Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Ben Powers
Introduction
Nathaniel Greene is renowned for leading the Southern Department during the American Revolution, achieving significant strategic results against Lords Cornwallis and Rawdon, even though he lost several battles. Historian Theodore Thayer called him “the strategist of the American Revolution.”[1] Greene carefully planned his army’s movements to maximize maneuverability, chose to fight in situations with roughly equal numbers, strengthened support from auxiliary and irregular forces, and put the British in increasingly worse positions. His main goal was to keep his army active—success meant staying in the field and avoiding severe losses. This led Cornwallis to make decisions that resulted in his defeat at Yorktown, Virginia, in October 1781. Greene’s careful coordination of military actions to achieve strategic results hinted at what would later be called “operational art,” a concept later connected to leaders like Napoleon Bonaparte and Soviet theorists.[2] Greene’s skills showed the main elements of operational art, making him more than a strategist—he was an early example of an operational artist.
Some Definitions
The “operational level of war” is a twentieth-century concept describing military activities between the tactical level (winning battles) and the strategic level (achieving national aims through armed force and other instruments of power). In current doctrine, tactics involve sequencing forces in time and space to accomplish missions like seizing terrain. Strategy is how national leaders and senior commanders use available means to achieve defined ends. The operational level connects these two, as theater commanders sequence campaigns to achieve strategic objectives, a concept relevant for analyzing Greene’s approach.
One of the first infamous miltiary units in Virginia during the American Revolution was the Culpeper Minute Men. Remebered and memorialized throughout the years, we welcome James Bish back to discuss the history of the men, the unit and what role they played in the early days of the Revolution in Virginia.
Jim will also talk about some of the upcoming commemorative events planned around the 250th anniversary of the formation of the Culpeper Minutemen. To learn more about the events, visit: https://culpepermuseum.com/culpeper-minutemen-250th-anniversay-week/ . This Rev War Revelry is recorded and will be posted to our Facebook page on Sunday, October 5th at 7pm. It will also be posted to our You Tube and Spotify channels.
Powder Magazine, Colonial Williamsburg, VA in 2025
Today marks the 250th anniversary of the Virginia Powder Alarm in Williamsburg, VA. To commemorate the anniversary, join us this Sunday, April 27th at 7pm on our Facebook page as we welcome ERW historians Rob Orrison, Mark Maloy with Maureen Wiese and J. Michael Moore to discuss the events leading up to the April 21, 1775 Powder Incident in Williamsburg, VA. A few days after Lexington and Concord (unknown to the Virginians at the time), Governor Lord Dunmore removed powder from the magazine in Williamsburg. This event led Patrick Henry to lead militia towards Williamsburg and possible standoff with the Governor. As news arrived on April 28 of the bloodshed outside of Boston, tensions rose even higher.
Join us as we discuss another 250th anniversary event that led to the beginning of the American Revolution. This podcast will be recorded and posted on our Facebook page on April 27th at 7pm. Then it will be posted to your You Tube and Spotify pages.
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Tom Elmore. Brief bio is at the bottom of the post.
When Walt Disney’s Disneyland anthology series, featuring shows inspired by the themes of the park’s sections, debuted in 1954 it ended the television season at #6 in the Nielsen television ratings and improved to #4 the next season. Much of that success was due to the Davey Crocket episodes, one of the first major television phenomena.[1]
But the series dropped to #14 in the third season and was out of the top twenty in the fourth and fifth seasons. The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) which carried the program, renamed Walt Disney Presents, pressured Disney to come up with another Crockett and more westerns which made up most of the top 20.[2]
Disney later complained that “I found myself in a straightjacket. I no longer had the freedom of action…They kept insisting that I do more and more westerns and my show became loaded…with every western myth.” Consequently, relations between Disney and ABC became strained.[3]
Disney turned to one of his passions, American history, to create a series based on the partisan leader, General Francis Marion, “the Swamp Fox,” who harassed British troops in South Carolina during the American Revolution.[4]
Not long ago, a good friend of mine found himself in Henry County, Va. Located southwest of Richmond, the county was named for the patriot, Patrick Henry, in 1777. Touring a local cemetery there, my friend came upon a very interesting headstone. It was the grave marker for a soldier of the American Revolution; a man named Thomas Pearson.
Grave of Thomas Pearson
According to the headstone, Thomas Pearson had served in the Virginia Continental Line and in May 1780, was wounded in battle against the British in South Carolina. My friend sent me a photograph of the headstone. Based on the place and date, he was hoping this Thomas Pearson had perhaps served at the battle of Camden. As a co-author of a book on Camden, I have to admit that I was quite intrigued myself.
But, based on my research for the book, I knew immediately that certain pieces of information on the man’s epitaph didn’t correspond to details of the Camden fight. First off, it indicates that Thomas Pearson served in the Virginia Continental Line. The Virginians engaged at Camden were actually not part of the Continental Line but, rather, state militia forces commanded by Gen. Edward Stevens. In fact, most of the troops of the Virginia Continental Line were captured by the British at the fall of Charleston on May 12, 1780.
The epitaph also reads that Pearson was wounded in May 1780, in South Carolina. The battle of Camden occurred later, on August 16, so most likely this gentleman wasn’t there. Still, the gravestone intrigued me. I decided to do a little research into Thomas Pearson and sadly, I was to discover that his story was a tragic one.
On November 30, 1812, at the age of 61, Thomas Pearson applied for a pension for his services in the Revolutionary War from the Commonwealth of Virginia. According to his application, he was “a soldier in the revolutionary war, belonging to the VA Line on continental establishment, and attached to the regiment commanded by Col. Abraham Buford.” Clearly, he was a veteran of the southern campaign.
In May 1780, he was indeed serving in the Virginia Continental Line, as an officer of the 3rd Virginia Detachment of Scott’s Virginia Brigade. Commanded by Col. Abraham Buford of Culpepper County, VA, the 3rd Detachment, nearly 400 strong, was marching into South Carolina to the relief of the City of Charleston, which was under siege by the British. The city fell before Buford’s column could reach it, however. Afterwards, Buford received orders from Brig. Gen. Isaac Huger to fall back to Hillsborough, NC. In Charleston, British Lt. Gen. Charles, Earl Cornwallis, who would soon assume command of all British forces in the south, learned of the existence of these Patriot reinforcements. On May 27, he sent troops in pursuit. They were mounted troops of the British Legion, mostly loyalists under the command of the infamous Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton. Throughout the southern campaign, the 26-year-old Tarleton would establish for himself a reputation for cruelty and blood lust that was unsurpassed. Some of the acts attributed to him during this period were true and some were not, but his dubious reputation would become cemented in the minds of many Americans during this episode.
Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton
Tarleton set out in pursuit of Abraham Buford’s troops on May 27, leading around 300 of his Legion dragoons, some mounted infantry, and a detachment of the 17th Light Dragoons. Having a reputation for driving his forces unmercifully, Tarleton’s troops were able to quickly catch up, and closed in on Buford’s Virginians on May 29, on the border of North and South Carolina. It was farming country here, known as the Waxhaws.
When the two forces were still some miles apart, Tarleton issued a call for surrender, under a white flag of truce. In his message he wrote: “Resistance being vain, to prevent the effusion of human blood, I make offers which can never be repeated.” After conferring with his officers, Col. Buford made the decision to refuse Tarleton’s offer. He replied: “I reject your proposals, and shall defend myself to the last extremity.” The Patriot force then continued its march north towards Hillsborough, with Tarleton’s troopers continuing the pursuit.
By mid-afternoon of the 29th, Tarleton’s lead elements caught up with Buford’s column, attacking and destroying the small rear guard. Commanding that rear guard was Lieut. Thomas Pearson. Witnesses said that Pearson was sabered and knocked from his horse. While he lay on the ground, he continued to receive wounds; his face was mangled and there were cuts across his nose, lips, and tongue. Col. Buford halted his column, deploying his infantry in a single line across an open field, east of the Rocky River Road. He then issued a questionable order: his men were told to hold their fire until the dragoons were almost on top of them and then unleash a volley at point-blank range. When the charge came, the Virginians followed orders; they held their fire until the British were about 10 yards away. While their one volley did manage to empty a few enemy saddles, it wasn’t nearly enough and now the Virginians had no time to re-load their muskets. In a flash, Tarleton’s troopers were in among the Continentals, hacking men down with their sabers, wholesale.
Quickly realizing the battle was lost, Buford sent forward a white flag of surrender. About this time, Tarleton’s horse was killed, going down and momentarily trapping its rider. Some of his nearby troops became enraged, believing the Patriots were not honoring their own white flag. These troops are said to have continued sabering Patriot soldiers as they tried to surrender. Abraham Buford and some of his troops did manage to escape the field but his command was destroyed. Continental casualties totaled around 113 killed, 147 wounded, and 50 captured. Two Patriot 6-pounder artillery pieces and 26 baggage wagons were likewise captured. Compared to this, Tarleton’s losses were negligible. The battle would long be remembered as “Buford’s Massacre” and many of the Patriot dead lie today in a mass grave at the battlefield site.
Mass Grave at the Waxhaws battle site
Banastre Tarleton’s reputation for cruelty was established at the Waxhaws. Nicknames like “Bloody Ban” and “Bloody Tarleton” began to be used to describe him and the phrase “Tarleton’s Quarter” would become a Patriot battle cry.
Even though severely wounded in this action, Lieut. Thomas Pearson managed to survive his injuries, living until 1835. He was 84 when he died; his last years were hard on him. According to his pension application, he “received sundry wounds in his head and arms, which have rendered him, in his present advanced stage of life, incapable of maintaining himself by labour (sic).” On January 12, 1813, the Commonwealth of Virginia granted Pearson’s request for relief. He received an immediate payment of $50, with an annual pension payment of $60.
Today, this Revolutionary War veteran lies at rest in a quiet cemetery in Henry County, VA.
Join us as we welcome back Dr. Steven Smith as he discusses his new book “The Battles of Fort Watson and Fort Motte, 1781.”
Dr. Smith will discuss the history of four critical weeks from April 12 until May 12, 1781, in which the tide of the Southern Campaign of the Revolutionary War turned in favor of the Americans. Focusing on General Francis Marion’s and Colonel Henry Lee’s capture of two key British forts, Fort Watson and Fort Motte, coordinating with Nathanael Greene in retaking the South Carolina backcountry. These posts defended the supply line between Charleston and the British-occupied villages of Camden and Ninety Six. Although there would be much more fighting to do, once the two forts were lost, the British had to abandon the backcountry or starve. The British would never again be on the strategic offensive and were confined to the Charleston environs until they abandoned the city in December 1782.
Smith will also discuss how archaeological investigations have helped change the interpretation and mythology of both battles. Join us for a livestream on our You Tube channel in what will be a great discussion. The video will be posted to our Facebook page at its conclusion
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Michael Aubrecht
In 1777 Thomas Jefferson and a committee of revisors came to the City of Fredericksburg for the purpose of revising several Virginia statutes. This led to Jefferson drafting the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
When Jefferson and his comrades arrived in Fredericksburg they were met with a town bristling with military activity. Troops were drilling in the public square and filled the crowded streets, buildings and shops. Awaiting travel orders were the men of the Second Virginia and the Seventh Virginia, ordered here on January 9 for a rendezvous just prior to marching to join General Washington at the front. By the time Jefferson arrived in Fredericksburg, sixty of the more than two hundred battles and skirmishes of the war had already taken place.
On February 27, 1776 Patriot and Loyalist forces faced off at Moores Creek Bridge in southeastern North Carolina. Loyalist forces anticipated support from a British army arriving along the North Carolina coast and planned to use this combination force to return British authority in North Carolina. Though, when help did not arrive, a mixed bag of North Carolina Patriots turned back an attack at Moores Creek Bridge. Their victory, combined with the Patriot victory at Great Bridge, VA in December 1775, solidified their control of North Carolina. Additionally, the Loyalist defeat served as a major deterrent for Loyalist support until the opening of the Southern Campaign four years later. This small action had long lasting impact on the entire war in the south.
Join us this Sunday night at 7pm on our You Tube Channel ( https://www.youtube.com/@emergingrevolutionarywar8217 ) as we welcome back our own ERW historian Bert Dunkerly. Bert has extensive knowledge on the history of this battle and experience working at the battlefield itself. We will discuss the complex situation leading up to the battle and how this small battle changed the war strategy in the south. Grab a drink and join in on the discussion!
The following is from David Reuwer, who was a good friend of Charles Baxley and worked with Charles to help preserve and interpret the story of Camden, Hobkirk’s Hill and South Carolina in the American Revolution. Both men shared an unmatched level of passion and enthusiasm for history.
“I never heard that,” was a common cadence with which this practical lawyer and self-taught historian responded to new information about the American Revolution in South Carolina. He both challenged the statement maker to support it and welcomed the newbie into the fellowship of the Southern Campaigns. This is how Charles B. Baxley operated with both hands – one gladly shaking an entry to join our exploits and the other cautioning you to rise to ever higher and increasing standards. He would push, exacerbate, pull, and uplift you. The Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution was created in 2004 by Charles Baxley and David Reuwer when they delineated the tripod elements of scholarship, fellowship and fun. Charles defined scholarship as building blocks of historic research, inquisition and field evidence; fellowship as to include anyone who would cite source material gone before us while presently lifting others up around us; and fun as joyfully sharing one another’s knowledgeable victories as we pursued historic adventures.
The substantive virtue Charles practiced daily was broad inclusion – come and join us! There was always another chair at the table and more room for additional players according to him. However, you had to participate somehow, to care about the commonweal, and to help others with their project needs and requests. You had to give as well as take.
Charles suffered from PAD – project aggrandizement disorder – in that he cajoled and made each of us go deeper when all the rest of us thought it had been done. He could come up with endless lists of questions when everyone else considered the subject utterly exhausted. History was neither boring, stale nor irrelevant the way Charles viewed and worked it. History is an experience, as much about the present as it was about the past. We must place our “boots on the ground” – the actual locatable sites – in order to fulfill our duties of scholarship and fellowship. Only when a little more (or a lot) is known and understood, that we can pass on, have we accomplished the tasks before us responsibly to the future generations. Charles achieved much of this by writing, sending and responding to multiplicative emails and countless phone calls while sitting in his “war room” den at home late into the night and wee morning hours.
Charles was inherently an encourager of others making us to think hard about their historic project, to question everything, to counsel with others, to be in mentorship, and to ./explore new thinking about what one is doing. His queries to you could sometimes be unnerving but if you really worked for the answers, the growth toward historic truth was rewarding. No wonder he was awarded the Order of the Palmetto by Governor Mark Sanford in 2006; no surprise in 2022 that Governor Henry McMaster appointed him the Chairman of the South Carolina American Revolution Sestercentennial Commission (SC250). He was one of the key people who took on the gigantuan task of restoring South Carolina’s Revolutionary battlefield stories into their proper place in American history since 1856 when Senator Andrew Butler vociferously debated Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
It is true that he liked chairing the Round Tables with intervening commentary and being the centrifugal point-man in most other Revolutionary War conversations. His verbal editorials were always engaging and usually enlightening.
He liked playing “director” and was sincerely effectual at connecting people with other people and endeavors with other projects. His brain was way ahead of most other thinking minds, historically, and he courteously provoked when he did. Perhaps no other single person currently had as much comprehensive breadth-and-depth knowledge about the Revolution in SC as Charles. “Learning is not virtue but the means to bring us an acquaintance with it. Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. Let these be your motives to action through life, the relief of the distressed, the detection of frauds, the defeat of oppression, and diffusion of happiness,” professed 38-year-old General Nathanael Greene, final military commander of the Southern Department during the Revolution. Charles embodied this learning for 70 plus years and shared this way to live with all the rest of us. If you were not about doing a task, he would assign you one. Charles often related that we were only as good as our current task, project or mission and persuasively demanded that we focus on it for the purpose of sharing it with others.
Our State has lost one most caring advocate of the Revolutionary founding 1770-1783 era – a hero of history. For him, it was about accurately working the historic puzzle and conclusively moving the story forward in truth. Most substantively, many of us State residents, numerous thousands of 250th out-of-state tourists, and untold future generations of all Americans will HEAR and HAVE HEARD of South Carolina’s significant persons, places, battles, and events of the Southern Campaigns because of Charles B. Baxley. Mirroring Christopher Gadsden, he lived for “What I can do for my country, I will do.”
Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest historian Eric Wiser to the blog.
This is a brief story of my first and memorable visit to the Camden Battlefield in South Carolina this September past. I am a husband and father living in the suburbs of Chicago. I make my living as an accountant. As rewarding as my career has been, it’s my strong interest in early American history that stirs my imagination. My pilgrimage to Camden was part of a visit to my friend Phil Kondos who moved to eastern Georgia with his family over a decade ago. Phil is a gifted musician and wonderful father and happens to share a mutual love of history. This narrative of our visit will hopefully inspire others to place Camden Battlefield on their bucket list.
My interest in the Battle of Camden mostly derives from having a Patriot ancestor who fought there. Pvt. Michael Wiser, a 23-year-old grist miller from Frederick County, Maryland, was with the First Maryland Brigade and captured by the British at Camden.[i]
Emerging Revolutionary War Era 