Naval history | Seattle Book Mama

Valcour is the story of an audacious battle at sea during the American Revolution. It took place at the same time as George Washington’s attack at Trenton and was led by General Philip Schuyler, (former British officer) Horatio Gates; and a capable sea captain named Benedict Arnold. It was the name of the latter that drew my attention, given the ignominy with which his name has been associated in U.S. history and culture.

My thanks go to NetGalley and St. Martin’s Press for the invitation to read and review. Perhaps they would have asked someone else had they known I’d be five years late, but I’m reviewing it now.

It’s a brave, almost foolhardy notion for the Colonies to declare independence from Great Britain, which at the time was unquestionably the greatest military power on the planet; but to fight on the water, facing down the British Navy, seems almost like a death wish. The Patriots—as those seeking independence were called—knew the area far better than the British did, but that, and their motivation, were really the only true advantages they had. And to be clear, they didn’t actually win the three-day Battle of Valcour, but sometimes it’s enough to hold one’s own and avoid annihilation, and that’s what they did.

Arnold was a brave man, as well as gifted and at the time, heroic. I had never read anything by Jack Kelly before this, and as the narrative continued to wax enthusiastically about the deeds and ideas of Benedict Arnold, I wondered, for a time, whether this book was something that was commissioned by Arnold’s descendants with the goal of rehabilitating his image. But at the end, I realized that it was not.

Arnold was a brilliant strategist, and he suffered mightily, as did all involved, during the periods of deprivation this campaign brought about. There were times when they had no ammunition; there were other times when they had limited supplies, but no food. Imagine being reduced to eating soap, which back then was made using lard! The weather, the illness—which killed more of them than combat did—and more than a year spent away from their families must have been demoralizing; yet they never surrendered, and ultimately saw independence.

So, why then, at the very end, did Arnold turn around and betray his fellow fighters to the enemy? It’s a small thing, and though the years and circumstances are different, it reminds me of the motivation of the secret source that betrayed the Nixon administration during the Watergate scandal. Both Arnold and Deep Throat were bitter men that were passed over for promotions that they expected, and had every right to expect. On February 19, Congress promoted five servicemen to the rank of major general, which was the highest rank apart from that of George Washington. Washington himself wrote to Arnold and said, “I was surprised when I did not see your name in the list of major generals.” Furthermore, this was no oversight; it was a snub dealt by small minded men playing politics. Rather than be placed subordinate to men that he had previously commanded, Arnold resigned. What else was he supposed to do? But rather than leave it there, he took one step further, and that step was betrayal.

Kelly is a capable writer, and his research passes the sniff test. Because I had delayed for so long, I checked out the audio book from Seattle Bibliocommons to accompany and speed my way through the digital review copy I’d been given. Narrator David Colacci does a fine job.

I recommend this book to those interested in the American Revolution.

	This was my Mother’s Day gift from my spouse last May, and boats are HIS thing. I thought, Psssh. RIGHT. But since I strive to be a scholar of the American Civil War and the navy is about the only stone (as opposed to gravel, metaphorically) that I’ve left unturned, I started in. No, I FELL in. First of all, it has to be recognized that McPherson is undeniably the USA’s #1 living Civil War scholar. His status as professor emeritus at Princeton has been well earned. When he decides to delve into some aspect of Civil War history, he finds his primary sources wherever he has to go. So, though he is an old man, he went on those waters. He walked where soldiers trod in order to get to the forts he, too, visited. He believes that in order to understand how any battle unfolded, on land or sea, you’d better get a sense of the geography. This is what a serious scholar looks like. Then he tracked down the letters and journals of the key players. Once his tools were out and he was ready to go, he stated his bold thesis and then methodically proved it. And it is something of a startling thesis to me. He says that without the navy’s contributions, the war could not have been won. When Grant says it, one wonders if it was a diplomatic gesture toward the seamen who so tenaciously pounded away during the siege of Vicksburg. How many times have you heard someone who is receiving an award say, “I would not be here tonight if it were not for the support of…” (whoever)? When McPherson says it, I sit back and say, “Whoa.” He takes his case and spins it into an enjoyable narrative, for those interested in the American Civil War. There are maps with just exactly the right amount of detail to prove the point. Photographs are clear as a bell (remember that this is the first U.S. war in which photography was available, though not so much for action shots…but for a naval battle? Certainly!). So although my husband never reads anything on this site, Honey? Sorry to have misjudged you. And I forgive you for stealing it back to read when I was thirty pages from the end. Do you forgive me for stealing it back? You can finish it now if you like! And to other readers who are Civil War buffs: why are you still on this page? You should be on another screen, ordering the book!

This was my Mother’s Day gift from

my spouse last May, and boats are HIS thing. I thought, Psssh. RIGHT. But since I strive to be a scholar of the American Civil War and the navy is about the only stone (as opposed to gravel, metaphorically) that I’ve left unturned, I started in. No, I FELL in.

First of all, it has to be recognized that McPherson is undeniably the USA’s #1 living Civil War scholar. His status as professor emeritus at Princeton has been well earned. When he decides to delve into some aspect of Civil War history, he finds his primary sources wherever he has to go. So, though he is an old man, he went on those waters. He walked where soldiers trod in order to get to the forts he, too, visited. He believes that in order to understand how any battle unfolded, on land or sea, you’d better get a sense of the geography. This is what a serious scholar looks like.

Then he tracked down the letters and journals of the key players. Once his tools were out and he was ready to go, he stated his bold thesis and then methodically proved it. And it is something of a startling thesis to me. He says that without the navy’s contributions, the war could not have been won.

When Grant says it, one wonders if it was a diplomatic gesture toward the seamen who so tenaciously pounded away during the siege of Vicksburg. How many times have you heard someone who is receiving an award say, “I would not be here tonight if it were not for the support of…” (whoever)?

When McPherson says it, I sit back and say, “Whoa.”

He takes his case and spins it into an enjoyable narrative, for those interested in the American Civil War. There are maps with just exactly the right amount of detail to prove the point. Photographs are clear as a bell (remember that this is the first U.S. war in which photography was available, though not so much for action shots…but for a naval battle? Certainly!).

So although my husband never reads anything on this site, Honey? Sorry to have misjudged you. And I forgive you for stealing it back to read when I was thirty pages from the end. Do you forgive me for stealing it back? You can finish it now if you like!

And to other readers who are Civil War buffs: why are you still on this page? You should be on another screen, ordering the book!