Chapter IX: The West, (18)

[1106] The former had come into notice during the gallant defence of Fort Moultrie. Later he rendered important service, and was wounded in the lungs while carrying off the colors from the deadly Spring Hill redoubt at Savannah. There is no doubt of the truth of this intrepid bravery of Sergeant Jasper. Cf. McCall, _Georgia_; Horry, _Life of Marion_, p. 66; Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. 217. Cf. especially C. C. Jones, _Serjeant William Jasper, An Address delivered before the Ga. Hist. Soc. in 1876_.

The "impetuous Polander" was mortally wounded while making some kind of a charge in the rear of the enemy's line on the right. As to Pulaski, see, beside the general accounts and C. C. Jones's Address in _Georgia Hist. Coll._, iii., the _Life of Count Pulaski_ by Sparks, in his _American Biography_, xiv. 365-446; pp. 431-443 relate to the Southern campaign. Cf. also an article in _American Historical Record_, i. 397-399; and note in Hough, _Savannah_, p. 175, abridged from Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. According to Paul Bentalou, who claimed to have been with him when he died, his body became so offensive immediately after his death that it was thrown overboard from the vessel which was bearing the wounded to Charleston. Nevertheless, at the laying of the corner-stone of a monument to his memory in Savannah, a metallic box supposed to contain his remains was placed within the plinth alongside the corner-stone. With regard to his place of burial, see Bentalou, _Pulaski Vindicated from a charge in Johnson's Greene_ (Balt., 1824), p. 29; C. C. Jones, _Sepulture of Major-General Nathanael Greene and of Brigadier-General Count Casimir Pulaski_, Augusta, Ga., 1885; and a letter from James Lynch, of South Carolina, to the editor of the _New York Herald_, Jan. 7, 1854,—reprinted in the _Hist. Mag._, x. 285; Johnson, _Traditions_, note to p. 245, where another Pole, who claimed to have been aide-de-camp to Pulaski, and to have supported him in the death struggles, says that he was buried under a large tree, about fifty miles from Savannah.

The Maryland Historical Society has the banner presented to Pulaski by the Moravian Sisters of Bethlehem in 1778. It was saved when Pulaski fell at Savannah in 1779, and came into the possession of the society in 1844 (_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., xi.). There is a portrait of Pulaski, engraved by H. B. Hall in Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 402. (Cf. Lossing, ii. 735.) The history of efforts to establish Pulaski's service and recompense by the United States Government is traced in _Senate Exec. Doc. 120, 49th Cong., second session_ (1887).—ED.

[1107] Printed in various places,—as, for example, in Hough, _Charleston,_ p. 173; _Remembrancer_, x. 140. Other letters from Lincoln to Washington are in _Corresp. Rev._, ii. 344, 385, 401, 403, 418, and 433, etc. Some of them, especially one of April 9th, are of considerable value. Among Lincoln's MSS. is a long letter from Lincoln to Washington, dated Hingham, July 17, 1780, defending his conduct. It is of value, but, if sent, has never, to my knowledge, been printed. The reasons for abandoning the defence of the bar are given in a letter from Captain Whipple and other commanders and pilots to Lincoln, dated Charleston, Feb. 27, 1780, in Ramsay, _Rev. S. C._, ii. 397. See Lincoln MS. defence as above. There are also several papers relating to this portion of the siege in the third volume of the _Commodore Tucker Papers_ in the Harvard College library. But see Moultrie (_Memoirs_, ii. 50) for his strictures on the giving up the position near Fort Moultrie. It is probable that, had the British fleet been kept out of the Cooper River, the surrender would have been long deferred, perhaps even until the hot season and the arrival of the French at Newport had compelled its abandonment.

[1108] There are several other descriptions from American sources. The most valuable, so far as it goes, is the report of Du Portail to Washington (_Corresp. Rev._, ii. 451). It relates, however, to a limited period. The same must be said of a few letters from the younger Laurens and from Woodford, the commander of seven hundred Virginians who arrived on the 21st of April. Laurens's first letter, bearing date of Feb. 25th, is in Moore's _Materials for History_, p. 173. The second, written on March 14th, is in _Corresp. Rev._, ii. 413. The third, which bears date of April 9th, is in _Ibid._ 435. Woodford's letter of April 8th is in _Ibid._ 430. Cf. also _Ibid._ 401, 420, and Moore's _Materials_, 175.

The contemporary journals of value are: _Diary of Events in Charleston, S. C., from March 20 to April 20, 1780, by Samuel Baldwin_, in New Jersey _Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1st series, vol. ii. pp. 78-86,—Baldwin was a schoolteacher in Charleston; cf. _Ibid._ p. 77; _Journal of the Siege of Charleston in 1780_, by De Brahm (Feb. 9, 1780-May 12, 1781), in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1776-82), p. 124; and _Memoirs of Andrew Sherburne, written by Himself_ (a "boy" on the American ship "Ranger"), first printed at Utica in 1828, and reprinted in an "enlarged and improved" form at Providence, in 1831. His curious journal begins on p. 24 of the 1st ed., and on p. 27 of the 2d. Maj. Wm. Croghan's journal at Charleston, S. C., Feb. 9-May 4, 1780, etc., is copied in the _Sparks MSS._, vol. lx. There are two journals in _The Siege of Charleston by the British Fleet and Army, which terminated in the surrender of that place May 12, 1780_, with notes, etc., by Franklin B. Hough (Albany, 1867). The first is contained in two letters by an unknown hand, and relates to the operations on Lincoln's line of communications. The author was not present at the siege itself. The other journal relates to the operations against the town, but it has little value. Indeed, this volume of Hough's is not so interesting as the similar work on Savannah. Another journal, which relates more especially to the movements in the country, is the _Diary of Anthony Allaire_, a lieutenant in Ferguson's corps, printed by Draper in his _King's Mountain and its Heroes_, p. 484. Allaire corroborates in a most striking manner the accuracy of the charges of cruelty and outrage made by the author of the "Notes" in Stedman's _American War_. The account of the defence in Johnson's _Traditions_ was written by an eye-witness, though long after the event. It is often very inaccurate, but nevertheless interesting. The assertion therein made that Gadsden signed the capitulation, and that therefore all of South Carolina was included in its terms, cannot be substantiated.

[1109] According to Lincoln's official report, the Continental troops, "including the sick and wounded", surrendered prisoners of war at Charleston numbered 2,487. Adding to this the 89 Continentals killed, we have 2,576, or within five of the number of the garrison as given in the _New Jersey Gazette_ for June 23, 1780 (Hough, _Charleston_, 198). Lincoln says further that at the time of surrender the militia "effectives" did not exceed 500 men (Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 141), in all not over 3,000. Clinton, in his report as usually printed, gives the total as 5,612, or 5,618, "together with town and country militia, French and seamen, make about six thousand men in arms." In Beatson, _Memoirs_, vi. 209, the number of seamen is printed as 100 instead of 1,000—a considerable reduction, and perhaps nearer the mark. Clinton's estimate was further increased in the royalist newspapers of the time to "between seven and eight thousand men." Lincoln's figures are probably the nearest to the truth, as all the contemporary writers on the American side insisted that Clinton counted among his prisoners every man capable of bearing arms in Charleston. At any rate, whatever their number, the militia, excepting the artillery company, seem to have been of but little service, as their loss in killed and wounded was not over forty, and in this estimate is included the total loss to those inside the lines not otherwise accounted for. Lincoln stated his killed at 89, and wounded at 140. But both Ramsay and Moultrie say that from five to six hundred Continentals were in the hospital at the time of the surrender.

In Beatson's _Memoirs_ (vi. 204) there is a _List of the different regiments and corps selected by Sir Henry Clinton to accompany him on the expedition against Charlestown_. It gives the total, exclusive of staff, at 7,550. There were in Savannah at the time about 2,000 more, and the reinforcement which arrived in April numbered about 3,000 men. Clinton therefore had about 13,000 men at his disposal in May, 1780. Of course, a large proportion of this force was employed in detachments,—guarding Savannah, breaking up Lincoln's communications, and the like; so that it is impossible to say how many men Lincoln had in his front at any one time.

Clinton's loss from Feb. 11th to May 12th is given by himself at 76 killed and 189 wounded. To this should be added the loss of the sailors, who seem to have participated in a good many land expeditions,—23 seamen killed and 28 wounded, or a grand total of 316. None of these figures include the losses and numbers engaged in the minor actions. But there is so little data with regard to them that it has seemed best to omit them in these estimates.

[1110] It was widely reprinted, as, for instance, in _The New Annual Register_ for 1780, under _Principal Occurrences_, p. 55; _Pol. Mag._, i. 455; _Remembrancer_, x. 41; Tarleton, 38, etc., etc. An abstract under title of _A memorandum_, etc., is given in the _Ninth Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission_, App. ii. p. 109. A previous report, bearing date of March 9th, has been found,—_London Gazette_ for April 25-29, 1780; _Pol. Mag._, i. 397; Tarleton, 34; and Hough, _Charleston_, p. 190. The gap between March 9th and 29th must be filled from other sources. The instructions as to reducing South Carolina to obedience, from Germain to Clinton and Arbuthnot, are dated Whitehall, 3 Aug., '79 (_Charleston Year-Book_ for 1882, p. 364). Clinton issued in all six proclamations, including the one signed by him conjointly with Arbuthnot, as commissioners. The first was dated at James's Island, March 3, 1780. It promised protection, etc., to all who should take the oath of allegiance. These protections were given in a most indiscriminate fashion, and caused the complaint of Cornwallis above noted. The paper was reprinted by Hough in his _Charleston_, p. 24. Next came the "Handbill", without date, but sent out soon after the capitulation (_Remembrancer_, x. 80). The proclamation of May 22d threatened vengeance on all who should prevent the loyalists from coming in (_Remembrancer_, x. 82; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 435; and Tarleton, 71). The most important proclamation, however, and the one to which Cornwallis took such violent exception, pardoned all not included in a few specified classes (June 1st), and was signed by the two chief commanders (_Remembrancer_, x. 85; Hough, _Charleston_, 178; Ramsay, _Rev. S. C._, ii. 438; Tarleton, 74, etc.). A fac-simile is in _Charleston Year-Book_ (1882), p. 369. The proclamation of June 3d called upon those on parole, with a few exceptions, to give up their paroles, take the oath of allegiance, and thereby secure "protections" (_Remembrancer_, x. 82; Hough, _Charleston_, 182; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 441; Tarleton, 73; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 384, etc.). _The Address of divers Inhabitants of Charleston to Sir Henry Clinton_, June 5, 1780, is (_Remembrancer_, x. 93; Ramsay, ii. 443; Moultrie, ii. 386, etc.) without names, which are appended to the copy in Hough, _Charleston_, 148, where it is stated to be reprinted from Rivington's _Royal Gazette_ of June 21, 1780. The names, however, are from the _Gazette_ of June 24th. The letters of Cornwallis on this subject are in his _Correspondence_, i. 40, 46, and 48. There is a very striking passage in Moultrie, i. 276, with regard to this business. Cf. also _Ibid._ 314, and Johnson's _Greene_, i. 279.

[1111] Hough in his _Charleston_ (p. 50) has reprinted a despatch purporting to have been written by Clinton and addressed to Lord George Germain. It was dated Savannah, Jan. 30, 1780; reprinted in Hough, _Charleston_, p. 50; and was said to have been captured by a privateer. In it Clinton described the dispiriting effect on the royalists of Georgia of D'Estaing's attack on Savannah. It has been regarded as a forgery, partly on this very account. It probably was a forgery. But it is curious to observe that the opening pages of Tarleton contain the same statement, and he repents the despatch without a hint as to its being a forgery. And this forms the ground of Mackenzie's first stricture.

[1112] Moore, _Diary_, ii. 269; "Allen", _Hist. Am. Rev._, ii. 296; _An Impartial History_ (Bost. ed.), ii. 386; Beatson, _Memoirs_, v. 8; Soulés, _Troublés_, iii. 259; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 274; Sargent, _Life of André_, p. 225; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 135; Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 92; Wilmot G. De Saussure in _Charleston Year-Book_ (1884), p. 282; Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 59; Ewald, iii. 252; and Lowell, _Hessians_, 243.

A good account of this and the other operations in South Carolina is in Mills's _Statistics of South Carolina_, while Mrs. Ellet, in her _Domestic History of the American Revolution_ (pp. 151-290), has well set forth the services of the women of the South. Cf. the _Letters of Eliza Wilkinson, during the invasion and possession of Charleston, S. C., by the British in the Revolutionary War_. _Arranged from the original manuscripts, by Caroline Gilman_ (New York, 1838). The articles of capitulation are in Tarleton, p. 61, and R. E. Lee's ed. Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 158. The correspondence of the commanders is in _Polit. Mag._, i. 454. The abject condition of South Carolina after the reduction of Charleston is set forth in Ardanus Burke's _Address to the Freemen of South Carolina_, Phil., 1783. The British exhilaration is shown in Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 293. The _Memoirs of Josias Rogers, Commander of H. M. S. "Quebec", by Rev. Wm. Gilpin_ (London, 1808), is said to have passages concerning the siege.—ED.

[1113] Reprinted in _Polit. Mag._, i. 513; _Remembrancer_, x. 76; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 432; Tarleton, _Campaigns_, 83; _Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 45, etc. It is often accompanied by two letters: one from Cornwallis, approving his conduct; the other from Clinton to Germain, calling the latter's attention to the fact that "the enemy's killed and wounded and taken exceed Lieutenant-Colonel Tarleton's numbers with which he attacked them."

[1114] There are good descriptions in Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 148; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 108; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 203; Gordon, iii. 360; and Stedman, ii. 192; though all these writers obtained their information from others.

[1115] Good accounts of this affair are in Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 208, and Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 458.

[1116] It was reprinted by Wheeler in his _North Carolina_, ii. 227, and in an abbreviated form in Hunter's _Sketches of Western North Carolina_, p. 206. It forms the basis of the account in Dawson, _Battles_, i. 592. See also _Historical Magazine_, xii. 24.

[1117] They can also be found in full in the _Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical MSS._, Appendix, iii. p. 103; _Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 488 and 492; Tarleton, 128; _Annual Register_ (1780), under Principal Occurrences, p. 72; and _Political Magazine_, i. 675, 678. The second one is in the _Remembrancer_, x. 267; Tarleton, 128; _Gentleman's Magazine_ for Oct., 1780; and in many other places. Not long before the battle, Gates supposed himself to be at the head of 7,000 men,—Williams in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 493,—while an estimate found in De Kalb's pocket (_Remembrancer_, x. 279) gives the size of the American army at some day before the battle at 6,000, less 500 deserters. In this estimate the Virginians were reckoned at 1,400,—twice their real number. Jefferson in "Memoranda" (Giradin, iv. 400) gives the total at 2,800,—the North Carolina militia being rated at 1,000, far below their real strength. Williams (_Narrative_, in Johnson's _Greene_) gives the "rank and file present and fit for duty" as 3,052. Gordon gives the total, including officers, as 3,663. If we add to this number the light infantry and cavalry we get a total of 4,033 men of all arms. This is probably as correct an estimate as can be made. Cf. J. A. Stevens in _Mag. Am. Hist._ (v. 267), where the subject is fully discussed.

Cornwallis had in the engagement itself 2,239 men, of whom 500 were militia. Cf. _Field Return of the troops under the command of Lieutenant-general Earl Cornwallis, on the night of the 15th of August, 1780_, in _Remembrancer_, x. 271, etc. This is given by Beatson, _Memoirs_, vi. 211, as _Return of troops ... at the Battle of Camden_.

As to the American loss, it appears that Cornwallis, without taking much pains to inquire, wrote to Germain that between 800 and 900 of the enemy were killed and wounded, about 1,000 being prisoners. Even supposing the wounded to have been counted twice, this is too high. Only three Virginia and sixty-three North Carolina militiamen are anywhere reported as wounded, while none were killed. In fact, from their speedy dispersal the militia loss must have been very slight. In any correct return they would have appeared as missing. But no attempt at such a return was made. The nearest approach to it is _A List of Continental Officers, killed, captivated, wounded, and missing in the actions of the 16 and 18 August, 1780_. This is signed by Otho H. Williams, and is in _Remembrancer_, x. 338; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 454. It is erroneously printed in the _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, xxvii. 376, as a _Return of the Killed, wounded, captured, and missing at the Battle of Camden_, which it certainly is not. There were between ten and twelve hundred Continentals present. They bore the brunt of the action and suffered nearly all the loss. Yet Gates wrote on the 29th of August that "seven hundred non-commissioned officers and men of the Maryland division have rejoined the army." See, also, Williams in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 505. In view of this it seems that even Gordon's estimate of 730 is too high, while Cornwallis's figures are simply ridiculous. He certainly did not overstate his own loss when he gave it as 68 killed, 245 wounded, and 11 missing, or 324 in all. Cf. return usually annexed to his report, and printed separately by Beatson in his _Memoirs_, vi. 211.

[1118] A mystery surrounds the life of De Kalb. But he died as became a man of worth and honor. The fullest account of his career is _The Life of John Kalb, Major-general in the Revolutionary Army, by Friedrich Kapp_, "privately printed" in New York in 1870. In 1884 there seemed to be a revival of interest in the hero of Camden, and the volume was published. It is a translation of Kapp's _Leben des Amerikanischen Generals Johann Kalb_, Stuttgart, 1862. An earlier notice was the _Memoir of the Baron de Kalb read at the meeting of the Maryland Historical Society 7 January, 1858, by J. Spear Smith_. Both Kapp and Smith, from whom Kapp quotes, are unwarrantably severe on Gates, as, too, is G. W. Greene in his _German Element in the War of American Independence_, N. Y., 1876, pp. 89-167. See, also, Thomas Wilson, _The Biography of the Principal American Military and Naval Heroes_, N. Y., 1817; Headley, _Generals_, ii. 318; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 378, etc. For an account of the monument to De Kalb, see H. P. Johnston in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, ix. 183.

[1119] The whole letter is interesting,—_Third Report of Hist. MSS. Com._, Appendix, p. 430; a portion was reprinted in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 496, and copied thence by Kapp in his _Life of John Kalb_, p. 322.

[1120] Printed under the title of _Gates's Southern Campaign_ in _Hist. Mag._, x. 244-253.

[1121] There is an extract in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 258. The whole is copied in the _Sparks MSS._, xx., from the Gates Papers.

[1122] The editors of Jefferson's _Works_ (q. v. i. 249) omitted this on the ground that the "circumstances of the defeat of General Gates's army near Camden" are of "historical notoriety." Cf. Giradin's _Continuation_, iv. 398, where an account probably identical with this is given. It is one of the best descriptions.

[1123] The best of this class, perhaps, is that of Colonel Senff, an engineer officer who was with Sumter at the time. The original is among the _Steuben Papers_, a portion being printed in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 275. See also two letters written by Governor Nash of North Carolina (Tarleton, 149, and _Corres. Rev._, iii. 107). The latter is especially valuable as showing the effects of the disaster on the public mind. Marion also announced the defeat to P. Horry (Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._, 1776-1782, p. 11).

In a letter dated Kennemark, Sept. 5, 1780, Greene describes the defeat from Gates's despatches, which had not then been made public (_R. I. Col. Rec._, ix. 243; _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 265; and _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 279). A more valuable letter on the same subject is one to Reed, written after his arrival in the South (Reed's _Reed_, ii. 344). But the most important of these Greene letters is one dated High Hills of Santee, Aug. 8, 1781 (quoted by Gordon, iv. 98), in which Greene declares that Gates did not deserve the blame with which his career in the South was so unhappily closed. Moore (_Diary_, ii. 310) gives several extracts from accounts of the affair which appeared in Rivington's _Royal Gazette_. Another contemporary account from a British source is in Lamb's so-called _Journal_, pp. 302-307. Lamb was a standard-bearer in a British regiment at the time, and his narrative seems to have been written while details were still fresh in his mind.

[1124] _Remembrancer_, x. 276; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 456, etc. Important letters of Gates as to his dispositions after the action are in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 308; _Remembrancer_, x. 338; _Corres. Rev._, iii. 66; _Maryland Papers_, 128, etc., etc.

The charges of undue haste and refusal to take the advice of others, so recklessly heaped on Gates by Bancroft and the writers who have copied him, appear to be without foundation. After a careful examination of the field, in company with Otho H. Williams, Greene advised against making an inquiry into Gates's conduct, while "Light-Horse Harry" Lee wrote to Wayne (R. E. Lee's edition of Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 32) that Gates "has been most insidiously, most cruelly traduced.... An action took place on very advantageous terms; we were completely routed." In his _Memoirs_, Lee censured Gates for not using cavalry. But this, too, seems undeserved, as a note to page 394 of Giradin's _Continuation_ contains evidence to the effect that Gates could not get—though he made every effort—the cavalry he was blamed for not employing. The most exhaustive article in his defence is _The Southern Campaign, 1780: Gates at Camden_, by John Austin Stevens, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 24-274. It is wholly in favor of Gates, and is so one-sided that it should be read with the greatest caution. Singularly enough, when he wrote this article, Mr. Stevens, as he acknowledges (p. 424), did not know of the existence of the Pinckney letter noted above. For the other side, perhaps, nothing is better than a short, carefully written article by Henry P. Johnston, entitled _De Kalb, Gates, and the Camden Campaign_, in _Mag. Amer, Hist._, viii. 496, and reprinted without map in Kapp's _Kalb_, Appendix, p. 322. Of the more popular accounts, that in Marshall's _Washington_ (iv. 169) is still one of the best. Mention should also be made of the description in McRee's _Life and Correspondence of James Iredell_, N. Y., 1857, i. 456-461. Accounts of more or less value will also be found in Greene's _Greene_, iii. 17; Johnson, _Greene_, i. 296; _Harper's Monthly_, lxvii. 550; Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 206; Soulés, _Troubles_, iii. 285; Allen, _Hist. Amer. Rev._, ii. 318; Andrews, iv. 27; J. C. Hamilton, _Hist. of the Republic_, ii. 120; Sparks, _Washington_, vi. 214; Irving, _Washington_, iv. 91; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 459; Carrington, _Battles_, 513; Dawson, _Battles_, iii. 613, etc., etc.

[1125] There is some detail in Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Amer. Rev._, iii. App. The best known portrait of Sumter is by C. W. Peale. It is engraved in the quarto edition of Irving's _Washington_. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 651.—ED.

[1126] The first, dated Camden, July 7, 1780, is in _Remembrancer_, xi. 156, and _Pol. Mag._, ii. 339. The more famous letter, without date, but containing the offer of a reward for the head of every Irish deserter, is in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 132; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 215; and _Washington's Writings_, vi. 554. See also Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 77 (note). The extract of the letter to Balfour or Cruger, which aroused the ire of Washington, is in _Washington's Writings_, vii., Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 157, and Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 240. Cornwallis's own version is in his _Correspondence_, i. 56, and Draper's _King's Mountain_, p. 140. A proclamation embodying the British commander's ideas as to confiscation was issued on either the 6th or 16th. of September, 1780 (Tarleton, 186; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 460; and _Remembrancer_, xi. 25). Clinton's reply to Washington is in _Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 60, with Cornwallis's and Rawdon's explanations (pp. 72, 501).

[1127] Ramsay was a prisoner at the time, and what he says (_Rev. in S. C._, ii. 158-173, 288-303) has a considerable value. A large portion of Moultrie's second volume (pp. 117-201) is taken up with the same subject. Both of them relied on a letter written to Ramsay by Dr. P. Fassoux, surgeon-general in the hospital at Charleston. Moultrie declares that the letter "is an exact statement of their conduct in our hospital at that time." The letter is in Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 397,—the indorsement is on p. 277; Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p. 116; and Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 527. If a tithe of this statement is true, the conduct of the British officers in charge at Charleston was simply brutal; but the British surgeon denied most of the statements. It will do no harm to contrast this with the treatment of those taken at Yorktown, as told by one of their own number, Gen. Graham. Cf. his _Memoirs_, 66 _et seq._, and App. p. 306. English writers have asserted that papers implicating the Charleston prisoners in a conspiracy to overthrow the government were found in the pockets of those taken at Camden; but no proof of this has ever been produced. In fact, in his letter of Dec. 4th Cornwallis alleged as a reason for their removal to St. Augustine that they were so insolent in their behavior they could not be allowed to go at large in Charleston. Indeed, the prisoners seem to have been treated with increased harshness after Camden. Before that time everything had been done to induce them to enlist in the British army. A regiment had been raised, and the command offered to Moultrie, and refused by that sturdy patriot in a letter which has been printed over and over again. Cf. Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 166; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 289; _Charleston Year-Book_ for 1884; and reprinted as _The Correspondence of Lord Montague with General Moultrie, 1781_ (Charleston, 1885).

[1128] Hayne's letters to the British authorities are in Gibbes, i. p. 108; _Remembrancer_, xiii. 121; Ramsay, 508-520.

[1129] Greene waited till Gadsden and his fellow-prisoners were safe within the American lines; and his officers, in ignorance of his purpose, remonstrated, Aug. 20, 1781, against this delay (Ramsay, ii. 521; Moultrie, ii. 414; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 558; Gibbes, i. 128). Greene's formal proclamation, Aug. 26th, declared that the first regular British colonel captured should suffer (Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 524; Moultrie, ii. 417, _Remembrancer_, xiii. 125, etc.). Cf. also Greene to Washington, Aug. 26, 1781, in _Corres. of Rev._, iii. 393; Balfour to Greene, Sept. 3, 1781. The letter to which this is an answer I have not found in Ramsay, _U. S._, 520, extract; and Gibbes (1781-82), 168. And see also Greene to Balfour, Sept. 19, 1781, in Gibbes, 168. Before this threat could be carried out a new commander arrived at Charleston, and the war took on humaner methods.

[1130] Cf. Hansard, xxii. 963; _Parl. Reg._ (Debrett), xxv. 81; _Polit. Mag._, iii. 45, 73, 237, 383; Lee's _Memoirs_ (2d edition), 326; _Hist. Mag._, x. 269.

[1131] Lee's _Campaign of 1781_, App.; R. E. Lee's ed. of Lee's _Memoir_, p. 613.

[1132] Cf. Lieut. Hatton in Mackenzie's _Strictures_.

[1133] Pickens to Greene in Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 135, and Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), 91. On the other hand, Browne, the British commander at Augusta, in a letter to Ramsay, dated Dec. 25, 1786 (White's _Hist. Coll._), asserts that James Alexander, a captain in Pickens's militia, was the murderer whom Pickens shielded. It would seem that such was the case. See further Johnson's _Traditions_; McCall's _Georgia_; Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 455; Stevens's _Georgia_, ii. 247; White's _Hist. Coll. of Georgia_, 210; Lee's _Memoirs_, ii. 204; and Stedman, _American War_, ii. 219.

[1134] There is an account of this author's life in _Mag. Western History_, Jan., 1887.

[1135] He gives portraits of John Sevier, Shelby, Samuel Hammond, Joseph McDowell, and De Peyster; and a view of Ferguson's headquarters. W. E. Foster, in his review of Draper, gives references (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1882, p. 92).

[1136] See the "report" in Draper, 522; Foote's _Western North Carolina_, 126; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 338; and the newspapers of the time. As to the opposing numbers, Ferguson had when attacked from nine to eleven hundred men; the Americans numbered a little over nine hundred. But as to the losses, it is within the truth to say that the British loss was not under seven hundred and fifty in killed, wounded, and prisoners; and it has been given as high as eleven hundred and three in the official report. There is every reason to suppose that this was an overestimate. The killed and wounded on the American side did not exceed one hundred, and may be stated at ninety. This is supposed to have resulted from the fact that the fire of the Tories, being down-hill, was not so effective as the fire of the patriots in the opposite direction. Draper (_King's Mountain_, 297) has said all that can be said on this subject. There is an account of Campbell in the _Mag. of Western Hist._, Jan., 1887.

[1137] Draper, 546; Foote's _Sketches of Western North Carolina_, 264; and _Southern Literary Messenger_, xi. 552. It forms the basis of the account in Ramsay's _Annals of Tennessee_, 225. On the whole, this account is very favorable to Shelby.

[1138] Many years before this, a dispute had broken out between the descendants of Campbell and Shelby himself. The portions of the papers which this brought forth, so far as they relate to King's Mountain, are reprinted in Draper, 540. What was in some sort a last word was said by John C. Preston, Campbell's descendant, in his _Address delivered at the Celebration of the battle of King's Mountain_ (printed separately at Yorkville, S. C., 1855).

Charges of cowardice were also made on the British side. In February, 1781, a writer in the _Political Magazine_ accused De Peyster of surrendering too soon; but in the same magazine (iii. 609) are documents vindicating his character. Ferguson's death deprived Cornwallis of a most valuable officer. For Ferguson, see _Biographical Sketch or Memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Patrick Ferguson, by Adam Ferguson_ (Edinburgh, 1817). Cf. also _Political Magazine_, ii. 60; Mackenzie, _Strictures_, 63; Foote, _Sketches of Virginia_, 2d series, 129.

[1139] This was given to Draper by Allaire's grandson, J. De Lancey Robinson, of New Brunswick. The part relating to this campaign is in Draper, 505-515. The British Museum has recently acquired a MS. narrative of one Alexander Chesney, who describes the partisan warfare in Carolina during the Revolution. He was wounded at King's Mountain.—ED.

[1140] There are good accounts in the contemporary books, especially in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 178; Gordon, iii. 462; Moultrie, ii. 242; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 207; Stedman, ii. 220; and Tarleton, 164. Tarleton's account of Ferguson's campaign was displeasing to Mackenzie; cf. _Strictures_, 58. It was also very distasteful to Cornwallis, whom his former subordinate censured. Much can be gleaned from the local histories: W. B. Zeigler and B. S. Crosscup, _The Heart of the Alleghenies or Western North Carolina_ (Raleigh, N. C., and Cleveland, Ohio, 1883, p. 219); Hunter, _Sketches of Western North Carolina_, 300; J. H. Logan, _History of the Upper Country of South Carolina_ (Columbia, 1859), vol. i., all ever published, p. 68. Cf. also J. W. De Peyster in _Historical Magazine_, xvi. 189-197, and _Magazine of American History_, v. 401-424; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 624, and _American Historical Record_, i. 529; Marshall, _Washington_, iv. 397; J. C. Hamilton, _Hist. of the Republic_, ii. 161; _Am. Whig Rev._, 2d series, ii. 580. Bancroft was present at the celebration in 1855, and made a speech. Cf. _Celebration of King's Mountain_, p. 75; Moore's _Life of Lacey_, etc. For poetry we have a rude ballad by an unknown author,—cf. Draper, 591; a poem by Paul H. Hayne in _Harper's Monthly_, lxi. 942; by W. G. Simms in _Ibid._ xxi. 670; and a stirring ballad, written shortly after the action, by an anonymous author in Moore, _Songs and Ballads of the American Revolution_, p. 335, and Draper, 592.

There is no good plan of this action. Foote (_Sketches of Western North Carolina_) says that Graham made "several plots of the ground showing the position of the different bands at different times." One of these, depicting the situation at the time of the surrender, has been printed. It should have accompanied the original publication of Graham's account in the _Southern Literary Messenger_ (xi. 552), but was omitted. What I take to be the same is given by Major-General John Watts De Peyster in the _Historical Magazine_ (xvi. 192), who says that it was first printed in the _Southern Lit. Messenger_, but when he does not say. He adds that it was copied in the _University of North Carolina Magazine_. A plan closely resembling it in general features is in Ramsay's _Annals of Tennessee_, p. 238. A fac-simile of this last is in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, v. 414. Draper (page 236) gives a _Diagram of the Battle of King's Mountain_, in which the corps are arranged to suit his ideas, together with a map of the neighboring region. There seems to be little doubt but that Graham's arrangement is faulty, and too favorable to Shelby. As to this officer, cf. _Mag. of Western Hist._ (Jan., 1887). Lossing gives views of the field (_Field-Book_, ii. 629, 634).

[1141] Cf. _Ninth Report of Hist. MSS. Commission_, App. iii. p. 109. The second of these is also in _Cornwallis Cor._, p. 495, and Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App., 32.

[1142] Cf. _Parl. Reg._, xxv. 124; _Fifth Report of Hist. MSS. Comm._, 236; _Political Mag._, ii. 339; and _Germain Cor._, 10.

[1143] _London Gazette_, Feb. 13-17, 1781; _Annual Register_, 1780 (Principal Occurrences, p. 17); Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App. p. 45; and _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 497. A short extract is in Tarleton, p. 203.

[1144] _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 57-74, and Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., pp. 29, 35.

[1145] Cf. also Marshall, _Washington_, iv. 336; G. W. Greene, _Historical View of the American Revolution_ (Boston, 1865), pp. 265-281,—very laudatory. McRee, _Life of Iredell_ (i. 481-565), contains, besides many interesting letters from and to the subject of the book, an explanatory text, in which the author endeavors to defend North Carolina from various charges that have been brought against her people and militia. _Reminiscences of Dr. William Read_ in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1776-82), 270 _et seq._; Randall, _Life of Jefferson_, i.; Kapp's _Steuben_, Am. edition, pp. 344-369; Le Boucher, i. 280, and ii. 17; Allen, _Hist. Am. Rev._, ii. 369-392; Caldwell's _Greene_, pp. 150-388; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 339-381; J. C. Hamilton, _Life of A. Hamilton_, i. 308, and _History of the Republic_, ii. 41, 133; Irving's _Washington_, iv. There is an interesting article in _Harper's Monthly_, xv. 159, on the first part of the campaign, and a good account of the later portion from the British side in the _Political Mag._, iv. 25-36.

Various letters of Greene after assuming command are in the _Steuben Papers_ (copies in _Sparks MSS._, xv.). Washington's instructions are in Sparks, vii. 271. He reached Charlotte in December (_Corresp. of Rev._, iii. 165); _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1881; by Lewis Morris in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 473; by C. W. Coleman in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, vii. 36, 201.

[1146] For a brief and appreciative notice of Williams, see Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 410. Cf. also _A Sketch of the Life and Services of Gen. Otho Holland Williams, read before the Md. Hist. Soc. by Osmond Tiffany_ (Baltimore, 1851).

[1147] There is a short notice of William Washington in Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 399. See also Wyatt, 79-83.

[1148] Carrington was less known, but Hartley in his _Heroes_, p. 318, has devoted a short space to him.

[1149] Cf. _Memoirs of Generals ... who were presented with medals by Congress_, by Thomas Wyatt (Phila., 1848), pp. 70-78; _Mag. of Am. Hist._, vii. 276-282,—with portrait; Hartley, _Heroes_, 317; Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 228, etc.

[1150] Davie, however, rose into prominence. Cf. Frances M. Hubbard, _Life of William Richardson Davie_, in Sparks, _Am. Biog._, xxv. pp. 1-135. Pages 13-177 relate to his military career. Cf. also Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 381; _Lives of the Heroes_, 134; and Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 114.

[1151] Cf. Greene's _Greene_, iii. ch. 1. The earliest general map of the Southern campaigns from American sources appeared in David Ramsay's _Hist. of the Rev. in So. Carolina_ (vol. i., Trenton, 1785). Gordon, in 1785, sent this Ramsay map to Greene, asking him to correct it, and lest it should not answer he sent other maps of the Southern States for Greene to amend (_Hist. Mag._, xiii. 24, 25). Gordon's own map is in his third volume, and is reduced in Greene's _Greene_. Other early American maps are those in Marshall's _Atlas_ to his Washington, and in Johnson's _Greene_, vol. ii.

The English maps are _A new and accurate map of North Carolina and part of South Carolina, with the field of battle between Earl Cornwallis and General Gates_ (London, 1780), and Faden's map of Feb. 3, 1787, showing the _Marches of Lord Cornwallis in the Southern provinces, comprehending the two Carolinas, with Virginia and Maryland and the Delaware Counties_ (20 × 26 inches), which is the one also used in Tarleton's _Campaigns_. Cf. those in the _Political Mag._, Nov., 1780, and Kitchen's _Map of the Seat of War_, in _London Mag._, 1781, p. 291. There are later eclectic maps in Carrington, 556; _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 324; and in such lesser works as Ridpath's _United States_, 342, and Lowell's _Hessians_, 265. There are French maps in Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, ii.; Balch's _Les Français en Amérique_, etc.

There was a map of South Carolina published in nine sheets (London, 1771,—_King's maps, Brit. Mus._, i. 209). That by James Cook was engraved by Bowen in 1773 (_Brit. Mus. Catal. Maps_, 1885, col. 699). Other maps antedating the active hostilities in the South were those in the _Amer. Military Pocket Atlas_ (1776); the large sheet (56 × 40 inches), with considerable detail, called _Map of North and South Carolina_, the work of H. Mouzon and others (London, Sayer & Bennett, 1775); and upon this and Cook's the map in B. R. Carroll's _Hist. Coll. of So. Carolina_ is based. Sayer & Bennett (London, 1776) published a smaller map, 19 × 25 inches, called _A general map of the southern British colonies in America, comprehending North and South Carolina [etc.] with the Indian countries. From the modern surveys of de Brahm & others & from hydrographic survey, by B. Romans, 1776._ It has marginal plans of Charleston and St. Augustine.

In 1777 there was published both in London and Paris a large map of South Carolina and Georgia, after surveys by Bull, Gascoigne, Bryan, and De Brahm. The Paris publisher was Le Rouge, and it was included in the _Atlas Amériquain_, which also reproduces the Mouzon map and the English map of the Carolina coasts, by N. Pocock (1770).

The Bull, etc., map of 1777 was reissued by Faden in 1780 as a _Map of South Carolina and a part of Georgia_. Cf. the map of _Parts of South Carolina and Georgia_ in the _Political Mag._, i. 454. The _Brit. Mus. Catal. Additional MSS._, no. 31,537, shows four plans, giving positions of the British in South Carolina from May to September, 1779.

North Carolina alone was not so well mapped as South Carolina at the outbreak of the war. There was a map published in London in 1770, after surveys by Collet, governor of Fort Johnson (_King's maps, Brit. Mus._, i. 208), and in the same library is a drawn map, also by Collet, of the back country, made in 1768, in twelve sheets. E. W. Caruthers' _Interesting Revolutionary incidents chiefly in the old North State_, second series (Philadelphia, 1856), has a folding map, with the marches of Greene and Cornwallis, from the Cowpens till the separation at Ramsey's Mill.

The standard map of Virginia at the outbreak of the war was that by Fry and Jefferson (see Vol. V. p. 273), originally issued in 1751, but reproduced by Jefferys in 1775, and included in his _American Atlas_ (1775, no. 31). In 1777 Le Rouge reproduced it in Paris, and included it in the _Atlas Amériquain_. Cf. the map of Virginia and Maryland in Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_; and the maps in _Political Mag._, i. 787, and _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vi. 25; and for details those in Simcoe's _Journal_ (giving various skirmishes, etc.), Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 158; and Carrington's _Battles_, p. 616. There is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 51) a _Plan du terrain à la rive gauche de la rivière de James, vis-à-vis Jamestown, en Virginie, où etait le Combat du 6 Juillet, 1781_, giving the first and second positions of the troops in the engagement between Lafayette and Cornwallis. It is a colored map, 18 × 18 inches, with a good key. Cf. map on the operations in Virginia in _Mémoires_ of Lafayette (Paris, 1837), vol. i.—ED.

[1152] Pp. 258-329; 290-312 dealing more especially with this engagement. See also Johnson's _Greene_, vol. ii. pp. 346, 370, 372, and 410, and _Charleston News and Courier_ for May 10, 1881. Some part at least of the correspondence of General Morgan is in the collection of Theodorus Bailey Myers (_Johnson's Orderly-book_, p. 211). There are a few letters in the _Correspondence of the Revolution_, iii. 217, with Greene's official announcement of the victory to Washington (pp. 207, 214). Greene's letter to Marion is in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._, 1781-82, p. 16.

[1153] _The London Gazette, March 27-31, 1781_, reprinted either in whole or in part in _Remembrancer_, xi. 272; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 221; Tarleton, 249; Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton's Narrative_, App. 1; Cornwallis, _Corr._, i. 81. Balfour, then the commander at Charleston, also reported the particulars to Germain. Cf. _London Gazette_, as above, etc. Cornwallis's order to Tarleton to "push Morgan to the utmost" is in Graham's _Morgan_ 227, and in Tarleton, _Campaigns_, 244.

[1154] Mention should also be made of Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 252-266, and R. E. Lee's ed., 229; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 252; Gordon, Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii.,—all at second hand. See also Johnson's _Greene_, i. 368; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 139; _Travels in North America in the years 1780, 1781, and 1782. By the Marquis de Chastellux—translated from the French by an English Gentleman_ (London, 1787), ii. 60. The marquis claimed to have derived his account from Morgan, but he probably did not understand him, as his description is at variance with the best authorities. There are accounts of more or less value in McSherry, _Maryland_, 276; _Memoir of General Graham_, p. 38; Marshall, _Washington_, iv. 342; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 636; Carrington, _Battles_, 546; _Historical Magazine_, xii. 356 (Dec., 1865), a "traditionary account;" _Harper's Monthly_, xxii. 163, etc. Probably as good an estimate as can be formed of Morgan's force is that contained in a letter from Greene to Marion of January 23, 1781. He there gives it at 290 infantry and 80 cavalry of the line, and about 600 militia; total, 970. The estimate of the militia is too high, and might be reduced by 100. Then, too, there were a few small detachments. So that Morgan's assertion in his official report, that he fought with only 800 men, is not incompatible with this statement of Greene's. The British brought, or should have brought, into action at least 1,000 men, including 50 militia and a baggage-guard, which made off, without striking a blow, as soon as the news of the defeat reached it. Greene rates Tarleton's force at 200 more. But 1,000 was probably not far from his number of "effectives" on the morning of Jan. 17, 1781, as opposed to Morgan's 800.

In his official report Morgan gave his loss as 12 killed and about 60 wounded. He states, however, that he was not able at the time of writing to ascertain the loss of the militia in the skirmish and front lines. It must have been very small, however. The British loss he gives as more than 110 killed, more than 200 wounded, and between 500 and 600 prisoners. Morgan states, however, that, as he was obliged to move off the field so quickly, the estimate of killed and wounded was very imperfect. The loss of the British in officers was very large, and it is safe to follow Graham (_Life of Morgan_, p. 308) and place the killed at 80, the wounded at 150, and the prisoners at 600. The important fact is the deprivation to Cornwallis of his light infantry at a time when he was sorely in need of such.

A good plan will be found in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 378, of which a reduced fac-simile is given by Graham (p. 297). A more valuable plan as coming from an actual observer, Colonel Samuel Hammond, is in Johnson's _Traditions_, pp. 529, 530. The best plan is in Carrington's _Battles_, p. 547. The medals given to Morgan, Colonels Washington and Howard are figured in Loubat's _Medallic Hist. of the U. S._, and in Lossing's _Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, p. 341. Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 637, gives a view of the field.—ED.

[1155] Those from Morgan are in Graham's _Morgan_, 328 _et seq._ The most interesting letter from Greene is one that he wrote to Reed (March 18), in Reed's _Reed_, ii. 348. A letter to Washington (Irwin's Ferry on Dan, Feb. 15, 1781) may be regarded as his official report. Cf. _Corres. Rev._, iii. 233. It should be read in connection with one of six days earlier, in the same volume, p. 225. Cf. also a letter to Lieutenant Lock as to militia in _Hist. Mag._, v. 86; Caruthers' _Incidents_, p. 195; originally printed in Tarleton, 252. Lee's description of the retreat after the union of the two wings at Guilford is admirable (_Memoirs_, i. 267-298).

[1156] _London Gazette for June 2-5, 1781_; _Annual Register_ for 1781 (_Principal Occurrences_, p. 62); Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton_, Appendix, p. 23; Cornwallis, _Corres._, i. 502; Tarleton, 259, etc. For a less official account, see Cornwallis to Rawdon, Feb. 4 and Feb. 21, in Cornwallis, _Corres._, 83, 84.

[1157] Cf. also _British Invasion of North Carolina in 1780 and 1781. A Lecture, by Hon. Wm. A. Graham, delivered before the N. Y. Hist. Soc. in 1853._ This short and interesting account of the campaign is printed as part iii. of _Revolutionary History of North Carolina_ (Raleigh and N. Y., 1853), pp. 180-187. General Joseph Graham also presented the local idea of this campaign in the _University of North Carolina Magazine_, vol. iii.

[1158] See also Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 203; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 148-175; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 387. Johnson thinks that too much credit has been given to Cornwallis. Lamb's _Journal_, 343; Marshall's _Washington_, iv., etc.

[1159] The map is on p. 245. Stedman also gives a plan in _Amer. War_, ii. 328. The whole march can be traced on the general maps, especially the map in Caruthers' _Incidents_, second series. Cf. Lossing, ii. 598.

[1160] See also Seymour's "Journal" (_Penna. Hist. Mag._, vii.) for another contemporary account.

[1161] _North Carolina University Magazine_, vol. vii. 193. This was written in 1824 and cannot be regarded as authority of the first importance. The passage relating to this affair is quoted by Caruthers, _Incidents_, 76. That author's own account is derived to a great extent from tradition (_Incidents_, 71 _et seq._). In the above letter Graham asserted that he saw Eggleston—the leader of Lee's rear troop—strike a Tory with the butt of his pistol, and that the blow brought about the conflict. The different narratives cannot be reconciled. Very likely Lee had forgotten the exact details. It is certain that Stedman (_Amer. War_, ii. 333), in his estimate of the Tory loss in killed alone at between two and three hundred, more than doubled the actual number; but it was a murderous business at best.

[1162] There are three letters from Greene to Washington in Sparks, _Corr. Rev._, iii. 224, 259, 266. The second of these (March 10) was also printed in _Remembrancer_, xii. 37; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 380; and Tarleton, 258. Greene's official report to the President of Congress may be found in Caldwell's _Greene_, p. 432; _Ann. Reg._ for 1781, Principal Occurrences, p. 148; _Remembrancer_, xii. 37; Tarleton, 313; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 414, etc. Cf. also a letter to Morgan in Graham's _Morgan_, 372, and to Reed, in Reed's _Reed_, ii. 348. As to the proper dispositions to make in engagements where much reliance must be placed on militia, see Morgan to Greene, Feb. 20, in a note to Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 6. As to events subsequent to the battle, see Nash, governor of N. C., to Washington in Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 282; Greene to same in _Ibid._ 277; Johnson, _Greene_, ii. 37; and _Remembrancer_, xii. 116. Greene also wrote to Greene, governor of R. I., on the same subject. Cf. _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 284, and _R. I. Col. Rec._, ix. 380.

[1163] Cornwallis's report to Germain (_London Gazette_, June 2-5, 1781) was widely reprinted (_Corn. Corr._, i. 506; Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton's Narrative_, App. p. 35; _Remembrancer_, xii. 21, etc., etc.). He also wrote a friendly note to Rawdon, in which he says that after a very sharp action he had routed Greene (_Corn. Corr._, i. 85; _Remembrancer_, xi. 332; _Polit. Mag._, ii. 329, etc.). Balfour communicated the news of the "victory at Guilford" to Germain in two letters, dated respectively March 24 and 27. These last three letters arrived in London in season to be published in the _Gazette Extra_ for May 11, 1781,—nearly a month before the official report was given to the world. Cf. also _Remembrancer_, xi. 329. Cornwallis's _Order-book_ is very valuable for this period, although it is often hard to reconcile the dates as there given with the accepted accounts,—in Caruthers, _Incidents_, 2d ser. pp. 391-442. See also St. George Tucker to Fanny (his wife) under date of March 18, 1781, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 40; viii. 201; and Seymour's "Journal" in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, vii. 377. Major Weemys gives the supposed strength of Cornwallis's army before the action at Guilford, March 15, 1781, as, in the field with him, 2,700; in his department, 6,000 in all (_Sparks MSS._ xx.).—ED.

[1164] Good descriptions are in the _Memoirs_ of the British Graham (pp. 41-46), in Gordon (iv. 53), and in Stedman (ii. 337). Lamb in his so-called _Journal_ (pp. 348-362) follows Stedman, but he added several interesting anecdotes, which it must be remembered are related by an actual actor in the battle.

[1165] Another apologetic description is that in McSherry's _Maryland_ (p. 286). The plain fact is that the 2d Maryland broke and contributed materially to the defeat of the Americans. The Grenadier Guards (Hamilton, ii. 247) did excellent work on the British side, and the account in the history of that corps is good. The Hessians, too, once more appeared on the Southern fields (Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 101, and Lowell, _Hessians_, 268). Other accounts may be found in Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 336; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 176; Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 4; Allen, _Hist. Amer. Rev._, ii. 393; Andrews, iv. 100; Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 263; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 599 and 608; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 38; _Harper's Magazine_, xv. 158; Dawson, Carrington, etc.

A narrative of subsequent events in North Carolina, with a loyalist's sympathies, is in _The Narrative of Colonel David Fanning ... as written by himself_, Richmond, 1861. "Printed for private distribution only." A small edition (50 copies) was brought out by Sabin in 1865.

[1166] Greene to Huntingdon (President of Congress) in Caldwell's _Greene_, p. 435; _Remembrancer_, xii. 126; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 547; Tarleton, 467, etc. See also letters to Lee and Marion in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._, 1781-82, 60. Cf. also Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 299, and Reed's _Reed_, ii. 351, 361.