General de Brigade

[Gentleman Johnny]

Hello,
The subject of Cornwallis' dinner invitation to Washington cropped up in the 'Surrender by Proxy' thread... the question of what was said arose...
At the end of the Osprey Trenton/Princeton book David Bonk writes:
At a dinner after his surrender at Yorktown in 1781 Cornwallis paid tribute to Washington's conduct of the Trenton and Princeton campaign. Responding to a toast Cornwallis offered that, 'When the illustrious part that your Excellency has borne in this long and arduous contest becomes a matter of history, fame will gather your brightest laurels rather from the banks of the Delaware than from those of the Chesapeake'.
Sadly there is no reference as to where this was gleaned from or what else was discussed/said. Judging by that sentence alone it seems to have been an astute conversation.
GJ

[Cornet]

That statement serves the dual purpose of praising Washington's achievement at Trenton/Princeton and downplaying Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown. Today, we'd call that spin.

Cornwallis most likely intended Trenton and Princeton when he mentioned "the banks of the Delaware;" however, it is also possible Cornwallis was alluding to the tenacious American defense of the Delaware River in the autumn of 1777. It would be nice if Bonk had properly cited his source.
_________________
Then let us fill a bumper, and drink a health to those
Who carry caps and pouches, and wear the loup'ed clothes.

[mikeb]

Below is an interesting quote from the journal of Doctor James Thatcher, "A military Journal During the American Revolutionary War." This is from the book, "Washington and Cornwallis, the battle for America 1775-1783" by Benton Rain Patterson (an American professor). As an interesting aside, Mr. Patterson has written one other book, a history of the 1066 campaign in England.

Thatcher was with Washington's army during the Yorktown Campaign and was present at the surrender. Here he editorializes about the non appearance of Cornwallis.

"We are not suprised that the pride of the British Officers is humbled on this occasion, as they have always enterained an exalted opinion of their own military prowess and affected to view the Americans as contemptible, undisciplined rabble. But there is no display of magnanimity when a great commander shrinks from the inevitable misfortunes of war; and when it is considered that Lord Cornwallis has frequently appeared in splendid triumph at the head of his army, by which he is almost adored, we conceive it incumbent on him cheerfully to participate in thier misfortunes and degradations, however humiliating; but it is said he gives himself up entirely to vexation and despair."

So it seems that Cornwallis' contemporary (enemies at least) did not approve of his failure to surrender in person to Washington.

I thought that the dinner conversation between Washington and Cornwallis was interesting. It would have been, of course, a dinner between gentlemen of that age; and a most civil meeting.

Mike B