In a message dated 8/30/01 11:43:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> To imply, as [log in to unmask] does, that the
>  militia companies "consumed so much of Cornwallis' valuable effort, men,
>  supplies,and time" with only assiatnce from the regulars is a
>  misinterpretation of the actual events.  It cannot be reasonably held as he
>  or she does that the militia were the primary opponents of Cornwallis with
>  the assistance of Continentals; the opposite is true.


 I'll make this short and sweet as I have more pressing things to do. I made
no statement that "the militia were the primary opponents of Cornwallis with
the assistance of Continentals". I said that they filled the gap following
the fall of Charleston and the loss of the VA and NC Continental line. They
augemented the remaining line troops and their presence caused the
expenditure of a great deal of Cornwallis' time and efforts. Period. - "The
fall of Charleston was arguably the greatest military disaster suffered by
the Americans during the war. Not only were both the Virginia and North
Carolina Continental Lines eliminated as organizations, growing anti-war
sentiment in England was blunted by the news of this major British victory.
It is interesting that it was the much maligned militia the filled much of
the gap and consumed so much of Cornwallis' valuable effort, men, supplies,
and time. (Along with a collection of "regular" Continental troops
including the under appreciated Maryland Continentals.)"

It would probably be best to leave this discussion of who "misinterpreted"
what. I think that after thirty years looking at this matter I could probably
find a primary and secondary source or two - if you really want them. I would
start with William Washington's memoirs and the Caswell papers for two views
from the different perspectives.

Bill Russell

Bill Russell

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html