Benedict Arnold and the Battle of Valcour Island

The Battle of Valcour Island, fought on October 11th 1776 is one of the most fascinating naval engagements fought in North America. A victory for the British, the small but determined American force under General Benedict Arnold fought tenaciously and subsequently managed to delay a British invasion south for nearly a year. This granted valuable time for the Americans to better consolidate their positions for the inevitable offensive which would culminate at the Battles of Saratoga in 1777, a decisive victory for the Americans and the turning point in the War for Independence.

Brian Hughes explains.

A depiction of the Battle of Valcour Island.

In Autumn of 1776 the outlook did not look favorable for the fledgling United States. The Battle of Long Island was a catastrophe for the Continental Army. George Washington had managed to salvage a fraction of his force, just barely escaping encirclement and annihilation as he retreated across New Jersey. Washington also faced the loss of most of the militia forces as the end of the year approached and their terms of enlistments expired.

The Americans faced setbacks in the north as well. The expeditionary force which had invaded Canada the previous year had been dislodged by a renewed British counterattack. The Northern Army was forced to discard valuable equipment and suffered significant casualties as a result. The British and their mixed force of various German, Indigenous and Canadian allies were now well poised to launch an invasion south down the strategic Champlain-Hudson Corridor, severing New England from the middle Colonies and linking up with the substantial British force pursuing Washington. If successful this operation would likely end the rebellion. 

Fort Ticonderoga

Fortunately for the Americans they still possessed Fort Ticonderoga, strategically situated between Lake(s) Champlain and George which they had captured the previous year. Major General Philip Schuyler Commander of the Northern Army recognized the tenuousness of the situation and with great resourcefulness integrated his defenses to the best of his ability. In addition to Fort Ticonderoga the Americans maintained a modest flotilla of ships to aid in their defenses. The decision was made to further augment American naval capabilities on the Lake as a means to challenge the maritime supremacy of the British to their north. The Americans however did not possess a noteworthy supply of trained seaman and commanders. The few experienced sailors within the American cause tended to prefer privateering on the high seas as the potential for prize money was a far more appealing incentive for the experienced mariner. One notable American commander would however prove to be a major asset, Brigadier General Benedict Arnold.

Benedict Arnold

Prior to the war Benedict Arnold had been a successful sailor and merchant who frequently voyaged to the Bahamas, Canada and probably Europe. Not only was Arnold a competent and knowledgeable seaman he was also acquainted with ship construction, expertise which the Americans desperately required especially in the backcountry of Upstate New York. Beginning nearly from scratch, the Americans methodically began to construct a series of ships at Skenesborough, modern day Whitehall, New York. Philip Schuyler worked around the clock to provide the Americans with whatever material they required exacerbating an already difficult logistical situation. Meanwhile, the British to the north were likewise enlarging their naval capacities as summer gave way to fall and the window of opportunity for campaigning shortened. The American Armada gradually piecemealed their force up the lake as they awaited the completion of the final vessels. The issues of supplies and armaments still plagued the Americans as they were short of nearly everything from nails for the ships to food and powder and even warm clothing.

Numbering sixteen ships and termed the “Mosquito Fleet” because of the eclectic make up of vessels. In addition to standard square rigged gunboats Arnold ordered the construction of gondolas outfitted with a triangular or lateen sail. This design afforded greater maneuverability and agility particularly in some of the narrower coves and shorelines indenting Lake Champlain. The largest vessel in the American Armada was the Royal Savage which resembled a standard Ship of the Line albeit in smaller fashion. Guns were placed fore and aft as well as the sides as the inexperienced American gun crews had to drill without powder and ammunition saving what little they had for the upcoming engagement.

Arnold displayed impressive strategic and tactical instincts in predicting the British strategy. Knowing full well that the Americans could not parity British naval power and the superior training he would have to be creative. Arnold kept the British guessing by shielding his fleet within Valcour Bay, just off the New York shoreline near present day Plattsburgh. Due to the shape of Valcour Island a vessel sailing south could not detect the presence of ships to the west. By positioning his fleet here Arnold planned to force the British to give battle on unfavorable terms sailing upwind into a narrow cove in which he could negate their advantage in firepower. But this would be a gamble, as the British could opt to disregard the little fleet to their rear and continue pressing south thus forcing a hopeless pursuit. Also, Valcour Island could be easily cut off to the north and south, trapping Arnold’s fleet and granting no chance of escape. 

Guy Carleton

As the British fleet embarked it proved to be formidable. On board was Guy Carleton in nominal charge of the invasion. The British did however spend extra time ensuring the strength of their fleet as it was now mid-October and already snow was visible on the High Peaks of the Adirondack Mountains on Lake Champlain’s western shore. The American’s had been waiting in anticipation for weeks at this point being at full mercy of the harsh northern elements without sufficient clothing and unable to go to shore due to frequent attacks from Indians loyal to the British.

Arnold arrayed his flotilla in a line of battle in Valcour Bay. As the British fleet began to sail south Arnold dispatched the Royal Savage and the highly nimble Congress to goad them into battle. In this they were successful but at cost to the Royal Savage which ran aground forcing its crew to flee. The British struggled to sail upwind and bring their superior firepower to bear on the Americans. Both sides began to exchange gunfire which wrought havoc on the ships and crew. The Battle lasted all day as casualties on both sides remained relatively light as the advent of darkness ended the engagement. The British found themselves in an ideal position to resume battle the following day as they weighed anchor with the knowledge that they had effectively nullified the American’s ammunition and powder from the battle. 

Bold decision

Arnold conferred with his officers and made a bold decision. The British fleet left just enough space for the remainder of the American boats to slip past single file and flee south. Muffling his oars Arnold led the column ever so closely past the warships standing sentinel as one by one the American flotilla fled south taking advantage of a favorable wind. As dawn broke the British were shocked. They could not fathom that the “trapped” American force would be capable of mounting an escape, they instantly gave chase. After a day-long pursuit the wind became less favorable for the Americans. On October 13th the British caught up with Arnolds fleet. Arnold scuttled his ships in the bottom of Buttonmold Bay on the Vermont side of the Lake stripping his ships of anything valuable as he led his troops overland and back to Fort Ticonderoga.

The British were surprised by the aggressive resistance by the Americans. Arriving at Crown Point on October 20th it appeared the winter was prematurely setting in. The lateness of the season coupled with the prospect of facing an even greater number of adversaries in a siege-based scenario forced the British turnaround and sail back to Canada and await the thaw of Spring. 

Arnold had achieved his objective. Despite losing the engagement of Valcour Island he managed to successfully delay a British invasion that likely would have put an end to the rebel cause. The Battle of Valcour Island resembled a nautical Bunker Hill. In spite of British victory, the dogged and resourceful Americans displayed courage in face of overwhelming odds inflicting horrendous casualties and reforming in good order to fight another day.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Sullivan-Clinton Expedition Against the Iroquois in 1779

The Sullivan-Clinton Expedition Against the Iroquois took place in the summer of 1779 in New York and Pennsylvania. The attack came via a decision of George Washington as the Iroquois Native Americans were Allied with the British during the American Revolutionary War. Brian Hughes explains.

A woodcut print of the Burning of Newtown in 1779.

In the summer of 1779, a large serpentine column of American Forces under the command of Major General John Sullivan departed their camp in Easton Pennsylvania and proceeded northwest up the Wyoming Valley. Theirdestination, the large and fertile stretch of land comprising most of present-day Western New York State and home to the powerful Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Confederacy, one of the most powerful tribes in North America and allied to Great Britain. Working in conjunction with Sullivan’s force was a smaller array of soldiers led by Brigadier General James Clinton who at the same time proceeded down the Mohawk Valley of New York State. The objective was the total devastation of the war making capabilities of the Iroquois-British alliance legitimized in response to the persistent raids launched on the New York and Pennsylvania frontiers by the Iroquois and their British/Loyalist allies. The campaign was launched in particular in retribution for the Iroquois-Loyalist raids into Pennsylvania and The Cherry Valley Massacre in New York the previous year. The result would be a catastrophe for the Iroquois leading to their ultimate demise thus forever changing American history.

Following the outbreak of hostilities in 1775 the Iroquois constituting the six nations of the Seneca, Cayuga, Tuscarora, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk remained divided and confused by what they viewed as a civil war between Great Britain and her colonies. Neutrality could not be maintained indefinitely as increasing pressure fractured the cohesion of the confederacy as certain tribes began to take sides with the powerful Seneca and Mohawk choosing the British whom they were convinced had the best chance of success. Only the Oneida and some Tuscarora would fight for the Americans as the majority of the Iroquois became increasingly concerned with colonial encroachment on their ancestral land. A problem that the British at least attempted to delay. Raids and counterraids would ensue throughout the northern frontiers of New York and Pennsylvania in addition to pitched battles such as the appalling Battle of Oriskany in the Mohawk Valley of New York State where combined Tory and Patriot militias fought a gruesome battle with their respective Seneca and Oneida allies. The brutal clashes along the frontier would continue even as the major fronts of the war shifted from north to south. In 1778 a joint Iroquois-Loyalist raiding party attacked settlements in Cherry Valley New York and the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania killing combatants and noncombatants alike. The ferocity was appalling and cleverly propagandized. For American forces this was the final straw, the Iroquois Confederacy and their British enablers had to be dealt with.

Before the war

Before the war George Washington worked as a land surveyor in addition to being a planter and officer in the colonial militia. Like many other colonials Washington longed for the day in which the vast fertile lands of the Ohio country west of the Appalachian Mountains could be cultivated and settled. The Iroquois maintained a powerful position in regards to this region as swift and vicious wars of conquest enabled them to control virtual monopoly on the fur trade from Canada to the Mississippi River. It is widely speculated that desire to shift the power dynamics in this territory would be an additional impetus for the coming military enterprise. Washington devised a plan to invade the Iroquois homeland via a two-pronged invasion to advance on Fort Niagara, a strategic focal point between Western New York and Canada. As the dual columns advanced, they were instructed by Washington to devastate the lands, crops, and villages as a means to intimidate and nullify the total war making capabilities of the tribes deemed hostile to the United States. It is speculated that these tribes had upwards to three thousand warriors but this can’t be wholly substantiated. 

Command

Command of the expedition had initially been offered to Horatio Gates, victor of the Battles of Saratoga. Gates would decline on account of his age. Instead, command was given to Major General John Sullivan of New Hampshire who would operate in conjunction with Brigadier General James Clinton. Sullivan assembled his army at Easton, Pennsylvania departing up the Wyoming Valley in July 1779. Clinton advanced a month earlier in June, his initial objective being the town of Canajoharie on the Mohawk River. The American force disguised their intentions well, for an invasion of the Iroquois homeland seemed inconceivable given the size, terrain, and martial reputation of their people. The British speculated that the Americans would attempt another invasion of Canada as they had previously done in late 1775.  In August Sullivan arrived at the mixed white/indigenous settlement of Chemung, destroying the village in the process. The British forces were led by loyalist Colonel John Butler. Butler could muster no more than six hundred Indians and Loyalists to oppose the nearly five thousand man combined force of Sullivan and Clinton who had now linked up. Butler worked with renowned Mohawk war chief Joseph Brant and assembled a motley force of Loyalists, Rangers and Iroquois loyal to Great Britain to confront the American force at Newtown, present day Elmira New York. A fierce pitched battle ensued on the 29th of August as the combined application of infantry and artillery of the Americans rapidly overran Butler and Brant’s detachment. Following the battle Newtown was burned by the Americans. 

Newtown

Newtown would be the only large-scale pitched battle of the campaign. It is interesting that the outnumbered allied force of Loyalists and Iroquois deviated from traditional guerilla tactics and instead offered open battle. Sullivan and Clinton now possessed the tactical flexibility to systematically burn towns and settlements spanning the area around the Finger Lakes, the heartland of Iroquoia. Sullivan did however overextend his supply lines forcing his men to halt constantly and granting valuable time for refugees to flee. The devastation was enormous. It is estimated that up to forty towns and dwellings had been destroyed not to mention innumerable bushels of corn and other crops. The psychological toll in which the expedition took was even more significant passing into the collective memory of Iroquois descendants to this day. By launching such an unprecedented attack, the American did however unintentionally better solidify the British/Iroquois alliance. The Sullivan Expedition did not completely eradicate the especially hostile Seneca and Mohawk Nations and indiscriminately wreaked havoc on the more neutral leaning Onondaga and Cayuga. Even at the objections of their Oneida allies. But it would be the beginning of the end of Iroquois hegemony in northern regions of North America. The final nail in the coffin indeed would be the ultimate defeat of Great Britain a few years later.

In perspective

The Sullivan Expedition in many ways was a precursor to William Tecumseh Sherman’s March through Georgia during the American Civil War. Although not as entirely successful, it demonstrated the willingness of a lethal and well-coordinated mobile force to invade an immense swathe of land, ravishing it along with its inhabitants all while taking relatively few casualties. It remains a pivotal and often overlooked chapter of the American Revolution.

Did you enjoy the piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Was American Revolutionary War General Benedict Arnold a Hero or Traitor?

Benedict Arnold (1740-1801) was an American born Major General during the American Revolutionary War. However, he changed to the British side during the war. Here, Richard Bluttal considers whether Benedict Arnold was a traitor or hero.

A 1776 portrait of Benedict Arnold.

John André had been warned to keep inland, but instead he shifted west until he was riding down the Albany Post Road, which follows the edge of the Hudson. He rode on safely until 9 a.m. on September 23, 1780, when he arrived at the crossing of a stream known as Clark's Kill, which today forms the boundary between Tarrytown, New York, and Sleepy Hollow, New York (and has since been renamed the André River). Here three young men - John Paulding, Isaac Van Wart and David Williams - stopped him.  André believed that these three were Loyalists because Paulding was wearing a Hessian soldier's uniform. Paulding had himself escaped from a British prison only days earlier, aided by a sympathetic Loyalist who provided him with the uniform. "Gentlemen," André said, "I hope you belong to our party." "What party?" asked one of the men. "The lower party", replied André, meaning the British, whose headquarters were to the South. "We do" was their answer. André then declared that he was a British officer who must not be detained. To his surprise, Paulding informed him "We are Americans," and took him prisoner. André then tried to convince the men that he was a US officer by showing them the passport given to him by Mr. Arnold. But the suspicions of his captors were now aroused; they searched him and found papers and the plans for West Point hidden in his stocking that was not meant for Americans.

André later testified at his trial that the men searched his boots for the purpose of robbing him. Whether or not this was true, the laws of New York State at the time permitted the men to keep whatever booty they might find on a Loyalist's person.

British Major John André was one of the most famous prisoners of the Revolutionary War. A favorite of British General Sir Henry Clinton, the handsome young major was also popular with Philadelphia "high society;" intelligent and witty, André was noted for the elaborate entertainments he wrote and designed for parties.

Scheming

Benedict Arnold approached the British with his scheme to help them take control of West Point. André served as the messenger between Arnold and General Clinton. On September 21, 1780, André met with Arnold, and Arnold gave him confidential documents, including a map of West Point. André intended to return to British General Clinton and give him the documents. André was part of American General Benedict Arnold's treasonous plot to surrender the strategic American fortification at West Point to the British. Arnold delivered key information about West Point's weaknesses to General Clinton through André, meeting him on the banks of the Hudson River.

This was long after Benedict Arnold was known as an American hero. The name Benedict Arnold is synonymous in American history with the word traitor. His name is almost a synonym for treasonous behavior so despicable, his many contributions to American Independence before becoming a turncoat are largely forgotten.

Arnold actually built a very impressive military career before his defection to the British army. During the American Revolution, Arnold quickly established himself as one of George Washington’s best generals. Realizing the strategic importance of securing New York, Arnold mustered a group of men and headed toward Fort Ticonderoga. Coordinating with Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, Arnold helped capture the fort for the Patriots.

Arnold believed the Continental Congress insufficiently rewarded his efforts, especially considering his sacrifices. Arnold lived extravagantly in Philadelphia and also engineered a variety of business deals that earned him a reputation for questionable practices in his desperate desire to impress Edward Shippen, a wealthy Philadelphia Loyalist, so that he could marry his 18-year-old daughter, Peggy.  Appointed to brigadier general, Arnold watched as Congress passed him over for promotion to the post of major general five times in favor of his subordinates. Arnold had every intention of resigning from military service following these outrages but not for Washington’s insistence that he stay. He was rewarded in 1777 with a promotion to major general and a post as military commander of Philadelphia. Continental officials could not confirm Arnold’s suspected betrayal until 1780 when hard evidence of his treason was uncovered through his relationship with John Andre. In 1780, Arnold was given command of West Point, an American fort on the Hudson River in New York (and future home of the U.S. military academy, established in 1802).

Complexity

 Arnold contacted Sir Henry Clinton, head of the British forces, and proposed handing over West Point and his men. While Arnold’s betrayal was clear—he offered the British seizure of the military fortress at West Point, NY, in exchange for 10,000 pounds and a British military commission—what led up to that moment of betrayal is more complicated.

Why did Benedict Arnold betray the US? Historians have several theories about why Arnold became a traitor: greed; mounting debt; resentment of other officers; a hatred of the Continental Congress; and a desire for the colonies to remain under British rule.  Eric D. Lehman, author of Homegrown Terror: Benedict Arnold and the Burning of New London, notes that others at the time had similar character issues but they did not betray their country. Lehman spent time looking over Arnold’s letters and other first-hand accounts.

“Some seemed to point to him ‘lacking feeling,’ i.e. sociopathic, but others showed him having too much feeling—he couldn’t control his temper. The number one thing I found across all of them was his selfish ambition, which came from a profound lack of self-esteem as a child and young man,” Lehman says.

Lehman thinks it’s important to remember the whole story of Arnold—his betrayal wasn’t just treason. The British, who had much to gain from Arnold switching sides, found him dishonorable and untrustworthy.

“One thing that has been left out of so many tellings of Arnold’s story is that he didn’t stop after his West Point treason was discovered,” Lehman points out. “He went on to attack Virginia—almost capturing Thomas Jefferson—and then attacking Connecticut, his home state.

“Spying was one thing, but his willingness to switch sides in the middle of an armed conflict, and fight against the men who had a year earlier been fighting by his side, was something that people of that time and maybe ours could simply not understand.”

Conclusion

Arnold would continue to serve in the military, only now he served the British against his former countrymen. In December, he led a force of British troops into Virginia, capturing Richmond and laying waste to the countryside. Arnold would die in 1801, leaving behind him a legacy as America’s most notorious traitor. As for John Andre, he was moved from Headquarters, to West Point, and finally to Tappan, where he was housed in a tavern. There, as the verdict was decided that André was acting as a spy by going behind enemy lines and disguising his uniform, he wrote a courageous letter, dated September 29, 1780, to his Commander, General Henry Clinton.  All the men on both sides were amazed at the turn of events. The American men admired André for his gallantry as much as the British did for his leadership. No one wanted him to die, but Washington had to be firm and did not back down. André was hanged as a spy at Tappan, New York, on October 2, 1780. He was mourned even by his enemies.

What do you think of Benedict Arnold? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s article on the role of baseball in the US Civil War here.

How did a Bunch of Farmers Beat the Most Powerful Military in the World?

The American Revolution sent shockwaves around the world, but how did the rebel Americans beat the British, arguably the most powerful military in the world at the time? Richard Bluttal explains by looking British weaknesses and American strengths.

A painting entitled The Battle of Long Island. By 21st century artist Domenick D'Andrea.

“The time is now near…” wrote Commander-in-Chief George Washington, which will “…determine whether Americans are to be Freemen or Slaves.” Over the course of the Revolutionary War, as many as 400,000 men from the ages of 16 to 60 fought against the British—about 25,000 gave their lives. Basic training was short, rations inadequate, and pay was poor. Some enlisted out of patriotism, some joined for the adventure, and others were drafted. Length of service varied from a few months to the duration of the war. Leaders like Washington soon discovered that instilling discipline and keeping an army of volunteers on the battlefield and off the wheat field (many soldiers were farmers who returned home during harvests without permission) was no easy feat. In 1778, the royal army consisted of nearly 50,000 regular troops combined with over 30,000 German (Hessian) mercenaries. George Washington, in contrast, never had more than 20,000 troops under his command at any one time. Most of these American soldiers were young (ranging in age from their early teens to their mid-20s), landless, unskilled, and poor. Others were indentured servants and slaves who were serving as substitutes for their masters and had been promised freedom at the war's end. Also in the Continental army were many women who cared for the sick and wounded, cooked, mended clothes, buried the dead, and sometimes served in combat.

The British seemed unbeatable. During the previous 100 years, the British had enjoyed triumph after triumph over nations as powerful as France and Spain. At first glance, the odds were clearly against the Americans. A closer look provides insight into how the underdogs emerged victorious.

Britain's military was the best in the world. Their soldiers were well equipped, well disciplined, well paid, and well fed. The British navy dominated the seas. Funds were much more easily raised by the Empire than by the Continental Congress. Some of those funds were used to hire Hessian mercenaries to fight the Americans.

The Americans had tremendous difficulty raising enough funds to purchase basic supplies for their troops, including shoes and blankets. The British had a winning tradition. Around one in five Americans openly favored the Crown, with about half of the population hoping to avoid the conflict altogether. Most Indian tribes sided with Britain, who promised protection of tribal lands.

So, we ask the question, how was it possible that the Americans could defeat the British. It certainly was a long shot, let’s see.

BRITISH WEAKNESSES

The British fought a war far from home. Military orders, troops, and supplies sometimes took months to reach their destinations. The British had an extremely difficult objective.  Distance was a huge, huge factor. And it wasn’t just about getting orders across the ocean. The British supply chain was simply too long. They could only compensate by looting the local people—which certainly didn’t help the public opinion of “the King’s men.” They had to persuade the Americans to give up their claims of independence. As long as the war continued, the colonists' claim continued to gain validity. The geographic vastness of the colonies proved a hindrance to the British effort. Another weakness of the British army was fighting on the wooded and hilly terrain of the American colonies. The British sought flat, open ground so that they could fight in the European style they were accustomed to, with lines of men blasting away at each other with muskets from 50-75 yards. (Although the British had defeated the French in the French and Indian War, their most crucial victory had been at Quebec, on the Plains of Abraham, where the two foes battled as they might have in France). American soldiers were much more willing to fight from concealment and retreat to fight another day, leaving the British, their supply lines growing ever attenuated and more perilous, chasing after them.

The British had just fought a difficult war with the French and their native American allies in the French and Indian War. The cost to Britain was enormous. There were constant debates in the British Parliament about the funding of this new conflict, thousands of miles from the homeland.

A related weakness for the British was the fact that it was difficult for the government to recruit men into the army, since there was no military draft, and few able-bodied British men wanted the hard and dangerous life of the army overseas. In order to fulfill Gen. William Howe’s wish for 50,000 men to defeat the colonials, the British government was forced to turn to German mercenaries from the then-province of Hesse-Cassell (whom the Americans therefore called Hessians). Thirty-thousand British and Hessian troops were in fact sent to North America 1776, but since mercenaries felt no loyalty beyond a paycheck, they were prone to desertion.

Another weakness of the British, especially at the outset of the war, was its disdain for the colonial fighters it was facing – Burgoyne would famously call the Americans “a rabble in arms" -- and be defeated by them at the battle of Saratoga. Gen. Thomas Gage, commanding 2,200 British soldiers at the Battle of Bunker Hill (really Breed’s Hill) in June of 1775, sent his men in frontal charges against this “rabble,” only to see the American stand their ground and kill or wound half of the British forces. Finally, the British faced a failure in coordinating strategic objectives -- their commanders, King George III and his ministers in England, were never quite on the same page as to the best way to defeat the Americans, in part because the same distances that made resupply difficult kept communication uncertain and lacking in timeliness.

AMERICAN STRENGTHS

With so many Americans undecided, the war became in great measure a battle to win popular support. If the patriots could succeed in selling their ideas of revolution to the public, then popular support might follow and the British would be doomed.

Even with military victory, it would have been impossible for the Crown to regain the allegiance of the people. Revolution would merely flare up at a later date.

In the long run, however, the patriots were much more successful attracting support. American patriots won the war of propaganda. Committees of Correspondence persuaded many fence-sitters to join the patriot cause. Writings such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" stirred newfound American nationalism.

As to the war strategy, the Native American allies taught the Americans a whole different kind of warfare, guerrilla or snake warfare. The greatest use of guerrilla warfare during the American Revolution took place during the Southern Campaign. Led by American general, Nathanael Greene, and aided by Baron Friedrich von Steuben, guerrilla warfare was used extensively in the later years of the war. In the forests of the South, Greene was able to draw British forces away from their supplies and then engage them with small fighting units in order to inflict damage. By dividing his forces, Greene was able to spread his soldiers across a wider area. As a result, British General Charles Cornwallis and the Southern detachment of the British Army often found extreme difficulty finding the Americans and successfully contending with them in skirmishes. Also, the Americans knew the country. They’d been fighting the Indians (sometimes accompanied by the French) for decades before the Revolution. They knew how to take advantage of terrain, and they did. And then, of course, you had the backwoodsmen, who generally had Kentucky rifles—which were an entirely different order of weapon from the smoothbore Brown Bess muskets the British had: they shot longer and straighter. Now if you’re a Patriot in a buckskin jacket, lying in the brush and aiming at a block of men wearing bright red coats in the woods, crammed together in Napoleonic squares (which was how European armies fought even before Napoleon), trying to shoot from daylight into shadow… who do you think is going to hit the target? Was this why the Americans were called ragtag soldiers?

Many politicians were calling this group of colonists, ragtag soldiers. I think James Volo (MA in Military History and Wars, American Military University) addresses this concept of ragtag soldiers very well. “The American were not a rag-tag bunch of farmers. They had been exposed to and part of the defensive forces of the several colonies since their founding. Most of the soldiers who fought for the English colonies prior to the final cataclysm of the French and Indian War were colonials. Only after 1759 were large numbers of regulars sent to the English colonies. However, these colonials were not formed into a simple citizen army but rather were regular provincial troops—formed into regiments and paid by the colony. From this point provincial regiments were established to replace the less formal militia units in major operations. In many colonies they became permanent organizations known as the Governor's Foot Guard, or Horse Guard. In later times, they became the Royal Americas or the Queen's Rangers. There remains in America the cherished romantic concept of the militia as "minutemen," a mythical army of self-trained and self-armed warriors springing from the colonial soil in times of trouble. This is not completely true. Most of the American officer of the Revolution — like Washington himself — had been officers or NCOs in the French Wars, and many of the Rev War NCOs (excepting the youngest) had served as soldiers in that war — Putnam, Stephen, Hazen, Pomeroy, Wooster, Stuart, Schuyler. Virginia established a system of paid, mounted rangers in the 17th century of almost 1,000 men. They patrolled the frontiers, held down depredations, and tried to keep abreast of the attitudes of the natives for a century. The New England colonies established a similar but less extensive system of rangers along their northern borders in the French and Indian War to protect the outlying settlers from the ravages of sudden attack. The best-known group of rangers was that raised by Robert Rogers from among the tough woodsmen of the New Hampshire frontier. Israel Putnam, one of the later and now a general in the American Revolution, had helped to inform the establishment of British Light Infantry. The British at the end of the war could not believe that a bookseller (Knox), and blacksmith (Greene) and a tavern keeper (Putnam) had beaten them.“

AVOIDING A KNOCK-OUT BLOW

Washington's strategy of avoiding large-scale confrontations with the royal army made it impossible for the British to deliver a knock-out blow. Only once during the Revolution (at Charleston, S.C. in 1780) did an American army surrender to British forces.

The direct assistance of France and Spain, and the indirect assistance of the Dutch was of great importance to the revolution. It also gave the Americans a fighting chance against the Royal Navy, battles like Penobscot proved that the Americans hadn’t much of a chance against the British navy. However, the intervention of French and Spanish navies changed this. The Americans also had the help of privateers. With the French and Spanish against them as well, Britain ended up fighting a war that they couldn’t win. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington’s forces in Virginia. French assistance was crucial in securing the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. Prior to the onset of the American Revolution, the original 13 colonies had no real naval force other than an abundance of merchant vessels that were engaged in domestic and foreign trade. The colonies' merchant service had vast experience with the open sea and with warfare, which included British naval expeditions against Cartagena, Spain, and Nova Scotia during the nine years of war with France (1754–1763). Thus, the importance of naval power was recognized early in the conflict. On 13 October 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the Continental Navy and established the U.S. Marine Corps on 10 November. By 1776, the colonies had 27 warships—in contrast to the powerful Royal British Navy, which had about 270 warships. Also problematic was that American commanders were often confronted by sailors and Marines who had not been adequately trained and lacked discipline.

Perhaps the single most important reason for the patriot victory was the breadth of popular support for the Revolution. The Revolution would have failed miserably without the participation of thousands of ordinary farmers, artisans, and laborers who put themselves into the line of fire. The Revolution's support cut across region, religion, and social rank. Common farmers, artisans, shopkeepers, petty merchants were major actors during the Revolution. Ex-servants, uneducated farmers, immigrants, and slaves emerged into prominence in the Continental Army.

The growth of popular participation in politics began even before the Revolution. In the years preceding the war, thousands of ordinary Americans began to participate in politics--in non-importation and non-exportation campaigns, in anti-Tory mobs, and in committees of correspondence linking inland villages and seaports. Many men joined groups like the Sons of Liberty to protest British encroachments on American liberties. Many women took the lead in boycotts of British goods; they also took up the spinning wheel to produce homespun clothes. During the Revolution itself, some 400,000 Americans, including at least 5,000 African Americans, served in the fighting for at least some time.

CONCLUSION

The Revolution had momentous consequences. It created the United States. It transformed a monarchical society, in which the colonists were subjects of the Crown, into a republic, in which they were citizens and participants in the political process. The Revolution also gave a new political significance to the middling elements of society-- artisans, merchants, farmers, and traders--and made it impossible for elites to openly disparage ordinary people.

Above all, the Revolution popularized certain radical ideals--especially a commitment to liberty, equality, government of the people, and rule of law. However, compromised in practice, these egalitarian ideals inspired a spirit of reform. Slavery, the subordination of women, and religious intolerance--all became problems in a way that they had never been before.

The Revolution also set into motion larger changes in American life. It inspired Americans to try to reconstruct their society in line with republican principles. The Revolution inspired many Americans to question slavery and other forms of dependence, such as indentured servitude and apprenticeship. By the early 19th century, the northern states had either abolished slavery or adopted gradual emancipation plans. Meanwhile, white indentured servitude had virtually disappeared.

What do you think of American strengths and British weaknesses during the American Revolution? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s series of articles on trauma and medicine during war, starting with the American Revolution here.

The 1775 Battle for Quebec - The Importance of Benedict Arnold

In September 1775, a small handpicked group of men boarded a makeshift flotilla embarking from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Having successfully bypassed Royal Navy scout ships this ramshackle fleet made for the wild and desolate Coast of Maine. Their objective was to disembark and march through the thick North Woods to the Citadel of Quebec, which stood like a sentinel at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Their intended route had never been taken which proved to have dire consequences as distances and conditions were critically misunderstood. Conducting such an operation took considerable skill, determination, and sheer force of will to which the leader of this expedition did in fact possess. His name was Benedict Arnold.

Brian Hughes explains.

A portrait of Benedict Arnold. By Thomas Hart.

Prelude

Following the initial outbreak of hostilities at Lexington and Concord an obscure Captain of Connecticut Militia arrived outside of Boston Massachusetts to join the coalescing colonial forces turning up in their masses to contest British rule. Benedict Arnold had been a successful sea-going merchant and Apothecary owner from the prosperous city of New Haven, Connecticut. It didn’t take long for Arnold to draw the conclusion that the Colonials found themselves in a difficult situation. Having successfully contained British forces within Boston, this ragtag Army of Patriots lacked the necessary artillery required to dislodge them. Arnold proposed capturing the guns from the dilapidated Fort Ticonderoga, located at the strategic nexus of Lake George and Lake Champlain. Arnold was granted a commission as a Colonel and would lead the enterprise in tandem (though begrudgingly) with the leader of the infamous Green Mountain Boys, Ethan Allen. The enterprise turned out to be successful, having secured more than enough weapons and materials for the besiegers who were then able to displace their foes.

Having now made a name for himself, Arnold displayed impressive military acumen by deducing that a major British counterattack was inevitable and measures would need to be taken in order to avert such a predicament. Traditionally, armies operating in the North American theater of war utilized the strategic Champlain-Hudson Corridor, a nearly continuous series of waterways from Quebec to New York City. With the absence of numerous roads this aquatic highway was the most efficient and logical method for transporting men and material throughout this vital region. Both the French and British armies made consistent use of these lakes and rivers throughout the French and Indian war as had various indigenous peoples for time immemorial. When the British returned, they would arrive in the north and attack from here.

Knowing full well that Quebec was to be the logical focal point of the British counterblow the now reinvigorated Patriot forces were in some haste to prevent this incursion from happening. Philip Schuyler, an influential New York Patroon and newly made Major General opted to lead a detachment from Fort Ticonderoga and capture Montreal. This plan would soon be dashed as Schuyler became immobilized by gout. Command then passed to General Richard Montgomery, a former British Army Officer and transplant to North America.

March

Benedict Arnold simultaneously proposed an additional invasion route. Arnold offered to lead a small column of men from Massachusetts to Maine (then still part of Massachusetts) and lead his file overland traversing multiple portages, to surprise and ultimately capture Quebec before the British could respond to the taking of Montreal. The route proposed by Arnold was untried, having been only partially scouted by military surveyors; the most noteworthy map had been drawn up by a British Military Engineer by the name of John Montressor in 1761. It proved to be hopelessly flawed however, misjudging distances and elevations to a considerable degree.

To this day Maine remains one of the most wild and remote states on the Atlantic Seaboard. Men would have to trek through dense forests, ford flooded rivers and treacherous currents, brave extreme temperatures, all while sustaining themselves on meager rations. All of this was compounded with the lateness of the season as the brutal northern winter approached abruptly. In early September Arnold assembled an ad hoc flotilla consisting of 1,100 men and proceeded to lead his vessels up the New England Coast successfully evading Royal Navy vessels in the process. The troops disembarked and began making their way up the Kennebec River but the various columns of troops quickly became separated.

The conditions were appalling. Men were constantly soaked between fording waterways and the relentless autumn rains. The Bateaux and watercraft utilized were not capable of handling the necessary logistical requirements, often floundering and breaking, losing vital provisions in the process. Arnold often traveled ahead of the main bodies of troops sending any essential supplies in which he could requisition from the inhabitants. Food became increasingly scarce. The men had to scrounge for whatever sustenance the country could offer, with some eventually succumbing to hunger while others consumed bits of leather from their shoes and clothing. With supreme endurance coupled with Arnolds exemplary leadership, this small force endured these tribulations to reach their destination in time to rendezvous with Montgomery. But their already small numbers had been significantly depleted, losing about half of their men in the process.

Attack

By now the Anglo-Canadians were aware of Montgomery’s successful capture of Montreal on the 13th November and were coming to realize their vulnerable situation as Arnolds men stormed out of the North Woods and stood defiantly across the river from the city. The British Commander and acting Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Guy Carleton proved more than capable in dealing with the tenuousness of the situation. Mobilizing all the personnel he could muster, including several sailors aboard the few ships still in the St. Lawrence, the opposing forces would be roughly equal in size, a factor which benefited the defenders as the American troops possessed only scant siege material.

With Montgomery arriving with his body on the 2nd of December, Arnold proceeded to meet and confer with the Major General as they eventually drew up a plan of attack. With both commanders leading a contingent, Arnold and Montgomery intended to launch a two pronged assault on the upper and lower towns. Making use of whatever artillery and siege equipment they had in their possession, they would swiftly overrun the garrison whom they believed possessed low morale and defended decrepit posts. The Americans would be forced to act quickly as another factor to which they had to consider was the soon to expire enlistments of the various militia troops comprising the bulk of their already small force. It was imperative that the assault occur before the end of the year, when the commanders would be obliged to send these troops home.

On the 31st of December a blinding snowstorm took hold. The timing of such a blizzard served as yet another impediment to the American besiegers. With no other choice but to attack the assault was carried out as intended. Both Arnold and Montgomery characteristically led from the front braving a storm of bullets that seemed to be as numerous as the falling snowflakes. It was then that a fatal blow afflicted the Americans as General Montgomery urged his column ahead from the vanguard; he was instantly struck down by a cannon blast killing himself and several accompanying officers instantly. As confusion struck the attackers the next officer in charge wavered under the strain of combat and ordered a hasty withdrawal isolating Arnold’s troops to press on alone. While this was happening, Arnold was struck in the leg by a musket ball causing agonizing pain. Arnold tried his best to lead his men on but the wound was too much as he reluctantly withdrew to the rear urging his men on the entire time. Famed woodsmen and rifle corps leader Daniel Morgan then took command as he aggressively spearheaded a renewed assault leading his men and fighting ferociously. As the American assault made its way toward the agreed upon rallying point with Montgomery the disorientation of the weather and the resistance of the defenders became too much. As Morgan continued to push forward through the unfamiliar city a reformed British counterattack stopped the invaders in their tracks inflicting several casualties in the process with Morgan and hundreds of others being taken prisoner.

Aftermath

The attack had failed. The Anglo-Canadians continued their dogged resistance even as the Americans withdrew, maintaining a tenacious siege once again led by Arnold. But between the severity of the Canadian winter and their well supplied adversaries the Americans would eventually have to withdraw yet again this time to Montreal before reinforcements did eventually arrive months later and placated them from Quebec for good. Arnold's march through Maine remains one of the most impressive feats of daring fortitude in American history. Some would even refer to him as America’s Hannibal, after the Carthaginian General who boldly led his Army over the Alps to attack Rome. Although the Americans failed in their objective to take the City of Quebec, their stamina and perseverance foreshadowed that this conflict would not be resolved quickly after all.

What do you think of Benedict Arnold? Let us know below.

Now, if you enjoy the site and want to help us out a little, click here.

Deborah Sampson: The Most Important Female Fighter in the American Revolutionary War?

The American Revolutionary War evokes images of farmers and tradesmen putting down their tools for muskets, ordinary citizens stepping into roles otherwise foreign to them, and a willingness to fight and die for freedom. While the images in our minds of those doing so may flash from iconic officers like General George Washington, to simple privates plowing their way from New England to the mid-Atlantic and back again, history has shown us that not all those who took up arms for the fledgling republic were men. America’s first recognized female soldier, Deborah Sampson, would be a blazing example of America’s women being active in this founding conflict.

Jacqueline Nelson explains.

Portrait of Deborah Sampson. Front of The Female Review: Life of Deborah Sampson, the Female Soldier in the War of Revolution.

Origins

Deborah Sampson was born in 1760 and raised near Massachusetts’ original colony, Plymouth. She was, in fact, believed to be a descendent of both Myles Standish and Governor William Bradford. However, these deep roots would not be enough to save the Sampson children from poverty. Her father, Jonathan, was either lost at sea or abandoned the family when she was only five, and her mother was forced to ship her and her siblings off, individually, to family members willing to take them in. Then, when she was ten, Sampson was bound as an indentured servant and completed her term by eighteen. After, she would work as a teacher and weaver for several years.

At age twenty-one, Sampson went headlong into a war that had been raging for seven years. In 1782, she joined the Fourth Massachusetts Regiment as a volunteer under the alias of Robert Shurtleff/Shurtliff. Recently, a diary belonging to her neighbor was discovered which indicates that she actually tried this scheme earlier that year but was turned away because her disguise must not have been quite up to it. Dressing as a man was not only scandalous, but also illegal for the women of Massachusetts. As a result, she would be demonized by the local church. However, she would not be around to actually face their vitriol, as she tried again in May 1782, forty miles away from home, and was successfully enlisted.

Historians have long questioned why she would venture so willingly into a conflict that had already taken many American lives and had seen devasting conditions for soldiers like those infamous winters in Valley Forge and Morristown. In truth, women can be just as politically, patriotically, or emotionally driven to service as the men of their time. Similarly, as a woman who had lived in poverty her whole life, the promise of regular pay, enlistment bonuses/bounties, and other incentives for soldiers were also just as appealing to women as they were to the men. 

Service

Once enlisted, she would be assigned to West Point, where she served in the Light Infantry Troops. This demanding posting required soldiers to almost constantly be on the move, scouting the enemy, and when necessary, skirmishing with both English soldiers and Loyalist militia. Sampson’s tenure in the service is one that is debated, not in terms of her actual participation, which is undeniable, but her experiences while serving in the light infantry.

Sampson would not escape the war unscathed, and the injuries she sustained are a great example of that debate around her experience in the war. In one skirmish she is said to have received a nasty gash across her forehead from an opponent’s sword, which was treated at a field hospital, but in that same engagement she took two iron balls in her left thigh. Knowing that she would be discovered if this wound was treated, she slipped out of the hospital and back to her own tent, where she is said to have dug one piece of shrapnel out of her leg using a pen knife. Being unable to reach the other, she stitched up her wound with a simple sewing needle and lived the rest of her life with the shrapnel in her leg. Other sources indicate that she was shot in her shoulder and dug the iron ball from there.

Through it all, Sampson had been remarkably adept at keeping her identity secret, but she could not evade discovery forever. After serving for more than a year, she came down with a severe fever while serving outside Philadelphia in the summer of 1783. Her fever became untenable, and she fell unconscious. Not unlike a modern field medic or even your average EMT, medical providers often have to remove clothing to examine the body during treatment. When Dr. Barnabas Binney discovered that Robert was really Deborah, he could, as many would, report this to the closest officer and have her booted out immediately. Instead, he helped her continue to conceal her identity, temporarily, bringing her to his home, where his wife and daughters help to provide her care until she was well enough to return.

Shortly after her return, Dr. Binney would reveal her identity to her commanding officer, General John Paterson. Paterson would give her an honorable discharge on October 23, 1783, one month after the Treaty of Paris was signed, and seventeen months after she joined the army ranks. Some sources even indicate she received the discharge from General Henry Knox, one of Washington’s closest advisors. 

Legacy

Sampson would return to civilian life, marrying and having children, but she continued to struggle with poverty. Like many soldiers, her service did not come with all the rewards it was meant to. Thus, in her later years, she went on a year-long tour, at times in uniform, to lecture about her times in the service. She would also be among many soldiers who pushed for a military pension in rightful compensation for their service, though, sadly, she would not see it before she passed away at age 66. Still, Sampson would be the only woman to be awarded that pension, after much lobbying of Congress from her husband, those who saw her speak, and even founding fathers like Paul Revere and John Hancock. The committee reviewing her case came to the ultimate conclusion that the entirety of the Revolution, “furnished no other similar example of female heroism, fidelity and courage” than that found in Sampson. Sadly, they would come to this conclusion in 1837, ten years after she had passed away.

Sampson is the first recognized woman to join the ranks in the service of America, and in doing so she is the bedrock upon which American servicewomen would build. Hundreds of women are cataloged as having similarly disguised themselves as men to serve in the Civil War. Thousands would serve in the World Wars without the need for concealment through the demand for designated female branches in the armed services. Eventually, progress would lead to the integration of the armed forces, and the continued barriers being broken for women in the service today. Sampson’s headstone reads, “The Female Soldier”, and thankfully, her legacy was just the first of many.  

What do you think of Deborah Sampson? Let us know below.

References

Cowan, Alison Leigh. “The Woman Who Sneaked into George Washington’s Army.” New York Times, July 2, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/arts/design/the-woman-who-sneaked-into-george-washingtons-army.html

Michals, Debra. “Deborah Sampson.” National Women’s History Museum, 2015. Accessed 10/30/2021. https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/deborah-sampson

“Revolutionary War Diary Reveals New Details about Deborah Sampson, Who Disguised Herself as a Man to Join the Continental Army.” Museum of the American Revolution, July 3, 2019. Accessed 10/30/2021. https://www.amrevmuseum.org/press-releases/revolutionary-war-diary-reveals-new-details-about-deborah-sampson-who-disguised-herself-as-a-man-to-join-the-continental-army

Abigail Adams – An American Heroine

Abigail Smith, later Abigail Adams (1744-1818), was the wife of John Adams, the second President of the United States. Abigail, or Abby, had a very close partnership with John and so played an instrumental role in the Revolutionary War years and in the early years of an independent United States. Douglas Reid explains.

Abigail Adams in the 1760s. Painting by Benjamin Blyth.

Abigail Smith was a petite woman. She was born in the seaside village of Weymouth, Massachusetts in 1744 to Puritan parents, her father being one of two Bible scholars serving the spiritual needs of 2,100 souls. She would never receive a day of formal education but as an introverted young lady she would meet a local young lawyer named John Adams and her fate was assured. The 54- year marriage of John and Abigail Adams was a partnership of heart and mind.

Abigail proved to be a natural scholar who inhaled her father’s library in large swallows, especially the prose and poetry of John Donne and the essays of Montaigne. It helped a great deal that her father encouraged her to read and then think about what she read. Subsequently her husband would also encourage her in these self-styled seminars and three occurrences together produced a scholar of no mean standing. Add to this mix her belated blossoming and this produced a young woman of fire and desire. And Abby made a point of cultivating the friendship of two special soul mates.

Abby began a three-year correspondence with the historian Catherine Macaulay. And she also developed a more enduring friendship with Mercy Otis Warren, a playwright of even greater renown. But her steadiest sounding- board was always John. John called Abby a heroine before I did. Himself a successful lawyer and a graduate of Harvard, John would soon provide his wife a practical course in politics and that course was underway by 1768.

Events heat up

In that year John was elected to the Massachusetts legislature, the first of several state and ambassadorships he would be assigned to serve. Thus began the earliest correspondence between John and Abigail. Now, in the 1770s the enmity between Mother Britain and the renegade States grew worse, and famously flared in 1775 in Concord and Lexington. The Revolutionary War was underway.

The years 1770 – 1776 might better be judged a shadow war, which grew hotter with Concord and Lexington. Redcoats and Minute Men simmered and smouldered. Perhaps these six years could be considered as a “phoney war”. One thing was certain. John’s time away from home was growing and a consequence was that Abigail was taking over the operation of the family farm as well as the early education of their children and minding the family finances. And then there was Portia.

Portia was known in ancient Rome as the beleaguered wife of Brutus the noble conspirator. Abigail adopted Portia as a pen name when exchanging letters with her husband and Mary Otis Warren and no one else. Portia was not the only reference to a mythic being in the Adams household. So was Phoebe.

Phoebe (A Moon Goddess) was the name of Abigail’s personal “servant” during her childhood. When Abby married John Adams, Phoebe went along with her. This, of course, raises the issue of slavery. Even a cursory examination of their lives reveals a couple opposed to slavery in a nation dedicated to liberty, but this continued to bother her. And on this issue, as nearly all others, the Adams’ agreed.

Now, as the first Continental Congress approached in 1774 Abby had become the best-read woman of her time. As the representatives of the states met, John found himself increasingly seeking Abby’s input. He told her “If I could write as well as you, my sorrows would be as eloquent as yours, but upon my word I can not.” He once used a quotation included in one of her letters in a speech before Congress. Then in 1778 Congress named John Adams as Commissioner to France and later to the Netherlands. Separated for years, the Adams were reunited in France and Abby watched the antics of the “beau monde” up close and personal.

A great partnership

Following a brief time at home John would travel to the Netherlands in an attempt to induce the Dutch to lend the struggling young nation a loan. He was unsuccessful on this occasion. However a second effort in this regard would be granted at a later date. Perhaps it is significant that Abby was with him on the second hearing but not on the first.

He always shared the details of his work with his wife and sought her advice. Politics always fascinated her. John basked in the recognition that went with public service. Abigail cherished a vicarious importance as the wife of a prominent public figure. Soon John was to be appointed the first ever Minister Plenipotentiary to England. This time the Minister’s wife accompanied him throughout the appointment. Mrs. Adams proved to be the epitome of the universal observation that travel enlightens and deepens. One colleague of John’s said of her “Mrs. Adams is the most accomplished lady I have seen since I left England.

It has to be said that Abby never probed deeply into the minds and souls of the people she met in Europe but she was a keen observer of anything external. Her natural purview was monuments, buildings, flowers, trees and behavior. Probably her favorite subject was women’s education. In her view a better education, far from destroying a woman’s femininity, made them better wives and mothers. As John rose to and through the office of vice-president under Washington and then himself president, Abigail was always there, always one of the partnership. When John was scheduled to review military troops in New Jersey and could not make it, Abby acted as his proxy. 

Abigail Adams first loyalty was always to John and she would never allow him to diminish his life’s work. For Abby, John remained forever the President and she never referred to him by any other name.

Now you can read Douglas’ article on Thomas Paine, the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution, here.

How Defeat in the American Revolution Strengthened Britain in India

The American Revolutionary War (1775-83) resulted in defeat for the British; however, its impact was very different in other parts of the world. Here Bilal Junejo explains how defeat in the war led to Britain strengthening its presence in India.

King George III of England, 1799/1800.

Of all the upheavals that dot the annals of the turbulent eighteenth century, it is improbable that many could readily vie in either import or impact with the seminal War of American Independence, a landmark which, whilst it tolled the death knell of imperial aggrandizement at one end of the globe, simultaneously, if inadvertently, also served to herald its retrospectively ineluctable flourish at the other by dint of the virtual liquidation that it secured of all non-Indian obstacles in the path of British expansion in India. Indeed, had it not been for this colossal western loss that preceded the eventually colossal eastern gain, General Charles Cornwallis, the Governor-General of India from 1786-93, might never have been afforded the means of expiating his ignominious capitulation to General George Washington at Yorktown in 1781.1 What might have happened in the case of the colonists’ defeat at British hands must necessarily remain the sport of conjecture, but what is certain is that with their victory, the eventual one of their erstwhile masters in London also became well-nigh certain in that illustrious subcontinent of Asia entitled India, the lure of the ages. The way Great Britain’s own fortunes were affected by the American fiasco directly determined the manner in which she would go on to determine those of India. Principally, the impact of the Revolution had two facets: one domestic and one foreign. But because the latter could scarcely have made any difference in the absence of the former, it is to the domestic aspect that we must first turn our attention, before proceeding to contemplate how it operated in conjunction with the other one to render the cumulative result of incorporating India as the brightest jewel in the British crown.

The immediate domestic consequence lay in the dissolution of that effete administration whose memory has become intertwined with the loss of the American colonies, and the hallmark of   which had lain in the anachronistic fantasies of a monarch and the correspondingly complaisant follies of his premier. The government of Lord Frederick North (1770-82) had distinguished itself not only by the acute myopia which had informed its dealings with the colonists since, at least, the Boston Tea Party (1773)2, but also by the slow, yet steady, erosion of those gains which had been consolidated in the practice of parliamentary government since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. King George III, the unfortunate disciple in his early years of the royalist tutelage that pervaded the philosophy of the ironically hapless Earl of Bute3, and in stark contrast to the relatively democratic predilections of the first two Hanoverians, ascended the throne with a vigorous resolve to effect the full exercise of royal powers, but in his personal capacity, a regression that would entail a gradual erosion of the need to govern through ministers responsible to parliament. The Settlement of 1689 had provided that thenceforth the government should be a constitutional monarchy, but the immediate consequence of that compromise, as Trevelyan explained, was to limit any further expansion of the royal prerogative, rather than effect its transfer from the sovereign to their ministers, which only transpired gradually over the decades— a classic example of what the Fabian Sidney Webb called the ‘inevitability of gradualness’. Of this inexorable transformation’s culmination, the essence was succinctly delineated by one Lord Esher, in a memorandum that His Lordship prepared for King George V in 1913, during the constitutional troubles over the issue of Home Rule for Ireland:

“Has the King then no prerogatives? Yes, he has many, but when translated into action, they must be exercised on the advice of a Minister responsible to Parliament. In no case can the Sovereign take political action unless he is screened by a Minister who has to answer to Parliament. This proposition is fundamental, and differentiates a Constitutional Monarchy based upon the principles of 1688 from all other forms of government.”4

The impact in Britain

It is not for us to delve into the constitutional implications of George III’s untoward proclivities, for all that need concern us here are the political ramifications, in the light of that era’s constitutional status quo, that would likely have ensued following a British victory in America. In any given society, it is axiomatic to say that an overseas victory achieved by the incumbent regime will redound to its credit and increase its popularity amongst the electorate, whereas any loss would only serve to undermine its popular appeal and support. Because the defeat in America was so categorical, the pretensions of the George-North administration were dealt a mortal blow, and the peril of a return to the polity of James II was practically expunged. Englishmen of the seventeenth century had waged a formidable Civil War for the blessings of political liberty and accountable government, restored Charles II when it seemed expedient to do so to restore stability after the less than favorable developments following Cromwell’s demise, but then again overthrown   James II a mere five and twenty years later when it appeared that his deleterious inclinations promised a return to the autocracy of his father’s days. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that had autocratic power begun to increase in the wake of a victory in America, the people (especially the Whigs) of Britain would have so submissively acquiesced in a renewed emulation of the traditions that still inspired the dilapidated ancien régime in neighboring France. Indeed, the famous writer and politician, Edmund Burke (1729-97), had begun to sound the alarm as early as 1770, even before the Revolution, when he published his pamphlet entitled Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, arguing that King George III was upsetting the balance between crown and parliament in the British constitution by seeking to rule without due acknowledgement of the party political system.5 And in 1780, whilst the war was still going on, Dunning’s resolution— which lamented that “the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”— was passed by a distrustful House of Commons.6 Thus, it is not fanciful to suppose that victory in America would have given a fresh lease of life to the George-North administration, any continuance of which could have only served to deepen the fissures in British society. If the King could block Catholic Emancipation, despite his American failure, for as long as he lived, then one can only wonder at what he might have done had he won that redoubtable contest of wills on transatlantic shores. As it happened, though, a contretemps in America averted the much greater danger of domestic unrest and civil war at home, which would scarcely have conduced to the acquisition of empire in the world. The last Jacobite uprising of 1745-6, with all its turbulence, was still a living memory, and Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender, was destined to live until 1788, which means that it was not impossible for him, or his nominee, to become the figurehead   of a popular resistance to a jubilant George-North oligarchy. An unstable metropolis cannot exude the aura of that infallibility and serenity which is indispensable for cowing a foreign people into deferential submission, even against their will.

The rivalry with France

The second aspect that merits consideration here is the impact that the Americans’ victory had on France, Britain’s historic— and, in India, the principal— rival and the chief abettor of seditious endeavors across the Atlantic. How the war affected France was aptly summed up by the historian, Herbert Fisher, when he observed that “for Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, no policy could have been more improvident, for not only did the American war give the final push to the tottering edifice of French finance, but the spectacle of republicanism triumphant and monarchy overthrown across the Atlantic kindled in every forward-reaching mind in France the vision of a Europe remade after the new American pattern of republican liberty.”7  Again, we can only speculate about what might have happened in the case of French neutrality or the Americans’ defeat, but what is certain is that after Washington’s triumph at Yorktown, and the ironic, not to mention portentous, fact that the treaty of peace and recognition between Great Britain and the new American democracy was signed at despotic Versailles, revolution in France became only a matter of time. The cost of the war was unlikely to have been inflamed to the degree that it was on the eve of the Bastille’s fall had it not been for the legitimate pride that the likes of Lafayette could take in the succor they had rendered the armies of Washington. France might have collapsed even earlier in the case of defeat in America, but it is also possible that she might have launched a fresh war of revenge in Europe for the distraction of domestic opinion from real domestic issues to manufactured foreign perils. And if France had lost, then England would have won, and thereby consolidated the insidious gains in royal power made by King George III up to then, resulting in British foreign policy coming to reflect royal predilections more and more, as opposed to those of Parliament. One must not forget that the English monarch back then, a Hanoverian, was also the Elector of Hanover at the same time, and if France had decided to avenge an ignominious failure in America by attacking Hanover to her east (thereby precluding the need to try to reach a conclusion with the Royal Navy), George III might have decided to focus his entire attention on saving his Electorate without worrying about Britain’s overseas possessions, and given the latent insanity with which we know, thanks to the benefit of hindsight, that he was afflicted, all sorts of untoward eventualities might have arisen.

The impact on India

How exactly did these two consequences cumulatively affect India? This is the question that constitutes the end of our discussion. In 1623, the massacre of Amboina had forced the English to withdraw from the East Indies. Now, Yorktown had also necessitated a kindred evacuation from the American colonies, so India was perforce the main attraction left for imperial gratification. But such gratification, quite naturally, presupposes uninterrupted stability in the metropolis, and this was achieved by the Revolution when it shattered the autocratic ambitions of King George III, any realization of which might have imperiled the island state’s security by precipitating a fresh civil war. And we must not forget that towards the end of the eighteenth, as well as the beginning of the nineteenth, century, some of the most crucial battles that would determine the fate of the East India Company in India were fought (e.g. with Tipu Sahib of Mysore and the Marathas). Even though France was wracked with internal unrest, the contagion of which soon pervaded the rest of Europe and did not abate until 1815, she was nevertheless able to create great problems for the British. Indeed, one of the main reasons for remembering Lord Wellesley, the Governor-General of India from 1798-1805, is his frustration of Napoleon’s plans, which encompassed burgeoning contacts with Tipu, to subvert the Indians.8 And when Admiral Nelson decimated the overweening French fleet at Aboukir Bay in August 1798, thereby annihilating any hopes of Napoleon’s advance eastwards to India, it was the East India Company that, out of profuse gratitude, rewarded him with a munificent ten thousand  pounds sterling, a stupendous sum in those days.9 To judge from the magnitude of this largesse, such were the fears aroused by the grandiose ambitions of a feverish and unstable France that one can only wonder what might have happened had the Bastille not been stormed in 1789— a cogently distinct possibility, but for that eruption which commenced at Lexington and was carried to triumph under the auspices of French arms.

Thus, the inevitable conclusion we draw is that the American Revolution, by domestically strengthening Britain at the same time as it domestically weakened France, made it assured that no serious challenge from without could henceforth arise to check the British rise within India. It was so because, to recollect the memorable verdict of Fisher, after the Peace of Versailles, “the continent merely saw that an empire had been lost. It did not perceive that a constitution had  been saved. Yet such was the case. The failure of the king’s American policy involved the breakdown of the last effectual experiment in personal rule which has been tried in Britain.”10 And it was from the ashes of this humbled royal pride that there arose the Pax Britannica. God bless Peace, and God bless Britain.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

1 John Kenyon, The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History (first published 1981, Wordsworth 1994) 93

2  Ibidem, 44

3  Ibidem, 55

4 G. M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689 (first published 1938, Thornton Butterworth Ltd 1938) 193

5 John Kenyon, The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History (first published 1981, Wordsworth 1994) 54

6 Ibidem, 118

7 H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe (first published 1935, The Fontana Library 1972) 861

8 Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English-speaking peoples (Cassell and Company Ltd 1957) Volume 3, pages 188-9

9 James Brown, The Life & Times Of Lord Nelson (Parragon Book Service Ltd 1996) 41

10 H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe (first published 1935, The Fontana Library 1972) 862

General Henry Knox in the US Revolutionary War: The Noble Train of Artillery at the Siege of Boston

General Henry Knox (1750-1806, US Secretary of State for War from 1789 to 1794) played a key role in the American Revolutionary War. During the 1776 Siege of Boston he had a brilliant idea that manifested into the perilous journey of his noble train of artillery. Elizabeth Jones explains.

A portrait of Henry Knox from the 1780s. Painting by Charles Willson Peale.

Henry Knox was larger than life. Clocking in at over six feet and weighing more than 300 pounds, he was a giant during his lifetime and remains a giant in Revolutionary War history over 200 years after his death. And not only was he big, but in November 1775, he also had big problems. He had to find a way to move over 60 tons of artillery and munitions across the frozen 300 miles between Fort Ticonderoga and the city of Boston, which was under siege by the Americans due to the occupation of Boston by British forces.

Needless to say, the outcome looked grim. Without the firepower provided by the cannons and howitzers captured at Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys in 1775, the revolutionaries stood little chance of freeing Boston from her shackles. But Henry Knox wasn’t going to stand idly by while the British Army occupied his hometown.

Henry Knox, patriot and bookseller

Henry Knox was a first-generation American born in Boston in 1750. His formal education ended at age twelve when his father abandoned the family, and to support his mother he went to work as a clerk in a bookstore. As a result of his early and constant exposure to books, he became a voracious reader and educated himself on topics ranging from military strategy to advanced forms of mathematics.

Knox continued working in the bookstore, but he also made time for mischief, running with some of Boston’s notorious street gangs. At 18, Knox joined an artillery company presciently named The Train. He served in the company for several years, and once injured himself by shooting off two of his own fingers.

Knox opened his own bookstore in 1771 at the age of 21 and operated it until tensions between the British and their unruly American colonies reached a boiling point at Lexington and Concord on April 15 and 16, 1775.

Siege of Boston

The British forces took control of the city following the “shot heard ‘round the world” and Knox and his wife Lucy were forced to flee Boston, leaving the bookstore to be looted and vandalized. Knox immediately enlisted in the militia that was laying siege to the occupied city and served as an engineer, building fortifications.

Following the Battle of Bunker Hill, Knox was recognized for his work by the new Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, General George Washington, but he still remained without a commission into the Army proper. Still, he continued to serve valiantly, even though the siege seemed to be going nowhere fast.

Besides, he had an idea. One that just might be crazy enough to work.

The noble train of artillery

On May 10, 1775, not one month after the fighting between the British and the Americans began in earnest, Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys (including then-Colonel Benedict Arnold) captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York from the British, and with it an arsenal of heavy artillery. Ticonderoga was then largely managed from afar by Arnold and used intermittently by other American forces. But one man remembered.

Henry Knox, still without his commission, approached General Washington with the idea of ending the siege of Boston by using the 60-ton arsenal that remained at Fort Ticonderoga. The only problem was that the feat was a logistical nightmare, especially considering the level of sophistication of the transportation available at the time. But Washington believed in the still-green Knox and gave his plan the green light. So Knox set out from Boston with a team of men, animals, and vehicles to bring the guns of Ticonderoga to the city under siege in a convoy.

The recovery operations began in earnest on November 17, 1775, when the company left Boston. It arrived at Fort Ticonderoga on December 5th, and the team promptly began loading the nearly 60 guns and accompanying munitions and stockpiles. The easiest part completed, the company set back for Boston with the guns in tow in the midst of an 18th-century winter.

The elements were unforgiving, but the terrain was even more so. Bodies of water and mountain ranges stood between Knox and his destination, but Knox refused to be deterred. They reached the northern tip of Lake George on the cusp of it freezing, which would have made the crossing impossible. The guns were loaded onto the ships, with many of them being loaded onto a ship called a gundalow.

The challenges begin

The gundalow sank near the lake’s southern shore. Nearly 120,000 pounds of desperately-needed munitions lay on a ship near the bottom of a rapidly-freezing lake. Most people would have been disheartened and abandoned the entire endeavor, but Henry Knox wasn’t most people. The determined man worked with his team to bale out the sunken gundalow and recover the guns from Lake George.

The company reached the outpost of Fort George, and Knox found time to pen a quick letter to General Washington, stating that he hoped “to be able to present your Excellency a noble train of artillery”. The name stuck. Henceforth the expedition to bring the guns of Ticonderoga to Boston came to be known as the noble train of artillery.

Upon leaving the fort, the noble train of artillery had to cross a river, upon which sleds holding the guns were dragged. Suddenly the strong ice began to crack, and guns fell through the ice to the bottom of the river. Once again, Knox refused to abandon even a few pieces of artillery, and once again the guns were raised from the bottom of a body of water.

It would seem as if the worst was behind Knox and the noble train, but they still had to cross the Berkshires, an unforgiving mountain range that was covered in ice and snow. The crossing was difficult and the elements worked against them at every turn, but the noble train of artillery persevered, and they reached the other side of the mountain range, and on January 25, 1776, the company reached Boston, much to Washington’s relief.

Lifting the Siege

The guns gave the Americans a much-needed edge, but there was still work to be done. Artillery relentlessly pounded the city, until, in the dead of night, Washington ordered the guns to be positioned upon the twin peaks of Dorchester Heights in present-day South Boston. This strategy, along with Knox’s perseverance, led to the departure of the British from the city on March 17, 1776. To this day, March 17 is celebrated in South Boston as Evacuation Day.

Knox finally received his commission into the Continental Army and was eventually promoted to the rank of major general, becoming the youngest in the army. He served the majority of his Revolutionary War career as the American chief of artillery and was appointed by President Washington to become the first Secretary of War. Knox died on October 25, 1806.

Conclusion

General Henry Knox was more than just a trusted right-hand to General Washington and an able artillery chief for the Revolutionary Army. He was a visionary whose forward-thinking and willingness to take risks ended the Siege of Boston, ultimately moving the needle of independence forward.

What are your thoughts on General Knox? Was he brilliant or a mad-man, or both? Comment below to let us know what you think about the fabled bookseller-turned-general.

References

https://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=463&pid=15

1776 by David McCullough

Henry Knox: Visionary General of the American Revolutionby Mike Puls

Joseph Plumb Martin and the American Revolution: Yankee Doodle Dandy

In October of 1760, a young King George III of England’s reign began, marking a new birth for England and her colonies. One month later, a more humble figure, Joseph Plumb Martin, was born. Here Elizabeth Jones tells the story of Joseph Plumb Martin, the author of a very famous book about the American Revolution.

Jospeh Martin Plumb and his wife in the 19th century.

“Alexander never could have conquered the world without private soldiers. “ - Joseph Plumb Martin

Joseph Plumb Martin was born on November 21, 1760. He was raised by his grandparents in Connecticut. He lived the complicated life of a boy growing up in the storm brewing in colonial America. And like many other American boys in 1776, he enlisted in the militia following the battles of Lexington and Concord.

What makes Private Joseph Plumb Martin stand out in history?

For well over a hundred years, nothing. But in 1962, an obscure memoir of the experiences of an enlisted soldier in the Revolutionary War was republished as Yankee Doodle Dandy, and the world noticed.

Martin first published his account in 1830, titling it Narrative of Some of the Adventures, Dangers, and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier, Interspersed with Anecdotes of Incidents that Occurred Within His Own Observations. It didn’t sell well. It probably had something to do with the title.

Whatever the case, the rebrand was successful, and history took notice. Martin’s narrative has since taken its place as one of the key primary sources of information about the Revolutionary War.

So what?

Private Martin carried around a quill and journal and, between arduous marches and ear-splitting cannon fire, kept a log of his experiences in Washington’s Continental Army. His memoir provides a unique perspective on the everyday life of an enlisted soldier.

Insights from Yankee Doodle Dandy

But how much insight can the dusty writings of a long-dead, stocking-wearing patriot provide? As it turns out, plenty. Below are some musings of a teenager coming of age during one of the most turbulent periods of history.

 

On martial life:

Enlisting at the start of the war and serving until after the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the war in 1783, Joseph Plumb Martin was a veteran of several major engagements that occurred during the Revolution. He served during battles and sieges, such as the inconclusive Battle of Monmouth and the climactic Siege of Yorktown. He describes his experiences as a Continental soldier in detail.

“As there was no cessation of duty in the army, I must commence another campaign as soon as the succeeding one is ended. There was no going home and spending the winter season among friends, and procuring a new recruit of strength and spirits. No—it was one constant drill, summer and winter, like an old horse in a mill, it was a continual routine.”

 

On Fort Mifflin:

In 1777, Private Joseph Plumb Martin was stationed at Fort Mifflin on the Delaware River just outside of British-occupied Philadelphia. The fort was under intense fire from the guns of massive ships, and Martin describes it in excruciating detail. The uncomfortable intensity with which he describes his experience makes it unflinchingly real.

“I was … sent to reinforce those in the fort [Mifflin], which was then besieged by the British. Here I endured hardships sufficient to kill half a dozen horses. Let the reader only consider for a moment and he will still be satisfied if not sickened. In the cold month of November, without provisions, without clothing, not a scrap of either shoes or stockings to my feet or legs, and in this condition to endure a siege in such a place as that was appalling in the highest degree.”

Martin adds:

“During the whole night, at intervals of a quarter or half an hour, the enemy would let off all their pieces, and although we had sentinels to watch them and at every flash of their guns to cry, "a shot," upon hearing which everyone endeavored to take care of himself, yet they would ever and anon, in spite of all our precaution, cut up some of us.”

 

On Valley Forge:

When Martin initially joined the fight for independence, he enlisted in the Connecticut militia for a short stint.

“I wished only to take a priming before I took upon me the whole coat of paint for a soldier,” Martin wrote prior to his first enlistment.

Martin’s Service

He served in the militia for the better part of a year until his term of service expired and he was discharged on Christmas Day of 1776 - the same day that the Continental Army was preparing to cross the Delaware and surprise the Hessians at Trenton.

But in 1777 he reenlisted, serving as a private in General George Washington’s Continental Army. The conditions were miserable and the pay, if it arrived at all, was laughable. So why did Martin reenlist?

“If I once undertake, thought I, I must stick to it, there will be no receding,” he wrote. Martin marched with Washington’s Army to Valley Forge, where they encamped for the winter of 1777-78.

 At times and in places in his memoirs he is dark about the war, its leaders, and the overall cause, but he stays true and is insightful when he talks about how important he feels that the war is:

"Our prospect was indeed dreary. In our miserable condition, to go into the wild woods and build us habitations to stay (not to live) in, in such a weak, starved and naked condition, was appalling in the highest degree. But dispersion, I believe, was not thought of, at least, I did not think of it. We had engaged in the defense of our injured country and were willing, nay, we were determined to persevere as long as such hardships were not altogether intolerable."

 

Conclusion

Joseph Plumb Martin’s account of his time in the Revolutionary Army has helped historians gain a clearer picture of the everyday drudgeries of a Continental Soldier, bringing to light details that had long been lost to history. The importance of Martin’s impact on the study of the American Revolution for both the professional and hobby historian cannot be overstated.

Find out more about Elizabeth and her work at https://elizabethmjoneswrites.com.

References

1776by David McCullough

The Adventures of a Revolutionary Soldier by Joseph Plumb Martin

http://www.ushistory.org/march/phila/mifflin.htm