"Greatest Controversy?" Topic

"Of all the disputed topics, events, reputations or battles of the Revolution, which is the greatest? Explain.

Militarily, Howe's failure to pursue Washington's beleaguered force trapped on the tip of Long Island remains something of a puzzle, despite attempts to reconstruct an answer. On a different note, this question intrigues me. I think we should have more controversies. Too often we accept pat narratives constructed from flimsy nineteenth century sources. Strict adherence to contemporaneous accounts would reveal the gaping gaps in our reconstructed renditions…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

In my opinion, the greatest controversy is about the desertion rates of German troops in America. Pro-patriot American want readers to think that desertion was common among oppressed Germans. I tend to support the group which regards German desertion rates as minor and maybe even less than British and Loyalist rates.

I've read (but can't recall where) that Howe's failure to attack Washington's bridgehead on Brooklyn Heights was the grim picture of another Breed's Hill (AKA Bunker Hill) slaughter of his infantry.

Jim

Howe's forebearance throughout the campaign was based on having no respect for the enemy. He kept on allowing Washington to make serious mistakes, which he did.
He relied on the Continental army to behave like the glorified militia it was, and to melt away. And it did.

Washington's escape from Long Island depended on miraculous fog and John Glover.
As stated above, Howe remembered all too well what militia behind fortifications could do.
They were surrounded by the army and the Royal Navy. Starve them out. They weren't going anywhere. Far from a " controversial" plan, I believe it was the right choice. It's what I would have done. It just didn't work.

Unfortunately for Howe, Washington learned his trade, slowly. And the Continental army continued to improve.

Armand, you keep linking to blowhards who are determined to say something new and original. Keep it up. It's fun.

The Howe brothers were the official Peace Commissioners for 1776, which was a conflict of interest from the get-go. It also betrayed their Whiggish political leanings.

I think the greatest controversy was either the tepid political support and overall military effort undertaken in the first two years of the war (too few men, according to Amherst and Howe – and too few ships to both enforce a blockade and support the army), or that Sir Rodney neglected his duty while trying to justify his plundering of St Eustatius and his subsequent loss of overseeing the French fleet which slipped away to help trap Cornwallis at Yorktown.

So happy you enjoyed them my good friend John! (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Conway Cabal is it for me.

Terrement,

I would disagree some what. All current studies show roughly 50% support for the Revolution, 25% Loyalist and 25% wanting to stay out of the way.

Also, as to not being a match of the British army the Americans did win a number of battles. Just saying.

The Continental Army was the American standing army of the War of the Revolution.

The advent of von Steuben at Valley Forge gave the army a uniform drill and discipline and made the Continentals the equal of the British and Hessians on the battlefield.

However, the creator and architect of the Continental Army was Washington.

The greatest problem the Continental Army had was that it could not keep up its authorized strength, mainly because of the crippled militia system and the state armies that were maintained during the war. Incidentally, the Continental's name for the militia was 'longfaces' based on their attitude when called up for active service.

The American allies during the war were the French, Spanish, and Dutch. Without the French support and participation, the US probably would not have won.

I think the US could have won, but over a much longer time frame, and with much more damage to the political institutions. It would not have been pretty, and may have resulted in a much harsher environment.

I think the French contributions before actual participation was crucial. Thank you Hortalez et cie, with your "plausible deniability" guns and ammo. Had the French not intervened, this would have continued. It probably would have been a smarter move for the French, bleeding both America and Britain. However, they couldn't have tried to steal much more valuable sugar colonies without active participation.

Yes… the French didn't act wisely… and also… they paid the price for it!.

Amicalement
Armand

"Conway Cabal is it for me."

Not sure that ever existed the way they said it did.

I think the greatest controversy is really the proportion of Americans who actually supported the Revolution.

Years after, Adams GUESSED that the ratio was a third for, a third against and a third neutral. But that was just a guess.
Any revisions to those numbers are really just guesswork too.

Years after, Adams GUESSED that the ratio was a third for, a third against and a third neutral. But that was just a guess.

Apparently this is a mis-quotation; he did say it, but it was about the American response to the French Revolution, and not a reference to the American war. The Blackwell "Encyclopedia of the American Revolution" gives a 35:25:40 split between Rebels, Loyalist and Neutrals; however, it's not clear at which point in the war that is supposed to be, and I think it may have changed quite a bit between 1775 and 1783. As a rough "guesstimate" it would get my vote, though.

How do you get such numbers? Was Gallup or Rasmussen around then?