What do you think?
Rate this book
Washington's General: Nathanael Greene and the Triumph of the American Revolution
The overlooked Quaker from Rhode Island who won the American Revolution's crucial southern campaign and helped to set up the final victory of American independence at Yorktown
Nathanael Greene is a revolutionary hero who has been lost to history. Although places named in his honor dot city and country, few people know his quintessentially American story as a self-made, self-educated military genius who renounced his Quaker upbringing-horrifying his large family-to take up arms against the British. Untrained in military matters when he joined the Rhode Island militia in 1774, he quickly rose to become Washington's right-hand man and heir apparent. After many daring exploits during the war's first four years (and brilliant service as the army's quartermaster), he was chosen in 1780 by Washington to replace the routed Horatio Gates in South Carolina.
Greene's southern campaign, which combined the forces of regular troops with bands of irregulars, broke all the rules of eighteenth-century warfare and foreshadowed the guerrilla wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His opponent in the south, Lord Cornwallis, wrote, "Greene is as dangerous as Washington. I never feel secure when I am encamped in his neighborhood. He is vigilant, enterprising, and full of resources." Greene's ingenious tactics sapped the British of their strength and resolve even as they "won" nearly every battle. Terry Golway argues that Greene's appointment as commander of the American Southern Army was the war's decisive moment, and this bold new book returns Greene to his proper place in the Revolutionary era's pantheon.
"Washington said if he went down in battle, Greene was his choice to succeed him. Read this book and you will understand why." -- Joseph J. Ellis, author of His Excellency: George Washington
Nathanael Greene is a revolutionary hero who has been lost to history. Although places named in his honor dot city and country, few people know his quintessentially American story as a self-made, self-educated military genius who renounced his Quaker upbringing-horrifying his large family-to take up arms against the British. Untrained in military matters when he joined the Rhode Island militia in 1774, he quickly rose to become Washington's right-hand man and heir apparent. After many daring exploits during the war's first four years (and brilliant service as the army's quartermaster), he was chosen in 1780 by Washington to replace the routed Horatio Gates in South Carolina.
Greene's southern campaign, which combined the forces of regular troops with bands of irregulars, broke all the rules of eighteenth-century warfare and foreshadowed the guerrilla wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His opponent in the south, Lord Cornwallis, wrote, "Greene is as dangerous as Washington. I never feel secure when I am encamped in his neighborhood. He is vigilant, enterprising, and full of resources." Greene's ingenious tactics sapped the British of their strength and resolve even as they "won" nearly every battle. Terry Golway argues that Greene's appointment as commander of the American Southern Army was the war's decisive moment, and this bold new book returns Greene to his proper place in the Revolutionary era's pantheon.
"Washington said if he went down in battle, Greene was his choice to succeed him. Read this book and you will understand why." -- Joseph J. Ellis, author of His Excellency: George Washington
368 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 2004
77 people are currently reading
943 people want to read
About the author
Terry Golway
34 books47 followersTerry Golway is a journalist, historian and the author of more than a dozen books. His latest, "Terror From America," is his first novel. It takes place in New York and London as Irish Americans are using politics and violence to win freedom for Ireland. In the novel, Sherlock Holmes arrives in New York to break up the conspiracy.
Golway has worked for the New York Observer, the New York Times and Politico, and has written for many other publications, including America magazine and the Irish Echo. He is an adjunct professor of history and political science at the College of Staten Island, his alma mater. He also holds a Ph.D. in US History from Rutgers University.
Golway has worked for the New York Observer, the New York Times and Politico, and has written for many other publications, including America magazine and the Irish Echo. He is an adjunct professor of history and political science at the College of Staten Island, his alma mater. He also holds a Ph.D. in US History from Rutgers University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
May 22, 2012
Overall, it was okay. I wanted to learn more about Greene and the Revolutionary War fought in the South, and I did. But the book left me a bit disappointed. It started out fine, but when I got to 1780 when Greene took over command of the army in the South, the writing style got very short and it read almost like a travelogue. (Greene went here and fought the British and retreated, Greene went there and fought the British and retreated, then the war ended and he died.) It made me wonder if a different person wrote the end of the book, or if the author just got bored of writing and tried to finish it up as quickly as he could.
October 30, 2010
Most people do not know who Nathanael Greene was or the amount that he contributed to America's independence from Great Britain. He was one of Washington's generals, but was overshadowed by Horatio Gates and Henry Knox. Golway makes Greene very relatable to the reader as somebody who was truly human. He walked with a limp, but through hard work, rose through the ranks to become one of Washington's most trusted generals.
When looking at somebody like Nathanael Greene, it is important to discuss, much like JQA, where he came from and why his role was significant. In this book, Golway showed me that it is not only important to do those two things, but find common ground between your subject and your reader. If this gap is not bridged, it is difficult to connect with a text. I felt like I was able to connect with Nathanael Greene more than any of the other Revolutionaries I have read about.
When looking at somebody like Nathanael Greene, it is important to discuss, much like JQA, where he came from and why his role was significant. In this book, Golway showed me that it is not only important to do those two things, but find common ground between your subject and your reader. If this gap is not bridged, it is difficult to connect with a text. I felt like I was able to connect with Nathanael Greene more than any of the other Revolutionaries I have read about.
May 15, 2023
I wanted so much more from this book. Not sure if this is due to a lack of source material but this seemed like more of an outline than an in depth biography. I really expected more about Greenes southern career but as I kept getting nearer to completion, he still remained up north.
While certainly not the authors fault I also expected to leave this book in awe of a great man. I didn’t come away with anything close to that. Instead i’m now debating if I even like him. Hopefully Nathanael pops up often in future reads because he is intriguing enough to want to get to like him. At this time however, I’m not convinced there is more to like.
While certainly not the authors fault I also expected to leave this book in awe of a great man. I didn’t come away with anything close to that. Instead i’m now debating if I even like him. Hopefully Nathanael pops up often in future reads because he is intriguing enough to want to get to like him. At this time however, I’m not convinced there is more to like.
March 20, 2022
Well-written and thorough look at the life and military career of Nathanael Greene. A solid biography for those interested in Revolutionary War figures.
June 24, 2015
Solid book. Good read, solid use of sources. Short and easy to read.
August 29, 2025
One of the most meteoric rises amongst the Revolutionary leadership. Growing up a self-study in military tactics and strategy, he eagerly joined the RI militia at the onset of the response to British occupation of Boston. Due to a lifelong limp he was told by peers he made their drill look unprofessional and he was unfit. Within 6 months, with nothing more than ambition, political connections, self-acquired knowledge, and character, he was placed in command of the state militia. Within 8 months, at the creation of the US Army, he was the youngest Brigadier General on Washington’s staff. Within a year, he was entrusted with command of all American forces on Long Island in preparation of British invasion.
There is much to honor about his service; his willingness to fight despite the odds, his tenacious pursuit of leadership, his reforms to the role of quartermaster which arguably saved the continental army in its direst condition, and his strategic foresight and execution of maneuver in the southern theater. However, despite these achievements it is shockingly hard to find admirable leadership traits in Greene based on this telling. It isn’t clear to history exactly how he got to his station at the beginning of the war, but it seemed hardly deserving. He became close to Washington in what can easily be seen as simple brown-nosing and backing the right horse which was fruitful only barely and through fortune. He was equal parts slow to act (Fort Washington) and tactically decisive (Springfield, Guilford Courthouse) indicating chance had much to play in the outcomes - he also advised Morgan against the engagement which became Cowpens, then just copy-pasted it at Guilford Courthouse ending in a different result. His tactical track record is mostly uninventive and often with limited or no success (Hobkirk’s Hill, Ninety-Six, Eutaw Springs), only able to claim strategic victory through chance or the independent actions of others. Essentially, he was just lucky. “He won nothing, and yet, he had defeated everything the British and fortune had thrown at him.”
Thin-skinned and prideful, he took slight at offense and seemed willing to throw it all away on more than one occasion when doubted, even quick to cast blame on failures when he was in part responsible. Not to mention the multitude of times he essentially gaslit his wife into doing what he wanted without consideration of her priorities or needs.
Ultimately, it can be said without question that Greene’s involvement directly led to the American victory in the entire war. As quartermaster, he saved an army on the verge of collapse. As southern theater commander, he arguably won the war (with a massive assist from Morgan, Marion, Sumter, Pickens, H Lee, and W Washington) through his understanding of logistics (both his and Cornwallis’), superb strategy in the “race to the Dan,” and dogged pursuit of the enemy with the tactical patience of knowing when to strike combined with the importance of understanding the impact of using tactical defeat to achieve strategic victory - surrendering the field in order to fight another day. In his words, “We fight, get beat, rise and fight again.”
Book Side-note: To my memory, this is the first account mentioning how at the start of the conflict, colonials supported the king and believed hostility to stem from British parliament and the military alone. Not until late 1775 when G. III’d personally declared the addition of more troops being sent did they realize king and parliament were united against them.
There is much to honor about his service; his willingness to fight despite the odds, his tenacious pursuit of leadership, his reforms to the role of quartermaster which arguably saved the continental army in its direst condition, and his strategic foresight and execution of maneuver in the southern theater. However, despite these achievements it is shockingly hard to find admirable leadership traits in Greene based on this telling. It isn’t clear to history exactly how he got to his station at the beginning of the war, but it seemed hardly deserving. He became close to Washington in what can easily be seen as simple brown-nosing and backing the right horse which was fruitful only barely and through fortune. He was equal parts slow to act (Fort Washington) and tactically decisive (Springfield, Guilford Courthouse) indicating chance had much to play in the outcomes - he also advised Morgan against the engagement which became Cowpens, then just copy-pasted it at Guilford Courthouse ending in a different result. His tactical track record is mostly uninventive and often with limited or no success (Hobkirk’s Hill, Ninety-Six, Eutaw Springs), only able to claim strategic victory through chance or the independent actions of others. Essentially, he was just lucky. “He won nothing, and yet, he had defeated everything the British and fortune had thrown at him.”
Thin-skinned and prideful, he took slight at offense and seemed willing to throw it all away on more than one occasion when doubted, even quick to cast blame on failures when he was in part responsible. Not to mention the multitude of times he essentially gaslit his wife into doing what he wanted without consideration of her priorities or needs.
Ultimately, it can be said without question that Greene’s involvement directly led to the American victory in the entire war. As quartermaster, he saved an army on the verge of collapse. As southern theater commander, he arguably won the war (with a massive assist from Morgan, Marion, Sumter, Pickens, H Lee, and W Washington) through his understanding of logistics (both his and Cornwallis’), superb strategy in the “race to the Dan,” and dogged pursuit of the enemy with the tactical patience of knowing when to strike combined with the importance of understanding the impact of using tactical defeat to achieve strategic victory - surrendering the field in order to fight another day. In his words, “We fight, get beat, rise and fight again.”
Book Side-note: To my memory, this is the first account mentioning how at the start of the conflict, colonials supported the king and believed hostility to stem from British parliament and the military alone. Not until late 1775 when G. III’d personally declared the addition of more troops being sent did they realize king and parliament were united against them.
May 11, 2025
An engaging and succinct biography of the self-made Quaker that worked his way from a lowly, limping Rhode Island militiaman all the way to Washington’s most trusted Major General. Golway has a smooth, simple writing style and doesn’t use some of the obscure adjectives you’d find in a Chernow biography, making this book a pretty quick read for a historical biography. He doesn’t idolize Greene and instead paints a picture of Greene as a man with all his strengths and shortcomings. He highlights Greene’s tremendous work ethic, diligence, and military acumen without downplaying his fragile ego and, most egregiously, his conversion from an abolitionist Quaker to a slave-owning planter.
While this human portrayal of Greene allows the reader to relate to him, I did find some detail to be lacking, especially as it pertains to the southern campaign and Greene’s (short) post-war life. Golway refrains from wandering too far from his subject, so if you’re looking for more background on the American Revolution or Greene’s contemporaries then you’re better off looking elsewhere. If you’re looking for a spotlight on the general that transformed the southern campaign from disaster into victory, look no further.
While this human portrayal of Greene allows the reader to relate to him, I did find some detail to be lacking, especially as it pertains to the southern campaign and Greene’s (short) post-war life. Golway refrains from wandering too far from his subject, so if you’re looking for more background on the American Revolution or Greene’s contemporaries then you’re better off looking elsewhere. If you’re looking for a spotlight on the general that transformed the southern campaign from disaster into victory, look no further.
April 21, 2021
Truly a great look into the life of Nathanael Greene but I think I appreciate the book more for its history of Rhode Island in the beginning and the American Revolution in the South at the end. These were two aspects I certainly expected, but they really inform Greene's life, and were not part of American Revolution history as I'd read in the past.
The one knock I have against the book is an unfair one - it spends a lot of time in Boston 1775, New York 1776 and through the campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It has to spend time here, Greene was present at those theaters of war. But that's the history I know best, and Greene and this book really shine in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Rhode Island.
It's also added a lot to my list of historical places to visit, for what that's worth.
The one knock I have against the book is an unfair one - it spends a lot of time in Boston 1775, New York 1776 and through the campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It has to spend time here, Greene was present at those theaters of war. But that's the history I know best, and Greene and this book really shine in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Rhode Island.
It's also added a lot to my list of historical places to visit, for what that's worth.
August 26, 2017
A succinct, well-written biography; one that is a bit on the short side, but better that than one of excess chaff.
The author takes a balanced look at Nathanael Greene, presenting his flaws alongside his skills and triumphs. He manages to present necessary information about the various battles and skirmishes of the Revolutionary War without going on too long, and provides the necessary background and context without getting sidetracked.
My biggest critique would be that the ending of the book is rather abrupt; I realize Greene's death was itself rather abrupt, but it would have been nice to get a bit more of an epilogue wrapping everything up.
The author takes a balanced look at Nathanael Greene, presenting his flaws alongside his skills and triumphs. He manages to present necessary information about the various battles and skirmishes of the Revolutionary War without going on too long, and provides the necessary background and context without getting sidetracked.
My biggest critique would be that the ending of the book is rather abrupt; I realize Greene's death was itself rather abrupt, but it would have been nice to get a bit more of an epilogue wrapping everything up.
June 11, 2023
Nathanael Greene was a less known key General during the Revolutionary War. Even though only self taught about military matters, he became a key advisor to George Washington. Though not in the spotlight, he kept the army alive during the Valley Forge winter and he led soldiers at Trenton and with the Army in the South - contributing to eventual American victory. He died at age 44 deeply in debt. He might have gone on to become one of the Founding Fathers, had he not died young, due to his remarkable organizational skills.
September 7, 2024
A nice, competent biography of an overlooked patriot/soldier who made major contributions to the American effort in the Revolutionary War. Greene, who began the war as an amateur, was a favorite of George Washington. Greene was dependable and smart, and a quick-learner. Equally popular, as Golway points out, was Green's wife, who enjoyed balls and parties and flirting when the army was in winter camp. The author invites us to speculate what role Greene might have played in the formative years of the republic if he had not died so young.
August 6, 2018
This is the best book written thus far on General Greene. Accurate information has been a long time coming on the General. His historical papers were not compiled and released until 1976. I’ve been searching for factual information on Nathanael Greene since the 1950’s because I was told as a child that our Greene family was related to him. Now I know his story, his influence, his devotion to an independent America and the sacrifices he and his family made during the Revolutionary War.
September 29, 2023
Major General Nathanael Greene was a quiet and pivotal officer that drove the British through the Southern Campaign of the Revolutionary War to surrender at Yorktown, VA. The research, background and assembly of the stories is remarkable and thorough. Very interesting read. Nathanael Greene is an ancestor of our family and it is always enlightening to read about these early American heroes. If you enjoy American history and the Revolutionary War, this book should be on your bookshelf.
June 1, 2017
Excellent read. I personally wish it had condensed the amount of time spent talking about his time in the North, his time as quartermaster, and his personal character, and spent more time going into more detail about his Southern strategies. His Southern campaign is a small section towards the end of the book. Still very well done and I very much enjoyed it.
January 25, 2023
I liked the author's writing style, but was disappointed with the complete lack of pictures and maps. The narrative is a bit light about his earlier years, probably because of a lack of source material. The analyses of strategy during the southern campaign are excellent. So, 3 🌟🌟🌟 for some parts, 5 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟 for others = 4 🌟🌟🌟🌟 overall.
December 1, 2023
Engaging book, well written, about one of the key Generals of the American revolution. Sadly, you never heard or read about him in your history class.
A little more information on his strategies and a little less about his love letters to his wife would be my criticism. But it is definitely worth a read, to learn more about this unknown right hand man to Washington.
A little more information on his strategies and a little less about his love letters to his wife would be my criticism. But it is definitely worth a read, to learn more about this unknown right hand man to Washington.
June 2, 2019
Nathanael Greene's biographies are generally wanting. This is probably the best one around. There is some detail about the battles although the author spends more time quoting letters from the general to and from his wife.
May 15, 2024
I gave it 3 stars for the historical accuracy and amount of personal correspondence the book contains. However, it seems that the author almost has a personal distaste for the subject he is writing about and it is hard to become engaged with a narrative that is presented so negatively.
February 18, 2026
A Very Good Read!!
This work is well written and contains a lot of detail about the life of General Greene. The conditions that Greene and Washington had to serve under were horrendous, but yet after much determination they were successful.
This work is well written and contains a lot of detail about the life of General Greene. The conditions that Greene and Washington had to serve under were horrendous, but yet after much determination they were successful.
November 8, 2017
Washington's best general and closet confidant. A master of men and the battlefield, what Knox did with artillery, Greene championed with men and strategy.
November 17, 2017
Great info on a person I've been wanting to know more about, but the writing makes this read a sludge.
January 21, 2019
Very good book about a true revolutionary war hero. Toured his house in Rhode Island and now I know more about his life.
May 13, 2019
Interesting bio of a former Quaker who became a general. This bio shows all the warts on Greene as well as his strengths. Good wayu to get a picture of the whole Revolutionary war.
June 23, 2019
It's a shame that Nathanael Greene died so young.
July 26, 2020
Simply one of the best , most informative biographies of one America's greatest Generals. Glad to have read this.
August 28, 2022
Finally learned about Nathaniel Greene and his importance to the Revolutionary War. Would have liked more detail on the actual military maneuvers and action and less about his wife Caty.
January 29, 2025
Awesome book it really humanized General Greene and pointed out his flaws.
January 23, 2026
Not particularly well written, Golway doesn't go far enough afield to bring the context of events into Greene's crucial role in the Revolutionary War .
February 24, 2026
History is so much more interesting when it follows the perspective of one of the heroes.
December 17, 2015
I’ve been fascinated with Nathanael Greene since I was very young. He was an interesting person in himself, but what interests me even more is that he never got credit for the influence he had, not just on the outcome of the Revolution, but on military strategy and doctrine.
Greene grew up in a Quaker family in Rhode Island. His father didn’t believe in anything like a liberal education, so anything Greene learned that wasn’t written in the bible, he taught himself. He was particularly interested in military history and strategy, and in 1774, he joined the New Hampshire militia. It says something about mobilization for that war, and something about Greene, that within two years year he went from being a private in a state militia to a major general in the Continental Army. But he got Washington’s attention and became one of his favorites.
Greene had some moderate success as a strategist during the early years of the war, but really won Washington’s favor by keeping the army clothed and fed as its quartermaster through Valley Forge and some incredibly lean years. What he really wanted though, was a field command, and he continually reminded Washington of this. But Washington needed an opportunity to give him one.
By the summer of 1780, the Continental Army in the South was under the command of Horatio Gates, an ambitious general who disliked George Washington and thought he wasn’t suited to be the commander in chief. Gates thought he himself should have the job. It didn’t help Gates’ case when he led the army into a disastrous battle at Camden, South Carolina, in which they were nearly annihilated. Gates was relieved of his command, and Washington sent Greene to lead what remained of the southern army.
The idea was to somehow wrest control of Georgia and the Carolinas away from the British. But there was no way Greene would be able to accomplish this in open battle, when they were outnumbered nearly 7 to 1, had little artillery and not enough horses and were in relatively hostile territory, since the South was known for having a higher ratio of loyalists. So Greene maneuvered, constantly on the move, crisscrossing through the South, getting the British to chase him, occasionally turning to fight them, but then quickly abandoning the field once he had harangued the British enough.
Greene came to the realization that the war didn’t have to be about taking and controlling territory. He instead chose to make sure that every time his army made a stand and the British chased them off, it was at a huge cost to the British. They could have the land. Greene’s campaign included three major battles, at Cowpens, Guilford Courthouse and Eutaw Springs, and technically, Greene lost every one of them. But in the end, the British expended so much energy chasing him and his tiny army, that they had effectively given up control of the South simply because they weren't there. And they were so exhausted and depleted from the chase, and from the cost of driving Greene off those battlefields, that they chose to hole up far away in Virginia, at Yorktown. There, they were surrounded by Washington’s army from the north, hemmed in by the French fleet off the coast, and the entire British Southern army surrendered. It effectively ended the war.
In reality, what Greene conducted was an insurgency, and the British never figured out how to deal with it. It didn’t come down to territory or positioning, it came down to the fact that Greene dictated the terms of engagement, and the British let him. The British were willing to give up a thousand soldiers in order to gain the field at Guilford Courthouse. Greene was willing to give up the field at Guilford Courthouse at the cost of a thousand British soldiers. The British general, Cornwallis, who was considered their best strategist, played right into his hands. He maneuvered Cornwallis all over the south, led him away from the territory he was there to secure and into the territory from which he never escaped. It was incredibly dramatic, and it was truly brilliant.
And yet, very few people in the United States know who Nathanael Greene was. Part of that is a general lack of knowledge of our own history, and part of it is the fact that Greene never got his due. He wasn’t a politician, he died young and wasn’t really a part of the administration of the United States after the war. He went pretty quietly. But his contribution was one of a few fundamental elements that affected the way that war went, at a time it could have gone either way. I would love to see more research and more writing done on who he was and what he did.
Greene grew up in a Quaker family in Rhode Island. His father didn’t believe in anything like a liberal education, so anything Greene learned that wasn’t written in the bible, he taught himself. He was particularly interested in military history and strategy, and in 1774, he joined the New Hampshire militia. It says something about mobilization for that war, and something about Greene, that within two years year he went from being a private in a state militia to a major general in the Continental Army. But he got Washington’s attention and became one of his favorites.
Greene had some moderate success as a strategist during the early years of the war, but really won Washington’s favor by keeping the army clothed and fed as its quartermaster through Valley Forge and some incredibly lean years. What he really wanted though, was a field command, and he continually reminded Washington of this. But Washington needed an opportunity to give him one.
By the summer of 1780, the Continental Army in the South was under the command of Horatio Gates, an ambitious general who disliked George Washington and thought he wasn’t suited to be the commander in chief. Gates thought he himself should have the job. It didn’t help Gates’ case when he led the army into a disastrous battle at Camden, South Carolina, in which they were nearly annihilated. Gates was relieved of his command, and Washington sent Greene to lead what remained of the southern army.
The idea was to somehow wrest control of Georgia and the Carolinas away from the British. But there was no way Greene would be able to accomplish this in open battle, when they were outnumbered nearly 7 to 1, had little artillery and not enough horses and were in relatively hostile territory, since the South was known for having a higher ratio of loyalists. So Greene maneuvered, constantly on the move, crisscrossing through the South, getting the British to chase him, occasionally turning to fight them, but then quickly abandoning the field once he had harangued the British enough.
Greene came to the realization that the war didn’t have to be about taking and controlling territory. He instead chose to make sure that every time his army made a stand and the British chased them off, it was at a huge cost to the British. They could have the land. Greene’s campaign included three major battles, at Cowpens, Guilford Courthouse and Eutaw Springs, and technically, Greene lost every one of them. But in the end, the British expended so much energy chasing him and his tiny army, that they had effectively given up control of the South simply because they weren't there. And they were so exhausted and depleted from the chase, and from the cost of driving Greene off those battlefields, that they chose to hole up far away in Virginia, at Yorktown. There, they were surrounded by Washington’s army from the north, hemmed in by the French fleet off the coast, and the entire British Southern army surrendered. It effectively ended the war.
In reality, what Greene conducted was an insurgency, and the British never figured out how to deal with it. It didn’t come down to territory or positioning, it came down to the fact that Greene dictated the terms of engagement, and the British let him. The British were willing to give up a thousand soldiers in order to gain the field at Guilford Courthouse. Greene was willing to give up the field at Guilford Courthouse at the cost of a thousand British soldiers. The British general, Cornwallis, who was considered their best strategist, played right into his hands. He maneuvered Cornwallis all over the south, led him away from the territory he was there to secure and into the territory from which he never escaped. It was incredibly dramatic, and it was truly brilliant.
And yet, very few people in the United States know who Nathanael Greene was. Part of that is a general lack of knowledge of our own history, and part of it is the fact that Greene never got his due. He wasn’t a politician, he died young and wasn’t really a part of the administration of the United States after the war. He went pretty quietly. But his contribution was one of a few fundamental elements that affected the way that war went, at a time it could have gone either way. I would love to see more research and more writing done on who he was and what he did.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews