Spies, Patriots, and Traitors

American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War

De: Kenneth A. Daigler

Narrado por: James McSorley

Duración: 11 h y 40 m

Resumen del Editor

Students and enthusiasts of American history are familiar with the Revolutionary War spies Nathan Hale and Benedict Arnold, but few studies have closely examined the wider intelligence efforts that enabled the colonies to gain their independence. Spies, Patriots, and Traitors provides readers with a fascinating, well-documented, and highly readable account of American intelligence activities during the era of the Revolutionary War, from 1765 to 1783, while describing the intelligence sources and methods used and how our Founding Fathers learned and practiced their intelligence role.

The author, a retired CIA officer, provides insights into these events from an intelligence professional's perspective, highlighting the tradecraft of intelligence collection, counterintelligence, and covert actions and relating how many of the principles of the era's intelligence practice are still relevant today. Daigler reveals the intelligence activities of famous personalities such as Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, John Jay, and Benedict Arnold, as well as many less well-known figures.

The book is published by Georgetown University Press.

©2014 Georgetown University Press (P)2014 Redwood Audiobooks

Excellent book,

I couldn't put it down. I learned so much new information I loved it yeaa

Interesting book

very well writen and reached. Excellent back stories and personal histories on all people mentioned.

Fascinating history, terrible narration

The narration is rough, but the history is fascinating! Worth it to learn about this little taught, clandestine part of our history.

Very well researched, but a bit dry.

I appreciated the perspective of a former CIA agent. It is well researched; but, at times reads like a fact sheet. The performance reads like an AM radio news cast.

too many mistakes and too anachronistic

After reading the reviews for this book, I was excited to hear it. Instead, I grew more and more frustrated. I should have written down all the statements that irked me, but I will mention some of those that I recall. To start with, Daigler does not seem to realize that he is writing about the 18th century and not the 21st. He uses terms such as 'intelligence agents,' which did exist in the period he wrote about. Daigler seems determined to find the roots of the current intelligence community in the past. As late as WW II, the intelligence community, at least the OSS which became the CIA, Started as rank amateurs. Like their predecessors from the Revolution, they learned from mistakes and improved. But I don't see that any of the lessons that Washington and others learned were remembered or passed down. It is odd that the spy most remembered, Nathan Hale, was about the person to be chosen and died without discovering a thing. Let alone passing facts on to others.
The statement that French officers were a help is almost totally wrong. Steuben and Kalb were good officers, but both were German, and both were from the poorer classes. Lafayette made several mistakes, but he tried to fit in and was modest and demanding. Most French officers raised the hackles of American officers by demanding high positions and the dates of commission backdated so they outranked American officers. (Duportail, a good, not great engineer, demanded to be a colonel, and his commission dated so he had seniority over the engineers. And Duportail was one of the best French officers.) France sent officers with inflated egos like Du Coudray (who drowned on a ferry when he insisted on crossing while atop his horse), Fermoy (who was drunk and fell asleep on duty at Fort Ticonderoga instead of withdrawing his men) and Conway (for whom the Conway Cabal is named). In Paris Silas Deane kept giving out commissions to French officers thinking that it would improve Franco - American relations. maybe in France, but not in America.
I had a hard time accepting some Daigler's thoughts when he could so completely misread the facts. He also was slipshod in his statement facts. The two that I remember are claiming that Gates lost 4100 men in a battle (Daigler is conflating Gates - who performed poorly an did lose at Camden - with Lincoln's surrender of Charleston. And Marion was, at least technically, a lt. colonel in the continental army when he led his partisans for most of his exploits until being commissioned a brigadier general of South Carolina militia in December 1780. The mistakes I saw were relatively minor, but they raised a red flag about how cavalier Daigler was in relating facts. I di learn things that I was unaware of, but I confess to being uneasy about Daigler's accuracy.
Daigler's attempts to link the past with the present also seemed farfetched. Some/many spies were not paid promptly. Daigler points out that modern spies often experience the same thing. What he should have pointed out was that Continental Army went years without being paid. Lack of payment was due to a bankrupt Congress, not the business of spying.
The narrator may be fine reading other books, but his tone when reading factual errors really grated on me. Not the book experience that I had hoped for and expected.

Great content, had a hard time with the narrator

What would have made Spies, Patriots, and Traitors better?

Honestly, the narrator sounds like he's narrating an industrial safety video (of which, I have seen many). Very limited range. Also, there was some excess breathing noise and other distracting sounds.

Would you be willing to try another one of James McSorley’s performances?

Only if I proof-listened first. I should have done that this time.

Any additional comments?

I was excited to hear from an actual CIA clandestine operative, but was disappointed by the narrator. Hard to follow. I plodded my way through it because Audible wouldn't let me do a return.

Poor reader

Was very hopeful about listening to this book. Returning the book due to the reader. Very unentertaining.