The American Revolution: Understanding The Limiting Factors Of Washington’s Strategy

 This edition is published by PICKLE PARTNERS PUBLISHING—www.picklepartnerspublishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books – picklepublishing@gmail.com

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 2005 under the same title.

© Pickle Partners Publishing 2014, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITING FACTORS OF WASHINGTON’S STRATEGY

BY

DOUGLAS D. JONES.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

ABSTRACT 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 6

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION 7

CHAPTER 2 — WASHINGTON’S BACKGROUND 11

CHAPTER 3 — THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS: INFLUENCING MILITARY STRATEGY 24

CHAPTER 4 — THE CONTINENTAL ARMY: ESTABLISHING A PROFESSIONAL FORCE 34

CHAPTER 5 — THE MILITIA: CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS 51

CHAPTER 6 — THE EVOLVING STRATEGY 59

CHAPTER 7 — THE CONCLUSION 72

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY 77

Archival Sources 77

Primary Sources 77

Secondary Sources 77

Periodicals 79

ABSTRACT

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITING FACTORS OF WASHINGTON’S STRATEGY, by Douglas D. Jones.

During the American Revolution, as the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, George Washington was responsible for determining the military strategy of the rebellious colonies. Throughout the war, diplomatic, social, and economic factors prevented Washington and his subordinate commanders from developing a strategy that allowed militia soldiers to fight in the same formations as soldiers of the Continental Army.

During the conflict, the Continental Congress took measures to maintain control of the Continental Army, which hampered Washington’s ability to plan and execute military strategy. Although recruiting problems, training challenges, and complications with the command structure limited Washington’s ability to form strategy and employ the Continental Army, by 1778, Washington and his subordinate commanders successfully developed a professional force that was capable of fighting against the British Army. Despite the militia’s lack of discipline, inconsistent regulations and limited training, over time, Washington cleverly used the militia in specific roles to enhance his strategy. Once Washington understood how diplomatic, social, and economic factors restricted his strategy, he combined the military capabilities of the Continental Army in a complimentary manner with the strengths of the militia which enabled the rebellious Americans, with the support of European allies, to defeat the British.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people helped me greatly during the course of completing this thesis and deserve my thanks and gratitude. The staff at the Combined Arms Research Library was always friendly and professional when assisting me in acquiring valuable resource material, especially Ms. Pamela Bennet. Ms. Helen Davis provided outstanding technical assistance in solving any computer-related challenge and ensured the final document followed all the appropriate formatting standards. Mr. Edward Bowie voluntarily shared his subject matter expertise and served as an objective counselor as I formed my ideas to write this thesis.

My thesis committee was outstanding. Dr. Richard Barbuto provided professional editing skills which made the final thesis more concise and easier to understand. Mr. Robert Kennedy provided an additional perspective on both the technical aspects of my research and editing the final text. He also provided valuable advice in choosing the best resources to complete the thesis. While acting as my primary mentor, Mr. Mark Gerges, the committee chair, devoted a tremendous amount of his own time to ensure my success. He was instrumental in coordinating the efforts of my entire committee, helped focus my research efforts, provided outstanding technical advice on the subject, and meticulously edited my text to ensure the content was accurate and grammatically correct.

I must also thank my family, especially Kirsten and Aaron, who continue to suffer the loss of quality family time due to my work. My wife, Heidi was an outstanding assistant that not only proof read each draft, but also acted as a single parent as I toiled. Finally, I would like to thank God for the many blessings He has bestowed upon me, including the mental and physical ability to complete this project.

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite.{1} — George Washington

The American Revolution, which occurred from 1775 to 1783, pitted the nascent American military against Great Britain, the premier military power of the last half of the eighteenth century. Great Britain possessed almost all conceivable advantages in its effort to defeat America. Great Britain had a well-established government to direct the strategy politically, an adequate economy to support the war strategy financially, and a well-trained and long established army and navy to execute the war strategy militarily. George Washington and his Continental Army lacked the support of a national diplomatic power, the financial support of a strong economy, and the advantage of a professional army and navy. Still, the United States, with the help of allies, defeated the British Empire. Clearly, Washington’s employment of the Continental Army was essential in defeating Great Britain. Considered individually, the military effects of the Continental Army and the militia were wholly inadequate. Yet, the combination of these components aided by allied support acted against the British forces ultimately to win independence for the new country.

Diplomatic, social, and economic factors prevented George Washington and his subordinate commanders from developing a strategy to prosecute the military portion of the Revolutionary War with a deliberate and systematic plan for the deployment of the Continental Army in a unified effort with the militia. Although lacking a planned and deliberate strategy to unify the efforts of the Continental Army with the militia, the United States won the American Revolution by defeating General Cornwallis’s military at Yorktown in 1781. Both of the American military components, the Continental Army and the militia organization played key roles in ensuring victory.

Although the winner of the war is unquestionable, many questions still exist about the military strategy that the American generals used to achieve that victory. Some people may believe investigating the military strategy and the events that led to the development of that strategy in a war that occurred over 200 years ago is trivial. Nevertheless, understanding the strategy and the reasons Washington and his subordinate commanders developed the strategy they did are important to today’s military. Washington, himself, made this point clear in his first annual address to Congress on 8 January 1790: To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.{2} Successful preparation for any war must include understanding the strategy of past wars and the factors that influenced leaders to adopt a specific strategy.

Washington had to consider many difficulties, including diplomatic, social, and economic, factors, as he developed his military strategy. Before analyzing the military strategy of Washington and his subordinate commanders, it is necessary to examine the many challenges they faced. It is essential to know Washington’s military background, especially his experience in the French and Indian War. In addition, it is important to understand the relationship Washington had with Congress. Considerations must also include the difficulties of establishing a respectable Continental Army that would influence much needed allied support. It is also essential to understand the capabilities and composition of the militia forces. Finally, it is necessary to analyze key battles that occurred in the war to evaluate the strategy Washington and his subordinate commanders employed, and to determine how these battles influenced the development of strategy. By understanding these factors, it is possible to examine why Washington did not effectively adopt a military strategy that included a deliberate and systematic plan to unite the Continental Army alongside the militia.

In the past, many scholars have published works on George Washington. Most of these look at Washington’s leadership abilities and his character and some even address Washington’s role as a strategist. Nevertheless, the literature largely fails to interpret or assess Washington’s strategic performance within the context of the times and the circumstances he faced.{3} Although Washington is generally accepted as conceptualizing the strategy that won the War for Independence, little is written on how Washington’s strategy prosecuted the military portion of the Revolutionary War by deliberately and systematically planning for the deployment of the militia alongside the Continental Army. Likewise, scholars have not studied the diplomatic, social, and economic factors that influenced the military strategy adopted by Washington with the same level of effort as they have studied his leadership and character.

Although there are numerous secondary sources that discuss the Revolutionary War period, the bicentennial of the war brought about renewed interest by both scholars and the public. As a result, Don Higginbotham, a Dowd Professor of American History at the University of North Carolina, published The War on American Independence. In the preface, Higginbotham declares, It is more an effort to examine military policy and attitudes toward war than it is an exercise in battles and campaigns.{4} According to The American Historical Review, The War on American Independence is a scholarly book that uses complex and disparate factors to study how the military aspects between 1763 and 1789 set the course and outcome of the war.{5} This is one of few secondary sources that concentrate on studying how military attitudes, policies, and practices throughout the pre-war and war period interacted with society. Although the scope of Higginbotham’s book makes it a leading secondary source, many other secondary sources, which are not as focused, give scholarly input to what factors influenced the development of the military strategy Washington and his subordinate commanders used and how effective that strategy was in winning the war.

Besides the numerous secondary sources that discuss the American Revolutionary War, several excellent primary sources are available. Many of Washington’s own letters, speeches, and quotes have been published in a variety of sources. Many of Washington’s