Presentation: Christianity and the American Revolution
Hello, and welcome to Redhill Farm, the home of Patrick Henry. Behind me is Patrick
Henry’s law library where he practiced law in the final years of his life. There is also a famous
tree that is over 330 years old. Also, on this farm is a reproduction of Patrick Henry’s home. We
are here today talking about Christianity and the American Revolution. My name is Dr. Douglas
Mann. I am an associate professor of history at Liberty University, and I am joined today by Dr.
Roger Schultz, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and professor of history at Liberty
University. As we have examined the history of colonial America, religion, and particularly
Christianity, has been an important theme. We now turn to the role of Christianity in the
American Revolution. One historian has written that the two most important events in 18th
century colonial America were the first Great Awakening and the American Revolution. Yet,
often overlooked is the relationship between these two events as well as the relationship between
Christianity and the American Revolution.
Dr. Mann: Roger, people talk about a Christian America. How Christian was the United States of
America during the Revolutionary War?
Dr. Schultz: 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren, U.S. Supreme Court, said that the United States
was a Christian land governed by Christian principles. He said the Bill of Rights, our whole
sense of freedom as a people were based upon the Bible and the Spirit of the Savior. I think
Warren was correct. American ideas about liberty were based on biblical notions, the role of the
government, personal freedoms, covenants, contracts, or constitutions—all of that undergirded
the American Revolution. And in addition to that, just before the Revolution, the United States
(or the united colonies) were influenced by a powerful religious revival, the Great Awakening.
That had a tremendous impact on the structure of life, religious vitality, and the Great
Awakening, in ways that historians still discuss and debate, influenced the independence
generation.
Dr. Mann: How did the reformation influence American liberty?
Dr. Schultz: During the time of the reformation, many Christians, Protestant Christians, face
persecution. And during that time, Protestant political theorists talked about the lawful rights of
kings, opportunities for resistance, and requirements for resistance when Christians could resist.
From that period of time, they developed a whole theory about Christian responsibilities to the
state, and when you had to exercise a right of civil disobedience. In places like Switzerland and
France, with the Protestants there in England and in Scotland and the Netherlands, people
developed a whole theory about political rights and responsibilities. John Adams references this
in his great work, a dissertation on cannon and futile law. He argues that from the time of the
reformation, there was a spirit of liberty that influenced the puritans, who came to the colonies,
and that puritan influence then continued to the time of the American war of independence. So,
people at that time saw a powerful connection between the reformation and ideas of covenant
governance, or constitutionalism, and what would become the genius of the American system.
Dr. Mann: Did the Bible explicitly influence Americans during the revolutionary generation?
Dr. Schultz: Very much so. The most commonly quoted source in the pamphlet literature on the
eve of the American war for independence was the Bible. The most commonly quoted source at
the U.S. constitutional convention was the Bible. In many of the famous books of the time,
people repeatedly referred to the Bible. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” refers to the Bible. He
talks about the book of Judges. He talks extensively about 1 Samuel 8 where the children of
Israel ask for a king, and Samuel says it’s a bad idea because if you get a king, the king is going
to do all of these bad things. There is one point where Paine says that if you believe that you
have to have a king, well then let’s set aside a day to get out the law of God, and we’ll put a
crown on the law of God so that we know that ‘Lex Rex,’ the law is our king. God’s Word is our
King. So, there’s a powerful emphasis on the Bible. You find it in speeches of the time, in Patrick
Henry’s famous ‘Liberty or Death’ speech there are many allusions to the book of Jeremiah.
People who have evaluated that sermon point to the biblical resonance in the message. Sermons
from the time talked about political concerns and contemporary events based on biblical text. So,
the Bible is the backdrop or horizon for much of the political discourse of the time.
Dr. Mann: Were all Americans Christians? You mentioned Thomas Paine, one of the most
famous pamphlets of the American Revolution, “Common Sense”—was he a Christian?
Dr. Schultz: Thomas Paine was not a Christian, as would become clear later on in some of his
later writings. The important thing to remember about “Common Sense” is that when you read it,
he sounds like a Christian. He sounds very religious. He quotes from the Bible. Now, it’s my
thinking that he writes that way because he knows his audience, and he knows what his audience
is willing to accept. Not everyone was a Christian. Thomas Paine is a good example. But most
Americans were Christians. They belonged to churches or were adherents of churches. At the
Constitutional Convention, most of the delegates were members of churches with Evangelical
doctrinal statements. It’s hard to tell what’s in a person’s heart and how much they truly
personally believe, but Americans were part of what has been called the physical church. They
identified themselves as Christians. They were active in Christian churches, and they would
testify to the basic tenants of the Christian faith. It’s probably important to define terms because
as an Evangelical Christian, I think it’s important to underscore what the Bible says. We believe
that one is a Christian who truly believes that Christ is Savior and Lord and believes that Christ
has died for our sins. So, as important as it is to like the Bible, to have a high opinion of Jesus, to
live a good, moral life, to be baptized, and to be a member of a church, those do not guarantee
that one is born again and is truly a Christian. But across the board, the overwhelming majority
of Americans identified themselves as Christians, and I believe that the majority truly did trust in
Christ.
Dr. Mann: Can you speak a little more about the civic dimension of Christianity?
Dr. Schultz: Americans of all stripes believed that Christianity was vital for the success of a
nation. They believed that the Bible gave moral precepts, principles for governance that were
essential for the nation’s success and prosperity. Many people are familiar with George
Washington’s Farewell Address where he underscores the importance of religion, for morality,
for natural virtue, and thus for national prosperity. And people have constantly referenced this. In
state constitutions for instance, they often identify as being a Christian people, sometimes a
Protestant people. They emphasize the authority of the Bible. They emphasize Heaven and Hell
or the notion of a life to come of reward and punishment because they believe that for a nation to
be successful, its people had to be virtuous, and God had to bless. Therefore, it was imperative
that people have a strong religious focus and Christian focus.
Dr. Mann: Earlier you mentioned Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine. Were there genuine
evangelicals among the founding fathers?
Dr. Schultz: Certainly. There were many. Patrick Henry is a good example; Samuel Adams is a
good example. My favorite is a founding father that is frequently overlooked, and that is John
Witherspoon. The British at the start of the American Revolution thought that Witherspoon was
the key instigator behind the American Revolution. Witherspoon was a pastor. He was the
president of Princeton University, or what is now Princeton University. He was an educator that
trained a generation of American statesman and politicians. He trained pastors and other leaders.
His list of graduates is truly impressive. He was a supporter of the declaration; he signed the
Declaration of Independence. He was active in Congress. He was active in the New Jersey
legislature. And, as impressive as his resume is, if you want to see Witherspoon’s heart, and I
believe the heart of American Christians at the time, you can look at his sermon in 1776, just
before independence, called “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men.”
Witherspoon emphasizes political concern. But he said the most important thing of all is that
you’re right with Christ. He says we are concerned about political and economic matters, and
that’s quite appropriate, but our life on earth is of such short duration. It matters little compared
to eternity. So, before he ever focused on political concerns or independence concerns, he
reminded people of salvation and the need to trust in Christ. The colonies were filled with
faithful pastors and leaders who emphasized those same themes, themes that were common
during the Great Awakening.
Dr. Mann: Now, another significant event of the 18th century is the enlightenment.
Dr. Schultz: [agrees]
Dr. Mann: Did the enlightenment affect the founders?
Dr. Schultz: It certainly did. The founders were certainly familiar with the enlightenment, and
they read enlightenment figures. The problem is that often people don’t differentiate different
kinds of enlightenment. Historians argue that there was a radical enlightenment or a skeptical
enlightenment, a revolutionary enlightenment, a moderate and didactic enlightenment. Many of
the authors that Americans read were people who were very moderate, people often from
Scotland. These are very different than the anti-Christian and anti-clerical enlightenment figures
that you would find in places like France. So, if you read public utterances or public
proclamations from the American Continental Congress or from state legislatures, you find
people who are emphasizing the truths that Christians have long confessed about the need for
repentance, faith in Christ, God’s blessing, forgiveness of sins. So, Americans were influenced
by the enlightenment, but were very little influenced by the anti-Christian enlightenment in
places like France.
Dr. Mann: Were there deists among the founding fathers?
Dr. Schultz: Certainly. Although, it’s important that you define what deism means. Today, it is
common to define deism as a belief that God made the world and then left it and had nothing to
do with the world. That view would be very rare in the colonies. There certainly were people that
had a generic theism—and the term “deism” comes from the Latin “Deos” meaning “God”—and
a generic deism where they believed that God created things but then governed things by His
providence and was concerned about human morality, and He was involved in the lives of
people. You would find examples of that, but they were rare, too. Examples are Benjamin
Franklin, for instance, and that explains why Franklin, at the time of the Constitutional
Convention, would say that the sparrow cannot fall without His notice, a nation cannot arise
without His assistance, or if we do not have the Lord’s assistance in building this house, we will
be no better than the builders of Babel. There was a keen view of God’s providence, and a keen
view of the importance of the Bible, and even a great respect for Christ. But the vast majority of
Americans were those who would claim the basic tenants of the Christian faith.
Dr. Mann: You’ve mentioned that the Bible was a key text for the founders. Can you give some
examples of the Bible in government?
Dr. Schultz: Certainly. 1 Samuel 8 is a good passage. It’s one that Thomas Paine referenced. He
described all of the problems that would come upon people if they adopted a king or got a
centralized system of government, including high taxes, the confiscation of property, the
conscription of young men, and national service for young women. So, Thomas Paine highlights
the biblical text and talks about it. In many of the pamphlets of the day, Deuteronomy was a text
that was emphasized because there is so much about the nature of government there. And if you
look at the passage of Deuteronomy 17, you would find proscriptions for kings, things kings
could not do (accumulate wealth, power, and women) and then prescriptions. When they came to
power, when they were inaugurated they had to write out the word of God. They would write out
the word, and they would have it. They would read it every day. They would obey it. In other
words, kings were not absolute monarchs with unlimited power. They were kings under God’s
law, bound by constitution. Their powers were limited.
Dr. Mann: Did all Christians support the American Revolution?
Dr. Schultz: Well, there was a variety of Christian responses to the revolution. Many did, and
many were ardent patriots. But you would find some Christians who were loyalists, who did not
want to resist the king. Others were pacifists, like the Quakers, and didn’t believe in fighting at
all. Some were neutral on the matter. Some have written about this—that you had a variety of
Christian responses.
Dr. Mann: What about the dissenters in religious freedom?
Dr. Schultz: There was a strong dissenter movement, especially in places like Virginia. As
historians have looked at the period, they have noted that in many places there were established
churches because of the belief that it was important for the state to encourage and maintain
religion. Religious establishments did not die out until the 1830s. But at the same time, there’s an
increasing movement towards religious toleration and religious freedom in Virginia, which is the
most famous of those examples—Baptists and Presbyterians were famous dissenters looking to
have religious freedom in terms of the Church of England. Jefferson and Madison worked with
them towards the goal of religious freedom. Although, it’s interesting to note that even with that
movement towards religious freedom, there’s still an emphasis on the importance of moral laws,
blue laws, and the state encouraging virtue. At the same time that Jefferson and Madison are
proposing legislation for religious freedom in Virginia, they are also supporting legislation for
punishing Sabbath breakers, and for authorizing fast days and feast days. One of the most
interesting documents that you could read is Jefferson’s “Thanksgiving Day Proclamation” as
Governor of Virginia in 1779 where he asked that God would forgive the sins of Americans and
bless the ministers of the gospel that they would take the Christian faith to the ends of the Earth
and that He would establish these United States upon the principles of virtue and righteousness.
It’s really a remarkable proclamation, but it was consistent with what people said at the time. So,
there’s a movement towards religious freedom for all different Christian groups, but at the same
time, an emphasis on virtue for the success of the country, which necessitated religion. Thomas
Jefferson was once, as president, stopped on his way to church. The minister, Reverend Allen,
asked where he was going because Allen didn’t think much of Jefferson’s religion. Jefferson said
he was going to church because the Christian religion was the greatest religion ever known to
man, and as Chief Magistrate, it was his duty to encourage the Christian faith, which would be
good for the country as a whole. It’s that idea of the civic value of religion that would be shared
universally.
Dr. Mann: Well, thank you, Dr. Schultz for talking to us today about Christianity in the American
Revolution. And we would also like to thank the Patrick Henry National Memorial and the
Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation for hosting Roger and me as we talk to you today about
Christianity in the American Revolution.
Presentation: Patrick Henry and the Stamp Act Resolves
I. Stamp Act (1765)
A. An internal tax – not on imports/ exports but directly on most people in
society – more intrusive. Especially directed to the wealthiest.
B. Required that official documents be printed on embossed/stamped paper
1. Newspapers
2. Deeds
3. Wills
4. Official Court Documents
5. Playing Cards
6. Marriage Licenses
7. Tavern Licenses
C. The use of this Stamped Paper had been common in England for more
than a century
D. Benjamin Franklin and George Mercer assured Grenville that the colonies
would not object to the tax on documents
E. Reaction in Virginia - Virginia House of Burgesses – Critical Resolutions
1. Patrick Henry – Stamp Act Speech - May 30, 1765 - 4 resolutions
actually passed. Said the stamp act was contrary to the rights of
Englishmen
o“Tarquin and Caesar each had his Brutus, Charles the First
his Cromwell, and George III – “Speaker Robinson
interrupted “Treason! Treason!” – “—may profit by their
example! If this be treason, make the most of it!”
2. Colonists brought English liberties with them
3. Colonial charters recognized these liberties
4. Taxation by consent an ancient right (representation)
5. Virginians have long enjoyed self-government
6. Only Virginia can tax Virginians
7. Virginians can ignore other taxes
8. Those who oppose those rights are enemies to His Majesty’s
colony
F. Reaction in Massachusetts Reaction more physical than rhetorical
1. Emergence of Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty
2. August 14, 1765 – in Boston, a tree decorated with an effigy of
Andrew Oliver the Stamp Master with a sign “He that takes this
down is an enemy to his country.”
3. That night, effigy removed and taken to Oliver’s new office
building on the waterfront – torn down by mob in ½ hour
4. Proceeded to Oliver’s house – cooler heads that had kept control of
the mob went home – more disreputable members of mob took
over and vandalized Oliver’s home, attacking the British
representative
5. Several days later- the mob would attack the home of Lieutenant
Governor Francis Hutchinson and destroy it and all the personal
possessions of the entire family
oOliver is attacked because he was the stamp master and the
enforcement arm of the crown
oHutchinson attacked because he was considered one of
them and the perception was that he had supported and
encouraged passage of the Stamp Act and he was a trader to
his colonial brethren.
6. Samuel Adams used the Boston Gazette to condemn the actions of
the mob, although it may be possible he has something to do with
it.
7. Sons of Liberty vowed to guard against any abuse by Parliament
G. Stamp Act Congress – October 1765
1. Intended as a protest meeting for all colonies
2. Delegates selected by legislatures – governors of Virginia, North
Carolina, and Georgia refused to call legislatures to choose
delegates those 3 were not represented
3. Focus was on the preservation of English rights under British
constitution
4. One issue – the right of Britain to intervene in internal affairs of
colonies – said parliament only power to regulate trade, not
directly tax the colonies
H. Popular Political Engagement
1. Continued protests and pressures forced new stamp masters to
resign before they began
2. Boycotts of English goods begins
3. Newspapers became more political
oEditorials began to appear
4. Changes in legal understanding – lawyers becoming more political
I. Political Changes and Pressure from America bring repeal of the Stamp
Act but British government asserts claims with Declaratory Act (1766)
1. Established sovereignty of the Crown – power and authority
regarding all colonial matters bother internal and external
2. Broad statement of royal power
So What?
I. Passage of the Sugar Act and Stamp Act seemed to the American colonists a
violation of their rights as Englishmen. The Stamp Act Resolves and the Stamp
Act Congress were not intended as the beginning of rebellion, but an insistence by
British citizens on the rights that fellow citizens across the Atlantic enjoyed.
II. By 1766 American colonists had opened lines of communication between the
colonies and at the Stamp Act Congress had learned that any united declaration
would require debate and compromise due to regional differences.
Presentation: The Committees of Correspondence
Written word the primary form of communication in eighteenth century world – no cell
phone, no television, no radio, no way of getting news or thoughts across distances in a
short period of time
The only way to get news from one place to another was by courier on horseback or on
board a ship
Committees of correspondence common in some colonies – used in some colonial
assemblies or locally to disseminate information from a larger body to other groups or
to certain segments of the community – often addressed a particular issue then
disbanded when the issue was resolved
First formal committee of this type formed in Boston in 1764 for the purpose of
bringing together people opposed to stricter enforcement of customs laws and to the
Currency Act – which prohibited American paper money -
1765 – New York formed a similar committee to share news of their protests of the
Stamp Act and requested that others do the same – their communication led to the
convening of the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in the fall of that year
As tensions between the mother country and her colonies increased, Samuel Adams
drove the creation of another committee in 1772 in Boston to protest the decision that
the Crown be responsible for paying royal governors instead of the assembly – paying
royal officials directly removed any possible influence the Massachusetts assembly
might have with these appointees – more than 100 similar committees formed in the
next few months
In 1773, the use of the Committee of Correspondence changed from being a local body
concerned with only one colony’s issue or point of view to a North American network
of communicants
Virginia in early 1773 was in economic crisis – counterfeiting of paper tobacco notes
had nearly collapsed the economy of the colony and because the House of Burgesses
held the power of the purse, Governor Dunmore was forced to call the members back
into session earlier than planned.
oDunmore issued the call in February and the Burgesses began their session on
March 4, 1773
oDuring their short – 11 day – session the members discussed a variety of topics,
but the most important was their decision to form a Committee of
Correspondence that would reach out to other colonial assemblies, suggesting
they form similar permanent committees to communicate issues in relation to
the tensions with the British Crown
oThe first recorded meeting was on March 13, 1773… the records of the meeting
indicate the first three members were Peyton Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas,
and Dudley Diggs – they were directed to collect documents and information
from other colonies, and even from Britain, and to pass copies of other
documents along to other colonies
establishing lines of communication along the eastern seaboard and even across the
Atlantic was informal prior to this time – but these efforts clearly indicate the rising
tensions and the knowledge that banding together would be important for the future of
the North American colonies
within a year – nearly every colony had joined in the efforts and other committees
formed at the local levels
maintaining this network provided a sense of unity during a time of growing crisis – the
committees discussed issues and shared criticisms – they discussed and agreed on
solutions across the length of miles
Establishing the Committees of Correspondence paved the way for bringing together
the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1774 –
The Second Continental Congress expanded the idea of the colonial committee –
forming its own Committee of Correspondence to communicate with foreign
governments once independence was declared –
MODULE/WEEK 3: UNDERSTANDING “LIBERTY OR DEATH”
Hello, Welcome to Patrick Henry’s Red Hill, his last home, and actually his burial place. He is
buried just down the hill over there. We would really like to thank the people at Red Hill for
welcoming us here to do this video for you guys. What we want to talk about today is Patrick
Henry’s Liberty or Death speech, and the context of it. A lot of people get the impression in the
American Revolution that the American colonists just woke up one morning angry with Britain
and wanted to be independent. When really, it was a much longer process than that.
The American colonists really had their first tensions with Great Britain in 1763, with the
proclamation line. They had just finished the French and Indian War, and suddenly Britain said
you can’t go across the Appalachian Mountains, because we are saving it for the Indian
population, and you have to stay here on the coast. This made the Americans angry because they
had just fought for that territory and were now being told they could not settle it. So, those were
tensions where they started. Then you move into 1765 with the Stamp Act, and that makes things
even more tense, until the Stamp act is repealed. Then we move forward into a series of
legislative acts that place taxes on certain elements of the economy. It wasn’t so much the taxes
that the American colonists were upset about, it was the fact that they were used to representing
themselves. They would have paid the taxes, but they wanted to levy them on their people
themselves, instead of them coming from Britain. There wasn’t a problem with the money; it
wasn’t the price; it was the principle of the thing that really upset the American colonist.
Now the context of the Liberty or Death speech comes more into the 1770’s. We have the Tea
Act that is passed. It was less of a tax than it was an attempt to bail out the East India Company.
They had millions of pounds of tea sitting in warehouses in London, and they could not get rid of
it. While the American colonists were smuggling in Dutch tea because they liked the taste better,
and it was a little bit cheaper to smuggle it in. So the Tea Act reduced the tax on tand made it
more affordable. The American colonists still did not want it because it was the principle, if they
accepted that tea from Britain, they had also accepted that the parliament had the right to tax
them. So they really did not want to do that. Of course we know what happens next, we get the
great standoff between Samuel Adams and the Bostonians, and the governor there that ends in
the Boston Tea Party. In order for the Bostonians to reimburse the East India Company for the
destroyed tea, they passed the Intolerable Acts. It closes the port of Boston, it puts the colony
under military rule, and really impedes what is going on in Boston. In Virginia and other places,
they answer with days of fasting and prayer in support of Boston. So you have this colonial
movement that is supporting rebellion.
We move into 1775, and things are really tense. The House of Burgesses is still meeting in
Williamsburg, but there is an extra legal body, The Virginia Convention, the second Virginia
convention, that is meeting up the river in Richmond. They are doing so because in Richmond it
is a little easier to escape the authorities in case they come looking for them. They meet there,
and Henry gives the Liberty or Death speech here, it is in March, and he stands up and says, Do
you people understand what is going on? Our liberties have been trampled on. We’ve tried to go
to the king, and we’ve tried to reason, and things aren’t working out. It’s not our job, we are not
going to fight against Britain, we are not going to take offensive action, but we are going to take
defensive action. If the king’s soldiers and navy moves into Virginia, we need to be prepared to
defend ourselves. So he does this by saying, we need to raise our militia for defense of our
colony. Just like they are doing up in Massachusetts, they are assembling their militia. It’s only a
month later that we have Lexington and Concord, where the first shots of the American
Revolution are fired. This is the context of the Liberty or Death Speech. Henry’s words are more
than prophetic, when he says that the sounds of battle can already be heard on the planes of
Boston and he really makes the point that it is really going to be a fight to keep their liberties
under the British system. Independence still isn’t in the picture yet. They just wanted their rights
as Englishmen, to govern themselves and to have the protection of the English system, and
participate in that world of goods under the English system, but independence isn’t an option.
Right now, at the point that Henry gives the Liberty or Death Speech, he is saying let’s defend
our rights under the English Constitution and the English system. This is going to be the battle
cry for about a year, before we have the Declaration of Independence.
MODULE/WEEK 3: THE WAR OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
Welcome to the beautiful battlefield here in Greensboro, North Carolina, the Gilford Courthouse
National Historical Battlefield Park. It is a great spot; it is a great place to remember the things
that happened in the American Revelation. I invite you to please come down, visit and stroll the
battlefield. Today we are going to talk about the military aspects of the revolution. We spend a lot
of time building up with the ideological things that went into the revolution, but we don’t usually
spend enough time actually discussing how the war was prosecuted and fought. We know of
course, the first shots in Lexington and Concord in 1775, but there are important battles that play
into how this war stretches out over the years that I think need some more attention.
First of all, most of the first part of the war is fought in the Northern colonies in Massachusetts,
New York, and Pennsylvania. One of the most important battles actually takes place in Saratoga,
NY over a period of several days, but there are some important names that fight there. It is one of
those battles that really gets the attention of international people. With the victory there at
Saratoga, there were two important things that happened. First of all, a General named Benedict
Arnold was actually wounded at the battle of Saratoga, and this plays into a part of what happens
later; and also the victory there gets the attention of the French who are finally ready to commit
in a very real way to the American Revolution. First of all, they really like to hack off the British.
Second, they believe that they can have more influence in an America that is free of British
influence.
Now back to Benedict Arnold. Arnold needed some time to recover from his wounds, so he is
given a post in Philadelphia, where he is the military governor. While he is there, he takes some
steps that are a little nefarious, not exactly honest, and he is actually found out. He then gets a
reprimand from Washington, which makes him unhappy. Washington then, instead of giving him
another battlefield command, puts him in charge of the post at West Point, the fort there at West
Point on the Hudson River. This is important. While there, he meets a young British officer,
Andre, and they form a plot. Benedict Arnold is actually going to turn over the fort to the British.
This is where Arnold commits his treason. What he doesn’t know is that Washington is on his
way. When Washington arrives, Arnold flees, leaving his wife behind. Washington is very upset.
He trusted Arnold and considered him a friend. So this creates that phrase we all know, ‘you
Benedict Arnold’ as a traitor.
Now the war in the North winds on and is pretty much a stalemate. The British are tired of
fighting this war, so they start to look elsewhere to see where they can fight. So after a series of
stalemates in the North, they start to look to the South. This is where they think they are going to
find large pockets of loyalists, who are going to come to their cause and fight with the British.
That way they can slowly work their way up the colonies and squeeze off those terrible people is
Massachusetts and New York and take over that point. So, they start down in Charlestown. They
are actually able to capture the city, which is a devastating loss for the Americans.
There are another series of losses, until they actually culminate into pirate victories. One of them
happened right here in Greensboro. Nathaniel Green has been letting Cornwallis chase him all
over the South. He actually begins to run across the Carolinas, up into Virginia, in what we call
The Race to the Dan, rests his troops there, and then comes right back here, where he has already
seen that this is a great place for a battle. He forms up his troops in three lines, The North
Carolinians in the front, the Virginians just behind them, and a group of Continentals up on a
ridge just behind. When the British attack, the militias on the front two lines react in two very
different ways. Green knows how to treat militia. Militia are not trained. They have a very short
term of service and typically are not as disciplined as other troops. So he is giving them the
orders, fire once or twice, and fall back to rejoin your troops in the back. Well it doesn’t really
work that well on that front line and we can’t fault the men too much. These are farmers who are
crouched behind a fence, watching the British march across this farmer’s field with all of their
brass gleaming in the sun. It could be a frightening sight, so they pretty much ran. The Virginians
hold for a little bit longer in the woods, and then the battle is really engaged. The battle lasts for a
good part of the day, and at the end, Cornwallis has lost about one quarter of his army, and about
one quarter of his officer corps.
Actually there is a very famous quote that comes from London regarding this, and it is, “Another
such victory would destroy the British Army.” The British have lost something very important.
Green leaves the field, and Cornwallis keeps the field, and then begins to chase Green again.
This is when he moves into Virginia. Gilford Courthouse actually sets up the Battle at Yorktown.
Cornwallis needs to settle at Yorktown, because he needs supplies. He begins to ask General
Clinton up in New York, “We need troops, we need supplies, we need reinforcements, and you
need to get us out of here.” At the same time, Washington is marching south, and as we know, it
all ends there in Yorktown. So the way that the military plays into the American Revolution is
just as important as the ideology.
