pushed into the cornfield if you don't believe the weight they do and the notion that they need to fire you are take you off of facebook or reduce your reach. all of these are aspects of western authoritarianism. >> good evening everyone. bolcom to our meeting this evening with john ferling author of "winning independence." we are cosponsoring the program tonight. if you have any questions at any point router discussion at the q&a box in the chat box and we will bury we will be bury them a damper they'll send it over to my colleague terri wilson. >> thank you tina.

we are pleased to co-sponsor this -- especially out of the southern strategy. we love that because as local historians especially here in connecticut where many important figures of the american revolution came from is the lowest a few battles fought we always want to learn more. john ferling is professor professor emeritus at the university westerners are wary and enjoyed a law career. he's written 13 books and many journal articles on the tactics of the american revolution and her earlier public praise a biographer of george washington and john adams. while i can't read the names of his books i prefer you to tell you about john the man. john's parents were from west virginia and he grew up in dallas texas but according to his tiger feat his mother was college educated in the 1920s

taught school for 11 years until she was banned by west virginia law from marrying. her father attended college on a scholarship in the 1920s. he took a job at union carbide in texas and he had one son john in 1940. john has a beso's of history. although he is retired it hasn't stopped him from attending and speaking at seminars and events and lecturing on podcasts and spending time writing that he and his wife and their four kids live near atlanta but there's one more thing that john likes to share his love with these ball. in 1947 between pittsburgh and the brooklyn dodgers jackie robinson threw the winning run. so like any good historian he researched around games you want

to see. those of us here in england like to hear that. we are looking forward to hearing more about your most recent book "winning independence." as an a star in your focus is put on the air of the american revolution would what you love most about the chapter in our history? >> first let me thank you guys for having me at the library and the historical society for inviting me tonight. i'm looking forward to doing this. i was drawn to the american revolution because that's where things start for the united states and our political system and our social ideals were born during the course of the revolution. .. were formed during the course of the

revolution. if you think about it, lincoln when he talked about it seven years ago was referring to 1776 and the ideas o when martin luther king talked about having a dream, his dream was african americans are being cut in on the ideals that really began with the american revolution. i was drawn to that and in addition the revolution, setting the revolution consists of two things. on the one hand there is the revolution itself, which i think came as a surprise to most of the participants. a dozen years no one saw the revolution coming. but there it was, the question comes up why did it occur,

what was the revolution about? mount gaining independence and common sense in 1776 would bring about a birthday of a new world. there's plenty to study w with regard to the american revolution. but in addition it got a double dip there. you have a war. most of the congressmen knew when you'd they declared independence in 1776 there were not independent. they had to win w independence. that led to a long war. a war that had dark and uncertain times in 1776. and then like a roller coaster things and brightened when

france allied with the united states in 1778. many people felt many including george washington for that matter this virtually assured american independence than things with south after that. the war becomes stalemated. that is the subject of my book the four years after the great victory at saratoga. the victim of 1778, yorktown in 1781, when i think the outcome of the war was until the very last moment. no one knew, until yorktown whether or not america could gain independence. if it did the united states were to include all 13 states.

and so it is a long dramatic struggle i never get tired of looking at the war itself. on the fascinating cast of characters that were part of the political revolution prior to the war. that is why i went into it and stayed with the revolution throughout my career. >> thank you. so yourol new book winning independence, this is what hooked me as i read, and challenges the assumption that america won the war. instead of great britain lost a war they could have one which i took directly. to how you feel with the volume it's how to look at independence. >> sure, i think the british

has several opportunities at the outset of the work, 1776, 7075, six, seven, to have won the war. general gage was the commander of the british army at the time, the run down to war was coming on told london winning the first engagement of the wars is crucial. if we can t have enough troops over here that we can score a dramatic victory over the colonists, probably their fervor for war will disappear. instead of that happening, lexington and concorde occurred. particular the disaster that face the british when they marched back from concorde to boston. the night scored a dramatic victory two months later at bunker hill in boston.

really, they could have scored a bloodless victory. advised general gage to send to thehe back side. the american rebels on top the hill we can score a bloodless victory. they did not do that and they marched up the hill and marched into a disaster. there are two instances in the campaign for new york 1776. if brooklyn when they had about half of washington's army trapped and again in september of 76 when washington really, foolishly kept his army on manhattan and did not get off the british could have annihilated the

entire continental army at that point. any of those victories would have won the war for the british. they're still another chance in 1777, the plan that london devise was for an army to come about down from canada molten general howell moved north to rhonda view and catch washington's army. instead of doing that, left him up to his own devices and how it ought off after philadelphia. the last major chance the british had to win the war. that is not to say britain's defeat after that with the

long and desperate war, lots of things go wrong for the americans after 1778. there's a stalemate of the american economy, collapse of american morale was sagging, when george washington in august of 1780 wrote a letter to the chief executive in which she said i have almost ceased to hope. the writing that letter, t parker lee who had been an american diplomat since the beginning of the war overseas in europe, returned to america for the first time since the war began. he landed in boston of all places. he is there for a few days and

talks withnd a number of officials and he wrote, most of those have by august of 1780 concluded the war would end in a negotiated settlement short of independence. things are really up in the air. of course at yorktown america does win and gains its victory , and gains independence. so america did come out of the war victorious. we'll celebrate five more years of the tuna 50th anniversary of 1776. i also argued that america could not have won the war without french assistance. the french were providing clandestine assistance starting in 1775 that provided

munitions, weaponry, clothing, blankets and what ever for the americans. then they allied with the americans and then it was open help for ther americans they could provide even more help. they sent over a navy, they eventually sent over an army. they loaned a great deal of money to the americans which ended up costing the french king his head in the 1790s because the economic woes, the fall out from all of those loans contributed to france's the lead on the french revolution. anyway the americans do in the war with french help which is extremely important to remember. when could we step back to

summit you mentioned earlier, somebody probably do not know too much about. you put as part of your thesis you think heou deserved corrected treatment from historians. what aspects of his career have they misunderstood and why doesn't he receive credit for strategizing the capture of south carolina, georgia and possibly north carolina and move that would have change the outcome redraw the map of america? >> let me go to my powerpoint here. thatha is washington as everybody knows here is another one of washington's. here is sir henry clinton. clinton became the commander of the british army. he learned of his appointment in may of 1778. he was the third british commander during the war. gage had been there for many

years before the revolution, before the war i was recalled after the disasters along concorde road and at bunker hill. general william howell succeeded him. he was commander and 76 and 77 and resigned after saratoga. so clinton, that was the name of the commander. he will be the commander of the british army from may of 78 through in a little bit beyond yorktown. i found clinton an interesting figure. he was from an aristocratic family in england. his father was a career naval officer who became the royal governor of new york.

and young henry when he was still growing up, spent some of his formative years in new york city. he joined the british army as a teenager and he thought into wars before the revolutionary war. with courageous risk-taking soldierlu who was seriously wounded. in fact in engagement in germany in the seven years war in the early 1760s. he was intellectually curious individual, he read widely, he read deeply on military history andly strategy. in the year before the revolutionary war broke out in 1774, out of his own pocket he paid to make a trip deep into eastern europe to deserved a

war between the russians and the turks hoping to learn more about strategy and tactics. and then he came over as the third in command of the british army. planning three or four weeks after lexington had been conquered and just in time to see some action at bunker hill. he served with some distinction in a couple of years as is commander want a reputation in some circles on strategist or other high ranking in america during that time. i think you did a good job as

a commander. he had the misfortune i think of becoming commander at the same moment that france entered the war. and now that britain had to fight both the french and the americans, they had to withdraw some of their troops from america and send them to the caribbean to meet the threat imposed by the french. he discovered, he had to immediately relinquish 8000 of his troops. he had already lost all of those troops i didn't have an army that was considerably

smaller than the army the british had had in america. despite that his orders were to bring washington to battle, hold on to new york, hold on to rhode island, and implement this new southern strategy that we will talk about in a little bit later on. he faced an enormous task. from the very beginning, clinton knew he was up against it. my fate was hard as he put it in a letter he wrote almost immediately after being named commander. he said it was inevitable that britain would youou lose the war. he feared he would bet scapegoated for the loss. and it turned out many people

in england did scapegoat clinton. and they blamed clinton arguing he had been too passive. he was not a risk taker. he was not dynamic enough. argued to have won a war that britain could have one. i think of most of those arguments were picked up by historians down the road. clinton's reputation and the literature has suffered as well. i try to argue in the book that many of the allegations just are not true. clinton was far more active then his foes suggested. he did take risks. he was fare. more active than washington was in the four years between saratoga and

yorktownn for instance. thomas paine, after the war wrote a blistering pamphlet attacking washington and i don't agree with pain on this. but paine argued that washington slept in the field as he put it and the real winners of the war were generals horatio, gage, and nathaniel greene. washington was generally an active during much of that time and clinton was far more. i think the most devastating thing attack or appraisal of clinton came about almost 75 years ago. many more still accepted. was a study made by clinton

biographer in conjunction with the clinical psychologist. they argued clinton sought power but has deep subliminal psychological problems that prevented him from acting on the power that he had. i think frankly theob argument is malarkey. they were m obviously unable to put clinton on the couch and talk with him. but in addition clinton left behind virtually no private correspondence that would have opened a window to his inner self. i think clinton's reputation suffered from that. there is your kitty.

[laughter] >> this is joey just joining us now. [laughter] >> let's write live close the doors so mine cannot get in the room. anyway, i think that study on clinton should be filed away in the circular file. he certainly made mistakes, i recognize that in the book. but i think he was a good general and exceedingly good strategist who did not have too awfully much to work with. an faced enormous challenges. so i hope that my appraisal will convince some people to take another look at sir henry clinton. >> host: i did not know anything about him until reading this.

we are going to stay with you for a little bit. just realized actually with the chronology or next questions are out of order. i'm going to take yours and you take mine we are out of order. after britain's catastrophe at saratoga in 1777, they adopted a new strategy called the southern strategy. what was it and what was britain attempting to gain in this war from 1778 onward? >> i think after saratoga the egbritish i think many people in england after saratoga wanted to drop out of the war. it had gone on for three years. they had achieved virtually nothing. and now have lost an entire army at saratoga. and so in the news came in of saratogaw it triggered a lengthy debate in lord north's war ministry.

went on in the winter of 1778. it wasre a debate for one think whether to remain in the war and if the decision was made to remain in the war, what kind of strategy with a pursuit? down to this point the strategy has been to try to destroy the washington's continental army and also win control of several northern providences. they really had not succeeded on either score. so at the end of the debate, the notion of remaining in the war prevailed. largely because king insisted the war continued. let me go back to my powerpoint here. the person who really lives to remain in the war, was lord

george jermaine. he was the american secretary, secretary of state for the american colonies. and jermaine began in that position, jermaine was in essence the minister of war. he also had responsibilities for britain's army in america. and jermaine understood a new strategy had to be developed. and jermaine came up with what became known as the southern strategy. that was essentially, essentially write off the northern colonies and attempt to regain control of two and possibly three colonies down south. georgia, south carolina, and possibly north carolina as

well. and jermaine thought that was a plausible strategy generate collected a greater percentage of colonists and the southern colony had remained loyal to england, then was the case in the northern colonies. they were tied to england by both economically, through the church and other factors. so jermaine felt that by going into the south, many of these loyalists would willingly bear arms for their king. since many of the troops, is it 8000 troops had to be relinquished by clinton, they could be replaced hopefully by loyalists.

some of whom would come into the regular british army and enter what became known as provincial regiments. others would go into newly structured loyalists and militia units the idea was the british army would drive the rebels out of an area. and then the loyalists militia would come behind the army and take possession and pacify the area. if it worked out, this is what the united states, assuming it got its independence might have looked like following the war. the area in red would be the area in the united states. everything else on their in white would be possessed by the british. so if jermaine's plan southern strategy planned out and

georgia, south carolina, were retaken the british already had east and west florida. they had gained that in a war that ended in 1763. they were still in control of the trans- appalachian west. they were still in control of canada. the united states within small, weak, surrounded by a great european power. it would face a very uncertain future. if it played out in this fashion, not very long many and the united states would seek to return to the british empire. they would just have very little capability of expanding and what ever. that was thetu southern strateg.

it is cobbled together in the winter of 1778 inn london. as it was mentioned a little bit earlier, when clinton receives his orders, includes implement the southern strategy. he sent a 3000 man expedition to georgia in december of 1778. and then a one day battle they retook savannah. and then in 1780, clinton comes south leaves a huge expedition down that retakes charleston in a siege operation in april and may of

1780. and then clinton appoints, i will show you one more slide here real quickly. after charleston paused, clinton appoints, there we go, he appoints general corn wallace, charles cornwallis to be in charge of the pacification of south carolina and georgia. from day one, cornwallis' orders were to focus on focusing on south carolina and georgia. he could go into north carolina if he thought it would help him with subduing the rebellion and south carolina and georgia. so, cornwallis is going to be the major player in the war in the south from the time he takes command in june of 1780,

down into the late spring of 1781 and on until he arrives at yorktown in the summer of 1781. clinton meanwhile's come back to new york. he never saw cornwallis again until after yorktown. that was the southern strategy. that is what the british were trying to accomplish. i tried to argue in the book they came reasonably close spreads and things went wrong that maybe we can talk about a little later on this evening. but at the beginning of 1781, clinton was far more competent than washington was of what

was going to happen that year. clinton later said that he began 1781 more confident of british success than any of the other four years that he was commander. clinton ultimately thought was if the french and the americans could be prevented in a victory in 1781, that the war were to and in a negotiated settlement. clinton was not alone in that. washington felt that, lafayette says that in his letters, john adams in europe is writing to congress and telling congress pretty much the same thing, adams is telling congress look the french have been in this war for three years they have not gained anything out of it.

he is got to gain something. as a face-saving measure to get out. they're going to accept an invitation from neutral nations in europe to come to a peace conference in what would've happened at at that peace conference is anybody's guess. maybe it would've recognized smaller, something along the lines of that map. the independence of the united s states. this would have been a conference primarily of monarchs who were not very friendly towards republican governments. that is what the united states had at that point. >> i think you just answered the next three questions. [laughter] >> sorry about that. >> we've come up with a couple different ones.

going to take one of the ones you wrote, in comparing and contrasting, what is it about washington that beguiled the americans which would you prefer to serve under and why? >> let me first on the comparison of clinton and washington let me say a couple of things about that. there's a section that runs maybe a dozen pages where i tried to look up into and see what i could find about both of them. i found there were some similarities between the two. neither man was a gregarious, outgoing individual. in washington's case it may

have been that washington had insecurities and he did not want people to get too close to him, to discovered what he feared were his weak points. it may have been washington as a leader felt he could not let anyone get very close to him. he had to make personnel decisions. it reminds me of what john f. kennedy said at one point, great leaders have to be both loved and feared. washington may have felt that way. clinton acknowledged he was very shy and not outgoing. he made one of the strangest comments ever made by any historical figure, i am a shy bit she says. >> anyway, neither of them

were really outgoing. clinton i think made friends more easily than washington. who in a sense may never had a really close friend in theng real sense of the word throughout his life. both clinton and washington were brave, courageous and men under fire. i've always been amazed at the battle washington was writing on horseback, writing right into british soldiers who were firing at him. they were no further away from him than a picture is from a batter on a baseball diamond. it's pretty close not to flinch. during the reputation before this and again during the revolution someone who is courageous under fire.

they both faced similar problems in the war and that both have problems with supplies. both have lack of money, lack of troops, and what ever. both clinton and washington endured considerable criticism during the war. i am not sure how when people remember it today but there's a great deal of criticism of washingtonon after he made several mistakes in eighteo new york camp eight and 76. and then after the campaign of 77, even more and more open criticism of washington. one point the president of congress from 1778 said when washington it was met with laughter.

but congress could have ditched washington as some of his critics wanted. after that, congress cut off the open criticism of washington. really it launches a campaign to make washington an iconic figureof from valley forge onto the end of the war. to elevate him above criticism and they began celebrating washington's birthday annually. clinton ran into a lot of criticism too. i think in the case of a both of these guys, it's sort of like my experience -- when i was a student, all the

students complained about their professors. when i became a professor they were all complaining about the administrators. the same sort of thingst went on in the british army and among the americans two. and people got left out or unhappy about that. there are plenty of differences between them. washington was a better leader and clinton. washington just exuded leadership. he was a big man. this was a time demonstrated

the average full grown

one other difference, see about being about politics. washington was a very good politician. in his political skills. clinton acknowledged openly even though he had actually held a seat in the house of congress at one point, he acknowledged he was not a very good politician. he was like a fish out of water in that regard. there were some similarities

haand there were some differences. i've forgotten what the last part. >> who would you serve under? >> okay, that is a guess that would depend on -- on your rank i think i would have served under either neither of these guys were bloodthirsty, neither center men into battle in hopeless situations and squandered troops. both of them were trying to preserve life.

because of both i think had humanitarian qualities about them. also both had so many shortages, both faced so many they cannot afford to lose troops. i would've been willing to serve under, i don't know that i would want to be a soldier in the revolutionary war was a really tough go of the officers the higher ranking officers when the armies were on the move and they were on the move allots, the higher ranking officers could travel on horseback. everybody else marched.

many of these guys marched thousands of miles. , even in the british army we know all about the suffering at valley forge in moorestown and whatever in the american army but even the british army in many cases, the men were ill provisioned ill equipped. it was really a tough go for these guys. we were coming through a pandemic now in these guys face disease and at least the american army. they wound upan dying of diseas. not from combat. it was a risky, difficult harsh environment the difficult environment they face.

might have served under both generals i'm glad i did not have to serve in the war on either side. >> she has a question she's dying to ask it in acid is one of the other characters. it has to do with being on both sides of the war.th iraq, benedict arnold is he a true trader or just a guy who wanted a steady paycheck? [laughter] a lot of biographers have looked at that. you cannot get entirely and arnold's mind and what was going on in there. he had some legitimate grievances, he had been passed over for promotion unfairly, unjustly i think.

and then when he became the military commander in philadelphia, the british evacuated philadelphia. many people turned against him he's consorting with families that were regarded as he was the daughter of a family suspected of being a tory family. it was actually prosecuted for financial. some legitimate grievances. only arnold is the one that commits treason which thomas paine wrote a pamphlet about in the wake of this. i don't know whether paine really believed it was trying to smooth over the fall out. he pointed that out to

people. having said that, there is a second thing here. many people argue arnold was after the money. he did get a great deal of money from the british for turning coat. but there was another side to that equation. that is arnold own a considerable amount of property in new england. and if america ended up winning the war he was going to lose all of that property. it was kind of a trade off. he would lose valuable property but gain the money the british were going to pay him. he could have done probably just as well financially had he remained on the american side. but one of the things that always intrigued me about

arnold he negotiates with the british through intermediaries. those intermediaries report to sir henley clinton. for a long time clinton did not know who it was the intermediaries were talking to. they thought it was an important american who might be willing to commit treason. it is not until august 1780 the decision to turncoat. what happens in august of 1780? in august of 1780, cornwallis scored a huge victory over an american army in camden south carolina. an army by horatio gates. it was the fourth american army in 20 months that had been destroyed in the southern

theater. more than 8000 american troops had been killed, wounded or captured on those four engagements. that is the same month that washington writes that letter i almost ceased to hope. it is the same moment that arthur lee and boston is saying many of the leaders in massachusetts now believe the war is going to end with a negotiated settlement short of independence. they would argue we arnold finally makes his final decision to turncoat he may very well have believed the americans goose was cooked. the british were going to win the war on there trying to get on the winning side.

having said all of that is speculative. nobody really knows what was going on and arnold's mind. >> i do like you put them in the context of all of the decision-making for is not an impetuous mood for him to suddenly switch sides. it really could've been anyone in a similar position and terms of rank or opportunity. i did appreciate that put him in a new context. if he was just a guy after a paycheck so thank you. [laughter] i think we need to get questions from the audience. think this has been a terrific overview of this book. your history flows from you. thank you very much. while the audience is typing questions and i want to get to this last one we put together. i brings together the stories in the modern area.

all war requires sacrifice. the numbers of the american revolution were talking the people involved under slots at the end of the book, they are staggering. the impact and consequences of war. that is the experience of it. >> the great many more of that in my mind when i wrote the book. one of the things that was already mentioned, i wanted people to understand just how wrong this struggle to win independence was. i think because saratoga occurs in october 1777 in a huge british army surrendersce there. textbooks always depict

saratoga as the turning point of the revolutionary war. there has been a tendency for many people to think everything that followed saratoga was anti- climactic and the american victory was guaranteed. i wanted theaters to come away from my book understanding that a long grim ward had to be fought after saratoga. but victory was not guaranteed. as i said, clinton thought britain could still win the war and 1781. they also wanted people to be aware of just how grim this war was. about 15% of those p who fought

on the british side died in this war. pretty heavy attrition. as best i can be able to determine, roughly the same percentage of people who fought on the american side died in this war. to put that into some sort of meaningful terms, the united states lost about three to 50000 men in world war ii. but if the united states state said lost 15% of sailors in world war ii, more than 2 million americans would have died. in that war. it is a war that is a much bloodier war than many people are aware. i wanted people to understand

the outcome of the war is determined after saratoga. during the four years after saratoga, more died than during the months before. roughly about 65% of all americans who fought on america's side died. another 4000 americans who died fighting for great britain during this war. in fact in 1780 fighting in the continental army. those are the things i wanted readers to come away with. what i tried to do in the book , was look at crises on the

decisions made during those crises. and what they knew an what they did not know when they made those decisions. often times i think people sort of read history backwards. they know how it came out the actors did not know that when they made their decision. they did not know whether it would be a good decision or a bad decision. i had to make the decision based on what they new at that time. so i tried throughout the book, when i look at the decisions clinton, washington, nathaniel green, and others made, why they made the decisions they made. and what they knew when they made those decisions. >> thank you. what's a reason for the

british to allow for negotiated peace? what would have been in it for them? >> there are many people in england who just wanted to get out of the war. it had gone on for a long time. they were winning. there is a fear they're going to lose all of the trade with america that france would gobble up postwar commerce with america. in the british economy might be ruined the longer the war continued. there were some in england who are pushing for negotiated. immediately after saratoga, when lord north the head of the ministry he proposes a negotiated settlement.

as usually referred to as the north peace plan of 1778. he actually sends a commission of diplomats that were known as the carlyle commission who came over too america in 1778. they were authorized to negotiate a settlement. what lord north was willing to accept, was essentially everything that the first continental congress had asked for with one exception. that is independence. north would not recognize he wasdence but willing to let a continental congress remain. he was going to give the americans greater autonomy, on, and on, and on, the first continental congress had asked for. certainly, right up to the pinnacle of power in england there were people who were

willing to accept a negotiated settlement. >> john thank you. your answers have been thoughtful your writing has been thoughtful to extensively researched. >> absolutely enlightening. i really do encourage our audience to pick it up and read it. as a completely different perspective and a refreshing look. thank you for spending your evening we're in the avon historical society hopefully hosting you in person for. >> i look forward to that as well. i think you once again for having me. >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in c-span video competition, for miller high school student five or six page documentary how does the federal government impact your life? you must show up posing in a

opposing points of view that affect you or your community using c-span video clips which are easy to find and access at c-span.org. c-span student camp competition $100,000 in total cash prizes. and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022 printer competition rules are just how to get started visit our website at student camp.org. >> 20 years ago on september the 11th, 2001 to large commercial airliners flew into the world trade buildings in new york city. 200763 people lost their lives. a few minutes later, american airlines flight 77 crashed into the pentagon killing a total of 189 people.

a fourth plane, united 93 crashed into a field near shanksville, pennsylvania at three minutes past 10:00 a.m. on that morning. forty-four parish. these events, so everyone knows, or a great shock to our nation and the world. as a small way to commemorate this moment in u.s. history, here are some of the callers to the c-span network the morning after, beginning at 6:00 a.m. >> the entire united states has shut down. you are talking to people around the country and around the world who are shaken to their roots by this. >> a look back on september 11 attacks on this episode of book notes plus. listen at c-span.org/podcasts are where you get your podcast. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ good evening everyone. we are delighted to have you with us, welcome to book talk tuesday. the center of digital history of the washington library. happy new year to you all and ow year end glad you could join and is spent your evening with us. tonight very excited because we are going to have an opportunity to explore the challenges, the opportunities that early americans face will living under british military rule in the american revolution. before we get to that, before guitar distinguish