23. John Keegan, Fields of Battle: The War for North America (New York, 1996), 152–54, which includes the quotation from Lord Camden.
24. For the modern parallel, see Don Higginbotham, “Reflections on the War for Independence, Modern Guerrilla Warfare, and the War in Vietnam,” in Hoffman and Albert, eds., Arms and Independence, 1–24.
25. The best brief review of this huge subject is Piers Mackesy, “What the British Army Learned,” ibid., 191–215.
26. See Russell Weigley, “American Strategy: A Call for a Critical Strategic History,” in Higginbotham, Reconsiderations on the Revolutionary War, 32–53. See also Don Higginbotham, George Washington and the American Military Tradition (Athens, 1985).
27. Washington to the New York Provincial Congress, 9 June 1776, PWR 4:473, for the first statement of his intentions to defend New York at all costs.
28. For the visit to Philadelphia, see the correspondence in PWR 4:346–53, 363–68; JCC 4:389–91, for the conference with the Continental Congress; PWR 4:526, for the creation of the Board of War and Ordnance; Washington to John Hancock, 10 July 1776, PWR 5:260; General Orders, 23 August 1776, PWR 6:109–10; Washington to John Hancock, ibid., 627.
29. Lord Richard Howe to Washington, 13 July 1776, PWR 5:296–97; Memorandum of an Interview with Lieutenant Colonel James Patterson, 20 July 1776, ibid., 398–403, which includes invaluable editorial notes on the details of the meeting.
30. General Orders, 13 August 1776, PWR 6:1; Washington to Charles Lee, 12 August 1776, PWR 5:686–87; John Adams to Abigail Adams, 30 August 1776, AFC 2:89.
31. John Adams to Abigail Adams, 8 October 1776, AFC 2:140; Nathanael Greene to Washington, 5 September 1776, PWR 6:222–24; Abigail Adams to John Adams, 20 September 1776, AFC 2:129.
32. Council of War, 12 September 1776, PWR 6:288–89; Washington to John Hancock, 8 September 1776, ibid., 248–54. One of the best, certainly most readable accounts of the maneuverings on Manhattan, is Bruce Bliven Jr., Battle for Manhattan (New York, 1956).
33. Keegan, Fields of Battle, 162–65, for a convenient summary of scholarly judgments; Washington to Lund Washington, 30 September 1776, PWR 6:440–43; Washington to John Hancock, 16 November 1776, PWR 7:162–69, for the account of the Fort Washington disaster. See also Washington to John Augustine Washington, 6–19 November 1776, ibid., 102–6, for his sense of desperation and mortification at the capture of Fort Washington.
34. Washington to John Hancock, 4 October 1776, PWR 6:463–66; Washington to John Hancock, 25 September 1776, ibid., 304; Washington to Samuel Ward, 18 December 1776, PWR 7:370–71.
35. For two different but compatible assessments of Howe’s failure to pursue the remnants of the Continental army, see Gruber, The Howe Brothers and the American Revolution, 127–57, and Kevin Phillips, The Cousins’ War: Religion, Politics and the Triumph of Anglo-America (New York, 1999), 291–99; Washington to John Hancock, 5 December 1776, PWR 7:262–63; Joseph Reed to Washington, 22 December 1776, ibid., 416.
36. For Washington’s account of the crossing of the Delaware and subsequent victory at Trenton, along with editorial notes that synthesize the scholarship, see Washington to John Hancock, 27 December 1776, ibid., 454–61. An excellent secondary account is in Richard Ketchum, The Winter Soldiers (Garden City, 1973), now superseded by David Hackett Fischer’s splendid account, Washington’s Crossing (New York, 2004).
37. Washington to John Hancock, 5 January 1777, PWR 7:519–30, for his report on the action at Princeton. Old but invaluable for its detail is William Stryker, The Battles of Trenton and Princeton (1858; reprint, Spartansburg, SC, 1967). Flexner, 2:185, is especially vivid on Washington’s heroic demeanor under fire.
38. Washington to John Hancock, 20 December 1776, OWR 7:382; Bartholomew Dandridge to Washington, 16 January 1777, PWR 8:79; on the depleted state of his army, see Washington to George Clinton, 19 January 1777, and Washington to John Hancock, 19 January 1777, ibid., 102–3. He made a special plea for soldiers whose enlistments expired with the new year to remain on duty for an extra six weeks in order to assure the preservation of a fighting force.
39. Washington to John Hancock, 14 February 1777, PWR 8:334; for the policy making inoculation mandatory, see Washington to William Shippen, 6 February 1777, and the Circular to the Continental Regiments, 12 March 1777, ibid., 556.
40. Washington to John Hancock, 26 March 1777, ibid., 635; Washington to Richard Henry Lee, 1 June 1777, PWR 9:581; on the disappointing lack of new recruits, see Washington to John Hancock, 12–13 April 1777, ibid., 129; the defensive strategy is officially endorsed in Council of War, 2 May 1777, ibid., 324. The remark about French enthusiasm for the cause is quoted in Shy, A People Numerous and Armed, 13.
41. Nathanael Greene to Washington, 24 March 1777, PWR 8:627; John Adams to Abigail Adams, 18 June 1777, AFC 2:268; Richard Henry Lee to Washington, 10 April 1777, PWR 9:118.
42. John Adams to Abigail Adams, 30 July 1777, AFC 2:297. The correspondence tracking Howe’s fleet and trying to predict its destination throughout the summer of 1777 is voluminous. The most salient items are PWR 9:201–4; PWR 10:58, 84–86, 157, 171, 289; PWR 11:147–48.
43. General Orders, 5 September 1777, PWR 11:147–48; Washington to Thomas Wharton Jr., 13 September 1777, ibid., 222; Council of War, 23 September 1777, ibid., 294–98.
44. The Battle of Brandywine, 11 September 1777, ibid., 187–95, which includes editorial notes containing views of the battle from both sides. See also Samuel E. Smith, The Battle of Brandywine (Monmouth, NJ, 1976). See Washington to John Hancock, 11 September 1777, PWR 11:200–1, for the first of several falsifications of the casualties.
45. This scene is based on the after-action reports and subsequent memoirs, all reproduced in editorial notes in ibid., 398–400.
46. General Order for Attacking Germantown, 3 October 1777, ibid., 375–81, where the editorial notes, once again, do a marvelous job of synthesizing the scholarly evidence on the battle; Washington to Israel Putnam, 8 October 1777, ibid., 447, for the quotation; Washington to John Trumbull Sr., 7 October 1777, and Washington to John Page, 11 October 1777, ibid., 426–27, 487, for the distorted casualty lists; Washington to William Howe, 6 October 1777, ibid., 410, for the return of Howe’s dog; Thomas McKean to Washington, 8 October 1777, ibid., 442–45.
47. Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, 12 August 1777, PWR 10:592–93, where Washington predicts that Burgoyne’s army “must be ruined” if Howe failed to rendezvous; Washington to John Hancock, 3 August 1777, ibid., 492–93, approving Gates as commander in place of Philip Schuyler; Washington to Daniel Morgan, 16 August 1777, ibid., 641, sending Morgan and Arnold to join Gates; Washington to Landon Carter, 27 October 1777, PWR 12:27, where he contrasts the militia spirit in New England with the lack of same in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. On the battle, see Richard Ketcham, Saratoga (New York, 1997), and Phillips, Cousins’ War, 269–314.
48. Washington to Horatio Gates, 30 October 1777, PWR 12:59–60; Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 30 October 1777, ibid., 60–62. Gates resisted Washington’s order and Hamilton found himself caught in a quandary as Gates claimed that he reported to the Continental Congress and not to Washington.
49. The best brief narratives of the whispering campaign, and what subsequently became known as the Conway Cabal, are in Higginbotham, War of American Independence, 216–22, and Royster, A Revolutionary People at War, 179–89. John Adams to Abigail Adams, 26 October 1777, AFC 2:361.
50. Du Condray’s dramatic demise is described in the editorial note in PWR 11:254–55; Washington to Benjamin Franklin, 17 August 1777, PWR 10:647–49, for the political problem posed by the extravagant expectations of French volunteers; Washington to Richard Henry Lee, 16 October 1777, PWR 11:529–30, on Conway’s self-importance.
51. Washington to Thomas Conway, 5 November 1777, PWR 12:129–30; Conway to Washington, 5 November 1777, ibid., 130–31; Horatio Gates to Washington, 8 December 1777, ibid., 576–77. Conway has few scholarly defenders, but Gates does. Se
e Samuel W. Patterson, Horatio Gates: Defender of American Liberties (New York, 1941).
52. Nathanael Greene to Washington, 24 November 1777, PWR 12:377–78; Henry Knox to Washington, 26 November 1777, ibid., 414–17. See also, Council of War, 8 November 1777, ibid., 163.
53. Nathanael Greene to Washington, 24 November 1777, ibid., 379–80.
54. Nathanael Greene to Washington, 3 December 1777, ibid., 518–21.
55. General Orders, 17 December 1777, ibid., 620–21.
CHAPTER FOUR
1. On Great Britain’s development of the capacity to wage war, see John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the British State, 1688–1783 (New York, 1988). See also Stephen Conway, The British Isles and the War of American Independence (New York, 2000), which argues that popular support for the war within the middle levels of British society was both voluntary and stronger than previously realized. My own sense is that the eighteenth-century British state was more coercive.
2. Washington to Henry Laurens, 23 December 1777, 12:683.
3. Washington to Nathanael Greene, 6 February 1783, WW 26:104; Washington to Robert Howe, WW 10:301–2.
4. Washington to William Gordon, 8 July 1783, WW 27:51–52.
5. Washington to John Bannister, 21 April 1778, WW 11:291–92. The reference to Lincoln was first suggested by Charles Royster in “Founding a Nation in Blood: Military Conflict and American Nationality,” Hoffman and Albert, Arms and Independence, 26–49. On Valley Forge more generally, see Royster, A Revolutionary People, 190–254; E. Wayne Carp, To Starve the Army at Pleasure: Continental Army Administration and American Political Culture, 1775–1783 (Chapel Hill, 1984), 56–72, 116–24; Wayne K. Bodle and Jacqueline Thibault, Valley Forge Historical Research Report, 3 vols. (Valley Forge, 1980); and Wayne K. Bodle, The Valley Forge Winter: Civilians and Soldiers in War (University Park, PA, 2002), which contests the influence of Steuben.
6. Washington to Committee of Congress, 29 January 1778, WW 10:363–64. On the altered composition of the Continental army, see Robert K. Wright, “ ‘Nor Is Their Standing Army to Be Despised’: The Emergence of the Continental Army as a Military Institution,” Hoffman and Albert, Arms and Independence, 50–74.
7. Royster, A Revolutionary People, 200–4; Wright, Continental Army, 91–120.
8. Joseph Plumb Martin, A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier: Some of the Adventures, Dangers, and Sufferings of Joseph Plumb Martin (New York, 2001), 121, previously published as Private Yankee Doodle. For the Pennsylvania almanac and other celebrations of Washington in 1778–79, see Don Higginbotham, George Washington: Uniting a Nation (Lanham, MD, 2002), 7–14.
9. Royster, A Revolutionary People, 197–210. For the regulation against dueling, see General Orders, 26 January 1778, WW 10:351. I would argue that Valley Forge became the honor-driven place where dueling first became a fixture in national politics. See Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven, 2001).
10. Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation (New York, 1996), 61–65.
11. See the correspondence in PWR 11:4–5, 12:409, for Washington’s initial impression of Lafayette. See also Louis R. Gottschalk, Lafayette Joins the American Army (Chicago, 1937).
12. Washington to Lafayette, 25 September 1778, WW 12:500–4; 30 September 1779, WW 16:368–76, for typical expressions of affection and playful banter.
13. Royster, A Revolutionary People, 213–54; Wright, Continental Army, 121–52; Washington to Baron Steuben, 26 February 1779, WW 14:151–53.
14. The quotation is in Washington to William Gordon, 23 January 1778, WW 10:338. For Washington’s growing awareness of Mifflin’s mischievous role, see his letters in WW 10:410–11, 462–63, 528–29; WW 11:275–76. The standard biography is Kenneth R. Rossman, Thomas Mifflin and the Politics of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, 1952).
15. Washington to Henry Laurens, 3 October 1778, WW 13:15–16; for the forgeries, Washington to Richard Henry Lee, 25 May 1778, WW 11:450.
16. Thoughts Upon a Plan of Operation for Campaign 1778, 31 March 1778, WW 11:185–94; Council of War, 24 June 1778, and Charles Lee to Washington, 25 June 1778, WW 12:115–19. On Lafayette’s blunder, see Alexander Hamilton to Washington, 26 June 1778, and Washington to Lafayette, 26 June 1778, ibid., 120–23.
17. George W. P. Custis, Recollections and Private Memories of Washington (New York, 1860), 224.
18. Martin, Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier, 115.
19. For critical assessments of Lee’s behavior, see John Laurens to Henry Laurens, 30 June and 2 July 1778, John Rhodehamel, ed., The American Revolution: Writings from the War of Independence (New York, 2001), 470–75, and Washington to Charles Lee, 30 June 1778, WW 12:132–33. For a soldier’s recollection of Washington’s anger upon reaching Lee in retreat, see Martin, Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier, 110–11. The fullest defense of Lee is Theodore Thayer, The Making of a Scapegoat: Washington and Lee at Monmouth (Point Washington, NY, 1976). Ferling, The First of Men, 247–48, also tends to exonerate Lee.
20. Washington to Thomas Nelson, 20 August 1778, WW 12:343.
21. Washington to d’Estaing, 29 September 1778, WW 12:516–18, Washington to d’Estaing, 2 October 1778, WW 13:9–13. On the futile effort at Rhode Island, see Washington to John Sullivan, 28 August 1778, WW 12:369.
22. Washington to d’Estaing, 4 October 1779 and 7 October 1779, WW 16:408–14, 428–29. See also Washington to Nathanael Greene, 14 July 1780, WW 19:169.
23. For the deployment of the army and the fixation on New York, see the correspondence in WW 13:178–80, 346–47; WW 19:104–5, 174–76, 235, 391–94, 403–4, 481–83; WW 20:76–81.
24. Washington to Henry Laurens, 14 November 1778, WW 13:254–57. For his strenuous opposition to a Canadian campaign, see Washington to the President of Congress, 11 November 1778, ibid., 223–44.
25. Washington to John Sullivan, 31 May 1779, WW 15:189–93. The extensive planning for the western campaign can be followed in WW 13:501–2; WW 14:199–201, 278–81, 314–18. The success of the campaign is assessed in WW 16:242, 293, 347–48.
26. Washington to the President of Congress, 15 March 1779, WW 14:243–44. For Washington’s effort to comprehend the British strategy in 1778, see the correspondence in WW 13:35–37, 85–87, 463; WW 16:240–41.
27. Washington to Benjamin Harrison, 5–7 May 1779, WW 15:5–11; Washington to Joseph Reed, 28 May 1780, WW 18:434–35; Washington to William Livingston, 4 May 1779, WW 14:489–92. The authoritative work on the creation of the British war machine over the course of the eighteenth century is Brewer, Sinews of Power. The final quotation is from Washington to James Duane, 1 October 1780, WW 20:117.
28. Washington to Benjamin Harrison, 18–30 December 1778, WW 13:466–68; Washington to Joseph Reed, 12 December 1778, ibid., 382–85; Washington to Gouverneur Morris, 4 October 1778, ibid., 21–22, Washington to William Fitzhugh, 10 April 1779, WW 14:363–65. This litany continues in WW 13:79–81, 334–37; WW 14:26–32, 246, 298–302; WW 15:23–26, 57–62, 293; WW 16:15–19, 51–53; WW 17:72–73.
29. Washington to Joseph Jones, 31 May 1780, WW 18:453; Washington to Fielding Lewis, 6 July 1780, WW 19:131. See also, along the same theme, WW 17:425–28; WW 18:207–11; WW 21:13–16, 318–21.
30. Circular to the States, 27 August 1780, WW 19:450–51; Washington to George Mason, 22 October 1780, WW 20:242; Washington to the President of Congress, 20 June 1780, WW 19:35.
31. Washington to James Bowdoin, 14 June 1780, WW 19:9; Washington to the President of Congress, 15 September 1780, WW 20:49–50; Washington to Nathanael Greene, 13 December 1780, WW 20:469–71. For more on his reaction to the fall of Charleston, see also WW 18:463–506.
32. Washington to Nathanael Greene, 25 September 1780, WW 20:84–85. See also General Orders, 26 September 1780, ibid., 95, and Charles Royster, “ ‘The Nature of Treason’: Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” WMQ 36 (1979), 163–93. For André’s tr
ial and execution, see Washington to Board of General Officers, 29 September 1780, WW 20:101; General Orders, 1 October 1780, ibid., 109–10; Washington to the President of Congress, 17 October 1780, ibid., 130–31.
33. Washington to Anthony Wayne, 3–4 January 1781, WW 22:55–58; Circular to the States, 5 January 1781, ibid., 51–53; Washington to the Commissioners for Redressing the Grievances of the New Jersey Line, 27 January 1781, ibid., 147–48; General Orders, 30 January 1781, ibid., 158–60. See also correspondence on the mutinies in WW 21:71, 123–24, 128, 132, 135. See also James Kirby Martin, “ ‘A Most Undisciplined, Profligate Crew’: Protest and Defiance in the Continental Ranks, 1776–1783,” in Hoffman and Albert, Arms and Independence, 119–40.
34. Washington to John Laurens, 9 April 1781, WW 21:438–40.
35. The quotation is from Piers Mackesy, The War for America, 1775–1783 (Cambridge, MA, 1964), 434.
36. Conference with Count Rochambeau, 23 May 1781, WW 22:105–7; Circular to the States, 24 May 1781, ibid., 9–11. For the naval dilemma, see Jonathan R. Dull, The French Navy and American Independence: A Study of Arms and Diplomacy, 1774–1787 (Princeton, 1975).
37. Theodore Thayer, Nathanael Greene: Strategist of the Revolution (New York, 1960), and John S. Pancake, This Destructive War: The British Campaign in the Carolinas, 1780–1782 (Tuscaloosa, 1985), are the standard works. On Guilford Court House, see Washington to Rochambeau, 3 April 1781, WW 21:402–3.
His Excellency_George Washington Page 36
