You have become known for you work with the most famous characters from the American Civil War. Yet RISE TO REBELLION is based on the beginnings of the American Revolution. What prompted you to move back to that era?

I felt that I had done as much as I could with the characters from the Civil War, at least for a while. After going so deeply into the relationship of Lee vs. Grant, and becoming so personally involved with characters such as Stonewall Jackson and Joshua Chamberlain, I felt I had to move on. I began to look into other eras of American history to find a story that was comparable to the extraordinary drama of the 1860's. When I began to dig a little deeper into the 1770's, I knew I had found a story I wanted to tell.

Many of us have come to believe that the period of the 1860's is the most important time in our history. Do you feel the Revolutionary War era compares?

Without a doubt. The outcome of the Civil War was the survival of our nation. But there is no time in our history of more significance than the birth of our nation. The coming together of this particular group of people is unique, not only for America, but for the history of the world. As dramatic as Gettysburg may be, or Appomattox, I have never felt as involved in the story on such a passionate level as writing about the creation of the Declaration of Independence, or the extraordinary drama of the Battle of Bunker Hill (actually Breed's Hill). I hope that even those readers who consider themselves "Civil War buffs" will enjoy this story.

In your first three books, you take the reader back to a particular point in our history, telling us the story of the event from the point of view of the characters themselves. Does RISE TO REBELLION follow the same pattern?

Absolutely. One of the main challenges in telling a story such as this is finding those characters who are both deeply involved in the event itself, but more importantly, are interesting enough for me to bring intimately into the story. If the characters simply aren't very dynamic, or don't have much of a personality, it makes it nearly impossible for me to find a connection to them. As I began to explore the different key players during the beginnings of the American Revolution I was wonderfully charmed by many of them. It was a relief for me, and made the research much more fun.

Do you follow the same format in RISE TO REBELLION that readers have come to expect, moving from one point of view to another as the story progresses?

Yes. This was a format begun by my father in The Killer Angels, and I believe it's the best way to tell a story such as this. If I was to stay with only one character, then you would get only one perspective. It's much more interesting for me to move through the story by changing points of view, and I think it's more interesting for the reader as well. As with the Civil War or the Mexican War, you have two sides. The British voice is as important to the telling of the American Revolution as the Colonial voice.

How do you respond to critics who claim to find some bias in your stories?

Clearly, the Civil War inspires strong feelings on both sides, and I was very careful in both Gods and Generals and The Last Full Measure to tell the story from both points of view, with no modern judgments cast on these characters. The most visible British character in RISE TO REBELLION is General Thomas Gage, a decent man, though a brutally efficient soldier, who is assigned the impossible task of crushing a rebellion without "starting a war". Gage is a very sympathetic character in many ways. I don't use him to portray the British in any kind of one-dimensional light. Certainly, not all the British characters are the "bad guys". I'm always surprised when someone believes I am displaying a prejudice against one side or the other in any of my stories. It simply isn't true.

Beyond the British character of Thomas Gage, who are the other main characters in RISE TO REBELLION?

This was difficult from the very beginning of my research. Throughout our Colonial era, there are so many key characters, an amazing gathering of people who performed as heroically as any generation in our history. I settled on John and Abigail Adams, Ben Franklin, and, later in the story, George Washington. John Adams is very overlooked in our history, and though we may know him only as the second president, this man's intellect and sense of purpose is in many ways what actually created the United States government. Franklin is wonderful- It was hard not to get lost in that character. His role as the most visible colonist in London was key to the telling of the story, again, showing a unique perspective on the British point of view. Washington of course is obvious. Once he takes command of the Continental Army, he becomes one of the most important figures in our history.

You mentioned Abigail Adams. Did women play a significant role during the 1770's?

In many ways, they weren't allowed to. For the most part, it was illegal for women to receive any form of higher education. Thus, their involvement in the affairs of government was very limited, including of course, that they were not allowed to vote. But the voice of the women could not be ignored. I love Abigail for many reasons. She was self-educated and extremely well-read, and was not afraid to share her opinion on the events of the day. She has been described as the first American feminist. And, added to all of that, her relationship with her husband is one of the great romances of American history. Her voice was very important to the story. And, I am happy to say hers is not the only female perspective.

How do you feel about the current trend in the entertainment industry to portray American history in a somewhat different light than we may have learned in school?

First of all, in my own work, I try very much to portray our history in a different light than the history textbook. But I don't violate that history by either embellishing these characters or the events themselves, or focusing on myths and charicatures. The people are very real, my research is based on their own words and experiences. The events in my stories are all absolutely accurate, told as they happened by someone who was there. I don't understand this need that Hollywood often has of portraying history in the most sensational light, as though modern audiences just won't be interested unless the emphasis is on the salacious, or the graphically violent. That's an enormous insult to the intelligence of the audience. I have traveled all over the country on four book signing tours, and everywhere I have been, I hear from people who are anxious to learn the real stories about their own history. I accept that as a responsibility to tell the audience the truth, to bring you these stories with as much accuracy as I can. I don't have to fabricate history, certainly not to hold an audience's attention. The stories are fascinating on their own.

So, what's next?

I am now deeply into the research of the second book on the American Revolution, following George Washington through much of the war itself, Ben Franklin in Paris, and of course, the British voice again, probably Generals Howe and Cornwallis. There will probably be a few surprising points-of-view as well.

Once the Revolutionary War set is complete, any thoughts of other projects? Do you think you will ever return to the Civil War?

We are a very fortunate country in that our history, while relatively brief compared to so many other nations, contains so many wonderfully fascinating characters. I can't say precisely what my next project will be. I might look forward, moving into the 20th century. But that's not to say I will never return to the Civil War. Some day I'd like to tackle a story from the western campaigns, specifically getting into the mind of William T. Sherman. There's a fascinating character. And, after all, that's what my writing is all about. The people make the history, not the other way around.