Tag: George Washington

“Rev War Revelry” A Discussion with Revolutionary Maryland historian Drew Palmer

On By Phill GreenwaltIn 1776, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Militia (Patriot) Leadership, Personalities, Rev War Revelry, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

When you think of Maryland in the American Revolutionary War, what are the first connections that come to mind? Taking a stab at it, probably the Maryland 400 during the Battle of Brooklyn in 1776? Or possibly the 1st Maryland at the Battle of Guilford Court House in 1781? If you are a national park junkie, potentially Thomas Stone National Historic Site, home of one of Maryland’s four Signers of the Declaration of Independence, may come to mind. If you are not familiar with that NPS unit, click here.

To fill in those gaps, Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes historian Drew Palmer. He is the creator of Revolutionary Maryland, which is an online public history blog that is “dedicated to uncovering and sharing all things related to the state’s experience during this transformative period.”

Palmer is a Revolutionary War historian, a U.S. high school history teacher, and the creator of Revolutionary Maryland. Palmer has worked as a public historian at numerous historic sites over the years, including Appomattox Courthouse, Fort Ticonderoga, Adams National Historical Park, and Fort McHenry National Monument and Shrine. Palmer’s research primarily focuses on the Revolutionary War in Maryland and the South. Most recently, he published his research on Fort Whetstone and the Maryland Matrosses during the Revolutionary War. He also worked with Fort McHenry to direct a short documentary on Fort McHenry’s 250 years of history. Palmer earned his B.A. in history from DeSales University in 2023 and his M.A. in applied history from Shippensburg University in 2024. He currently lives outside of Baltimore and is working on multiple research topics involving the Revolutionary War.

Emerging Revolutionary War is proud to welcome a great emerging historian of the Revolutionary War Era to the “Revelry.” We hope you can join us, live, on Sunday, April 19, at 7 p.m. EDT on our Facebook page.

“The Jeffersons & Alexandria”

On By erwguestIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Civilian, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Personalities, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

On the anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Madeline Feierstein.

Alexandria, Virginia, is famous for its presidential native son: George Washington. The Old Town has maintained its colonial charm, in spite of raging warfare and demolition waves since its founding in 1749. This port city, however, has hosted numerous other American presidents – especially Thomas Jefferson. Our third president visited and stayed in Alexandria on several occasions, and his connections to this Northern Virginia locale extended past his death in 1826.

While enroute to Philadelphia, Jefferson typically went north of Alexandria to cross the Potomac into Maryland. It was not until after the Revolution, and with his emergent friendship with George Washington, that his visits to Alexandria became regular and expected. But as an Alexandrian, I’ve heard more “town lore” about Washington’s longstanding affiliation with the city than any other president. The following accounts are not exhaustive, but they aim to spotlight the reasons for Jefferson’s presence and his impact on the city itself.

1790 was a critical year for the region. The National Capital Act was hotly debated. Where would America’s main city be located? Mayor William Hunter extended an invitation to Jefferson in March 1790 for dinner in his honor at the Fountain Tavern, which no longer stands, and where he had previously stayed.[1] At this time, his passage through Alexandria coincided with his trip to New York to assume the role of Secretary of State.

Jefferson understood Alexandria’s importance as a thriving commercial and political center, especially since the next nearest urban hubs were days away in Richmond and Baltimore. Mayor Hunter hoped that Alexandria would be in the running for capital selection, and that this dinner would confirm the statesman’s opinion: “You have returned to your native Country [from France]. Permit us the inhabitants of Alexandria to join with the rest of our fellow citizens in the warmest congratulations to you on that happy event. As a commercial town, we feel ourselves particularly indebted to you for the indulgencies which your enlightened representations to the Court of France have secured to our trade. You have freed commerce from its shackles…”[2]

In September of that year, Jefferson met with George Washington back in Alexandria to continue the discussion of where to assign the new capital. He and James Madison, along with notable figures in the Georgetown and Great Falls neighborhoods, negotiated the boundaries of the new federal city. Jefferson and Madison stayed overnight in Alexandria on September 14 before turning homeward bound.[3]

Gadsby’s Tavern is one of the most famous spots in Old Town. Famous for being the site of Washington’s farewell (to the presidency in New York), and a general meeting spot for the city’s elites, it’s no wonder that Jefferson also frequented this establishment! In January 1801, he stayed at the Tavern before his first inauguration. Ten days later, the ceremony, a banquet was held for him at Gadsby’s – and it apparently had the honor of being the “largest event ever given in the city.”[4]

There is no evidence that Jefferson came back to Alexandria after this 1801 visit. Additionally, no business interests here are documented, which is odd considering Alexandria’s reputation for commerce and industry. He appeared to prefer to travel north of the city to and from Monticello at this point, once again taking the ferry across the Potomac from Georgetown and continuing through what is now Loudon County southward. But the Jefferson connection did not end with the President’s change of scenery.

Granddaughter Virginia Jefferson Randolph Trist (1801-1882) and her husband moved to Alexandria in 1874. Her own daughter, Martha Burke, Jefferson’s great-granddaughter, resided in the city with her family. After Virginia’s husband died, she moved in with Martha until her own death.[5] Another granddaughter, Virginia’s sister, Cornelia Jefferson Randolph (1799–1871) joined niece Martha’s home, where she also died.[6]

Extensive family members of Thomas Jefferson are buried in Alexandria’s Ivy Hill Cemetery. Martha Burke’s daughter, Ellen Coolidge Burke, was quite active in the city’s civic causes. A reference and catalogue librarian, she is notable for expanding library services and opening branches in the surrounding neighborhoods.[7] A few miles away from where her great-great-grandfather wined and dined, a library was named in her honor before she died in 1975.

[1] “Washington, D.C.,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, n.d., https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/washington-dc.

[2] “Address of Welcome from the Mayor of Alexandria, 11 March 1790,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-0129.

[3] “Memorandum from Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1790,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0209.

 

[4] “George Taylor to Thomas Jefferson, 9 March 1801,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-33-02-0191.

 

[5] “Virginia Jefferson Randolph Trist,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, n.d., https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/virginia-jefferson-randolph-trist.

 

[6] “Cornelia Jefferson Randolph,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, n.d., https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/cornelia-jefferson-randolph.

 

[7] “Women’s History in Alexandria,” Office of Historic Alexandria, 19 November 2025, https://www.alexandriava.gov/historic-alexandria/womens-history-in-alexandria.

Bio:

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 Alexandria and Washington, D.C. 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.

“Brave, Meritorious, Unrewarded Kirkwood”: Unrecognized Valor in the Continental Army

On By erwguestIn 1777, Common Soldier, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Personalities, Revolutionary War1 Comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Ben Powers

If the Medal of Honor had existed during the American Revolution, which American soldiers might have received it? This is the kind of counterfactual question some of my history professors might eschew, but exactly the kind of thing I’ll debate endlessly with my pals over a burger after a day roaming a battlefield. As today is Medal of Honor Day, it’s appropriate that I share why I believe that, had the Medal of Honor existed at the time of the Revolution, there is no finer candidate for the honor than Delaware’s Robert Kirkwood.

Introduction

     I recently found myself on a Zoom call with two colleagues, discussing various aspects of the American Revolution, and the conversation turned to a trip one of them planned to take to Delaware to do some research. I immediately responded with “The Blue Hens!”, thinking of the First Delaware Regiment, and followed up by asking if he had heard of Kirkwood. My friend said he had not, thus launching me into a rundown of Captain Kirkwood’s impressive combat record. I concluded with my assessment that Kirkwood was the Continental Army’s answer to World War Two Medal of Honor recipient Audie Murphy.

     The Kirkwood/Murphy comparison is the kind of shorthand line that comes up in casual conversations about the War for Independence, a hyperbolic way of saying that a man was an excellent combat leader. But even after our call ended, the comparison stayed with me. Kirkwood had been in the fight from nearly the beginning, starting with the battles around New York City in 1776, and he had fought through to Eutaw Springs, SC, in 1781. Murphy likewise had seen hard campaigning from North Africa to Germany. Murphy had earned nine battle stars on his campaign ribbon. Had a similar honor been available to Kirkwood, he would have received six campaign stars, as the US Army classifies Revolutionary War campaigns, and he deserved at least three more. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that Kirkwood deserved a Medal of Honor.

The Medal of Honor

     The Medal of Honor is the United States’ highest award for valor, reserved for acts of conspicuous gallantry in armed conflict performed at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. In other words, if a recipient had not performed the act, their conduct would not have been considered dereliction of duty. The decoration has been awarded fewer than 3,600 times since its inception in 1861, during the American Civil War. Conservatively, 41 million people have served in the United States military since the American Revolution, making Medal of Honor recipients 0.01% of all American veterans. To say the Medal of Honor is awarded sparingly is an understatement. Approval for the award of the medal requires extensive corroboration from witnesses and multiple levels of review to meet a standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Audie Murphy received his Medal of Honor for single-handedly holding off an enemy infantry company in an action near Holtzwihr, France, in 1945. Did Kirkwood meet a similar standard of bravery during the American Revolution?

Historiography

     The most distinctive element of Kirkwood’s service is the fact that he was in it for the duration. Name a major engagement, and there is a good chance he was there. Long Island and White Plains in 1776? He’s there. The Philadelphia Campaign in ’77? Check. Likewise with Monmouth in ’78. When the Delaware Continentals moved to the southern theater in 1780, Kirkwood marched with them. From Camden to Eutaw Springs, he is in every major fight in South Carolina from 1780 to 1781. For all that service, Kirkwood was not a self-promoter. He participated in decisive fighting under Daniel Morgan at Cowpens on January 17, 1781, fighting with the Continentals against Banestre Tarleton. His journal entry recording the day’s events simply reads, “Defeated Tarleton”. Descriptions of Kirkwood’s combat exploits are sparse. So, how to go about determining his eligibility for the nation’s highest valor award?

Continue reading ““Brave, Meritorious, Unrewarded Kirkwood”: Unrecognized Valor in the Continental Army” →

Book Review: The Great Contradiction by Joseph J. Ellis

On By Phill GreenwaltIn Book Review, Civilian, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Native American, Politics, Revolutionary War, SlaveryLeave a comment

A time travel work of non-fiction to a foreign country are words usually not associated with a history of “the American Founding.” Yet that is exactly the intent of historian and author Joseph Ellis as he begins his exploration of this most important era of American history. Unlike those science-fiction journeys, this “trip will be different. Our tour will focus on the downside of the American founding.” (Pg. ix).

That downside is quickly explained by Ellis in his book The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding. The past winner of a National Book Award for his work on the character of Thomas Jefferson, Ellis plans to “focus on two unquestionably horrific tragedies the founders oversaw: the failure to end slavery, and the failure to avoid Indian removal.” (Pg. ix).

Let’s review how this seasoned historian fulfilled his tour outline. “Most of the achievements were unprecedented…” as the triumphant British colonies made “the United States the political model of the liberal state.” That is the truth, “but it is not the whole truth…” as Ellis explains, “there are two legacies of the founding era…and both qualify as enormous tragedies.” Combined, “these triumphal and tragic elements constitute the ingredients for an epic historical narrative.” Ellis’s tour will include this “coexistence of grandeur and failure, brilliance and blindness, grace and sin” in his attempt to counteract how the narrative has so long been written by historians, which is of the “either/or” persuasion (Pgs. 17-18).

Since his aim is to provide context for how the world of the founding generation is vastly different than the one that has congealed over time, Ellis quickly reorients the lodestar of that time. “As far as the American founding is concerned, it is a lie—or, if you prefer less disturbing language, a massive delusion. None of the prominent founders believed they were creating a democracy” (Pg. 17).

“The political lodestar for the revolutionary generation was not ‘the people’ but, rather, ‘the public,’ or public things” rather “the public interest was the long-term interest of the people…” (Pg. 17).

As he further develops his approach, Ellis provides parameters: “if the original sin of American history is slavery, and racism its toxic residue, the original sin for American historians is ‘presentism.” In other terms, utilizing 21st-century “political and moral values” as the criteria to assess those in the Revolutionary era (Pg. 18).

Although there are two tragedies, the role of slavery and the failure to provide a roadmap to extinction have more dedicated pages in this book than the plight of the Native Americans, and Ellis admits that early on. Discussing the saga of the potential to end slavery, the debates, factors, and ultimate outcome are propped up by astute analysis by Ellis, and uncovering primary sources to let the founders speak as often as possible. The failure to end the institution of slavery must be judged the greatest failure of the revolutionary generation.” The passing of Benjamin Franklin, the “Virginia Staddle”, and other near chances provide a fascinating, yet tragic, “what if” scenario that Ellis unpacks with brilliant prose. (Pg. 129).    

The same can be said about the early republic and the relations with Native Americans, as “there is an almost irresistible urge to wonder if the story could have turned out differently.” The failure, though, once again, is frustrating. Part of that reason was the weakness of the Federal government and the inability to “impose its will on the state of Georgia and the white population” when facing the boundary of the Creek country. Although exceptional leadership by George Washington as president and Henry Knox as secretary of war, did formulate a treaty with the Creeks, due to the lack of strength and minuscule numbers in the United States Army, “at virtually every level—logistical, economic, political—there was not the remotest chance of implementing” the treaty. As the Federal government grew and the white population expanded, this scenario would transform somewhat—the Federal government gaining strength—but the conclusion for the Native Americans, sadly, was always the same. Loss of standing and loss of land and loss of ability to dictate terms or maintain their way of life (Pgs. 166-167).

Ellis addresses the questions that lie at America’s twisted roots and, with candor and deftness, successfully rises above the presentism that he highlighted as a curse for historians and history enthusiasts, especially of the current culture wars. This narrative is a must-read to understand these pivotal questions and ultimate failures of the early American republic, which even the “sharpest minds of the revolutionary generation” could not solve.

Book Information:
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2025, 226 pages, including images, bibliography, and index
$31.00

The Attack and Defense of the Chew House: British Professionalism at Germantown

On By erwpostIn 1777, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, British Leadership, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Northern Theater, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Ben Powers. Bio follows the article.

Battle of Germantown
Painted by Xavier della Gatta, 1782
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/collection/battle-of-germantown

     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.

Continue reading “The Attack and Defense of the Chew House: British Professionalism at Germantown” →

“…to the Liberty Peace and Safety of America: Cut the Gordian knot…”

On By Phill GreenwaltIn 1776, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Battles, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Personalities, Politics, Revolutionary War, UncategorizedLeave a comment

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

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To learn more background about the letter, click here. Courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

The British Evacuation of Boston, 250 Years Ago

On By Kevin PawlakIn 1776, America 250Leave a comment

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.

 “Remember, it is the fifth of March, a day ever to be forgotten; avenge the death of your brethren,”

On By Rob OrrisonIn 1776, America 250, Battlefields & Historic Places, Campaigns, Lexington and Concord, Memory, Monuments, National Park Service, Northern Theater, UncategorizedLeave a comment

In March 1776, a quiet hill overlooking Boston Harbor became one of the first turning points of the American Revolutionary War. Dorchester Heights, rising above the southern approaches to Boston in what is now South Boston, played a decisive role in forcing the British Army to evacuate the city. The dramatic occupation and fortification of the Heights by American forces under General George Washington transformed a long, grinding siege into a strategic victory that reshaped the war’s momentum.

After the battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775 and the bloody clash at Bunker Hill in June, British forces under General Thomas Gage and then William Howe found themselves effectively trapped in Boston. Surrounding militia units from Massachusetts and neighboring colonies formed a loose ring around the city, beginning what became known as the Siege of Boston. When George Washington arrived in July 1775 to take command of the newly formed Continental Army, he inherited a force that was determined but poorly supplied and short on artillery.

Throughout the fall and winter of 1775–1776, Washington searched for a way to break the stalemate. A direct assault on Boston would have been costly and risky. Instead, he looked to geography. Dorchester Heights, commanding sweeping views of the harbor and the city, offered a strategic advantage. If American forces could fortify the Heights with cannon, they would threaten both the British fleet and the troops stationed in Boston. Control of this high ground would make the British position untenable. The British Navy had encouraged British General Howe (now commanding the British forces in Boston) to take the position due to the Navy’s vulnerability if the Americans were able to command the heights with artillery. Howe underestimated the importance of the heights and also believed the Americans lacked the proper artillery and strength to hold it.

Knox marker on Dorchester Heights

The key to Washington’s plan lay in artillery. In late 1775, Colonel Henry Knox undertook an audacious mission to transport heavy cannons captured from the British at Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York. Over the winter, Knox and his men hauled approximately 60 tons of artillery—an operation later dubbed the “Noble Train of Artillery”—over 300 miles of frozen rivers and snow-covered terrain to Cambridge, Massachusetts.

These cannons provided Washington with the firepower necessary to implement his strategy. By early March 1776, conditions were ripe. The ground was still frozen, making it easier to move heavy equipment and but would challenge their skills at building fortifications.

On the night of March 4, American troops moved silently toward Dorchester Heights. Under the cover of darkness and diversionary bombardments from other positions, they began constructing fortifications with remarkable speed. Using pre-prepared materials—fascines (bundles of sticks), chandeliers (wooden frames filled with earth), and hay bales—they built defensive works capable of withstanding British cannon fire.

By dawn on March 5, the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, British sentries were stunned to see formidable American fortifications atop the Heights, bristling with cannon aimed at the city and harbor. General Howe reportedly exclaimed that the rebels had accomplished more in one night than his army could have done in months. The strategic implications were clear. From Dorchester Heights, American artillery could rain fire down on British ships and troop positions. The Royal Navy, essential to British supply and mobility, was now vulnerable. Remaining in Boston was a risk that Admiral Molyneux Shuldham was not willing to take and pushed Howe to respond quickly.

General Howe initially planned a counterattack to dislodge the Americans. However, a fierce storm on March 6 disrupted preparations and made an amphibious assault difficult. Also, Washington got word of the planned British assault and increased his manpower on Dorchester Heights to nearly 6,000. The memory of heavy British casualties at Bunker Hill also weighed heavily. Dorchester Heights were even stronger and more defensible than Breed’s Hill had been the previous year.

Howe evacuating Boston, courtesy New York Public Library

Facing the prospect of severe losses and an increasingly precarious situation, Howe reconsidered. Negotiations—informal and indirect—suggested that if the British evacuated Boston without destroying the town, American forces would not attack during the withdrawal.

On March 17, 1776, British troops and Loyalists began evacuating the city. More than 11,000 soldiers and nearly 1,000 Loyalists boarded ships and sailed to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Siege of Boston was over, and the city was firmly in American hands for the remainder of the war.

The occupation of Dorchester Heights marked the first major strategic victory for the Continental Army under Washington’s leadership. It demonstrated the effectiveness of coordinated planning, logistical ingenuity, and the intelligent use of terrain. Rather than launching a costly frontal assault, Washington had leveraged geography and artillery to compel the enemy’s withdrawal.

This victory also boosted American morale at a critical time. The war was far from won—indeed, it would intensify dramatically later in 1776 with British campaigns in New York—but the successful eviction of British forces from Boston showed that the Continental Army could achieve meaningful results.

Moreover, Dorchester Heights solidified Washington’s reputation as a capable commander. His cautious but decisive approach, combined with Knox’s logistical triumph, set a pattern for future operations. The event underscored the importance of high ground in military strategy, a lesson that had already been evident at Bunker Hill but was applied with even greater effect in March 1776.

Dorchester Heights and the 1902 monument today, part of the Boston National Historical Park, courtesy of NPS

Morristown’s Individual Furlough Stories – Who Didn’t Go on Furlough?

On By erwguestIn Battlefields & Historic Places, Common Soldier, Continental Leadership, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Northern Theater, Personalities, Revolutionary WarLeave a comment

Part VI – Artillery & Adjutant General

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian and park ranger Eric Olsen. Ranger Olsen works for the National Park Service at Morristown National Historical Park. Click here to learn more about the park.

     What do poor health, a dead mother, a need to shop for new clothes, a pregnant wife, army business, a wife’s mental illness, family financial problems, and a desire to see family and old friends all have in common?

      They are all reasons officers gave for asking for furloughs during the winter encampment of 1779-1780.

     While the regulations and the various orders issued give us a general idea of the problems related to furloughs, we can get a different viewpoint by looking closer at the different Divisions, Brigades, and individuals who made up the army. The individual soldiers’ correspondence can also give us a more personal take on the furlough story. This paper will be far from comprehensive. It will just cover the furloughs that turn up in the surviving documentation. To make it easier to follow I have grouped the numbers and correspondence regarding furloughs by divisions and brigades.

Continue reading “Morristown’s Individual Furlough Stories – Who Didn’t Go on Furlough?” →

Philadelphia’s President House

On By Phill GreenwaltIn African-American, Battlefields & Historic Places, Emerging Revolutionary War, Memory, Personalities, Revolutionary War, Social History1 Comment

Situated one block from where independence was declared, the structure was home to two presidents as the building served as the third residence of United States presidents. Built in 1767 by Mary Masters, the home was familiar with tenants of great importance. During the American Revolutionary War, British general Sir William Howe during the British occupation of the city. Months later Benedict Arnold, then a general in the Continental Army, moved in as he served as the military governor of Philadelphia.

After the war and a disastrous house fire, Robert Morris, the great financier, purchased the property and rehabilitated the structure. When the United States capital moved to Philadelphia, Morris offered the residence to President George Washington, and the Morris family moved next door to another property. Washington insisted that Morris receive rent for the use of one of his dwellings.

Months later, in November 1790, more people arrived to inhabit the house. Though unlike those previously mentioned, these souls did not come willingly.  Washington brought eight enslaved African Americans from Mount Vernon to serve the needs of the first family, their guests, and maintain the house. One of the enslaved, Ona Judge, took the opportunity of being in a northern state to abscond from the Washingtons, never to be caught and returned. To avoid the Pennsylvania law, the Gradual Abolition of Slavery Act of 1780, which read that any enslaved person residing within the state boundaries for six months or longer owned by a non-resident would gain their freedom. Washington rotated the enslaved back to Mount Vernon in Virginia.

Besides Ona, who left the President’s House in May 1796 to gain her freedom and made her way to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. She did correspond with George and promised to return to the Washingtons’ under the condition that she would be freed upon their deaths. Belonging to Martha Washington, though, George did not have the legal right to agree to that promise. Judge created a life in New Hampshire, marrying and having three children before she passed away on February 25, 1848.

After Washington’s two-terms as president expired, John Adams, the second president of the United States, moved into the residence. On November 1, 1800, near the end of his four years, Adams relocated to the yet-unfinished White House in the new capital of the United States at Washington, D.C.

A century and a half later, the house’s remaining walls were accidentally demolished. Through the advocacy of historians and African American remembrance groups, the site was commemorated, with some of the foundation displayed under plexiglass covering. Information panels discussed those enslaved who served the house. A ghost structure showed the outline of the original structure, and the entire area was administered by the National Park Service.

The site became the center of attention again in January 2026 with the removal of those panels discussing the African American and enslaved experiences in the house that served presidents and hosted dignitaries. Their stories, though, remain as part of the fabric of the complete history of the United States. Very much including the role slavery and the enslaved played in the early American republic.

President’s House, with list of the enslaved to the left
(courtesy of the NPS)

As this blog post publishes, the plight of the panels, the history of African-Americans in general, and the enslaved at the President’s House remain a topic of conversation and controversy. Continue to check the National Park Service website (click here) or other history-focused webpages for updates. Emerging Revolutionary War encourages dialogue and discussion on this topic.