Cornwallis's surrender
So what do we think about Charles Cornwallis's surrender by proxy?

I can see why he refused to surrender in person. Applying 20th century morals to it, I would say that he had no honor. But he was an 18th century man so maybe it was a statement of honor not to surrender to a rebel? We need to be careful about judging actions from the past using our 20th century principles. His defeat and surrender at Yorkown did not seem to have much adverse effect on his future career. So maybe he knew what he was doing. Mike B

I find it interesting that American historians - even his biographers, the Wickwires - instinctively dismiss Cornwallis's illness as phoney (despite the fact that some of them then go on to accuse him of trying to spread the diseases rife in his own camp amongst the American forces). Consider the following:- 1) The guy was in his mid-40s, in an age where longevity was much less common, and had just endured almost two years of constant campaining through South Carolina, North Carolina and finally Virginia, including fighting three or four major actions, several minor ones and two lengthy sieges. 2) Prior to their arrival at Yorktown, he and his men had put up with poor rations and living conditions every bit as bad as those that often inspire commentators to heap praise on Washington's army. 3) Over a quarter of his army was sick at the time of the surrender and at various times over that two-year period, up to half the troops under his command had been laid low with malaria, dysentery and the like. His personal friend, Major General Phillips, had died from one such illness, so his rank would have been no protection. 4) Four days after the formal surrender, he invited Washington to dine at his headquarters - hardly the act of someone keen to avoid contact (in fact, he was one of the few British officers to "hob-knob" with the Americans, who became quite miffed at how the British and French were keen to fraternize with each other and froze them out). I don't recall GW ever making any comment to the effect that Cornwallis was malingering, or that his excuse for missing the surrender was a sham. Personally, I'd say the guy had earned a "duvet day". Incidentally, Cornwallis was one of only five members of the House of Lords to vote against the Stamp Act, and was instrumental in controlling the anger of Irish loyalists and limiting reprisals after the 1798 Rebellion, using Regular troops to escort the rebels back to their homes.

I'd never heard that Cornwallis claimed to have been ill. After a quick bit of poking around on Google, apparently he made that claim later. Is there any direct evidence he was sick at the time? I also didn't know malaria was a danger in North America. After another quick bit of poking around on Google, this checks out. Thank God that's been eradicated.

I've never come across any contemporary third party reference to it; but then as the commander of the force he might have hidden it from his subordinates to maintain morale, especially during the efforts to escape.

I had read somewhere that Cornwallis's no-show was in part attributable to resentment he had for Clinton putting him in a circumstance necessitating surrender. I forget the logistics of it, but I believe Clinton was late in providing reinforcements and/or failed to view the southern campaign as important ... thus leaving Cornwallis to twist in the wind.

Cornwallis's resentment of Clinton (and the Royal Navy, who chose that particular moment to suffer its only defeat to the French in a fleet action in its entire history) was certainly there. Clinton had repeatedly asked Cornwallis to set up, construct and garrison a naval base in Virginia, whilst simultaneously ordering him to send his best troops back to NYC because of the perceived threat from Washington and Rochambeau. With 20/20 hindsight, Cornwallis's attempts to subjugate the South were doomed to failure, but Clinton was hardly supportive - that said, the failure to arrive in time to help the Earl was down to the incompetence of the Royal Navy's senior officer in America (like the Army, they kept their "A" team in Europe; unfortunately they didn't even send the "B"s).

Well yes, Graves specifically, but also Arbuthnot before him. Hood was of course sent up from the Caribbean, where the "B" team generally got sent (Spice Islands y'know - almost as important as defending Blighty and no prospect of having to shoot at Americans). "Black Dick" wasn't bad - but then we were actually making an effort to win when he got sent. Plus he let Washington escape from Long Island - not necessarily by accident if rumours about him and William are to be believed. People always remember Cornwallis for Yorktown, but in a military career lasting 50 years it was the only time he was on the losing side.

Pretty damn big loss though, historically.

I think that depends on whether you see Yorktown as the pivotal moment in determining the outcome of the war, or merely the final nail in a coffin that had been under construction for some time. Globally, this didn't have the impact that Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga did - and even that one was more surprise at the success of the American "amateurs" rather than the extent of their victory, as surrenders of that nature were not uncommon in European wars. Politically, the war had become increasingly unpopular in Britain, even among Tories, and the defeat was the last shove required to topple an unloved Ministry. However, from Congress's perspective, things had swung from the despair of the January 1781 mutinies and costly stalemate (not unlike the position their British political counterparts were in post-Yorktown) to unexpected - at least in terms of its extent - success. Militarily, the troops could have been replaced; not easily perhaps, but there was the manpower elsewhere to bring the numbers in America back up to strength.

Sea Dogs, Captains Courageous, and Crunchies...
I would have to disagree with you on your assessments on why the British lost the War of the Revolution. Cornwallis was defeated by Greene strategically in the Carolinas, which was why he withdrew first to Wilmington and then to Virginia after being mauled at Guilford Courthouse. That was the second campaign he lost to Greene. The first was the Race to the Dan. It should also be noted that Cornwallis' two subordinates, Ferguson and Tarleton, lost badly to the Americans at King's Mountain and Cowpens, respectively, which badly damaged his army. At the end of the war, the only thing the British held in the south was two seaports-Charleston and Savannah, and only because of the Royal Navy. I would consider Admirals Howe, Rodney, and Hood as commanders of the first rank. I would place Cornwallis in the first rank of British commanders and an argument can be put that Howe was also there. He may not have had the killer instinct of the true independent commander. Bunker Hill probably made him overcautious. The army that the British sent to North America in 1776 was the largest they had ever deployed overseas. The French Alliance caused that large force to be divided as the British were now involved for all intents and purposes in a world war where North American was merely one theater. The Caribbean was critical to British trade and those islands were considered to be very rich colonies. Troops and ships had to be deployed there as that was the French main effort in the war. Europe was not. Great Britain could not deploy an army in Europe without allies, and she had none. The petty German princes from whom Great Britain hired troops were not allies-they were contracted for mercenaries. There is a new 'movement' by some historians that the US did not win the War of the Revolution but that the British just quit. I don't agree with that point of view at all. It is revisionism at its worst. Two British armies were surrendered to the Americans, something that didn't happen often, the total numbers which amounted to half of what was sent to North America orginally in 1776. That loss was immense. The loss of the American colonies, the richest and most prized by the British Crown, was devastating to the British. The British could not destroy the Continental Army and by 1779 the Continental regular was the equal of his European enemies on the battlefield. The bottom line is that the British lost both in the field and politically. They were lucky not to lose Gibraltar. As for fleet actions, I would recommend War in the Eastern Seas to study Admiral Suffren's campaigns in the Indian Ocean. He was fleet actions against the British on the line of the Chesapeake, so the French won more than just one fleet action against the Royal Navy. Sincerely, G

There is a new 'movement' by some historians that the US did not win the War of the Revolution but that the British just quit. The US didn't win it; the French did. :lol:

The ability of the French to win Saratoga without even showing up was absolutely phenomenal. forumer.com/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif>