Meeting Notes: November 17, 2010
"Battle of Guilford Court House," Josh Howard
Josh Howard, the presenter, was introduced by Bruce Venter and his topic was "The Battle of Guilford Courthouse" which was based on his book that he co-authored with Dr. Larry Babits, entitled Long, Obstinate, and Bloody: the Battle of Guilford Courthouse.
The Battle took place in March of 1781 and of course Nathaniel Greene, who was 38 at the time, was pitted against Cornwallis who was 43 at the time. This was quite a battle and even though the British held the field at the end of the day, in many ways quite a blow was struck against the British. The book, which was based primarily upon pension records that Howard and Babits had gone through (they had poured through approximately 12,000 of those records) contains Howard and Babits' theory that frankly Greene had already chosen the plain at Guilford for this epic battle because of the three ridgelines. Greene knew that Cornwallis liked flank attacks and thus these ridgelines on the sides of the plain greatly hampered Cornwallis in what he wanted to do.
The talk was quite informative and contained an excellent PowerPoint presentation along with photos and diagrams. Mr. Howard pointed out that Greene died in 1786 at the age of 43 and even though he was virtually penniless at the end of the war, he had been given two plantations. He died on one of them but obviously died before the Constitution was adopted. Had he lived, according to Mr. Howard, he would have been elected Vice President at the very least. Obviously this presentation was much more about Nathaniel Greene and his ability to be a good general than about the Battle of Guilford Courthouse which, by the way, is a battle that has not been given its due in the history of the American Revolution.
This was a stellar presentation and there was quite a lengthy and helpful question and answer session at the end.
Meeting Notes: September 15, 2010
"Inoculation and the Revolutionary War," Tony Williams
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 the American Revolutionary Roundtable was privileged to hear Tony Williams speak about "Inoculation and the Revolutionary War." Tony has authored The Pox and the Covenant and The Hurricane of Independence.
Bruce Venter, the vice president of programs introduced Tony Williams and indicated that Tony was last with us in March of 2009 talking about the Hurricane of Independence.
Mr. Williams went to Syracuse University and Ohio State and is now living and teaching in Williamsburg. His second book, The Pox and the Covenant, is a featured selection for the history book club and is of course listed at Amazon.com.
First of all, Mr. Williams wrote a little bit of how and why he seems to be drawn to "national disasters" in his writings.
In any event, in 1721, a convoy coming up from Barbados had on board an African sailor who had contracted smallpox. He didn’t have any symptoms right away and so went onshore in Boston and was shaking hands, etc. with everyone. Once the pox took hold, it quickly spread around the entire town.
It's interesting that a well-known individual stepped into the fray as a doctor because he'd studied medicine at Harvard. This person is known to us well as Cotton Mather. He had talked to one of his slaves and found out from his experience that sometimes if an incision is cut and one had been touched with live pox, then the symptoms would become milder.
Cotton Mather was vain and assumed people would follow his lead. He was met, though, with stony silence from the other doctors. Finally, a certain Dr. Boilston tested the theory out on his own 6-year-old son and two slaves as well (both father and son). One of the questions was, of course, why are you giving someone the pox when you're trying to avoid it?
Also, in 1761 the Virginia House of Burgesses outlawed this idea of inoculation. George Washington waivered on the idea but did not order inoculation. But it was clear that the British had a lower incidence of smallpox. In London, they had a lot of it there so it may have been that people survived and thus in effect were inoculated about it. But the American-born Tories did not have that same type of protection.
Benedict Arnold in Quebec allowed inoculation but did not order inoculation.
Finally in Philadelphia Benjamin Rush started inoculating the delegates and even inoculated Patrick Henry. Obviously a lot of people remember the John Adams miniseries and Abigail's inoculation of young Quincy.
Meeting Notes: July 21, 2010
"Researching Your Revolutionary War Ancestor," Bob Spencer and Brent Morgan
Meeting Notes: May 19, 2010
"Spycraft in the American Revolution," John Nagy
Bruce Venter provided an interesting discussion concerning Simon Girty. His father, Simon, Sr., was a fur trader and well-liked, but was killed in 1749 by an Indian in a brawl. Simon, Jr. was born in 1741 in Pennsylvania and early in his life, shortly after his father was killed in the brawl, he was forced to live with Indians in western New York and the Pennsylvania region. He became very successful in the Indian way of life and learned approximately nine to eleven dialects. Although illiterate, he certainly was adept at language and could remember "messages" well. Thus he became quite an important courier first for the British, then for the Americans, and then he turned again and went back to serve with the British. Although often considered an "outlaw" Simon Girty, Jr. was involved in quite a number of interesting activities.
John Nagy then spoke about "Invisible Ink and Spycraft of the American Revolution." As referenced in our meeting notes from his November 2007 presentation, Mr. Nagy is an expert in antiques and antique manuscripts and is also a consultant for the Clements Library at the University of Michigan and has appeared on the History Channel, most recently, on Book TV. It's interesting to note that in some ways Bruce Venter's presentation and John Nagy's presentation tied in together because it was obviously very difficult to get messages through because often the messages would fall into the hands of the wrong parties. That was one of the reasons that Simon Girty was so important as a courier because he could remember these messages verbatim.
Obviously, since there were very few Simon Girtys around and especially since Simon Girty had really turned back to the British, people who wanted messages to go back and forth had to rely on invisible ink or on codes and ciphers so that if the messages did fall into the wrong hands they could not be read or understood.
Obviously there was no expectation of privacy in the mail and so it started out that the merchants would send their messages in code because they didn’t want their competitors to learn of their prices.
Mr. Nagy showed us a number of examples of these codes and had us try to decipher a number of them. For example, to bring it up to modern day times, the computer named HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey is representative of one of those codes where a letter would be used once one beyond the actual letter. So for example, HAL is really an acronym or code for "IBM" since I is one letter past H, B is one letter past A, and M is one letter past L. There were also codes that were related to books such as the Blackstone Commentaries 5th Edition, dictionary codes, etc.
There also what were known as "dead drops" where parties would prearrange that messages would be put, say, in a tree or in a box in a cow pasture or in a ball of yarn or perhaps under a rock.
Then of course there was the actual invisible ink which is the ink mixed with something acidic such as lemon juice. Then in order to read it, heat would be applied to weaken the fibers and disclose the message.
There were also "hidden compartments" such as a false heel in a shoe, a lining of clothes, the channel for a drawstring, etc.
Finally, Mr. Nagy referenced some of Washington's deceptions because these were designed to confuse the enemy. For example, Washington would often fill barrels with sand to make the British think they were actually filled with gun powder. He would multiply the number of troops, especially through fake reports from spies. In fact one of the most obvious of his deceptions was to fake or feign an attack on New York in 1781 in order to steal his march to Yorktown.
Meeting Notes: March 17, 2010
"The Battle of The Capes," John Quarstein
John Quarstein was ably introduced by Bruce Venter, our Vice President. Mr. Quarstein is an award winning historian, preservationist and author and since February of 2008 has been the City Historian for the City of Hampton. He previously served as Director of the Virginia War Museum and of course he has been very involved in the future of Fort Monroe.
The Battle of the Capes, fought on September 5, 1781, really involved no Americans, but was a naval battle between the British and the French. It’s interesting to note that the fate of the New World depended upon a naval battle between two European countries! Ever since the Seven Years’ War when Edward Hawk won a major naval battle for the British, one would have thought that the French ships would have been much better during the American Revolution. That’s because since the French lost so many ships during the Seven Years War, they had to rebuild their fleet and thus their warships were more modern.
However, the British also made major improvements to their ships since the Seven Years’ War especially with respect to signaling, putting copper on the bottom of the wooden boats (to increase speed and thus reduce “drag” from all of the crustaceans which attached to the wood), the establishment of “carronade” (which involved short, smoothbore, cast iron cannons with an approximately 200 yard range which were used when the ships were very close to each other), and finally the “musket lock system” for firing the cannons so that they didn’t have to light the fuse from afar.
Mr. Quarstein also pointed out that the British form of naval warfare involved shooting at the hulls and the broadsides of enemy vessels and thus having cannons pointing straight across or down, whereas the French had their cannons pointed upward towards the mast of enemies, thus seeking to cripple those ships.
However, one of the issues that really was an “Achilles heel” for the British was that their Fighting Instructions “in use” for many years was that they organized themselves “in line”.
In any event in the Battle of the Capes Compte De Grasse had approximately twenty-one ships whereas the American Station of the British had probably only about seven or so and thus were greatly out-numbered. The French won the battle and thus were able to seal off Yorktown, which of course permitted the Americans to prevail. Mr. Quarstein also showed his splendid knowledge of the many important admirals and prominent figures in the two navies.
We had quite a turnout for this meeting and of course the question and answer period was quite long and interesting as well and was not restricted to just to the Battle of Capes but involved other battles in other times in history as well.
Meeting Notes: January 20, 2010
"Battle of Monmouth," Richard Bellamy
Richard Bellamy, who is a board member of the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield is also a licensed battlefield guide at Gettysburg and is much in demand, spoke on the Battle of Monmouth at our first meeting in 2010. Because Bill Welsch and Richard Bellamy are longtime friends and Bill wanted to introduce him, Bruce Venter took over for the introductory portion of the meeting and then Mr. Bellamy was ably introduced by his good friend (and our president), Bill Welsch.
Mr. Bellamy came with handouts showing the battlefield in great detail and the handouts also included a list of books which are on sale at the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield gift shop for those who either want to purchase from the gift shop or who want to follow-up with their own studies. Mr. Bellamy pointed out that frankly the best book on the Battle of Monmouth remains one by William S. Stryker who wrote it in 1898 (although the 1927 edition sponsored by the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield is the best one now).
The Battle of Monmouth took place on June 28, 1778. General Charles Lee was in charge in the morning portion of the battle but he was later relieved by George Washington and court martialed. The testimony in that proceeding gives us the best glimpse as to what happened at least in the morning part of the battle. Frankly the battle lasted all day from about 8:00 am until 8:30 that night so we only really know about the morning hours in detail.
At the time, people in America were in thirds: one-third being the rebels, one-third being the loyalists and one-third being those who just wanted to be left alone. The whole Revolutionary War lasted approximately eight years with about 10,000 casualties and even though most large battles found only about 10,000 participants, there were upwards of 31,000 soldiers in action at the Battle of Monmouth!
The Battle of Monmouth was the last major battle in the north. It came following Washington’s defeat at Brandywine in September of 1777, his loss at Germantown in October of 1777 (opened up the Delaware River so that British warships could bring in food for their occupation of Philadelphia) and then, of course, Washington went into winter quarters in December of 1777 at Valley Forge.
Mr. Bellamy pointed out that even though there were tremendous hardships at Valley Forge, it was remarkable that Washington was able to keep his army together in the field despite so many losses and despite so many supply problems. It was also at Valley Forge, of course, that Baron Von Steuben arrived who really changed Washington’s army from a ragtag type group into a well organized and disciplined European type army.
In May of 1778, Clinton became the new commander and decided to move his forces back to New York. Because his approximately 100 ships were not enough to transport all of his men, Clinton sent the Hessian soldiers first and by ship because he really wasn’t that convinced of their allegiance. They were from six different municipalities in Germany but were not really mercenaries because they were not being paid directly but were in fact receiving their normal pay and the German princes were the one receiving the funds for having these soldiers in the field. In any event, one of the reasons that Clinton didn’t trust the Hessians was because the Continental Congress had been encouraging them to desert with the promise of land and so forth. In fact, approximately one out of six Hessian soldiers did in fact desert.
On June 18, 1778 Clinton started his march north through New Jersey with approximately 18,000 men and 1,500 wagons. His wagon train was approximately 12 miles in length and he also had approximately 1,000 women and children who were loyalist types who did not, of course, want to remain in Philadelphia.
On June 21, 1778 Clinton crossed the Delaware River and it was about a week later on June 28th that the battle actually took place.
There was obviously a lot of controversy about what happened and when. General Charles Lee, who really out ranked everyone except George Washington himself was thought to have ordered a disorderly retreat. Washington got furious with Lee and relieved him immediately and then rallied the troops.
At the end of the battle, the British moved on and so one of the questions is “who really won”? In effect it might have been considered a “draw” and frankly if Clinton had stayed, the British might have won. Of course Clinton’s whole idea was to get his army up to New York. Clinton had always thought that it was really his baggage train that Washington was going after.
At the end of the day, however, the Americans held the field and of course it was during this battle, as mentioned, that Washington got so furious at Lee for what he perceived as this “disorderly retreat” and it was Washington’s rallying of the troops that really enhanced his reputation as the premier general of the American forces.
What were the casualties like? Frankly a lot of sources report how many people were killed and injured on both sides but none of those sources really agree. Actually in effect the Battle of Monmouth was a “political battle”. Perhaps Charles Lee’s involvement would have been forgotten except that Lee demanded and received a court-martial. At the court-martial he was found guilty of three charges but was probably only guilty of one and that is disrespect of a superior officer. There is a real question in Mr. Bellamy’s mind as to whether or not Lee ever was involved in a disorderly retreat.
Because of Charles Lee’s conduct at the Battle of Monmouth and because of General Horatio Gates’ blunders in the south, everything worked together to secure Washington’s reputation for all the time.
We had quite an animated question and answer session and we thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Bellamy and his insightful commentary.