Homage to Gen'l Woodhull


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > History > Homage to Gen'l Woodhull

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2012, 10:49 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,617
Liked 813 Times on 621 Posts
Likes Given: 125

Default Homage to Gen'l Woodhull

2012

Dear General Woodhull;
On this, the 236th anniversary of your passing as a result of the then recent Battle of Long Island, with the history of the actions of that event and the exploits of its heroes, including yourself, upon my mind, I am moved to express my gratitude here. In a nation with so short a memory, often seemingly undeserving of such dedication as yours, know, if only by this, that there are still those who appreciate and remember your position, representation, services, capture, ignoble brutalization, distressful imprisonment, impoverishment, and final sacrifice on all our behalves.

Oh, that circumstance had been different! That your loyal Long Island militia had been returned to you by the Generals in command at Brooklyn, scene of our Army’s first true and largest-ever battle against the suppressing host of a tyrannical government. ‘tis likely that defeat and providential retreat, as well as ultimate victory, would have been no different. But we, you and all the citizen-soldiers of the 1st Suffolk County Reg’t (represented in our own shadow overcast times but whose original losses have gone greatly uncounted), would have given even more in the future and suffered less at the hands of a dastardly enemy.

Know ye also that in death you continued to serve the cause of liberty, and inspire still today. We commend you to heaven, Sir. I remain, in life…

Your most humble and obedient servant.



__________________
HockaLouis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 09-09-2012, 02:12 AM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TLuker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: S.C.
Posts: 2,705
Liked 1250 Times on 810 Posts
Likes Given: 2574

Default

Just out of curiosity wasn't Washington the General most responsible for the defeat at Brooklyn?



__________________
TLuker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 07:36 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,617
Liked 813 Times on 621 Posts
Likes Given: 125

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TLuker View Post
Just out of curiosity wasn't Washington the General most responsible for the defeat at Brooklyn?
I would say it was General Howe who gets that credit. General Putnam may have been the most clearly irresponsible. Washington did not do a good job there either, though he was taking direction from Congress.

We were blessed to be able to get as many men out of there as were. But that was quickly followed up by what Washington was directly responsible for at Kip's Bay and Forts Lee and Washington (only partially offset by Harlem Heights, Pell's Point, White Plains...).
__________________
HockaLouis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:04 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
superc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 341
Liked 15 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

The Battle of Brooklyn is one (also Washington Heights later) which I think should be covered more in schools. I was lucky enough to have had (when in NYC public schools) a teacher who did talk about it.

Regarding the Generals. I read 1776 (and some other tales over the years) and even allowing for the general lack of maps, I still come away with the impression that a lot of the generals were ego filled morons given position more by accident of birth than by displayed ability. (Of course, England (and any other monarchical system) has always had that problem.)

__________________
superc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 03:10 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,617
Liked 813 Times on 621 Posts
Likes Given: 125

Default

In America the ranks of full Colonel on up were historically those of the gentry thru the US Civil War despite West Point and the engineers it produced who were also supposed to be the core of our professional military cadre.

The elites were (are?) the ruling class and also the General class officers of those eras (the days of Harvard and Yale graduates being in the military ended in this country after FDR's progressive plantings took root). Lt. Colonels on down were the real tactical commanders and leaders. But remember the problems we had here in the colonies...

...we periodically ELECTED our unit commanders. The most liked perhaps, maybe the most generous, maybe the most lenient, the most (in)famous became a company's Captain. And they appointed their friends as lieutenants and non-coms. Not a good selection process either vs. Brits who usually bought their commissions to have a station in life.

The new broom of Washington swept clean the officer corp. of the rebellious rebel Army he inherited at Boston...



__________________
HockaLouis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes