With colonial, French, and British armies awaiting battle, tension during 1781 rose dramatically. Continental Army General George Washington and French army General Comte de Rochambeau were deliberating the decision of what move to make next on the American side. Unknown to either man, the decision that they were about to make could forever change the outcome of the Revolution. With Washington pushing for battle in New York City and Rochambeau pushing for battle in Virginia, French Admiral Francois-Joseph-Paul de Grasse made the ultimate decision in the next battle plan of the Revolution. It was Comte de Grasse's intelligent planning and performance in the Battle of the Chesapeake Capes that led to the defeat of the British in Yorktown. If not for Comte de Grasse's military move to blockade Cornwallis in the Chesapeake, the entire outcome of the American Revolution might have been different.
With their troops scattered at two strategic points, Comte de Rochambeau and George Washington met in Wethersfield, Connecticut in May of 1781 to discuss the next military operation. History Professor James Stokesbury described the layout of both Allied and British troops, saying,
Clinton was in New York City with a garrison of something more than 10,000 men. Cornwallis was in the Carolinas, possibly moving toward Virginia...at the moment, the British generally held local command of the sea. On the allied side, Rochambeau had about 4,000 French troops at Newport and all inferior naval squadron held inside the harbor there. Washington had 3,500 Continental troops...around New York City. More regulars, troops...under Wayne, were on the verge of moving south to support Lafayette, who was in Virginia with a loose collection of re...
... middle of paper ...
...n to fight in New York or in Virginia could have completely altered the outcome of the Revolutionary War. Had the decision of Washington's attack on New York City gone forward, the Revolution might have dragged on longer or ended in British victory. Had Comte de Grasse not been involved in the war or had he strictly listened to Washington's commands, the results of the war would be different. Grasse's significant decision of choosing the Chesapeake as the next battleground and fooling the British fleets out of the Chesapeake gave the French troops the foothold they needed in order to successfully fight the land battle at Yorktown. The defeat of the British at this time or in general could be because of the military tactics of Grasse.
Footnotes:
Stokesbury, James L. A Short History of the American Revolution. William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1991.
In Washington's Crossing, the book states that soon after England came with their 33,000 soldiers in New York in summer during the year of 1776, the much smaller army that made up the American military was close on their heels. Sadly, the American military was pushed from Long Island, Manhattan, and after that continued on to lose a lot of New Jersey and Rhode Island. Large numbers of Americans also proceeded to start signing their loyalty over to the English crown, and Washington's military began to be faced with a shortage of manpower. The remainder of Washington's army retreated to the Western shore of the Hudson River.
In 1776, David McCullough gives a vivid portrayal of the Continental Army from October 1775 through January 1777, with sharp focus on the leadership of America’s greatest hero, George Washington. McCullough’s thesis is that had not the right man (George Washington) been leading the Continental Army in 1776, the American Revolution would have resulted in a vastly different outcome. He supports his argument with a critical analysis of Washington’s leadership during the period from the Siege of Boston, through the disastrous defense of New York City, the desperate yet, well ordered retreat through New Jersey against overwhelming odds, and concludes with the inspiring victories of Trenton and Princeton. By keeping his army intact and persevering through 1776, Washington demonstrated to the British Army that the Continental Army was not simply a gang of rabble, but a viable fighting force. Additionally, Mr. McCullough supports his premise that the key to the survival of the American Revolution was not in the defense of Boston, New York City, or any other vital terrain, but rather the survival of the Continental Army itself. A masterful piece of history, 1776 is not a dry retelling of the Revolutionary War, but a compelling character study of George Washington, as well as his key lieutenants, and his British adversaries, the most powerful Army in the 18th Century world. When I read this book, I went from a casual understanding of the hero George Washington to a more specific understanding of why Washington was quite literally the exact right man at the exact right place and time to enable the birth of the United States.
In 1776, before the Battle of Brandywine, in what was almost a year long siege, General George Washington and his army managed to drive the British Army out of Boston. However, General William Howe’s British Troops moved south. General Howe and General Washington’s troops met again in the Battle of Long Island. General Howe was victorious and occupied New York City. In the spring of 1777 the British controlled the cities of Quebec and New York, while the Continental Army controlled Philadelphia and Boston. The British plan was to move General Burgoyne’s troops, in Quebec, south, and General Howe’s troops north. This would give the British control of the Hudson Valley and cut New England off from the remaining colonies. The British hoped that this would destroy the American Dream of Independence. However, British Officials in London failed to give direct orders to General Howe to conduct this mission. General Howe decided to pursue his own agenda and capture the city of Philadelphia.
Eliga H. Gould, The Persistence of Empire: British Political Culture in the Age of the American Revolution (North Carolina: Omohundro Institute, 2000),
The American Revolution has too often been dominated by the narrative of the founding fathers and has since been remembered as a “glorified cause.” However, the American Revolution was not a unified war but a civil war with many internal disputes that wreaked havoc and chaos throughout America. In his book, The Unknown American Resvolution, Gary B. Nash attempts to unveil the chaos that the American Revolution really was through the eyes of the people not in power, including women, African American slaves, and Native Americans. In his book, Gary B. Nash emphasizes their significance in history to recount the tale of the American Revolution not through the eyes of the privileged elite but through the eyes of the people who sacrificed and struggled the most, but were left forgotten, in their endeavors to reinvent America.
Gordon S. Wood. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage; Reprint edition. March 2, 1993
During the War for American Independence, 78 men were commissioned as general officers into the Continental Army by the Continental Congress. Many of these generals commanded troops with differing levels of competence and success. George Washington is typically seen as most important general, however throughout the war a number of his subordinates were able to distinguish themselves amongst their peers. One such general was Nathanael Greene. At the end of the Revolutionary War, Greene would become Washington’s most important subordinate, as demonstrated by Edward Lengel’s assessment of Greene as “the youngest and most capable of Washington’s generals.” Washington and Greene developed a strong, positive and close relationship between themselves. Greene began his life in the military after having been raised a Quaker. With limited access to literature and knowledge in his younger years, Greene became an avid reader which equipped him with the knowledge necessary to excel as a general during the war. Through his devoted study of military operations, firsthand experience and natural abilities as a soldier, Greene became an excellent military commander. He would become known for his successful southern campaign, during which, he loosened British control of the South and helped lead the war to its climax at Yorktown. Throughout the war, he was involved in a number high profile battles where he built a reputation of being an elite strategist who also understood unconventional warfare, logistics, and the importance of military-civil affairs and had a natural political/social acumen. The thesis of this paper is that Greene’s proven reputation of being a soldier, strategist and statesman would cause him to become the second greates...
Many suspect that they were with Washington only to maximize the hate on both sides of the battle. They went against Washington’s orders to not be the aggressors. Soon large units of British and American soldiers were sent to settle what should have been small battles. The French however were prepared to fight back and even had the Indians as allies to help with upcoming battles. In July, Braddock’s army which consisted of over 2000 British soldiers rode west with George Washington and came upon 250 plus French soldiers with over 600 Indians allies. Nearly 1000 British were killed, unlike George Washington who was unhurt during the battle was soon promoted to commander of the Virginia army for his bravery. (Roark 146)
The plans for Yorktown actually started up in May of 1781 when General Washington joined up with French General Rochambeau. The American forces at this time were stationed in the area of New York City closely watching British General Clinton’s forces. Washington knew that General Cornwallis who had been dominating in the south would soon be moving northward to rendezvous with Clinton’s and General Nathaniel Green’s forces. He also knew that if this happened it would be near impossible of defeating the British. As Cornwallis continued his northern track he ran into trouble at the Battle of Cowpens. In fact he lost much of his light infantry and cavalry in the Carolinas. He did score a victory at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, but this would prove to not help him much as he took severe losses and consumed a lot of time.
Late in the war, 1778, was the point of Britain being close to defeat. Current commander of British forces was Lt. General Henry Clinton trying to stop this rebellion. He was thinking on how to do this with the North of America under Patriot control. Clinton then decided on turning to the South of the United States (www.theamericanrevolutiong.org). Fighting was becoming heavy between the militia and the United Kingdom’s forces (www.theamericanrevolution.org). However, General Clinton had once been to the South of the U.S. before, but failed in taking a key city (Charleston, South Carolina) by sea on June 28, 1776 (www.theamericanrevolution.org).
... Bobrick, Benson. Fight for Freedom: The American Revolutionary War. New York: Atheneum, 2004. Print.
... up with the French and his troops turned his tactical blunders during the Siege of Savannah into a consequence that cost them the lives of many and a needless waste of time, effort, and money. The French made a lasting imprint in history because of their participation in the Revolutionary War. For the Siege of Savannah, however, one of the most crucial times when it was needed in the South, the French did not meet up with their expectations due to a combination of bad luck and strategical mistakes. The result was that many extra battles were fought, many more lives were claimed, and much more time and money was wasted. The Siege of Savannah was not just important for people who lived in Georgia, but also for everyone else participating in the war, whether they produced cloth at mills in Great Britain, or they wrote letters to their husband hoping to be written back.
On December 25, 1776, Washington and his troop of 2,400 men left when the sun set. Washington kept everything a secret, “... kept almost all of the details of the crossing a secret; as a result, none of the soldiers knew anything about their upcoming mission”(“The Revolutionary War” 3). The plan was to march down to Trenton and attack a group of about 1,500 Hessians before the sunrise. This was all based on a well thought out plan, because they needed a victory after months of losing. So, the only way they stood a chance was to create a surprise attack. George Washington’s plan worked due to the Hessians surrendering. With all of this in mind, George Washington created this plan, and without the plan, they would have never won the war.
In addition to this, Lafayette showed he was confident, trustworthy, and strategic during battles. He proposed one of his strategies to Washington and asked for the permission to command. As he wished, he took over the command from an experienced man, General Lee, who later wanted his power back. Lafayette said if he could not find the enemy that day, he would resign command and give it back to General Lee. At last, Lafayette complied with the commitments. Moreover, Lafayette returned to France and served France wholeheartedly; he was still concerned about the American Revolution and kept contact with Washington. He was generous and passionate; he knew the Americans needed money, so he sent French troops and supplies to Washington. In addition, he sent additional troops with investments in his personal account for him to command on his return to America in 1780. Last but not least, American and French militaries won the last victory at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. Washington approved Lafayette’s high sense of unselfish devotion; he tied France and United States together and
Gordon S. Wood, in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, discusses what it means to be truly revolutionary. In this work, Wood shares his thoughts on the Revolutionary War and whether or not it was a movement radical enough to be considered an honest revolution. Wood discusses the reasoning behind the views of those in favor of the war being considered radical, as well as the views of those who believe the American Revolution to be unfortunately misnamed. He claims that “the Revolution was the most radical and most far- reaching event in American history.” Wood’s work is a valuable source for those studying the revolution because it redefines what it means to be radical, but the piece is also limited by the lack of primary information