[The insurgent approach] nowhere better employed than in the South. It was there that the Revolution was won -- not so much by the main force as by the inspired blending of conventional infantry and irregular raiders. Washington's most effective executor of this approach was the Quaker-turned-soldier Nathanael Greene.... While the British were chasing Greene and his men, American irregulars led by Francis Marion ("the Swamp Fox"), Thomas Sumter, and others struck at outposts and supply lines, causing no end of trouble.Americans often forget that their rights were won on the battlefield. Many like to remember the Declaration's statement that we were endowed with them by the Creator, without remembering Patrick Henry's corollary as to the character of such a claim: "An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us."
Greene never won a pitched battle, but it didn't matter.... He always retreated with enough of his force left to recover and resume the offensive later -- when the British were more dispersed, trying to chase down Marion and his colleagues. Working in tandem like this, Continentals and guerrillas completely exhausted Cornwallis and his forces.... The eminent historian Russell Weigley's assessment was that Greene "remains alone as an American master developing a strategy of unconventional war."
"Founding Insurgents"
What we celebrate today is the formal break of ties with Britain, and the commitment to war in order to make that break good. Foreign Policy has an article treating the Founders as insurgents, and suggesting that their war is more worth study than the ones we normally like to consider.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The war was won up north. The Battle of Trenton, specifically.
And the next year, with the victory at Saratoga and the Philadelphia campaign, which brought in the French.
After that, the British were just fishing for anything that would work. And nothing did.
Well, anyway, it wasn't won by people sitting around demanding rights.
True enough, Tex.
Eric, I just knew that would get a rise out of you. I would have to say that Greene's contribution to the war is understated by most histories, though. The war could have been lost in the South, whether or not it was won there; and it almost was, until Greene saved what had been an utter disaster, and turned it into a way of pursuing victory.
It did indeed require both North and South to have success- the British had gotten to their 'Southern strategy' but if you look at that, it was designed to cut off the South from New England, so they recognized the relationship of the two together was critical.
If the British had been successful up North, there would have been no need of a Southern strategy--The Revolution would have collapsed in late 76 or early 77.
Say what you want, but go look at Washington's letters. If Trenton had gone wrong (and it nearly did--2 of the three planned attacks did not come off), he said the jig was up.
Post a Comment