Founding Family: An Early American TL.

AJNolte

I'm taking a hiatus from anything Ice and Fire related and working on a more classically alternate history project. The point of divergence involves John Laurens, an often overlooked but really quite interesting figure in the ARW. Part of the POD is that Laurens survives the war, but the actual POD will be a good bit earlier in 1775 [I have my reasons, and the title hints at them].

A note on sources:

There's not much on Laurens. There is one biography by Gregory D. Massey, but I haven't been able to find it in accessible format. I will rely on a few articles by Massey--one of the few historians to focus on Laurens--as well as a version of his private correspondence with his father, Henry Laurens, which is in the public domain. On Hamilton there's quite a bit more material. In the interests of time I'll mostly be working based off secondary sources. I've of course chosen Ron Chernow's biography as one of my starting-points; in fact reading that is what brought the idea of a POD involving Laurens to my attention. I'll also use Richard Brookhiser's somewhat shorter biography Alexander Hamilton, American. The Brookhiser books are pretty good intros to a number of the founders. If you have favorite founders you want included, please recommend them and also, if possible, throw an easily available source my way.

First post later tonight.
 

AJNolte

Prologue: Last Son of the Revolution.

The evening of April 18, 1879 was a balmy one in New York City, a fine opportunity for the great and good to take in the sights and sounds of America's greatest metropolis. Yet many of the high society of the city were packed into the pews of Trinity Church, that venerable house of Episcopal worship. The occasion was a debate on, of all things, the peculiar new scientific doctrine of natural selection. Both disputants were notable religious figures associated, in some way, with American Evangelicalism. Charles Hitchcock, the young, fiery president of Princeton College, denounced Darwinian theory in the strongest terms as "repugnant to the plain teaching of scripture, the authority of God and the natural understanding and sentiments of man". His opponent was equally respected in religious circles. Retired Episcopal bishop, missionary, writer of theology, he was known for his fusion of the high church practices of the Anglo-Catholic movement with American evangelical preaching. His first theological work, a refutation of the Deist error, had been published nearly sixty years ago when he was nineteen. His name was Philip Laurens, and on that balmy April night, he sounded themes that would have been familiar to those who tracked his career. "Mr. Hitchcock operates on spurious assumptions regarding the relationship between faith and science, inherited from his deist forebears, which seek ever to explain biblical truth through scientific means. Yet the truth of scripture speaks not to science but to faith, and the inmost nature of God, on which science is silent". He deftly explained Augustine's theory of Genesis 1 as a poetic dialogue. Where Hitchcock quoted William Paley (1), Laurens drew on the great romantic poets. Hitchcock spoke out of the common sense realism and clinical rationality common to American calvinism; Laurens emphasized beauty, poetry and the spiritual dimensions of God's relationship with man, laying out a vision of God as "not watch-maker but poet, guiding natural processes with the hand of a great artist to their human culmination". As his oration wore on, the venerable old man "worked himself into a great passion, as if his very life was poured out into his discourse", as an observer in the audience later wrote. The passion was too much for Bishop Laurens. In the midst of his closing argument, the spry, seemingly healthy clergymen stopped suddenly and fell over. Three hours later, surrounded by his friends and extended family, the youngest son of John Laurens, and the last living child of a founding father, slipped peacefully from the world, there to determine, at last, the truth or falsehood of his many claims.

In a very real sense, the death of Philip Laurens marked a C-change in American history. For despite a varied and interesting career in his own right, this youngest son of John Laurens and Angelica Schuyler Laurens has been forgotten by history due to his much more famous relatives. This is perhaps not surprising given the eminence of his extended family. His grandfathers were, respectively, a Revolutionary War general and the President of the continental congress. His father and uncle went on from serving as aids on General Washington's staff to becoming formative figures in the politics of the young nation. Among Bishop Laurens' close relatives, he could count an Admiral, two generals, two governors of different states, four cabinent secretaries, perhaps the country's first scholar of the Islamic world, a Vice-President, and a president. His kinsman were instrumental in the formation of three countries, including the United States, though other family members vehemently opposed the creation of one of them.

Philip Laurens is perhaps best remembered by American church historians for his unique approach to worship and theology, and for the establishment of the University on the banks of Lake Huron that bares his name, and serves as a fierce collenge football rival to National University, where I myself am a history professor, and which, naturally, has its own ties to the family. Still, like that of the rest of his family, Philip Laurens' legacy is both important and somewhat under-appreciated. He was instrumental in the creation of the Issachar Society, an organization that would play a pivotal role in American politics in the twentieth century. Less well known is that, shortly before his death, Bishop Laurens presided over the baptism of a young man of modest means, son of a recently deceased soldier whose widow was cared for by Laurens' church. That boy was none other than David Bedford. Thus, perhaps the most consequential man in the first half of twentieth century U.S. politics had a direct link to the founding generation.

And the impact of this extended clan—this fascinating, fractious founding family—is also an intangible one. In many ways, the United States, and even the world itself, have been shaped by their lives and actions. It was a family forged in the crucible of war by two men, Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens, who married sisters, Angelica and Eliza Schuyler. Yet there are other early figures who stand as honorary members, not least of them the Marquis de Lafayette, the third member of that triumvirate known forever after as the knights of the Revolution. Of course, by adding Lafayette to the mix, we must add at least one, and perhaps two or even three, more countries to the list of those founded by the family. Philip Schuyler and Henry Laurens have their own roles to play in this early, revolutionary war portion of the story, as, of course, does the political, intellectual and perhaps spiritual patriarch of the family, George Washington. We must not forget the ladies of the family: the vibrant, sometimes vain, always fascinating Angelica, her know less interesting but somewhat more self-effacing sister Eliza, and the enigmatic figure of Rebecca, a slave owned by John Laurens' father who would bare a child as important to the family as any of those born to the Schuyler sisters. Our story moves from the battle field to the political arena as Hamilton and Laurens, still in Washington's service, craft institutions for a new nation, all the while seeking to advance their mutual abolitionist goals through means both above board and below the belt. Their greatest triumph in this arena came with the constitution, and on the obscure issue of counting slaves for congressional representation, and would leave a harvest of both triumph and dissension. Finally, we witness the two men strike out on their own, found a political party, and contend in the brutal rough and tumble politics of the young nation, leaving a legacy for their children to defend, promote, modify, abandon or seek to destroy. Along the way, the nation and the world were changed. And so, in a very real sense, their story is our story.

From the preface to Founding Family: Biography of an American Dynasty by Ron Richardson. National University Press, Columbia FD, 2015.

(1) A natural theologian who tried to harmonize faith and science; OTL very prominent before the advent of Darwin's theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:

AJNolte

Comments?
_______

Part 1. Knights of the Revolution.

1. The Southern Chevalier:

(From: John Laurens, American Statesman by Robert Thorp, Columbia University Press, 1947):

Born in 1754 in South Carolina to the wealthiest planter of that state, John Laurens was of Huguenot ancestry on his father's side and English on his mother's. In 1771, young Laurens was enrolled as a student in a school in Geneva Switzerland. This early exposure would lay a foundation for both his ardent republicanism and the cosmopolitan polish that were hallmarks of his later career. Politics in Geneva were sharply divided between a French aristocracy embracing enlightenment thinking and a tradition of calvinist moralizing republicanism. Young Laurens thoughts on the particulars of these factions remain unclear, though he certainly does seem to have gained a deep appreciation for republicanism and a wariness about the possibility of violence stemming from factional strife. While some have speculated that this early Swiss experience soured him on loose confederations, it was more likely his later experience in the continental army that instigated this process. As late as 1777, Laurens speaks admiringly of "federative republics" in correspondence with his father.

From Geneva, young Laurens moved onto London, where he studied law, and was caught up in the abolitionist fervor sweeping the city at that time. Though his father was the largest slave-trader in South Carolina, Henry Laurens, as was typical of many southern gentlemen at the time, evidenced a certain uneasiness about the peculiar institution. For his son, this uneasiness was converted to full-on abolitionism by his stay in London, and this principle helped animate his later political and military career. In 1775, the Battles of Lexington and Concord fired young Laurens' imagination. He begged his father to let him return home and take part in the struggle for independence. Henry Laurens was deeply reluctant to see his son return home, but the fiery young man would not be denied. Against his father's wishes, Laurens, with his younger brother James (called Jemmy by the family) in tow, took ship for Charleston. His father's wrath, if such it was, does not seem to have lasted long. By 1776, he had procured for John a position as an aid to General Philip Schuyler, commander of patriot forces in the Hudson river valley. Though Laurens chafed for an assignment where he might see combat, early letters indicate that he accepted the assignment to Schuyler's staff with reasonably good grace. And it was to prove exceedingly important in his development. Very early in his time on Schuyler's staff, Laurens became acquainted with Angelica Schuyler, the general's charming, vivacious, as yet unmarried daughter...

(Excerpt of a letter from John Laurens to his father Henry, October 13, 1776):

Since my last letter, I have met, for the first time, the family of my general, and found them in all ways most agreeable. His wife is a lady of that stern Dutch character so notable among the good of this state, yet I took the purest delight in his daughters. I must draw particular attention to his eldest, Angelica, a girl of brown hair, entrancing black eyes and an elegant mean. I think it not unjust to say she so far exceeds every woman I have ever met in all the graces to be found pleasing in her sex, for she is possessed of a lively whit and intelligence fit to charm even the coldest heart. And here, my dearest friend and father, I must cease in my praises of her, lest you discern the full degree to which I have been captivated and censure me for it. I plead, in my defense, that no less a personage than Benjamin Franklin has, I am told, found her no less an object of fascination than do I."

(Excerpt From: Founding Family):

For all that it has been speculated, both at the time and in later years, that Angelica lost her heart to Alexander Hamilton, she was quite as openly frank in her esteem for Laurens in her private correspondence and letters to her father as she was of Hamilton, once she met him. Philip Schuyler, who himself thought highly of the young man, consented to the courtship, and the engagement that naturally followed in January, 1777. Already by this time, General Schuyler praised his young aid highly. Why, then, would his son-in-law seek a position on General Washington’s staff less than a year after his marriage? Some have speculated about a breech between the two men in early 1777, but this seems highly unlikely. General Schuyler's correspondence with his son-in-law was no less warm after the latter joined Washington's staff, and his letters to others about Laurens were even more complementary. "See that you keep my dearest young Laurens in excellent care," he wrote Angelica in August 1777, "for you know the depth of my fondness for him". Rather, given the strong letter Schuyler wrote to Washington recommending his young aid, it seems that General Schuyler felt it advantageous to have his son-in-law on the staff of the most powerful general in the continental army. Though this action came too late to save Schuyler's command, he could not have guessed that, in so doing, he would gain another son-in-law destined to play at least as influential a role in the fortunes of the Schuyler family, and the country itself, as Laurens...

(From: John Laurens, American Statesmen):

Laurens seems to have left Schuyler on good enough terms that, when the latter's reputation was damaged after the British capture of Fort Ticonderoga, Laurens wrote an impassioned letter to his father defending his father-in-law. Rather than putting the blame on Schuyler, he lambasted the "timid, querulous and sectarian character of the New England troops, which are such as to bring any republic into disrepute. For their chief objections to my good General were, in the first place, that he is of New York and, in the second, that he sought to encourage such soldierly virtues among them as they were in every way unwilling to demonstrate.” This ought to stand as a sharp rebuke to those later historians, particularly of the party of the Old South League, who see Laurens as always a tool of New England interests. Though Laurens' defense of Schuyler was not enough to save the general's command, it was to have a profound impact on the course of the war nonetheless. In the same letter, the young officer was equally frank about the command staff of patriot forces in northern New York. Gates was "a vain mediocrity without distinction; a man so indifferent in his performance as to merit no consideration for advancement". James Wilkinson was "the purest knave it has ever been my misfortune to meet". But Laurens spoke highly of Schuyler's new second in command, Benedict Arnold. "He is a man of martial vigor, compitent in all ways and, I think, deserving of some advancement if it can be contrived. I have heard it said that his lack of promotion has been occasioned by political, rather than military concerns, and I would recommend most heartily you take actions to redress this injustice done to a fine soldier, and in so doing, safeguard the Hudson River valley." Henry Laurens seems to have taken his son's advice, at least on those officers to whom he was not related by marriage, to heart. When congress replaced Schuyler, it was Arnold, not Gates, who was tapped for the command. It must also be said that General Washington concurred in his young aid's judgment. Saratoga and Monmouth both demonstrated the soundness of Laurens’ military judgment of Arnold, and the subsequent actions of Gates and Wilkinson also proved him a sound judge of military character. Yet in a later letter to his dearest friend, Alexander Hamilton, Laurens confessed: "For all that it may have been necessary to the war, I consider the advancement of Arnold to be the most calamitous thing I have ever done in my life”…
 
Last edited:
FleetMac

FleetMac

Interesting stuff, so far, about a potential mover and shaker in the early US that died rather early. Call me an optimist, but I'd like to think that Laurens' survival would have had the potential for good things in the country's future (at least, if THIS long-dead TL is any indication). I'll be watching this closely :).
 

AJNolte

FleetMac said:
Interesting stuff, so far, about a potential mover and shaker in the early US that died rather early. Call me an optimist, but I'd like to think that Laurens' survival would have had the potential for good things in the country's future (at least, if THIS long-dead TL is any indication). I'll be watching this closely :).
Click to expand...


Thanks for your interest!

Ah, that other Laurens TL must have been posted when I was away from the board; great minds think alike, it seems.

I wanted to set my POD a bit earlier, mostly to get Laurens married to Angelica, hence tightening the bonds with Hamilton and keeping him open to some non-SC influences after the war. As it turned out, I was able to improve Arnold's military career in the process.

As to "good things" coming from his survival--sort of depends on your perspective on early American history. I doubt I'm spoiling too much by saying Laurens isn't exactly going to be an ardent Jeffersonian ITTL...
I hope the style's okay for everyone; I can change it to make it more modern if necessary, but I'm trying--not sure how successfully--to copy some of the writing style of the period, at least in some excerpts.
 

AJNolte

How familiar are readers with Hamilton's biography? I can provide some background but would rather skip straight to the major changes in his life if everyone's alright with that.
 
Last edited:

Darth_Kiryan

I have Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton on my shelf, have for a couple of years, but not read it in a long time.

That said, i am rather curious to see how you pan this TL out. Laurens living may, possibly, temper some of Hamilton's rather perceived outrageous ideas. Maybe a good counter-balance to Madison.
 

AJNolte

Darth_Kiryan said:
I have Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton on my shelf, have for a couple of years, but not read it in a long time.

That said, i am rather curious to see how you pan this TL out. Laurens living may, possibly, temper some of Hamilton's rather perceived outrageous ideas. Maybe a good counter-balance to Madison.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the interest!

On the Chernow book, I'm not only re-reading it for the second time (once on my own but now listening to it with my wife), I've had the Hamilton sound track running through my head for like 7 weeks and counting at this point. [Yes, I know, several glaring inaccuracies but man is the music great!]

I've also got a Brookhiser biography of Madison I need to read, and may look for another one. His rapid shift from the guy who argued even more strenuously than Hamilton for national power to the guy who became Hamilton's chief congressional opponent is one of those things I don't really have a handle on yet.
 
Last edited:

AJNolte

Umbric Man said:
Hey, sign me up for reading this. I enjoy a good early-America timeline! And I too always liked Laurens.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for your interest. One of the hard things, honestly, is figuring out what his flaws would have been in later life, since anyone who talks about him wants to lionize him and try to turn him into an ARW-era hero for their favorite modern cause. But what did Laurens actually think? What was his private life like? Reconstructing that has been both easy--since he's a bit of a blank canvas--and hard, because I want to be as faithful as possible to the limited source material we actually have.
 

AJNolte

Here's the next update.

______

2. Brothers in Law and Valor:
(Excerpt from: Founding Family):

Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens met for the first time in the summer of 1777, when the latter joined Washington's staff. Fluent in French, of partial Huguenot ancestry and passionately committed to abolitionism, it was no surprise the two young officers found much in common. Yet there was a similarity of character between the two men that drew them even closer. Both were highly intelligent, motivated young men, who prized gallantry and military service. Both were prone to sentimentality, a high-flown style of personal writing common in Europe that led to displays of emotion between men often considered excessive or even effeminate in more modern times. Both young men venerated Washington above all other figures. While Laurens had deep ties, through his father, to the elite of South Carolina, he was somewhat newer to the circle of wealthy and influential New Yorkers of which Hamilton had already made himself apart. In fact, it may well have been through Hamilton that John Laurens met, and formed a good opinion of, John Jay, a sometime political opponent of his father who would later become one of the young duo's chief allies outside Washington's immediate circle. Jay, Robert Livingston, Philip Schuyler, James Duane and others were part of a New York elite with strongly conservative inclinations, initially having favored some accommodation with Britain and greatly fearing the influence of the mob. Generally abolitionist, they were on the whole less strident about it than Laurens and Hamilton, with the possible exception of Jay. Curiously, Hamilton was also on reasonably good term with his later be'et noir, the brawling populist governor George Clinton. Laurens did come with one pre-existing New York friendship, having made the friendly acquaintance of a young aid to General Israel Putnam by the name of Aaron Burr…

(Excerpt from: The Life and Times of Benedict Arnold by Preston Harcourt. Published under the Auspices of the Old South League, Charleston South Carolina, 1856):

Whatever scurrilous calumnies enemies heaped upon the valiant man in later years, none faulted General Arnold's conduct at Saratoga. After the perfidious cowardess of his New England troops and the poor generalship of Philip Schuyler, Arnold took command most decisively, leading a brilliant action that trapped the British army of General Burgoyne, accomplishing its entire surrender. Indeed, the wisdom of Henry Laurens, favored son of our most blessed state, in promoting this admirable man was amply born out, and that John Laurens spoke well of him at this time demonstrates that he too shared such a character before becoming ensnared in that Hamiltonian web which, in later years, would lead him to the blackest treachery against the dear old south…

(Excerpt From: Hamilton: Soldier, Statesmen, Scholar by Cornelius Van Rensselaer. Yale University Press, 1895.

It must strike the historian that, even after his great victory at Saratoga, General Arnold was unstinting in his praise for Philip Schuyler, writing, in his report on the victory to congress, that: "a great part of our triumph on this day must be laid at the feet of my predecessor". But then, Arnold had not yet taken up that assignment in the south which, in the course of events, would lead him to conduct so entirely injurious to our national character. It was shortly after this battle that Hamilton met Arnold for the first time…

(Excerpt From: Founding Family):

The task Washington set Hamilton was a particularly ticklish one. Arnold's popularity still rode high after Saratoga, but he had gained a well-earned reputation for prickliness and had already begun to accumulate a substantial number of enemies. Many New England politicians sought to shift credit for the victory to Gates, while some congressmen, reversing their recent verdict, sought to give the lion's share to Schuyler. Now, Washington wanted to detach a substantial force from Arnold's command to move it south. Undeterred, Hamilton raced north to Albany. It was there that, for the first time, he was to meet Elizabeth Schuyler, who later became his wife. With a letter of introduction from Laurens, he was warmly received by the Schuylers, charmed them, and was charmed in return. He also received good advice from the family patriarch. As Hamilton described this advice in a letter to Laurens: "General Schuyler informed me that Arnold was a man who chafed if inactive, who thirsted for military glory above all, and who might be content to send a portion of his strength south if he could retain command of it." Hamilton, who had been given extraordinary discretion as to how his orders were to be carried out, took Schuyler's advice, persuading Arnold to come south himself with much of his strength. This Arnold did with dispatch. Leaving Gates in command of a force composed mostly of militia, Arnold rapidly marched his continentals south. On their way, he and Hamilton stopped off at Putnam's camp. On his trip north, the young aid had baldly asked General Putnam to detach two of his three brigades, but he found they had not yet begun to move. Now it was Arnold who demanded Putnam's strength, and would not be refused. Arnold also acquired a new aid in the process, as Aaron Burr requested permission to join his staff. Burr, who had worked for Washington for a total of ten days before leaving with the complaint that “inferior men have been promoted above me”, saw Arnold as a man on the rise, and sought to attach himself to the general as a result. In so doing, he joined another ambitious aid, James Wilkinson…

(Excerpt from: "Bonds of War and Politics: A Comparative Study of Revolutionary War General Staffs and Their Impact on Early American Politics." Master’s thesis of David Bedford submitted to the faculty of the U.S. army war college, May, 1914.

In the staff of Arnold, we can see a fun-house mirror of the Hamilton-Laurens relationship in Burr and Wilkinson. Both young men were decidedly ambitious, and both saw Arnold as a vehicle for that ambition. Yet unlike Hamilton and Laurens, the relationship between Burr and Wilkinson was as prone to conflict as cooperation. Wilkinson was by far the more impetuous of the two, while Burr possessed a much greater degree of caution. Wilkinson spoke brashly and often; Burr was much more secretive, particularly as it pertained to his own plans. Thus, even as early as 1777, Wilkinson's correspondence indicates he was scheming to have Arnold replace Washington. In one of the testiest letters between the two men from this time period, Burr chides him for it. "Though I doubt not your motives are unimpeachable, I do not think it in any way wise to expose the general in such a way as you have been doing. It serves neither our good general, nor us, nor our country to have the army at such cross-purposes! My God, sir, such dissension can only be to the benefit of our enemies. Therefore, I entreat you as a friend and brother officer to abandon these schemes for the present." Given Wilkinson’s well-known tendency for dueling, it is remarkable that Burr’s words, which might have easily been interpreted as an accusation of conduct bordering on treason, drew no such response; if anything, this indicates to Wilkinson that he realized the depth of his own foolishness. Notably, General Arnold, though doubtless aware of Wilkinson's intrigues, never said anything explicit to him on the matter, though he may have used Burr as his conduit. That Wilkinson in fact ceased his intrigues was a testament to the influence of Burr. Indeed, this was to prove only the first of many times in which Burr's moderation was to prove invaluable…

(Excerpt from: Founding Family):

Of course, no discussion of Laurens and Hamilton is complete without the Marquis de Lafayette. The colorful French nobleman was a deep and fast friend to both young American officers. James McHenry, a young doctor on Washington's staff, described a scene in which "I saw the three of them chattering happily with one another, now in French, now in English, about some subject I knew not what." A man with a deeply poetic soul, McHenry wrote: "What a gallant picture they were, in their brotherly affection, as fine an embodiment of the age of knighthood come again as I ever hope to see". Yet these chevaliers were to suffer a winter of discontent at Valley Forge. Quarters were inadequate, as was food and clothing. Laurens' letters to his father from this time period are often quite prosaic, asking him for various articles of clothing which were in short supply. For the men, it was far worse, with many troops half-starved and barefoot in the frigid Pennsylvania winter. Laurens wrote a despairing letter to his wife: "My dearest Angelica, I know not whether our army can survive so cruel a winter with our provisions in such a state"…

(Excerpt from: Mothers of Valor: Founding Women of the Revolution and Early Republic by Molly McShea, Suffragette Press, 1900.

What relief, then, must have blossomed in soldiers' weary hearts as a column of supplies came in, with two fearless young women at its head. Angelica Laurens, having received a letter from her husband on the bleak state of Washington's army, was moved to a great act of charity. Gathering what supplies she could, Angelica resolved to bring them to Valley Forge, notwithstanding the dangers that might attend. Joined in this enterprise by her sister Eliza, Angelica set out, escorted by a Mr. John Barker Church, a wealthy businessman, who was so moved by the sister's call to aid the soldiers that he pledged much of his own wealth to their aid. Protected by a company of New York militia, the Schuyler sisters traveled from town to town, accumulating supplies as they came. The procession took on almost the aura of a revival meeting, as the two young women exhorted their fellow citizens to give what they could. Though Angelica was the initial guiding spirit behind the endeavor, its success owed much to that combination of winsome good-humor, staunch piety and stubborn tenacity that would be Eliza's hallmark for the next three score years…

(Excerpt from: Hamilton: Soldier, Statesmen, Scholar):

Amidst the ragged squalor of Valley Forge, the Schuyler sisters' coming seemed that of angels, for they brought with them not only supplies, but their own vivacious persons. Hamilton was immediately captivated by Eliza. "From the moment I saw her, hair wind-blown, black eyes dancing with merriment and a smile on her face such as I have never seen, my heart became utterly captive." Hamilton courted Eliza assiduously, to the great delight of his friend Laurens. In short order, Angelica herself came to support the suit with equally whole heart. Thus, amidst the baron despair of Valley Forge, romance bloomed, and afforded, so their correspondence would give us to understand, no small amusement for Hamilton's colleagues…

(Excerpt From: Founding Family):

Philip Schuyler received Hamilton's offer for Eliza's hand "with more warmth than I can express", and plans were made to see the young couple married off in the Spring. Even as Hamilton's marital prospects brightened, so too did those of the army itself. The arrival of Baron Von Steuben played a central role in imposing, for perhaps the first time, a real sense of military discipline on the continental army. Washington also began to reorganize, promoting Nathanael Greene and Benedict Arnold, with the latter becoming Washington's second in command. Arnold's promotion would bring him into conflict, in due course, with Charles Lee, who thought the honor ought rightfully to have gone to him. Lee, along with Horatio Gates, would prove more able in politics than war, and would constantly plague Arnold, fomenting against him in congress. It is not surprising, given later events, that this anti-Arnold activity would later be attributed to Hamilton by partisans of the Old South League, but any fair reading of history must place the blame squarely on Gates and Lee. It was only at Monmouth that Arnold was at last able to silence his critics…
 
Last edited:

AJNolte

OK, I need some advice. Does anyone have thoughts on what a better outcome at Monmouth would look like for the patriots, and the impact on the course of the war. For example, if Clinton's forces are defeated more decisively than in OTL, what's the impact, if any, on the British southern strategy, and even on the fate of NYC?
 
Terranoso

Terranoso

Laurens' abolitionist tendencies paired with Hamilton's brash and abrasive nature could lead to serious problems in the relationship between north and south. Can't wait to see what comes of it all.

AJNolte said:
OK, I need some advice. Does anyone have thoughts on what a better outcome at Monmouth would look like for the patriots, and the impact on the course of the war. For example, if Clinton's forces are defeated more decisively than in OTL, what's the impact, if any, on the British southern strategy, and even on the fate of NYC?
Click to expand...

What are the make-up of the Continental and British forces at this point? From what I can tell of the story so far, the armies are roughly on par with what they were IOTL and that the war had followed an extremely similar course. Is this correct? Has France entered the war as OTL?

The best result the Patriots might get would be Clinton's rearguard being defeated at Monmouth and his entire force being engaged with large casualties. Delaying Clinton from shipping his troops to New York long enough for d'Estaing to blockade Sandy Hook and for Washington to attack might put as many as 15,000 British/German troops out of the conflict. That would be a terrible blow for the British. When considering their other commitments defending against the French and their much more limited resources, the British may have to decide between sitting in New York or pursuing their southern strategy with more zest than they did IOTL. American/French victory in Rhode Island could see a couple thousand more troops stolen from the British and would make occupied New York dangerous to hold.

More likely than total victory would be seriously wounding the army through casualties and seizing most of the baggage train but not all of the troops (say a couple hundred killed, a few hundred more wounded, maybe much of Cornwallis' force captured). Here, the British might have the resources to sit in New York and to go south. Would butterflies allow American-French victory in Rhode Island in late-August? If so, 1779 might see an assault on New York City if Washington had his way. I don't know how successful such a battle would be for the Americans. Either way, Cornwallis (or whoever commands in the South) would be working with fewer high-quality regulars and would be forced to rely more on local Loyalist militia -- never a good thing, given their low quality as soldiers.

How would you get either of these battle results at Monmouth I don't know. I'm more familiar with the broad strokes of the battle than I am with the maneuvers.
 

AJNolte

Terranoso said:
Laurens' abolitionist tendencies paired with Hamilton's brash and abrasive nature could lead to serious problems in the relationship between north and south. Can't wait to see what comes of it all.



What are the make-up of the Continental and British forces at this point? From what I can tell of the story so far, the armies are roughly on par with what they were IOTL and that the war had followed an extremely similar course. Is this correct? Has France entered the war as OTL?

The best result the Patriots might get would be Clinton's rearguard being defeated at Monmouth and his entire force being engaged with large casualties. Delaying Clinton from shipping his troops to New York long enough for d'Estaing to blockade Sandy Hook and for Washington to attack might put as many as 15,000 British/German troops out of the conflict. That would be a terrible blow for the British. When considering their other commitments defending against the French and their much more limited resources, the British may have to decide between sitting in New York or pursuing their southern strategy with more zest than they did IOTL. American/French victory in Rhode Island could see a couple thousand more troops stolen from the British and would make occupied New York dangerous to hold.

More likely than total victory would be seriously wounding the army through casualties and seizing most of the baggage train but not all of the troops (say a couple hundred killed, a few hundred more wounded, maybe much of Cornwallis' force captured). Here, the British might have the resources to sit in New York and to go south. Would butterflies allow American-French victory in Rhode Island in late-August? If so, 1779 might see an assault on New York City if Washington had his way. I don't know how successful such a battle would be for the Americans. Either way, Cornwallis (or whoever commands in the South) would be working with fewer high-quality regulars and would be forced to rely more on local Loyalist militia -- never a good thing, given their low quality as soldiers.

How would you get either of these battle results at Monmouth I don't know. I'm more familiar with the broad strokes of the battle than I am with the maneuvers.
Click to expand...



Thanks for your reply.
-North-south tension: count on it. The main reason this didn't happen earlier was that the free states basically capitulated to the slave states in order to unite the country. In fact, there's this surreal moment at the constitutional convention where Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut is defending the three fifths compromise and preservation of the slave trade against George Mason... of Virginia. Let's just say that, (1) a change in the South Carolina delegation could be determinative and (2) there's a reason the "Old South League" keeps cropping up.

The biggest change at Monmouth is replacing Lee--who wasn't up to the task--with Arnold as the commander of the continental vanguard. Arnold was a good and aggressive commander, for all his faults [vanity, ambition, a tremendous capability to make bitter enemies and an equally huge capacity to indulge his own bitterness].

Yes, the French are still in by this point; the only major ripples, at this point, are that Laurens persuades his father--president of the Continental Congress at the time--to replace Skuyler with Arnold not Gates, because Laurens was unimpressed by the latter during his time on Skuyler's staff.
 

AJNolte

Next update, with some major changes:

________

3. The Road to New York… and Back.

(Excerpt from: Founding Family):

By May, 1778, it was clear to the continental army that the British were abandoning Philadelphia. Washington was convinced that a decisive engagement with the British while they were on the road to New York might bring Clinton's army to its knees, perhaps even restoring New York City to patriot hands. Hamilton and Laurens were kept busy preparing the army to move out. At a major conference, Washington solicited the support of his generals for his planned attack. Greene, Arnold and Lafayette supported him, with Charles Lee leading the opposition. In the midst of this conference, the intemperate Benedict Arnold accused Lee of "rank timidity in the face of the enemy, perhaps verging on partiality for your country and comrades of old.” (1) It was only through the calming offices of Washington that a duel was prevented, and the exchanged sewed seeds of discord that were to bear bitter fruit in later campaigns…

(Excerpt From: The Life and Times of Benedict Arnold):

Having not yet been poisoned against the great man by that cabal which hung so thickly around him, with Hamilton at its head, Washington selected Arnold to command the vanguard of his army for the assault on Clinton. This choice was met with general approval. Arnold's orders were to engage General Cornwallis, the commander of the British rearguard, in such a manner as to leave open the main British column to a general assault by the continentals. This Arnold did with his usual aggressive skill, sewing great confusion among the enemy. It must be said of Cornwallis that he reacted with admirable speed, throwing a counter-attack into the continental positions with great vigor, but Arnold's men were in good order and remained unmoved…

(Excerpt from: Hamilton: Soldier, Statesman, Scholar):

While Arnold sparred inconclusively with Cornwallis, Washington was able to move up the road to Monmouth and engage Clinton's main strength. As Washington predicted, this force was strung out, with a substantial baggage train necessary to supply the army as it traveled through hostile country. Due credit must be given to Lord Stirling, General Greene and Lafayette for their several attacks on Clinton's forces. It was the gallant young Frenchman, who happened to have young Hamilton at his side with a message from Washington, who captured the British baggage train, thereby causing much confusion in the enemy’s future operations and providing not a little supply to the continental army…

(Excerpt from: Black Men In The United States Under Arms From the Revolution to the Present by Gail Wilson, 1997):

Many black soldiers played a valiant part in the continental attacks at Monmouth, but none was as important as that played by Adam Pierce, a free man and soldier from New Jersey. British accounts indicate that General Clinton was quite active on the field, "hurrying about with great rapidity", as one account put it. Pierce, by all accounts a good shot, took aim from a distance at a British officer and fired, noting with satisfaction that the man had fallen. He could not know that his shot had hit the British commanding general. Pierce would later discover the truth and receive promotion to the rank of Sergeant…

(Excerpt From: An Account of the American War of Independence by General Sir John André. Published in London, 1797):

The wounding of General Clinton was a grievous blow to the morale and organization of our army, and news of it having spread quickly, so too did confusion. It became evident to myself, Lieutenant Drummond (2) and the staff that, absent prompt action, our army was in grave risk of disarray. Acting in haste, we sent out orders instructing our forces to break contact and consolidate north of Monmouth…

(Excerpt From: Founding Family):

André and the rest of Clinton's staff undoubtedly did the right thing. By sending out orders in Clinton's name, they preserved the fiction that his wound was not as bad as was initially feared. Yet the cost of Monmouth was very high for the British. Casualties were as high as 2,000 by some accounts, though it was never clear how many men died or simply became separated from their units. By late afternoon, retreat nearly turned to rout, and several units became so disorganized it took them days to consolidate. Arnold's aggressive pursuit of the army as it fell back also ensured the continentals stayed in touch with British forces, preventing the British disengagement and rapid march across New Jersey Clinton initially planned. Cornwallis finally arrived at headquarters, after receiving a confidential message from Major André that Clinton was "so wounded as to make him indisposed". He was later to commend André's actions as "probably the single thing that saved our army on that day". As the army moved north, Clinton was left behind with his young aid, Duncan Drummond, to be captured by American forces who were "asked most humbly to treat him with honor, as the laws of war proscribed". Washington sent James McHenry, his staff surgeon, to tent Clinton's wounds, and the two generals struck up a friendly correspondence. Laurens and Hamilton were both extremely active in the series of battles between Monmouth and Sandy Hook, with both young men leading raids that harried British forces. Laurens received a minor wound in one of these skirmishes. In a letter to his father, he asks him to "assure Jemmy and Harry, and also the little lad, that I am well and send them my love." This is generally believed to be the first reference in any of his letters to the future Ezekiel Laurens. By the end of June, the battered but still intact British army arrived at Sandy Hook, only to be greeted by a French fleet under the command of Admiral D'Estaing…

(Excerpt from: An Account of the American War of Independence):

What a grievous blow it was to the men to find the way barred against them by the French fleet, with the continentals hard on our heels. It is greatly to the credit of General Cornwallis that he acted with dispatch, turning the army about and counter-attacking with such ferocity that we were able to break out of the pocket in which the continentals sought to trap us. Yet the way back to New York was now impossible, and Admiral Howe was fairly blockaded in New York Harbor. The general made the cold calculation that New York could by no means be saved, and tasked Admiral Howe to attempt a break-out as soon as practical, and to rendezvous with our forces on the New Jersey shore…

(Excerpt From: Founding Family):

Sandy Hook probably cost the British fewer casualties than Monmouth, with General Washington estimating “about 500 of the enemy slain and another 200 captured.” Yet the break-out left British forces even more badly disorganized and dispirited than before, and the harassment of the continental army and patriot militias in New Jersey was constant. The fate of the British cause now entirely rested in the hands of Admiral How; had he been unable to leave New York harbor, Cornwallis and his army would have likely been forced to surrender when finally cornered on the New Jersey coast. As it happened, French Admiral D'Estaing's reluctance to enter New York harbor, due to fear that his ships were too large to pass easily over the sand bars, allowed Admiral Howe to exit by night relatively unmolested. Three days later, on August 5, he met up with a much more ragged British force than had left Philadelphia, and loaded them onto his ships. In all, the British lost almost 6,000 of their 14,000 troops to sickness, death, desertion and capture. Perhaps unfairly, many British officers particularly singled out German mercenaries for their “habbit of deserting the cause at the slightest provocation.” Acting on contingencies in Clinton's orders, Cornwallis withdrew to Halifax to “await conditions more favorable to the resumption of the enterprise.”

In triumph, the Continental army crossed into New York two years after having been driven out of the city. There is a popular perception, particularly in the more nationalist Australian press, of loyalists fleeing New York in panic. Indeed, some few of the more prominent loyalists did leave the city, but the majority were caught flat-footed by the situation, and so stayed, hoping Washington would find someone both capable and merciful to put in charge of civilian affairs. Unsurprisingly, Washington made it known very quickly that Hamilton was his choice for this post, and it is a testament to the young man's popularity that not only Philip Schuyler and Robert R. Livingston, but also his future nemesis George Clinton, concurred. Hamilton had mixed feelings about a post that would, on one hand, involve promotion, but on the other, took him away from combat. It also may have rankled the proud, ambitious young man that he was not the chief officer of military forces in the city, despite his responsibility for all civilian matters. That honor was given to Lord Stirling, a much more senior man and a close friend of Hamilton. In effect, the newly-made full Colonel was Washington's personal representative to the people of New York City, and de facto mayor until such time as civilian authority could be restored. Still, he accepted with good grace, and set about tackling the massive challenge of governing and rebuilding a city half-ruined by war. In his three month term as military governor, Hamilton established a new sanitation system similar to that Ben Franklin built in Philadelphia, settled many disputes over land claims between patriots and loyalists, began reconstruction of portions of the city damaged by war, and speedily and efficiently organized elections for a new mayor and town council. Those who would later accuse Hamilton of a despotic streak and a preference for military rather than civilian rule overlooked a transition so rapid even General Washington expressed concerns about it, fearing Hamilton was pushing things in order to get into action and receive a command as rapidly as possible.

If Hamilton did want a command, he may have been inspired by a friendly rivalry with his brother-in-law John Laurens, who received a command but was promoted shortly after Hamilton. Laurens also saw action in the attack on Newport. Though the continentals may have expected an easy victory, the British garrison of Newport put up stiff resistance. New York fell in a day; the siege of Newport lasted almost six weeks, and Cornwallis was on the verge of putting together a relief expedition for Newport when the garrison ultimately surrendered. Laurens was wounded again, prompting his father to write him a letter exhorting him to “take much better care of your person in future.” With the capture of Newport, the war in the north was effectively over, with future conflicts occurring in other theaters. It must have seemed, to the gallant young knights of the revolution that their cause was on the verge of permanent success. Their hopes were to be tempered, however, in early 1779…

Notes:
1. Lee was a former British officer, who actually served under Burgoyne in Porgtugal, so Arnold is basically making what could be interpreted as a treason accusation... because irony.
2. The "Drummond" to whom Major Andre refers is Lieutenant Duncan Drummond, Clinton's personal aid. You'll hear more from him, and his boss, in future updates.
 
Last edited:

AJNolte

Comments:

I wanted to give the patriots a major victory without totally destroying Clinton's--and later Cornwallis'--army. Clinton had contingencies in his orders basically authorizing him to withdraw to Halifax if he thought circumstances warranted. To say there's going to be a parliamentary inquiry about this whole chain of events would be an understatement: particularly the question of whether withdrawing the army to Halifax included withdrawing the garrison from New York.

In defense of Cornwallis' thinking here, when he arrived he was unaware D'Estaing didn't intend to cross into New York harbor, and was afraid Howe would be captured and New York City would fall. His orders to pull out of the city are given in a period of extreme pessimism and confusion. However, it's going to cause a major stink in parliament, with epic recriminations.

Hamilton as civilian administrator: Washington had been giving his aid progressively more responsibility. Hamilton was also a New Yorker, a graduate of King's College [a loyalist bastion] and had defended several loyalists in the city against mobs in 1776. Washington wanted a trusted conciliator, which Hamilton was able to do ITTL.

Next update should cover the reaction to all of this in the UK, and possibly two campaigns in 1779: a second invasion of Quebec and the southern strategy.
 

AJNolte

Darth_Kiryan said:
Methinks you are setting up Arnold for a greater career.
Click to expand...

If it helps, the title I'm currently invisioning for the biography of Aaron Burr that gets cited ITTL is "American Brutus."

It's not too much of a spoiler to say that Arnold, not Greene, will get the southern command, and that this will be very influential in the course of future, particularly post-war, events.
 

Alexander Hamilton

Dear Mr. Nolte,

Very interesting and well written. However, may I ask why the unusual spelling of the name of the family both Hamilton and Laurens have married into in your TL. I have always seen it spelled as "Schuyler".

Your obedient servant,
Alexander Hamilton
 

MorningDew

So Canada will eventually be conquered?

Interesting. Though the question of how the patriots can break Halifax even with french help does need to be asked. Once that city falls, Newfoundland is even harder to crack, although the British will probably surrender before then.

Magnificent writing:).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top