Join us this Sunday at 7pm LIVE on our Facebook page as we focus on ERW’s first 2026 book release, The Atlas of Independence: John Adams and the American Revolution by Dr. Chris Mackowski. Mackowski will discuss why Adams led him to write his first “Rev War book” and the much over looked impact Adams had during the war years. We will discuss some of the more “unique” relationships Adams developed through the war time years and of course his friendship with Thomas Jefferson and his close relationship with his wife Abigail.
To order a copy of “Atlas of Independence” visit Savas Beatie’s website at: https://www.savasbeatie.com/ . Again, this will be a LIVE broadcast on our Facebook page, so grab a drink and join in on the chat!
Book Review: Gabriel Neville, The Last Men Standing: The 8th Virginia Regiment in the American Revolution (Warwick, UK: Helion and Company, 2025). $55. 460 pp.
Regimental histories can be dry recitations of facts piled one on top of another to amass a complete source of information about a military unit and its actions. Alternatively, they can be narratives full of colorful characters and exciting events, but from necessity such histories often leave much out as a distraction from the heartbeat of a story. Given those challenges, Gabriel Neville has done something remarkable in writing the history of the 8th Virginia Regiment in The Last Men Standing. He has collected an immense amount of material, which could easily overwhelm a narrative, but presents it over time as the story of the 8th Virginia unfolds. By organizing many of the facts in a series of charts, tables, and illustrations rather than integrating them into the text, Neville ensures that the story moves along without being buried in minutia. It is an impressive accomplishment.
Virginia’s 8th Regiment was raised in Virginia’s near frontier, a vast tract of land that today starts in northeastern Tennessee and runs to the northeast, through the Shenandoah Valley, West Virginia, and southwestern Pennsylvania all the way to Pittsburgh. The men were first or second generation immigrants, largely German or Irish, who had originally flocked to the British colonies in order to carve out a path free of Europe’s stagnating stratification. The regiment’s most famous member was its colonel, Peter Muhlenberg, the famous “fighting parson” who legend has it completed a sermon and then marched off to war directly from the pulpit. (Neville explores the legend and its embellishments.)
Sometimes known as the “German regiment” given its large population of Germans, the 8th had the distinction of being the only Virginia regiment initially armed with rifles. Most of the regiment fought under Washington across New Jersey in 1776 and early 1777 and then throughout the Philadelphia campaign, including the battle of Monmouth. Some, however, were siphoned off to help defend South Carolina and were engaged at Sullivan’s Island in July 1776. It is as if the regiment was everywhere at once. Skilled riflemen were always in demand. At the same time, The Last Men Standing relates events associated with recruiting, promotions, transfers, organizational adjustments, command relationships, and so on. This can create a storytelling problem. Because so many things are happening at the same time, a reader can get easily confused. But, if we persist, The Last Men Standing becomes an immensely rewarding read.
Neville tackles the challenge by telling the regiment’s story from the bottom up. We meet future recruits as boys and begin to understand their experiences growing up. He moves forward by widening the aperture to address the communities in which they lived as tensions grew with the mother country, their experience as recruits, the organization of the regiment as Virginia mobilized for war, and their experiences of combat. A conventional regimental history might have ended when the regiment disbanded and an epilogue describing or profiling the fates of individuals soldiers and officers. Neville goes beyond that. Several remained in service, either as Continentals or militia. Rather than epilogue, he continues the story by exploring how the veterans moved on with life. They shared some commonalities, primarily bounty lands in Kentucky. Remarkably, Neville has visited many of the Kentucky homesites for these accomplished veterans and tracked more than a few of them to their graves. The entire volume is blessed with a generous number of maps and illustrations that help tell the tale.
It’s clear from the get go that The Last Men Standing is a labor of love. Those familiar with Neville’s website, the 8th Virginia, which has since involved to cover Virginia at war, will not be surprised at the volume he has produced from years of research. It’s a top-notch book that honors the men who helped win a war and belongs in your Revolutionary War library.
Have you ever thrown a rock into a pond? The ripple effect spreads outward for quite a distance along the surface of the water. The American Revolutionary War had the same effect in the late 18th century world as that pebble did to the body of water.
Historian, author, and University of Maryland professor of history, Dr. Richard Bell, focused on those fringes with this publication, bringing them into focus and discussion that was much needed in the historiography. Indeed, this is a new must-have addition to the bookshelf of American Revolutionary Era publications. His book, The American Revolution and the Fate of the World aim to “trace the sinews of the great war from its familiar epicenter outward to all those corners of the Earth” in which the conflict affected (pg. 9). Bell’s unique background, as he describes it, being an “English-born, American trained historian” is optimal to tackling this type of endeavor. As he elaborates, he attempts—successfully this reviewer’s estimation—to peel back the “amnesia…that has its own unique form” respectively on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean when discussing the history of the American Revolution. Between the two main antagonists, Great Britain and the rebelling thirteen North American colonies, “the ways individuals and communities, then as now, are entwined” will be the central theme running like a current through his book (pg. 2).
How does Bell aim to accomplish this approach and subsequent goal? Through seven core arguments, laid out briefly here. The American Revolution “stirred the mass migration and circulation of enormous numbers of people.” Second, the cost of the war was catastrophic, and victory was not certain for the patriots but a “highly contingent result of improbable choices and last-minute improvisations.” Naval power also played “an important key to military success” and “governments, soldiers, and civilians…often acted on the understanding that trade was power. The last two core arguments, patriot “struggle for self-determination stirred imperial authorities to increase oversight and security” on their remaining controlled territories and the American Revolution “was a conflict in which the call for liberty rang around the world as never before” (pg. 10).
Does he succeed? Admirably. By taking the reader through fourteen chapters that seem to be standalone essays but instead bring subjects usually forced to the fringes of histories of the period into focus. From female personas such as Molly Brant, the great leader for indigenous independence to using Peggy Shippen as the focal point for Loyalists and the throes of the great migration that followed the patriot victory in the American Revolution. From other exalted leaders, such as Baron von Steuben and King Louis XVI of France to ordinary citizens and the enslaved, trying to improve and sustain life during the conflict.
His astute insight and impeccable research acumen brings to life William Russell a privateer that might have some of the worst luck of any that sailed the Atlantic Ocean during the war to Bell, uncovering interesting snippets such as the twisted tale of tea. Americans are most familiar with the Boston Tea Party of December 1773, but did you know that by “the early 1800s, taxes levied on the tea trade had become a vital source of US government revenue and, ironically, “became a major contributor of funds to pay the nation’s war debts” (pg. 33).
Did you ever think of the central importance of trade to war? Maintaining colonies and trade routes that kept soldiers, sailors, and citizens fed and government coffers filled? Bell rightly traces the integral connection as “cargo vessels laden with Cuban gold, Barbadian sugar, Irish meat, and Dutch munitions bound together the conflict’s several theaters just as tightly as troops transports and naval fleets…” (pg. 360).
This was a whirlwind synopsis of Bell’s seven core arguments and a sneak peek into the dept of his research and viewpoints. He has filled in the foundation of those fringes of the American Revolutionary War era history. Like those ripples from that proverbial rock, there is still more to discover that have direct ties to the defining era of the American Revolution. One example that he discusses in need of further study is “in the 250 years since 1776, rebels, separatists, and state makers on every settled continent have crafted more than a hundred declarations of independence in imitation of the American original” (pg. 361). Another ripple, started by Bell, that can be explored more fully. The fate of the world rested with the tremors started by the American Revolution, and one can argue the fate of the world still relies on those same tremors of a 21st-century variety today.
Book Information:
The American Revolution and the Fate of the World Richard Bell Riverhead Books (Penguin Random House, INC), New York, 406 pages with images $35.00
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Evan Portman for this review.
Among the pantheon of America’s Founding Fathers, Robert Morris is a name rarely mentioned beyond circles of historians. However, Michael Aubrecht sheds light on this phantom revolutionary figure with his book The Letters of Robert Morris: Founding Father and Revolutionary Financier. His work represents the first time the primary sources of Robert Morris have been compiled in print.
The Letters of Robert Morris spans the financier’s political life from his time in the Continental Congress to his time in debtors’ prison at the turn of the eighteenth century. Morris’s correspondence provides a fascinating window into his public life. His recipients often include the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Some of Morris’s most fascinating correspondence comes from late 1776 and early 1777, during which the financier provided Washington’s army with much needed supplies. His letters to Washington during the Ten Crucial Days reveal the anxiety and trepidation that pervaded the fledgling United States at that time.
Also compelling is Morris’s role in establishing the Bank of North America and a new national currency, which he outlined to a letter to John Hanson, the president of Congress, in 1782. His frequent exchanges with individuals like Hamilton and Franklin about the bank and its expenditures highlight Morris’s financial acumen but also how much of his own personal wealth he was willing to pledge to the American revolutionary cause.
Overall, Aubrecht’s editorial approach is sound and tactful. He adapts hundreds of Morris’s letters the National Archives’ online repository. While many of these letters are accessible on the internet, there is particular value in assembling them in print as Aubrecht has. While an online repository can sometimes feel disjointed, a printed volume can help readers to make connections and allow the editor to exert a bit more influence over the narrative.
However, Aubrecht places Morris’s voice at the center of this volume, intruding little on the language and meaning of the original texts. Aubrecht occasionally inserts a missing word or clarifies a misspelling, but his methodology essentially allows Morris to speak for himself. Aubrecht also provides useful biographical information on his subject in the introduction as well as advocates for his importance as one of the Revolution’s most prominent financiers.
The collection could, however, benefit from a bit more contextual information, particularly in between substantial time gaps between letters. While most readers need no introduction to many of Morris’s illustrious correspondents, a brief paragraph providing the context of a set of letters could prove useful in providing a more detailed picture of Morris’s life. The collection could also make more liberal use of footnotes in defining key terms and antiquated language, as well as elaborating on some of the lesser-known people Morris mentions in his correspondence.
Regardless, The Letters of Robert Morris is a welcome contribution to the existing literature on one of America’s underappreciated Founding Fathers. Aubrecht’s selection proves to be a key asset to researchers and history buffs alike.
Information:
The Letters of Robert Morris: Founding Father and Revolutionary Financier. By Michael Aubrecht. Berwyn Heights, MD: Heritage Books, 2025. Softcover, 431 pp. $43.00.
As you settle into your winter holidays or looking for one more gift for that history enthusiast on your Christmas list (and speaking for fellow book-lovers, a late Christmas gift book is always appreciated), Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes you to join us for the return of Tom Hand, of AmericanaCorner as he discusses his second volume, America Victorious, Lesser Known Campaigns and Commanders That Helped Win American Independence.
Tom, who created AmericanaCorner in 2020, is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, Class of 1982, and a lifelong student and enthusiast of American History. He also sits on the Board of Trustees for the American Battlefield Trust.
During the Revelry on Sunday night, at 7 p.m. EDT, a special discount code (we have heard from our sources) will be offered for those interested in purchasing the book. Tom will also discuss upcoming book signings and other happenings at AmericanaCorner.
Tune in and end the weekend (and the last Revelry of 2025) with Emerging Revolutionary War and Tom Hand!
War Without Mercy: Liberty or Death in the American Revolution by Mark Edward Lender and the late James Kirby Martin is an enlightening and innovative look at violence and norms during the American Revolution. The authors waste no time getting to the point: they want to know why the war reached a point in which seemingly boundless levels of violence were embraced by all sides without regard to emerging standards of international law nominally intended to govern the use of force in warfare, collectively referred to as jus in bello, a Latin phrase essentially referring to the legal conduct of a war or justice in war. (Jus ad bellum refers to the legality of initiating a war. Collectively, they are key components of just war theory. Lender and Martin focus on jus in bello, particularly as it refers to legal or moral constraints on violence.)
War Without Mercy lays out the basic concepts of jus in bello as it was understood in the late 18thcentury. While historians often attribute the origins of modern international law to Hugo Grotius, Lender and Martin take Emer de Vattel’s landmark 1758 work “The Law of Nations” as the baseline text relevant to the American Revolution. Vattel offered limits on the conduct of military operations, clearly delineating concepts such as combatants, non-combatants, and proportionality. In general, he tried to narrow the scope of war so that it remained the domain of organized governments and outside the domain of broader society. Elites on both sides of the Atlantic had often read Vattel’s work, or were at least familiar with the ideas it contained, and War Without Mercy demonstrates that many of them sought to honor its principles, for moral, professional, and practical reasons.
That said, Lender and Martin argue that violence committed outside of the purview of elite-led revolutionary governments and the Continental Army (usually) characterized the war. The vast majority of fighting during the American Revolution occurred in small battles, skirmishes, and raids that resembled mob and gang violence directed at people out of uniform more than organized martial conduct. In that context, it routinely violated concepts of jus in bello. In addition to outlining earlier studies making that case, War Without Mercy examines the war in New Jersey, the western theater, the New York frontier, and the south. While those regions saw significant battles or campaigns, the day-to-day war was fought between small units of militia or irregulars with an occasional admixture of regulars or Continentals. In each case, Lender and Martin examine the escalation of events over the course of the war and the reasons each side tended toward “existential warfare,” essentially, war to the death in which the alternative to victory was total destruction. Given such high stakes, any constraints on means were self-defeating. No combatants could run the risk of losing the war by being charitable towards their enemies. Outrage sparked outrage. Thus, violence escalated like a ratchet as each side retaliated for perceived wrongs. It was a possibility several prominent patriots recognized before the fighting began. Indeed, James Lovell predicted it in his 1771 speech commemorating the Boston Massacre. War Without Mercy attributes the beginning of the cycle to the rebels, who quickly turned to intimidation, the threat of violence, and outright violence to silence loyalists and establish local political control as British colonial government collapsed.
One chapter examines Benedict Arnold’s raid on New London, CT. Lender and Martin consider the offensive and the Battle of Groton Heights, as the assault on Fort Griswold defending the River Thames was known, in the context of jus in bello. In general, despite the destruction of New London and the bloody results at Fort Griswold, they find the raid consistent with Vattel’s law of war. As a major privateering base, New London made itself a legitimate target of war and Arnold strove to limit damage to private property that did not contribute to the American war effort. The bloodletting at Fort Griswold was more the result of the fog of war, weak command and control, and the natural challenges of suddenly attempting to restrain men in the midst of intense combat. The New London raid, however, does demonstrate the blurring of lines between combatant and non-combatant, legitimate and non-legitimate objects of military operations, under the doctrine of jus in bello, as the war progressed and intensified. Lender and Martin liken it to the difficult decisions facing RAF Bomber Command during World War II, when it shifted from ineffective attempts to bomb specific targets to area bombing.
War Without Mercy is a must read. Revolutionary War library shelves are rife with biographies, battle studies, and political narratives. Fewer books place the American Revolution in the wider study of warfare and its evolution. By considering the war in the context of emerging principles of jus in bello and the rapid escalation to existential warfare, Lender and Martin are bringing a new analytical perspective to the study of the American Revolution. It’s a vital interpretation of the war’s nature.
Join us this Sunday at 7pm on our Facebook page as we welcome historian and author Gabe Neville back to Rev War Revelry. Gabe has just finished and published one of the most comprehensive Revolutionary War unit histories ever written. Focusing on the Eighth Virginia Regiment, Neville’s book titled “The Last Men Standing, The Eighth Virignia Regiment” is a must have for anyone’s library. We will talk with Gabe about his research, interesting tidbits of his book and what let him to this project.
This presentation witll be LIVE at 7pm on Sunday, August 24th. Tune in and share any thoughts or questions in the chat. Gabe is always a fun chat, so grab a drink and enjoy learning about his in depth research on the 8th Virginia Regiment.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian and reviewer Al Dickenson
No president has an easy job. But imagine holding the position of president immediately after undoubtedly the best president the United States has ever had.
That was John Adams’ conundrum. Additionally, it is the subject of renowned historian Lindsey Chervinsky’s new book, Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents That Forged the Republic. Initially released last year, in the midst of a politically fraught election season, Chervinsky places the modern world into a context we should all understand better: the history of the 1790s.
After a brief introduction regarding the Revolutionary War, the early republic, and George Washington’s presidency, readers are thrown into John Adams’ presidency. Federalists opposing Democratic-Republicans (commonly referred to as simply “Republicans” in Chervinsky’s text, as they referred to themselves), the Americans opposing the French, the North opposing the South, Federalists opposing Federalists: it seemed there could be no peace in the nation so split apart. Yet the nation stood for another 220 years. Why is that?
Chervinsky argues that the reason we are a nation today relies on how John Adams served his presidency, specifically the power sharing he enacted in his cabinet amongst Republicans (like Vice President Thomas Jefferson), Federalists (like Secretary of State Timothy Pickering), and Archfederalists (like Secretary of War James McHenry), the successful navigation of foreign affairs (see the ongoing French Revolution, specifically the XYZ Affair), and the peaceful transfer of power.
The final focus of Chervinsky’s book, Adams’ loss in the 1800 election, perhaps offers the most original outlook on Adams’ presidency. Being the loser of the election, and being the first incumbent president to lose an election, historians have often treated Jefferson a little kindlier than Adams. Where Chervinsky’s work shines, however, is in showing how these great, powerful men, the leaders of their respective parties, differed in how they saw power, and in how they wielded it.
Little scholarship focuses on Jefferson’s machinations to gain the presidency. Rarely researched are his Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which called for nullifying federal law, even though these ideas were eventually adapted into various Confederate causes and mentalities in the following decades. Nor are the essentially political and emotional blackmail Jefferson laid on Federalist members of Congress who refused to vote for him over Aaron Burr. Jefferson threatened the members of Congress with, in essence, secession of Republican states if they did not pick a president soon, given that this was the only election in American history where the House of Representatives made the presidential selection. The dirty tricks of politics manifested themselves in this election, including smear campaigns against Adams and unfounded warnings that the Federalist Party would forego the will of the people and simply appoint a new, Federalist president.
Compare this to John Adams, who, while certainly desirous of a second term, largely laid low during the turmoil occurring on the other side of the Capitol. When presented with suggestions to keep himself as president, he refused. When asked to annul the election, Adams refused. When asked to stand for himself and campaign in the final months of the election season, and during the contingent election in the House between Jefferson and Burr, Adams refused and stayed silent. He did not cling to power, nor did he view his opinion better than that of the American people who voted for a Republican and the House members who would choose the next presidency. Though he was a lame duck president in every sense of the word, he held true to his convictions of propriety in politics, though privately he fumed.
In this way, though history often sheds more light on the winner, makes historians wonder what other ways “losers” of an election may have impacted our politics and history. An interesting study question for any intrigued historian, but one that Chervinsky shows is vital to understanding American history and modern politics alike.
Fort Mercer. Fort Mifflin. The Whitemarsh Campaign. Names of battles and maneuvers that “receive but scant attention in the literature of the American Revolution.” Until now. Award-winning author and historian Michael C. Harris returns to Emerging Revolutionary War to discuss his latest book.
Finishing the trilogy, started with Brandywine, continued with Germantown, and now Fighting for Philadelphia. Just released by Savas Beatie this month!
Enjoy this pre-recorded “Rev War Revelry” and get a synopsis of why this book is needed on your bookshelf. Join Emerging Revolutionary War Sunday at 7 p.m. EDT.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Riley Sullivan, Professor of History at San Jacinto College in Houston, Texas.
While many might be familiar with famed engagements at places like Bunker Hill, Saratoga, and Yorktown during the Revolutionary War, few are familiar with the actions that took place near New London, Connecticut in September of 1781. However, for the people of Connecticut, the battles that took place near Groton Heights and New London have been immortalized as a campaign highlighted by treachery and massacre. Largely, this interpretation has been adopted due to the commander of the British forces who engaged in this raid, Benedict Arnold.
Perhaps no other name in American History brings about more scorn than that of Benedict Arnold. Having defected to the British cause late in the Revolutionary War, for Americans at the time–and even today–he is viewed as a modern day Judas. However, with such infamy ultimately comes much misinterpretation of this historical figure and the events he was involved in. In Matthew E. Reardon’s recent study The Traitor’s Homecoming, he attempts to undo much of this misinterpretation. Drawing on previously unused primary sources, Reardon constructs an engaging argument that challenges the traditional view of Arnold’s conduct in the New London raid.
To construct this narrative of the New London raid, Reardon attempts to place into context the setting of the New London raid. By this stage in the war, the conflict in New York had been a state of stalemate for the previous few years. However, with Generals Washington and Rochambeu’s combined Franco-American forces on the move, the British commander in the region, Henry Clinton—informed by faulty intelligence as Reardon demonstrated—was convinced that an attack on New York was imminent. As a result, to divert Washington’s attention away from a possible attack on New York, Clinton authorized Arnold to lead a contingent of British troops to attack the vulnerable Connecticut coastline.
New London made the ideal target for a British raid as it had been a hotbed for commerce and privateering for the Patriot cause. To conduct such a raid, Clinton turned to Arnold as he was both a native of Connecticut and familiar with the New London area. Largely only being contested by militia behind a number of forts that guarded approaches to both the town and the Thames River, Arnold’s combined force of Loyalists, Hessian Jaegers, and British regulars made quick work of the Patriot militia throughout the campaign. Even with New London in their hands, outside events–notably Clinton’s realization that Washington was moving on Cornwallis at Yorktown–led to Arnold having to relinquish his gains. However, with the high casualties suffered by both sides during the raid, coupled with the burning of much of the town, the events “cemented Benedict Arnold’s reputation for villainy.” (x)
When considering the traditional interpretation of Arnold’s raid on New London, Reardon makes it clear throughout his work that a “distorted interpretation” of the events had emerged (ix). From veterans to the Groton Battle Monument at Fort Griswold Battlefield State Park, the events that took place in Connecticut in 1781 have been enshrined as a massacre of Connecticut militia at the hands of Arnold. However, when looking at contemporary letters, diaries, and later pension records, Reardon demonstrates that there are some noticeable gaps within the traditional account of this campaign. In particular, when examining the death of Colonel William Ledyard–who was alleged to have been killed while attempting to surrender–Reardon concluded that through these sources, the traditional accounts accepted proved to be inconsistent with contemporary accounts of the campaign.
But, even with these inconsistencies, this is not to say that the fighting at Fort Griswold and the subsequent burning of New London was less than brutal. Reardon wrote that “the immediate reaction of the community was shock” and that “for many it was beyond comprehension.” (339) To no surprise, this sheer shock of the fighting coupled with Arnold’s involvement led to this distorted narrative of the campaign.
Through the examination of contemporary letters, diaries, and later pension applications, Reardon is able to reconstruct in great detail the events of Arnold’s New London raid and offer an unbiased narrative. By providing these fresh sources in The Traitor’s Homecoming, Reardon effectively builds on the existing literature of the subject and demonstrates how public perception can lead to the misinterpretation of historical events like that of the New London raid.
Details:
Matthew E. Reardon, The Traitor’s Homecoming: Benedict Arnold’s Raid on New London, Connecticut, September 4-13, 1781. Published by: Savas Beatie LLC. Summer 2024. 448 Pages.
*Check out Emerging Revolutionary War’s YouTube page as well for a “Rev War Revelry” interview with author Matthew E. Reardon.*
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 