October 25, 1940 – Benjamin O. Davis, Sr. Becomes the first African-American General in the United States Army

Benjamin Davis first entered the military service after high school, in response to the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898. In 1899, he enlisted as a private in the Regular Army, in a unit commanded by Lieutenant Charles Young, the only African-American officer serving in the U.S. military at that time. Young encouraged Davis’s ambition to become an officer, and helped tutor him for the test, which Davis passed in early 1901. On February 2, 1901, Davis was commissioned a second lieutenant of Cavalry in the Regular Army, and was sent overseas to serve in the Philippine–American War.


In September 1905, Davis was assigned to Wilberforce University in Ohio as Professor of Military Science and Tactics, a post that he filled for four years then, and again in later years, along with instructing national guard members. In the ensuing years he also served in Liberia, along the Mexican-U.S. border, and back in the Philippines.

Military.com, the largest military and veteran membership organization, reports:

Davis’s service as an officer with the famed “Buffalo Soldiers” regiment in the Philippines and on the Mexican border was exemplary, yet his subsequent assignments as a college ROTC instructor and as a National Guard advisor were far from the front lines. All of his postings, including duty as the military attache to Liberia, were designed to avoid putting Davis in command of white troops or officers.”

Davis was assigned to the New York National Guard during the summer of 1938, and took command of the regiment a short time later. He was promoted to Brigadier General on this day in history, becoming the first African-American general in the United States Army.

Brig. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Sr. watches a Signal Corps crew erecting poles in France, 1944

Brig. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Sr. watches a Signal Corps crew erecting poles in France, 1944

Davis became Commanding General of 4th Brigade, 2nd Cavalry Division in January 1941. Six months later, he was assigned to Washington, D.C. as an assistant in the Office of the Inspector General and on the Advisory Committee on Negro Troop Policies. From 1941 to 1944, Davis conducted inspection tours of African-American soldiers in the United States Army.

On November 10, 1944, Davis was appointed Special Assistant to the Commanding General, Communications Zone, European Theater of Operations. He was influential in the proposed policy of integration using replacement units.

On July 20, 1948, after fifty years of military service, Davis retired in a public ceremony with President Harry S. Truman presiding. He died on November 26, 1970, at Great Lakes Naval Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

As military.com suggests:

Davis’s slow, steady, and determined rise in the Army paved the way for countless minority men and women — including his son Benjamin O. Davis Jr., a West Point graduate who in 1954 became only the second African-American general in the U.S. military and the first in the Air Force.”

Benjamin O. Davis, Sr.

Benjamin O. Davis, Sr.

October 21, 1859 – John Brown Justifies His Actions at Harpers Ferry

On October 16, 1859 abolitionist John Brown led a small force in an attack on the Federal Armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. His stated purpose was to steal weapons in an attempt to rally and arm local slaves and abolitionist whites to his cause. He carried with him two documents denouncing slaveholders and emphasizing that citizenship should be guaranteed without respect to race or sex.

His plan was not well-conceived, however, and the raid was unsuccessful. Brown was wounded and captured by a force of marines led by Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee of the U.S. Army. Brown was tried, convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, and sentenced to be hanged.

A contemporary newspaper illustration showing the interior of the engine house at Harpers Ferry immediately before the door is broken down by US armed forces.

A contemporary newspaper illustration showing the interior of the engine house at Harpers Ferry immediately before the door is broken down by US armed forces.

Shortly after the raid, John Brown was interviewed by a group of citizens that included a reporter for the New York Herald who published an account of the interview on this day in history. The transcript included the following:

Bystander – Upon what principle do you justify your acts?

Mr. Brown – Upon the golden rule. I pity the poor in bondage that have none to help them; that is why I am here; not to gratify any personal animosity, revenge or vindictive spirit. It is my sympathy with the oppressed and the wronged that are as good as you and as precious in the sight of God.

Bystander – Certainly. But why take the slaves against their will?

Mr. Brown – I never did. . . . I want you to understand gentlemen – (and to the reporter of the Herald) you may report that – I want you to understand that I respect the rights of the poorest and weakest of colored people, oppressed by the slave system, just as much as I do those of the most wealthy and powerful. . . . The cry of distress of the oppressed is my reason, and the only thing that prompted me to come here. . .

Reporter of the Herald – I do not wish to annoy you; but if you have anything further you would like to say I will report it.
Mr. Brown . . . I wish to say, furthermore, that you had better – all you people at the South – prepare yourselves for a settlement of that question that must come up for settlement sooner than you are prepared for it. The sooner you are prepared the better. You may dispose of me very easily. I am nearly disposed of now; but this question is still to be settled – this negro question I mean; the end of that is not yet. . .”

An 1846 daguerreotype of Brown

An 1846 daguerreotype of Brown

[In particular, one has to love the question from the “Bystander”: “Why take the slaves against their will?”]

October 19, 1960 – Martin Luther King Jr. Arrested at a Sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia

On this day in history, Martin Luther King, Jr., along with dozens of others, was arrested during a sit-in at “The Magnolia Room” in Rich’s Department Store in Atlanta, Georgia. At Rich’s, African Americans could purchase items from the store but they were not allowed to try on clothing or sit at a table in the Magnolia Room. Because Rich’s was an Atlanta institution, Atlanta’s African-American students made the Magnolia Room the center of their struggle for integration. This sit-in took place eight months after the famous sit-in at the F.W. Woolworth Co. lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. Since that time, several southern cities had integrated its lunch counters, and students in Atlanta wanted to do the same for their city.

Martin Luther King, Jr. arrested in Atlanta on October 19, 1960

Martin Luther King, Jr. arrested in Atlanta on October 19, 1960

On this day, 52 protestors, including King, were arrested for violating legislation which allowed individuals to be charged with a misdemeanor if they refused to leave private property when asked. Charges against sixteen of the group were dismissed, and another 35 were released on bond. But King was kept in jail because of a previous 12-month probationary sentence on a charge of driving without a valid Georgia license (based on an “anti-trespass” law enacted to curb lunch counter sit-ins). He was now transferred to Reidsville State Prison, where he was then sentenced to four months in a Georgia public works camp.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. leaves court after a four-month sentence in Atlanta, Ga., Oct. 25, 1960, for taking part in a lunch counter sit-in at Rich's department store. (AP Photo)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. leaves court after a four-month sentence in Atlanta, Ga., Oct. 25, 1960, for taking part in a lunch counter sit-in at Rich’s department store. (AP Photo)

King’s attorneys filed an appeal, and intervention by then presidential candidate John Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy convinced a judge to grand bond. King was released on October 27, two days after he was sentenced and one day after he arrived at the Georgia State Prison.

Review of “Louisa: The Extraordinary Life of Mrs. Adams” by Louisa Thomas

The author spent five years researching and writing this book on Louisa Catherine Adams, the wife of the sixth U.S. President, John Quincy Adams.


In “The Wall Street Journal” Book Section on April 15, 2016, Jane Kamensky reviews a new book on Abigail Adams, observing: “If you can name one woman from the era of the American Revolution, it’s likely Abigail Adams.”

Louisa Adams, as limned by Louisa Thomas, sounds every bit as remarkable as Abigail – maybe more so – and yet there has not been much written about her. From this story, it is clear we have missed out knowing this inspirational woman and First Lady.

Louisa first encountered John Quincy Adams (JQA) when she was 20 and he 28. They met in London, where Louisa was born in 1775. She lived in momentous times, not only because of the events that ensued in the United States, but because of the growing number of debates over rights for women and blacks. (Louisa died in 1852, on the brink of another American cataclysm.)

Louisa Adams

Louisa Adams

JQA sounds like a curmudgeonly husband at best, but it had to be “difficult” for a man of his time to have a wife so intelligent and outspoken as Louisa. His mother, Abigail, was certainly intelligent, but was not only much more genteel in manner, but more accepting of women’s “secondary” role. Louisa was neither one.

Louisa was exceedingly well-read, both for her own time and any time: she read Plutarch, Milton, Pope, Dryden, Shakespeare, Dickens; Voltaire and Molière in French; radical feminists of the time (urging her son Charles to read Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman); newspapers, literary journals, novels, travelogues, histories; and the Bible, to which she increasingly turned as she aged. In addition to all this, she kept diaries, wrote two autobiographies, and sent frequent letters to her children, and to her in-laws, John and Abigail Adams, informing them of developments on the political scene. (John Adams later wrote to her, “Your journal is a kind of necessary of life to me. I long for it the whole week.”)

John Quincy Adams as a diplomat

John Quincy Adams as a diplomat

When JQA ran for president, this was at a time when it was still frowned upon for a candidate to campaign himself [would that those times still obtained!]. Moreover, JQA was of the mind that people should just know that he was the superior intellect and therefore vote for him. Louisa had a much more realistic view of how the political process operated. Exasperated that JQA couldn’t even bothered to be civil to would-be supporters, she took up the mantle herself: entertaining, cajoling, making the case for her husband’s worthiness, and passing on information to him from political actors.

Louisa’s position on women’s rights were complicated. In that era, the pressures to be “ladylike” were intense, and Louisa felt them keenly. Yet she also was frequently angry over the subjugation of women, writing to her husband (they were frequently separated):

That sense of inferiority which by nature and by law we are compelled to feel, and to which we must submit, is worn by us with as much satisfaction as the badge of slavery generally….”

As for slavery, she was even more conflicted. Her family, to whom she was extremely loyal, owned slaves. And while Louisa felt that the principles of Christianity militated against the system of slavery, she harbored a deep racism toward blacks. She also resented the dangers to her husband when he took up the cause of slavery (he received a number of death threats), wishing that he would leave well enough alone, or let God take care of it, or indeed, anyone else but her husband. At that time, however, unfortunately there was hardly anyone else with the courage to take on the subject.

President John Quincy Adams

President John Quincy Adams

Although she and JQA remained married over fifty years, their marriage was certainly not of the quality that John and Abigail Adams had. Often Louisa resented JQA, and he frequently felt annoyed with her. Yet there had also been, the author finds, “moments of real tenderness, companionship, support, and joy.”

Discussion: The author took great pains to make this book about Louisa rather than about John Quincy, and I think she does a very good job in that respect. Nevertheless, Louisa’s story cannot really be told outside of the story of her husband. Thus, while I think I understand why the author chose not to include pictures of John Quincy, it still would have been nice to have a few included, as well as more than one of Louisa.

Louisa Adams as First Lady

Louisa Adams as First Lady

While I don’t usually opt to read biographies, preferring a broader glimpse at the sociopolitical context of any historical era, the roles played by the extended Adams family in American history in many senses does provide just that.

Louisa Thomas has done a great service by researching the life of a woman whose role in American history has too long gone unrecognized. As the wife of a man who was a Minister to the Great Britain, the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia, U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. President, and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, her story is as interesting and amazing as John Quincy’s own – in some ways even more, because she was a woman who often had to act on her own and in her husband’s stead.

Evaluation: This is an excellent and illuminating look at a woman’s life well worth contemplating, in the process shedding a great deal of light on American political life in antebellum times via the astute observations of Louisa Adams. Students of early American history and of the history of women’s role in America will find this book most gratifying.

Rating: 4/5

Published by Penguin Press, an imprint of Penguin Random House, 2016

October 15, 1860 – Lincoln Gets Fashion Advice from an 11-Year-Old Girl

On this day in history, 11-year-old Grace Bedell in Westfield, New York sent Lincoln a letter advising him that a beard would help him get elected as President of the United States.

August 13, 1860 The last beardless photo of Lincoln. 

August 13, 1860
The last beardless photo of Lincoln. 

Lincoln wrote back on October 19, thanking Grace for her letter and began growing a beard. After he was elected, he took an inaugural journey by train from Illinois to Washington, D.C., and stopped in Bedell’s hometown of Westfield, New York. There, Lincoln asked to meet Grace Bedell.

November 25, 1860 One month after Bedell's letter. 

November 25, 1860
One month after Bedell’s letter. 

The February 19, 1861 edition of the “New York World” recounted the meeting as follows:

At Westfield an interesting incident occurred. Shortly after his nomination Mr. Lincoln had received from that place a letter from a little girl, who urged him, as a means of improving his personal appearance, to wear whiskers. Mr. Lincoln at the time replied, stating that although he was obliged by the suggestion, he feared his habits of life were too fixed to admit of even so slight a change as that which letting his beard grow involved. To-day, on reaching the place, he related the incident, and said that if that young lady was in the crowd he should be glad to see her. There was a momentary commotion, in the midst of which an old man, struggling through the crowd, approached, leading his daughter, a girl of apparently twelve or thirteen years of age, whom he introduced to Mr. Lincoln as his Westfield correspondent. Mr. Lincoln stooped down and kissed the child, and talked with her for some minutes. Her advice had not been thrown away upon the rugged chieftain. A beard of several months’ growth covers (perhaps adorns) the lower part of his face. The young girl’s peachy cheek must have been tickled with a stiff whisker, for the growth of which she was herself responsible.”

February 9, 1861 Ten days before seeing Grace Bedell en route to his Inauguration

February 9, 1861
Ten days before seeing Grace Bedell en route to his Inauguration

You can read a copy of both letters here.


October 11, 1906 – San Francisco School Board Orders Segregation of Japanese American Students

After the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which halted the entry of Chinese immigrant laborers, the American agricultural industry turned to Japanese contract workers to replace Chinese laborers. Unlike the Chinese, Japanese laborers were more likely to travel to America with their families. Also differently than the Chinese, the Japanese families did not live in isolated enclaves but dispersed throughout California cities.

Immigrant family in strawberry field with orchard, Pajaro Valley, California

Immigrant family in strawberry field with orchard, Pajaro Valley, California

As the Library of Congress reports, at the turn of the century, more than 100,000 Japanese nationals arrived in the U.S., finding employment in migratory labor, working the farms, mines, canneries, and railroads of the American West. Eventually, some launched their own businesses, such as Japanese restaurants, boarding houses, and shops. Many Japanese farmers, using the labor-intensive growing methods of their homeland, were able to buy their own land and launch successful agricultural businesses, from farms to produce shops. By 1920, Japanese immigrant farmers controlled more than 450,000 acres of land in California, brought to market more than 10 percent of its crop revenue, and had produced at least one American-made millionaire.

Sadly, with the success of the immigrants, anti-Chinese prejudice soon morphed into anti-Oriental bias, especially as the Japanese provided a scapegoat for concerns over jobs and wages. Ironically, the Japanese were seen as an even larger threat than the Chinese because of the tendency of the Japanese to assimilate into Western culture and do well.

In February, 1905, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper officially launched an editorial anti-Japanese campaign which fueled existing animosity in the Caucasian community. In May, 1905, The Japanese and Korean Exclusion League, a group composed almost entirely of labor unions, was established to push for the segregation of Japanese and Koreans and the legal exclusion additional Asian immigrants.


In 1906, on this day in history, the San Francisco Board of Education ordered the segregation of 93 Japanese American students from 23 elementary schools.

At the time, Japanese immigrants made up approximately 1% of the population of California. The Japanese students were assigned to the city’s Chinese Primary School, renamed “The Oriental Public School for Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.” Japanese-Americans soon contacted the media in Japan to make the government aware of the segregation. Tokyo newspapers denounced the segregation as an “insult to their national pride and honor.”

Alarmed at the uproar, President Theodore Roosevelt promised Japan that he would use his influence to get the order of the San Francisco school board changed. Then, in order to meet the objections of the Californians, Roosevelt obtained a “gentlemen’s agreement,” or informal understanding, with the Japanese government. Through this “gentlemen’s agreement,” Japanese promised to keep its laborers from migrating to the United States. Roosevelt, in turn, promised not to seek formal legislation prohibiting the Japanese from moving to the United States.

President Theodore Roosevelt

President Theodore Roosevelt

On February 8, 1907, Roosevelt and his Secretary of State Elihu Root met with San Francisco school officials and California legislative leaders to work out a negotiation. The California officials agreed to reinstate Japanese students, while the federal government withdrew its lawsuits and promised to limit Japanese labor immigration. The Japanese agreed to stop issuing passports to laborers bound for the continental United States. However, passports might be issued to returning laborers and the “parents, wives and children of laborers already resident there.” As this was an executive agreement, it required no congressional ratification.

The provision for the admission of wives led to the rise of “picture brides” – women whose marriages had been arranged through photographs prior to their arrival in the United States. As a result of this loophole, the community was spared the extreme gender imbalance that had deterred the growth of the Chinese community. In 1910, the ratio of Japanese men to women was 7 to 1; by 1920, it was less than 2 to 1.

Congressional committee members examine passports of Japanese picture brides at the immigration station of Angel Island, Calif., July 25, 1920

Congressional committee members examine passports of Japanese picture brides at the immigration station of Angel Island, Calif., July 25, 1920

But less than five years later, the Immigration Act of 1924 legally banned all Asians from migrating to the United States.

Book Review of “Washington: A Life” by Ron Chernow

Most books on George Washington cover only selected aspects of his life: for example, his role in the American Revolution, or his presidency. Ron Chernow gives us Washington’s whole life in one book, which allows us to get a sense of how Washington evolved over time to become who he did. Chernow’s goal is to turn Washington the Myth into Washington the Man, and I believe he accomplishes at least that much and more.

Still, you may ask, why would one want to wade through more than 800 pages to read all about George Washington? There are a number of very good reasons.

1. You can begin to understand how different the actual history of the Founding Fathers (Washington and others as well) is from that which is promulgated in schools and in popular culture. You will find, in addition to their good qualities, that the Founders had a number of less-than-admirable traits. For example, Washington could be harsh and demanding, expecting the same standards of perfection he had for himself by all (including slaves) who worked for him. He was deliberate and exacting, “with a mind neither quick nor nimble,” groping his way to decisions – not always the best trait to exhibit on the battlefield.

2. You can get a new perspective on current politics from glimpsing at the savagery and vituperation of the founding period. If you think our Congress is more polarized than it has ever been, and that the “dirty tricks” of candidates have gone beyond decency, you haven’t read enough about Jefferson and Madison. Later Jefferson added Monroe to his coterie of followers willing to do his dirty work.

3. One learns how much the 1787 Constitution omitted or left vague, allowing for its provisions to be contested even down to the current day. Article II, dealing with the president, was particularly thin. As Chernow points out, Washington basically forged the executive branch of the federal government. He set a host of precedents, ranging from what we should call the head of government, to shaping executive privilege, to establishing a benchmark for governmental appointments and administration. As Chernow notes: “Washington’s catalog of accomplishments was simply breathtaking.”

George Washington as a Young Man

4. One can discover the roots of politics and policies in this country relating to religion, Native Americans, “manifest destiny,” and most especially, the relationship between blacks and whites. When the country was forming, most of the founding fathers were slaveholders, and only Washington had the respect and regard and trust of the country to do something about it – that is, if anyone could have. But in the end, he, like other founders, could not bring himself to part with the baronial existence that he coveted for so long and worked so hard to achieve. Moreover, although he had abolitionist sympathies, he self-righteously believed that his provision of room and board and clothing for slaves was a fair trade for their forced labor from sun-up to sundown. [In his will, he did make a provision that his slaves would be freed upon Martha’s death. But because his will was published and his slaves knew about it, Martha did not feel safe. Thus she freed them before her death, a year after her husband died.]

As for Native Americans, Washington, like many after him, could never quite understand that the attacks on Americans by Indians may have had some justification, considering that they were being pushed off of their land. Rather, he authorized massacres and scorched-earth practices by his armies as fit punishment for assorted cruelties practiced by the Indians on “our unhappy, frontier settlers…”

5. You will gain insights into the problems consequent to antipathy for taxation – one that has plagued our nation from the start. Washington constantly fretted about the country’s “free rider problem” – i.e., the unwillingness to make sacrifices for the public good, letting greed and individual needs determine one’s own behavior and politics, even while desiring and often demanding benefits that automatically accrue to all persons if provided for any one person. [Examples include military protection of a territory or clean air or good roads or libraries. These are goods generally only available through contribution or taxation.] In Washington’s day, prior to our federally constituted government, it was hoped that individuals would have sufficient “patriotic” incentive to contribute to the common good. But as Washington discovered, it is generally necessary to result to compulsion to counteract the tendency of individuals to act out of a perceived sense of self-interest. Thus, for example, his troops went without coats or food or even shoes, “resembling a horde of unkempt beggars.” Yet local farmers had plenty of produce; they sold it to the British who could pay in solid pounds sterling rather than the debased Continental currency.

6. You will discover that managing one’s image is not a new phenomenon, and Washington was a consummate expert at it. Washington was obsessed with what others thought of him, and even carefully arranged for his posthumous reputation. One of the best stories Chernow tells about Washington’s handling of his image has to do with his appearances in public while president. Chernow recounts:

Aware of how impressive he looked atop a white mount, he once instructed a friend to buy him a horse, specifying that he ‘would prefer a perfect white.’ … So taken was Washington with his unblemished chargers that he had grooms rub them with white paste at night, bundle them in cloths, then bed them down on fresh straw. In the morning the hardened white paste gleamed, its paleness accentuated by black polish applied to the horses’ hooves. For command performances, the animals’ mouths were rinsed and their teeth scrubbed.”

It is impossible to review for you all the many insights that comprise this book, but I have selected some highlights.

There are five main points I take away from this biography:

1. Washington quite possibly had the opportunity to abolish slavery, but couldn’t bring himself to do it. He did not want to give up his own luxurious life; nor was he psychologically capable of risking widespread disapproval of his actions. [Even Hamilton, a committed abolitionist, declined to bring the issue up at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention because of his unwillingness to jeopardize ratification. But Hamilton couldn’t have gotten very far in any event: he did not inspire the reverence and respect that Washington did.] During the Revolutionary War years, Washington wrote extensively on the reprehensible self-interestedness of the colonists, but in this most important test of character, his own behavior wasn’t much different.

2. One can see a clear connection between Washington’s personality and his mother’s treatment of him: she was cold, punitive, and judgmental, and he was never good enough for her. She never acknowledged any of his achievements. She was frugal, demanding, a martinet, and hypercritical. He grew up overly sensitive to criticism, with a lifelong need for approval. Moreover, he was constantly struggling to suppress rage. He spent money freely, but kept track of every cent, and never thought he had enough. He too could also be a hypercritical martinet, especially when it came to his slaves. But Washington worked hard to overcome these traits, and in particular, was sure to issue praise for the accomplishments of his men in war and in the government, albeit sparingly.

3. Washington could not have achieved what he did were it not for the brilliance and generosity of Alexander Hamilton, but Hamilton could not have contributed much at all were it not for the patronage and influence of Washington. Additionally, Hamilton was proud and headstrong and impetuous and lacked the equanimity to translate his brilliance into action without the tempering influence of Washington. It is fitting to examine their achievements through a stereo lens.

4. Washington’s emotional restraint with those he cared about contributed to a sense of awe in his presence (which he definitely tried to cultivate the better to fulfill his leadership roles), but it cost him a great deal, perhaps representing his ultimate sacrifice for his country. Many of his “surrogate sons” and “good friends” for whom he had performed many favors turned on him viciously when something went wrong. Only the Marquis de Lafayette was willing to give him something close to “unconditional love,” but Lafayette returned to France after the War. After an all-too-brief post-War visit by Lafayette to Mt. Vernon in 1784, Washington never saw him again.

5. Chernow evinces yet more data testifying to Thomas Jefferson’s treachery. Although Jefferson was relatively successful in throwing wrenches into the careers and memories of Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and John Adams, he thankfully did not make much of a dent in the reputation of George Washington, though not for lack of trying. Jefferson – that founder who gets so much of our respect for having penned The Declaration of Independence (even though much of his work was editing rather than original production) – could be devious, ruthless, and relentless in his desire to impose his own views and exact vengeance on those who disagreed with him.

Evaluation: Chernow had a much easier task when he wrote about the life of Hamilton, who was brilliant, impulsive, emotional, and passionate about whatever he did. Washington, a quiet, deliberate man, is a much harder subject. Moreover, Martha didn’t help matters by burning all their correspondence after his death. Nevertheless, Chernow does an admirable job trying to reveal the man behind the mask. If you want to know why Washington was ultimately a great man, in spite of his shortcomings, you can do no better than this book. If you are interested in Washington’s life but don’t want all this depth, I would recommend David Hackett Fischer’s Washington’s Crossing.

Rating: 4.5/5

Published by Penguin Press, 2010

Note: Winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for Biography