“Mr. Avery has aimed at and achieved ‘readability,’ and at the same time there is little doubt that this will be the standard record of United States history.”
+ + + =Acad.= 71: 655. D. 29, ’06. 1490w. (Review of v. 1 and 2.)
“We have detected but one actual inaccuracy—an understatement of Oglethorpe’s age. The American writer’s handling of some portions strikes us as hardly adequate.”
+ + − =Acad.= 73: 862. S. 7, ’07. 1800w. (Review of v. 3.)
“On the whole the volume is superior to its predecessor. The sense of proportion is better developed.” Wm. R. Shepherd.
+ + − =Am. Hist. R.= 12: 657. Ap. ’07. 940w. (Review of v. 2.)
“The strong feature of this volume, as of its predecessor, is—aside from the work of the publishers—the accuracy and detail of the author’s narrative. Certain of its limitations are also among those of the earlier volumes and seem, therefore, likely to characterize the entire work. They are: First, the author’s lack of assured perspective and his consequent inability to impart emphasis, selection and organization to his work; secondly, his attempts to vary the monotony inevitable in a narrative devoid of the above mentioned qualities by constant recourse to the phraseology of others or to awkward trivialities; and thirdly, his disposition to abdicate to others the historian’s essential function of passing judgment, without at the same time distinguishing at all between the purely personal opinions of those whom he quotes and their documental verdicts.”
+ − =Ann. Am. Acad.= 28: 471. N. ’06. 1250w. (Review of v. 2.)
“We are fully gratified to find that it fully maintains the high standard set in the preceding volumes. Dealing as it does with this largely neglected period, is of special interest to students of history.”
+ + + =Arena.= 38: 221. Ag. ’07. 1110w. (Review of v. 3.)
“The colonial history of the Jerseys is usually regarded as prosaic in the extreme; but Mr. Avery has discovered in it points of dramatic interest, and has spared no pains to reveal them to us.” Anna Heloise Abel.
+ + − =Dial.= 43: 165. S. 16, ’07. 860w. (Review of v. 3.)
“At times there is revealed, often in opening and closing paragraphs, a knack of rapid and effective description. But the body of the chapter is liable to be disjointed and unimportant. The work lacks conscious certainty of judgment and too often seems to be impartial from caution rather than conviction.”