Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 2nd Continental Congress "created" a colonial army and navy. It tried to finance the war. It had overseas agents who attempted to guide several foreign countries to support the colonial effort, for example Benjamin Franklin in France.
But did it ever become involved in strategic (or tactical) military decisions? Did George Washington ever consult with this Congress before he made important strategic decisions?
I've read several books that cover the period the 2nd Continental Congress (at least in part) sat, but there is scant mention of this issue.
The Second Continental Congress's role in the strategy of the American Revolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89
The 2nd Continental Congress "created" a colonial army and navy. It tried to finance the war. It had overseas agents who attempted to guide several foreign countries to support the colonial effort, for example Benjamin Franklin in France.
But did it ever become involved in strategic (or tactical) military decisions? Did George Washington ever consult with this Congress before he made important strategic decisions?
I've read several books that cover the period the 2nd Continental Congress (at least in part) sat, but there is scant mention of this issue.
Well they had a big role in running the Continental Army and Navy, including the appointment and dismissal of key officers. This often led to problems because politics sometimes became involved. For instance which state a officer was from sometimes became more important then say, merit. I can remember at least two Generals who were dismissed by Congress partially for political reasons; Israel Putnam and Philip Schuyler.
With Putnam, mistakes in strategy also played a role in why he was demoted. But just about every American general made mistakes in the Revolution, including George Washington. In any case, the colorful Israel Putnam remains a hero in his home state of Connecticut. And New Yorkers also showed what they thought of Putnam by naming the Hudson Highlands area he defended Putnam County.
Philip Schuyler was the commander of the Northern Army (basically defending New York and Vermont from invasion from Canada). He faced the infamous three pronged British assault in 1777 and he had to plan to move his outnumbered and outsupplied forces back and forth in different directions. He was also being undermined politically in Congress by General Horatio Gates who wanted his job (Gates was also plotting for Washington's job!). When Ticonderoga fell, Congress dismissed Schuyler and gave the position to Gates. A few months later came the American Victory at Saratoga but even though Gates was the American commander, much credit should go to the dismissed Schuyler who managed to get the troops moving to their right destinations.
Is this covered in any single monograph you have read, or is the information scattered around in in books and journals?
Mostly books. Thirty years of reading and loving history (since I was a teenager). So that means that I often do not remember where exactly I seen or heard something. Not to mention that I sometimes may also be mixing up different people & places and maybe even entire wars!
However, the Internet can also be a frustrating place for history. You know that people say you can always find everything on the Net? Well sometimes they are wrong, especially if you have a very unusual question and want some kind of extra detailed answer.
So to answer your question, I do not see an exact source material on the net but instead I was going by memory that Generals Schuyler and Putnam were effected by the politics of the Continental Congress. Another example might be General John Stark of New Hampshire who felt he was being passed over for promotion, at least partially for political reasons. I would not be surprised if there were others.
Here is an Internet source with an example of some of the politics involved with the Continental Congress and the Continental Army. In this case, it was the possibility of replacing George Washington with someone else! Note how Horatio Gates is involved in it again.
From what I've read which is admittedly not extensive, it seems the 2nd C.C. gave Washington a free hand to do what he wanted. However Washington did complain to them that they were not providing enough funds. There was also poor communications at the time and there were a lot of spies, so a lot of communication back and forth wouldn't have been practical.
Didn't Washington recruit a few regiments with his own money, outside the authority of Congress? I read this recently but haven't had time to verify it.
From what I've read which is admittedly not extensive, it seems the 2nd C.C. gave Washington a free hand to do what he wanted. However Washington did complain to them that they were not providing enough funds. There was also poor communications at the time and there were a lot of spies, so a lot of communication back and forth wouldn't have been practical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VM1138
Didn't Washington recruit a few regiments with his own money, outside the authority of Congress? I read this recently but haven't had time to verify it.
After becoming President, Washington was clearly a Federalist.
His experiences commanding the Continental Army were the critical factor for why he opted to become a Federalist instead of anti-Federalist as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were.
The experience at Valley Forge in the winter where Washington struggled to keep an army together that was suffering from cold, lack of good clothing, and even adequate food lead him inevitably towards a more powerful central government. One document that I came across during my reading of history was a letter that Washington had written the Governor of New York during the Revolutionary War. In this letter, Washington literally begs the Governor to send his men food and clothing, so that he can continue fighting. It is very sad to think that Washington had to literally go to this level just to get the minimum material he needed to continue the War.
The principle failure of the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation was that the legislation it passed was not really legislation. They were simply non-binding proposals sent to the thirteen individual states. Inevitably, many states simply ignored them.
Its a wonder we won our independence at all under such a system.
Didn't Washington recruit a few regiments with his own money, outside the authority of Congress? I read this recently but haven't had time to verify it.
Several wealthy people provided direct funding (i.e. not via taxation) to support troops.
Thanks markg for the input. That's the incident I was thinking of but didn't remember the details.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Second Continental Congress's role in the strategy of the American Revolution?
