And here's part 4.
_____
4. Britannia's Counter-punch: 1778-1779.
(Excerpt from: Britain in the American Revolution by Sir Simon Spencer, Oxford, 1945):
News of the battles of Monmouth and Sandy Hook—of the fall of New York and Newport—came as hammer blows in the House of Commons. The question of who bore the blame would greatly preoccupy parliament for the next year. Lord North, a Prime Minister already feeling beleaguered, was at the center of this furor. It is clear from his private papers that he wished intensely to resign; it is equally clear that it was the intransigence of the king that kept him from doing so. The reason for the king's intransigence is readily evident; no other opposition leader was prepared to carry on the war robustly in North America after the death of Lord Chatham. Still, North's support in the House of Commons began to plummet, leaving his majority razor thin. Public support for the war was also at a low ebb, and changes needed to be made. It was into this turbulence that Washington, in what he cannot have known was a telling stroke, gave parole to Sir Henry Clinton's aid, Lieutenant Duncan Drummond…
(Excerpt From: Drummond: A Study in Perfidy by William Franklin Cavendish, Kingston Australia, 1888.
This up-jumped Jacobite youth of no character was called upon to testify before the House of Commons due to his proximity to events. It cannot be doubted that his testimony was in many ways responsible for the besmirching of many an honest empire loyalist, who sacrificed all for king and country. That the good Sir Henry Clinton, who himself lived in New York and studied with Samuel Seabury, before his accommodationist treason, plainly testifies to the fact that Drummond acted without the support of his superior. It is as a result of Drummond that the mother country came to seriously doubt the resolve of her loyal sons in America, and hence, took actions so injurious to their interests in the south. That this Scotsman is a Jacobite can be attested from the results of his actions; the appointment of a former Paige to Prince Charles from the Jacobite uprising in 1745 to a high and undeserved office. It is known that many Jacobites and free masons surrounded Washington, that he himself was a member of the free masons, and that the arch traitor Hamilton, a bastard son of a scot and suspected Jacobite even by many of his own future countrymen, was the power behind the general. Though the world may have been fooled by American lies, the loyal sons are aware of the truth that lies beneath…
(Excerpt from: Founding Family):
The argument that Drummond's report was without the support of Clinton can be disproved by a simple examination of the correspondence of Washington's staff. Clinton plainly told not only Laurens and Hamilton, but Washington himself, of his disappointment with the British loyalists. "He found them quarrelsome in the extreme, of little military value, and a poor recompense for the blood and treasure spent by the mother country on their behalf", as Laurens wrote to his father. Drummond's testimony also echoed that of General Burgoyne, who was already at home railing against Lord Germain, the colonial secretary, for his invocation of a large, entirely non-existent, fifth column…
(Excerpt From: Britain in the American Revolution):
Several things made Drummond's report unique. Unlike Burgoyne, his own conduct was not in doubt. Drummond's conduct had been recommended to parliament by Major André and, more importantly, General Cornwallis. No friend to General Clinton, Cornwallis was nonetheless unstinting in his praise of André, Drummond and the other members of Clinton's staff. In addition, Drummond was a young, upright and plain-spoken Scotsman, not given to flamboyance or excess, unlike the much more colorful and, hence, less fully trusted Burgoyne. Finally, Drummond did not hesitate to censure some of Clinton's decisions, all be it in the most respectful way possible. "The general expressed to me his own regret at some decisions made by him in the course of the campaign which, in the course of things, worked very much against our cause." Drummond—or more likely, Clinton speaking through Drummond—wisely did not try to shift blame entirely onto other generals or the ministry. In so doing, his actual criticisms were all the more damning as a result. Drummond's excoriation of the loyalists proved particularly effective. "The presence of a large loyalist force sufficient to justify our presence is a sheer figment, and has never been made manifest in the years of the general's service there. I doubt also it is likely to be found in any of the colonies further south, though neither the general nor I could say this with any great certainty. The population, in its greatest part, sympathizes with the rebellion and its congress."
Notwithstanding the Drummond report, the king remained adamant that the war in America must be prosecuted. Yet his faith in North and, even more, Germain, was badly damaged by now. "I should not find it objectionable if another man should be appointed Secretary for the Colonies," the king told North in a curt letter written in late October 1778. The opposition calls for Germain’s head only intensified. In December 1778, Germain resigned, leaving open a post that, according to Edmund Burke, "no man truly desires due to its infamy." In desperation, North turned to a man whose experience with the colonies had been less than satisfactory, but who had a plan to return at least some of them to loyalty: John Murray, Earl Dunmore…
(Excerpt from: Founding Family):
The announcement of Earl Dunmore as the new Secretary for the colonies was received with shock and outrage across the south, but especially in Virginia. Dunmore was still remembered for his introduction of martial law and his creation of a black loyalist regiment at the end of his colonial governorship. Washington was convinced, correctly as it turned out, that Dunmore intended to attack Virginia. For Laurens, the source of the consternation was different. In 1778, Laurens wrote occasional letters to his father about the creation of a black battalion, even going so far as to design the uniforms he wished them to have. Now, he entreated his father again to support his efforts. "That this man, who has, in the past, sought to create a regiment of freed slaves shall seek to do so again, must not be doubted by any man," he wrote in a prescient letter of early 1779. "I very greatly fear what such a policy might do in our own state, where those whom we enslave outnumber us by a far greater margin than is the case in Virginia. What grief it must be to the conscience of any republican patriot that our cause may best be overthrown through recourse to those we ourselves have enslaved." Hamilton was also concerned about Lord Dunmore's possible efforts to free the slaves and arm them against the patriots. Writing to his father-in-law from New York he speculated about the possibility of raising a regiment of freed slaves from New York, perhaps to be confiscated from prominent loyalist owners. This also gives the lie to the later accusation that Hamilton was an uncritical champion of the interests of tories. Both requests were to end up on the desk of John Jay, the new president of the continental congress, in early 1779…
(Excerpt from: Britain in the American Revolution):
Lord Dunmore's strategy was two-fold. First, he deemed it essential that Halifax be held, as a base for harassing American and French ports and shipping in the North Atlantic. "We must use our superiority at sea to threaten the ports of the colonials; in doing so, we may prevent the several colonies from maintaining a sufficient concentration of force against us." Second, he planned a more ambitious campaign in the south, aimed at reconquering the colonies from the bottom up. South Carolina and Georgia would serve as the first major theater. Once those two colonies were properly pacified, some reinforcements would go to defend Florida. Dunmore was aware that the Spanish were contemplating entry into the war, and believed a show of force might effectively deter them. The bulk of the forces, however, would move north to secure North Carolina and operate against Virginia. Dunmore believed that "the fate of Virginia is critical to the success of our endeavors", and that the only way to break colonial will was to break Virginia. Thus, the campaign in South Carolina and Georgia must be "swift and effective, sparing no means to put the rebels on their heels". In his orders to commanders on the spot, Dunmore was quite explicit that "all means" included both arming the Cherokee and raising "such forces among the enslaved population of those regions as to ensure the success of our efforts". Nothing could have been better calculated to inflame prominent loyalists in Britain, from Benjamin Thompson, close confidant to his predecessor Lord Germain, to Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania and William Smith of New York. Nor could he have foreseen how fractious many loyalists in the south would become as a result…
(Excerpt From: Founding Family):
The British expedition to the south, which was to eventually bring John Laurens to prominence, commanded by General Cornwallis, landed in February 1780. Because it came from Halifax, where the Continental spy network was much less advanced than that in New York City, news of the British movement reached Washington's winter headquarters in Newport only a week before the British landed. He quickly dispatched Benedict Arnold to command almost a third of his strength and "relieve South Carolina with all dispatch". Arnold reveled in the command, not yet aware of the extent to which it would change his life, and the fate of the country…
.
