Was the Battle of Germantown an American failure or a British success? Did the Continental Army lose due to an overly complicated plan, environmental factors such as fog, and poorly applied military judgment, or was the British Army’s resistance a decisive factor? The defense of the Chew House demonstrates that the British were professional, tenacious, and courageous, rather than the fortunate recipients of the fruits of an American blunder. Led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Musgrave, the men of the 40th Regiment of Foot established a strongpoint that disrupted American momentum and derailed the attack. Musgrave and the 40th Regiment of Foot transformed the Chew House into an obstacle that delayed the American advance long enough for British forces to reform and counterattack. This episode reveals the significance of British leadership and discipline under severe conditions, thereby reframing the context of the Battle of Germantown.¹
Germantown occurred at a time when the Continental Army was undergoing a transformation from an amateur to a professional military. American officers engaged in self-directed study of “books upon martial science” and were known to carry such texts among their baggage and haversacks when on campaign.² In this manner, Continental officers sought to emulate their European counterparts.³ One officer known to have made a detailed study of the art and science of war was Washington’s Chief of Artillery, Henry Knox.⁴ At the time of Germantown, the officers of the Continental Army had been at war for over two years and had learned many practical lessons; however, many officers, including Washington, continued to hold Knox’s auto-didactic military education in high esteem. The gap between knowing theory and its practical application would become apparent, to the detriment of the Continentals, at Germantown.
In contrast, the British Army officer corps had been fully engaged in a minor military enlightenment through the latter half of the eighteenth century. While British officers engaged in self-study programs similar to Knox’s, they could more readily share the results of their study within an established army, comparing and contrasting ideas and adopting best practices.⁵ The British Army was able to synthesize the best practices from both theory and combat experience into regulations that informed the training and operational deployment of all its formations.⁶
Early interpretations of the battle frequently emphasized confusion and poor execution, particularly the American decision to attack the Chew House. Yet the battle was “very much more than a contest… for the possession of a country house.” More recent scholarship describes the plan for the attack on Germantown as a sophisticated maneuvering scheme that nearly succeeded. Its subsequent failure owes more to British action than American incompetence.
On this date in 1776, Major Joseph Ward, serving as a staff officer for Major General Artemas Ward, second in command of the Continental Army that had just evicted the British from Boston, sat down at his desk to pen the following letter. The recipient was John Adams, a fellow Massachusettsan then serving in the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ward continued his correspondence of keeping Adams apprised of military affairs around Boston. In this letter, however, he makes the case for the colonies to “cut the Gordian knot” and declare independence, months before Richard Henry Lee’s proposal to call for independence in late June 1776.
Boston 23 March 1776
Sir,
The 17th Instant the Pirates all abandoned their Works in Boston and Charlestown and went on board their Ships, and on the 20th they burnt and destroyed the works on Castle Island. They now lye in Nantasket Road waiting for a fair wind; we keep a vigilant eye over them lest they should make an attack on some unexpected quarter. The particulars with regard to the Seige, the Stores taken, &c. you will receive from better authority, therefore it is unnecessary for me to mention them. Our Troops behaved well, and I think the flight of the British Fleet and Army before the American Arms, must have a happy and very important effect upon the great Cause we engaged in, and greatly facilitate our future operations. I wish it may stimulate the Congress to form an American Government immediately. If, after all our exertions and successes, while Providence offers us Freedom and Independence, we should receive the gloven cloven foot of George to rule here again what will posterity, what will the wise and virtuous through the World say of us? Will they not say, (and jusly) that we were fools who had an inestimable prize put into our hands but had no heart to improve it! Heaven seems now to offer us the glorious privilege, the bright preeminence above all other people, of being the Guardians of the Rights of Mankind and the Patrons of the World. It is the fault of the United Colonies (a rare fault among men) they do not sufficiently know and feel their own strength and importance. Independence would have a great effect upon the Army, some now begin to fear that after all their fatigue and hazards in the Cause of Freedom, a compromise will take place whereby Britain may still exercise a power injurious to the Liberty Peace and Safety of America: Cut the Gordian knot, and the timid and wavering will have new feelings, trimming will be at an end, and the determined faithful friends of their Country will kindle with new ardour, and the United Colonies increase in strength and glory every hour.
Yesterday I saw your Brother, who informed that Mrs. Adams and your Children were well.
General Ward, on account of his declining health, has wrote his Resignation to the President of the Congress. I expect the greatest part of the Army will march for New York, or the Southern Colonies as soon as the Fleet is gone to Sea; and the Troops that remain here will be employed in fortifying the most advantageous Posts to defend the Town and harbour. I do not much expect the Enemy will make any attempts to regain possession of Boston, for I think they are sufficiently convinced that they cannot penetrate the Country in this part of America; ’tis probable they will try their fortune to the Southward and if they fail there the game will be up with them. We hear many accounts about Commissioners coming from Britain to treat with the Colonies separately, or with the Congress. Many fear we shall be duped by them, but I trust the congress is too wise to be awed by the splendor or deceived by the cunning of British Courtiers.
I know not of one discouraging circumstance attending either our civil or military affairs in this part of the Continent. I have lately heard with pleasure that the Farmer is become an advocate for Independence.Wishing the Congress that Wisdom which is from above, I am Sir with much Respect Your most Humble Servant,Joseph Ward
In David Price’s work, Winning the Ten Crucial Days: The Keys to Victory in George Washington’s Legendary Winter Campaign, the author analyzes one of the most pivotal moments during the Revolutionary War through a unique lens. Focusing on leadership, geography, weather, artillery, and contingency, Price’s narrative eschews the traditional format that has been trod before on this topic, usually a chronological regurgitation of events during this time period. Examine these crucial days during the winter campaign of 1776-1777 with author David Price in this ERW Revelry book talk. This talk will be pre-recorded and posted to our Facebook page at 7pm, March 22, 2026 and also to our Spotify and You Tube Channels.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Dr. Nathan Provost
With the recent rumblings about Venezuela, it is important to remember that Venezuela’s independence began with a veteran of the American Revolutionary War. Francisco de Miranda was born on March 28, 1750, in Caracas, Venezuela. At the time, Venezuela and much of the Americas were under Spanish control. Born into a life of luxury, Miranda attended prestigious institutions of higher education, including the Royal and Pontifical University of Caracas. He later continued his education in Spain, eventually raising enough money to purchase his rank of Captain in the Princess Regiment. His first experience of combat was in North Africa against the Moors of North Africa. Upon returning to Spain, Miranda waited for another military operation to accompany. An ambitious young soldier, he sought adventure, wanting to see the world through military service. In 1780, Miranda reported to the Regiment of Aragorn; their destination was Havana, Cuba. Their objective was to concentrate with Major General Bernardo de Galvez’s men at Pensacola, Florida.
Francisco de Miranda
Spain was no ally of the recently independent United States; rather, their alliance with France was much more significant. After France entered the conflict following the American victory at Saratoga, Spain declared war on Great Britain in 1779. Spain had its own goals, hoping to reclaim territory in Florida lost during the Seven Years’ War. The Spanish were fortunate to possess a brilliant military officer, Bernardo de Galvez. He already captured what is now Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama. All that was left was Pensacola on the Florida Coast. Galvez took several warships and many more transports filled with 3,701 men to lay siege to Pensacola, Florida. Inclement weather and Choctaw resistance interrupted their initial movements, but Galvez pressed on and established his army outside the walls. The number of troops was insufficient to make any headway against the British fortifications, despite the construction of a series of entrenchments and artillery positions. Then, on March 24, much-needed Spanish reinforcements arrived, among whom was Francisco Miranda.
Upon landing, Miranda noted Galvez was there to meet them. Miranda observed several entrenchments already constructed, but a few hundred men were already out of commission since the siege began. Upon learning this information, he knew that Galvez desperately needed these reinforcements. It was not until April 24 that all the soldiers disembarked at Pensacola. During the siege, Miranda personally inspected the siege lines and terrain and reported back on this reconnaissance to Galvez. Miranda and his men, entrenched outside the fort, often came under fire from the British artillery. There were also several skirmishes outside the breastworks in which the Spanish sustained some casualties. In one particular episode, Miranda and five companies of his men engaged in a firefight with some Native Americans. The fighting lasted roughly an hour and a half, with six of the Spanish wounded, but a Frenchman deserted the Natives and went over to the Spanish after the fight. In each of these skirmishes.
To help celebrate America’s 250th birthday this year, St. Bonaventure University’s History Department will present a series of public programs through March and April—and Emerging Revolutionary War is taking part. From John Adams and Revolutionary-era Boston to George Washington’s long shadow, presenters will invite audiences to reconsider how we remember the Revolution today. And all programs will be available to watch live on Zoom and later on YouTube.
Clockwise from top left: Chris Mackowski, Christopher Dalton, Steven Pitt, and Philip Payne
“July Fourth this year will mark 250 years since the Declaration of Independence was finalized,” says Dr. Phillip Payne, chair of the history department. “We wanted to invite members of the community to join us in commemorating that event. It’s a question we can all think about: what does the American Founding mean to us today?”
The programs, which are free and open to the public, will each begin at 7:00 p.m. Light refreshments will be served. The programs will also be available to watch via Zoom; for Zoom links, visit the history department’s blog, https://bonashistorydept.blogspot.com/.
Wednesday, March 18: “Atlas of Independence: John Adams and the American Revolution,” Dr. Chris MackowskiLocation: The Great Room, McGinley-Carney Center for Franciscan Ministries Center
When the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, no one doubted who was responsible. “The man to whom the country is most indebted for the great measure of independence is Mr. John Adams,” said one delegate. “I call him the Atlas of American independence.” Born of humble means outside Boston, Massachusetts, Adams’s work ethic led him to become one of the colony’s most successful attorneys. Yet he burned with a powerful ambition and yearned for more. “I never shall shine, till some animating Occasion calls forth all my Powers,” he fretted. Festering tensions with Great Britain provided the occasion Adam longed for, and soon he found himself at the center of the storm, thrust onto the national stage where all his “Powers” transformed him into the intellectual architect of American independence. Perhaps more than any other American, he rose to the historical moment, urging his contemporaries into the unknown future.
Mackowski is a writing professor in St. Bonaventure’s Jandoli School of Communication and the author of the new book Atlas of Independence: John Adams and the American Revolution.
Monday, March 23: “Everyday Voices and Revolution,” student research panel moderated by Prof. Christopher Dalton Location: Walsh Auditorium
This student research panel turns to the Revolution as it was actually lived. What did resistance sound like? How did politics enter the home? One student explores the world of sailors’ and commoners’ poetry and popular songs, showing how music at sea helped shape identity, protest, and revolutionary feeling. Another examines the daily realities faced by Loyalist and Patriot women, revealing how domestic labor, family loyalty, and survival became deeply political. By bringing together sound and household life, this panel invites us to reconsider the American Revolution not simply as a political rupture, but as a transformation of ordinary experience.
The panel will feature presenter Alex Payne speaking on “The Record of Thought of Oppressed People During the Age of Revolution” and Kayla Krupski, speaking on “Maintaining the Chaos: The Complexities of Domestic Life for Loyalist and Patriot Women Amidst the American Revolution – 1752-1789.”
Dalton, a senior lecturer in St. Bonaventure’s history department, supervises student work in the Historical Methods and Historiography class.
Krupski is a junior history major from Hamburg, NY, with a minor in classics.
Payne is a junior Theology and Franciscan Studies and History double-major from Shinglehouse, PA, with a minor in classics.
Monday, March 30: “George Washington’s Shadow: Remembering and Contesting the Revolution,” Dr. Philip Payne Location: Walsh Auditorium
As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we are reminded that there are political stakes beyond the simple pleasures of the Fourth of July with its emphasis on picnics, fireworks, and hot dogs. From such ideological distant perspectives as Constitutional originalism and the 1619 Project, Americans live in the shadow of the founding moment. For a generation (if not more), George Washington stood as an exemplar of republican virtue, but our recent culture wars have fractured the meaning and legacy of the Revolution. This, as we will learn, is nothing new.
Payne is a professor of history and the chair of St. Bonaventure’s History Department. One of his primary areas of interest is in the ways in which Americans remember their own history.
Monday, April 13: “Winning the War: Why American Victory was So Remarkable,” panel discussion with historians from Emerging Revolutionary War Location: 201 Plassmann Hall (note the different location from other programs in the series)
American victory in the Revolution seems inevitable to us now, but at the time and on the battlefields, victory seemed anything but assured. How did America overcome the odds, particularly after several decisive defeats? Join a panel of historians from the award-winning digital history platform Emerging Revolutionary War (ERW) for an interactive discussion about key military moments that kept the dream of independence alive. Panelist include:
Phill Greenwalt, author of The Winter that Won the War: The Winter Encampment at Valley Forge, co-author of A Single Blow: The Battles of Lexington and Concord, and co-author of the forthcoming A Hard-Bought Victory: The Battle of Bunker Hill
Mark Maloy, author of Victory or Death: The Battles of Trenton and Princeton, To the Last Extremity: The Battles for Charleston, and a forthcoming book on the battles for New York City
Rob Orrison, co-author of All That Can Be Expected: The Battle of Camden and A Single Blow: The Battles of Lexington and Concord
Greenwalt and Maloy are both historians with the National Park Service, and Orrison serves as ERW’s chief historian.
Monday, April 20: “Why Boston? A New Economic Interpretation of the American Revolution,” Dr. Steven Pitt Location: Walsh Auditorium
The sparks of revolution swirled in Boston, and the language of liberty coursed through its streets in the decade leading up to the Declaration of Independence. The Stamp Act Crisis, Townshend Acts boycotts and riots, the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the Intolerable Acts reinforced and compounded grievances over economic decline, taxation, Navigations Acts enforcement, impressment, and imperial overreach. The port became the epicenter of resistance with the rise of the Sons of Liberty and eventual converts like John Adams. But why Boston? Why not Philadelphia, New York, or Charleston, SC? The answer lies in Boston’s unique and complex religious, political, military, and economic trajectory that promised opportunity but led to frequent disillusionment. At every turn, Bostonians from all classes tried to escape rigged economic systems (sometimes even systems they created), but conflicting internal desires and external forces thwarted their plans and shifted economic power to neighboring ports. By 1775, economic self-preservation propelled Bostonians onto the revolutionary path.
Pitt is an associate professor of history at St. Bonaventure, focusing on colonial and Revolution-era America.
Monday, April 27: “The Revolution Today,” open panel discussion Location: Walsh Auditorium
After spending five weeks exploring the American Revolution, our historians will gather for a final panel discussion and open Q&A with the audience. What themes have emerged from our series? What questions have the Founders raised for us? What does the American Revolution mean to us today? What is our own role in remembering America’s 250th birthday? Join us to take part in the conversation.
St. Bonaventure University’s America 250 Series is sponsored by the History Department, the Jandoli School of Communication, and Emerging Revolutionary War. For more information, contact Dr. Phil Payne at ppayne@sbu.edu. Zoom links for the programs are available here.
Since the besieged British soldiers in Boston under General William Howe’s command awoke on the morning of March 5, 1776, and saw American cannon overlooking the city from Dorchester Heights, Howe prepared to evacuate Boston. Orders to prepare the embarkation of the troops and military stores and depart Boston went out to his command of 9,000 soldiers on March 7. It took days to organize the large-scale movement, and the British Navy did not have enough space on their ships to carry everything the army had. Decisions had to be made, supplies had to be destroyed or left behind. The military had to make room for loyalists wanting to depart the city as well.
After unfavorable winds delayed the original departure date of March 13, British troops formed into marching columns at 4 a.m. on March 17. Four hours later, General Howe’s army rocked aboard boats in Boston Harbor, abandoning their hold on the American seaport city. General George Washington’s Continental Army did not interfere with the British evacuation, honoring an agreement trading a pause in military action for a promise that British troops would not harm the city as they departed.
While morale sagged on the British boats, Patriots in Boston were jubilant that their city was free from British army. Boston selectman Timothy Newell recorded in his journal the momentous day of Boston’s freedom from British occupation:
This morning at 3 o’clock, the troops began to move–guards, chevaux de freze, crow feet strewed in the streets to prevent being pursued. They all embarked at about 9 oclock and the whole fleet came to sail. Every vessel which they did not carry off, they rendered unfit for use. Not even a boat left to cross the river.
Thus was this unhappy distressed town (through a manifest interposition of divine providence) relieved from a set of men whose unparralleled wickedness, profanity, debauchery and cruelty is inexpressible, enduring a siege from the 19th April 1775 to the 17th March 1776. Immediately upon the fleet’s sailing the Select Men set off through the lines to Roxbury to acquaint General Washington of the evacuation of the town. After sending a message Major Ward, aid to General Ward, came to us at the lines and soon after the General himself, who received us in the most polite and affectionate manner, and permitted us to pass to Watertown to acquaint the Council of this happy event. The General immediately ordered a detachment of 2000 troops to take possession of the town under the command of General Putnam who the next day began their works in fortifying Forthill, etc., for the better security of the town. A number of loaded shells with trains of powder covered with straw were found in houses left by the Regulars near the fortifycation.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Drew Palmer. He is the founder of Revolutionary Maryland; click here to learn more about that blog.
(Vallejo Image Galleries)
In the early evening of March 5, 1776, two armed boats left Annapolis to patrol the Chesapeake Bay. Captain John Pitt and Joseph Middleton were patrolling to prevent any British ships nearby from entering Maryland’s waters. As they patrolled, they discovered an alarming sight: three British warships heading directly towards Annapolis. Middleton and Pitt rushed off to the Maryland Council of Safety’s chambers in Annapolis to report the startling news.1 In the coming days, Maryland was tested for the first time in the growing Revolutionary conflict.
The American rebellion had become a full-scale war by the spring of 1776. In early March, the siege of British-held Boston was about to end. Hundreds of miles south in Philadelphia, the Declaration of Independence was only four months away. In Maryland, politicians worked hard to maintain Maryland’s isolation from the worst of the conflict. In Virginia, a raiding war had already begun. Only two months before, the town of Norfolk, Virginia, was bombarded, leading to the destruction of the town. Along with Norfolk’s destruction, British attacks and raids were carried out throughout the lower Chesapeake Bay, along with a blockade. 2
Participating in British operations in the lower Chesapeake was Captain Mathew Squire of the British Royal Navy. For several months, Squire’s vessel, the Otter, served as the headquarters of the exiled Virginia Governor, Lord Dunmore. From the Otter, British attacks and raids were launched on Patriot strongholds in the lower Chesapeake. By March, Squire had gained a reputation as a competent officer and ruthless raider of American shipping.3 Squire was heavily involved in the bombardment of Norfolk and an attempted attack on Hampton, Virginia. Though Squire’s area of operation had been centered on the lower Chesapeake, new intelligence pulled him northward into Maryland.
I spent last weekend working at the Moores Creek National Battlefield 250th Event. The small National Park near Wilmington, NC had called on other rangers to assist, as parks often do for big events.
Timothy Newell kept a very vivid diary of life in Boston in 1775 and 1776. He started the entry below on this date, 250 years ago, by copying the “sundry papers lent me…relative to the Siege and Evacuation of Boston in 1775…”
To the Commanding Officer at Roxbury
March 8, 1776
As His Excellency Gen Howe is determined to leave the Town with the troops under his command, a number of the respectable Inhabitants, being very anxious for its preservation and safety, have applied to General Robertson for this purpose, who at their request have communicated the same to his Excellency Gen Howe, who has assurred him, that he has no intention of destroying the Town, unless the Troops under his command are molested, during their embarkation, or at their departure by the armed force without; which declaration he gave General Robertson leave to communicate to the Inhabitants. If such an opposition should take place, we have the greatest reason to expect the Town will be exposed to entire destruction. As our fears are quieted, with regard to General Howe’s intentions, we beg we may have some assurances, that so dreadful a calamity may not be brought on by any measures without. As a testimony of the truth above we have signed our names to this Paper, carried out by Mess Thomas and Jonathan Amory, and Peter Johonnet, who have at the earnest entreaties of the Inhabitants, through the Lieu Governor solicited a flag of truce for this purpose.
John Scollay 2. Timothy Newell 3. Thomas Marshall 4. Samuel Austin
*The General Robertson mentioned above was Brigadier General James Robertson, who commanded the 4th Brigade during the Siege of Boston
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Madeline Feierstein to the blog. A bio follows the article.
John Morton (1725-1777) had a storied political career. From election to the Pennsylvania Assembly at the prime age of 31, he soared to his state’s delegation at the First and Second Continental Congress. It is made even more astounding by the fact that he is the only Founding Father with roots in New Sweden. While his political activities and civic service are well-documented, one wonders if his personal identity and family traditions left a lasting impact.
New Sweden was the Kingdom of Sweden’s attempt at a colonial settlement in the “New World.” Situated along the Delaware River, it was difficult to entice enough settlers to relocate to this wilderness. Despite its eventual absorption into the Dutch colony of New Netherland, its Swedes and Finns left behind an enduring legacy: the log cabin.
John Morton’s great-grandfather, under the original Swedish Mårtenson/Finnish Marttinen, emigrated to New Sweden in 1654. His father died the year John was born (1725), and his mother passed the same year that he died (1777).[1] Stepfather John Sketchley, a land surveyor of English extraction, appeared to have much influence on young John’s life and career. Morton married fellow Finnish heritage descendant Anne Justis and the couple had eight children who lived to adulthood. Researchers debated whether Morton knew of his Finnish roots, or if he self-identified as solely Swedish.[2] The historic high concentration of ethnic Finns alongside Swedes in the Delaware River Valley, combined with their efforts to preserve traditions, can lead one to believe that he had significant exposure to his roots – if not by his neighbors then through his wife.
By the time independence was on the table in Philadelphia, Morton had represented Pennsylvania as a native son for decades. As a descendant of New Sweden, however, his lineage predates William Penn’s control of the colony in 1681. Due to New Sweden’s brief dominance of the area, much of the original settlers’ foundations in the state have been claimed for Penn. The work of the Swedish Colonial Society and the American Swedish Museum revolves around educating on the existence and imprint of this culture on the American landscape.
Pennsylvania hotly debated the topic of independence from Great Britain. Morton saw both sides to the argument but cautiously supported disunion, believing that this division would “heal wounds” aggravated against his state by tyrannical rule. [3] Morton himself has been dubbed the “tie breaker,” due to his deciding vote – which carried his state and the rest of the Congress in favor of separation. His signatures lies under that of another famed Pennsylvanian: Benjamin Franklin.
As an American, Morton helped craft the Articles of Confederation. Sadly, he did not see his new nation come to fruition. Morton also has the accolade of being the first Founding Father to die. Passing from a lung condition (likely tuberculosis), his grave in Chester, Pennsylvania remained unmarked until an obelisk was installed by his descendants in 1845. No mention of his New Sweden roots are noted on the gravesite or monument.
While his name is etched into history as the anglicized John Morton, his familial homestead stands at Prospect Park, where a collection of New Sweden’s history has been carefully preserved. More strides have been made internationally, with Morton continuing to act as a cultural and diplomatic link between his ancestral lands and the United States. In Finland, the U.S. Embassy named a prominent room after John Morton, as well as the University of Turku with its John Morton Center for North American Studies.
Madeline Feierstein is an Alexandria, VA historian and founder of the educational and historical consulting company Rooted in Place, LLC. A native of Washington, D.C., her work has been showcased across the Capital Region. Madeline is a writer for Emerging Civil War and the National Museum of Civil War Medicine. She leads significant projects to document the sick, injured, and imprisoned soldiers that passed through Civil War Alexandria. Madeline holds a Bachelor of Science in Criminology from George Mason University and a Master’s in American History from Southern New Hampshire University. Explore her research at www.madelinefeierstein.com.
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 