Virginia's Western War: 1775-1786

Rating:
Summary: History of the Revolutionary War in the West
Review: Contrary to popular belief, the Revolutionary War was not fought all on the East coast. Some of the hardest fought and bloodiest battles were in the western country, territory that would one day become Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio, but during the Revolution were considered part of Virginia.

"Virginia's Western War 1775-1786" tells the history of these interesting and important events. Beginning with the settlement of Kentucky by Daniel Boone, Richard Henderson, James Herrod, and company, the western frontier is soon engulfed in fire and blood as the Indians, opposed to white expansion into their lands and supported by their British allies who hope to attack the rebellious colonies on their vulnerable western border, launch a massive campaign to destroy the settlements. With action at Wheeling, Boonesboro, and Harrodstown, the western frontiersmen are forced to esentially fend for themselves against the hostile tribes and British rangers as the Continental forces back east cannot afford to spare money or troops to defend them. In 1778 Virginia launches a campaign led by Gen. George Rogers Clark to reduce the British posts on the Mississippi and Wabash Rivers, which ultimately, following his extraordinary victory at Vincennes, succeeds in winning virtually the entire Northwest Territory for the Americans. Despite these victories, Indian depredations would continue in this region until 1786, followed by the retaliatory strikes by expeditions under Clark, John Bowman, and Benjamin Logan, thus earning the region's macabre name of "that dark and bloody ground".

Despite the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Revolution never truly ended in the west, with Indians continuing to fight the Virginians over the Ohio country into the 1790s. This book helps to shed some light on a little-known but fascinating aspect of the war that is too often overlooked.

Rating:
Summary: History of the Revolutionary War in the West
Review: Contrary to popular belief, the Revolutionary War was not fought all on the East coast. Some of the hardest fought and bloodiest battles were in the western country, territory that would one day become Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio, but during the Revolution were considered part of Virginia.

"Virginia's Western War 1775-1786" tells the history of these interesting and important events. Beginning with the settlement of Kentucky by Daniel Boone, Richard Henderson, James Herrod, and company, the western frontier is soon engulfed in fire and blood as the Indians, opposed to white expansion into their lands and supported by their British allies who hope to attack the rebellious colonies on their vulnerable western border, launch a massive campaign to destroy the settlements. With action at Wheeling, Boonesboro, and Harrodstown, the western frontiersmen are forced to esentially fend for themselves against the hostile tribes and British rangers as the Continental forces back east cannot afford to spare money or troops to defend them. In 1778 Virginia launches a campaign led by Gen. George Rogers Clark to reduce the British posts on the Mississippi and Wabash Rivers, which ultimately, following his extraordinary victory at Vincennes, succeeds in winning virtually the entire Northwest Territory for the Americans. Despite these victories, Indian depredations would continue in this region until 1786, followed by the retaliatory strikes by expeditions under Clark, John Bowman, and Benjamin Logan, thus earning the region's macabre name of "that dark and bloody ground".

Despite the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Revolution never truly ended in the west, with Indians continuing to fight the Virginians over the Ohio country into the 1790s. This book helps to shed some light on a little-known but fascinating aspect of the war that is too often overlooked.

Rating:
Summary: LOOK ELSEWHERE
Review: This could have been an important book about greater Virginia's westward expansion during the Revolutionary Era, a place and time with lots of information inaccessible to most general readers and historians. Instead, the authors present a hodgepodge of bad history, narrow research, and distracting bias.

The "history" in the book is dismal, replete with errors, exaggerations, and bias. The errors started early with a wildly inaccurate map labeled "The thirteen colonies, 1776" (xiii); only coastal Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island could be considered accurately drawn for that time. And the errors continued to the closing pages, where the authors mistakenly date the last native American/Indian uprising east of the Mississippi as 1814 (228), thus omitting the three Seminole Indian Wars (1817-18, 1835-42, 1855-58), among other conflicts.

Possibly, the book's problems stem from inadequate research. The authors make some unusual claims and attribute lots of quotes without citation. The bibliography is both dated and slim. It has very few unpublished primary sources, which means readers probably will find very little they haven't already known about. There is only one article from an academic journal and there are no dissertations, despite that one author is a university professor. Further, there are some obvious missing sources, like Fischer & Kelly's Bound Away: Virginia and The Westward Movement. This widely reviewed book covers much of the same ground and was published two years before Virginia's Western War. As a consequence of scanty research, readers lose one of the traditional benefits of "local" histories: new sources for their own research.

One widespread problem with the book warrants special notice. The bias is incredible. The triumphalist version of Virginia's role in our country's founding is breathtaking. Except for Virginia, the new United States probably would have been limited to only east of the Appalachian Mountains. And, although many new states ceded territory to the new federal government, the authors considered Virginia's claim legitimate, but New York's claim "illegal" and land claims by Connecticut and Massachusetts are not even mentioned

Another illustration of bias is the authors' labeling. African Americans/Blacks are identified only as "Negro" (e.g., 63, 69, 72, 106, 184), which I don't think I've read before in a book published after 1975. The authors usually use "Indian," though occasionally they use "squaw" (69, 202) and "savage" (184). Similarly, Loyalists are named "Tories" or "turncoats" (xxxv), and Scots are called "Scotch" (xxxv, 66). All of these labels are antiquated. Even more, they imply an incredible bias. But the authors explicate their bias with statements like "the majority [of slaves] remained loyal to their masters" (xxxviii) which supposes slaves had a choice and freedom of movement. And throughout the book, battle atrocities by Indians are detailed while atrocities by whites are hardly mentioned.

By the way, bias is not about political correctness, it's about the lack of objectivity and balanced story telling. Even more, here, the use of antiquated labels suggests that the authors are, at best, unfamiliar with books written after the 1970s-and that shortchanges all readers.

All in all, readers interested in the Revolution, westward migration, pioneering, and/or Virginia and Kentucky history should look elsewhere.

Rating:
Summary: Suffers from poor editing, defensiveness
Review: Why would the authors of this book, in their preface, write: "Some may feel we used too much minutiae, but details make true stories interesting." Very defensive, a preemptive strike against potential critics that ought to warm readers up front that what one is about to get is a chronicle of events rather than interpretive history. Why else complain, as the author's do, that previous studies of this ilk focus too much on class, or politics?

The "Introduction" to this book is hardly that--it is a chapter, and should have been designated as such. It is not an intro in the traditional sense of providing a brief synopsys of what we're about to read. I blame the editor for this, as he/she ought to have corrected this error.

The illustrations chose are in some cases, well, not really appropriate for an adult book. See pgs 112, 57 and esp. page 131 for examples. Several of the maps or graphs really do not explain much and should have been interpretated, e.g. pg xxiii.

For those wanting to read about the trans-Appalachian settlement in the mid to late 18th century, they will find much to like here, but this is certainly not a scholarly study or the last word. The fact that 2 of Allen Eckert's books appear in the bibliog ought to alert the scholar to this.....

Rating:
Summary: Suffers from poor editing, defensiveness
Review: Why would the authors of this book, in their preface, write: "Some may feel we used too much minutiae, but details make true stories interesting." Very defensive, a preemptive strike against potential critics that ought to warm readers up front that what one is about to get is a chronicle of events rather than interpretive history. Why else complain, as the author's do, that previous studies of this ilk focus too much on class, or politics?

The "Introduction" to this book is hardly that--it is a chapter, and should have been designated as such. It is not an intro in the traditional sense of providing a brief synopsys of what we're about to read. I blame the editor for this, as he/she ought to have corrected this error.

The illustrations chose are in some cases, well, not really appropriate for an adult book. See pgs 112, 57 and esp. page 131 for examples. Several of the maps or graphs really do not explain much and should have been interpretated, e.g. pg xxiii.

For those wanting to read about the trans-Appalachian settlement in the mid to late 18th century, they will find much to like here, but this is certainly not a scholarly study or the last word. The fact that 2 of Allen Eckert's books appear in the bibliog ought to alert the scholar to this.....