Replies

This is interesting but as with much of the writing on both the Revolution and the War Between the States it sanitizes and intellectualizes what was a messy and violent operation. At bottom the American rebels were always far more dynamic and ruthless than their British and Loyalist opponents. In spite of the massive military effort (by 18th century standards) the British engaged in in trying to put down the American rebellion one is left with a general impression of dull orthodox professionals going through the prescripted actions that their template taught them to perform. On the ground in disputed areas such as new York and South Carolina the rebels were well organized and totally ruthless in their treatment of those determined to be Toy or Tory sympathizers. The organization of various grass roots groups of the ‘Sons of Liberty’ type meant that a through domestic spying organization was in place and individuals behaviors and sympathies were subject to constant spying on and monitoring. At the start of the revolution mobs were employed with good effect to terrorize or overawe individual loyalists. The most spectacular but very typical example of the effectiveness of mobbing designated individuals was of Sir Francis Bernard the Royal Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony. If a mob could destroy the home and property of the governor with impunity who could not be given the same treatment? This sort of powerful coercive tactics largely effectively terrorized much of the loyalist community.

Considering the size and enthusiasm of the revolutionary movement the only way it could have been beaten would have been a combination of vigorous and aggressive conventional military operations connected to heavy handed and deliberate terrorization tactics involving extensive deliberate destruction of private and public property. This is basically what the US government used as a strategy to defeat the southern rebellion and this effective terrorism engaged in by Sherman and Sheridan and a host of lesser lights is routinely hailed both here and in the usual conventional nationalist texts as a mark of the wisdom and sagacity of the Union high command.

British efforts along these lines were scattered and unfocused but even those put a real fright into the American rebels. The Wyoming and Cherry valley raids and Arnold's operations along the Connecticut coasts and later in Virginia are mentioned with a shudder in many conventional American accounts of the Revolution. Walter Butler was probably correct in reportedly trying to convince the British in Montreal to greatly expand his raiding force at Niagara and incorporate regulars in it so that raids such as the Wyoming Valley operation could be mounted into the heartland of the revolutionaries and capturing and sacking Albany would have a powerful effect on depressing revolutionary zeal in New York.

The leadership of the American Revolution was certainly more dynamic and just plain smarter than those of George III and Great Britain but their lieutenants on the ground were also just plain more focused and ruthless in terrorizing, defeating, and beating both the redcoats and the large loyalist community. These are lessons that would be well for the modern GOP and those who call themselves conservatives to ponder. The enemies of liberty this time are better organized and far more focused and smart and ruthless than their opponents and they will win unless confronted with people who are just as ruthless and determined and if necessary unprincipled as they are. The rats know what the American rebels knew “Winning is not just the most important thing , it is the only thing’.