good evening everyone we are with author terry wilson from

the society cosponsoring the program tonight we are in webinar mode so questions at any point put them in the q&a box where the chat box we will read them at the end now my colleague will introduce john. >> the historical society in connecticut is pleased to cosponsor this conversation with a dedicated historian who enlightens us with new information and may be new theories especially out of the southern strategy. we love that because as localis historians were many important figures of the american revolution came from as he was a few battle spots we always want to learn more professor emeritus at thehe university of west georgia where he enjoyed a long career of courses on the revolution america's founders and us military history. he has written 13 books andeo many journal articles of the

american revolution in our earlyon republic a biographer of george washington and john adams. although iti cannot read the names a preferred detail about john although from west virginia he grew up in galveston according to his biography his mother was college-educated in 1920, taught school 11 years was band by west virginia law for marrying his called father attended college in a baseball scholarship at the depression ended academics they had one son john in 1840 john has a bachelors in history and a masters in history all the retired it hasn't stopped him from attending and speaking at seminars and lecturing on podcast and spending time writing his biggest passion.

the first gamere he's i was 1947 between pittsburgh and dodgers when robinson scored the winning run and was hooked for life. so like any good historian he timed his research trip around the games he wanted to see especially boston and others we look forward to hear more about your most recent book so let's begin. as a historian your focus has been on the era of the american revolution what do you love most about this chapter and our history? >> first, let me thank you for having me and the library and the historical society for inviting me. i have been looking forward to doing this. i wasas drawn to the american

revolution that's where everything starts for the united states those social idealsev were formed during the course of the revolution. if you think about it lincoln when he talked about fourscore seven years ago was referring to 1776 and the ideals of the equality and god-given rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness for all people and martin luther king talks about having a dream, his dream of african-americans would be cut in on the ideals that really begin with the american revolution. i was drawn to that in addition because the revolution consist of two things so on the one hand there is the revolution itself

that i think kane was surprised to most of the participantshe one dozen years before 1776 no one for saw the revolution but they have laws so the question comes up why did it occur and what was the revolution? just a case of columnist on —- colonists trying to gain independence over common sense of 1776 or a struggle to bring about the birthday of the new world? and with regard to the american revolution but in addition you have to double that because you have a more most congressmen knew when they declared independence in july 1776 that they weren't

independent and they had to win their independence and that led to a long war that had dark and uncertain times in 1776 and then like a roller coaster when friends and allied in 1778 and many people felt this virtually including george washington for this matter assured american independence and then things went south after that and then the war becomes stalemate and that is the subject of my book. the 40 years after the great victory from saratoga 1778 through yorktown and 1781 when i think the outcome of the war was until the very last

moment, unknown. it could have gone in different directions. no one knew until yorktown whether or not america would gain independence or if it did if the united states would include all 13 states. it is a long dramatic and that is a fascinating cast of characters that's why i wanted and to it in then to stay with the revolution even throughout my career. >> so your book, this is what hooked me, the challenging the assumption instead great

britain lost the war it could have one in on the nuanced of the thesis it's a very different way to look at. >> sure. i think the british have several opportunities at the outset of thend war in 1776 to have won the war general gauge was the commander of the british army at the time with the run down to the war was coming on said within the first engagement of the war winning that is crucial if we could have enough troops over here to score dramatic and instead of that and when they

marched back from concorde to boston. so there couldnc be a bloodless victory and general gauge and the backside and to put the american rebels up on top of the hill and you can score a bloodless victory but they did not do that in two instances in the campaign for new york when the british acted

resolutely. and in september 76 when washington foolishly kept his army on manhattan and did not get off that the british could have annihilated the entire continental army at that point and any of those victories would have won the war for the british and still had another chance in 1777. with the army to come down from canada to move north to rendezvous been kept washington's army and that

went off with philadelphia. and really the last major chance the british had to win the war. that's not to say that britain's defeat after that was guaranteed. motz of things go wrong for the americans after 1778 and the economy collapsed and at the same time washington was writing the letter an american

diplomat overseas in europe returned to america for the first time since before the war began and landed in boston of all places and was there for a few days and talked to a number of boston officials in massachusetts officials and he wrote most of those august by 1780 concluded the war avoided and in the negotiated settlement short of independence things are really up in c the air. but at yorktown america does whenen america did come out of the were victorious but i also

said america cannot win the war without french assistance they were providing clandestine nineic assistance in 1775 with weaponry including me w —- clothing and weapons and blankets for the americans and then and they could provide even more help and they eventually settle an army and they learned a great deal of money to the americans which wound up costing the french king his head in the 17 nineties because of the fallout from all of those

contributes after 1789 so anyway the americans do win the war with french help which i think it is extremely important. >> can we step back to someone you mentioned earlier? as part of your thesis what aspects of his career have they misunderstood and why doesn't he receive credit for georgia and possibly north carolina to redraw the map of america? >> as everybody knows here is

another one of sir henry clinton and then to learn of his appointment in may 1778 he was the third british commander and had been there for many years before the war and was recalled after the disaster along concord road and bunker hill in general william howell succeeded and resigned after saratoga. clinton is a commander from the british army 78 and beyond

yorktown i found clinton and interesting figure he was from the aristocratic family his father was a career naval officer who became the royal governor of new york and young henry when he was still growing up spending formative years in new york city and joined the british army as a teenager and fought in two wars before the revolutionary war and earned a reputation as a brave and courageous risk taking soldier who was seriously wounded in the engagement in germany in the seven years war in the 17 sixties he was intellectually curious individual he was read

widely and deeply in military strategy and the year before the revolutionary war broke out he paid to make a trip deep into eastern europe to observe the war between the russians and the turks to learn about military strategy andte tactics then he came over as the third in command and then to see some action and then to serve with some distinction in a couple of years before he is named commander wanting one —- winning a reputation as the best strategist among

britain's high-ranking officers and at the time of his appointment two years older than washington that more than 30 years of experience and then to do a good job as a commander he had the misfortune of becoming commander at the same moment that france entered the war and now that britain has to fight both the french and the americans, they had to withdraw some of the troops from americans send them to the caribbean with the new threat posed on —- posed by the french so with these

orders he discovered he had to immediately relinquish 8000 of his troops and he already lost all of his troops and had surrendered at saratoga. so he did have an army considerably smaller than what the british had had in america one year before. despite that his orders were to bring washington to battle hold on to new york and rhode island and implement a new southern strategy i'll talk about later on so it was an enormous test and from the very beginning clinton knew he was up against it my faith is

hard as he put it in the letter he wrote almost immediately after being named commander he said hee thought it was inevitable britain would lose the war and he figured he would be scapegoated. it turned out he was prescient because after yorktown many people in england did scapegoat clinton and argued he was too passive and he was a risk taker he was not dynamic enough he just had not done enough they argued to have won the war that britain could have one and then to be picked up by historians down the road soe clinton's reputation in the literature has suffered as well. i tried to argue in the book

many of those allegations just aren't true. and then to be far more active than those suggested. he did take risk and was far more active than washington was with the four years between saratoga and yorktown. thomas paine after the war wrote a blistering pamphlet attacking washington i don't agree with pain on this but he argued that washington slept in the field as he put it in the real winners of the war were generals horatio gates and nathanael greene. that washington was generally in active during much of that time and clinton was far more

and the most devastating thing attack came about almost 75 years ago but is still read by scholars today and many still accepted and it was a study made by clinton's principal biographeral in conjunction with a clinical psychologist. they argued clinton sought power, but he had deep subliminal psychological problems that prevented him from acting on the power that he h had. frankly i think the argument is malarkey not that i am of so of the cycle ministry but

obviously they cannot put clinton on the couch and talk with him but in addition clinton was behind virtually no private correspondence that would have opened a window. so i think clinton's reputation suffered from that. >> joey is joining us now. [laughter] >> that's okay. [laughter] but i think that study on clinton should be filed in the circular file. he made mistakes. i recognize that in the book. but i think he was a good general and exceedingly good strategist who didn't have much to work with and faced

enormous challenges. so i hope that my appraisal will convince people to take another look at sir henry clinton. >> set the depth of his ability i just realized that the chronology is out of order. >> in 1777 the southern strategy. >> so many people in england wanted to drop out of the war going on for three years.

so when the news triggered that the winter through 1778 and it was a debate for one thing whether to remain in the war and if the decision was made of what kind of strategy they would pursue. to also win control of some of the several northern provinces so at the end of the debate

the notion of remaining prevailed because they insisted that. >> soe the person that led the fight in the war was george jermaine. he was the secretary of state for the american colonies. so in that position in essence he was the minister of war and also had responsibilities for britain's army so jermaine understood that strategy had to be developed but

essentially with the northern colonies in the attempt to regain control of two and possibly three colonies down south possibly north carolina ason well. to think that was a possible strategyss with a greater percentage of communist gave the southern colonies had remained loyal to anyone is the case in the northern colonies it was economically through the anglican church and other factors. so jermaine felt that by going into the south many would

willingly bear arms for their king. and 8000 troops had to be relinquished by clinton, they could be replaced by loyalist. some of whom come into the regular british army and interprovincial regiments. . . . .

if my have looked like war >> area and bread was the area that was deemed the united states and everything else on their and white would be possessed by the british. if the southern strategy panned out and virginia was retaking the british already had east and west florida. they gain that an award that ended in 1763. they were still in control of the trans-appalachian west and still in control of canada so the united states was surrounded and i a great european power and it would face very uncertain future. there were many in england that thought of this played out in

this fashion that a not very long many in the united states would seek to return to the british empire because this would have very little capability of expanding and whatever. so that was the start of the strategy and cobble together in the winter of 1778 in london and was mentioned earlier when clinton receives his orders it includes implement the southern strategy which he gets around to pretty fast. he sends a 3000 man expedition to georgia in december of 1778 and in a one-day battle the british took savannah and then

in 1780 clinton comes to lead a huge expedition that retakes charleston and anesthesia operation in april and may of 1780. then clinton appoints and i'll show you just one more slide here wrote quickly. after charleston falls -- there we go -- he appoints general cornwallis.

general cornwallis to be in charge of the emancipation of south carolina and georgia. cornwallis' orders were to focus on south carolina and georgia and it could go into north carolina if he thought it would help him with subduing the rebellion in south carolina and georgia. 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, well 1781 and yorktown in the summer of 1781. clinton meanwhile comes back to new york and he never saw cornwallis again until after your town. so that was the southern strategy and that's what the british were trying to accomplish. i tried to argue in the book

that they came reasonably close and some things went wrong that maybe we can talk about later on this evening but at the beginning of 1781, clinton was far more confident 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 and i think what clintond ultimately thought was that if the allies of the french and the americans could be prevented from scoring a decisive victory in 1781 that the war would end

in a negotiated settlement and clinton wasn't alone with that. washington felt that in lafayette says that in his letters and john adams is writing to congress and telling congress pretty much the same thing and telling congress the french havee been in this war fr three years and they have not gained anything.

they are going to as a face-saving measure except an invitation from neutral nations in europe to come to a peace conference and what would have happened at the peace conference is anybody's guess.it maybe it would recognize an independent both clinton and washington were brave courageous men under fire and remain at the battle of princeton. washington was arriving on horseback riding writing to british shoulders -- the soldiers and they were no

further away from him that picture is from a batter on the baseball diamond and that's pretty close. clinton had to earn their reputation for this enduring a revolution is somebody who was courageous under fire. both of them i think faced a somewhat similar problem during the war and that both had problems with supplies and both had a lack of money and lack of troops and whatever and both clinton and washington endured considerable criticism after the war. i'm not sure how many people remember it today but there was a great deal of -- washington after he made several mistakes in the your campaign in 1776 and

after the campaign of 77 even more and more open criticism of washington and at one point the president of congress around 1778 said that when washington can make it with congress it was met with fierce -- the congress cut off, congress could have edged washington to some of his critics wanted but congress forcefully didn't take that and knew what was going on with political chaos and would probably ruin the war effort and after that congress cut off the open criticism and launches a campaign to make washington an ericonic figure from valley fore on toward the end of the war to elevate him so he would be above

criticism and they begin celebrating washington's birthday annually and that has remained. linton ran into a lot of chris at -- criticism two. i think in the case of both of these guys it's sort of like my experience when i was a student and all the students complained about their professors and when i became a professor although professors work quite -- complaining about the administrators and that same sort of thing went on in the british army and among the americans too. there were things like issues over promotion and whatever and people got left out and were unhappy about that. both of them ran into great deal of criticism but there were plenty of differences between them and you mentioned when you are talking about why washington

was the leader one of the differences is that washington was a better leader than clinton and washington just exuded leadership. he was a big man. this was a time. when this study of muster rolls demonstrated that the average full-grown american male was 5 feet and 7 inches tall. it was 5 feet 8 inches in world war ii soo it hadn't changed muh after the revolution. washington was almost 6 feet 4 inches so you literally towered over other people. he weighed in 1780, he weighed 210 pounds and is 6 feet 4 inches 210 pounds he it was the same size of a quarterback at ohio state or carson are the university of alabama or

something today. he did have a reputation of athleticism. athleticism was sequestering and he seemed to be majestic on a horse and he seemed to walk gracefully. clinton on the other hand was about 5 feet 7 inches and pretty average in many many ways. there were differences in that respect and one other difference other than their background because as i mentioned clinton was from an aristocratic family in england but one other difference was that people today often forget that washington it often was seen in being above politics but washington was a good politician and he was almost unsurpassed in his political skills.

and clinton acknowledged openly, even though he had held a seat in the house of commons at one point. he acknowledged that he was not a very good politician. he was like a fish out of water in that regard so there were some similarities end there were some differences. i have forgotten the last part of your question. >> who would you serve under? >> oh, okay. well, that's a tough question. i guess it would depend on your rank and whatever but i think i would have served under either man really. clinton was good in neither of these guys were bloodthirsty and neither sent their men into

battle in hopeless situationsne and squandered troops. both of them are trying to preserve life and both had humanitarian qualities about them. but also because they both had so many shortages in both face so many shortages that they couldn't afford to make trips. they both work good commanders and i probably would have been willing to serve under either one although i have to say i don't know that i would have wanted to be a soldier in the revolutionary war.

it was really a tough go. the officers, the high-ranking officers, and they were on the move allowed the high-ranking officers could travel on horseback but everybody else marched. many of these guys marched thousands of miles and many of them even in the british army, we know about the suffering at valley forge in moorestown and whatever in the american army but the british army in many cases the men were ill provisioned andri ill-equipped. it was really a tough go for these c guys. we are coming through a pandemic now and these guys faced disease

at least in the american army. most of the american soldiers who died want up dying of disease, noted from combat. it was a risky and difficult, harsh environment that they face. while i might have been able to served under both generals i'm glad i didn't have too served in the war on either side. >> attested do with being on both sides of the war. is he a translator or just a guy who wanted a>> steady paycheck? >> that's kind of a million-dollar questions and a lot of biographers have looked at that and in his mind didn't

know what was going on. he had some legitimate grievances. he had been passed over for promotion unfairly and unjustly i think and then when he became the military commander in philadelphia but when the british evacuated philadelphia many people turn against him because he was consorting with families there were regarded as tory families and the daughter of the family of suspected of being a tory family. he was actually prosecuted for financial speculations so i think he has some really legitimate grievances. although many other generals did to and only arnold is the one

that gets treated and thomas pain wrote a pamphlet in the wake of this and i don't know whether pain believe it or if he is smooth over the fallout from all the trees in. he pointed that out but having said that there's a second thing here too. many people argued that arnold was just after the money and he did get a great deal of money from the british for turning code but there's another side to that equation and that is that arnold on his considerable amount of property in new england and america wound up winning the war he was going to lose all of that property. he knew he would lose valuable

property to gain the money that the british were going to pay him and he probably would have done just as well financially had he remained on the american side. the one thing that is always intrigued me about arnold is that he negotiate with the british through intermediaries. those intermediate years -- intermediaries for a long time clinton didn't know who was that the intermediaries were talking to said it was an important american who might be willing to commite, treason. it's not until august of 1780 that arnold makes the decision to turn coat and what happens in august of 1780? in august of 1780 cornwallis

scored a huge victory over an american army in camden south carolina and army commanded by horatio gates. it was the first american army in 20 months that have been destroyed in the southern theater and more than 8000 american troops have been killed, wounded or captured in those four engagements. that's the same month that washington writes that letter saying -- and the same one that arthur lee and boston is saying that many of the leaders in massachusetts believe the war is going to and in a negotiated settlement short of independence. so i think you could argue when arnold finally makes his final

decision to turn coat in august of 1780 he may very well have the leaves that america's goose was cooked and the british were going to win i the war and he ws trying to get on the winning side. having said all that nobody really knows what's going on in arnold's mind. >> i plea in the context of the decision-making so it's not an impetuous a move. it could have been anyone in a similar position in terms of opportunity and i do appreciate that put it into context. so thank you. >> i think this is a terrific

overview of the book and your pictures are wonderful. so thank you very much. are we ready? >> the audience is typing in questions. >> it brings the historic story to the modern era. all wars require sacrifice and the numbers in the revolution and were talking the people involved is staggering. what do we understand about the impact of the consequences of war? >> i think there were many more in my mind when i wrote the book at one of the things was as i've already mentioned is that i wanted people to understand just

how long the struggle to win independence was. i think because saratoga occurs in october of 1777 and the huge british army surrenders there and textbooks always depict saratoga as the turning point of the revolutionary war and there is bennett tendency on the part of many people to thank everything that followed sara at togo was guaranteed read so i wanted readers to come away from my look understanding that a long-gram grim war had to be fought after saratoga and victory wasn't guaranteed and

thought that britain could still win the war in 1781. i also wanted people to be aware of just how groove -- grimness war was. 15% of those who fought on the british side died in this war. and as best i've been able to determine roughly the same percentage of people who flocked on the american side died in this war. the united states lost 350,000 men of world war ii but the united states has lost 15% of its soldiers and sailors in world war ii and more than 2 million americans died in that

war. it is really a much bloodier war then many people are w aware and also as i mentioned i wanted people to understand the outcome of the war is determined after saratoga during that four-year struggle and during that four years after saratoga moorer man died then died in the 30 months of war before and 65% of all americans -- on the american side died after saratoga and another 4000 americans who died fighting for great britain duringgh this war and in fact in 1780 there were more americans

fighting for great britain then then -- sofa those were the this that i wanted readers to come away with. what i tried to do in the book was look at the crises that washington faced and the crises that clinton faced and the decisions that they made during those crises and what they knew and didn't t know when they made those decisions. oftentimes i think people read history backwards. the actors obviously didn't know that. they didn't know whether it would be a good decision or a bad decision and they had to make the decision based on what they knew at that time. throughout the book when i

looked at the decisions that clinton in washington and others made and why they made the decisions thathe they did and wt they knew when they made those decisions. >> was the reason for the british to negotiate and what would have been in it for them? >> well there were many in people in england he just wanted to get out of the war and they fohad gone on for a long time. there was a fear that they were going to lose all the trade with america and the post-war commerce with america and the british economy might be ruined the longer the war continued. so there were some in england

who were pushing for a negotiated settlement and immediately after saratoga the prime minister went to saratoga and he proposes a negotiated settlement. it's usually just referred to of -- of 1778 and he eventually sent a commission of implements known as the carlisle commission and came over to america in 1778 and they were authorized to negotiate a settlement. what lenten or what he was willing to accept was essentially everything that the first continental congress have asked for on the eve of the war with one exception and that was independence. .. that

was independence. north would not recognize that he was willing to let a continental congress remain. he was going to give the americans greater autonomy and on and on that the first continental congress >> there were people who were willing to accept the negotiated settlement. >> thank you your answers are thoughtful your book is extensively researched absolutely and lightning and i really do encourage our audience to pick up and read it because it's from an entirely different perspective so thank you for spending your evening with the historical society hopefully we'll see you in person. >> i look forward to that as well thank you for having me

>> good evening everyone we are delighted to have you with us and from the center for digital history at the washington library. were glad to see you back in this new year to spend your evening with us. tonight i'm excited because we have an opportunity to explore the