Chapter VI: The War in the Southern Department (3)

On his way South, Greene left Steuben[1058] in Virginia to organize and push forward recruits as fast as possible. The gallant Prussian seems to have been ill-suited to the command of raw republican militia; but the American leaders in the State, Muhlenberg, Lawson, and Stevens, aided him as well as they could. It was not until the arrival of Lafayette with his Continentals from the Eastern States that much was done to oppose the enemy. The governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, showed a lamentable lack of energy during Arnold's and Cornwallis's invasions, though the word "imbecility", applied to his conduct by Howison, would seem to be undeserved.[1059] Of course, Jefferson's biographers have defended their hero from these charges,[1060] but Giradin's _Continuation of Burk's Virginia_,[1061] written in the neighborhood of Monticello, and apparently under Jeffersonian auspices, is the most extensive account of Jefferson's administration from his side.

It was not, however, until the publication of the _Virginia State Papers_[1062] that the truth concerning the campaigns preliminary to Yorktown could be ascertained. But these two volumes taken in connection with the _Nelson Papers_ have thrown a new light on all these transactions.[1063]

Washington's _Writings_ and Sparks's _Correspondence of the Revolution_ contain much relating to all these operations, though Washington's _Journal_ and his order-books are even more valuable for the Yorktown campaign. Of the commander of the auxiliary troops, the Marquis of Rochambeau, I have found little outside of his well-known _Mémoires_.[1064] For much of what we know concerning the movements of the French we are indebted to John Austin Stevens, a former editor of the _Magazine of American History_. His articles, as well as those by other hands, will be mentioned in the Notes.

The papers of the British commanders have been much better preserved. All official documents of popular interest and conducing to the glory of the nation were published, sometimes in full, sometimes in extract, in the governmental organ known as _The London Gazette_. Thence they were copied, in whole or in part, into the _Remembrancer_, _Gentleman's Magazine_, _Scot's Magazine_, _Political Magazine_, and often into that portion of the _Annual Register_ known as "Principal Occurrences." Many of them, and many other papers of the greatest importance, were printed in the _Parliamentary Register_, or Debrett's _Debates_, as it is often called.

The Sackville Papers, forming the third appendix to the _Ninth Report_ of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts,[1065] contain much of very great value; but many of the most important papers therein printed have been accessible in other forms. Soon after the surrender at Yorktown, the House of Lords appointed a committee to inquire into the conduct of the Yorktown campaign. Later, upon their order, many of the letters and papers bearing on this event were printed. They may be found in the _Parliamentary Register_,[1066] while many were translated into French, and published in a small volume under the title of _Correspondance du Lord G. Germain avec les Généraux Clinton, Cornwallis_, etc. (Berne, 1782). Most of these documents, however, had been already printed in other places. The surrender induced Cornwallis[1067] and Clinton to lay upon the shoulders of each other the responsibility.[1068] The truth seems to be that neither was responsible, since the disaster was due, above all, to the arrival of De Grasse and the consequent transference of the control of the sea from the British to the Allies. For this neither Clinton nor Cornwallis was to blame. The quarrel led to the publication, however, of so many papers of the greatest importance that the historical student can hardly regret its occurrence.

Nor was Clinton on good terms with Mariot Arbuthnot, who had accused Clinton of permitting thievery to go on under his very eyes.[1069] Naturally this want of cordiality made coöperation very difficult. After Clinton's departure Cornwallis was the commander-in-chief in the South; but Colonel Nesbit Balfour, who commanded in the city of Charleston, made separate reports to Germain. He does not seem to have been possessed with a very sanguine disposition, and his reports therefore present a more accurate picture of affairs than do the despatches of Cornwallis himself.

Several of the British officers wrote formal accounts of their doings, the most notable of which is Tarleton's _Campaigns_.[1070] Portions of it are trustworthy, but in general the author placed his own services in such a favorable light that the true course of history is almost unrecognisable. Nevertheless, the book contains so many documents not elsewhere to be obtained, except at great labor, that it has a value. Tarleton's unjust discriminations and criticisms brought forth a most caustic review from the pen of Mackenzie,[1071] a Scotch officer, who served in a regiment which often accompanied the "Legion." Cornwallis, who had also been attacked by Tarleton, never replied to his criticisms in print; but he wrote to a "friend" (cf. letter dated Calcutta, Dec. 12, 1787, in the _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 59, note) that "Tarleton's is a most malicious and false attack; he knew and approved the reasons for several of the measures which he now blames. My not sending relief to Colonel Ferguson, although he was positively ordered to retire, was entirely owing to Tarleton himself: he pleaded weakness from the remains of a fever, and refused to make the attempt, although I used the most earnest entreaties." It should be noted, however, that this alleged refusal on Tarleton's part created no coolness at the time. Simcoe's narrative[1072] is even more egotistical than Tarleton's. But his details may be relied upon if one constantly remembers that events are related without any regard to their real importance. Captain, afterwards General, Graham served with Cornwallis in the 76th Highlanders through the most important portions of his North Carolina and Virginia campaigns. His _Memoirs_,[1073] therefore, though execrably edited so far as the American portion is concerned, should be consulted. Another book which partakes of the nature of an original source is the so-called _Journal_[1074] of R. Lamb, who served through the war, and his statements have a value. The only regimental history of much interest is Hamilton's _Grenadier Guards_,[1075] a corps which after Cowpens rendered good service, and this account of their achievements bears all the marks of originality. There are but few manuscripts of importance, written by British officers, accessible on this side of the ocean.[1076]

The most valuable history of the Revolution from a British pen is Gordon's well-known work. This author was assisted by Gates and Greene so far as the Southern campaigns were concerned. The volumes contain, moreover, many fragments of letters that have never seen the light in their entirety. Taken altogether, this work ranks with Ramsay as an authority of the very first importance. The only other important _History of the American War_ from the English side is the work which bears the name of Charles Stedman on the title-page. Whoever the author of the text may have been, the writer of many of the notes in the part devoted to the war in the South was undoubtedly an on-looker. Still another work worthy of mention in this place, though mainly as the repository of documents, is Beatson's _Memoirs_. In addition there are numerous diaries, journals, etc. They relate mainly to but one battle or campaign, and will be mentioned in the following "Notes."

NOTES.

SAVANNAH, 1778.[1077]—Campbell's formal report to Germain was first printed in _The London Gazette_ for Feb. 20-23, 1779,—reprinted in _Remembrancer_, vii. 235; Hough's _Siege of Savannah_, Introduction, p. 7; _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1779, p. 177; and Dawson's _Battles_, i. 477. Major-General Augustine Prevost's report is in the _Gazette_ for Feb. 23, 1779, and _Remembrancer_, vii. 243. It deals especially with his march from St. Augustine and capture of Sunbury.[1078] An American account of this latter event is in McCall's _Georgia_, ii. 176. Captain Hyde Parker[1079] reported to the Admiralty through the customary channel, and his report usually follows that of Prevost, as above. Howe seems to have presented no formal report, but Lincoln wrote to Washington (_Corresp. Rev._, ii. 244) early in the next year, describing the disaster. Howe's own side of the case, however, is fully set forth in the _Proceedings of a General Court-Martial held at Philadelphia in the State of Penna. by order of his Excellency General Washington_, Phila., 1782; reprinted in the _New York Historical Society's Collections_ (1879, pp. 213-311), where will be found Howe's orders (Dec. 29th,[1080] p. 282) and statement (pp. 285-310). The court, presided over by Steuben, acquitted Howe on all the charges "with the highest honor." Nevertheless, the majority of writers have been unfavorable to Howe. See especially Moultrie's _Memoirs_, i. 244; Lee's _Memoirs_ (2d edition), p. 40; Ramsay's _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 4. This last is a fairer view, and is followed by Gordon (_American Revolution_, iii. 212). See also Stedman, _American War_, ii. 66; McCall's _Georgia_, ii. 164, and C. C. Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 314. In this, the most recent history of Georgia, all the old statements are repeated.[1081]

An American description from a different point of view is the _Account of the Capture of Mordecai Sheftall, Deputy Commissary of Issues to the Continental Troops for the State of Georgia_, in White's _Historical Collections of Georgia_, p. 340. Sheftall also testified at the court-martial.[1082]

* * * * *

MINOR ACTIONS, 1779.—There is not much to be found as to Lincoln's doings before the siege of Savannah except his manuscript "order-books." Moultrie made an elaborate report of his encounter near Beaufort.[1083]

McCall was present at Kettle Creek, and his account[1084] of Boyd's overthrow has been generally followed by later writers. No official report of the affair has been found. The disaster at Brier Creek was much better chronicled. First comes Ashe's report to Lincoln (Moultrie, _Memoirs_, i. 323, and abridged in Dawson, _Battles_, i. 492). Lincoln wrote a good account of the affair (an extract of his letter in Dawson, as above), and the evidence given at the court-martial[1085] which tried Ashe is as full as can be desired.[1086] The British accounts do not differ essentially from these.[1087]

There is no lack of original material as to Prevost's unsuccessful attempt on Charleston,[1088] and Lincoln's attack on Stono. Moultrie made no formal report, but the documents and bits of journals scattered through his _Memoirs_ (i. 412-506) may well take its place. Prevost's report of his attempt was dated June 12, 1779 (_London Gazette_, Sept. 21-25, 1779, reprinted in _Remembrancer_, viii. 302). His report as to Stono is in the _Gazette_, as above, and also in _Remembrancer_ viii. 300. Lincoln's version of the latter affair is contained in a letter to Moultrie (_Memoirs_, i. 490, and Dawson, i. 501). Moultrie also printed other letters (cf. especially one from Colonel Grimkie in _Memoirs_, i. 495), and an interesting journal by an unknown hand is in _Remembrancer_ (viii. 349). Capt. John Henry, who succeeded Parker, in his reports corroborated Prevost as to the offer of neutrality on the part of some one in Charleston (_London Gazette_, July 10-13, 1779, and _Remembrancer_ viii. 183). Clinton also has something to say on the campaign in general in a report to Germain (_Remembrancer_, viii. 297).[1089]

Lincoln has been criticised for his march into Georgia, but the movement had the unanimous support of his generals. Cf. report of the council of war in Moultrie, i. 374. He supposed rightly, as we now know (cf. Prevost's report in _Remembrancer_, viii. 302), that the British commander's only object was to compel his return to South Carolina. Moultrie could have offered sufficient resistance if one half of his men had not deserted. Nevertheless, Lincoln was assailed in the Charleston papers, and complained bitterly of their unfairness. Cf. letter to Moultrie in _Memoirs_, i. 477. With regard to Rutledge's offer of neutrality, Professor Bowen has undoubtedly gone too far in describing it as "little short of treason."[1090] Still, if, as Rutledge's friends claim, the proposition was made merely to gain time, it was not made in good faith, and was therefore highly discreditable to the governor. But there is no evidence that the proposition was made in any such spirit, except the statement in Ramsay, which was copied by Gordon. The truth seems to be that Rutledge, greatly overestimating the numbers of the enemy, sought to save his native State from pillage. He yielded too easily to his fears. Moultrie takes no pains to conceal his disgust at the offer. The younger Laurens refused to have anything to do with the matter, while Gadsden and Ferguson, two members of the Council, voted against the proposal, and Edwards, another member, wept at the thought. Unfortunately, the minutes of the Council have been lost. Cf. Johnson, _Reply to Bentalou and Sparks_.[1091]

Sketched from a MS. map belonging to Dr. Samuel A. Green, of Boston, found in Paris, and giving the French view.

The plans of the siege are mainly English ones. That made by Colonel Moncrieff and published by Faden is used in Stedman's _American War_, ii. 79, and is reduced in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 736. Cf. also C. C. Jones's _Two Journals_ for a fac-simile (reduced in _Hist. of Georgia_, vol. ii.) of a _Plan of the French and American Siege of Savannah in Georgia in South America_ [sic] _under Command of the French general Count d'Estaing_. _The British commander in the town was General August Prevost, 1779._ It is from Hessian sources, and resembles Faden's. Also see Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Rev._, 1st ed., ii. 221. Carrington (p. 483) gives an eclectic map. Two contemporary MS. French maps (one measuring 28 × 16 and the other 22 × 22 inches) are in the Boston Public Library (Dufossé, _Americana_, no. 5,495). There are various MS. plans of Savannah and the siege among the Peter Force maps, and one in the Faden collection in the library of Congress. A good map of this region is _The Coasts, Rivers, and Inlets of the Province of Georgia; surveyed by Joseph Avery and others, and published by command of Gov't by J. F. W. Des Barres, 1st Feb., 1780_. Parker did not find his charts correct. _Remembrancer_, vii. 246.—ED.]

It is to be noted that, although there is no record of the actual presence of Indians at this siege, their absence was not due to any remissness on the part of Rutledge, who made every effort to persuade a band of "eighty Catawbas" to act with Moultrie. (Cf. the latter's _Memoirs_, i. pp. 397, 419, and 453.)

SIEGE OF SAVANNAH, 1779.—The best account of this disastrous siege is the _Journal_, by an unknown hand, which Col. C. C. Jones has translated, with copious notes, in his _Siege of Savannah in 1779 as described in two contemporaneous journals of French officers in the fleet of Count D'Estaing_, Albany, 1874, pp. 9-52. The other journal, of which he there gives a partial translation, is the well-known _Extrait du Journal d'un Officier de la Marine de l'escadre de M. le Comte D'Estaing, 1782_.[1092] Still another French account is in the form of an official report,[1093] and may have been the report of the commander himself. This is by no means certain, though Soulés (_Troublés_, iii. 217), in speaking of the numbers given in this report, says: "Le Comte d'Estaing dit dans sa relation", etc. This was first printed in the _Paris Gazette_, and was reprinted in the English and American papers of the time.

Prevost made an elaborate report to Germain, under date of Savannah, Nov. 1, 1779. It was accompanied by translations of the correspondence between the commanders, and was first printed in _The London Gazette_, Dec. 21-25, 1779.[1094] Captain John Henry also reported through the usual channel. He viewed the siege from a point different from Prevost's, and his report is therefore of interest.[1095] Hough has also reprinted in his _Savannah_ two "journals" from English sources.[1096] Mention must also be made of a valuable _Memorandum of a very critical period in the Province of South Carolina_, inclosed in a letter from J. H. Cruger to H. Cruger, etc., dated Savannah, Nov. 8, 1779, in _Magazine of American History_, 1878, p. 489.[1097]

Lincoln's report is very meagre (Hough, _Savannah_, 149). It should be supplemented by _An Account of the Siege of Savannah furnished by an Officer engaged in the attack, Major Thomas Pinckney_.[1098] Stevens, the Georgia historian, had access to Prevost's order-book, and he has printed in his _Georgia_ (ii. 200, etc.) a few documents not otherwise accessible. Lincoln's order-book is still in existence, and his papers were used by Lee in his valuable account of the affair (_Memoirs_, i. 99). The orders for the assault have been printed.[1099]

Moultrie was not present during the siege, but he gives a graphic account of the assault (_Memoirs_, 33-43). It is curious to note his attempt to defend the militia from the charge of luke-warmness on the ground that they joined the army to witness the surrender of the British, not to take part in a bloody storm. Ramsay was present at the siege, and his account is good (_Rev. in S. C._, ii. 34. See also Gordon, iii. 325, and Stedman, ii. 121). Captain McCall was there, too, and his account (_Georgia_, ii. 240-283) may be regarded as an original authority. The local histories[1100] are sufficiently detailed for the general reader, and there are at least two good French accounts,[1101] while the German historians[1102] should not be neglected, as there was a "Hessian" regiment in the town.

D'Estaing has usually been represented as hurrying on board and sailing away just in time to avoid a predicted storm. So far was this from being the case, that, although the assault was made on the 9th of October, the French were in front of the town on the 19th and 29th of the same month. The bulk of the fleet was blown from the anchorage on the 26th, though the last frigates did not leave until the 2d of November.[1103] Historians ignoring these facts have too often praised the prescience of D'Estaing. The truth seems to be, that, being conscious of exceeding his instructions and impatient of delay, the French commander hazarded everything on an assault, and lost. The delay in getting away was due for the most part to the bad discipline which prevailed in the fleet.[1104]

This gallant defence made Prevost a major-general, though he enjoyed his honors for but a short time, as he died in 1786. Maitland, to whose timely succor so much was due, died on the 26th of October from a fever contracted, it was supposed, during his gallant march to the aid of the beleaguered town. Cf. Hough, _Savannah_, p. 110. The success of the defence was due mainly to the talents and energy of the engineer officer, Moncrieff, attached to Prevost's expedition. No one was more conscious of this than Prevost, who wrote of him in the warmest terms in his report to Germain.[1105]

The charge of Oct. 9th was fatal to two of the most romantic characters in our Revolutionary history, Jasper and Pulaski.[1106]

* * * * *

CHARLESTON, 1780.—Lincoln presented no detailed report of his unsuccessful defence of Charleston, though a short note announcing the capitulation is in print. Lincoln asked for a court of inquiry into his conduct.[1107] But as no one doubted his integrity or capacity, no court was ever held. As to the siege itself, Moultrie has been the main reliance. His _Memoirs_ (ii. pp. 65 _et seq._) contain the official correspondence between the opposing commanders, and a diary or journal running from March 28th to May 12th, which bears all the marks of a contemporaneous document. Ramsay, too, was present at the defence, but his account (_Rev. in S. C._, ii. 45-62,—followed by Gordon, iii. 346) is very meagre.[1108]

On the British side, the descriptions in Tarleton (_Campaigns_, 4-23) and Stedman (_American War_, ii. 176-192) are interesting and detailed. So far as they relate to events outside of the immediate vicinity of the city, they are trustworthy; but neither of these officers was present at the siege itself.[1109] Of more importance than any contemporary account, with the possible exception of Moultrie's journal, is the report of Clinton to Germain. It is also in the form of a journal, and runs from March 29th to May 12th, and is printed as a part of _The London Gazette Extra_, issued on the 15th of June, 1780.[1110]

"KEY: A, landing of the king's troops at Edisto inlet on the 11th Feb., 1780. B, march of the army on landing from James island. C, the king's ships in the offing, waiting for the spring tides to cross the bar, which being effected the 20th March, they anchored in Five Fathom hole, whence having [passed] through a heavy fire from Fort Moultrie and the batteries of Sullivan island, [they] dropped anchor before the town on the 9th of April. E, redoubts to protect the transports in Stono river. F, strong redoubt erected near Fort Johnson. G, battery to remove the enemy's ships at _d_ in Ashley river. H, bridge made over Wapoo. I, march of the army from Linning's to Drayton's, 29th March, whence having crossed Ashley river, [it] halted the same night at X. K, encampment of the army, 30th March, on Charlestown Neck. L, march of a strong reinforcement to Col. Webster's corps, under the command of Earl Cornwallis, to cut off the enemy's communication by Cooper river. _a_, Fort Moultrie and works on Sullivan island, with the enemy's ships to enfilade the channel (surrendered on terms the 4th of May to the seamen and marines of the fleet). _d_, strong post on Lempries. _e_, ships in Cooper river, and Boom to obstruct the navigation. _f_, post on Mount Pleasant. _g_, Gibbs' Landing. _h_, redoubts and batteries to establish the first parallel begun the 1st of April. _i_, second parallel finished the 19th April. _k_, third parallel completed the 6th of May, whence having by sap drained and passed the enemy's canal works, [it] was carried on towards the ditch of the place, and the garrison, consisting of upwards of 6,000 men, [were] surrendered to his Majesty's arms, under the command of Lt.-Gen. Sir Hen. Clinton, K. B., etc., and Vice-Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot, on the 10th of May, 1780. The king's army and works are colored red, the enemy's yellow."—ED.]

The correspondence between Clinton and Germain with regard to the planning of this campaign is in the _Ninth Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission_, App. iii. pp. 95, 98, etc.[1111] In this same appendix are three letters from Arbuthnot to Germain, giving interesting details. His official report was made to Mr. Stevens, secretary of the Admiralty, and was printed with Clinton's report. It is especially valuable with regard to the operations of the fleet. There is a critical account of the siege in Lee's _Memoirs_, i. 115-142, and the more popular descriptions are unusually good, especially those from German sources.[1112]

* * * * *

MINOR ACTIONS, 1780.—It is to be regretted that we have no official account of the disaster at the Waxhaws from the American commander. Tarleton's official report to Cornwallis was originally printed in _The London Gazette Extra_, July 5, 1780.[1113] The description of the affair in Dawson's _Battles_, i. 582, is based upon _Adj. Bowyer's Particular Account of Colonel Buford's defeat_. It differs materially from the account of the British commander.[1114]

Lee says that most of the wounded died of their wounds. This can hardly be true, as Muhlenberg in a letter to Washington (Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_, 368) says that the prisoners taken at the Waxhaws have nearly all returned. There are no plans of the battle, and it has been found impossible to make any estimate of the numbers engaged.[1115]

Reduced from the plan in Johnson's _Traditions and Reminiscences of the Amer. Rev._ (Charleston, 1851), p. 247.—KEY (American works): A, Wilkins, 16 guns; B, Gibbs, 9 guns; C, Ferguson, 5 guns; D, Sugar House, 6 guns; E, old magazine, 5 guns; F, Cummings, 5 guns; G, northwest point, 4 guns; H, horn-work (citadel) and lines, 66 guns, beside mortars; K, Gadsden's wharf, 7 guns; L, Old Indian, 5 guns; M, Governor's bridge, 3 guns; N, Exchange, 7 guns; O, end of the bay, Littleton's bastion, 4 guns; P, Darrell's, 7 guns; Q, boom, eight vessels, secured by chains and spars.

(British works). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, redoubts begun April 1st; _o_, second parallel, finished April 19th; _p_, third parallel, completed May 6th; _q_, gun batteries; _r_, mortar batteries.—ED.

There is a contemporary English map: _Environs of Charleston, S. C. Published June 1, 1780_. _By Capt. George Sproule, Assistant Engineer on the spot_; and a MS. _Sketch of the coast from South Edisto to Charlestown, 1 March, 1780_,—showing, among other things, "the rebel redoubt" at Stono. The best plan of the siege itself is _A Sketch of the operations before Charleston, the Capital of South Carolina_. _Published 17th of June, 1780, according to Act of Parliament, by I. F. W. Des Barres, Eng._ It will be noticed that this was put forth two days after Clinton's despatch of May 14th was published in London. It is a large map, showing the positions in colors. There are two copies in the Harvard College library. It has been reprinted by Mayor Courtenay in the _Charleston Year-Book for 1882_, P. 360, as "Sir Henry Clinton's Map, 1780", with a description (p. 371). Some one has apparently attempted to remove the inscription referred to above, and only the words "of June, 1780" are legible. In other respects it is identical with the Des Barres map. In his _Year-Book_ (1880, p. 264) Mayor Courtenay has reproduced an interesting _Plan of Charlestown_. _With its Entrenchments and those made by the English, 1780._ It relates only to the lines themselves, and was probably the work of an American. There is a good map, with lines in colors, in Faden's _Plans of Battles_, which is reproduced in Tarleton, p. 32, and Stedman, ii. 184, Ramsay (_Rev. S. C._, ii. 59) gives an excellent map of a later date, as does Gordon (iii. 358). See also Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 765; Marshall's _Washington_, atlas no. 10; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 258; Carrington's _Battles_, p. 498; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1883, p. 827; and R. E. Lee's edition of Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 146. Mention should also be made of a MS. plan in the Faden coll., and of a map, apparently of French origin, the property of Daniel Ravenal, of Charleston (_Charleston Year-Book_, 1884, p. 295), which Mr. De Saussure regards as a copy of "Brigadier-General Du Portail's engineer's map;" but there seems to be no evidence of this in print. There is a good chart of Charleston harbor in the corner of Des Barres's map, and in the so-called _Mouzon Map_ (1775), while Ramsay (_Rev. S. C._, ii. 52) has a _Sketch of Charleston Harbour, showing the disposition of the British fleet under the command of Vice-Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot in the attack on Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island in 1780_.

Attempts at the identification of localities have been made by W. G. De Saussure in _Charleston Year-Book_ (1884, pp. 282-308), and in an _Historical Map of Charleston, 1670-1883_, in the _Year-Book_ for 1883. A plan of Fort Johnson on James' Island is in _Ibid._ (p. 473). These latter maps are also in a reprint of a portion of this _Year-Book_, issued under the title of _1670-1783: The Centennial of Incorporation, 1883_ (Charleston, 1884).

There are other charts of the harbor in the _No. Amer. Pilot_; in the _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_. A chart of the harbor and bars by R. Cowley is sometimes noted as published in London in 1780.

There are other maps of Charleston in Bellin's _Petit Atlas Maritime_, vol. i. 37; in Castiglione's _Viaggio_ p. 309, etc. There are among the Rochambeau maps in the library of Congress (no. 19) _Vues de la rade de Charleston et du fort Sullivan, 1780_, and a colored plan (no. 46), measuring 20 X 18 inches, called _Plan de la ville de Charlestown, de les retrenchments et du siège fait par les Anglais en 1780_.—ED.]

For the period between the Waxhaws and the disaster near Camden, the reports of Cornwallis are of value (_Remembrancer_, x. 261; _Pol. Mag._, i. 261, etc.); Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 128-145, has a fair account. The affair at Ramsour's Mill has not been given due prominence in the general histories. There is a good account of it in Caldwell's _Greene_, 123. But the description which has generally been followed is the one which General Joseph Graham—who was not present at the fight—printed in the _Catawba Journal_ for Feb. 1, 1825.[1116]

Colonel Williams transmitted a report of the action at Musgrove's Mill to Gates (_Remembrancer_, xi. 87). But the best account of the affair is in Draper's _King's Mountain_, who (p. 122) gives a list of his authorities. See especially MCCall, _Georgia_, ii. 304-317; Jones, _Georgia_, ii. 452; and _Amer. Whig Rev._, new series, ii. 578.

* * * * *

GATES'S DEFEAT NEAR CAMDEN, 1780.—The defeated general dated his official report at Hillsborough, Aug. 20, 1780 (_Remembrancer_, x. 335; Tarleton, 145; _Sparks's Correspondence of the Revolution_, iii. 66 and 76; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 502, etc.). Cornwallis presented two reports bearing on the campaign. In the first—sometimes dated Aug. 20th, and sometimes Aug. 21st—he follows his movement to his arrival at Camden. The second—always dated the 21st—takes up the story at that point. They are both in the _London Gazette Extra_ for October 9th, 1780.[1117]

I have found nothing official from Rawdon; but on Sept. 19th, 1780, he wrote to his mother, the Countess of Moira, describing the events preceding the battle. He speaks of the course taken by Gates as "the ruinous part which they, the Americans, actually did embrace", adding that De Kalb had advised Gates to cross Lynch's Creek and attack him there. This Rawdon learned from an aide to De Kalb[1118]—probably Du Buysson—who was taken with his chief.[1119]

Tarleton, too, was a participator in the action, and his account (_Campaigns_, 85-110), though written long after the event, is valuable. It begins with Cornwallis's arrival at Camden.

But the description of the campaign and battle which far outweighs all others, is the _Narrative of the Campaign of 1780, by Colonel Otho Holland Williams, Adjutant-general_,—printed as "Appendix B" to Johnson's _Greene_, vol. i. pp. 465-510, and copied thence into Simms's _Greene_, Appendix. There is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the story, though no one knows when Williams wrote it. Two of the American commander's aides wrote accounts. The more important is the letter from Thomas Pinckney to William Johnson, the biographer of Greene, dated Clermont, July, 1822, and therefore written long after the battle; but the author's recollections so exactly agree with the facts as now known that it is an account of the greatest value.[1120]

The other is Major McGill's letter to his father, written within eight miles of the scene of action.[1121]

McGill carried Gates's despatches to Jefferson, then governor of Virginia, and gave him an account of the battle, which formed part of a statement "of this unlucky affair, taken from letters from General Gates, General Stevens, and Governor Nash, and, as to some circumstances, from an officer [McGill] who was in the action."[1122]

Still another excellent narrative of the campaign is in _A Journal of the Southern Expedition, 1780-83. By William Seymour_ (_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, vii. 286, 377), who was sergeant-major of the Delaware regiment. The journal begins at Petersburg, May 26, 1780, thus describing the whole movement.

Faden's map, dated March 1, 1787,—the same used in Tarleton (p. 108) and in Stedman (ii. 210) and in the latter dated Jan. 20, 1794. KEY: 1. Three companies light infantry. 2. Twenty-third regiment. 3. Thirty-third regiment. 4. Volunteers of Ireland. 5. Infantry of the British Legion. 6. Hamilton's corps. 7. Bryan's corps. 8, 8. Two battalions, seventy-first regiment. 9. Dragoons, British Legion.

This same plan is re-engraved in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. 275, and in R. E. Lee's ed. of Henry Lee's _Memoir of the War_, etc., p. 182. The original MS. of the plan is among the Faden maps (no. 51) in the library of Congress. There is an eclectic plan in Carrington's _Battles_, p. 533; but the best of the modern maps is that by H. P. Johnston in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. 496. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 466. The _Political Mag._, i. 731, has a map of the roads about Camden.—ED.]

There are numerous descriptions by persons who, though not actually present at the disaster, yet enjoyed exceptionally good advantages for obtaining correct information.[1123]

Of the earlier historians, Gordon (_History_, iii. 391 and 429) enjoyed the best advantages. He visited Gates in 1781 and used his papers. These MSS. had disappeared until a few years ago, when Dr. T. A. Emmet, whose grandfather was Gates's counsellor, found them in a garret. (Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 241.) A portion of this collection was printed in _Ibid._ v. 281; as to the value of those reserved I have been able to learn nothing. A large part of the papers printed consists merely of the orders issued during the campaign. The most important of these—technically termed "after-orders", giving the order for the movement which brought on the action—have been printed over and over again.[1124]

We have no detailed account of Sumter's attempt to injure the enemy, nor of his overthrow at Fishdam Ford, except that in Tarleton's _Campaigns_, 110-116. As may be imagined, Tarleton gave his own side of the case more than due prominence. Lee, in his _Memoirs_ (i. 187), gives a good account. He adds that "Tarleton evinced a temerity which could not, if pursued, long escape exemplary chastisement." There is something in Stedman, ii. 211, and in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 152. The accounts in the more popular books are so inaccurate that no mention of them is required.[1125]

TREATMENT OF THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE BY THE BRITISH.—The well-known letters from Rawdon to Rugely have been widely printed.[1126]

The movements as detailed in a plan by Colonel Senff, preserved among the _Steuben Papers_ (N. Y. Hist. Soc.), are shown in this sketch after a cut in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1880), vol. v. p. 275. The plan and accompanying journal, taken from the Steuben Papers, are in the Sparks MSS., no. xv. A marsh and the river were on the American right and the British left. The road to Camden is marked by parallel lines. The American right, 400 Marylanders under General Gist, were between the road and the low ground at 1, with two cannon on their right at 2, and two others on the left in the road at 3. Beyond the road were three brigades of North Carolina militia (4, 4, 4), under Brigadiers Rutherford, Graigery, and Butler, with two field-pieces at 5, on their left. Beyond this the American line was completed by 700 Virginia militia under Brigadier Stevens (6), and 300 light infantry under Colonel Potterfield (7). Colonel Armand, with 60 horse, was in the rear (8) of this part of the line, and as a reserve Smallwood with the first Maryland brigade of about 400 men, was across the road at 9. [The names are given as in the sketch.]

On the British side the first troops to appear were at 10 with a field-piece, and their main body formed at 11. The American troops at 6 and 7 advanced to 12, and were met by the British (11) moving by their right flank and then advancing to 13. The American reserve (9) then moved to 12 to support the left wing, while the right wing (1) advanced to 12 and engaged the British left (13). The Americans at 4, 4, 4, and 12 (opposite 6 and 7) now broke and fled. At this opportune moment the British cavalry (14) charged along the line shown by small crosses, and turning to the right and left took in reverse the Americans at 1, and the reserve (9) in their new position at 12. The whole American army scattered in retreat before the British advance.—ED.]

With regard to the treatment of those captured at Savannah and Charleston, Southern writers do not seem to have strictly adhered to the truth. Those captured by Campbell were protected by no treaty of capitulation; and as to those taken at Charleston, the charges of Moultrie and others were always denied.[1127]

Isaac Hayne, at the time of the surrender of Charleston, was a colonel in a militia regiment, but, being in the country, he was not included in the capitulation. His wife and two children were ill with the small-pox, and it was impossible to take them to a place of refuge. He went to Charleston and offered to give his parole as a prisoner of war. He was told that he must take the oath of allegiance or be confined as a rebel. It was a hard position, and, thinking of his wife dying at home, he took the oath; not, however, until he had called Ramsay (_Rev. in S. C._) to bear witness that he was forced to it by necessity. He retired to his farm, and lived there unmolested until the success of the American arms once more brought his friends around him. Then he was told by the British leaders that he must arm on the king's side or go to prison. He regarded this as a violation of his agreement, and enlisted under Pickens. He commanded a regiment of militia drawn from the neighborhood, and composed of men who believed with him that when protection was withdrawn the duty of allegiance went with it. Soon after this he captured, not many miles from Charleston, Williamson, a noted renegade, who was regarded by his former friends as the "Arnold of the South." On his way back Hayne was captured, taken to Charleston, and hanged.[1128] The fact that Greene and Marion (Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._, i. 125) both regarded it as calling for retaliation[1129] goes a great way towards showing that Rawdon and Balfour acted harshly and precipitately in the matter; but the case is an admirable example of the light in which Cornwallis—for Balfour tried to justify his conduct by a reference to the letter or order issued by Cornwallis after Camden—persisted in regarding those who fought for their country and their rights. It seems to me, however, that Cornwallis's position was a false one; and to assert, as Balfour asserted, that South Carolina was completely conquered in 1780, was to assert what was not true. Rawdon sailed for home soon after this affair. He was captured by the French, and did not reach London until after Yorktown. He was immediately assailed in the House of Peers by the Duke of Richmond for his share in this business. In reply he challenged the noble duke, and the upshot was that Richmond apologized.[1130] Many years later, Lee sent Rawdon a copy of his _Memoirs_, in which Hayne is warmly defended. Rawdon, then Earl of Moira, wrote a long letter (June 24, 1813) in reply, but his defence does not appear to be sound.[1131] It should be said, in justification of the light in which Hayne was regarded by the British officers at the time, that they believed he had taken a second oath to the king just before his capture in arms; but this does not appear to have been the case.[1132]

The most aggravated case of murder on the American side was the shooting of the Tory Col. Grierson after his surrender, near Augusta. The murder was committed in broad day, yet Pickens declared that the murderer was not known.[1133]

KING'S MOUNTAIN.—There is very little original material in print bearing on Clarke's siege of Augusta. McCall's narrative (_Georgia_, ii. 321) has been very generally followed. An anonymous account from a British source is in the _Remembrancer_, xi. 28.

Lyman C. Draper,[1134] in his _King's Mountain and its Heroes_, gives nearly all the important documents relating to that action. Unfortunately, as its title indicates, there is too much hero worship[1135] in the volume, and Draper's own account is based too largely on tradition to be wholly trustworthy, and is too diffuse and intricate. As a repository of documents, however, the volume is of the first importance. I shall attempt only a summary of the documents bearing on the movement.

Shelby wrote to his father five days after the fight (Draper, 302), and later, on October 26th, to Col. Arthur Campbell (Draper, 524). The statements in the first letter as to losses, etc., are strangely at variance with those contained in an official report signed by Campbell, Shelby, and Cleveland on October 20th.[1136] Col. William Campbell also wrote to Arthur Campbell on the same day (Draper, 526; Gibbes, p. 140, and elsewhere). Draper gives several other accounts, the most important being "Battle of King's Mountain", probably written by Robert Campbell, "an ensign in Dysart's corps" (Draper, 537, from MS. in possession of the Tenn. Hist. Soc.). Gen. Joseph Graham, who had no part in the fight, being still confined in the hospital from the wound received at the defence of Charlotte, wrote a description.[1137] David Campbell, in a letter (Foote's _Sketches of Virginia_, 2d series, p. 126) dated Montcalm, Dec. 1, 1851,[1138] defended his ancestor. Still other accounts are in Draper, many of them reprints; and a letter from Iredell to his wife, dated Granville, Oct. 8, 1780 (McRee's _Iredell_, i. 463), should not be overlooked.

The most interesting description of the campaign from the British side is in the _Diary of Anthony Allaire_, of Ferguson's corps.[1139] The chronology is useful in fixing dates, and his narrative of his treatment while in captivity and during his successful attempt to escape is very interesting. He is also supposed to have been the author of a letter written by "an officer from Charleston, Jan. 30", which is printed in Rivington's _Royal Gazette_ of Feb. 14, 1781, and reprinted in Draper, 516.[1140]

There are two interesting letters from Rawdon, showing the extent of the disaffection to the royalist cause in the Carolinas.[1141]

Cornwallis seems to have presented no detailed report; at least, none has been printed, to my knowledge. There are allusions to the affair which show how deeply he was impressed by the coming of the men from beyond the mountains. The effect it had upon the plans of the British can be learned from a letter from Germain to Clinton, dated Jan. 3, 1781, in which he regrets that Ferguson's defeat compelled Cornwallis to require Leslie to quit the Chesapeake.[1142]

There is also an anonymous memoir of A Carolina Loyalist in the Revolutionary War in Chesney's _Essays in Modern Military Biography_ (London, 1874, pp. 461-468), which contains something of interest.

[The latest contribution to the story of the parts played by John Sevier, Isaac Shelby, and James Robertson in helping to work the discomfiture of the British in the Southern colonies is the _Rear Guard of the Revolution by Edmund Kirke_ [J. R. Gilmore], N. Y., 1886. The author says "his materials were principally gathered from old settlers in East Tennessee and Western North Carolina, one of whom was the son of a trusted friend of Sevier, Dr. J. G. M. Ramsey of Knoxville, the author of the _Annals of Tennessee_, who in his youth had known Sevier and Robertson, and who was nearly ninety years old when he was questioned by Gilmore."—ED.]

MINOR ACTIONS, 1780.—The library of the Massachusetts Historical Society contains an original account of Weemys's unfortunate night attack on Sumter's camp at Fishdam Ford, from the pen of the British commander. It should not be followed too closely, as it was not written until many years of peace and poverty had clouded Weemys's judgment and memory. A more trustworthy description is in a letter from Sumter to Smallwood, written on the field of battle, Nov. 9, 1780 (_Maryland Papers_, p. 122). It is to be regretted that no letter of his relating to the affair at the Blackstocks has been preserved; for the British accounts are very confusing, Tarleton even claiming the victory (_Campaigns_, p. 178). This he did on the strength of a despatch from Cornwallis to Clinton, dated at Wynnesborough, Dec. 3, 1781.[1143] This, in its turn, as Mackenzie points out (_Strictures_, p. 71), was based—so far as it relates to the affair at the Blackstocks—on Tarleton's own report. In fact, Tarleton was beaten at that time. Mackenzie does not seem to have been present in person, but his account was based on the declarations of witnesses. It is the best description of the fight that we have, and has been followed by later writers, notably by Stedman (ii. 226-231). The only account that we have from an American source was written by Col. Samuel Hammond, who was present, as he was at the Cowpens (Johnson's _Traditions_, pp. 507, 522). It should not be too closely followed. There are a few reports and letters written by Cornwallis, and by Rawdon during his chief's illness, relating to this period, that should not be overlooked.[1144]

GREENE'S CAMPAIGN IN GENERAL.—The standard authorities relating to Greene's campaign have already been mentioned.[1145] Lee was Greene's most trusted adviser, but there were others also deep in his confidence, such as Morgan, O. H. Williams,[1146] William Washington,[1147] Carrington,[1148] Howard,[1149] and W. R. Davie.[1150] Greene also utilized the services of the partisans Marion, Sumter, Pickens, and the rest. There is a noted passage bearing on the proper method of treating these men in one of Greene's letters to Morgan before the affair at the Cowpens. It seems that Morgan had complained of Sumter's order to his subordinates to obey no commands unless conveyed through him. Greene replied to Morgan: "As it is better to conciliate than aggravate matters, where everything depends so much upon voluntary principles, I wish you to take no notice of the matter, but endeavor to influence his conduct to give you all the aid in his power." It was by pursuing such a course that Greene secured the coöperation of all men in the South.

A good knowledge of the scene of operations is indispensable to a thorough understanding of Greene's remarkable campaigns. The general direction of the rivers should be especially noted, as upon it the success of a particular movement often turned.[1151]

THE COWPENS.—Morgan's official report (Jan. 19) to Greene and Greene's instructions to Morgan (Charlotte, December 16, 1780) are in Graham, pp. 260, 467, while from that point and date the whole campaign can be traced by the letters printed by Graham.[1152]

A letter from Tarleton to Morgan dated on the 19th, two days after the battle, and relating to prisoners and wounded, is in _The Charleston News and Courier_. I have nowhere found a formal report by Tarleton. His description of the fight, at the time, is undoubtedly embodied in Cornwallis's report to Germain, dated Turkey Creek, Broad River, Jan. 18, 1781.[1153]

At a later day Tarleton wrote out an account (_Campaigns_, pp. 213-223). Seldom has a commander written a more unfair account of his defeat. Not merely that he is unjust to Morgan, but he is also very unjust to his own men. A much better description, by a British eye-witness, is Mackenzie's (_Strictures_, 95, followed by Stedman, _Amer. War_, ii. 316-325). Indeed, this last is in some respects the best account that we have. A narrative from "Colonel Samuel Hammond" (Johnson's _Traditions_, pp. 526-530) is not trustworthy.[1154]

THE RETREAT.—Our knowledge of the period from the Cowpens to the crossing of the Dan is based to a great extent upon the letters of the American leaders.[1155]

Cornwallis made a formal report to Germain, dated Guilford, March 17, 1781.[1156] Balfour in an independent report to Clinton (_Remembrancer_, xi. 330, and _Polit. Mag._, ii. 328), gave a somewhat similar account of the operations; but the most important document that has yet been printed is Cornwallis's _Order-book_, covering this period. It opens with an order of January 18, 1781, and runs with scarcely a break to March 20th. It was used by Graham in his preparation of the _Life of Morgan_, but was not generally accessible until some years later, when Caruthers printed it as the appendix to the second volume of his _Incidents_. Caruthers' own account of the movement (_Incidents_, pp. 13-67), although weighted with personal reminiscences, is still the best single narrative.[1157]

Tarleton's description (_Campaigns_, 222) of the march is far from satisfactory, and should be supplemented by that of the less partial Stedman (_Amer. War_, ii. 325) and Gordon (iv. 37).[1158]

The only action of this retreat that deserves special mention is the very gallant charge of the Guards at Cowan's Ford over the Catawba. It was especially creditable to the Grenadiers, and has received far less attention at the hands of American writers than it deserves. A good account is in Hamilton's _Grenadier Guards_, ii. 243,[1159] and Stedman has devoted considerable space to it. On the other hand, it should be said that the description in Tarleton cannot be reconciled with known facts, and deserves no credit.

THE GUILFORD CAMPAIGN.—Lee's description of the overthrow of Pyle and his companions has been generally followed by historians. It is not entirely satisfactory (_Memoirs_, i. 306).[1160] Lee says that the action was begun by the Tories, and that he acted merely on the defensive. General Joseph Graham, who was on the field as a captain of militia, asserts the contrary.[1161]

Sketched from Faden's map (March 1, 1787), which is the same as the map in Tarleton (p. 108), with the same date, and in Stedman, ii. 342, with slight changes, dated Jan. 20, 1794. It is followed in the maps in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1881), p. 44; in R. E. Lee's _Lee's Memoir_, etc., p. 276; in Caruthers' _Incidents_ (Philadelphia, 1808), p. 108; in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 608. There are among the Faden maps (nos. 52, 53) in the library of Congress two MS. drafts of the battle,—one showing the changes in the position of the forces. Johnson (_Greene_, ii. 5) gives five different stages of the fight, and G. W. Greene (iii. 176) copies them. His lines vary from the descriptions of Cornwallis. Cf. Carrington's _Battles_, p. 565; Hamilton's _Grenadier Guards_ (ii. 245); _Harper's Monthly_, xv. 162, etc.—ED.]

As to the other operations leading up to the final action at Guilford Court-House, and as to that combat itself, the reports and other letters of the opposing commanders, Greene[1162] and Cornwallis,[1163] are all that can he desired.

The narratives of Lee (_Memoirs_, i. 338-376) and Tarleton (_Campaigns_, 269) are interesting, though neither saw much of the battle,—Tarleton being in reserve, and Lee's attention being fully occupied by the regiment of Bose. Wounds received at the Cowpens unfortunately prevented Mackenzie from speaking with authority of Tarleton's account of this battle.[1164]

The best account by a later writer is that in Caruthers (_Incidents_, 2d series, pp. 103-180); but, like all North Carolinians, he endeavors to excuse the early flight of the militia of that State, and his narrative is too largely founded on tradition.[1165]

HOBKIRK'S HILL.—The official reports serve us first: Greene's, full and precise,[1166] on the American side; and on the British, Rawdon's and those of the intermediate officers, till the accounts reached Germain.[1167]

Col. O. H. Williams also wrote an interesting account of the fight in a letter to "Elie" (his wife), dated Camp before Camden, April 27, 1781 (Potter's _American Monthly_, iv. 101, and Tiffany's _Williams_, p. 19). Still another of Greene's officers—Major William Pierce—in a letter (August 20) devoted considerable space to this indecisive engagement (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 431-435). A somewhat different description by a looker-on was written many years afterwards by Samuel Matthis, an inhabitant of the district. It is entitled: _Account of the battle of Hobkirk's Hill as some call it, or Battle of Camden as called by others, tho' the ground on which it was fought is now (1810) called the Big Sand Hill above Camden_ (_American Historical Record_, ii. 103).

There is a chart of Cape Fear River, 1776, in the _No. Amer. Pilot_, no. 28.—ED.]

Whether Greene was or was not surprised is the only point about which there has been much dispute in recent years. Johnson (_Greene_, ii. 72) has effectually disposed of this question in Greene's favor; but it must be admitted that he was "very suddenly attacked", to use the words of Lee, who was not present at the battle, and who seems to have forgotten the exact relation of events of this campaign. The account of this affair in the lives of Greene by Johnson and Greene (iii. 241), as well as that in Marshall's _Washington_ (iv. 510), is based upon an unpublished narrative by Colonel Davie, which is among the "Greene MSS."[1168]

_Sketch of the battle of Hobkirk's Hill, near Camden, on the 25th April, 1781, drawn by C. Vallancey, Capt. of the Vols. of Ireland._ [The cross-swords show] _where the enemy's piquets were attacked_. _Faden_, Aug. 1, 1783. It is the same plate, with slight changes, used in Stedman (ii. 358), where it is dated Feb. 6, 1794. It is reëngraved in R. E. Lee's ed. of Henry Lee's _Memoirs of the War_, p. 336. Johnson's plan (_Greene_, ii. 76) is reproduced in G. W. Greene's _Greene_, iii. 241. Carrington (p. 576) gives an eclectic plan, and there is a small plan in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 679.—ED.]