Charles Cornwallis, born on December 31, 1738, in London, England, was a British army general and statesman. Born into an aristocratic family with a distinguished military pedigree, he was the eldest son of Charles Cornwallis, 5th Baron Cornwallis, and his mother, Elizabeth, the daughter of the 2nd Viscount Townshend. As a youth, he was educated at Eton College, where he sustained a permanent eye injury during a game of football.
Charles Cornwallis was raised in a highly esteemed family of the British nobility. He attended Eton College for approximately two years before joining the British Army at age 18. He was best known for his defeat at Yorktown, Virginia, in the last important campaign (September 28–October 19, 1781) of the American Revolution.
Charles Cornwallis married two widows from rich East Anglian families, firstly, Elizabeth Fincham in about 1574, daughter and co-heir of the 1st Earl of Cornwallis. In 1768, Cornwallis fell in love with Jemima Tullekin Jones, the daughter of untitled Colonel James Jones. They settled in Culford, Suffolk, producing a daughter, Lady Mary Cornwallis.
Upon his father’s death in 1762, Charles succeeded to his peerage and entered the House of Lords. From 1766 until 1805, he was colonel of the 33rd Regiment of Foot. His family had a long military tradition, with his uncle, Lieutenant General Edward Cornwallis, and brother, Admiral William Cornwallis.
Charles Cornwallis was born on New Year’s Eve to an English ruling class family. His father, a Baron, sent him to Eton College, an exclusive private school. His family had a long military tradition, with his uncle, Lieutenant General Edward Cornwallis, and brother, Admiral William Cornwallis.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess and 2nd Earl … | Cornwallis was born on December 31, 1738, to a wealthy aristocratic family. He was the first son of Charles, 1st Earl Cornwallis, and Elizabeth Townshend. | mountvernon.org |
| Charles Cornwallis | Charles Cornwallis was born on New Years’ Eve to an English ruling class family. His father Charles, a Baron, sent Cornwallis to Eton, an exclusive… | battlefields.org |
| Charles Cornwallis – Students | Charles Cornwallis was born on December 31, 1738, in London. He was raised in a highly esteemed family of the British nobility. He attended Eton College for … | kids.britannica.com |
📹 Charles Cornwallis: The Man Who Lost the American Colonies
This video is #sponsored by Blinkist. Geographics: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHKRfxkMTqiiv4pF99qGKIw …
What Did Charles Cornwallis Do When He Was A Kid?
Charles Cornwallis was born on December 31, 1738, in London to an esteemed English family, the 5th Baron Cornwallis being his father. He received a prestigious education at Eton College for nearly two years before joining the British Army at age 18. Cornwallis embarked on a distinguished military career, initially serving as an ensign during the Seven Years' War. By age 23, he advanced to lieutenant colonel, ultimately leading British forces in significant battles during the Revolutionary War.
Despite his allegiance to the Crown, he maintained a sense of empathy towards American colonists' rights. Cornwallis achieved notable victories, especially in New York, before facing defeat at the critical Battle of Yorktown, which dramatically affected his military standing. Educated at both Eton and Cambridge, he became involved in politics and served in the House of Lords.
In addition to his military pursuits, Cornwallis married Jemima Jones in 1768, with whom he had two children, a son and a daughter. His early life was marked by a background of privilege and significant family ties, being the sixth child and oldest son in his family. His career reflected a mix of military leadership and political engagement, and despite setbacks, he was a prominent figure in British history, remembered for his role during the American Revolutionary War. He passed away on October 5, 1805.
What Are Some Fun Facts About Cornwallis?
In 1786, Charles Cornwallis was appointed Governor General of Bengal and Commander in Chief of British forces in India. Leading an army of 20, 000, he achieved victory over Tipu Sultan's 40, 000 troops during the Third Mysore War (1790-92). Cornwallis, born on December 31, 1738, in London, was a distinguished British nobleman and general known for his military operations in India, America, and Ireland. A prominent figure in the American Revolutionary War, Cornwallis led British forces to victories in battles such as New York and Princeton.
However, he is most renowned for his surrender at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, a decisive turning point that effectively ended the American Revolution. Cornwallis's early life included education at Eton College and involvement in the House of Commons, where he opposed the Stamp Act. As a leading British general, he undertook key campaigns and faced various challenges, ultimately shaping his military career. Following his appointment as Governor General, he continued to apply his strategic leadership in India through significant military engagements.
Cornwallis's legacy includes being the most aristocratic British commander in America, remembered for his experiences during the war and the impact of his surrender at Yorktown, which marked a critical moment in American history.
What School Did Charles Cornwallis Go To?
Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess and 2nd Earl Cornwallis, was born on December 31, 1738, in London, England, into an aristocratic family with a notable military history. His early education took place at Eton College, where he sustained a permanent eye injury during a hockey game. He subsequently attended Clare College, Cambridge, although his time there was brief. Cornwallis began his military career in earnest when he obtained his first commission as an Ensign in the 1st Foot Guards on December 8, 1757, following his studies at a military academy in Turin, Italy.
He served in the Seven Years' War and was later elected to Parliament. In 1761, he participated in a campaign in Germany and was promoted to lieutenant-colonel in the 12th Foot. Cornwallis came from a military family; both his uncle, Lieutenant General Edward Cornwallis, and his brother, Admiral William Cornwallis, had distinguished careers. He ultimately became known for his defeat at the Siege of Yorktown, which effectively ended the American Revolutionary War in 1781 when he surrendered to George Washington. Cornwallis's military career, combined with his education at prestigious institutions, laid the foundation for his future roles as a soldier and statesman.
Where Did Cornwallis Live?
Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess and 2nd Earl Cornwallis, was born on December 31, 1738, in London's Grosvenor Square, into an aristocratic family with estates in Kent. He was the eldest son of Charles Cornwallis, 5th Baron Cornwallis, and Elizabeth Townshend, niece of Sir Robert Walpole. Cornwallis began his education at Eton and continued at a military academy in Turin, Italy. His military career commenced in the Seven Years' War when he was commissioned as an ensign.
Cornwallis is most renowned for his surrender at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, marking the end of the American Revolutionary War. He led British forces in several campaigns, achieving a significant victory at Camden, South Carolina, in August 1780. Despite military successes, Cornwallis faced considerable setbacks, such as the pursuit of George Washington through New Jersey in late 1776.
Later, he served as Governor-General of India and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Cornwallis's military role included leading troops against a French invasion in Ireland in 1798. After returning to India in 1805, he passed away shortly after arriving in Ghazipur on October 5, 1805. His legacy as a military leader and politician remains significant in British history.
How Many Children Did Cornwallis Have?
Lord Cornwallis married the Honourable Elizabeth, daughter of Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, in 1722, and they had seven children, including Lady Mary Cornwallis (1736-1770), who married Samuel Whitbread in 1769. Cornwallis was born in Grosvenor Square, London, as the eldest son of Charles Cornwallis, 5th Baron Cornwallis, and Elizabeth Townshend. His family estates were in Kent. On 19 April 1775, tensions escalated between the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain, culminating in the Revolutionary War.
Cornwallis had two children with Elizabeth: Mary (1769-1840) and Charles (1774-1823). He was a British military officer known for his defeat at Yorktown during the American Revolution (September 28–October 19, 1781). After his father's death in 1762, he became the 2nd Earl Cornwallis. Cornwallis married Jemima Jones in 1768, with whom he had two more children before her death in 1779. Despite having several children, the marquessate became extinct upon his death due to the lack of male heirs. Cornwallis’s military career began at a young age, ultimately leading him to significant roles during the war and in British politics, marked by his noble lineage and extensive family background.
Was King George III A Patriot Or Loyalist?
George III openly embraced his identity as a true patriot king, emphasizing his British roots in his first parliamentary speech: "born and educated in this country I glory in the name of Britain." His reign was marked by conflict, particularly during the American Revolution, and he became a symbol of tyranny to many Americans. After patriots destroyed his statue in New York City in 1776 and repurposed it for bullets, he faced increasing criticism for allegedly perpetuating war against American revolutionaries.
George, the first royal heir born in Britain in 130 years, aimed to reshape the monarchy's image amidst growing dissent. While loyalists, or Tories, remained devoted to him and the British crown, viewing Britain and America as a parent-child relationship, patriots voiced accusations against him, deeming him a "brute." George III had limited political power, as Parliament held sway during his reign.
The conflict between loyalists, who sought to avoid rebellion, and patriots, who favored immediate action, further exacerbated tensions in the colonies, leading to open conflict at Lexington and Concord in 1775 and ultimately shaping the course of American history.
Did Charles Cornwallis Get Married?
Upon his father's death in 1762, Charles Cornwallis succeeded as the second Earl Cornwallis and took his seat in the House of Lords. In 1768, he married Jemima Tullikens Jones, daughter of Colonel James Jones, and they had two children: Mary (born June 28, 1769) and Charles (born October 19, 1774). Their marriage seemed harmonious, and they resided in Culford, Suffolk. Cornwallis was a British army officer who played a significant role during the American Revolutionary War, achieving military successes in New York.
While dedicated to his duty, he also faced the challenge of balancing his military responsibilities with family life. In 1779, following a brief return to England to be with his ailing wife, Jemima passed away on April 14, leaving Cornwallis bereaved. Cornwallis’s parents, Charles, 1st Earl Cornwallis, and Elizabeth Townshend, married in 1722 and had seven children. Despite criticisms from political rivals, Cornwallis was respected by the king and held various roles, including constable.
He is best remembered for his military leadership during the Revolutionary War, particularly for the surrender at Yorktown. He died from fever in Ghazipur on October 5, 1805, after a long and notable career.
What Was Charles Cornwallis' Family Life Like?
Charles Cornwallis was born on December 31, 1738, in London, England, into a distinguished aristocratic family. He was the first son of Charles, 1st Earl Cornwallis, and Elizabeth Townshend. This noble background significantly influenced his military and political career. Cornwallis was educated at the prestigious Eton College and later at Cambridge, demonstrating his family's commitment to quality education. He joined the British Army in 1757, where he saw action during the Seven Years' War, marking the beginning of his military endeavors.
Following his father's death in 1762, Cornwallis inherited his father's peerage and became a member of the House of Lords. His family had a rich military tradition, with relatives such as his uncle, Lieutenant General Edward Cornwallis, and his brother, Admiral William Cornwallis, further establishing the family's military reputation.
In 1768, Cornwallis married Jemima Tullikens Jones, with whom he had two children. As tensions rose between the American colonies and Britain, Cornwallis became an essential figure in the conflict, ultimately known for his role in the American War of Independence, particularly his surrender at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781. His military career and political activities would later extend to serving as Governor-General of India. Cornwallis’s life was marked by his aristocratic lineage, military service, and significant historical events, making him a notable figure in British history.
What Were Some Slaves Able To Do During The American Revolution?
During the American Revolution, African Americans played essential roles on both the Patriot and Loyalist sides, serving as laborers, soldiers, sailors, and spies. In Virginia alone, approximately 150 black men, many enslaved, served in the state navy, with some granted freedom afterward for their service. African Americans also participated in the Continental Navy and as gunners on privateers. Their involvement challenged prevailing racial myths and highlighted the contradictions in the justification for slavery. The Revolution presented enslaved individuals with opportunities to fight for their own freedom, compelling them to choose sides based on the potential for liberation.
A number of skilled enslaved people, trained in crafts like carpentry and blacksmithing, contributed to the war effort. Notably, some freed and enslaved black individuals fought valiantly in significant battles, including Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Overall, around 5, 000 African Americans served in the Continental Army, often in integrated units. While many who fled to join British forces received non-combat roles, their participation still emphasized their pursuit of freedom.
The Revolutionary War ignited broader debates about the morality of slavery, ultimately leading to increased discussions, though it did not abolish slavery outright. Nevertheless, the impact of African Americans during this period laid groundwork for future considerations of freedom and equality within the new nation.
📹 Cornwallis: A Great British General
The American Battlefield Trust preserves America’s hallowed battlegrounds and educates the public about what happened there …
You know, his story is actually kind of sad. He was a decent man, sensible, loyal to his country and tried his best to do the right thing. You can see his quality in how he tried to reconcile the Ireland debacle, and his frustrations with how it turned out. Also the fact that his wife, whom he actually married for love, died of illness while he was off on campaign is a tragedy. I genuinely feel for him.
I had a history professor in college who once characterize the stamp act as “imagine if you had to pay a fee every time you wanted to use Wi-Fi on your phone anywhere for any reason.” I’ll never forget the horrified silence that settled over the classroom, and this one guy a few seats behind me even muttered “I would murder someone.”
The Royal Navy ship HSM Cornwallis was named in honour of Charles Cornwallis. This ship was instrumental in the defeat of China in the First Opium War, and it was aboard the HMS Cornwallis that representatives from the British and Qing Empires negotiated and signed the Treaty of Nanking, which is considered the start of China’s century of humiliation.
Honestly, I feel really bad for Conwallis. He seems like a really decent man, who loved his wife, country, and soldiers who fought under him. He did his duty as he thought necessary, and as Simon said, probably would have been great at a lesser role if he hasn’t been promoted beyond his abilities. I know he fought against my ancestors in the Revolutionary War, but I still feel sorry for the man.
When Cornwallis requisitioned my family’s cattle and barns for his troops before the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, my x6 great grandmother met with him and demanded the cattle back. Apparently Cornwallis acquiesced, and resupplied my family despite having a son in the patriot militia. Shows he wasn’t necessarily a bad man.
Simon…I have to say…now that you have so many websites i love how personal you have been. The sense of humor you add is unmatched. Easily the best way to earn some historical context. I consider myself to know something about history in general and you always shock me with some random fact. Nicely done sir!!
It is worth noting the second commander of England’s forces in America, Sir William Howe, actually asked to be relieved of command, what he described as, “This very painful service”. And that’s a man who assailed, personally, the deadly American volleys on Breed’s Hill, ALONGSIDE his regular infantry–THREE times. The British had no shortage of brave soldiers or Generals.
We here in India talk about Cornwallis too, about the Anglo-Mysore war. When I heard he was the same Cornwallis who lost at Yorktown I was really surprised. By the way, his successor was Governor General Wellesley, whose brother was the famous guy who beat Napoleon at Waterloo. I believe that Sir Arthur Wellesley also fought in the final Anglo-Mysore war, and learned much there about rocketry. Quite a matchless career, the Duke of Wellington had
Cornwallis was a good tactical commander, but was befuddled on multiple occasions by the colonists’ irregular tactics and behavior. Washington stole a march in winter on him at Princeton, and Greene had C. chasing him all over the Carolinas to no gain, wearing his army out and forcing the retirement to Yorktown for resupply. I admit I was amazed as a lad when I learned that Cornwallis became governor general of India.
Lord Cornwallis as he’s popularly called in India is also known as the father of Indian civil service. Came to India on 12th sept. 1786 as the Governor-general of Bengal. In 1793 introduced Cornwallis code, a body of legislation introducing governing, policing, judicial and civil administrative provisions.
the irony, GW wanted to attack Clinton in New York, but the French persuaded him to move into Virginia, with assurances that the French fleet would block the James River and not allow Cornwallis to evacuate via the sea or allow Clinton to reinforce Cornwallis again, via the sea. So, we will never know if GW had his way and attack Clinton in New York, would Clinton have been able to deal a defeat to GW. Why wouldn’t Cornwallis not be confident that Clinton would have been able to send reinforcements or be able to evacuate Yorktown; the Royal Navy was pretty bad ass in the late 1700’s going back to King Henry VIII.
I grew up in Eastern Virginia in the area of Yorktown. I have been to “Cornwallis’ Cave” carved into the side of the York River where he set up one of his final command centers/hiding spots. I have also seen an archaeological dig in the York River where they are uncovering a ship that his forces sunk to create artificial reefs to prevent the French ships from entering the river.
Hey Simon, you absolutely need to do a article on Terry Fox. In 1980, in his early 20’s he ran the equivalent of a marathon a day as he set out to cross Canada to raise awareness and money for cancer research. He did this with only one leg since his other leg had been amputated. His “Marathon of Hope” had to be abandoned half way through as his cancer got worse, taking his life shortly after. His legacy has lived on with a yearly run in his honor and has gone on to raise millions (likely billions) for cancer research.
You should do John “Black Jack” Pershing Most great American generals from WWII served and were mentored by General “Black Jack” Pershing during WWI. These include Patton, Eisenhower, McArthur, George C. Marshall, and Omar Bradley For that reason, he’s extremely under rated in American history in my opinion. Not to mention he charges up San Juan Hill next to Teddy Roosevelt, and commanded the expedition sought out Pancho Villa Before any of that he also taught at an African American school and when he was 4 years old his home was raided by Confederate in 1864 looking for his Father because he flew the Union Flag over his general store in Missouri He lived and amazing and forgotten life that would be the worded set up for a biographics article
just to clear up, the stamp act wasn’t considered ridiculous because it was an undue burden, it was considered ridiculous because they saw it as an obvious circumvention of law regarding taxation. taxation of colonies had been debated before and it was considered illegal because of the representation requirement under the british constitution. the legality aside the stamp act was not unreasonably costly, in fact its main economic effect (and real purpose) was to curb smuggling in deep water ports. by keeping track of paper the government could keep track of who was writing falsified receipts on imports. a couple of dollars was all it took to convince a harbor worker to report a much lower tonnage and thus lower import duties. by issuing stamps 9n certain paper products the dock workers were forced to keep themselves account to british authorities. the point was to improve collection of legal duties and improve revenue, (the stamp cost was very small), and since the local elite were almost all profiting from smuggling and acting as a mafioso of sorts, they generated a lot of unrest locally for these new measures. they burned families of british officials alive in their homes, rioted, tortured people, and destroyed vast amounts of property in a campaign of disruption and intimidation to fight enforcement, and it worked. it led to a larger debate about the spirit of the law and was eventually co-opted by revolutionaries, radicals, and secessionists, culminating in the american revolution.
Wow. Very open and truthful view of Irish history at the end. This is a perfect time to request as an Irishman a article of Theobald Wolfe Tone. The leader of the United Irishmen and key figure in the disaster that was the 1798 Rebellion. In Irish Schools we are thought of 3 key events in the 1700s, the American Revolution and the establishment of Democracy, the French Revolution and the Republic, and the attempt to bring these values to Ireland. The attempt to live in a free society, where people are born equal, protected by Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, like our French and American nabours. Lets just say jts Ironic that said rebellion and Democratic aspiration led to the Act of Union of 1801.
Tbf to Cornwallis, he was severely understaffed, a thousand miles away from Britain, with a parliament focused on Napoleon (basically our first world war-like effort), with politicians who didn’t care about keeping America. Also, there was a tremendous philosophical sympathy from the highest politicians/public in the UK as Americans were seen as British subjects expanding Britain. How can you not agree with their want for representation? Also the majority of Americans did not want to leave the British Empire, and the ones that did, did not care about the tiny tax. They cared a lot more about being banned from expanding West
Whatever you say or think about him as a person or of his failures, he packed an awful lot of noteworthy things into his life. I’m irish and didn’t know he was double crossed by his own king. Like many leaders in history he wasn’t in his position on merit, he happened to have the right parents and be of noble blood to be given the job at hand.
Hey Simon, I only have 2 things to say. 1. I simply love all your YouTube articles, I have learned more about History from u than I did in school. 2. Just an idea, how about doing a Biography on Admiral Thomas Cochrane, he was a man with an incredible story and career, I’m pretty sure it would be an excellent article.
1:25 – Chapter 1 – For king & country 5:15 – Chapter 2 – Revolution rock 8:55 – Mid roll ads 10:20 – Chapter 3 – The road to yorktown 14:00 – Chapter 4 – From Yorktown to the top 17:00 – Chapter 5 – Passage to india 20:25 – Chapter 6 – The failed union – Chapter 7 – PS: Considering how the colonies have turned out, he might have the last laugh !!!
Fun fact : the white flag in the surrender of lord cornwallis painting is actually the white banner of the french royal navy. they win the Battle of the Chesapeake, As a result of this victory, they blocked any reinforcement or escape by sea for Cornwallis and also disembarked the heavy siege guns required by the allied land forces.
Cornwallis before the American Revolution: He was a mediocre man. Cornwallis after the American Revolution: He was quite a mediocre and incompetent man. Cornwallis after the East Indies: He was an utterly mediocre, incompetent and racist man. Cornwallis after the Irishmen Rebellion: He was such a mediocre, incompetent, racist and just plain awful men, that he deserves his own biography.
The Shallowford which is in my Brothers backyard was a big reason of what happened at Guilford Court house. The Patriots crossed the Shallowford which is the only point to cross the Yadkin River for miles flooded out after they crossed stranding the British and giving the Patriots time to prepare for the Battle of Guilford Court house
I loved the anecdote at the end. We so often tell our children you can do anything if you follow your dreams. Well, that’s good advice to motivate you, but it’s not necessarily true. I especially like to see thought provoking consideration that had written being a meritocracy at this time, despite his dreams, his performance and skills would have been what saw him being passed up for a more superior commander. Meritocracy is the way.
Charles Cornwallis might be viewed as a mediocre military man in over his head now but he had one thing lacking in people of his class even the King…empathy. Being a respectful, fair officer to his soldiers; realizing the King was in error in his demands and treatment of Americans and the thirteen colonies; not massacring tens of thousands in India; treating the Irish Catholics fairly deserving to have participation in their government, and being a loving kind husband shows he was a good man. I will take a good empathetic man over a cold, ruthless, intelligent one every time. Really interesting article.
North Carolina still isn’t South Carolina. North Carolina has a positive GDP. South Carolina is a welfare State like Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama. The Welfare States are kept alive and supported by State’s like California and Illinois. Since California overwhelmingly pays the most into the federal tax income per capita, the welfare States above are then subsidized by that. Since the Welfare States above are so poorly, poorly run, they take far more Federal Dollars than they pay in.
The house chosen by Cornwallis to serve as his Headquarters in Yorktown belonged to Thomas Nelson Jr.; Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Governor of Virginia, and Commander of the Virginia Militia. During the Battle when Nelson demanded to know why Cornwallis’ Headquarters was not being fired upon by the Cannon; he was informed they dared not as it was his (Nelson’s) home. He replied simply “Give me the cannon”, and opened fire on his own house.
An interesting sideline: Cornwallis was moving toward Charlotte, NC, when in Oct. 1780 the Tory militia led by British officer, Patrick Ferguson, met a force of Patriot militia. He was defeated and the force protecting Cornwallis’ left flank on his way to Charlotte ceased to exist. He was forced to move toward Virginia. So, a little known battle with only around 2,000 men, one professional soldier and that lasted less than an hour forced an entire army to change direction.
The biggest problem the British had during the American War of Independence was that their government wasn’t willing to muster up the resources to fight the Patriots effectively. Even when the British forces in North America were at their height, general Amherst(arguably the best British general of the Seven Years War) believed that they needed over twice as many troops in that theater of operations. But many people in the British government didn’t take the threat seriously. Even when France and Spain joined the war the British kept trying to fight it without increasing the size of their military to any significant degree, which meant that they just became even more thinly spread. In Charles Cornwallis the British had a commander who wasn’t afraid to fight the war aggressively, but once he gained personal command of an army it became clear that Amherst was right. Cornwallis never had enough troops. It was simply impossible for him to establish adequate garrisons to hold the territories he conquered and at the same time maintain a strong field army. His garrisons were too weak to combat the guerrillas in the South, and at the major battles he fought he was always outnumbered. 2100 men against 3700 men at Camden, 2100 men against 4500 men at Guilford Courthouse, and 6500 men against 18.900 men and 29 ships at Yorktown. Charles Cornwallis was, in all honesty, a fine general. But the task he was given as an army commander was more than he, and probably most other generals, could handle.
At the 8:35 mark and I’m really confused. Cornwallis had served as an officer of high rank in a war that was one of the most prestigious victories the British had yet one. That means Cornwallis wouldn’t have just been along for the ride he would’ve been commanding in the field and helping form campaign strategies and his contributions saw him promoted to just two steps below a general. As a a fresh faced college dropout! He then immediately parlayed this success into an electoral victory to serve in the House of Commons. And as a voting member who served in both houses of what was then one of the most powerful legislative bodies in the world at that time demonstrated an independent mind and sincere principles. Continuing to support with his vote his espoused beliefs even when they became overwhelmingly unpopular. How is that mediocrity?
Cut the story short is that he had the back of the other commanders when they needed him but when he needed them they failed him miserably that led to the defeat of the British in America. Another thing is that the defeat of the Royal Navy at Chesapeake bay is what sealed Cornwallis fate at Yorktown which has failed to had been mentioned here.
The King of Nepal appealed to Cornwallis in 1792 for military assistance. Cornwallis declined the king’s request, sending instead Colonel William Kirkpatrick to mediate the dispute. Kirkpatrick was the first Englishman to see Nepal; by the time he reached Kathmandu in 1793, the parties had already resolved their dispute
This is glorious, made even better to hear from an englishman living in CZ. Oh, so. true story… what is today Hwy 73 in North Carolina was cut by Cornwallis’s forces after he battles of Kings Mountain and Ramsuer’s Mill. He was high tailing it for the Catawba where we would see General Davidson make a valiant stand at Cowan’s Ford. But before all that Cornwallis stopped at Ingelside, right beside my high school and let his troops kill some cattle of the local land owner. Needless to say, he was PISSED. He marched down to the creek where Corrnwallis was having tea with his rifle in hand with full intentions of shooting the general, only to be stopped by some red coats within sight. ‘MURICA!!!!!
Clearly there are those British officers who retain a distaste for colonist and Irish.. my story.. 2003 preparing for the invasion of Iraq. I was an American Marine, part of a 6 man team working with UK forces. We were quite the novelty and our different uniforms drew attention. Amongst a large crowd drawing rations a British Colonel approaches me, looks at my name tags, and asked where I am from. As an enlisted I reply “United States sir”. He replies “yes, of course, but where?” I respond ” California”. ” no, none of you colonist are from there! Where did your family immigrate from? ” Ireland. He stops, ponders, and quietly asks “when”. I reply, “1850s before the civil war”. He pauses then loudly states ” Ireland, I don’t think that is long enough to breed the stupidity out of you!” At which point another officer yells at him and others begin cursing him. He was dead serious. Looked at me disgusted and trodden off. Another colonel approached, apologized, and said the United Kingdom was anything but United..
Lord Cornwallis was a character which was caught up on the wrong side of history. He belonged to an elite family but Englishmen don’t recognise his military service since he had lost American war of Independence. But fighting against American revolutionaries was a losing battle. Everyone knew that British troops won’t fight endlessly with their own brothers. He came to India where he had to fight against Tipu Sultan. .Indian historians hail Tipu as a local hero but nobody tried to recognise Lord Cornwallis as a founder of modern India. He was a military commander but he was familiar with civil administrative structure of England and America. After assuming the charge of Governor Generalship of India, he made a pioneering effort to modernise civil administration of India. Equality before law, introduction of lawyers in the courts, establishment of police stations, grant of permanent settlement to Indian Agriculturalists, introduction of modern civil service, and introduction of minimum wage to company workers were heroic steps if we consider his affirmative action against old-fashioned traditions or institutions.Britain may not celebrate his Indian reforms because they had lots of colonial administrators in other parts of empire. However, Indian subcontinent must celebrate his contributions to Indian civil administration.
An interesting take on Irish Catholic emancipation. Here’s how it’s taught in Ireland. ‘The polling took place in Ennis, Co. Clare, at the old courthouse where the O’Connell monument now stands. At the final count, O’Connell was elected by a majority of about eleven hundred votes. The ascendancy party had suffered its first big defeat since 1798. The whole country was aflame. The British Government feared a rising and granted Catholic emancipation in April 1829.’ That is why the main street & bridge in the capital, Dublin, is called O’Connell Street & O’Connell Bridge. After Daniel O’Connell, the Great Emancipator!
Majority of people and movies think Cornwallis was in charge of the British forces during the Revolutionary War, it was actually first Gage and then William Howe and when he was relieved as Commander in Chief, it was George Clinton who took over as Commander in Chief of the British forces. Clinton as a Colonel in the British had great ideas that could’ve given the British the upper hand but spent his time disagreeing and writing complaints against Howe. Once Clinton became Commander in Chief, he lost his edge and fell into the same bad strategies that befell Howe.
Simon, I am impressed as an American of Irish descent I do not see too many British admit how badly they screwed Ireland. My problem with Cornwallis is the basic cowardice at Yorktown. He refused to man up & surrender to Washington. He told his deputy to surrender to the French. The French general tells him no, Washington beat you surrender to him. Washington is pissed and tells him to give his sword to his deputy. Washington’s deputy was General Benjamin Lincoln (not related to the President) Total lack of class from Cornwallis.
I just want to tip my hat to the writer. Is it Morris M.? The style and the choice of the right words create and atmosphere that make these articles such an emotional retelling of the lives of people. Even if this particular article was about a so called mediocre person, I felt an amount of sadness for the guy just because of “what could have been”. Thanks
I think General Cornwallis deserves more credit then he was given in this article. I love perusal Biographic’s, General Cornwallis made mistakes in battle as many great Generals have but he if you actually Study General Cornwallis Military Doctrines, in that era how battles & wars were fought he Strategically was better then any of his Counterparts. In my opinion his two major downfalls were his Superiors did not take him serious when he requested reinforcements, was denied by his Superiors in Tactical Movements of his Troops, Great Britain highly underestimated the Continental Army & Britain would deny supplies & reinforcements repeatedly throughout the war that General Cornwallis requested. The other downfall which is actually a compliment, General Cornwallis believed in soldiers fighting on a Battlefield while Officers Commanded those soldiers. I’m not saying that’s how you win a war but he did not allow his officers or soldiers to fight barbaric or jungle warfare. Obviously that can be looked at both ways. Having Morals & Values in war is no the best recipe to win when it comes to killing other people but he valued human life, did not believe in civilian or infrastructure collateral damage. General Cornwallis believed Wars should be fought on a Battlefield & Winner Take All. It’s a double edge sword but I think he Deserves much more credit in Strategy & Humanity!!
Howe had already lost the war. He let the Continental army escape at Long Island and then took Philadelphia instead of meeting Burgoyne at Albany, dooming Burgoyne’s army which combined with Howe being surprised at Germantown brought the French and their fleet into the war. Cornwallis would not have surrendered at Yorktown but for the victory of the French fleet at the Chesapeake Capes. Cornwallis was ordered by Clinton to find a port in Virginia to receive resupply which doomed his army.
Charles Cornwallis, the Peter Principle made flesh. “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” At least he didn’t throw away his men in a pointless last stand or behave like an erratic lunatic. Just a very average commander. And to be fair, most militaries are full of those. But they generally don’t put them in charge of entire armies and campaigns based on family name and birth alone.
Honestly yes he was at Frenchtown and in charge but it definitely sounds more like Clinton’s fault than Cornwallis. Yes he sounds average and sensible rather than good at the strategy part. He was obviously a good organiser and a fair man, especially for someone from his background at the time but in a situation above his head.
This is fascinating. If one goes by popular sentiment, especially movies… *COUGH* The Patriot **COUGH**… Cornwallis was a rabidly anti colonial demagogue and military genius who stepped from the shadows and only wanted to forcefully subject and exploit the Colonies by any means possible. As it turns out, he’s not a one dimensional caricature and actually held beliefs that were very much in the best interest of the Colonies prior to the start of fighting
Here are some suggestions for another article – all interesting people though the first two are lesser known. Very good article on Cornwallis. April Ellison/William Ellison Jr. (1790-1861) – a freed slave from South Carolina who became a successful slaveowner and planter himself before the civil war. Anthony Johnson (1600-1670) – a former indentured servant who became one of the first African American property owners in America and a successful tobacco farmer. Lord Mountbatten (1900-1979) – Prince Philip’s uncle and Queen Elizabeth’s second cousin once removed who was assassinated by the IRA Yukio Mishima (1925-1970) – Japanese poet, author, playwright, actor and nationalist who committed seppuku after a failed attempt to overthrow Japan’s 1947 constitution. Robert Walpole (1676-1745) – British politician who was the first prime minister of Great Britain from 1721 until 1742 under King George I and King George II. Eamon DeValera (1882-1975) – prominent political leader in 20th century Ireland who, after the Irish war of independence from 1919 to 1921, was in the public eye for over forty years from 1922 until his death were he served as head of government (Taoiseach/prime minister) and head of state (president). He was nearly executed in the Easter Rising in 1916 and was key in putting into place the new constitution on 1937. A very prominent Irish figure.
It’s so interesting hearing this and oddly enough thinking about the Star War character Admiral Ozzel. The same person that when told by a lower officer they think the found the rebel base Ozzel would scoff at it only to be overruled by Darth Vader. Once at the planet of Hoth Ozzel would have the Imperial Navy come out of light speed just outside the planet causing the rebels to not only be alerted to the Imperial forces. It was at this point Darth Vader would the order the general in charge of the land forces to deploy and attack the base while Vader would then force choke Ozzel to death for his repeated screw ups and premote that lower officer to the rank of admiral just as Ozzel was killed with arms reach of him. Moral of story if Cornwallis had a less forgiving king he would have had much more in common with Ozzel then being famous screw ups.
Cornwallis reminds me of Abercrombie from the siege of Carrilion. Both extremely good logistical officers that shouldn’t have been commanding battles. Abercrombie actually managed to get over 15000 troops and civilians as well as guns and supplies through cold northern wilderness with no issues whatsoever….then lost his battle in a dumb frontal attack using no artillery support even though it should have been an easy victory. Just making sure people are in the right job is vital. You were a bit harsh on Clinton though.
Just because Cornwallis lost the battle and could not make USA the likes of Canada or Australia, he is termed mediocre. The ruthless campaigns of Robert Clive whose victory in 1757 and Earl Canning, Colin Campbell and Henry Havelock in 1857 are considered heroes. Their campaign against India’s war of independence established the colonial loot of India which culminated in 1947.
As, an American, did i hear correctly that Cornwallis opposed the Stamp Act? I had always felt that he was a decent chap if rather…lackadaisical…as a commander. But, if he opposed the acts driving us deplorable Americans into rebellion, why did he volunteer for military service against us? It is such contradictions that make us Americans wonder about you Brits????
I cannot say enough of ALL your articles and All your websites. My sincere compliments to your writers, articlegraphers and editors. Having been laid-off nearly a year now in the Jolly old USA, I found a few websites to entertain me. All of your websites to be not only highly entertaining but very educational as well. I cannot sincerely thank you all for your endeavors and and totally love what you do. >as a side note: I don’t wear watches, have a VPN and such, yet you have me looking into them. THANK YOU ALL SO VERY VERY MUCH.
Overly critical of Cornwallis. Brits tend to be most critical of other Brits – and you seem to want to blame too much of the loss of the colonies on this man. Firstly, he was placed in a nearly impossible situation, outnumbered, fighting literally all across America chasing Washington’s army that refused to ever fight directly, instead relegating his army to the early stages of guerilla warfare. But to be honest – even in his impossible situations – he consistently pulled through and performed quite well – all while being a fair gentleman that was highly respected by his enemies.
FUN FACT: There was vast support for the British in the southern US, where torries out numbered whigs. However, introduce 1 British officer, Banastrate Tarleton. He was extremely unmerciful in his brutal hunt for rebels. In The Battle of Waxhall, commanded by Col Bueford, Tarleton refused quarter to the patriots, who waved their white flags, many using their white blouses & and underwear. In fact, he ordered his troops to bayonet every patriot. He the surrounding, circling the field 3 times, coming down to even those at the bottom, underneath butchered soldiers. Because of this, so many residents in the south, including the Ulster Scots, & many of the highland Scots, were so appaulled at the lack of gentlemanly behavior & lack of honor, that the southern Patriots came in fast & committed to the American cause. Thus gave the Patriots the win at King’s Mountain, Cowpens, & Guilford Courthouse. Meanwhile, chasing Tarleton & his commander Cornwallis all the way to Yorktown. Gen Corwallis was so enraged at Yorktown that he actually refused to attend the official surrender. It was a huge scandal at that time. He was also in disbelief. Many heard him confused & ashamed yell, “How! How can a colony full of peasants ever beat the most professional, highly trained Army in the world.
Near the end of the article now and frankly the facts he’s presenting on the article directly contradict his assessment of Lord Cornwallis. A man who served in four wars and emerged as the victor or one of the victors in 3 of them. The only two in which he fought as the top commander of British forces were also victories. Heck, even though they ultimately lost the fact that Cornwallis took a war that was all but lost when he arrived and busted a whole another front to the war wide open with a series of victories at least two of which were tactically almost perfect in that they decimitated enemy forces while his own took very low casualties is very impressive. There was nothing mediocre yet alone useless about Charles Cornwallis. Even the article seems to acknowledge that some of his most significant setbacks were due to Clinton’s hostility and incompetence.
It’s crazy in how the British lost America, and the USA in the Vietnam Conflict. Alot of incompetence by the leaders of both. The USA would bomb the VC and the North but would stop because the NVA would claim they wanted to negotiate. While negotiating is on, the NVA would reforce there military. The USA never once entered North Vietnam because President Johnson was afraid of China and the Soviet Union. If you’re going to do a job, you better be prepared to finish it by all means necessary. Neither did. The VC would attack whole villages then threatened to return if they assisted the USA or the South Vietnamese government. Vietnam was WAY different from the Korean War.
You wonder what the tale of Ireland and England would be if they simply followed the treaty and gave those Catholics equal rights. The Irish as a voting block in the middle of the 19th centaury would be equal to that of England. 8 million people before the famine, and their own Irish nobility, no mass emigration.
It’s interesting to think that the American Revolution was so entirely dependent upon the time in which it occurred, that is, if Britain had been just a bit more meritocracy-minded and a bit less impressed by personal pedigree, it might have sent more competent generals who were more flexible, realistic, and willing to concede that a bunch of low-bred colonists could fully kick their asses if the remained intransigently tied to the tactics and strategies of a proper gentleman’s war. For example, I have to think that a Napoleonic War veteran would have approached the rebellion with an entirely different mindset, independent of the tactical advancements that were made in the 40 or so years between Lexington and Waterloo. On the other hand, the intellectual underpinnings of the American Revolution were a rejection of that “pedigree first” mindset of the British, so if peace and union had been maintained into the 19th century, and the contentious tax acts had been passed to pay for the Napoleonic wars, perhpas the reaction would have been much less agitating. Not to mention the colonies would have been filled with veterans who were tired but also flush with national pride for having just kicked Napolean’s ass. So who knows what that would have done to the dynamic. And who’s to say the fighting wouldn’t have again broken out in the New World, for whatever effect that might have had, and would the French Revolution have occurred without the American? Would it perhaps have spurred the American, but made it much more bloody-minded, as neighbors and even family members picked sides and killed each other even worse than actually occurred.
Actually it was Cornwallis, Sir H. Clinton and Howe who led the war against the rebels and ultimately blundered it by not immediately requesting that ALL Americans loyal to the Crown rally to his Army. That was his key mistake. The Loyalists actually outnumbered the Patriots in 1775 but by 1783, there were far more Patriots than Loyalists. Why? British cruelty pushed the “fence sitters” over to the rebels.
I dont think he was mediocre, he correctly understood that taxing the Colonies would cause them to revolt at a time when few people in Parliment understood it. Then he was tasked with putting down the very revolt he tried to prevent and had to obey the orders of a buffoon. Ireland was another case of having the right ideas but the boss was an idiot. The only long term solution to unrest in India was independence, but he knew that Britain simply could not afford another lost colony so soon after America, so he adopted a “Whatever it takes” approach. Three times he was tasked with fixing problems that simply couldnt be fixed, because source of the problem was that London was ruled by a bunch of assholes.
I think it’s often overlooked that the The US to be,didn’t beat the British completely more that the British had problems closer to home and they didn’t want to keep putting money and resources in to the war,While the USA won Britain could brought hell down on the USA but would be vunable to the French and Spanish so couldn’t afford a massive lengthy wars on the other side of the world
you kind of allude to it, but around this time the british army had a system where you could literally buy your rank. provided you served a minimum time in each position(maybe a year or two – or less), all that was needed to go higher was some cash. unfortunately, that meant titled idiots could easily climb the ranks while good soldiers of more modest means languished with little hope of ever being promoted.