Although the New York Campaign of 1776 was not General Nathanael Greene’s finest moments during the American Revolutionary War, he did rebound and become one of the premier military strategists by the end of the conflict. His views, learned on the field of battle, the bustle of various headquarters, and the countless miles of riding and marching on campaign was summed up when he wrote the following.
“Don’t be surprised if my movements don’t correspond with your Ideas of military propriety. War is an intricate business, and people are often saved by ways and means they least look for or expect.”
Military strategy, tactics, and the war that unfolded will be the topic of discussion on our Facebook page for Sunday, July 26, and the next “Rev War Revelry.” If you miss it, check out our YouTube and podcast channels as the program will be uploaded there next week. This program will also mark the debut of the newest full-time contributor and historian with Emerging Revolutionary War, Ben Powers. Although this “Revelry” will be taped, we wanted to give a bit more background about Ben, what he has written and projects moving forward. That way you can fill the comment section with questions about both military strategy and our newest blog historian. Ben had the following to say.
“I’m honored to share a few exciting milestones in my work with Emerging Revolutionary War.
Over the past several months, I’ve had the privilege of contributing a growing body of research to ERW, including:
• “Nathaniel Greene: Washington’s Strategist or Pioneering Operational Artist” (November 2025) • “The Attack and Defense of the Chew House: British Professionalism at Germantown” (March 2026) • “Brave, Meritorious, Unrewarded Kirkwood”: Unrecognized Valor in the Continental Army (April 2026) • Review of The Wandering Army: The Campaigns That Transformed the British Way of War by Huw J. Davies (April 2026) • “Embattled Farmers or Continentals?” (July 19, 2026)
In June, Emerging Revolutionary War welcomed me as a regular contributor. I am grateful to the editors and readers for the opportunity to participate in the outstanding scholarship and public history the organization produces.
I’m also pleased to be working with the ERW team on an upcoming volume to the Emerging Revolutionary War Series that will center on Race to the Dan/Guilford for the 250th. This is a long-term project, but I am looking forward to the journey.
Whether you’re interested in Revolutionary War history, military leadership, or operational art, I hope you’ll join us for the conversation.
Thank you to everyone who has read, shared, commented on, or challenged my work. As we celebrate America’s 250th anniversary, I look forward to continuing to learn, write, and contribute to the field.”
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest writer, historian Kenneth Bancroft
Leesburg, Virginia. Tuesday, July 9, 1776. “…News that the Sanhedrim (1) had declared the thirteen united Colonies Free and Independent States. That this was intended by the Northern Colonies from the first, I am well convinced…” (2) These are not the words one expects when talking about the Declaration of Independence, but to a 26-year-old entrepreneurial Englishman caught in a revolution that he neither wanted nor supported, this was the worst news ever. (3)
The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell is an informative source on the Revolutionary War from what could be considered a ‘Tory’ point of view. It is a personal account that shows that the struggle for freedom was not just on the battlefield but also in the streets and homes at the end of the colonial era. Nicholas Cresswell was an outsider from the moment he stepped on American soil in 1774 and heard news of the siege of Boston, noting that the colonists “talk as if they were determined to dispute the matter with the Sword.” (4) For two years, Cresswell observed the American colonies descend into rebellion, “The people here are Liberty mad, nothing but war is thought of.” (5)
When the colonies officially separated, Cresswell felt despair and anger instead of hope. Cresswell’s intention was to set up life as a farmer, but misfortune and bad timing foiled his plans. He blamed the “cursed Rebellion” for turning this “earthly paradise to a Hell upon terra firma.” (6) Constantly under the suspicion of the local committees tasked with enforcing the Continental Association as a suspected ‘Tory’ spy, he grew to despise the Continental Congress as vile and hypocritical. “The Congress under the fallacious pretense of nursing the tender plant, liberty, which was said to thrive so well in American soil, have actually torn it up by the very root.” (7)
Cresswell could not help himself and always got into political discussions in the bars and houses of Virginia. “At Dinner had a long dispute with Doctor Jacson about the origin of the present proceedings…Most of the company agrees that I had the better of the argument. But never so much embarrassed in my whole life.” (8) He even chided General Washington as a yeoman farmer “Negro-driver” (9) and a and was befuddled that he kept evading General Howe. Ultimately, he did decide that he was a decent General.
In the end, Cresswell decided that Virginia, for all of its bounty, was lost and returning to England was his only option. After three years of surviving the storm of a revolution, he made his slip to British lines. While technically not a Loyalist, (10) Cresswell provides critical details on the otherwise missing narrative of Loyalism in the colonies, especially Virginia. His last act dramatically involved him in a plot to free English sailors and soldiers from a jail in Alexandria Virginia. Some of the conspirators were well known merchants in Alexandria. (11) Thankfully Cresswell’s account exists to inform how a revolution hits the home front and the profundity of independence at that time.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Marc Lee.
At first glance, it is an unremarkable accounting ledger filled with columns of figures and financial calculations. Yet hidden among its entries is the story of a Revolutionary War soldier whose compensation claim continued to circulate through Connecticut’s bureaucracy years after the fighting had ended. The surviving manuscript, together with wartime muster rolls and treasury records, allows us to follow Edmund Fowler’s claim from military service to a replacement for a lost note, revealing how the Revolution’s paperwork could outlive the war itself.[i]
The document at the center of this story is an Invoice of Officers’ and Soldiers’ Notes, Payable June 1783, a manuscript created as Connecticut settled the financial obligations left by the Revolutionary War. Rather than recording the service of a single soldier, the ledger summarizes military notes issued to officers and enlisted men, listing an aggregate amount exceeding £10,700 and bearing a notation that the account was “charged July 9, 1784.” At first glance, it appears to be little more than a routine accounting record.[ii]
Figure 1.Invoice of Officers’ and Soldiers’ Notes, Payable June 1783, showing the original heading and later accounting calculations.
A closer examination tells a different story. The manuscript remained in active use long after it was first prepared. While the principal heading and endorsements were written in one hand, later calculations were added in a different ink and by a different hand, indicating that officials returned to the account years after the notes first became payable.[iii]
Those physical clues reveal an important reality about the Revolution’s aftermath. Paying veterans was not accomplished through a single transaction. Military service had to be verified, financial obligations reconciled, and documentary evidence maintained as claims moved through the state’s accounting system. What appears to be an ordinary ledger therefore preserves part of the administrative machinery that transformed wartime service into recognized financial compensation.
Among the many entries associated with Connecticut’s officers’ and soldiers’ notes is one that allows this broader process to be examined on a human scale. Through a series of surviving military and treasury records, the documentary trail of Revolutionary War veteran Edmund Fowler can be followed from his wartime muster rolls to the postwar administration of his compensation claim, offering a rare glimpse into how one soldier’s service continued to generate paperwork long after the fighting had ended.[iv]
The ledger identifies many officers and enlisted soldiers, but one name stands out because his surviving records extend well beyond this single document. Edmund Fowler appears in a series of Connecticut military records that preserve different stages of his wartime service, allowing his postwar compensation to be traced across several distinct record groups.[v]
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historians Lori Amos Doss & Jarred Marlowe
Part 2: A Veteran in the Southern Campaign and the Road to Yorktown
In early 1781, after years of nearly continuous service, James Johnston finally set out for home on furlough. It must have been a long-awaited journey. Yet before he could reach his destination, events once again pulled him back into the war.
While passing through Prince Edward County, Virginia, Johnston learned of the difficult situation facing General Nathanael Greene in the South. British forces under Lord Cornwallis were pressing hard, and Greene’s army was in poor condition. Supplies were scarce, clothing was inadequate, and many of the soldiers were inexperienced militia. Previous defeats at Charleston and Camden had weakened the Continental presence in the region, leaving Greene with a force that struggled to match the discipline of British regulars.
Johnston understood the danger. Rather than continue home, he took action. Drawing on his experience in the northern campaigns, he recruited twelve veteran soldiers who had completed their terms of service. Together, they traveled south to join Greene. Their arrival was timely. Greene assigned them as adjutants to officers commanding Virginia militia, where their role was to help bring order and discipline to units that often lacked both.
Time was short. Cornwallis was advancing, and a major confrontation was approaching. Johnston worked to train the militia as best he could, instilling in them the habits and expectations of seasoned soldiers. The results became clear at the Battle of Guilford Court House on March 15, 1781.
Greene arranged his army in three lines. The North Carolina militia formed the first, the Virginia militia the second, and Continental regulars the third. When the British advanced, the North Carolina militia broke quickly, some retreating without firing. The Virginia militia, however, held their ground. They fought with determination and inflicted significant casualties on the advancing British.
Although Greene eventually ordered a withdrawal, the battle came at a high cost for Cornwallis. His army suffered heavy losses, weakening his campaign in the South. Later observers noted the steadiness of the Virginia militia, and some accounts credited Johnston and his fellow veterans with helping prepare them for that moment.
After the battle, Johnston returned home at last, reuniting briefly with his family after years away. But the war was not yet finished, and his rest did not last long. Within days, he learned that Lafayette was now operating in Virginia and facing British forces under William Phillips and Benedict Arnold. Once again, Johnston chose to return to service.
July 9-10, 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the actions at Gwynn’s Island, Virginia. Located in Mathews County, Gwynn’s Island became the last post that Lord Dunmore and his small force of Loyalists and British Regulars could hold in Virginia. The battle marked the end of Lord Dunmore’s military campaign in Virginia and helped secure Patriot control of the colony. Lord Dunmore’s force consisted of Loyalists, British soldiers, and former slaves who had accepted his promise of freedom in exchange for military service.
Thomas Jefferson drew this sketch of Gwynn’s Island in July 1776, Library of Congress
After several raids along Virginia’s coastline, Dunmore established a base on Gwynn’s Island in the Chesapeake Bay. Patriot leaders viewed the island as a threat because it allowed British forces to launch attacks on nearby communities. Brigadier General Andrew Lewis led approximately 1,200 Virginia militia to confront Dunmore’s forces. Lewis positioned artillery on the mainland opposite the island and began a bombardment on July 9, 1776. The Patriot cannon fire damaged British defenses, destroyed supplies, and caused significant casualties.
Disease also weakened Dunmore’s camp. Smallpox had spread among his soldiers and supporters, reducing their ability to defend the island effectively. Facing continuous artillery fire and the effects of illness, Dunmore decided to abandon Gwynn’s Island. During the night of July 9–10, British ships evacuated the remaining troops, leaving the Patriots in control. Dunmore’s force suffered minimal casualties during the battle (including Lord Dunmore suffering a minor injury when his ship was struck), but they were decimated by the diseases that plagued his force. About 400 to 500 former slaves people in the Ethiopian Regiment and roughly 150 white loyalists died of disease. Many dying were left behind when Dunmore left the island. The reported conditions on the island were horrible.
The victory at Gwynn’s Island effectively ended organized British and Loyalist efforts to regain control of Virginia during the early years of the Revolution. Although British naval raids continued along the coast, Dunmore never returned to lead another campaign in the colony. The battle strengthened Patriot confidence, protected Virginia from an immediate British threat, and allowed the colony to focus on supporting the broader struggle for American independence. Today, the island is still a rural recreational retreat for many, recently interpretation about the battle and its history have been installed to tell the important story of what took place there in July 1776.
Join us this Sunday at 7pm on our Facebook page to view the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence through the eyes of an English traveler who visited Virginia from 1774-1777. Nicholas Cresswell’s daily diary is a researchers dream into daily life during the American Revolution and understanding an Englishmen’s point of view. We welcome historian and blogger Ken Bancroft as he talks about Cresswell’s life and his reaction to hearing about the Declaration of Independence. Ken Bancroft manages the website “The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell – Celebrating the 250th Anniversary Every Day” found at: https://nicholascresswell.wordpress.com/ . This Revelry is pre-recorded and will be posted to our Facebook page on Sunday, July 12th at 7pm and then to our You Tube Channel.
Have you ever heard of the popular saying, “No good deed goes unpunished?”
I wonder if there is a reverse to that, especially when it comes to stumbling into history?
Earlier in June, my uncle needed to go out of town and wanted someone to watch his house and two cats. He resides outside of Wilmington, Delaware. Thinking mid-June would be a good time to catch some of the historical sites in Philadelphia on the brink of the 250th in July, and with World Cup soccer games being played in the same city, even better.
I planned to go into the “City of Brotherly Love” one day, but thought the other day I would just drive around Wilmington and New Castle and see what I could discover. A day with no set plans. And that is when I stumbled into “Separation Day” in New Castle.
On June 12, 1776 in Williamsburg, Virginia, the Fifth Virginia Convention took a momentous step in defining new American liberty. The Virginia Declaration of Rights stands as one of the most influential political documents in American history. Adopted on June 12, 1776, it established a comprehensive statement of individual liberties and principles of government at a pivotal moment in the struggle for independence from Great Britain. Written primarily by George Mason, the Declaration articulated ideas about natural rights, popular sovereignty, freedom of the press, religious liberty, and the limits of governmental power. Its impact extended far beyond Virginia, influencing the United States Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights emerged during a period of revolutionary change. Colonists increasingly believed that British policies violated their rights as Englishmen and threatened their political freedoms. In response, revolutionary leaders sought not only independence but also a clear statement of the principles upon which a new government would rest. The Virginia Declaration of Rights provided such a foundation, becoming a landmark in the development of democratic governance and constitutional liberty.
Virginia played a leading role in this revolutionary process. The colony possessed many influential political thinkers who believed that government existed to serve the people and protect their rights. When Virginia’s Fifth Convention met in Williamsburg in the spring of 1776, delegates recognized the need to define the principles that would guide the formation of a new state government. Before drafting a constitution, they decided to establish a declaration of rights that would set limits on governmental authority and affirm the liberties of citizens.
George Mason, a respected Virginia planter and political philosopher, was tasked with preparing the document. Drawing upon Enlightenment ideas, English constitutional traditions, and colonial experiences, Mason produced a draft that would become the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Born in 1725, Mason was a wealthy landowner and self-educated scholar who developed strong views regarding individual liberty and responsible government.
George Mason, Courtesy Encyclopedia of Virginia
Unlike some of his contemporaries, Mason was deeply concerned about the concentration of political power. He believed that governments derived their authority from the consent of the governed and that citizens possessed inherent rights that no government could legitimately violate. His ideas reflected the influence of Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, who argued that individuals possessed natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
Mason’s draft underwent revisions by the Convention, but its essential principles remained intact. His work established a model for future declarations and constitutional protections. Although Mason later refused to sign the United States Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights, his ideas eventually shaped the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights contains sixteen sections, each addressing specific political and civil principles. Together, they create a coherent philosophy of government centered on liberty and popular sovereignty.
The first article is perhaps the most famous. It declares that all men are by nature equally free and independent and possess inherent rights that cannot be surrendered when entering society. These rights include the enjoyment of life and liberty, the means of acquiring property, and the pursuit of happiness and safety.
This statement represented a significant departure from traditional notions of government based on inherited privilege or monarchy. Instead, it asserted that rights existed before government and that government existed primarily to protect those rights.
The concept of natural rights became a cornerstone of American political thought. Thomas Jefferson echoed these ideas in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights.
Another fundamental principle is the idea that political power originates with the people. The Declaration states that government is instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community.
This concept, known as popular sovereignty, rejects the doctrine of divine-right monarchy. According to the Declaration, rulers derive their authority from the consent of the governed rather than from hereditary privilege or divine appointment. If a government becomes destructive of the public welfare, the people have the right to reform, alter, or abolish it.
These ideas helped justify the American Revolution and became essential features of democratic government. The Declaration emphasizes the importance of dividing governmental authority among different branches. It argues that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be separate and distinct.
The purpose of this separation is to prevent tyranny and protect liberty. By ensuring that no single branch accumulates excessive power, the government can maintain accountability and preserve individual rights. This principle later became a central feature of both state constitutions and the United States Constitution.
The Declaration asserts that elections should be free and that citizens who have a permanent interest in and attachment to the community possess the right to vote and participate in government. Free elections are essential to representative government because they enable citizens to hold leaders accountable and ensure that governmental authority reflects the will of the people.
Several sections of the Declaration protect individuals against arbitrary government action. These provisions guarantee due process of law, prohibit excessive bail and cruel punishments, and affirm the right to a fair and impartial trial. Such protections reflect concerns about abuses of power by government officials. By requiring legal procedures and impartial justice, the Declaration seeks to safeguard individual liberty against arbitrary authority.
These principles later influenced the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Declaration proclaims that freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained except by despotic governments. This provision recognizes the importance of an independent press in informing citizens, exposing abuses of power, and promoting public debate. The protection of press freedom became an essential component of democratic society and influenced the First Amendment.
George Mason’s hand written copy of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Courtesy Library of Virginia
The final section of the Declaration addresses religion and conscience. It states that religion can be directed only by reason and conviction rather than force or violence and that all individuals are entitled to the free exercise of religion.
Although the original language was somewhat limited, it represented a major step toward religious freedom. James Madison later strengthened these principles in Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom and in the First Amendment’s protections for religious liberty.
Thomas Jefferson drew heavily from Mason’s language and ideas when drafting the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration’s assertion that all men are by nature free and possess inherent rights closely parallels Jefferson’s statement that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. Similarly, the Virginia Declaration’s emphasis on government deriving its authority from the people and the right of citizens to alter or abolish oppressive governments appears prominently in the Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps the Declaration’s greatest legacy lies in its influence on the United States Bill of Rights. When delegates met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they created a new federal government but did not initially include a bill of rights. This omission concerned many Americans, including George Mason, who feared that the new government might threaten individual liberties.
The ensuing debate led to the adoption of the first ten amendments in 1791. James Madison, drawing heavily upon Virginia’s constitutional traditions, proposed amendments that reflected many principles found in Mason’s Declaration.
Examples include:
Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly.
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Guarantees of due process.
Rights to fair and speedy trials.
Prohibitions against excessive bail and cruel punishments.
The parallels between the Virginia Declaration and the Bill of Rights are unmistakable. Many of the liberties Americans enjoy today can be traced directly to Mason’s work.
Despite its significance, the Virginia Declaration of Rights contained important limitations and contradictions. Political participation was largely restricted to property-owning white males. Women, slaves, Native Americans, and many others were excluded from the political community envisioned by the document. These contradictions highlight the gap between revolutionary ideals and social realities. Over time, however, reformers and civil rights advocates invoked the Declaration’s principles to challenge inequality and expand the scope of liberty.
More than two centuries after its adoption, the Virginia Declaration of Rights remains a landmark in constitutional history. It was among the first modern documents to articulate a comprehensive set of individual rights and establish the principle that government exists to serve the people.
Its influence can be seen not only in American constitutional law but also in international human rights traditions. Documents such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and later human rights instruments reflect similar commitments to liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty.
The Declaration’s enduring significance lies in its assertion that rights are inherent to human beings and that governments must respect and protect those rights. These principles continue to shape democratic societies around the world 250 years later.
Depicted in various paintings, still standing watch over Breed’s Hill, his name is synonymous with the heroic American defense of the earthen redoubt that graced the aforementioned hill. Although forced to evacuate the work when overwhelmed by the third British advance and out of ammunition, Prescott had shown his value as a competent battlefield leader. Especially of the militia.
Yet, as America approached the 250th anniversary of the country, there had not been a single dedicated biography that covered his entire life. Prescott is mentioned in plenty of great historical works on the battle, the region, and the lives of other patriots who fought that day. But the Massachusetts native deserved more. Entered Donald R. Ryan.
Ryan, a volunteer historian and guide for Boston National Historical Park, took on the task of researching, locating, and even contacting living descendants of Prescott. You can now hold in your hands and read his excellent work on this great military figure, best known for his role in one of the most iconic battles of the American Revolution.
Before you do get your copy and settle in to read, tune in on Sunday evening, as Ryan will appear on our popular “Rev War Revelry” to discuss his book. Emerging Revolutionary War will go live at 7 p.m. EDT. and stream to our Facebook page.
Cannot make the live program on Sunday evening? Don’t fret, the program will be posted to our podcast and YouTube channels in the days after. Either way, hope you tune in to learn about Col. Prescot!
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Bjorn Bruckshaw
On a chilly but sunlit afternoon in Providence, smoke began to rise over Market Square—not from hearth fires meant to warm the town, but from a blaze built in defiance. As the smell of burning tar and tea drifted through the streets, cheers and shouts of defiance echoed through the square. Nearby, a man moved quickly from shop to shop, brush and lampblack in hand. One by one, he painted over a single word on storefront signs: TEA. This was no act carried out in secret. According to the Providence Gazette, he was “a spirited Son of Liberty,” and he worked in full view of the town as a crowd gathered around the growing fire.¹
Just beyond him, the protest had already begun.
Earlier that day, a town crier had moved through Providence announcing that a quantity of India tea would be burned in the Market Square that afternoon, calling upon “all true friends of their country, lovers of freedom, and haters of shackles and hand-cuffs” to assemble and cast the tea into the flames.² By the appointed hour, the square was filled. This was no spontaneous outburst. It was organized, deliberate, and intended to be seen.
At the center of the gathering, flames climbed upward as a barrel of tar was placed upon the fire. Into it were thrown not only tea—hundreds of pounds of it—but also printed copies of Lord North’s speech and other “obnoxious English papers.” ³ the destruction was more than economic protest. It was a public repudiation of British authority itself. And then came the moment that set Providence apart.
These were not men disguised as Mohawk Indians, shrouded in secrecy under the cover of night as in Boston. This was something different—an open, public act carried out in daylight. At its center stood the women of Providence, dressed in everyday clothing, without disguise, stepping forward with the same patriotism and candor to cast the tea into the flames before the gathered town.⁴
In that moment, the Providence Gazette captured one of the most remarkable features of the event, noting that the tea was “fed to the fire by the women of the town.”⁵ Women, long central to colonial resistance through boycotts and the management of household consumption, now stood in the public square, actively participating in the destruction itself. This was not quiet resistance confined to the home. It was visible, communal, and unmistakable.
The prominence of women in the Providence protest did not go unnoticed beyond Rhode Island. In Virginia, the event was reported in the Virginia Gazette, where the destruction of tea was described in strikingly gendered and satirical terms. The article referred to the event as the “funeral of Madam Souchong,” personifying the tea as a female figure while simultaneously reinforcing contemporary stereotypes about women.⁶ In doing so, the report transformed the protest into a symbolic spectacle, revealing how acts of resistance in one colony could be interpreted—and reshaped—by observers in another.
Rhode Island had already established itself as one of the most defiant colonies in British North America. Its long-standing resistance to imperial regulation, fueled by its maritime economy and frequent clashes with customs enforcement, made it a persistent source of frustration for British authorities. Loyalist observers took note. Writing during the conflict, Peter Oliver described resistance in New England as the work of “lawless men” driven by mob influence, portraying their actions as rooted in disorder rather than lawful opposition.⁷ British officials expressed similar concerns in the aftermath of the Gaspee Affair, viewing the destruction of the customs schooner as a “daring insult to the authority of the Crown” and evidence that resistance in Rhode Island had reached a dangerous level.⁸ In June 1772, that defiance became unmistakable when local patriots burned the Gaspee, a British vessel sent to enforce imperial law.
The British response only deepened colonial fears. Officials threatened to transport suspected participants to England for trial, raising concerns about the erosion of traditional rights and legal protections.⁹ In Rhode Island, the lesson was clear: British authority was not only intrusive but increasingly dangerous.
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 