Revolutionary North Carolina

Impact of the Battle of Guilford Courthouse on British Strategy

Oct 10, 2009 Michael Streich

The British southern campaign was built upon erroneous assumptions based on supposed loyalist strength which was clearly demonstrated at Guilford Courthouse.

As the southern campaign progressed during the last phase of the American Revolution, British commanders labored under several false assumptions that would hinder their efforts in the Carolinas and ultimately cost them the war. The untenable position faced by Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown caused by lack of reinforcements and supplies began at the battle of Guilford Courthouse, a pyrrhic victory that cost him a quarter of his army. It became evident to military commanders as well as members of Parliament that although Guilford Courthouse represented “a complete victory over the rebels,” the cost of victory could not be sustained.

The British March through North Carolina

North Carolina witnessed some of the bloodiest and most savage fighting of the entire War for Independence. This possibility was not foreseen by British military planners who assumed that the state contained more loyalists than rebels. The assumption proved to be false. Those loyalists that might have joined Cornwallis swiftly reconsidered after the massacre of loyalists by Colonel Tarleton’s cavalry, mistaking them for rebels.

Additionally, North Carolina geography was not well suited for Cornwallis’ march north. The province was full of rivers like the Catawba, Dan, and Yadkin, restricting opportunities at greater maneuverability, especially as patriot forces began to oppose British units sent to garrison key North Carolina cities.

British troops had been told to expect supportive loyalist farmers that would provide food and drink as the army advanced. This proved to be another false assumption. Additionally, the Carolinas had offered stiff resistance and weakened the British forces. South of the North Carolina border, the battles of King’s Mountain and Hannah’s Cowpens devastated British and loyalist forces. Cornwallis, referring to Cowpens, stated that it was the “most serious calamity since Saratoga.”

Battle of Guilford Courthouse

At Guilford Courthouse, not far from the Virginia border, General Nathaniel Greene’s 4,500 men met the much smaller British army of 2,000. Arranged in three lines, the patriots had the advantage of terrain. Greene’s first and second line, representing local militia as well as Virginia militia, rapidly broke.

The third line, however, was made up of Continentals, regular, veteran troops. They held the high ground and almost succeeded in turning the British advance. Military historians speculate that if General Greene had ordered a charge, the weary British grenadiers and Guards units would have crumbled and the entire war would have been over.

Lord Cornwallis ordered the firing of grapeshot into the melee, killing as many of his own men as those of the enemy. The action succeeded and Greene ordered a withdrawal, leaving the British in control of the battlefield. Without food and enduring heavy rains, morale decreased. Further, Cornwallis had lost a quarter of his command and would limp into Virginia with only 1,435 men fit for combat duty.

Effects of Guilford Courthouse

British planners could not see the impending disaster. Although Benedict Arnold, who had recently changed allegiance to the British cause, was successfully harassing Virginia patriots and disparate military units, neither Virginia nor the Carolinas were solidly under British control. In fact, Cornwallis remarked in a letter to Lord Germain in London that rebel activity in the Carolinas was far more active and widespread than had been assumed.

Arriving in Yorktown, the British army was in no condition to fight. Disease was taking more lives and promised reinforcements failed to materialize. Cornwallis’ commander, the incompetent Sir Henry Clinton in New York, realized too late that British defeat at Yorktown would translate into the end of the war, the Americans having won their independence.

Revolutionary North Carolina had shown that the British southern campaign had been built on erroneous information. This cost them the war, particularly after the devastating defeat at Guilford Courthouse.

Sources:

• David Eggenberger, An Encyclopedia of Battles (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1985)
• Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes (New York: Avon Books, 1991)
• Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution, Volume Two (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)
• Primary Source Reference Book For the 1781 Guilford Courthouse Campaign, Captain Thomas Goss, Editor (Department of History, United States Military Academy West Point: May 4, 1998) [on-line PDF]

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any reprinting requires the written permission of Michael Streich.

 

Toleration and Enlightenment Thinking

Voltaire and his Peers Address the Fanaticism of Religion

Oct 15, 2009 Michael Streich

Toleration may be the one element of Enlightenment thinking that has yet to be realized in societies that perpetuate prejudices and religious fanaticism.

Toleration is as important a concept today as it was during the Enlightenment Age, a period when radically new thinking challenged the old order, particularly the established state religions. Despite this promising beginning, toleration as a positive force has yet to become an active part of everyday life, even in the most advanced societies of the post modern world. Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire viewed toleration as a natural element of rational thinking. This great French philosopher once wrote, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Toleration was the measure of Enlightenment truth.

The Need for Toleration in the 18th Century

The European wars of religion, notably the Thirty Years’ War that ended in 1648, had left much of central Europe in ruins. Population losses due to this devastating period are equated with 14th century losses due to Bubonic Plague. Although the 1555 Peace of Augsburg was reaffirmed, religious intolerantness existed everywhere, and not just among Christian bodies. Jews and Muslims were still persecuted and marginalized by Christian societies.

In 1762 a French Calvinist was executed by the Catholic authorities of Toulouse in France. Jean Calas was accused of killing his son who desired to convert to Catholicism. After torture and execution, Calas was executed. Three years later, after the intervention of Voltaire, a new inquiry found that Calas had been innocent. This case demonstrated the need for toleration as well as a curb on religious fanaticism, addressed by Voltaire in his Treatise on Tolerance.

Catholics were not alone in their relentless purges of non-Catholic religious groups. In England, Puritans in the Parliament passed laws restricting the full participation by Catholics in military and government affairs. Even in the new American colonies, religious toleration seldom existed as differing groups quibbled over Biblical interpretation.

After the Age of Enlightenment

Enlightenment challenges were illusive and toleration did not survive into the 19th Century. This was a century of revolution and wars across Europe. It was a period of Manifest Destiny, Imperialism, and the glorification of Anglo-Saxonism. There was no room for toleration. Dominant societies exploited and oppressed weaker ones, often in the name of religion, progress, or Social Darwinist applications. The Doctrine of Propinquity became the normative standard for acquiring territories. Toleration devolved into paternalism.

By the 20th Century, toleration was equated with unwelcome liberalism. The century began with ethnic cleansing in Turkey, the first significant genocide involving the Armenian ethnic minority. The high point on intolerance was the German Holocaust. Yet even into the 21st Century, toleration is fleeting. Despite the best efforts of schools to teach tolerance, an on-going project of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, tolerance continues to be undermined by generational prejudices.

Toleration Linked to other Enlightenment Goals

Although toleration has not been attained, other Enlightenment goals have. Most developed nations support freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Many nations no longer practice capital punishment. Democratically inclined nations recognize the inherent rights and liberties of all peoples, including the protections of habeas corpus and due process.

The 18th Century target of toleration was religious fanaticism. Although religious bodies in most developed nations no longer actively persecute other faith traditions, fanaticism still attempts to influence society and politics, most notably in America. In Germany, the Jehovah’s Witness sect is still fighting for the right to exist – the same group persecuted by the Nazis over sixty years ago.

In the United States, some Catholic bishops, like the bishops of Charleston and Charlotte, have refused to allow pro-choice political candidates from receiving the Eucharist. Thomas Paine, an American Patriot and Deist, wrote that all the religions known to him in the 18th Century claimed exclusive truth, damning each other to hell. He accepted none of them. Toleration goes a long way to ensure social harmony and respect for opposing views. This was a goal of Enlightenment thinkers.

Sources:

General Histories like The Western Heritage, by Donald Kagan and others; World Civilizations by Craig and others (both Prentice Hall)

Author’s lecture notes

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any reprint in any form must be granted in Writing by Michael Streich.

 

The Filibuster in Parliamentary Procedure

How One US Senator Can Delay the Business of the Senate

Oct 19, 2009 Michael Streich

Popularized in the mid-19th Century, the filibuster gives Senators, individually or in groups, the power to stop all Senate floor business.

The filibuster has been an active part of the United States Senate’s rules of procedure since the mid-19th Century, yet few Americans understand it. Derived from earlier terms meaning “pirate” or “freebooter,” the filibuster represents a parliamentary maneuver by the minority party to delay Senate votes on pending legislation through lengthy, often meaningless speeches. On the surface, this seems contrary to majority government, yet as a necessary evil the filibuster often forces bipartisan solutions and further committee action on important legislation.

Historical Uses of the Filibuster

The US Senate, since its inception, permitted lengthy speeches by its members. Some of these orations, such as the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830, were reprinted in newspapers and salient sections were memorized by school children. The notion of unlimited speaking time, however, began in the mid century. Senators could end a filibuster by calling for cloture, a measure requiring a two-thirds vote. Because early filibusters tended to occur at the end of the Congressional session, with many senators already traveling to their home states, cloture was seldom successful.

Filibusters were used – or threatened – to wind down the Congressional clock. The most serious 19th Century filibuster threat was in 1877 when both house of Congress met to certify the electoral votes in the Election of 1876. Historian Lloyd Robinson writes that after the special Electoral Commission gave all the disputed votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, leaders of the House, controlled by Democrats, threatened a last minute filibuster that would have resulted in a Constitutional crisis.

During the early New Deal years, Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long frequently employed the filibuster to prevent voting on measures that he felt favored the wealthy. Long read from the Bible and Shakespeare. His longest filibuster lasted 15 hours. This, however, did not compare to South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, whose anti-Civil Rights filibuster lasted for 24 hours and 18 minutes, the longest filibuster in the history of the Senate.

Other Uses of the Filibuster

In 1919 Republican senators, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, used the filibuster to delay votes in the lame duck session that would end in May. The motive was very clear: Republicans had gained control of the Senate in the mid-term elections and men like Lodge and William Borah of Idaho were opposed to the idealism of President Woodrow Wilson, notably the Versailles Peace Treaty which included Wilson’s “covenant of the League.” By stopping all Senate business, a new Republican-controlled Senate could pursue a vastly different agenda.

Filibusters are used to delay votes on judicial nominations as well as ambassadorial appointments. Frequently, senators have used the filibuster to oppose legislation not favorable to their region. During the 1950s, anti-segregation and anti-lynching laws were filibustered by Southern senators seeking to preserve the “separate but equal” principle that had been the norm in the South since the end of the Civil War.

Initial Civil Rights Acts were significantly watered down by party leaders in order to avoid contentious filibusters. Much of this changed as liberal democrats were elected to the Senate in the North. These new men could not be counted on to stave off attempts at cloture.

Contemporary Use of the Filibuster

Over the last two decades, the filibuster, although frequently threatened, was balanced by the necessary two-thirds majority needed for cloture. In the current Congress, the Democratic Party, having achieved impressive gains during recent elections, is very close to a “filibuster-proof” majority but still cannot count on the necessary votes to sustain a motion for cloture.

Additionally, bipartisan approaches to judicial appointments and controversial legislation have produced outcomes in which the filibuster may not be necessary. Both parties in recent years have threatened to change the rules on filibusters to favor their majority status. Thankfully, the filibuster remains as a parliamentary tool that gives fleeting power to one senator whose opposition or caution may be a necessary evil of US government.

Sources:

• Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)
• John P. Patrick and others, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government (Oxford University Press, 2001)
• Lloyd Robinson, The Stolen Election (Tom Doherty Books, 2001)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form required the written permission of Michael Streich

 

Federalists and Republican-Democrats Compared

Differences Between Hamilton and Jefferson over the Constitution

Oct 30, 2009 Michael Streich

In the early years of the Republic, factionalism over Constitutional interpretation divided Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson resulting in the birth of parties.

When George Washington returned to Mount Vernon in 1797 after two terms as U.S. president, he left a political last will known as his Farewell Address. Washington warned against party factionalism which he believed led to “frightful despotism.” By this time, however, two distinct factions had already formed. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, had a radically different interpretation of the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson’s Republicans or Republican-Democrats. Both early parties also diverged on their future vision for the new Republic.

Interpreting the New Constitution

Federalists followed an interpretation based on loose construction. In essence, they rejected the literalist approach held by the Republicans*, strict construction. The best illustration of this is seen in the dispute over the creation of the Bank of the United States. No clause in the Constitution authorized Congress to charter a national bank.

Over the protests of Jefferson and his fellow Republicans, Hamilton developed the Constitutional doctrine of implied powers. He based his reasoning on the final clause in Section 8 or Article I of the Constitution: Congress had the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers…”

These “foregoing powers” included authorization to coin money, raise taxes, and borrow money. Hamilton concluded that the national bank, based on the “necessary and proper” clause, was a logical extension of Congressional direct powers. In 1819, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall would reread Hamilton’s logical arguments in deciding the landmark case, McCulloch v. Maryland, as a basis for holding the national bank constitutional.

Differing Visions of the Future United States

Thomas Jefferson envisioned an agricultural society, dominated by a pastoral mission closely tied to the land. Jefferson even extended this vision to Native American cultures, believing that the Indian problem would be resolved if Native Americans turned to agriculture. Jefferson himself owned a large Virginia plantation with 600 slaves.

Hamilton saw the future of America in terms of manufacturing and industrialization. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton was more familiar with the British model, already in the throes of early industrialization which was promoting national prosperity through growing consumerism. Hamilton’s vision reflected the needs of the fledgling industries of the Northeast, infant enterprises that pointed to future prosperity and national growth.

The Role of the Central Government in Relation to the States

Federalists believed in a strong central government. They based their view on the conviction that the Constitution represented the supreme law of the land and represented the will and consent of the people. Republicans disputed this interpretation, placing greater emphasis on the individual states. According to their interpretation, the Constitution represented an agreement or contract between sovereign states and existed in a subordinate role to states’ rights.

As confrontation between the United States and France appeared imminent during the John Adams’ administration, Federalists in the Congress increased defense spending and enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, measures deplored by Republicans. Jefferson believed that the Federalists were bending the Constitution to suit their own political future at the expense of the common man.

Demise of the Federalists

The proverbial death knell of the Federalists occurred when in 1800 Jefferson became president and the Federalists lost control of Congress. By the end of the War of 1812, Federalists had ceased to exist as a party, although their Constitutional interpretations would be carried on by subsequent smaller parties and ultimately the Whig Party.

Sources:

• Samuel H. Beer, To Make A Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993)
• Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992)
• United States Constitution

* Jefferson’s “Republicans” should not be confused with today’s Republican Party, which was formed in the early 1850s.

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form requires written permission by Michael Streich.

 

The Battle of Trenton December 26, 1776

Washington's Surprise Attack Invigorates the Patriot Cause

Dec 23, 2009 Michael Streich

A combination of brilliant strategy, gamble, & British blunders enabled Washington's deteriorating army to cross the Delaware in adverse conditions and secure a victory.

The December 26, 1776 battle of Trenton was the first Patriot victory of any consequence since the shots fired at Lexington and Concord had begun the struggle against Great Britain. Although not a turning point in the Revolutionary War, it was, according to one historian, “an eleventh hour reprieve” that gave the Patriot cause a “new spirit of hope and confidence.” Trenton demonstrated George Washington’s brilliant leadership and skill and probably saved him from recall as overall commander by the Continental Congress. The Trenton victory proved that Britain was not invincible, boosted morale among troops and civilian supporters, and increased enlistments sorely needed for the campaigns of 1777.

British Blunders Contribute to the Loss at Trenton

After the American withdrawal from New York and Washington’s retreat into Pennsylvania, British commanding general William Howe took his army back to New York following the pursuit of Washington. Wintering in New York, the British relied on 2,000 Hessian mercenaries to garrison the New Jersey front line. Although there was some local guerilla resistance, forcing the troops to confine themselves to cities and towns, the assumption was that with Washington’s army safely across the Delaware River, no immediate threat existed.

The Hessians at Trenton were commanded by Colonel Johaan Gottlieb Rall. Rall, who once referred to the patriot soldiers as “country clowns,” never bothered to fortify the town. No defensive redoubts were constructed. Rall also received conflicting reports from the British prior to Washington’s attack. On December 21st, British General Grant wrote Rall, stating that that the American army was, “almost naked, dying of cold, without blankets, and very ill supplied with provisions.” But Rall also received word from General Thomas Leslie in Princeton that Washington was preparing a Delaware crossing aimed at attacking Trenton.

Washington’s Victory at Trenton

Washington divided his army, intending a diversionary attack against Colonel Carl von Donop’s headquarters at Bordentown, south of Trenton. This group, however, never made it across the icy Delaware. The main force, ferried across the river amidst rain and sleet on cargo barges, was assembled on the Jersey side by 3:00 AM January 26th. The success of the attack depended upon absolute surprise.

Washington’s gamble paid off. The Hessians, still sleeping off their Christmas revelries, barely had time to form ranks. This was an army used to fighting European style battles. The streets of Trenton, however, made for a very different battle order. By the time artillery had been brought forward and officers connected with their units, the battle was all but over. Writing to his wife on December 28th, Henry Knox related that, “Providence seemed to have smiled upon every part of this enterprise.

Effects of the Battle of Trenton

News of the Trenton fiasco forced General Howe to dispatch Lord Cornwallis to Princeton to lead a force of 7,000 against Washington’s tattered army. But Washington escaped, recrossing the Delaware and moving north to eventually attack Princeton. The battle of Trenton had taken one hour and resulted in a thousand prisoners. General Gates, who had voiced public disapproval of the plan, was proven wrong.

According to historian Christopher Hibbert, Washington’s victory at Trenton, “encouraged a fresh revolutionary spirit amongst a people becoming disillusioned by…war…” Although “Washington had hardly turned the tables,” according to writer Robert Harvey, the propaganda value of the victory was immense. Enlistments increased in early 1777, a crucial need since many of Washington’s enlistments were due to expire January 1st.

Trenton also demonstrated that George Washington was not only a competent field commander (he personally commanded the main force attacking Trenton) but a brilliant strategist. Victory of Trenton restored confidence in both the Revolutionary cause and the leadership of Washington.

Sources:

• Robert Harvey, “A Few Bloody Noses:” The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (New York: The Overlook Press, 2001)
• Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes (New York: Avon Books, 1990)
• Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution Volume One (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)
• The Spirit of Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as told by its Participants (New York: Castle Books, 2002) [original source documents on the American Revolution]

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form must be granted permission by Michael Streich in writing.

 

USS Maine in Havana Harbor 1898

The German Connection with the Spanish American War

Oct 28, 2009 Michael Streich

In the months before the outbreak of war with Spain in April 1898, German warships prowled the Caribbean, meddling in affairs & hoping to benefit from a weakening Spain.

In 1897 Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was twenty-nine years old; Theodore Roosevelt, the American Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was thirty-nine. Events in the Caribbean in late 1897 would test the resolve of both men and ultimately serve as a cause of the 1898 Spanish-American War.

Kaiser Wilhelm and German Imperialism

Following the dismissal of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1890, the Kaiser embarked on a series of reckless foreign policies adventures that led other European leaders to see him as an arch meddler, eager to benefit from the misfortunes of others or to exacerbate international crises in the hopes of securing either land or long term influence. This occurred in Morocco and later during the Boer War in South Africa.

Kaiser Wilhelm, against the advice of Bismarck, wanted his “place in the sun.” He had also read Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan’s wildly popular book, The Influence of Sea Power on History: 1660-1783 and had it translated into German. Mahan’s blueprint, which included colonies, a strong fleet, and island coaling stations, provided the Kaiser with a rationale for imperial adventures.

Germany came late to the imperialistic table. Although not too late to participate in the “scramble for Africa,” most desirable world properties were already under the control of Britain, France, and Russia. Germany had acquired joint custodianship of Samoa with the United States, but the Caribbean offered new opportunities in the wake of Spain’s growing inability to maintain her last remaining colonial possessions.

Cuba and the Coming of War with the United States

In November 1897 Teddy Roosevelt learned from intelligence sources that two imperial warships had left Germany for the Caribbean. His superior was on vacation, so Roosevelt, on his own initiative, ordered the USS Maine to set sail for the Florida Keys. The Maine was one of America’s newest warships, part of a fleet of over 110 vessels.

In early December a German warship sailed into Port-au-Prince and humiliated the government, threatening to bombard the city. Although Haiti appealed for US help, no American warships were close enough to assist. In Cuba, tensions were mounting and in January 1898 the American press reported rioting in Havana. The decision to send the Maine to Havana was based on reports of rioting but also to counter the potential threat of four German ships in Havana’s harbor. The last thing President McKinley wanted was for the Germans to provoke an incident giving them an opportunity to intervene and perhaps transfer ownership of the colony from an increasingly weak Spain.

When the Maine arrived in Havana on January 25th, there was no rioting. The ship had not been expected. American lives, interests, and property were in no danger. Historians like G.J.A. O’Toole believe that the presence of Gneisenenau, the Charlotte, and the Geier, in Havana – all German warships, played some role in the decision to send the Maine. German ships had also been reported off Manila Bay in the Philippines, further suggesting that the Kaiser hoped to benefit from Spain’s deteriorating position as a colonial power.

The Drift toward War in 1898

Diplomatic solutions, either with the overt meddling of Kaiser Wilhelm or with Spain’s queen regent, were not forcefully attempted. McKinley’s Secretary of State was Ohio’s John Sherman, a venerable member of the US Senate and a founder of the Republican Party but who, in 1898, was senile.

The Maine exploded on February 16th, an action many Americans blamed on Spain despite evidence to the contrary. Americans had already been predisposed to war through the rabid yellow journalism that portrayed Spain as a brutal colonial master. By mid-April, Congress approved a resolution that authorized what John Hay dubbed “the splendid little war.”

As to Germany, the Kaiser’s meddling continued in Central and South America. During TR’s term as president, he averted a naval standoff with the Kaiser over the Venezuelan dispute.

Sources:

• Ivan Musicant, Empire by Default: The Spanish-American War and the Dawn of the American Century (Henry Holt & Co., 1998)
• G.J.A. O’Toole, The Spanish War (W.W. Norton & Co., 1984)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America (Penguin, 1984)

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any reprint or republishing in any form must ge granted permission in writing by Michael Streich