Killing England: The Brutal Struggle for American Independence by Bill OReilly

Killing England: The Brutal Struggle for American Independence Reviews

• 
  Jim Brown

  This is another great book written by O'Reilly and Dugard. It may be the best yet. It is a history book written almost like a novel. Not as yet finished but on this Sunday with all the negative press about the NFL and not standing for the National Anthem, I had to post this. As I read what American Patriots endured, yes endured, and how thousands died to fight the British, I am even more sickened by what the privileged NFL players and NBA players and now MLB players are doing and not doing. I suggest that before someone criticize this early post, they read the book FIRST! It is both an amazing and very instructional read.
  
  I have read all of O'Reilly's books and Killing England is the best of them all. It is a book that for me was very hard to put down. O'Reilly laid out in great detail how the Founding Fathers of our nation where mere humans with great traits and flaws alike. How America was created by a lot of very difficult and at times torture by those fighting for our independence.
  
  I love England but in all honesty was shocked to learn about how the British at that time treated prisoners of war. In 2017 it is just hard to understand how one human being could be so cruel to another but then look at the world today - not much has changed since 1776 in that regard.
  
  My test of a book: Will I read it again - probably. Do I recommend it for others? ABSOLUTELY! Would I buy it as a gift? ABSOLUTELY!
• 
  Susan Crowe

  Awesome as always! Now I have to wait another year for the next one.
• 
  Jeanette

  Others have said it better. Such an enthralling read for the uphill struggle that these people had to form a new nation, and leave the Old World continent's dictates to financial ownership of the New World, that and much else in structures of government too, behind.
  
  This particular book is not my O'Reilly favorite, but I do think it has the most minutia about these incredible peoples' early lives and physical reality in it too. Way beyond the battles, the fights for autonomy, the necessities to find connection within the colonies to each other. All of the individual placements are very fine cut here.
  
  This taught me more about Washington and Franklin particularly than I had know. And I had read many volumes about and by them previously. So that is saying something.
  
  All of that footnote information- it is sometimes hard to incorporate! And the continual present tense as if it were an audio for film, that is urgent, but at the same time it grates on me after a while in reading. Yet it DOES portray how deep the desperation and outlooks were at numerous junctures. Such against the odds combinations of men's perplexities and skills that managed to pull the impossible off. And it truly WAS a real long shot. That Washington continued to underplay and wear that blue uniform before the throngs managed any centralized direction and was not that vocal, but always IN SIGHT. What a lesson. Not for the tech age that kind of powerful marketing- but so important then to have a level head coupled with such stubborn resolve to slog through and eventually succeed, regardless of what it took.
  
  It's always surprised me, every time I read it- that Washington and Jefferson both NEVER crossed the seas. And how Franklin and Adams took all the ocean time. No little thing in those days at all.
  
  I absolutely love how O'Reilly and Dugard always include the purely physical descriptions and ailments, and in that era's reality for transport and health. All of those dead babies too- all of them. And nearly every 30 something having buried at least a pair. Tough cookies and did they need to be too.
• 
  Carolyn Fitzpatrick

  I did not want to read this book but it was a book club selection and I decided to give it a chance. It is so awful I do not think it actually merits the label of "history." It is closer to "fan fiction." I am a former AP US History instructor and have an MA in US History (specializing in the Early Republic) and O'Reilly's version of events is ridiculous and frustrating. Why?
  
  1) Unsubstantiated dramatic details:
  This is a pet peeve of mine in popular non-fiction in general. No sources are cited and sensory details are added to provide sensationalism. O'Reilly conjectures about what people are wearing, smelling, thinking, remembering at a specific moment, with no effort to document how he could possibly know this. In addition, torture and death are described in lurid terms, on the level of a Stephen King novel. Almost every chapter ends with a single sentence that is supposed to create suspense but just made me roll my eyes. And a lot of the suspense is blown out of proportion. Ben Franklin's falling out with his son is summarized as: “Those who cross him will pay a price," as if he is naturally vengeful instead of reacting to a very specific situation - his son choosing loyalty to the British over loyalty to his father.
  
  2) Lack of nuance:
  Language choices are used to portray historical characters in an intentionally two-dimensional way, against for sensationalism.
  - Beaujeau has "gone native" compared to British and colonial troops
  - Indians (no cultural specifics beyond that) are provided with no motivation for killing whites other than just being really good at killing whites, while the colonists are praised as good fighters because they are "protecting their land and families." Only in the footnote does it mention that both Indians and whites took scalps, sometimes as official colonial bounties.
  - Says Jefferson stayed home because he was too much of an introvert to enjoy French court – ignoring that that he would have a good time there in just ten years.
  - Ben Franklin's avuncular relationships with women being portrayed as dirty as possible.
  - Washington achieved his success through “ambition, marriage, and hard work.” (As opposed to slavery and land speculation.)
  - “Board of Associated Loyalists” is described in an endnote as a terrorist group dedicated to “murdering patriots in cold blood.” They concentrated on military targets, not patriot civilians.
  - It makes it sound like loyalists were the only ones refusing to take prisoners, when both sides were equally brutal in the South.
  
  3) Constant Fridging of Women:
  Women are presenting this book only as breeders, rape victims, or love interests. The only exceptions are a single line by Abigail Adams (you know the one) and patriot women who run businesses alone during the war. Rape is by far the most common event for women. It certainly happened in wartime during this era, but in this book's storyline rape a plot device included to show either how bad the bad guys are or to provide the real protagonists (men) with vengeance as a motivation. Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson gets several paragraphs about her sacrifices and work as a nurse, only to die a tragic death too young and be revealed as the mother of Andrew Jackson - and the source of his hatred of the British. Prostitution comes up a lot too, and is described as though there are professional prostitutes and then there are decently employed women, with zero blurring of that line in spite of the pressures of wartime.
  Women are usually faceless even when their relationship is used to depict a man in either a positive or negative light: Washington as a "stallion," while a particular British general is a seducer of Indian women (which is a humor viewed with skepticism by historians).
  
  4) Slavery as no big deal:
  Usually history books about the American Revolution devote at least some time to examine why white colonists who supported the slavery of black Americans were so anxious to describe themselves as metaphoric slaves to the British. This book mentions that colonists believe taxation without representation to be slavery without any discussion of why colonists were using slavery as a metaphor while practicing literal slavery. When slavery is mentioned, it is as a natural fact of life in the colonies instead of a divisive element.
  - Washington is nominated as general because he is from Virginia and southern colonies need persuading. Why they need persuading is left unsaid. (Because they, like the Caribbean colonies, depend on British troops to prevent slave rebellions.)
  - The author spends more time convincing us of that Washington never committed adultery than attempting to clear Washington of the well-documented charge of cruelty to slaves. Meanwhile via a footnote we are assured that Washington refused to whip his horses and checked on their well-being daily.
  - Mentions Washington's dentures (even though his first set of partials weren't made until AFTER the war) and doesn't mention that they were made of the teeth of his slaves.
  - The only mention of Washington’s slaves is in a footnote, where it says that a series of fires made the widowed Martha Washington fear they were “restless” so she freed them. Does not mention this restlessness was justified, especially since Washington had repeatedly promised his slaves freedom upon his death but then failed to do in his will.
  - When describing Martha Jefferson: “More unusual is that she is the half sister to six Monticello slaves” – Is he suggesting that slave owners impregnating female slaves was unusual? Or that her half sisters remained on the plantation instead of being sold away?
  - Robert Hemings is referred to as Jefferson's "mulatto slave boy Bob" instead of by his proper name and relationship (Martha Jefferson's half brother).
  - Jefferson is in general described like Ashley from Gone with the Wind – the ideal plantation owner - whose slaves are "well fed" and give cash incentives and rarely physically punished. "Well fed" is not how I would describe a diet of cornmeal and salted meat. He put children to work in his nail factories as young as 10 and used overseers to make sure those factories were profitable, and was aware that whippings were used to do this. Cash incentives were only given to the slaves at the top of the pecking order, who were used to kept the other slaves in line.
  
  5) Flat out incorrect information:
  - In the depiction of the FR-IN War, the rape and murder of noncombatants by Indians is portrayed as a normal and natural thing. Actually it was unusual for Indians to kill women and children, unless they were too slow to keep up during the return to camp. At most they would be mutilated and left to be rescued, as a terror tactic. Doesn't mention that England won the FRIN War in part due to an alliance with the Iroquois. If Indians are not bloodthirsty killers, they have no part in this story.
  - Charlotte, consort of George III, is casually described as of “African lineage.” This has never been seriously considered by historians, as it rests only on a single portrait out of many and her very distant PORTUGUESE ancestry. His footnote also mentions a poem that describes her as of the Vandal race, apparently unaware that the vandals were a Germanic people, not African.
  - Ben Franklin's trial in England is wrong on three counts: It wasn't him who diverted the mail (the letters were delivered by an anonymous source), the letters were published by Sam Adams (not John Adams), and they were published as a whistle-blower action (they showed that Hutchinson was misrepresenting the actions of rebels to get an increase in salary).
  - The trial of Thomas Hickey also is wrong in multiple ways: No evidence of an assassination attempt was put forward at Hickey’s trial, just alleged by a single historian 100 years later. The "witnesses" at his trial were just his accomplices, who testified against him in order to get their own charges dropped. There are also unnecessarily juvenile and medically incorrect descriptions of what happens when someone is killed by hanging.
  - The cat-o-nine-tails is not the origin of the phrase "the cat's out of the bag."
  - The explanation of the Yankee Doodle line "and called it macaroni" is complete nonsense.
  - The claim that people did not bathe in the 18th century is false, and comes from listicles floating around online, not academic sources. People didn't use tubs but took sponge baths, went to public baths, and swam in lakes and rivers. We have lots of recipes for soap from this era and know they used it.
  - "Many English believe Americans to be cannibals." There is ONE mention of this by a Hessian soldier which was exaggerated by Mason Weems.
  - The story of Washington threatening to sink boat during retreat – This story doesn't appear until the the mid-19th century, and the person cited as an eyewitness did not actually join the army until three months after the battle.
  - Hessian boys did not all register at age seven and begin training at 16. Many careers made people exempt. Otherwise men 16-30 and over 5’6 were AVAILABLE for military service. Discipline was not worse than other jobs, or other armies. Being in the mercenary corp was a prestigious job and paid well.
  - The author makes it sound like in 1780 the British suddenly decided to take the fight to the South in spite of Washington's army being doomed in the North. The British did NOT suddenly decide to go south in 1780. They had attempted to win the South beginning in 1775. They stepped up their southern campaign in 1778 because Washington had SUCCESSFULLY held them off in the North and they knew that French aid was on its way. The attempt to take Charleston in the book is actually the SECOND attempt to take Charleston. After the first attempt the British bailed and left Southern loyalists to their own devices, so it isn't surprising that they had even worse luck trying to get loyalists to rise up later.
  - Describes Francis Marion as showing respect for his Loyalist prisoners, when Marion is known for terror tactics and reprisals among Loyalists. Cornwallis observed, "Colonel Marion had so wrought the minds of the people, partly by the terror of his threats and cruelty of his punishments, and partly by the promise of plunder, that there was scarcely an inhabitant between the Santee and the Pee Dee that was not in arms against us."
  
  There are so many great histories of the American Revolution out there. This is not one of them.
• 
  Merritt Phillips

  I really don't like Bill O'Reilly so I almost didn't read this book. Glad I could convince myself that it must actually have been written by his co-author Martin Dugan. Anyway, I really like this book as like other reviews said, "It's a Cliff Notes version" of the Revolutionary war. Things that I learned or learned in more detail from this book:
  1) The war was actually only won once the French committed their Navy and Army to ensure the battle of Yorktown was a win for the Americans. This broke the back of the English army and after 5 long years of war the English parliament turned against King George and stopped funding the war. We owe France a huge thank you for that.
  2) The French only came into the war due to Benjamin Franklin's negotiations and due to the American army actually winning a the Battle of Saratoga due in large part to the leadership of Benedict Arnold
  3) Baron von Steuben, a Prussian trained soldier (who also happened to be gay) was very key in teaching military discipline to the American army and practicing proper hygiene, without him the war would likely have been lost. Lafayette also helped.
  4) The last 3 years of the war were largely fought in the South (after reaching a type of stalemate in the North) and the battle of Yorktown was in fought in Virginia. (I thought it was somewhere up near New York. Duh!)
  5) John Paul Jones actually did most of his fighting near England (somehow I thought it was off the coast of the US). He only managed to defeat the superior English warship Serapis by the fact the two ships collided and Jones arranged to tie his sinking ship to the British ship and then win the battle by hand to hand type combat. All this happened within view of the English coast then he and his crew managed to escape in the Serapis to Amsterdam. What a gutsy guy!
  6) Benedict Arnold never paid for his treason instead eventually become a general for the British fighting against the Americans once the war moved south. After the war he went back to England. Not sure if this is true but the authors theorize that he needed money to impress his new wife and that is why he decided to become a traitor. (Women get a bad rap again!)
  7) The English officer who actually got plans for attacking West Point, the fort that Benedict Arnold was commanding, got caught with the plans and a pass signed by Benedict Arnold. He wound up getting hung for being a spy since when he was caught he was out of uniform. He only got caught because he had to haggle for many hours with Arnold over the price for his treason (the original British offer was not enough) thus instead of being able to sneak back to his lines at night he went in the day which was his undoing.
  
  I could go on, but the book is very readable. I appreciated the detailed maps that helped explain the battles and maneuvers. First book in the past 3 years I couldn't put down and read in about 3 days.
• 
  RM(Alwaysdaddygirl)

  4 stars.
  
  
  🇺🇸🦋
• 
  Lauren

  This one is my top 5 favorite book in the Killing series!
• 
  John Magee

  As far as history books, O'Reilly's "Killing" series are all extremely entertaining. Although O'Reilly has a well-earned reputation for conservatism, those who don't agree with his political commentary could gain much from his well-researched and footnoted "Killing" series and Killing England is just the latest in his apolitical "Killing" series.
• 
  Jay Schutt

  I received this book as a gift, and in that case, felt obliged to read it. It was something that I normally would have passed over. I usually read books on this subject about specific events or people involved in those events in order to get the most information possible.
  This book was a gloss-over of the American Revolutionary War era, but I found that, in some instances, it was surprisingly very informative. A quick, good read if you are looking for a basic review of the period.
• 
  Christopher Backa

  While I learned a few bits of trivia this book is really a cliff notes version of the revolution. It’s a good read but it doesn’t go too in-depth. It does cover some things people are familiar with like valley forge and it also tells the real story behind the film The Patriot. It’s a good starter book
• 
  Sandy Kershner

  Very good and there is a lot of things that you're not taught in school. Just amazing what the patriots had to go through.
• 
  Kimberly

  I had very high hopes for this book based on reviews, however, I was extremely disappointed within the first 3 chapters. The book is poorly edited (several sentences and half sentences repeated in just the first chapters); the author switches tenses often and inconsistently; and, it is difficult to tell when the author takes liberty with filling in the gaps of the story. I recently read Nathaniel Philbrick's "Valiant Ambition" which I found to be much better written. I abandoned this book and took all the other Killing ..." series books off my to-be-read list. There are many good books about the American Revolution such as the Philbrick book, "George Washington's Secret Six" by Brian Kilmeade, and the little-known "Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes" by Christopher Hibbert. I just could not continue reading "Killing England" knowing that there are so many other great authors that can tell the stories. I think Simon Winchester and Nathaniel Philbrick have spoiled me.
• 
  Jeri

  Having read many books about the Revolutionary War, what stands out about this book is how READABLE it is. Told from the points of view of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George the Third, Mr O'Reilly weaves the threads of so many disparate stories into one clear narrative. The timing of major events and the motivations of the salient characters were described and explained with patient thoroughness. Very nicely written! Highly recommend.
• 
  Rob

  If you haven’t tried one of O’Reilly’s “Killing” books, this one’s a good place to start. (Relax, these books are written by Martin Dugard, an outstanding researcher.) Lots of hidden gems about people, places and incidents involving the Revolutionary War that most of us never knew. It’s unfortunate that we often don’t understand or appreciate just how narrowly we won our independence from Britain. “Killing England: The Brutal Struggle for American Independence” is a nice refresher.
  
• 
  Collette Bakken

  Excellent Read
  
  
  
  It should be read in civics class if they still
  exist, an interesting
  honest look at our hard won United States
• 
  Mike (the Paladin)

  Historically you'll not find a lot new here though there are places you'll probably come across things mentioned that are not often main subjects. Of course that will depend on how much history you've read, I suppose.
  
  I'm somewhat of a history buff (my minor) and have read quite a bit on the Revolution and Revolutionary period. This is an interesting and well done read and I can recommend it.
• 
  John Boyne

  O'Reilly and Dugard do it again with another excellent addition to the Killing Series. The author's dramatic writing on this very important time period in our history will keep you engaged through the whole book. I thought the author's focus on Benedict Arnold was also interesting, adding to the drama of the betrayal even though in the end it didn't result in much in terms of the prosecution of the war. I highly recommend the book to Revolutionary War fans as its a pretty easy ready and good summary of the military actions that resulted in the founding of our nation.
• 
  Carol Storm

  Bill O'Reilly is not my favorite type of guy, but this book was amazing! It's not really one continuous history of the American Revolution, it's more like a highlights reel -- he works in the most heroic exploits of everyone from Alexander Hamilton to John Paul Jones to Swamp Fox Francis Marion. The chapters on Benedict Arnold were incredibly suspenseful and poignant as well.
  
  I would actually like to read more books like this!
• 
  David Steele

  Another winner in O'Reilly's "Killing" series.
• 
  Ed

  Armed with a BA in American History, I thought I knew everything there was to know about the American Revolution. I quickly realized how deficient my knowledge was after reading Bill O'Reilly's brilliant new book "Killing England". It focuses on the incredible courage and tenacity of the founding fathers herculean efforts to structure a new nation comprised of individual states while clearly understanding they would be unceremoniously hung for treason if the revolution failed.
  
  The American Revolution has always been a dynamic story for me and Bill O'Reilly's takes it to another level. Let's face it, history can be dry reading but the compelling backstories of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are an extraordinary exception. Written in a non-pedantic style, the six year military campaigns were described in the readable prose of great military fiction.
  
  The impact of the Tory and Patriot civilian population were interesting in that survival could also be a long struggle. Invading British troops in Philadelphia and New York created refugee families foraging for food and shelter in the countryside. The British campaigns in the southern colonies later in the war were marked by British Army's unrestricted warfare against the civilian population.
  
  It's vitally important for young Americans to understand the sacrifices made to form the United States we cherish, especially now in this age of revisionist history which actively disparages our founders as "white supremacist's". I still adhere to one of the basic historical fallacies which logically states: "Don't judge historical figures by today's standards" for quite obvious reasons. This outstanding "readable" history of the American Revolution should be required reading to graduate from all American High Schools!
• 
  Diana Long

  I've read a number of books that have focused on the War for Independence or American Revolution and so I debated on reading this one. I'm glad that I did because it does not pertain to certain parts or certain people but as a complete work. The reader follows the reasons for breaking with England or in the beginning wanting to be recognized as not mere colonists but citizens of England with the same rights as subjects regardless of location. There are always two sides to every story and the book gives the reader both of them, so we find ourselves in England with the King and government debating about the colonists and also the colonists debating whether or not to break with England. The King refused to acknowledge the “olive branch” and declared war on the colonies and once The Declaration of Independence was signed there was no going back...Victory or Death. As we follow the war, some of the battle scenes as described are horrific and I find myself flinching...the carnage was unbelievable. With stakes so high is it any wonder that choosing sides was so difficult and painful as many friends and families would forever be divided. Men like Brig. General Francis Marion “The Swamp Fox”. John Paul Jones, Baron von Stueben, Lafayette as well as many more and how they helped America win the war are features of the book. Excellent History Book and well worth reading even if one thinks there is no more to learn. Highly recommend, well researched and written.
• 
  Jay Pruitt

  O'Reilly/Dugard are exceptional writers. I've found all of the "Killing..." books to be very interesting. I especially like the way the authors point out issues and facts not commonly discussed in traditional history books. Also, if you dig into the footnotes you find info that in many cases is more fascinating than the text itself. For example, the Gin & Tonic drink, one of the most popular in the world, was started when English colonists in malaria-ridden locations would add gin to improve the taste of tonic water (which contains quinine, a prophylactic for malaria).
  
  Compared to McCullough's "1776", I found Killing England to be more entertaining overall. Whereas 1776 goes into far greater depth, but is a bit dryer (fact based).
• 
  Brad Harris

  I really enjoyed this book. Not being a big fan of the author when starting this book I was happily surprised that I noticed absolutely zero political bias whatsoever in the information presented by this book. It was very impartial often giving Britain credit when due, being critical of American short-comings and mistakes, and honest in the story telling.
  It provides a high level of details and doesn't get into the specifics of battles too much. However it does wonderfully cover the naval battle between John Paul Jones and Captain Richard Pearson where the HMS Serapis was captured.
  Overall I would recommend this book to anyone who loves learning about the Revolutionary war, or who doesn't know much about it and wants to get an understanding of the war and the players.
• 
  Jenna

  Another captivating history book from the Killing series and my favorite to date. The dramatic writing style kept me intrigued at all times. The footnotes are always a nice touch to these books. This book gave me a new appreciation for the beginning of the US & a better understanding of the main players. Highly recommend.
• 
  Jean

  Basic history of the American revolution looking at it from both sides. Well written and easy to read. Includes some little known facts which I found interesting.
• 
  BAM the enigma

  Audio #121
• 
  Colette

  This book is a quick overview of how the Americans overcame King George and England during the Revolutionary period. It was good to learn more about the later years of the war, the betrayal of Benedict Arnold, the roles of Lafayette and von Stuben, and how France participated. I think we focus so much on 1775 and 1776 that we forget about the rest of the war. Unfortunately, I felt like there was a lot missing. I am not sure what the main purpose of this book was. I think this could be a good introductory book. It was too broad for my taste.
  
  The first thing I noticed was that it was written in the present tense. This really grated on my nerves. This book was my first in the "Killing" series. I don't know if the rest are written in this way. If they are, and they are as broad as this one, maybe I won't read them.
• 
  Alex

  They say history is written by the victors. This book reads as if it had been written by an 11 year old. The plot line jumps around sporadically with no continuous thread, the author frequently changes tense (often mid paragraph) and the book is littered with poorly backed up opinions presented as fact.
  
  It’s a shame as I was looking forward to learning about this part of history and was willing to take on the American bias with a pinch of salt. Sadly the writing style is insufferably poor. I hate to quit on a book but I’ve given up after 3 chapters.
  
  Perhaps it suffices as a whistle stop tour of the revolutionary war although personally I can’t white believe others have rates this book so highly.