and restraint....It was a philosophy of moral striving through virtuous action and right conduct, by powerful men who believed that their duty was to lead others in a changing world. Most of all, it was a way of combining power with responsibility, and liberty with discipline....A major part of this code of honor was an idea of courage...a gentleman would act with physical courage in the face of danger, pain, suffering, and death. They gave equal weight to moral courage in adversity, prosperity, trial, and temptation. For them, a vital part of leadership was the ability to persist in what one believed to be the right way (p. 12)."

"George Washington and the New England men slowly found a way to work together. Washington learned to listen, to reason, and to work through councils of war in which a majority of officers were Yankees. New Englanders learned that an army was not a town meeting, that somebody had to give orders, and that orders had to be obeyed. The result was an untidy and unstable compromise, which allowed an army of cantankerous Yankees to operate under a gentleman of Virginia (p. 21)."

"In 1776, Americans were less interested in pulling down a monarchy than in raising up a new republic. Washington's leadership was becoming a major part of that process within the army. Men who came from different parts of the continent were beginning to understand each other. And Washington was learning how to lead them....Slowly this army of free men was learning to work together. They were also coming to respect this extraordinary man who was their leader, but...Washington knew that they were about to meet some of the most formidable troops in the world, and the outcome was very much in doubt (p. 30)."

Nathan Hale's "gentle dignity" as he quotes Addison's Cato as he dies,
"How beautiful is death, when earn'd by virtue!
Who would not be that youth? What pity is it
That we can die but once to serve our country (p. 108)."

Watching a great loss from the Jersey Palisades across the Hudson River on November 16, 1776, "George Washington was shattered....He blamed no one else for what happened, took all the responsibility on his shoulders, and judged himself more severely than anyone else could judge him...he began to weep with the tenderness of a child. His aides did not know how to help, or ever if they should. Some were beginning to doubt that he could lead them....It was the lowest point of Washington's long career. In the agony of that moment he felt that he had lost everything: lost the war, lost the Cause, lost his own way. But then this extraordinary man reached deep into his last reserves or inner strength. Not much was left, but enough to shake off a terrible despair. He looked away from Fort Washington and rallied his aides around him. Together, they would try again (p. 113)."

"Thomas Paine wrote to Edmund Burke, 'I have seen enough of war and the miseries it inflicts to wish it might never more have an existence in the world, and that some other mode than destruction might take place to adjust and compose the differences that occasionally arise in the neighborhood of nations.' But in 1776, Paine had come to believe that some evils in the world were even worse than war, and one of them was the tyranny that British ministers were attempting to fasten on their frontier colonies (p. 141)."

"Everyone agreed that it was a perilous moment when things had gone deeply wrong for the American War of Independence. It was a pivotal moment when great issues of the Revolution were hanging in the balance. Most of all it was a moment of decision, when hard choices had to be made. Thanks in part to Thomas Paine, it became a time when many Americans resolved to act, in ways that made a difference in the world (p. 142)."

"Nobody thought that the enemy could attack in such weather (p. 205)."

Before enlistments were set to expire on December 31, Washington said, "My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than could be reasonably expected; but your country is at stake, your wives, your houses, and all that you hold dear. You have worn yourselves out with the fatigues and hardships, but we know not how to spare you. If you will consent to stay one month longer, you will render that service to the cause of liberty, and to your country, which you probably can never do under any other circumstances (p. 273)."

Alternatively, "Cornwallis introduced an air of complete confidence....went into council with his generals not to ask what should be done as Washington did, but to tell his subordinates what he meant to do (p. 291)."

"The Americans improvised a different system of command. It was forces upon them by a diversity of cultures in the country, by the plurality of elites, by a more open polity, by a less stratified society, and especially by expanding ideas of liberty and freedom. The man at the center was George Washington. From much hard-won experience in American politics and war he had learned to work closely with his subordinates. Washington met frequently with them in councils of war and encouraged a free exchange of views. He also listened more than he talked and drew freely from the best ideas that were put before him. In early councils he actually took a vote. Later he worked more skillfully by the construction of consensus. In that way he created a community of open discourse and a spirit of mutual forbearance (p. 316)."

"By the spring of 1777, many British officers had concluded that they could never win the war. At the same time, Americans recovered from their despair and were confident that they would not be defeated. That double transformation was truly a turning point of the war. We have seen how it happened: not in a single event, or even a chain of events, but in a great web of contingency. This book is mainly about contingency, in the sense of people making choices, and choices making a difference in the world (p. 363)."

"John Adams resolved that the guiding principles of the American Republic would always be what he called the policy of humanity. He wrote, 'I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this--Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won't prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed (p. 376)."

"They set a high example, and we have much to learn from them...The story of Washington's Crossing tells us that Americans in an earlier generation were capable of acting in a higher spirit--and so are we (p. 379)."

The same story but not as well told as David McCullough's 1776.

An essential read to fully grasp the leadership and greatness of General Washington. A detailed account of the New Jersey campaign (January 1777), rich in historical facts and analysis. The author gives a modern look to these events while accurately portraying the cultural differences between the protagonists (General Washington and the British Generals). There's a lot of takeaways and lessons from a personal and professional perspective. The reader interested in business/management will learn a lot from General Washington's approach to the New Jersey campaign. General Washington led the first army of free men. He treated his soldiers and his ennemies humanly, always in respect of the ideals of the Revolution : the quest for freedom and individual liberties.

A different kind of Army fighting a different kind of war.

Fischer's history is outstanding but inaccurately named. This work is more about the New York and New Jersey campaign from Summer 1776 to March 1777 than it is about Washington's crossing of the Delaware on Christmas night prior to the battle of Trenton. That's perfectly fine as Fischer does a wonderful job placing the crossing in proper historical context and helping illustrate its significance in damaging the British army's psyche and air of invulnerability it had held up to that point.

Filled with engaging details and direct sourcing, Fischer masterfully recounts the lead up to the crossing and the subsequent campaigns that followed as Washington constantly fought to maintain his ragtag Army, its momentum, and their supplies against the British, Congress, and his own Soldiers' unique and varied sense of "liberty."

It was these differing conceptions of freedom that is one of the most interesting aspects of the book. Washington's conception of what "liberty" meant, coming from his position of stoic landed Virginian gentry, was vastly different from his far more individualistic backwood Pennsylvanian troops had or even New Jersey volunteers. His ability to effectively command this collection against the most dominant Army in the world is nothing short of amazing and makes this a thoroughly engaging history of the early campaigns of the Revolutionary War.