Charles Cornwallis was born on December 31, 1738 into a very wealthy family of high stature. He belonged to a family with a long line of noble descendants. He was, by birthright, part of a small group known as the peers of the realm, which were representatives in the House of Lords. He was heir to an Earl, which nobility between a viscount and a marquis, which was his father, also Charles Cornwallis, and later became the first Marquis Cornwallis, ranking above a count in nobility. Because of his rank, he could claim a number of rewards and the offices of his country.
Another advantage of being born to a prestigious family was the level of education. At that period in history, most Englishmen of his generation were illiterate. Charles Cornwallis was able to read, write, and speak more than one language. For about a year he studied at Eton, which, according to Cornwallis: The American Adventure, taught students “how to administer a beating and how to take one,” (Wickwire 23). It was an extremely tough school that was very popular among noble Englishmen. Afterwards, he went to military school in Turin, Italy, which, according to Franklin and Mary Wickwire, was considered one of the best military academies Europe. Cornwallis only attending the academy for a few months, but according toCornwallis: The American Adventure, it was still more preparation than any of his fellow officers. Before attending, though, he had enlisted in the army and, not yet eighteen years old, been placed in the Grenadier Guards, and he had attended military school on his own accord to become acquainted with military matters. When he left the academy, he visited some German courts to understand the conflict between the British and the French, who were already beginning to fight.
In every book and every website I have ever looked at on Charles Cornwallis, it is said that he was extremely capable as an officer. After all, he had devoted his entire childhood to developing his military skills. But then I read a line in an essay written by Hugh F. Rankin, called Charles Cornwallis: Study in Frustration. I found this essay on page 193 in the book George Washington's Opponents. Rankin wrote, “Measured in terms of his military experience, Charles, Earl Cornwallis, should have been the outstanding British general in the American Revolution,” (Rankin 193). He has a very impressive military “résumé”, and I agree with Rankin that Cornwallis seemed like the first in command general that the British needed. In the end, I believe that he actually was the reason that the British the Revolutionary War. Cornwallis eventually did more bad that good. According to the Encyclopedia of American Revolution by Mark Mayo Boatner III, some modern historians believe that he lost the war for the British, and had another, James Wolfe for instance, lead the British army, their victory would have been quick (Boatner 285). In the same book, I read that H. Morse Stephens, who used to be the president of the American Historical Association, wrote that “George III no doubt felt that he could depend on the loyalty of Cornwallis, who did not refuse to take a command in the war…though he had systematically opposed thee measures which caused the insurrection,” (Boatner 286). This greatly shocked me. I won't go so far as to accuse Cornwallis of deciding to fight for the British with the sole intention of bringing them down, though I will say that he wasn't completely devoted to the British cause, and other distractions only made his situation worse.
Trevelyan, a former English politician, described Charles Cornwallis as “an English aristocrat of the finest type…enlightened, tolerant and humane; contemptuous of money and indifferent to the outward badges of honour…a living and most attractive example of antique and singleminded patriotism,” (Boatner 285). Cornwallis seems to have been extremely patriotic, and if that is true, then I think that he wouldn't be able to see the possibility of fighting against his own country, especially since he received a lot from England, since he held so many positions of high stature. It's like a democratic member of the Supreme Court going to fight with the Iraqi terrorists against the US Army. Cornwallis had been urging to get into battle. It is written in Rankin's essay that Cornwallis always suspected many political leaders of supporting the revolution, but he did not arrest them because he thought it “it might be considered rather as an act of Fear than Justice.” According to
Cornwallis: The American Adventure, “[Cornwallis] wanted to be among those soldiers. He determined to join the army in Germany no matter what the obstacles. If could not catch up with his regiment, he would serve in any honorable capacity,” (Wickwire 27). He was a noble in England; therefore, he had no choice but to fight for the British. Yet he was a very well educated man, and he knew how to form his own opinion. He did support the American cause. This is also important, because his mistakes were often sloppy, and I don't think that they seem natural for someone who had succeeded at Earl and the military academy in Turin, then continued his studies on his own, with the help of his private tutor.
