I'm well aware that the force at Bunker (Breed's) Hill was not  
Continental Line, but my point had two parts. It was asserted that   
much, if not most, of the credit for the American victory in the  
Revolution was due to asymmetrical warfare. It was with this that my  
comments were primarily concerned. While asymmetrical warfare  
contributed to the American victory, it was not the  primary cause.  
The American victory in the war was the result of winning major field  
engagements (Saratoga, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, ...), or as in the case  
of Gen. Greene's Southern Campaign causing the British to win pyrric  
ones. Francis Marion et al could have harassed the British for  
decades and it would not have won the war.

As to whether or not the US had a professional army until the middle  
of the 19C, I suppose that is a matter of opinion. Militia had short  
terms of enlistment (usually measured in months). This usually  
resulted in their participation in one battle. They also had little  
or no training. The "professionals" had longer enlistments, did  
receive training (von Steuben comes to mind), and fought in entire  
campaigns. And while it is the case that many of the accounts of the  
war were not written by members of the militia (officers or men),  
some were. It is also true that there were officers who grossly  
exaggerated their roles and successes. But there had to have been a  
few honest ones. Just because they wore uniforms does not require  
that they were poltroons, cads, liars, etc., etc.

Unless the understanding of Cowpens has substantially changed in the  
last few years, while the militia had a role in the victory, it was  
the "professionals" who broke the British.

As a Lee, albeit a Western one, I'll grant that Light Horse Harry had  
at best a checkered career/reputation. I would have kept my hand on  
my wallet when in his vicinity ;-))

James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]



On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:06, qvarizona wrote:

> While I don't  disagree with you regarding the Continental Line,   
> may I  point out that its officers were the ones who wrote the bulk  
> of reports and since many --Light Horse Harry comes to mind-- were  
> known scoffers of the militia, their reports were not always  
> accurate and tended to downplay any militia participation,  
> particularly if it infringed on their own accounts of glory.   
> Here's one example of many:
>
> The battle in early 1781 near Guilford Courthouse:  Regarding the  
> end of that battle, Odell McGuire, wrote in  his acclaimed  "Many  
> Were Sore Chased And Some Cut Down",
>
> ". . . Tarleton's legion, [British troops] reinforced by 200  
> redcoat infantry,
>  were finally met and there was a sharp fight. Graham's North  
> Carolinians
> refused to dismount and take their place with the  other riflemen.  
> Nor could
> Lee's cavalry do much in the thickets, but his Legion infantry and  
> the Botetourts
> [Rowland's 200 militia] quickly formed and returned fire. The  
> losses after fifteen
> minutes were about twenty or thirty on each side. At this point  
> [Colonel]
> Otho Williams, instead of bringing up his much superior reserve,  
> 'order'd a
> gradual retreat which was well enough effected considering the  
> irregularity of our order.'"
>
> Following  Otho William's order,  Lee's Legion retreated, leaving  
> the "back
> woodsmen" militiamen trying to hold off the British alone to cover  
> the retreat.   McGuire continues,
>
> "That the riflemen didn't take part in the ordered retreat and that  
> the Legion
> was pulled out, leaving them behind, could not have been gathered  
> from Williams' report to his commanding General.  But Nathanael  
> Greene, not altogether without guile himself, was too shrewd a  
> commander  to let he equivocal phrase,
>  'considering the irregularity of our order', slip past without  
> finding out  exactly
> what was meant. "
>
> In later reports,  Lee omits any mention of his own retreat -- 
> successful due to the protection provided by Rowland's riflemen--   
> and instead  attacks
> the actions of the Botetourt militia during all of the North  
> Carolina Expedition.  In addition, he was the cause of many  
> Virginia militiamen being charged with desertion from which  they  
> were cleared during a court martial in March. . . but that's  
> another story.
>
> By the way, the American force at Bunker/Breed Hill --which lost  
> against a far superior force-- were made up in large part by  farm  
> boys --members of militia groups from all over New England who  
> enlisted following the action at Concord and Lexington.  The  
> outcome at Cowpens  also depended on  militiamen (Gilmore's Rifles  
> Rockbridge Co. VA. ) I'm not so sure the Continentals could have  
> held up without them.
>
> Joanne
>
>
>
>
> James Brothers <[log in to unmask]> wrote: While there are instances  
> of asymmetrical warfare (king's Mountain
> comes to mind) during the American Revolution, they contributed to
> victory but did not win the war. It was the pitched battles such as
> Bunker's Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens, Yorktown, etc. that determined the
> final outcome. And it was not the militia, but the Continental Line
> that won those battles.
>
> James Brothers, RPA
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2007, at 9:16, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:
>
>> Paul has received some rather unfair criticism about his
>> understanding of the US military in US history.  Paul knows this
>> history in detail but let me "speak" for him for a minute.
>>
>> The US militia and "professional" military during the Revolution
>> was a rather thrown together force.  They prevailed, but for
>> reasons that seem almost miraculous.  It helped that Americans
>> often fought asymmetrically from Concord on out.  It also helped
>> that the field of battle was so large that the British military,
>> itself without a draft, didn't have enough troops to completely
>> occupy the 13 Colonies/united States.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The fish are biting.
>  Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.