The Battle of Monmouth

The Battle of Monmouth

Objectives:

·         SWBAT identify the factors that eventually led to victory for the colonists in the American Revolution.

·         SWBAT demonstrate mastery of concepts through answering questions verbally, whiteboard practice, and/or games.

Sources/Handouts that will be used for discussion/evaluation for this lesson:

·         Source #1 Monmouth Morning

·         Source #2 Monmouth Afternoon

·         Source #3 Washington Rallying the Troops at Monmouth; in 1857, Emanuel Leutze painted this for the Monmouth County Historical Association.

·         Source #4 Christopher Geist, “Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia: Thoughts on Eighteenth-Century Military Tactics,” http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter08/tactics.cfm

·         Source #5 Matrix

·         Source #6 Pennsylvania Rifle – British Infantry Musket

Review—Key Question (s):

·         What did Washington hope to accomplish by bringing von Steuben to Valley Forge?

Suggested Key Discussion Points/Questions:

·         Had Washington been an effective military commander and motivator of his troops? How had he become so popular?

The Battle of Monmouth

After Valley Forge and Frederick von Steuben’s training the Battle of Monmouth proved to be a test of their ability to employ European battlefield tactics. The Battle of Monmouth was an American Revolutionary War battle fought on June 28, 1778, in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The Continental Army under General George Washington attacked the rear of the British Army column commanded by Lieutenant General Sir Henry Clinton as they left Monmouth Court House.

Summary of the morning

Unsteady handling of lead Continental elements by Major General Charles Lee had allowed British rearguard commander Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis to seize the initiative, but Washington's timely arrival on the battlefield rallied the Americans along a hilltop hedgerow.

Source #1 Monmouth Morning

Summary of the afternoon

Sensing the opportunity to smash the Continentals, Cornwallis pressed his attack and captured the hedgerow in stifling heat. Washington consolidated his troops in a new line on heights behind marshy ground, used his artillery to fix the British in their positions, and then brought up a four-gun battery under Major General Nathanael Greene on nearby Combs Hill to enfilade the British line, requiring Cornwallis to withdraw.

Source #2 Monmouth Afternoon

Washington, advancing with the main force along the Monmouth road and not having been informed of the retreat of Lee's men, encountered Lee's fleeing troops and finally Lee himself, with the British in hot pursuit. After a heated exchange with Lee, Washington relieved him of command and sent him to the rear. He then galloped to rally Lee's troops. His white horse died from heat exhaustion, and so he picked up a chestnut mare. He stopped the retreating soldiers, commanding them, "Stand fast, my boys, and receive your enemy. The Southern troops are advancing to support you." The men rallied and delayed the British pursuit until the main force could take up positions further to the west.

Source #3 Washington Rallying the Troops at Monmouth; in 1857, Emanuel Leutze painted this for the Monmouth County Historical Association.

The remnants of Lee's forces then withdrew to the main American force, where the Continental Army troops were positioned behind the West Ravine on the Monmouth Courthouse - Freehold Meeting House Road; Lee, in spite of the chastisement he had been dealt by Washington, remained at the bridge until he had ushered the last of the soldiers across the Ravine. Washington drew up his army with Greene's division on the right, Major General Stirling’s division on the left, and most of Lee's former force, now under Lafayette, in reserve. In front of his lines, Wayne commanded various elements of Lee's force. Artillery was placed on both wings, with the right wing in position to enfilade the advancing British.

The British came on and attacked Stirling's left wing with their light infantry and the 42nd (Black Watch) Regiment in the van. They were met by a storm of fire from Stirling’s Continentals. The battle raged back and forth for an hour until three American regiments were sent though woods to enfilade the attacking British right flank. The attack was successful and sent the British back to reform.

Foiled on the left, Cornwallis personally led a heavy attack against Greene's right wing, with a force comprising British and Hessian grenadiers, light infantry, the Coldstream Guards and another Guards battalion, and the 37th and 44th Regiments. The attack was met by enfilading fire from Thomas-Antoine de Mauduit du Plessis’s four 6-pound cannons on Combs Hill, as well as accurate volleys from Greene's Continental regiments. The British persisted up the ravine slope but within minutes five high-ranking officers and many men were down from heavy fire. The attackers recoiled down the slope.

During Cornwallis' abortive attack on Greene, another British force made up of grenadiers, light infantry and light dragoons hit Wayne's forward force, who were protected behind a long hedge. Three times the British were driven back by Wayne's grapeshot and bullets: but an overwhelming fourth attack overlapped Wayne's position and forced his units to fall back to the main American line.

The British made no further attempts on the main American line, although cannonading from both sides continued until 6 p.m. At this point, the British fell back to a strong position east of the Ravine. Washington wanted to take the offensive to the British and attack both flanks, but darkness brought an end to the battle.

The British rested and then resumed their march to the northeast during the night. Washington wanted to press the battle the next day but in the morning found that the British had withdrawn during the night, continuing their march without incident to Sandy Hook and arriving there on June 30. Clinton's rearguard successfully covered the withdrawal. The British force was then transported by the Royal Navy across Lower New York Bay to Manhattan.

The British official casualty return reported 65 killed, 59 dead of "fatigue", 170 wounded and 64 missing. The American official return stated 69 killed, 161 wounded and 132 missing (37 of whom were found to have died of heat-stroke). Other estimates increase the losses to 1,134 British and 500 American casualties.

The battle effectively ended in a draw, as the Americans held the field, but the British were able to get the army and supplies safely to New York.

Source #4 Christopher Geist, “Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia: Thoughts on Eighteenth-Century Military Tactics.”

Why did Revolutionary Era armies face one another at less than a hundred yards in tight formations, three ranks deep, firing volley after volley? As they shot, they moved closer together, often closing the fight with a bayonet charge as one force drove the other from the field. Clumped, the soldiers seemingly offered their foes a classic “sitting duck” target. But this was true of both sides. Why then did eighteenth-century armies adopt such tactics?

American officers with prior military experience had learned the art of warfare under British commanders in the French and Indian War and other North American actions. Certainly, this was true of George Washington and many of his staff. . . .  

Why then did eighteenth-century armies adopt “sitting duck” tactics?

The answer is in the arms the armies used. The smoothbore military musket—the English version came to be known as the Brown Bess—is often maligned for inaccuracy, though the weapon was true enough at short range, say less than eighty yards. Yet accuracy was not at all the issue. Rate of fire, with companies firing in volley, gave muskets their military advantage. A well-drilled company could load and fire in unison at least four times a minute, and some seasoned units probably did better. No soldier aimed his weapon at any single adversary. He “presented” his weapon straight ahead, or obliquely to the right or left, at the command of his officers, and fired in unison with his company as rapidly as possible.

As a modern historian has written,

“Speed was everything. Speed for the defending force to pour as many bullets into the attacking force as possible; speed for the attacking force to close with its adversary before it had been too severely decimated to have sufficient strength to carry the position. . . .”

Linear positioning and rapid volleys explain the significance of the contributions to the American cause of Baron Friedrich von Steuben. Joining Washington’s regulars in their winter encampment at Valley Forge in February 1778, the German baron somewhat simplified the British manual of arms and used the new manual to drill the Continental force relentlessly and effectively in rapid loading and firing of the musket. He improved their battlefield maneuverability, too. Historian Douglas Southall Freeman called von Steuben the “first teacher” of the American army.

Rapidity of fire—sending constant, coordinated volleys in the direction of the enemy—was infinitely more important than the accuracy of any individual’s musket. Such firepower was hard to achieve unless the men were arrayed in open terrain and organized by company. So much for rocks and trees.

Source #5 Matrix

What about those rifles? These formidable firearms had been in use for about a hundred years before the Revolution, and they were plentiful in the southern and middle colonies, though relatively rare in New England. True enough, they were more accurate and effective at greater distances, several hundred yards, than were military muskets. But accuracy came at a price: rifles took too long to load. A minute or more was needed to tightly “patch” the ball and carefully ram it down the barrel to engage the rifled grooves that spun the ball and gave it true trajectory.

Moreover, unlike the riflemen, musketmen did not carry the powder horns used in the time-consuming measurement of powder for each charge. A musket’s charge, along with the ball, was measured and encased in a paper cartridge. The wrapper served as the ball’s wadding when it was quickly, though loosely, thrown down the barrel and pushed home with the rammer. The comparative sluggishness of reloading a rifle rendered it unsatisfactory for linear military tactics. Interpreter Dale Smoot says during his Magazine presentations, “Rifles are fine weapons for shooting at things that don’t shoot back—like deer.”

There was another problem with rifles and, indeed, all civilian long arms of the period. They were not fashioned to accommodate bayonets, an essential weapon of eighteenth-century infantry. Regular forces moved into lines of battle with bayonets fixed. Military bayonets were offset from the muzzle to permit loading and firing with the bayonets in place, always ready for a charge to force the enemy from the field. Civilian weapons might be equipped with plug bayonets, essentially knives with wooden plugs to be inserted into the barrel of the firearm, rendering it incapable of firing.

Source #6 Pennsylvania Rifle – British Infantry Musket

Follow-up/Assessment Questions:

·         Did the Battle of Monmouth demonstrate that the Continentals could stand in European battle formation and oppose the British face-to-face? (Various: the Revolution was fought in a variety of environments and conditions. Massed forces, British and patriot, in linear formations fought the battles of Long Island, Brandywine, Monmouth, Hobkirk’s Hill, White Plains, Germantown, Camden, and Cowpens, among others. Sometimes, as these engagements evolved, one side or the other retreated in disarray, and some soldiers sought protection behind fences or trees or other defensive barriers. But the battle plans developed by the generals relied on linear tactics in the European fashion that dominated eighteenth-century warfare. Most battles intentionally initiated by either side in the Revolution were planned and contested with traditional European linear tactics. Little would change until the invention of the rifled musket and the Minnie ball shortly before the American Civil War).

·         Had the Continentals met the British in open field and forced them to retreat? (The British disengaged and did not face Washington the next day).

·         Monmouth was the last major battle in the northern theater and the largest one-day battle of the war when measured in terms of participants. How significant is the Battle for the war effort? For the field leadership of Washington? (It was a test of von Steuben’s drilling and tactics. Washington relieved Lee of command and took charge on the battlefield.).

·         What do you think should happen to Lee? (Lee was later court-martialed).

·         Finally, the legend of “Molly Pitcher” is usually associated with this battle. It is believed that she was Mary Ludwig Hays. According to one story, she was the wife of an American artilleryman who lived near the battlefield, bringing water for swabbing the cannons and for the thirsty crews, and took her husband's place after he fell, and helped him with his wounds. The artillery men gave her the nickname "Molly Pitcher" when she was bringing them water from a nearby spring. The story is based on a true incident but has become embellished over the years.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”

Leviticus 24:19-21; Exodus 21:22-25; Deuteronomy 19:16-21

            This is one of the most well-known expressions from the book that is most responsible for creating Western civilization: the Bible. After all, it was Western civilization that created societies rooted in individual liberty, engrained in democracy, that affirmed the equality of all people, and which gave the world the notion of universal human rights.

            Of course, these ideals were often violated. But only the West formulated these ideals, let alone achieved them — and then spread them around the world.

In the last half century, however, many of the recipients of these gifts — especially the well-educated — no longer regarded Western civilization as morally superior to any other.  And as reverence for Western civilization fell, so did reverence for the source of that civilization.

The Bible has not only been neglected, but reviled — as a foolish fairy tale at best, and as an immoral work at worst. This view springs not from intellectual rigor, but from intellectual laziness.

People throw out all sorts of objections to the Bible as if there are no rational and moral responses to those objections. But the fact is there are rational and moral responses to all those objections.

Dennis Prager provides many rational and moral responses in his book, The Rational Bible, but two are provided here.

In the biblical book of Deuteronomy, it says if someone has a rebellious  son  who does not obey his father and mother, his parents can take him to the elders of the city for judgment. And if the son is found guilty, the citizens are to stone him to death.

Sounds pretty primitive, doesn’t it?

In fact, however, it was an enormous moral leap forward. This law ended — forever — parental ownership of their children, and with it the right to kill them.  The brilliance of this law was that it seemed to preserve the absolute authority of parents, but in fact ended it.

But, you will respond, the citizens of the city could still kill the child. Theoretically, that was true. But we have no instance of it ever happening in the history of the Jews — the people who brought the book into the world and lived by its rules.

Critics of Western religion also often cite the famous biblical law, “an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,” etc. as another example of an immoral biblical law.

But this law — known by its Latin name, lex talionis, the law of retaliation — was another great moral advance. It was not meant to be taken literally, and it never was — for the simple reason that it’s impossible to exactly duplicate bodily harm. Only “a life for a life” was meant literally and taken literally: there is capital punishment for premeditated murder.

So, then, what did it mean?

For one thing, lex talionis is the ultimate statement of human equality. Every person's eye is as precious as anyone else's. The eye of a prince is worth no more than the eye of a peasant. This was completely new in history. The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, for example, legislated that the eye of a noble was of much greater value than the eye of a commoner.

Second, the principle of “an eye for an eye” ensured only the guilty party was punished for his crime. In other law codes and in common practice, if you killed someone's daughter, your daughter would be killed. That was expressly prohibited in the Bible and by the "eye for an eye" code. Now the killer would be punished, not the killer’s daughter.

Third, lex talionis prohibited unjust revenge. In the ancient world, if a man gouged out another man’s eye, the victim, if he could, would gouge out both the attacker’s eyes, or kill him, or hurt his children, and so on. In contrast, “eye for an eye” ensured the victim receive appropriate compensation for the damages he suffered, but the punishment had to fit the crime.

The next time you read or hear someone argue that the Bible is irrational or immoral, tell them how the stone-the-rebellious-son law ended parental killing of children and how the "eye for an eye" law struck a unique blow for human equality and justice.

If they're intellectually honest, they’ll admit that they have learned something new.

Adapted from Dennis Prager.

Texts and Violence in the Roman World.

Texts and Violence in the Roman World.

The Journey of Christianity to India in Late Antiquity. Networks and the Movement of Culture

bmcreview.org

Chinese Students

asian-studies-scholars-discuss-politics-shaping-overseas-chinese-student-wave