<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Phenomenal
Review: A terrific telling of one of America's first heroes. Dan Morgan and his kind are the ones who helped birth America. Higginbotham's writing is slightly dry, but the content more than makes up for it.
A simply outstanding story!
Rating:
Summary: Dan the Man: Frontiersman, Patriot, Tactition, Leader
Review: Dan Morgan epitomizes the rough-and-ready individualist who made America.A frontiersman from the Shennandoah Valley, Morgan knew a hard early life that steeled him for the physical challenges of his Revolutionary War service. A wagoneer in Gen. Braddock's Expedition, Morgan endured 400 lashes after tangling with a British soldier (he claimed only 399 and loved to regale listeners with the fact that he still owed the British one miscounted lash). His physical endurance and prowess was combined with the ability to lead men and a superior ability to plan and manage battlefield tactics. He has been described as one of the Revolution's best battlefield commanders and this book gives plenty of examples to support that claim. Morgan's service to our Republic was remarkable. Although a failure, his part in the Quebec expedition helped make possible one of the most grueling campaigns military history. Traveling overland through the spine of backwoods Maine, Morgan helped lead outnumbered American forces to a wintry showdown that could have produced a fourteenth colony in revolt against the Crown. In fact, Morgan stood at the moment of victory; had his desire to keep driving into the city after breaching its under-defended backside been followed, the city could have been captured. As it was, hesitancy on the part of other American commanders led to defeat and Morgan's capture. He had to endure a period of imprisonment until paroled. That parole was a costly one for the British. It allowed Morgan, when exchanged, to play his decisive roles at Saratoga and Cowpens. Morgan's ability to lead riflemen and read the battlefield was crucial to Gate's success at Saratoga (which led to French recognition, support and the resources to chance complete independence). Morgan's later brilliance at Cowpens, site of the famed double envelopment of Tarleton's British Legion, led to the series of events that ended with Cornwallis being pinned against the James at Yorktown. Cowpens, arguably the most decisive American victory of the war, was brilliant. Morgan, as the American commander, threaded strategic understanding, leadership (he had to persuade bayonetless American militia that they had a crucial role to fulfill in the battle and would be allowed to retire once fulfilling it), battlefield planning and tactical control to produce a victory that is rightly studied to this day. A character, Morgan is one of the men who made the Revolution a success. This highly readable account develops the man, his character and his military personae in introducing the modern reader to a historic figure who needs to be more widely appreciated for his great effect on the success of our founding.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-researched; Good, Not Great
Review: Daniel Morgan is one of the most interesting personalities of the American Revolution. He did not, as the author seems to believe, however, win the war single handed. He did, though, fight and win the only battle of annihilation at cowpens in January 1781, executing a double envelopment of a British force of equal strength possessing more reliable troops, regulars, than he did. In this victory, though, he was ably assisted by some of the best combat officers in either army, John Eager Howard, and William Washington, cousin of the commmander-in-chief. This biography is helpful, informative, but not definitive. The underlying premise, which is more pronounced in the author's other work on the Revolution, is that the militia contributed more to the winning of the revolution that they are given credit for. This is incorrect. the militia was, as Washington stated, a broken reed. The American Regulars, the Continentals, were the mainstay of the military effort. They stayed and fought, and sometimes lost, after the militia had taken 'French leave' (left early or gone AWOL). Still, Morgan deserves his due, which he certainly gets in this volume, and then some. One of the better American commanders, he ranks with John Stark, Nathaniel Greene, Otho Holland Williams, and Baron de Kalb as one of the best battlefield commanders of the war, and a superb leader of men. This book is recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Well-researched; Good, Not Great
Review: Daniel Morgan is one of the most interesting personalities of the American Revolution. He did not, as the author seems to believe, however, win the war single handed. He did, though, fight and win the only battle of annihilation at cowpens in January 1781, executing a double envelopment of a British force of equal strength possessing more reliable troops, regulars, than he did. In this victory, though, he was ably assisted by some of the best combat officers in either army, John Eager Howard, and William Washington, cousin of the commmander-in-chief. This biography is helpful, informative, but not definitive. The underlying premise, which is more pronounced in the author's other work on the Revolution, is that the militia contributed more to the winning of the revolution that they are given credit for. This is incorrect. the militia was, as Washington stated, a broken reed. The American Regulars, the Continentals, were the mainstay of the military effort. They stayed and fought, and sometimes lost, after the militia had taken 'French leave' (left early or gone AWOL). Still, Morgan deserves his due, which he certainly gets in this volume, and then some. One of the better American commanders, he ranks with John Stark, Nathaniel Greene, Otho Holland Williams, and Baron de Kalb as one of the best battlefield commanders of the war, and a superb leader of men. This book is recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A Wonderful Biography of One of the Revolution's Greatest
Review: Daniel Morgan, barring Benedict Arnold and Washington himself, was the most important U.S. officer of the Revolution. His riflemen were crucial in the victories at Saratoga, Bemis Heights, and Cowpens, and very nearly won at Quebec. This biography of Morgan details his life from his beginnings as a wagoner to his death in 1802 at his mansion, "Saratoga." Don Higgenbotham's work is readable and never boring, and countless primary sources are cited.
Rating:
Summary: A Wonderful Biography of One of the Revolution's Greatest
Review: Daniel Morgan, barring Benedict Arnold and Washington himself, was the most important U.S. officer of the Revolution. His riflemen were crucial in the victories at Saratoga, Bemis Heights, and Cowpens, and very nearly won at Quebec. This biography of Morgan details his life from his beginnings as a wagoner to his death in 1802 at his mansion, "Saratoga." Don Higgenbotham's work is readable and never boring, and countless primary sources are cited.
Rating: 
Summary: Rebuttal to Kiley's review.
Review: I haven't read this book as yet, but I do have it on order. I'm writing this just to take issue with Kevin Kiley's review. I agree that the regulars were the mainstay but to imply that the militia was of no value by taking one quote from Washington referring to them as a broken reed is a great injustice. It was Washington himself who revised his early opinion of the militia after taking Boston by declaring that the army at Boston was of great value. Now if you consider the time period, the army of seige around Boston was almost entirely made up of militia. The Continental Congress had only recently recognized that army and appointed Washington as the commander in chief. It wasn't until Washington had been up there for a while and after a letter writing campaign to get funding that Washington even had a "war chest" (money) with which to go out and enlist regulars. The folks at "Breed's" Hill (Bunker) were mostly militia. The people who first lay seige to Boston after following Pitcairn back from Concord and Lexington were militia mixed with civilians. The battle of the cowpens was only one of a series of battles conducted in the Carolinas with the purpose of keeping Cornwalis out of Virginia and keeping his forces from joining up with Clinton's. If it wasn't for the militia there wouldn't have been much of a force after Gage almost lost his entire command at Camden. Again, the regulars were the mainstay but I don't believe the outcome of the war would have been the same without the militia.
Rating:
Summary: Rebuttal to Kiley's review.
Review: I haven't read this book as yet, but I do have it on order. I'm writing this just to take issue with Kevin Kiley's review. I agree that the regulars were the mainstay but to imply that the militia was of no value by taking one quote from Washington referring to them as a broken reed is a great injustice. It was Washington himself who revised his early opinion of the militia after taking Boston by declaring that the army at Boston was of great value. Now if you consider the time period, the army of seige around Boston was almost entirely made up of militia. The Continental Congress had only recently recognized that army and appointed Washington as the commander in chief. It wasn't until Washington had been up there for a while and after a letter writing campaign to get funding that Washington even had a "war chest" (money) with which to go out and enlist regulars. The folks at "Breed's" Hill (Bunker) were mostly militia. The people who first lay seige to Boston after following Pitcairn back from Concord and Lexington were militia mixed with civilians. The battle of the cowpens was only one of a series of battles conducted in the Carolinas with the purpose of keeping Cornwalis out of Virginia and keeping his forces from joining up with Clinton's. If it wasn't for the militia there wouldn't have been much of a force after Gage almost lost his entire command at Camden. Again, the regulars were the mainstay but I don't believe the outcome of the war would have been the same without the militia.
<< 1 >>
| 
