Generalship

[usmcsgt65]

There has been any action on this site for awhile. How about your views on this topic. Lord William Howe was secretly a pro-American which explains why he did not pursue Washington with much enthusiam.

[revwardoc]

While William Howe was certainly had Whig leanings in his politics, he was nonetheless a loyal British soldier who had already distinguished himself in several battles during the F&I War (in fact, the Howe family, for generations, were military men and his older brothers, George and Richard were a general and a naval captain, respectively, during that conflict; George was killed at Ft. Ticonderoga). William led the "forlorn hope" light infantry up the cliffs from the St. Lawrence River to start the battle on the Plains of Abraham. An an MP, he was quite vocal in his stance against King George III and his treatment of the American colonies, but he was first, and foremost, a British officer who answered the call to duty when it came. He personally led all 3 assaults up Breed's Hill and only evacuated Boston when ordered to do so by LordGermain and the king and to take the army to New York from where he could effectively spread his forces over a wider area that that allowed from Boston. During the battles in New York, he again personally led his men and the Hessian forces ashore and, in a series of brilliant manuvers, outflanked the colonials, easily routing them. However, Washington managed to pull his remaining army out from under Howe's nose under cover of night and an advantageous fog. He was able to do this mainly because the poorly equippedAmericans were unencumbered by a large baggage train such as the one trailing the British army. When Washington evacuated New York proper, much of the city was destroyed by a fire that is still considered to be of suspicious origin leading many Loyalists to criticize Howe for not crushing Washington with one hammer blow, mainly because they lost much personal and commercial property. However, Howe was operating in classic European fashion in that he would defeat his enemy by a series of strikes and victories, demoralizing the opposing army and the population, at the same time keeping his own losses in men and material to a minimum (he had, after all, learned a harsh lesson on attacking a strong, fixed fortification at Breed's Hill).By the end of the New York campaign in the fall of 1776, he had driven the entire enemy army away from its main source of supply, captured an important port city at the mouth of a large, navigable river, had a sheltered harbor for the fleet, and had come close to negotiating a peace settlement with a congressional delegation. In 1777, he was informed that Burgoyne had come up with a plan to seperate New England from the rest of the colonies with a 3-pronged attack from the north, west, and south (Howe's army in New York). Howe disagreed with the plan suggesting, instead, that Philadelphia, the effective "capitol" of America would, in classic European fashion, make the better target. He informed Parliament that he had not sufficient men to hold New York, attack Philadelphia and support Burgoyne's plan. Upon being told that he would not receive andy reinforcements from England, Howe went ahead with his plans to capture Philadelphia since he was given the option of either going there or sending men north to Burgoyne. Due to faulty intelligence, he was unaware of the colonial army that had gathered in central New York under Gates that was set to stop Burgoyne. "Gentleman Johnny's" plan was doomed to failure, not because of Howe, but because of Burgoyne's own arrogance that led him to believe the colonial forces to be beneath his contempt (he had also saddled his army with an immense baggage train that included 12 seperate wagons forhis ownpersonal belongings alone). Though a good general officer who was very concerned with the welfare of his men, Howe tried to prosecute the war using standard European tactics that, in the long run, proved useless in America. Despite his personal belief that Great Britain should make better attemplts at reconciliation with the American colonies, he did his duty to the best of his abilities.

[usmcsgt65]

Revwardoc, does not look there is going to be much action on this topic. I agree with you, Lord Howe fought in the European fashion. When he captured Philadelphia, he thought he had won. In Europe the enemy surrendered when they lost their capitol. I do not think he really understood the way Washington was fighting, or why he had to defeat Washington (not occupy land).

[revwardoc]

usmcsgt65,

You're right about not much action on the Rev War. This particular site seems to attract an audience more interested in contemporary events. The History Channel website has a pretty good Rev War forum if you like discussing such a subject.

Howe's failure to adapt to the American (that is, North American) style of warfare is surprising since, as a Light Company commander in the F&I War, he was decorated for his bravery and initiative in fighting "Indian style". Then, as the CinC, he reverts to the older, European standards, a huge mistake when fighting an enemy as fluid as the American army. I think his biggest problem was that he grossly underestimated the resilience and intestinal fortitude of the American fighting man. They lived and fought under extremely difficult conditions with a minimum of supplies and still stayed around long enough to fight the good fight. Had he not gone into winter quarters in '76-'77 and instead made a dogged pursuit of Washington's army, then the Revolution would, most likely, been a short lived event. But, he called a halt, giving Washington more time to regroup leading to the victories at Princeton and Trenton and an immeasurable boost to American morale.

And you're right about land in that, once lost, it can always be retaken making it a commodity of dubious value. You've got to kill a snake at the head and Howe failed to grasp this concept. Though there were several men who wanted Washington's job, none had the support and loyalty of the troops like Washington. And how could you trust men like Horatio Gates and Charles Lee, both of whom were former British officers? Hell, we found that we couldn't trust one of our own in the personage of Benedict Arnold.

[usmcsgt65]

Your comments on right on the mark. Thanks for the tip about the History Channel site - didn't even cross my mind.

[Andy]

Sorry, I'm suffering from old person's memory, can't recall the source. However I do recall reading that Howe's wife, while living in Boston, leaked information about British intents to a Dr. Warren who was one of the Son's of Liberty and a very close friend of Sam Adams. With the good doctor being a known rebel I wonder if she could have done this without as least passive approval of her husband.

Howe was a loyal officer, however if he believed the war was a lost cause what would his actions have been?

Stay healthy,
Andy

[revwardoc]

It was General Thomas Gage who was married, in 1758,to an American sympathizer, one Margaret Kemble, the daughter of a member of the New Jersey Council. Gage was appointed the CinC of all the British forces in North America in 1763 with his headquarters in New York. While he admirably handled such things as national and international diplomacy, trade, Indian affairs, and the western boundary disputes with Spain, he did a poor job of assessing the growing independence movement. When the situation in Boston heated up in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party, The Intolerable Acts and the Boston Port Act, he was ordered to replace the royal governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, and become the military governor and commander.

It's alleged that his wife, Margaret, politically a Whig, used her position to send military information to the Boston Committee of Correspondence. While this has been rumored, there is little evidence to support this since Gage already had his own spy in the Committee, Dr. Benjamin Church. Through Church, Gage would've been informed of his wife's activities and taken the necessary steps to stop her. Besides, the Boston C of C's own spy system was so well organized and effective, they would've had little need of Margaret's contributions.

Gage was again appointed CinC of all North American forces in August of 1775 but resigned in October and returned, with his wife, to England where he died in 1787.

[Andy]

General Gage! Of course Howe did I make such a mistake??? You are of course correct, I stand, well sit corrected.

You are again totally correct that the boys in beantown had lots of sources for info on what the Brits were up to, but can you imagine anyone turning a deaf ear to the wife of the enemy OIC who wanted to provide info? I think it's more than just a rumor but can provide no facts it back it up.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[revwardoc]

I've been doing more research on Gage's wife, including reading his correspondence from that period, and I can't find anything that would suggest she acted as a spy. I also contacted a friend who's made the study of April 19, 1775 his life's work. He has more books, documents, notes, what-have-you on the subject than, I think, even the Library of Congress and he agrees with me that it's, more than likely, a legend.

By the way, did you see the "photo" of you I posted in the General forum? It's under something like "Disguises rejected by Saddam Hussein" or something like that.

[Andy]

I sort of recall where I read about the General's wife. Do you remember who wrote the book "The Killer Angles"? Shear or something like that. His son wrote a book about the begining of the revolution, most all of it dealing with Boston. Don't remember the title, don't remember who I loaned the book to. Anyway he clearly indicates the General's lady was leaking info.

No I didn't see my picture. Under General Posts I went back 5 pages and didn't find the thread. Are you sure you did that???

Stay healthy,
Andy