 | | American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America |
July 7th, 2011, 02:50 PM
|
#21 | | Son of the Morning Star
Joined: Dec 2010 From: The state that is...Round on both ends and Hi in the middle Posts: 2,532 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander H The account of Monmouth is accurate... and I have no reason to question the truth of the manuscript... I just wish I could see it, or know more of it's content I feel compelled to add some to the Monmouth account
Prior to the battle, Hamilton's opinion of Lee was that he was " a driveler in the business of soldiership or something much worse "
and that of Lee's desire to not attack " would have done honor to the most honerable society of midwives "
Before Washington knew of Lee's total retreat ... Hamilton rode up to Lee and said " I will stay here with you, my dear general, and die with you!... Let us all die rather than retreat " With no reply from Lee... Hamilton convinced him to order Lafayette to charge a british movement... Hamilton then found a brigade in retreat and fearing the loss of their artillery, ordered them to line up along a fence and then charge with fixed bayonets... at which time Hamilton's horse was shot out from under him. Lee, during his court martial, discribed Hamilton as in " a sort of frenzy of valor " Many witnesses took notice of Hamilton that day... One aide said that He showed " singular proofs of bravery " and apeared to " court death under our doubtful circumstances and triumphed over it " General Knox later told John Adams stories of Hamilton's " effervescence at Monmouth " all from Chernow pg 114-115 (but the same accounts are in several other books )
Just felt that since it was kinda on topic... that I would dispel Jefferson's opinion that Hamilton was timid on horseback and word of his courage was not true ... by pointing out just one of many moments that prove Jefferson wrong (as he often was) This point was made in another thread. |
Nice post...I knew where you were headed with it early on. Are you trying to turn our friend TJ from a Jeffersonian to Hamiltonian  You two guys crack me up. It's almost like witnessing history first hand with you two. | | |
| |
July 7th, 2011, 02:54 PM
|
#22 | | Historian
Joined: Mar 2011 From: Georgia USA Posts: 1,266 | Quote:
Originally Posted by jegates Nice post...I knew where you were headed with it early on. Are you trying to turn our friend TJ from a Jeffersonian to Hamiltonian  You two guys crack me up. It's almost like witnessing history first hand with you two.  | I would never try to turn TJ 
... I would lose respect for him if he did...
and we know he won't. It is how it should be | | |
| |
July 7th, 2011, 03:04 PM
|
#23 | | Historian
Joined: Mar 2011 From: Georgia USA Posts: 1,266 |
I found this excerpt from this link... Charles Lee
Three-fourths of a century after his death a document was found among Sir William Howe's papers endorsed "Mr. Lee's Plan, 29th March, 1777," in the handwriting of Henry Strachy, Howe's secretary. The writing within was in Lee's own hand, and it embodied a plan of operations by the British fleet and army which it was thought was best calculated to insure the subjugation of the colonies. It was upon this plan that Howe acted in going to the Chesapeake in the summer of 1777, instead of up the Hudson River to assist Burgoyne, and so ruined the latter general.
I had know of most everything else ...other than the document proving it all.
Check out the last sentance .... I didn't know this either... classic !! Maybe we should put him #3 ... for keeping Clinton from going north to help Burgoyne ? . | | |
| |
July 7th, 2011, 03:49 PM
|
#24 | | Historian
Joined: Mar 2011 From: Florida Posts: 1,320 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander H I found this excerpt from this link... Charles Lee
Three-fourths of a century after his death a document was found among Sir William Howe's papers endorsed "Mr. Lee's Plan, 29th March, 1777," in the handwriting of Henry Strachy, Howe's secretary. The writing within was in Lee's own hand, and it embodied a plan of operations by the British fleet and army which it was thought was best calculated to insure the subjugation of the colonies. It was upon this plan that Howe acted in going to the Chesapeake in the summer of 1777, instead of up the Hudson River to assist Burgoyne, and so ruined the latter general.
I had know of most everything else ...other than the document proving it all.
Check out the last sentance .... I didn't know this either... classic !! Maybe we should put him #3 ... for keeping Clinton from going north to help Burgoyne ? . | That is a nice web link. All accounts I've read until now did not explicitly indict Lee of having influenced Howe to go to the Chesapeake. The author also disparages Lee's actions in the defense of Charleston and groups it with his other treasonable behavior. In Lee's defense his actions at Ft. Sullivan are not unreasonable. The fort was built off very spongy palm trunks which absorbed the cannon balls fired from the British fleet. This was not known until after the battle when something like 7,000 cannon balls were recovered from Ft. Sullivan. If the fort had been built of the usual oak tree trunks or other hardwoods it would have been completely destroyed. Another factor that lends weight to Lee's apprehension is the tenuous link between the mainland and the troops in Sullivan Island. A causeway of floating planks had been set up to connect both shores but it proved worthless and, in fact, dangerous as 200 troops fell into the cove. Row boats had to be commandeered to ferry the troops and materials across.
A stroke of luck also aided in the defense of Ft. Sullivan as three of the larger ships bombarding the fort attempted an end around to bombard the fort from it's landward and more vulnerable side but went aground in shallow waters before getting within range.
In this instance both Governor Rutledge and Col. Moultrie were the heroes for their stubborn resistance to abandoning the fort but when looked upon with a fair glance Lee was not wrong in wanting to evacuate the position. If the fort had been built of hardwood it's defense would not have lasted the half hour that Lee predicted and Charleston would have not been spared a savage bombardment.
| | |
| |
July 7th, 2011, 06:24 PM
|
#25 | | Son of the Morning Star
Joined: Dec 2010 From: The state that is...Round on both ends and Hi in the middle Posts: 2,532 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander H I found this excerpt from this link... Charles Lee
Three-fourths of a century after his death a document was found among Sir William Howe's papers endorsed "Mr. Lee's Plan, 29th March, 1777," in the handwriting of Henry Strachy, Howe's secretary. The writing within was in Lee's own hand, and it embodied a plan of operations by the British fleet and army which it was thought was best calculated to insure the subjugation of the colonies. It was upon this plan that Howe acted in going to the Chesapeake in the summer of 1777, instead of up the Hudson River to assist Burgoyne, and so ruined the latter general.
I had know of most everything else ...other than the document proving it all.
Check out the last sentance .... I didn't know this either... classic !! Maybe we should put him #3 ... for keeping Clinton from going north to help Burgoyne ? . |
That's GREAT stuff. Thanks for putting that up! | | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |