However, the Indians are seen by the author as noble savages living in a state of nature, whereas the white settlers west of the Proclamation Line (a temporary expedient) are seen as low life, savage, ruffians, and not worthy of being called white. Amazingly, the author contends the Indians did not as a rule kill innocent women and children. No? Then I guess all those wives and children of settlers who were butchered or tortured to death after capture didn’t exist. He only mentions in passing the murder of a woman and her newborn baby that precipitated the Gnadenhuetten Massacre and doesn’t mention that the prepetrators were tracked to Gnadenhuetten. John Carpenter had seen them, but they fled Gnadenhuetten before the whites arrived but after leaving evidence of their being in the village.

The author makes liberal use of the explosive term (today) of racism to tar the settlers. The Americans were either poor squatters staking a claim to the land by right of having improved it (like the Israelis would claim in the 20th century), or wealthy and greedy speculators (the author mentions George Washington and Patrick Henry as two examples) using their political connections to obtain the land for almost nothing. He touches on the most interesting facet of the subject by showing that the revolution started in the West through the settlers defying the British in 1774, and offers up the question of whether the revolution was driven from the people upwards, or from the colonial elite downwards. This is an interesting question, and the author should be able to answer it without making both parties seem excessively venal.

Indeed, the author’s lack of scholarship and understanding of the times are clearly evident in his attitude toward the Western Pennsylvania settlers and warfare. Evidently the author had never experienced combat (probably not even military service), and does not comprehend that ferocity in battle leads to victory and potential survival. He scolds the whites for their savagery in fighting, as if observing decorem and polite niceties while one is fighting for one’s life is the correct approach (this sounds like current questions over the rules of engagement in Iraq.) He also mentions the predominance of Irish names in the West, but not once mentions the term “Scotch-Irish”, the people who are primarily the focus of his group. Presbyterian and rebellious, these people made up almost 70% of the Continental Army and Pennsylvania Militia, and counted George Rogers Clark, Daniel Boone, Simon Kenton, Daniel Morgan, Anthony Wayne, and many other notables of the era among their numbers. The author is either unaware of the impact of the Scotch-Irish, or wishes to re-write history to meet his own agenda, whatever that might be. It was the Scotch-Irish that provided the bulk of the settlers west of the Proclamation Line, fighting the Indians in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, the Carolinas and Georgia. The author should know this and have made this easily identified group the focus of his writing. The British at the time generally defined the American Revolution as a Presybterian revolt, fueled by emigrants from Ulster and the lowlands of Scotland. Why can’t the author?

In short, the author writes on an interesting subject, but takes a modern revisionist view that negates the value of his study. His treatment of George Rogers Clark is particularly troubling, and he even fails to describe the extraordinary feat of Clark’s march across Illinois to attack Vincennes. Apparently if he decides an individual is evil, it is impossible for him to include evidence to the contrary. The book is also a boring read as the author constantly repeats himself as if he needs to reach a certain number of pages. His work is only recommended for readers who are already intimately familiar with his subject and can put the author’s biases in perspective.

Mann is great at creating tense and explosive stories with a military background. The chemistry between her couplings is usually sizzling, and she often has a secondary romance in the background. For the most part, this follows her formula, though I really didn’t care for Sherry. She and Sean were great lovers, but not so great spouses. Why she would choose a nomadic existence after such a bad experience with her hippie parents, and to take her children into unsafe conditions was another sore point. I never felt like they resolved the discrepancy in their relationship either. A sudden turnaround two pages before hopping into bed just didn’t seem plausible. Read this one for the romance between Rodeo and Keisha, the woman who gave him his infamous call sign.