"Virginia’s Independent Frontier Companies" Topic

From the Journal of the American Revolution.
link

This is incredibly fascinating.
One of the interesting notes is that Lord Dunmore had to "put up with" 4 different situations in 1775.
The most obvious was of course the American Revolution. (For those interested in Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment, I've used Perry's bespoke figures, and Foundry Maroons which are almost identical.)
But there was also a bloody conflict with Pennsylvania over the headwaters of the Ohio. Shades of the Yankee Pennamite Wars!
And then there were the Shawnee and Cherokee.

But Virginia soldiered on.

This wafer-thin historiography validates a claim made by Charleston Physician Joseph Johnson in 1851. "Historians of the American Revolution all lived on or near the sea coast," he lamented. "Many of the sturdy sons of the forest were therefore unknown to them, and the daring acts and patriotic sufferings of such worthy persons have never been written or published." This is particularly true for provincial/state regulars, even though there were no Continental troops on the frontier until 1777.

It tells us what it can about the confusing mess of militia, minute companies, temporary provisional battalions and George Rogers Clark.
I won't summarize any more, but it certainly seems that these frontier goings on had a vital importance to the post war.
Although the French had assisted the American forces against the British, they were just as happy to see the new country pinned to the coast, lest it become powerful and return to friendship with its natural friend, Britain.

I would love to read about the goings on at the Treaty of Paris, and how we came out so well from it, despite both France and Britain wishing to limit our growth.
All snark aside, Kevin. Can you recommend anything on these fascinating negotiations?

And, doc mcb. This also appears right up your alley.

John, there's The Perils of Peace by Thomas Fleming. It's a very readable general account of what went on between Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris, including discussion of negotiations:

link

On the eve of the AWI Dunmore had been somewhat popular with Virginians along the western frontier. He had not only raised an army and lead it on a campaign against the natives who were attacking frontier settlements. He had done so in spite of opposition from many eastern Virginia leaders.

There is some validity to the allegation that "Historians of the American Revolution all lived on or near the sea coast". If you read the traditional histories of what happened in Virginia at the outbreak of the AWI the focus is on Dunmore seizing some of the colony's powder stores in Williamsburg and Henry's response. There isn't much discussion about what happened that alienated Dunmore from Virginians living in the western parts of the state. Family connections between the two groups, such as William Campbell being married to Patrick Henry, alone could not have caused the western part of the state to support the rebellion.

Thanks, Jeff. Just what I'm looking for.

After Yorktown: The Final Struggle for American Independence by Don Glickstein is an interesting volume.

It covers the myriad treaties of the period, the continued fighting in the South, fighting on the frontier, the Caribbean, on the open sea, the coastal war on the eastern seaboard, the Mediterranean, India, and elsewhere, including the advantures of French admiral Suffren as well as Hyder Ali.

Thanks, Kevin. We have to keep reminding ourselves that it wasn't just a strictly American War.
I've read that the Seven Years War should really be called the First World War. Our little scuffle could have a similar name.

There are some thumping errors in the book.

From page 16 regarding the siege of Yorktown:

'It was a French victory, made possible by French strategy; two French fleets; French siege engineers; French artillery that pounded the British; fought largely by French soldiers, marines, and sailors who outnumbered their American allies four-to-one; and set up by a French expatriate, the Marquis de Lafayette, who commanded a small rebel force that shadowed Cornwallis since the summer. Whig troops captured one of two key British fortifications; the French took the other. It was a victory financed by French money that paid, armed, clothed, and propped up the Whigs.'

The Continental Army had its own artillery arm, and its own engineer troops (the Corps of Sappers and Miners). The chief engineer was a French officer in Continental service, General Duportail. His rank was American, not French.

The use of the term 'whigs' for the Americans is somewhat erroneous and does not lend itself to either accuracy or clarity.

The French ground forces amounted to 9,000 under Rochambeau and St Simon. The French had no Marines. Troops that served as Marines were infantry from the army, called 'garnisons' by the French. As a sidenote, the 'Marines' who served with John Paul Jones were from the Irish Regiment 'Walsh' in the French service, part of the famous Irish Brigade. How many of the troops were actually Irish during this period declined steadily over the years.

Including the French sailors in the fleet in the total numbers 'present' in the siege is misleading as they did not serve ashore. The French navy was critical to the allied success as it kept the Royal Navy out of the Chesapeake and defeated it in the Battle of the Virginia Capes, but the fighting on land was shared by the French and Americans. And battle honors were about even.

Walking the ground at Yorktown clearly demonstrates where the French and American siege lines were, the former on the left of the allied position and the latter on the right. And the distance occupied by each is about equal.

Lafayette was not a French 'expatriate' but a French officer serving with the Continental Army with American, not French, rank. He went home after the war and had a checkered 'career' during the French Revolution and Napoleonic period.

The referred to 'small rebel force' commanded by Lafayette in Virginia numbered approximately 4,500 according the Map 9 of the West Point Atlas of American Wars. That also gives Washington's strength at Yorktown as 8,845 and Rochambeau's as 7,800. Corwallis' strength is given as 8,000 which included 840 seamen from British ships sunk by allied gunfire.

The reference used for the above quotation is:

March to Victory by Robert Selig:

PDF link

There was a PhD thesis being passed around some of the AWI groups a number of years back that asserted both Britain and France considered the folks along the edge of the frontier as unrulable and that they would be America's poison pill.

Bad mistake on their part…

both Britain and France considered the folks along the edge of the frontier as unrulable

Actually, from a European point of view, they were correct. The frontier population was NOT amenable to governance based on tight control. But, then, neither was much of the non-frontier population, and post-war American politicians realized that fact. London and Versailles both missed the fact that "unrulable" didn't mean "ungovernable".

Independent companies in the South and the frontier w
Had a long tradition. It was easier to raise small units among the settlements for the militia/ volunteer forces.
Even in the War of 1812, the independent company tradition thrived. Settlements or counties. Tennessee independent companies were raised by county and grouped together in battalions if possible.
In Alabama one officer raised a force of almost 200 and was often referred to as Major or Colonel. The Alabama Mississippi settlements had lieutenant s assigned to raise a company if possible.
This tradition can be seen in the Civil War when independent companies would report to a muster point where they could be merged with other 30 to 50 man companies to form a full regulation company. NCOs and officers were elected, so the largest group in the company had most of the leadership elected from them. Later the full company would be merged with other companies to form a regiment.
Good article and a proud tradition in America.

On the "un-rulable frontier", yes, the west versus east conflicts in colonial America were common, while north versus south almost non-existent. (Bacon's, Shays, Whisky, Paxton Boys, Regulators, Green Mountain Boys, etc.)

The solution was the "add-a-state plan" set up by the Confederation Congress in the Northwest Land Ordinances. It did not eliminate but surely defused what otherwise would have been an endless series of frontier uprisings against far-away eastern governments.

John, there's The Perils of Peace by Thomas Fleming. It's a very readable general account of what went on between Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris, including discussion of negotiations:

Agree. I have just bought it based on your recommendation.

One of the continuing arguments noted in the book is between militia and regulars during and after the war.

One interesting passage, in part, reads '…Arthur Lee decided he might show up Franklin by practicing 'militias diplomacy.' This was a favorite expression of the Lee-Adams party in Congress-part of their dangerously wrong conviction that militia, part-time soldiers called out in emergencies, were superior to Washington's trained regulars. The militia supposedly had more 'spirit.'-52-53.

This was part of letters home from France where Lee was falsely accusing others of being 'liars and crooks' in their public roles as diplomats.-52.