Revolutionary War discussion

[JMS]

1. You don't know if there were other competent possible leaders in the Colonial forces because nobody else got much of a chance. History is full of cases where the original Commander was hurt or replaced and somebody else stepped in and did as well as better. Look at how many presumably more competent people Lincoln had to go through until he got to Grant.

Well actually many people had "chances" during the revolutionary war to lead. Take the south for example. Washington wanted Nathanial Green to command in the south from the beginning. Green had taken over as Washington's Quarter Master General during Valley Forge and had significant differences / arguments with congressional leaders about how they were/ or were not supplying the army. Green making enemies in Congress was passed over for the southern command originally and congress appointed a series of failed generals.

• Robert Howe, who lost Savannah.
  
• Benjamin Lincoln, who lost Charleston.
  
• Horatio Gates, who lost the Battle of Camden and retreated out of South Carolina's faster than his men could follow.
  

It was only when Congress differed to Washington that Green was appointed and turned the southern campaign around against the British and Lord Cornwallis.

The caliber of the men Congress was appointing to command in the absence of Washington's authority was poor. Remember John Paul Jones the father of the American Navy and likely the second most famous fighter on the colonial side during the revolutionary war after Washington was not originally given a commission by Congress. Congress gave out commissions to those who could afford to purchase them rather than on merit. Jones had to go to France to get a commission and only then got it when Benjamin Franklin interceded on his behalf with the French Royal family.

The odds that the Colonies would be able to break away from Britain were always poor. I think the fact it was ultimately accomplished was a fluke. Washington's excellent generalship was one of the most unlikely components of colonial victory. If Washington and his lieutenants had been captured on long island I don't think it likely an equally competent leader would have been found; much less an action hero like Washington.

As for Congress, They were pretty much irrelevant during the war. Congress didn't have the funds to equip or pay for the military. The constitution which allowed congress to raise taxes was not passed until 1787 or a decade after the beginning of the revolution. Officers were largely left to pay themselves for supplies or scrounge. That's one reason why many of the revolutionary officers went bankrupt. Arnold went bankrupt outfitting and paying for his own soldier’s uniforms and supplies. That's why he felt so entitled to use government wagons and to stock and sell his own merchandise for a premium which gained him a censure from Congress for "profiteering". Cause Congress and the Nation were monetarily indebted to Arnold for personally footing the bill for their defense. Nathanial Green too was bankrupted by the war.

Anyway it's just opinion, but there was a lack of reliable competent officers during the revolution. And those who had the most success escaped with Washington from Long Island in 1776. If Washington's army had been captured or denied to the colonies; It's not likely the revolution would have succeeded.

Hell it barely succeeded even with Washington and his lieutenants.

2. I said the victory would have been delayed. So yes most likely the Hessians wouldn't have been defeated in December in Trenton, but a Washington lost would have done nothing to the political structure behind the Revolution. Do you think that Jefferson and the rest of the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have simply said, 'Well Washington lost, we my as well surrender now.'? Do you think somebody like Thomas Paine would have simply given up?

I think if Washington had not defeated the Hessians in December of 1776, he would have lost the war himself. With no victory to point to, his army was starving and deserting him as it was. The entire reason Washington attacked such a strong garrison in the first place was because he had no other choice. He basically lucked out.

The Hession commander who had been so incompetent as to not build defensive works or even post pickets on Christmas eave was killed during the fighting. In his pocket was a note warning him that Washington was planning on crossing the Deliware and attacking his position. He had not even openned it. That's how close it was.

Washington barely kept his army together that first winter at Valley Forge. Even he believed if his army was allowed to go home, they would not return the following spring and the war would have been over. He wrote as much in his dispatches.

No, they would have appointed a new General, and if that person wasn't lucky/smart/competent enough to have a chance to learn from their mistakes, they would have found somebody else until eventually they came to somebody that had learned from the mistakes made and was competent.

The difference in the war was the level of commitment to victory.

Commitment?

Only one third of the colonies favored independence. The colonies and Congress didn't even fund the Revolution. The folks with the commitment in the Revolution were Washington and his officers. They footed the bill. They left their homes and fought without payment. Not Congress. It's very unlikely the colonial military would have survived another winter, much less another military season without them.

The political reality is clear. No Congressman was the hero or leader of the country during the Revolutionary war. there was no such thing as civilian President or leader. General Washington was it. He was the revolution. General Washington personally turned the tide of battle on several key victories. Washington's abilities are what allowed his army to servive even in defeat. His lieutenants and he can be credited with almost every major victory during the war. Including Saratogo, and Yorktown the key victories.

In the absence of their leadership, only blind faith would lead one to believe the revolution would have triumphed.

[JMS]

Jeff Schaara's "Glorious cause"

In the second book: the opening scenes at Long Island with the continental army in rout, in which he describes the Maryland Regiment's fighting retreat brought a tear of pride to my eye. They saved the cause and held off the enemy. Their bravery and action under fire gave the British pause, slowed their pursuit and allowed for Washington to gather the boats necessary for evacuation.

OUR boys.

In all my life of living here, I've never had much reason to be proud of this state, but I'm damn proud of that.

Yes SUH!

~Bang

Yep you are right. That's where Maryland get's the name "the Old Line State".

The Maryland Battalion distinguished itself at the Battle of Long Island by singlehandedly covering the retreat of the American forces against numerically superior British and Hessian forces. Thereafter, General George Washington relied heavily upon the Marylanders as one of the few reliable fighting units in the early Continental Army. For this reason, Maryland is sometimes known as "The Old Line State." The 175th Regiment Maryland National Guard claims descent from "The Maryland Line".

http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/states/md/md-01.htm

My sister in law moved to Virginia from California a few years ago. She was telling me that she liked Maryland because it was a free state. She had read the liscense plate state moto "the Free State" and thought it meant that Maryland didn't have slaves during the civil war.

I didn't have the heart to tell her that "the free state" state motto of maryland didn't have anything to do with slavery. Maryland was a southern slave state and only sided with the north because lincoln posted 20,000 troops outside the Maryland govoners mansion. The Mason dixon line which deliniated slave and free states runs between Maryland and Pensilvania.

The state motto of Maryland, "The Free State" came about during proabition. Maryland was against proabition and an editorialist proclaimed it "the Free State" for this oposition.

[pjfootballer]

The British only had 12,000 regulars in the US at any one time during the revolutonary war. Meade had 80,000 soldiers in his command just at the Battle of Gettysburg. There just isn't any comparison between these two wars.

The civil war strategies weren't applicable and wouldn't have been even helpful if they were in the Revolutionary war.

The Brits in the Revolution never had the forces to destroy the colonies. The fact that two thirds of the colonies weren't in rebelion made the entire concept of destroying the colonies kind of self defeating.

Was this because the British Empire was spread out too far and they counldn't devote more troops?

[pjfootballer]

You clearly have never been schooled in the art of war my friend. The British in 1776 had the strongest army in the world. And EVERY engagement in a military sense was a British victory when they actually faced colonial militia.

It was only when TRAINED American regular forces were on the battlefield that the US military did not break and run at the sight of a redcoat bayonet charge.

It is not like losing 200 men at Lexington and Concord led to their defeat EIGHT years later!!

I know. I was just paraphrasing. Seriously though, thanks for the information. I'm kind of a Civil War and WWII kind of guy, but I've actually learned alot more in here about the Revolutionary War then I really knew. :applause: to all.

[JMS]

Was this because the British Empire was spread out too far and they counldn't devote more troops?

Yeah I think so. They augmented their British regulars with like 40,000 Hessian mercenaries...

But they had just fought a global war against the French a few years before the Revolution, and would fight another one a few years after the revolution. The British just couldn't commit the bulk of their military to the America's.

The largest force in the British effort to suppress independence was made up by loyalist colonists.. 50,000 colonists fought with the British against Washington.

[PeterMP]

• Robert Howe, who lost Savannah.
  
• Benjamin Lincoln, who lost Charleston.
  
• Horatio Gates, who lost the Battle of Camden and retreated out of South Carolina's faster than his men could follow.
  

So Washington lost most of his battles, only repeatedly escaped because the largest, most successful, and most powerful military was stupid and Washington did things that were thought to be impossible during his retreats, was a great general and the only reason the US won the war, but everybody else that ever lost a battle was a complete failure and could never have done as well as Washington.

Something doesn't quite add up.

The odds that the Colonies would be able to break away from Britain were always poor. I think the fact it was ultimately accomplished was a fluke.

You know history shows the eventually colonist win the wars.

You'd think from your writing that the Europeans still had vast empires today, and the US was one of the few examples of colonist actually breaking away.

Hell it barely succeeded even with Washington and his lieutenants.

I think if Washington had not defeated the Hessians in December of 1776, he would have lost the war himself. With no victory to point to, his army was starving and deserting him as it was. The entire reason Washington attacked such a strong garrison in the first place was because he had no other choice. He basically lucked out.

The Hession commander who had been so incompetent as to not build defensive works or even post pickets on Christmas eave was killed during the fighting. In his pocket was a note warning him that Washington was planning on crossing the Deliware and attacking his position. He had not even openned it.

1. Was it a strong garrison or was it a garrison with no defenses set up and being run by an incompetent commander? It really couldn't be both.

2. The note wasn't unopened, and it didn't warn of Washington attack. It was an order to set up some Earth works to act as defensive fortifications. It is unknown if he read the note and ignored it, didn't read it, or read it and just hadn't started working on them.

3. Also, mostly you are ignoring that Washington had a spy working for him so he knew the situation in the Hessian camp, and his spies were lying to the Hessians about his own preparations. Washington essentiall knew exactly what he was walking into, while the Hessians had no idea what was coming.

only blind faith would lead one to believe the revolution would have triumphed.

How about any realistic view of history, which clearly shows that attempts to take land from natives or well entrenched forces always fail unless the side doing the taking is brutally ruthless.

[zoony]

Peter, you can't win an argument with a ninja, so don't even try

[youngestson]

Thread conclusions thus far.

All Americans during the Revolution were sissies except for Tennesseans and Virginians. :laugh:

Maryland soldiers covered Washington's retreat from New York saving his army by sacrificing themselves in the process. When they finally ran out of powder and bullets, they ran up a white flag and were slaughtered by Hessian troops.

One of my ancestors bought it at that battle.

Not much wussy there.

It's also where Maryland got the nick name "The Old Line State".

[rincewind]

Should be getting my grade on first paper tomorrow - on the four biggest mistakes of the British.

Starting the second paper now. We have to use a primary document to argue a larger point of the war. I'm using Clinton's letter to Burgoyne telling him he was on his own at Saratoga to discuss the HORRIBLE British communication during the war and specifically the Battle of Saratoga - which, of course, was the victory that allowed France to throw her full weight behind the U.S.