It was extremely painful to read through the first chapter. He is an okay writer and he can write consistently for a page or so. However, I don't think he can see history between facts and I don't think he can separate important events from unimportant or analyze causality. And he does not seem to be a materialist. Which hurts double after reading McPherson-the-closet-marxist. I think I'll try to read another chapter or so and if he is going the way he does now, I don't think I'll be able to go any further. second chapter of the glorious cause read better. He might have just thrown everything-and-the-kitchen sink into the first chapter. I remember McPherson did similar things. My idea on this is that since the subjects (civil war/revolution) are generally overstudied people are probably doing research now on topics like the influence of English cow manure on the attitudes of King George towards the colonies. And the synthesizing historians had to make a passing references to this modern subjects. I am still plodding through Middelcauf (sp?). The serious action has not started yet. Presently, he covers the non-inmportation of British goods campaign by American merchants of early 70ies. The read has all the excitement of reading the period newspapers (where it was probably compiled from). It has the plot, the drama, but one gets the feeling that it is all minor, yet something important is amiss. oh well. Actually, by the tedium of it, he reminds me of (as yet unfinished) the "Making of English Working Class" guy. Presently, the British troops are quartered in New York and Boston, the residents chafe under "foreign" occupation. I wonder how much of the initial discontent was "Andersonian". What if American bureaucrats saw their career routes going all the way to the house of commons? That would have prevented the formation of separate American identity. Essentially, the burgers/bureaucrats started the unrest under "taxation without representation" slogan and the merchants joined in. The merchants don't like paying taxes in general (funny how capitalists are that way) but the slogan legitimized their discontent. If I remember right, one of Anderson's main points was the formation of nation states in the colonies was precipitated by curtailed careers of the local bureaucrats. They did not generally continue to the mother country and the most that they can achieve were the positions in the colony. Moreover, the key positions were given to the appointees from the metropolis. His examples were Mexico, Brazil and Malaysia, I think. This led them to the creation of the colonial national identity as separate and opposite to that of mother country. The newspapers then popularized the idea and the bourgeoisie used it to pursue its own interests. If Anderson is to be believed, British American colonies are a prime example of such national identity formation. The governors and tax collectors were appointed from the outside, local functionaries did not go to England to serve in the parliament. Hence the bureaucrats and, with the help of newspapers, the rest of the populace, started to think of themselves as Americans and consider Britts to be outsiders, "their" taxes as unjust and "their" army as a "foreign" occupation force. In substance, it seems that Great Britain was treating its American colonies as just that: colonies existing to enrich the mother country. I think in early 18th century one of the British prime-ministers said so in these exact words. The triangular trade was heavily slanted towards profiting the metropolis. The bureaucrats in America were appointed from the mother country to enforce the uneven playing field because London did not trust the indigenes (pardon my French) to do the deed. Hence, the separate identity was essentially forced on the Americans by the British themselves. BTW, another annoyance of Middlekaupf(sp?) is that he does not cover the french and indian war at all, even though it has direct relation to the r*volution, especially when the hostilities started. BTW, Washington, a paragon of humility, immediately after the Lexington&Concord incident, started to show up in uniform at the second continental congress. How cheesy. It's like John "Reporting for duty" Kerry brandishing his purple hearts. BTW2, in selecting the pretext for their uprising the colonials were rather puerile. They got huffy about the tea-tax (that they paid before the Townshed(sp?) acts anyway) while not complaining about the tax on molasses and other restrictions that were essential to enriching the Great Britain at the expense of the colonies. Okay, noted as a potential read. I am still plodding through MiddleKauf(sp?). He is currently describing French involvement in the war. I am less pissed at him as I used to. But still, he is such an arsehole. Did you catch it how he claimed that medieval armies were composed of rabble (he really used the word) -- the urban underclass and peasants and given gentry as officers. He repeats the stupid misconception that the Hessian troops were mercenaries. They actually weren't. In either Geneva convention definition of the term or in any kind of moral sense. They were rented by the German princes to the English king. They themselves did not receive mercenary wages. I don't think either error is excusable for a modern respectable historian. One of the annoying features of Middlekauf is that he does not provide the introductory descriptions. He does not describe the weaponry of the Revolutionary war. He does not describe the customs of the americans of that Day, how they dressed, what their daily run was like. He does give a quick description of biography of the major figures. He does not give a feel of what it was like to fight a battle during that time. Actually, I got the feeling that he does not like describing battles. He quickly gives the stats and moves on. The continentals expelled the British from the South. Middlekauff is pondering as to why the Americans fought. Before I go on as to why he sucks there, I wanted to note that, paragon of impartiality, Middlekauff calls pro-british militia loyalists while rebel militia -- patriots. Anyhow, with the right wingers fascination with individualism, Middlekauff is singularly unable to comprehend what drove the rebels to stand and fight. He reminds me of the present Pope: grew up in a library but have not a clue about the real world. I am still finishing up Middlekauf. They are about to sign a piece treaty in France. M. discusses how all British commanders in America lacked strategic vision. With all M.'s apologies I am suspecting he is a closet loyalist. The read has all the excitement of an extended encyclopedia entry. I have finished Middlekauf. Or rather I stopped on the last pages as he sort of petered out into incoherent rambling. Did you notice his disgusting rant on page 637 to the effect that the revolution was made by the people who had something to lose besides their lives (i.e. burghers and landowners) and therefore it is somehow better? What a bigot. I am amazed that his ilk actually do serious history research.