Revolutionary War discussion

[zoony]

Did they recover it from Mexico?

No. He sold it to propose to his wife, iirc in nearby Dandridge. It's privately owned, on display in a downtown library. Crockett was a native Tennessean, and he ended up fighting at the Alamo because Texans, much like those from Louisiana, are sissies too :laugh:

....

[dwbiggs]

Give the credit to Washington...the British would have won if it wasn't for a couple of genius military moves by Washington and his ability to keep the Army together. The Free Mason network helped as well. :paranoid:

[JMS]

No. He sold it to propose to his wife, iirc in nearby Dandridge. It's privately owned, on display in a downtown library. Crockett was a native Tennessean, and he ended up fighting at the Alamo because Texans, much like those from Louisiana, are sissies too :laugh:

....

Not only was Crockett a Tennessean, but he was actually elected to congress from Tennesse. He lost his congressional seat in 1831 when he opposed Andrew Jackson's Indian removeal act.

Two famous Crockett statements..

"Be always sure you are right, then go ahead"

"You may go to hell, I will go to Texas."

[Cskin]

Their demise started in 1775, when the great state of Virginia threw the filthy red coats out of Virginia at the Battle of Great Bridge. It took the Virginians, not surprisingly, to show the rest of the Colonists how it was done.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Also, we had a great commander at that battle... had this unusual habit of painting half his face bright San Diego Charger Blue and riding a horse up and down the lines saying something like.....

FREEEEEEDDDDDOOOOMMMM!!!!!! FREEEEDOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!

I think his name was William Wallace.

[PleaseBlitz]

Thread conclusions thus far.

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

[zoony]

Thread conclusions thus far.

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

pretty much! :laugh:

[JMS]

Their demise started in 1775, when the great state of Virginia threw the filthy red coats out of Virginia at the Battle of Great Bridge. It took the Virginians, not surprisingly, to show the rest of the Colonists how it was done.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Also, we had a great commander at that battle... had this unusual habit of painting half his face bright San Diego Charger Blue and riding a horse up and down the lines saying something like.....

FREEEEEEDDDDDOOOOMMMM!!!!!! FREEEEDOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!

I think his name was William Wallace.

I had never heard of the battle of Great Bridge.. seven months before the declaration of independence.

Casualty estimates ranged from Dunmore's "official" sixty-two killed or wounded to an escaped patriot's report that the British losses totaled 102. A single patriot casualty was a slight wound to the thumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Great_Bridge

Afterwards the colonials sacked Norfolk a known Tory strong hold...

Norfolk "nest of Tories",

[dwbiggs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PleaseBlitz

Thread conclusions thus far.

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

pretty much! :laugh:

Virginia....the cradle of American civilization :point2sky

[Cskin]

See... we were even ahead of the times.... fighting the tyranny and the evil aggressors a full seven months before the rest of the nation woke up and decided to declare independence. We Virginians were doing the heavy lifting long before the rest of the colonies knew what was happening.

As for the casualties... the Dems are still complaining about the injured thumb. :doh: Bleeding heart Blame America firsters existed even then. :doh:

[JMS]

Thread conclusions thus far.

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

I don't know about all that... Nathanial Green started the war as a private. He quickly became known as one of Washington's most gifted and dependable officers. Promoted from private to Brigadier General.

The son of a quaker farmer from Rhode Island who's sect discouraged literacy, Green educated himself.

Congress throughout the war has bad luck in appointing Generals to command the South. It had chosen Robert Howe, and he had lost Savannah. It had chosen Benjamin Lincoln, and he had lost Charleston. It had chosen Horatio Gates, and he lost the Battle of Camdon and retreated out of the territory faster than his men could follow.

When Gate's sucessor was to be chosen they aquiessed to General Washington and allowed him to appoint the new leader for the southern command. Washington appointed Nathanial Green who Congress did not admire. Green (in overall command) defeated the British at Cowpens, (9/10th of the entire British forces were killed or captured). And again at the Battle of Guilford Court House. While technically a British victory it so weakended the British in the South they were forced to retreat north where they were eventually trapped at Yorktown and made to surrender.

Green was one of the best feild generals on the colonial side.

Interesting note. Green was bankrupted by the war, as were many revolutionary officers. they didn't get paid their salaries, and many paid for the provisions of their army out of their own pockets as Green did. The State of Georgia gave him a plantation after the war in honor of his service. Green a former quaker was against slavory and refused to use slaves on his plantation. He died of heat stroke on his plantation "Mulberry Grove," 14 miles above Savannah a year after settling there.

[PeterMP]

You might be right. But the British controled most of the Coastal cities. And those they didn't control they could easily re-take. Like New York, and Charlston....

My point wasn't that the British were destructive and committed attrocieities... They did. But they were selective about it. They didn't want to risk alienating their supporters or popularaizing the rebels. As I said, only about a third of the colonies favored rebelion.

Also I don't think it's reasonable to compare the revolutionary war, pre industrial revolution; with the civil war post industrial revolution. The Civil war was one of the bloodiest wars in human history up til that point. The German generals studied the Civil war in the US before WWII cause it's leasons were still being learned. The Revolutionary war was by comparison a much smaller affair. The Brits never had the troops or ability to emulate Grant or Sherman almost 100 years latter.

Civil war Casualites.. 600,000 men died of battle and disease in the civil war (both North and South).

The United States suffered 25,000 dead in all of the Revolutionary War. We suffered more casualties just in Gettysburg. Hell Meade and Lee both had twice the forces in their command during Gettysburg than regular troops who fought in the entire revolutionary war on both sides, DOUBLED!!

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.

JMS- It all comes down to how committed the British were. When people are committed they find the man power to get the job done properly, and then use the total war approach and get the job done. When they don't, they use a half way approach like the British did, which almost always fails if you have to take land from people.

You are mixing up cause and affect. They didn't have the forces because they weren't truly committed to it. They weren't able to conduct a total war plan because they didn't have the commitment. The two go hand and hand. You don't have the committment, then you don't have the man power, and you can't conduct a total war.

They didn't have control of the costal cities. There wasn't open revolt, but there was aid and people flowing from the cities to support the revolution. That isn't the way to win a war like that.

Sherman's and Grant's war plan comes from other historical cases. You don't like the comparision of the revolutionary war to the civil war because of 100 hundred years, how about going back to the Romans completely destroying Carthage.

If you want to seize control of land held by others, that's what you need to do.

[JMS]

JMS- It all comes down to how committed the British were. When people are committed they find the man power to get the job done properly, and then use the total war approach and get the job done. When they don't, they use a half way approach like the British did, which almost always fails if you have to take land from people.

You are mixing up cause and affect. They didn't have the forces because they weren't truly committed to it. They weren't able to conduct a total war plan because they didn't have the commitment. The two go hand and hand. You don't have the committment, then you don't have the man power, and you can't conduct a total war.

They didn't have control of the costal cities. There wasn't open revolt, but there was aid and people flowing from the cities to support the revolution. That isn't the way to win a war like that.

Sherman's and Grant's war plan comes from other historical cases. You don't like the comparision of the revolutionary war to the civil war because of 100 hundred years, how about going back to the Romans completely destroying Carthage.

If you want to seize control of land held by others, that's what you need to do.

Well you make a good point. You know me I'm mostly opinion rather than knowledgeable.....

Here is my thoughts.

(1) You are right, Britain was arguable the most powerful country on earth in the late 1700's, but they had an Empire to administer and their primary enemy France who they had just fought a global war against and who shortly they would be involved in another global war with; was 60 miles off shore. They couldn't really commit a hundred thousand regulars to the America's. And the reality of what was possible shouldn't be confused with lack of commitment.

As it was the Brits sent 15,000 regulars, 40,000 Hession regular mercenaries, and assembled 60,000 colonial militia... That seems like they were committed.

(2) The Brits had almost four loyalist colonists in their force for each British Regular. American colonists made up the majority of British forces during the revolution. Thus Destroying the colonies wasn't much of a option considering the colonies were actually your biggest ally. What your left with if you wanted to pursue a punitive war was what the British did. Be calm and even avoid fighting around your allies homes in New England, ( siege of Boston the Brits evacuated without burning the city or any looting).... And be tough in areas where you had little support. ( Tarleton unleashed on the Carolina's and Georgia ).

(3) Destroying the ports sounds good, except that the side with the greatest navy was the British not the Americans. The British navy operated in total dominance of the sea until the French got into the war at the end. Thus destroying the ports would have harmed the Brits more than the Colonies, cause the Brits really were the only ones who could take advantage of ports. Even if you weren't going to alienate your colonial militia, which you would have.

Ports Cities occupied by the Brits during the Revolution...

• Boston early on before it was abandoned.
  
• New York taken from General Washington 1776.
  
• Philidelphia
  
• Charlotte sough Carolina.
  
• Savannah Georgia.
  

Those were the largest ports cities in both the North and the South.

Cornwallis the strategy was to issolate areas of the country and appeal for the support of loyalists. General Burgoyne would march down from Canada to capture Albany, isolating New England, the Southern army under Howe would capture Philadelphia and move to control the south. With the capital under occupation, and radical New England isolated, Howe hoped to force a surrender.

Problem was General Burgoyne was defeated at Saratoga and Howe took forever to leave New York and was eventually defeated in the south by Nathanial Green and forced North into Virginia where both Washington's army of the North and Greens southern command surounded him at Yorktown. With the French fleet cutting off his retreat by sea; he had no choice but to surrender.

Cornwall's mistakes were...

(1) Wintering his troops rather than pursuing Washington British General Howe cost the British victory. The loyalist forces were better equiped for winter than the colonists. If they would have pursued Washington they could have crushed him early on before the French ever go into war. Alas Howe was a professional soldier and in that day winter was not a time for war. So Howe garisoned New York.

(2) Several times during the revolutionary war the British defeated Washington and allowed him to escape. If they had been able to pursue or stop Washington on any one of a number of occassions early on .. ( Seige of New York ).. Again they could have stopped the war before France got into it. Here again Washington's lack of military experience helped him and hurt the British. The British professinoal Generals time and time again did not believe a entire army could do the things Washington accomplished. Washington not knowing these things were impossible, accomplished them. ( evacuating his entire army off long island after the defeat in New York, Crossing the Deleware and attacking the Hessians on Christmas day. )

(3) The Hessian in charge of Trenton who failed to prepare his defenses or even set out pickets on Christmas and allowed his troops to be overrun by Washington really cost the British dearly. This one victory gave the colonialists credibility with the French who shortely there after commited their navy and army to assist the revolution.

It was French support and commitment more than any other thing which turned the tide in the American Revolution and won the day for the colonies.

[rincewind]

Well you make a good point. You know me I'm mostly opinion rather than knowledgeable.....

Here is my thoughts.

(1) You are right, Britain was arguable the most powerful country on earth in the late 1700's, but they had an Empire to administer and their primary enemy France who they had just fought a global war against was 60 miles off shore. They couldn't really commit a hundred thousand regulars to the America's. And the reality of what was possible shouldn't be confused with lack of commitment.

(2) The Brits had almost five loyalist colonists in their force for each British Regular. American colonists made up the majority of British forces during the revolution. Thus Destroying the colonies wasn't much of a option considering the colonies were actually your biggest ally. What your left with if you wanted to pursue a punitive war was what the British did. Be calm and even avoid fighting around your allies homes in New England, ( siege of Boston the brits evacuated without burning the city).... And be tough in areas where you had little support. ( Tarleton unleashed on the Carolina's and Georgia ).

I have to disagree here. Don't know where you got your numbers from - but the army Britain sent here for the Revolutionary War was THE LARGEST army they had ever sent anywhere.

[Air Force Cane]

5. Actually the worst thing the English did was what EVERY non-victorious army does throughout history.

They did not take advantage of their tactical success to achieve strategic victory. They could have annihilated the Colonial army at Brooklyn Heights/Long Island. Instead, they paused and let Washington escape that night across the East River.

and again and again througout New Jersey in 1777 they did the same thing, constantly allowing Washington to escape at the last minute rather than finishing him off. They also diverted resources to the battle with France after 1780.

[Air Force Cane]

Not ducking for cover was their undoing. They fought old school and we fought new school. They assumed we would fight a gentlemanly war. THEY WERE WRONG B***ches!

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!!

[JMS]

I have to disagree here. Don't know where you got your numbers from - but the army Britain sent here for the Revolutionary War was THE LARGEST army they had ever sent anywhere.

British forces during the Revolutionary War.... ( see strength.. )

Great Britain:

Regular Army: 12,000

Ships: 100 ships of the line and frigates

Loyaltists:

Militia: 55,000

Hesse:

Regulars: 40,000

Iroquois:

Warriors: 5,000

Total: 112,000

100 ships

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

[JMS]

5. Actually the worst thing the English did was what EVERY non-victorious army does throughout history.

They did not take advantage of their tactical success to achieve strategic victory. They could have annihilated the Colonial army at Brooklyn Heights/Long Island. Instead, they paused and let Washington escape that night across the East River.

and again and again througout New Jersey in 1777 they did the same thing, constantly allowing Washington to escape at the last minute rather than finishing him off. They also diverted resources to the battle with France after 1780.

Yep Washington lost most of his battles. But he survived, and that was a costly mistake the British made. They didn't pursue him. Especially after the Battle of New York when they let Washington Escape after having him bottled up on the Long Island peninsula as you've said.

If they had been able to defeat Washington on Long Island in 1776, The French would not have entered the war and the British would have won.

[JMS]

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!!

Right again. The militia was mostly ineffective. Most major engagements were decided by the regulars and that meant the British.

The two exceptions were

(1) Kings Mountain where the Colonials and Mountain Men engaged an equal force of British and Tory Militia under Maj. Patrick Fergason who occupied the strategic high ground and just knocked the crap out of them with their more accurate slower loading long riffles.

(2) After Gates was defeated in the South by Cornwalis at Camdon, there was no Colonial army there which could stand against the British. The guerilla tactics of the colonials there tied up the Brits until the regulars could get re-organized under Nathanial Green. Green would go on to defeat the Brits and force Cornwallis north.

Other than these two battles the militia was largely ineffective.

The myth of the whiley colonialist hiding behind the tree shooting the british as he walked in formation is a myth. The British were the best military in the world at the time, and the Colonial forces lost most of the engagements in the Revolutionary war. It was only when the French got into the conflict that the tide of war shifted in the Colonials favor.

[PeterMP]

Yep Washington lost most of his battles. But he survived, and that was a costly mistake the British made. They didn't pursue him. Especially after the Battle of New York when they let Washington Escape after having him bottled up on the Long Island peninsula as you've said.

If they had been able to defeat Washington on Long Island in 1776, The French would not have entered the war and the British would have won.

I disagree. Finishing Washington doesn't end the war. It simply delays it until a new army w/ a new commander can be raised.

It simply is a delay in the defeat of the British. They lost because they weren't completely committed to winning even if it meant destroying the colonies.

[National Defense]

OK y'all-what are your best (favorite) books on this subject

I got D macullough 1776 (and the adams one), and I actually enjoyed J Shaara's glorious cause.

i am looking for a shelby-foote style retelling--any recs?

[Fergasun]

We won the war because we had those Mohican characters on our side and one of their buddies kept drinking everyone's damn milkshakes...

[JMS]

I disagree. Finishing Washington doesn't end the war. It simply delays it until a new army w/ a new commander can be raised.

It simply is a delay in the defeat of the British. They lost because they weren't completely committed to winning even if it meant destroying the colonies.

The only competent officers the Revolution had were Washington and his leutenants. If Washington was defeated on Long Island the revolution would have lost Nathanial Green who turned around the South after Gates was defeated. It would have lost Benedict Arnold who was the real hero of the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 in which General John Burgoyne's Canadian forces were defeated ending the threat to New England and many historians believe putting the outcome of the war beyond doubt. If Washington was defeated in long island in the summer of 1776, he never would have defeated the Hessians that December at Trenton. The French would have not gotten into the war and the independence movement would have been at an end from a military perspective.

[JMS]

OK y'all-what are your best (favorite) books on this subject

I got D macullough 1776 (and the adams one), and I actually enjoyed J Shaara's glorious cause.

i am looking for a shelby-foote style retelling--any recs?

His Excellency by David Maccullough ( about Washington ).

Founding Brothers

John Adams

John and Abigal Adams

[Bang]

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

[PeterMP]

The only competent officers the Revolution had were Washington and his leutenants. If Washington was defeated on Long Island the revolution would have lost Nathanial Green who turned around the South after Gates was defeated. It would have lost Benedict Arnold who was the real hero of the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 in which General John Burgoyne's Canadian forces were defeated ending the threat to New England and many historians believe putting the outcome of the war beyond doubt. If Washington was defeated in long island in the summer of 1776, he never would have defeated the Hessians that December at Trenton. The French would have not gotten into the war and the independence movement would have been at an end from a military perspective.

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.

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 Decleration 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?

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.