Iron Tears: America's Battle for Freedom, Britain's Quagmire: 1775-1783

by Stanley Weintraub

Book Overview

For generations, Americans have been taught to view the Revolutionary War as a heroic tale of resistance, exclusively from the perspective of the Continental army and the Founding Fathers. Now, in... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0743226879
• ISBN13: 9780743226875
• Release Date: January 2005
• Publisher: Free Press
• Length: 400 Pages
• Weight: 1.17 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.2" x 6.6" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

"Mrs. Britannia's" Colonial "Quagmire"

In the Preface, Weintraub poses a question to which he then responds within the narrative of his brilliant book: "How did relinquishing America look from the remote European side of the Atlantic?" More specifically, his extensive research focuses on the perspectives of King George III, Lord North and his cabinet, both houses of Parliament, and admirals and generals as well as London's journalists, brokers, bankers, and traders during what became "Britain's Quagmire" (1775-1783). The American Revolutionary War was certainly not popular among a majority of those on both sides of the Atlantic. In fact, only about 40% of those in the colonies favored the war and an even lower percentage supported it in England. Meanwhile, as General Washington struggled to command the dwindling Continental army and "by strength of personality held the fractious colonies together," a peacemaking process was underway in Paris. With regard to the title of this book, Weintraub explains that Edmund Burke (MP for Bristol and an outspoken critic of colonial policy) had talked of "iron tears" being shed as America "slipped away from imperial grasp." He adds that "'Iron tears' suggests musket shot and cannonballs when fired as much in sadness as in anger. Was the inevitable separation worth a war?" Given the uncertainties in both America and Europe, it is debatable whether or not a colonial victory was "inevitable" but separation certainly was (for all the reasons listed in detail in "The Declaration of Independence") and the question remains valid: Was it worth a war? Weintraub draws upon a wealth of research resources to include responses to that question by a wide and representative variety of the war's observers as well as participants. Non-scholars such as I will especially appreciate Weintraub's provision of sufficient historical information within which to establish a context for major developments and a frame-of-reference for them during an eight-year period. However, to his credit, he does not overwhelm his non-scholar readers with an excessive number of facts, dates, etc. In this regard, Weinbtraub demonstrates the skills of a master storyteller. I also appreciate his inclusion of sixteen illustrations between pages 238 and 239 (e.g. portraits and engravings of King George, George Washington, Lord North, Lord George Germain, Edmund Burke, Benjamin Franklin, and Charles, Earl Cornwallis) as well as two supplementary sections - "Participants" (pages 332-345) and "Source Notes" (pages 347-361) -- which broaden and deepen the narrative's frame-of-reference even more. Congratulations to Weintraub on a consistently interesting, often entertaining exploration and analysis of certain dimensions of the War for Independence which, for whatever reasons, had previously been neglected. Those who share my high regard for this volume are urged to check out Terry Golway`s Washington's General: Nathanael Greene and the Triumph of the American Revolution, Richard M. Ketchum `s

An intriguing surprise

I voraciously read books on the American Revolution and that wonderful, rich pantheon of personalities and talent that the United States was so fortunate in having themcoming together at the same time -- Washington, Jefferson, Adams, the much underestimated and noble Mason, Franklin, Hamilton and the rest. I thought that I knew the field pretty well. This book is a big surprise and a welcome one. As a Brit (who has lived in the US for almost forty years), I knew very little of just how actively so many of the real good guys in Britain opposed the war; it reminded me in many ways of the opposition to the Vietnam War. The Amervcian Revolution is not part of mainstream British learning and very much something to forget or gloss over (as, I regret, the McCarthy era has become in the US). This really is a first-rate book, well-written and convincing. It basically shows that the whole mess was George III's obsessive determination to punish the revolting, ungrateful and unworthy colonial upstarts -- it's a good explanation of why monarchies should be declared a historical dead end. The book is well worth reading just for the way it brings alive the professionals like Clinton, the Howe brothers, and Burgoyne who tend to be faceless and cardboard characters in most world that look at the Revolution entirely from the US perspective. It has a real villain -- Lord Germain -- among the most dangerous of Britain's many dangerous upper-class twits. It adds useful and vivid details about Franklin, who is better known for his work in the French court than for his equally skilled politicing and propogandering in London. It's a shrewd book. I think it is also indispensable for anyone interested in the history of the Revolution. (And, yes, this Brit agrees that the right guys won.

A unique perspective

I don't know what the British press might be saying about "Iron Tears" but I doubt it could be negative. Professor Weintraub has taken a look at the American Revolution and presented us with the flip-side to the coin, that is, the plight of the Britons--rich and poor--who were dependent on trade with the colonies. And Professor Weintraub approaches the suffering and frustration of these people in a sensitive and, yet, logical way. The only "bad guy" emerging out of all this is George III who is depicted as particularly obsessed with showing the colonies who's the boss. (By the way, the colonists are not portrayed as the little innocent angels our [U.S.] history books have claimed they were. They were, in some cases, particularly criminal and not exempt from violence. Weintraub is also correct in depicting the ingratitude of some colonists toward the Redcoats who protected them during the French-Indian war. Still that does not absolve the British from breaking into the homes of innocent people, eating all their food, taking whatever tools, blankets, etc., they wanted, and, in some cases, sexually abusing the women.) On the downside, Weintraub tends to linger too long on the colonies' objection to the "taxation without representation" issue. But, as one reads further into the book, Weintraub s-l-o-w-l-y brings in the other elements of British oppression which are listed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and which led to the conflicts at Lexington and Concord. All the while, an outraged Parliament and British public could only watch impotently. It takes a while for this book to strike a balance, but still, Weintraub deserves credit for showing us what the common folk and the politicians of Great Britain were thinking and feeling before, during, and after the war, something I was pretty ignorant of. And as it moves away from its earlier preoccupation with the taxation/representation issue, it brings the real issues of the American Revolution into better focus through both British and American eyes. Rocco Dormarunno, author of THE FIVE POINTS

America's Freedom, Britain's Quagmire...

I've been reading biographies of the famous men (and women) associated with the formation of the United States such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. "Iron Tears" is unique in that it tells about the American Revolution from the British point of view using quotes from the main players and providing fascinating historical background. I highly recommend it. Some snippets follow... many more in the book! King George III played a MUCH stronger role than I had ever realized... he was the hawk's hawk refusing to let go of the colonies to the bitter end. Benedict Arnold made a mint from his betrayal but was never received by King George nor trusted by his British peers. Spies for both sides were EVERYWHERE and military messages were routinely intercepted and published in the papers. The war dragged on for five years and the terms of peace for another two years. Washington's main accomplishment was to keep an army in existence at all times and avoid being wiped out. British citizen's patience became exhausted from increased taxes to pay for British troops overseas, and the rising fear of war with France, Spain, and Holland. Not to mention a wide-spread sympathy for the American cause! None of the British commanders in the Americas seemed competent or inspiring... but all were promoted or given peerages! The only hero from Britain's point of view was Major Andre, who'd suborned Arnold and was caught, tried, and hanged.

Definitely not an introductory book

Although I still believe the British perspective on the US War of Independence is a fascinating and important subject of which most Americans are totally ignorant, I had the hardest time motivating myself to finish this book. I'm not sure what it was, but the author seemed to drift from topic to topic, person to person, without establishing a good story line or providing sufficient background information. It is also very annoying that the author frequently talks about British political cartoons, without actually showing them. There definitely are moments that were eye-openers for me, such the degree of resistance to starting the war, Howe's timidity when it came to using all out force,and the doubt from the very beginning that Great Britain could successfully subdue the rebels. Also, I was surprised by the degree of corruption in the British partliament and the relatively unrestrained, and free-wheeling press, not unlike today's. The chapter "Moderately Feeding the War" is interesting because it describes how the British rulers and people consciously held back in their support for the war, seemingly implying that they didn't want to waste scarce resources on a lost cause. And last, I liked the title "Iron Tears" taken from an interesting outspoken British critic of the war from the start, Edmund Burke, who, like many British commoners, greatly admired the colonial rebels, yet believed with sadness that losing the colonies would be inevitable--the "Iron Tears" refers to cannon and musket shot. Perhaps, the book is meant for those who already know a bit about British history, and then I could imagine it being more interesting. But too many times Weintraub goes off into details of British parliamentary proceedings, which, frankly, loses my attention. The real story is still the US war and not the British parliament. I don't think I'm at fault because David McCollough, in the first 20 pages of his book 1776, focuses on the British perspective and does a fantastic job. Regardless, Weintraub's research and fact-finding appeared to be first-rate. If I could tell the author how to improve this book, more narrative background on British 18 th century politics should be provided, and he should always be relating what is going on in Great Britain with how it affects the War in the rebellious colonies. In the future, I may also reread sections of this book, but for now, I need a break, I'm shot. I'm reading humorous short stories by Russian author Nikolai Gogol. I never knew that a Russian author could have such a wonderful sense of humor and writing style.