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]
[Illustration: SIEGE OF SAVANNAH, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1779.
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]
[Illustration: CHARLESTON, 1780.
"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]
[Illustration: SIEGE OF CHARLESTON.
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.
[Illustration: CAMDEN, AUGUST 16, 1780.
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]
[Illustration: GATES'S DEFEAT AT CAMDEN.
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]
[Illustration: GUILDFORD, MARCH 15, 1781.
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).
[Illustration: From the _Political Magazine_ (vol. ii p. 117).
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]
[Illustration: HOBKIRK'S HILL. (_Sometimes called the Second Battle of
Camden._)
_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.]
THE CAPTURE OF THE POSTS.—For the account of the capture of Fort
Watson, Marion's report (April 23) to Greene has been the main reliance
(Simms, _Marion_, p. 231; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 548; _Remembrancer_, xii.
127, etc.). Lee's narrative of this period (_Memoirs_, ii. 50) is
detailed, but it was written too long after the war to be accurate.
This is unfortunate, as we have no other account of the taking of Fort
Motte (_Memoirs_, ii. 73) by an on-looker, unless we accept the letter
sent by Greene to Congress as an original source. It is not known
when Greene arrived at Fort Motte, which was at some time before the
surrender.[1169]
At this time Marion became discouraged, and wrote to Greene that he
contemplated retiring. These letters are in Gibbes, p. 67-69. Rawdon
presented a report covering this period.[1170]
The siege of Augusta was much better chronicled, as with it McCall
(Georgia, ii. 321) again becomes useful.[1171] Another description,
though from what source is not stated, is in Johnson's _Traditions_,
354. Lee's account is in his _Memoirs_, ii. 81-95 and 100-118. The
first part refers more especially to the capture of Fort Granby and
of Fort Galphin, an outpost of Augusta. The official correspondence
between Lee and Pickens on one side and Brown on the other has been
printed over and over again.[1172]
SIEGE OF NINETY-SIX.—Cruger[1173] presented no formal report of his
defence—so far as I know; but there is a good account of the siege in
Mackenzie's _Strictures_, pp. 139-164, written by Lieutenant Hatton,
of the New Jersey Loyalist Volunteers: cf. p. 129. Mackenzie himself
is very severe on Tarleton's account (_Campaigns_, 495). Greene's
very meagre report is dated Little River, June 20, 1781 (Caldwell's
_Greene_; _Pol. Mag._, Tarleton, 498, etc.).[1174]
Rawdon's report of his successful attempt to relieve the garrison is in
_Remembrancer_, xv. 9.[1175]
Neither Greene nor Lee (_Memoirs_, ii. 119) intimate that the stockaded
fort was abandoned before Lee's assault, though the English authorities
assert it. Nor does Greene allude to the gallant sally of the defenders
of the "Star", which compelled the assailants to retire from the
ditch, with great loss to themselves.[1176]
EUTAWS.—I should place first Greene's official report, though it is
not as full as could be desired.[1177]
Williams has left two accounts: the first is a letter, dated Fort
Motte, Sept., 1781 (Tiffany's _Williams_, p. 22). The important paper,
however, is entitled: _Account furnished by Colonel Otho Williams, with
additions by Cols. W. Hampton, Polk, Howard, and Watt_ (when written
is not stated), in Gibbes (pp. 144-157). It is a long and detailed
description of the battle by men who actually took part, but as it may
have been written long after the event, too much reliance should not be
placed upon it. Still another description of the campaign, though not
of the battle, is contained in two letters from Major William Pierce to
St. George Tucker (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 435). Lieutenant-Colonel
Stuart presented a report to Cornwallis, which has been widely
reprinted.[1178]
It differs from the American accounts in many particulars, especially
as to the disorganization of his own troops, which very likely has
been described in too glowing colors by American writers. Lee was
present at the battle, but his description (_Memoirs_, ii. 276-301) of
the contest is sometimes hard to reconcile with the accounts of his
fellow-soldiers. Greene, according to Williams, was hardly satisfied
with the conduct of that partisan leader, and Lee soon after retired
from the army, ostensibly for other reasons. Neither Johnson (_Greene_,
ii. 219) nor G. W. Greene (_Greene_, iii. 384) have added much to our
knowledge of this action, and the same may be said of the other writers
on the war.[1179]
GREENE'S LATER CAMPAIGNS.—There are many letters of this period in
the third volume of Sparks's _Correspondence of the Revolution_, and
in Gibbes's _Documentary History_ (1781-1782). Many of those in the
latter are of merely local interest, a large number of them relating
more especially to a quarrel between Horry and Mahem, Marion's
two subordinates. Lee, too, after his return from Yorktown became
discontented, and many letters which passed between him and his
commander are printed by Gibbes. Much of Lee's uneasiness was doubtless
due to the prominence which Greene awarded to Laurens. Leslie's letter
proposing a cessation of hostilities was enclosed by Greene in a letter
to the President of Congress (_Remembrancer_, xiv. 324). A truce not
being acceded to, he demanded provisions (_Remembrancer_, xv. 28). This
too being refused, he endeavored to seize them. One of the expeditions
resulted in the death of Laurens.[1180] Gist made a report of this
action, and there is a note from Greene to Washington.[1181] Benjamin
Thomson,—afterwards Count Rumford,—at this time lieutenant-colonel
in a regiment stationed near Charleston, wrote many letters in Jan.,
1782, which have been printed by the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS. in
their _Ninth Report_, Appendix, iii. p. 118.[1182]
An account of the march of the reinforcements sent south under St.
Clair is in _Harmer's Journal_, while the "Journal" of Major Denny in
_Penna. Hist. Soc. Memoirs_, vii. pp. 249 _et seq._, contains much of
interest relating to the operations around Charleston.[1183] Mention
should also be made of a series of letters from Major Pierce to St.
George Tucker, bearing on this period, in _Mag. Am. Hist._ (1881),
pp. 431-445, while there is an original account by Seymour in _Penna.
Mag._, vii. 377. A British narrative of the same operations is in
_Political Mag._, iv. 36-44.[1184]
There are several descriptions of the triumphant entry of the
Americans into Charleston on the 14th of December, 1782; that by Horry
in _Charleston Year Book_ (1883) is perhaps the best.[1185] Of the
contemporary historians, Gordon (vol. iv. 173-177, 298-305) has given
the best account of this time.[1186] In the library of the Mass. Hist.
Soc. there is a manuscript giving details of the emigration at the
evacuations of Savannah and Charleston.[1187] It appears from this
that no less than 13,271 of the former inhabitants of those States,
including 8,676 blacks, left with the British army when it finally
retired from the South.
THE BRITISH IN VIRGINIA, 1779 AND 1780.—Besides the documents
mentioned in the _Virginia Calendar of State Papers_, there are
full and detailed accounts by Mathews and Collier of their doings
at Portsmouth and Suffolk.[1188] There is some account also of the
naval portion of this expedition in Town's _Detail of Some Particular
Services performed in America, compiled from journals ... kept aboard
the Ship Rainbow_, New York, 1835, pp. 77-88.[1189]
Clinton's instructions to Leslie are in _Clinton's Observations on
Cornwallis_, App., pp. 25, 27. There is little else bearing on this
movement except a few letters from Steuben in _Historical Mag._, iv.
301, and _Corres. of the Rev._, iii. 203.[1190]
ARNOLD AND PHILLIPS IN VIRGINIA, 1781.—With regard to the first part
of Arnold's raid into Virginia, we have several letters from him to
Clinton.[1191] On the American side there are many interesting letters
in the _Maryland Papers_ (134-144), and in Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_,
404, etc. See also _Ibid._ 216-253, for a description of Gen.
Muhlenberg's share in resisting these incursions. Steuben, as Greene's
lieutenant, had the chief command in Virginia at the time, and Kapp in
his _Steuben_ (Amer. ed., p. 371 _et seq._) has not failed to give him
full credit for his courageous endeavors.[1192]
* * * * *
LAFAYETTE AND CORNWALLIS IN VIRGINIA.—Lafayette, during his campaign
against Phillips, and afterwards against Cornwallis, was considered as
under the command of Greene. He reported to Greene, and his reports may
be found in the _Remembrancer_, (vol. xii.).[1193] He also kept up an
incessant correspondence with Washington, and Sparks's _Corres. of the
Rev._[1194] should therefore be compared with the papers in Lafayette's
_Memoirs_.[1195] A few reports and letters from Cornwallis at this time
will be found in his _Correspondence_ (i. 105 _et seq._). Tarleton
(_Campaigns_, 279) gives a good account of the march from Guilford
to Wilmington and thence to Petersburg, from his point of view. Gen.
Graham was at that time a captain in the 76th regiment, which, with
the 80th, bore the brunt of the action at the crossing of the James.
The account of the affair in his _Memoirs_ (pp. 53-55) is one of the
best we have. Simcoe, in his _Journal_ (ed. 1787, pp. 146-177; Am. ed.,
pp. 209-250), has given a detailed description of the campaign. He has
exaggerated his own services, but has atoned, in part, for this by
giving a set of good plans of the rencounters which he tried to dignify
into battles.[1196] Giradin (_Continuation of Burk_, iv. 490) has given
the Jeffersonian version of the period.[1197]
This gallant struggle of Lafayette against great odds was very
creditable to him and to his soldiers; but it had little or no
influence on the final result. Nevertheless, it has attracted the
attention of recent writers, and has brought out two good articles: one
from the pen of Carrington (_Mag. Am. Hist._, vi. 340, with map), the
other from a less known writer, Mr. Coleman (_Ibid._ vii. 201).[1198]
* * * * *
THE YORKTOWN CAMPAIGN.—Clinton and Cornwallis, in their pamphlets on
the conduct of the campaign, printed most of the important documents
which passed between them and their superiors and subordinates. Others
will be found in the documents printed by order of the Lords, and still
others in the biographies of the different commanders. I shall point
out only the most important. In a letter (Wilmington, April 18, 1781)
Cornwallis explained the reasons for the Guilford campaign, gave an
account of his later movements, and advocated a march into Virginia. On
the 24th he wrote to Phillips that his situation at Wilmington was very
distressing (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 155, etc.). On the preceding day he had
announced his determination to Germain to go north (_Parl. Reg._, xxv.
145; extracts in numerous places, among others in Tarleton, 325). But
more valuable than these are two letters to Clinton written April 24th
(_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 156; extracts in Cornwallis's _Correspondence_, i.
94; Cornwallis's _Answer_, p. 55; and in many other places). Clinton
disapproved this movement from the outset. (Cf. letter, May 29th, in
Clinton's _Observations on Cornwallis_, App. p. 99.) Cornwallis tried
to justify his conduct in a letter dated Portsmouth, July 24th (_Parl.
Reg._, xxv. 207, etc.). On the other hand, Germain was "well pleased to
find Cornwallis's opinion entirely coincided" with his (_Parl. Reg._,
xxv. 135). Cornwallis therefore went north without any misgivings.[1199]
[Illustration: DE GRASSE'S VICTORY.
A contemporary type-sketch from the _London Magazine_. The _Political
Mag._, 1784, p. 20, has a folding plan. The most detailed plan is in
Stedman (ii. ch. 44), _The position of the English and French fleets
immediately previous to the Action on the 5th of Sept., 1781_, which
is reproduced in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1881, p. 367. For
the operations in and about the bay, see Carrington's plan in his
_Battles_, p. 596. Contemporary charts of the bay are in the _No. Amer.
Pilot_, nos. 26 and 27; the _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_, no. 20;
and Des Barres's _Atlantic Neptune_. Graves's despatch on his failure,
dated at sea, Sept. 14, is in the _Political Mag._, ii. 605, with
other accounts (p. 620); with further explanations from Clinton and
Graves (p. 668). Cf. _Ibid._ iii. 153. John G. Shea edited in 1864 two
contemporary journals as _Operations of the French Fleet_, etc., with a
plan. One of these journals was printed at Amsterdam in 1783 (_Murphy
Catal._, no. 1,386). Cf. Stedman, ii. ch. 44; Chevalier's _Hist. de
la marine française_ (Paris, 1877), ch. vii.; Léon Chotteau's _Les
Français en Amérique_, p. 248; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 476.—ED.]
On June 11th Clinton ordered Cornwallis to seek some defensive position
(_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 160). Four days later he wrote that he should need
some of Cornwallis's troops (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 175, and Cornwallis's
_Answer_, App. p. 112). This request he repeated on the 19th, and again
on the 26th (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 177, and _Germain Corresp._, 187). In
this last he announced his purpose of marching on Philadelphia. On the
30th Cornwallis wrote one or two letters questioning the utility of the
defensive post he was ordered to occupy (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 169, and
at greater length in Cornwallis's _Answer_, App. p. 118). In another
letter, dated July 8th, he again questioned the utility of a defensive
post. Clinton on his part, in two letters of July 8th and 11th,
censured the Virginia commander for repassing the James, and ordered
him to occupy Old Point Comfort (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 171). Again, in
another letter of the same date as the second of these, he reiterates
his order to fortify a station in the Chesapeake for the protection of
large ships. Admiral Graves also wrote to Cornwallis, urging him to
seize and fortify Old Point Comfort (Cornwallis's _Answer_, App. p.
180). A board of officers was now sent to report on the practicability
of holding Old Point Comfort as a station for line-of-battle ships.
They reported (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 182) that the proposed site was not
suitable, and this decision Cornwallis communicated to Graves (Aug.
26th, in the App. to his _Answer_). He also wrote to Clinton on the
next day somewhat bitterly in regard to his criticisms and orders
(_Corn. Corresp._, i. 107). Thinking that his orders required him
to fortify Yorktown, he repaired thither, though writing to O'Hara
that the position was a bad one on account of the heat, etc. (_Corn.
Corresp._, i. III.). Clinton also wrote three letters at about this
time, which Cornwallis did not receive until after his surrender. The
first and important one is in _Parl. Reg._, xxv. 182, while all three
are in the Appendix to Cornwallis's _Answer_, pp. 237, 251, 257. Such
are the most important documents bearing on the responsibility[1200]
for the disaster at Yorktown.
Cornwallis's official report to Clinton (Yorktown, Oct. 20, 1781)
was forwarded by Clinton to Germain on Nov. 15, 1781.[1201] The two
commanders kept up a constant correspondence during the siege, and from
their letters the details may be gathered. These are all printed in the
Appendix to the _Parliamentary Register_ and in numerous other places.
As soon as it was known at New York that Cornwallis was besieged by
such superior numbers, every effort was made to relieve him.[1202] The
fleet had been so badly cut up during the recent encounter with De
Grasse that Graves refused to venture again to sea before extensive
repairs had been completed. Consequently, when the relieving fleet
arrived off the capes of the Chesapeake the capitulation of Yorktown
had been signed. The letters and reports relating to this abortive
endeavor will be found in the _Parl. Reg._, xxv. pp. 190-200. There
seems to be no reason to blame Clinton or Graves for this delay.[1203]
The correspondence between the opposing commanders as to the surrender
has been often printed, as have the articles.[1204] As late as Oct.
19th Clinton wrote to some one in England giving an account of the
operations leading to the siege.[1205] On Oct. 29th Clinton wrote to
Germain the first official news concerning the surrender. This letter
(_London Gazette_, Nov. 24-27, 1781, and _Remembrancer_, xiii. 33) is
marked as received on Nov. 27th; but Wraxall, in a well-known passage,
says that the first official news of the surrender was received on the
25th.[1206]
The _Ninth Rep. of the Hist. MSS. Commission_ (App. iii. pp. 112-114)
contains four letters from "G. Damer" to Lord George Germain, relating
to the Virginia campaigns from Phillips's expedition to the end.
These letters are of exceeding value and interest. They bear out the
assertion so often made in the preceding narrative as to the great want
of harmony which prevailed in the higher ranks of the British forces in
this country.
Washington's official report[1207] announcing the surrender
(_Remembrancer_, xiii. 60, and innumerable other places) is of far less
importance than his order-book and his journal (May to Nov., 1781),
which last is in the State Department at Washington (T. F. Dwight in
_Mag. Am. Hist._, vi. 81). The portion on this campaign is in _Ibid._
(vol. vi. pp. 108-125; vii. 122-133).
[Illustration: YORKTOWN CAMPAIGN.
From the _Political Mag._, ii. 624, being the westerly half of the map
there given, originally published in London, Nov. 30, 1781, by J. Bew.
Faden published in 1781 _A Plan of the Entrance of Chesapeake Bay, with
James and York Rivers, by an officer_, which shows the condition in the
beginning of October.—ED.]
[Illustration: SIEGE OF YORKTOWN, 1781. (_Ramsay._)
NOTE ON THE MAPS OF THE YORKTOWN CAMPAIGN.—There is among the
Rochambeau maps the original sketch, done with a pen and a wash, 40×12
inches, showing the different encampments of the French army between
Boston and Yorktown, which is etched in Soulés' _Histoire des Troubles
de l'Amérique Anglaise_, and reproduced in Balch's _Les Français en
Amérique_, and in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. p. 1, and vii. pp. 8, 12,
17.
_The route of the allies from Chatham to Head of Elk, by Lieutenant
Hills_, a British map, is in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. 16. Cf., for
a general view, _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. p. 328. The best account of
this march and the return to Boston is by J. A. Stevens in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iii. 393; iv. 1; v. 1; vii. 1.
The earliest American map of the siege is one by Sebastian Bauman, an
officer of German extraction attached to Lamb's artillery, whose draft
was engraved in Philadelphia in 1782. There are copies in the N. Y. and
Penna. Hist. Societies, and, reduced one half, it is given in the _Mag.
of Amer. Hist._ (vol. vi. 57), and it is also in Johnston's _Yorktown_,
p. 198. There is among the Rochambeau maps in the library of Congress
(no. 63) a _Plan of the investment of York and Gloucester by Sebastian
Bauman_; the French in yellow, the Americans in blue, and the English
in red.
The earliest American maps issued to accompany narratives were Ramsay's
in his _Rev. in So. Carolina_, ii. 545 (reproduced herewith, and
followed in _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 333, and Lowell's _Hessians_,
278); Gordon's, in his vol. iv. 196, also follows Bauman; Marshall's,
in his _Atlas_ to his _Washington_ (reproduced herewith). Later
published are the maps in Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 186; in Atlas
to Guizot's _Washington_; in Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., iv.
356; E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, 424; Carrington's _Battles_,
646; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 518; Ridpath's _United States_; J. A.
Stevens's _Yorktown Centennial Handbook_; Johnston's _Yorktown_ (pp.
133, 144).
The leading British map of the siege is _A Plan of Yorktown and
Gloucester ... from an actual survey in the possession of Jno. Hills,
late lieut. in the 23d Regiment_ (Faden, London, Oct. 7, 1785). There
is another dated March 1, 1787, and, though a different plate, it
corresponds nearly to the one in Stedman, ii. 412, which is reproduced
in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vi. p. 8; Tarleton's _Campaigns_, ch.
vii.; R. E. Lee's ed. of Henry Lee's _Memoirs_, etc., p. 300; Hamilton,
_Repub. of the U. S._, ii. 263. Other early English maps are: _A Plan
of the Posts of York and Gloucester in the Province of Virginia,
established by his Majesty's Army, etc., which terminated in the
Surrender ... on the 17th Oct., 1781. Surveyed by Capt. Fage of the
Royal Artillery_, which contains a small plan showing the position of
the army between the ravines. What appears to be an original map is the
_Plan of York Town shewing the Batteries and Approaches of the French
and Americans, 1781_, on p. 61 of the _Memoir of General Graham_. A
large map in colors is: _Plan of York Town in Virginia and adjacent
country exhibiting the operations of the American, French, and English
armies during the siege of that place in Oct. 1781_, by J. F. Renault.
Leake's _Lamb_, p. 278, contains a fair map, with contours shown,
although incorrectly.
There are MS. maps of the siege in the British Museum. Other MS. maps
of Yorktown and the neighboring waters, including the drawn plan made
for Faden's engraved map, are among the Faden maps (nos. 90, 91, 92) in
the library of Congress.
There are among the Rochambeau maps in the library of Congress
several illustrating the siege of Yorktown and attendant movements in
Virginia:—
No. 50, _Carte des environs d'Hampton_, 1781, measuring 36 x 24 inches,
and colored faintly.
No. 52, a pen-and-ink _Plan de Portsmouth, Va._, 15 x 12 inches.
No. 53, _Plan des ouvrages de Portsmouth en Virginie_, colored, 15 x 12
inches.
No. 54, _Carte detaillé de West Point sur la rivière de York au
confluent des rivières de Pamunky et Matapony_, a colored sketch.
No. 55, a pen-and-ink sketch, _Batteries de West Point de la rivière
York_, 15 x 12 inches.
No. 56, a pen-and-ink sketch, _Plan des environs de Williamsburg, York,
Hampton and Portsmouth_, measuring 12 x 12 inches.
No. 57, a colored plan, 3 x 4 inches, showing the French army in camp,
Sept., 1781, called _Carte des environs de Williamsburg en Virginie_.
No. 58, _Plan d'York en Virginie, avec les attaques faits par les
armées français et Américain en Oct. 1781_, a colored sketch.
No. 59, _Siége d'York, 1781_, a colored plan, 23 x 24 inches.
No. 60, _Plan des ouvrages faits à Yorktown en Virginie_, a tracing, 24
x 20 inches.
No. 61, a sketch in ink and water-colors, with an elaborate key, _Notes
sur les environs de York_, 24 x 12 inches.
Balch refers to a MS. map by Soulés, preserved in the Archives de la
Guerre at Paris, and another attached to the MS. _Journal de mon séjour
en Amérique_, which he attributes to Cromot-Dubourg. Soulés' map,
_Plan d'York en Virginie avec les attaques et les campemens de l'Armée
combiné de France et d'Amérique_, is given in his _Troubles_, etc.,
vol. iv., reduced in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (June, 1880).
Another published French map is a _Plan de l'armée de Cornwallis,
attaquée et faitte prisoniere dans Yorktown, le 19 8^{bre} par l'armée
combinée Française et Américaine. Dessiné sur les lieux par les
Ingenieurs de l'armée à Paris. Chez Le Rouge, X^{bre}, 1781._ Another
good French map has no clew to its authorship except the words "M.
fecit." It is entitled _Plan de l'Attaque des villes de Yorck et
Gloucester dans lesquelles etoit fortifié le Général Cornwallis fait
prisonnier le 19 Octobre, 1781_ (a copy in Harvard College library).
Two anonymous French maps are: _Plan d'York en Virginia avec les
attaques et les Campemens de l'armée de France et de l'Amérique_
(fac-simile in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1880, p. 440), and _Carte de
la partie de la Virginie ... avec le plan de l'Attaque d'Yorktown
et de Gloucester_. There is also a Paris map of Virginia, published
by Esnauts and Rapilly, giving the _Baie de Chesapeake avec plan de
l'attaque_.
There is a German map by Sotzman.
All these maps were based on more or less imperfect surveys. A map
giving correct topography, _Yorktown, Virginia, and the Ground
Occupied in the Siege of 1781; a topographical survey by direction
of Brev.-Maj.-Gen. G. W. Getty, U. S. A., commanding Artillery
School, Fort Monroe, 1880_, was drawn by Lieut. Caziare. A reduced
fac-simile is given in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (vii. 408,—described,
p. 339). Caziare also drew the plan, embodying the lines of Faden and
Renault, which is given in Patton's _Yorktown_, p. 34, and _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, vii. 288. A section of another and earlier government
survey, by Major Kearney, showing the roads as they were in 1818, is
in Johnston's _Yorktown_, p. 103. Cf. his list of maps in _Ibid._, p.
198.—ED.]
[Illustration: YORKTOWN, 1781. (Marshall's _Washington_.)]
Portions of his orderly-books, extending, with breaks, from June 19,
1781, to April 30, 1782, were printed in the _Amer. Hist. Record_
(iii.; on the siege itself, pp. 403, 457-462). The orderly-books were
reprinted at Philadelphia in 1865,[1208] while two orders of Sept.
15th and 25th, not included, are in the _Penna. Hist. Mag._ (1881),
and in Johnston's _Yorktown_, 199. Many other important journals and
orderly-books on the American side are preserved.[1209]
On the French side we have several contemporary accounts. First of
all I should place an anonymous journal which has been attributed to
Rochambeau.[1210] The _Diary of a French Officer, 1781_ (March 26
to Nov. 18, 1781), presumed to be the work of Baron Cromot-Dubourg,
an aide to Rochambeau, was brought to light by Mr. Balch (_Mag.
Am. Hist._, vii. 295), and is printed in _Ibid._ iv. 205, from an
unpublished MS. then in the possession of Mr. C. Fiske Harris,[1211]
of Providence, R. I.[1212] In some respects this is the most valuable
paper of this class that we have. Still another important diary is the
_Journal of Claude Blanchard, Commissary of the French Auxiliary Army
sent to the United States during the American Revolution, 1780-1783.
Translated from the French MS. by William Duane, and edited by Thomas
Balch_ (Albany, 1876, pp. 92-184 especially including the march back to
Boston).[1213]
In 1879 Mr. J. A. Stevens printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ a series
of letters from Count Fersen to his father, occasionally inclosing
a bit of journal, a great deal of which relates to the operations
before and after Yorktown, and it is in all respects a very valuable
contribution. The greater part of Deux-Pont's _Campaigns_[1214] relates
to this period, while the _Journal of an Officer_ (pp. 148-164) and
portions of the diaries kept by the naval officers refer to the same
campaign.
The French accounts of the assaults on the redoubts are in the above.
Hamilton's report to Lafayette is in _Remembrancer_, xiii. 61, while
Lafayette's report to Washington is in _Corresp. of the Rev._, iii.
425.[1215]
There are good accounts of this campaign in the standard books.[1216]
Of the more recent works, Henry P. Johnston's _Yorktown_[1217] stands
first, though it was written with an evident bias. J. H. Patton[1218]
also produced a small volume. Giradin's _Continuation of Burk_ (iv.
519) contains a one-sided description; and the lives of any of the
Revolutionary worthies[1219] devote a considerable space to the
campaign. Among these is the _Life of Muhlenberg_ by his son (268-276),
in which an unfounded claim is advanced for the sire that he commanded
the storming party led by Hamilton. The more popular books also have
detailed accounts,[1220] while the subject has been repeatedly treated
by orators, notably by Robert C. Winthrop.[1221]
[Illustration]
EDITORIAL NOTES ON EVENTS IN THE NORTH, 1779-1781.
WHILE the events followed in the preceding chapter were all tending,
both by Washington's victory and Greene's defeats, to a discouragement
of the English necessary to induce the British government to desire
a peace, the succession of events in the North had hardly any
interdependence, and of themselves conduced but little to the same end.
The campaigns of Sullivan in 1778 and 1779, the dismal failure of the
Massachusetts expedition to Penobscot in 1779, and the plot of Arnold,
are considered in other chapters. A brief commentary upon the other
transactions of this period here follows. The spring of 1779 was not
an encouraging one for the cause. Washington had kept his main army
during the winter at Middlebrook (Irving, iii.; Greene's _Greene_, ii.
160), and he was now resolved on a defensive campaign (Bancroft, x.
ch. 9). He gave his views to Congress (Sparks, vi. 158); but that body
inspired little confidence. It did something to increase the efficiency
of the army in creating an inspector-general (_Journals_, iii. 202);
but its internal bickerings were sadly discouraging (Greene's _Hist.
View_; Bancroft, x. 208; Greene's _Greene_, ii. 170, 175; John
Adams's _Works_, i. 292). The legislators were powerless to regulate
prices as they wished, and riots were in progress at their very doors
(Reed's _Reed_, ii. ch. 6). They sent _A circular letter_ to their
constituents, and urged enlistments in an address (May 26th; Niles's
_Principles_, etc., 1876, p. 405); while Gouverneur Morris prepared for
them some _Observations on the American Revolution, published according
to a Resolution of Congress, by their Committee for the Consideration
of those who are desirous of comparing the Conduct of the Opposed
Parties, and the several Consequences which have flowed from it_
(Phila., 1779). (Cf. Sparks's _Gouv. Morris_, and the letter of Thomas
Paine, _Hist. Mag._, i. 20.)
[Illustration: HESSIAN MAP OF THE HUDSON HIGHLANDS.]
The British in New York were as inactive as Washington was. We get
pictures of the life of the fortified town in the _Memoirs_ of the
Baroness Riedesel; Duncan's _Royal Artillery_, ii. ch. 28; Montresor's
account in _N. Y. City Manual_, 1870, p. 884,—also see that for 1863;
Gen. Pattison's letters in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875; _Memoirs of
General Samuel Graham_.
Heath was commanding east of the Hudson (_Memoirs_), and Gen. McDougall
at West Point, which had been fortified the previous year (Sparks, v.
224, 282, 311; Ruttenber, _Obstructions_, 115; Lossing, _Field-Book_,
ii. 132; Journal of Capt. Page in _Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, iv.,
v.) There is among the _Moses Greenleaf MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.) an
orderly-book beginning at West Point, Jan. 1, 1779, and ending at
Morristown, Dec. 12, 1779.
[Illustration: STONY POINT.]
There is annexed a sketch from the Hessian _Plan des opérations dans
l'Amérique septentrionale depuis 12 Aoûst, 1776, jusqu'à 1779_. The
broken lines mark the roads. Cf. _The Country west of the Hudson,
occupied by the American army under Washington, from a MS. map drawn
for Lord Stirling in 1779_, given in Evans's _Memoir of Kosciuszko_
(1883), etc.
Early in July (2d) there was an affair between Tarleton and Col.
Sheldon at Poundridge in Westchester (Tarleton's _Memoirs_; _Mag.
Amer. Hist._, iii. 685). Washington, as the season advanced, kept to
the Highlands, and an attempt to draw him down was made by Clinton
in dispatching Tryon with a marauding force to invade Connecticut by
water. Tryon's instructions, July 2d, are in Charles H. Townshend's
_British Invasion of New Haven and Connecticut, with some account of
the burning of Fairfield and Norwalk_. They did not contemplate the
destruction of houses; and Johnston, in his _Observations on Judge
Jones_ (p. 59), controverts that Tory chronicler who charged such
intent upon Clinton. Cf. Hinman, _Hist. Coll. of Conn._, 607; Stuart's
_Jona. Trumbull_, ch. 37; Chauncey Goodrich in _New Haven Hist. Soc.
Coll._, ii. 27; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 180; Ithiel Town's _Particular
Services_, etc., p. 90; Gen. Parsons's letters in Hildreth's _Pioneer
Settlers of Ohio_, 537; Dawson, i. 507; _Hist. Mag._, ii. 88; Lossing,
i. 424; Sparks, _Corresp. of Rev._ i. 315; Leonard Bacon's oration on
the Centennial; and addresses of E. E. Rankin and Samuel Osgood in
the _Centennial Commemoration of the burning of Fairfield_ (New York,
1879). Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iii. 103; _Diplom. Corresp._, ii.
253; iii. 99.
There is an address of Admiral Collier and Gen. Tryon, July 4th, to the
inhabitants of Connecticut. Tryon subsequently published an _Address
of Maj.-Gen. Tryon, written in consequence of his late expedition into
Connecticut_ (Sabin, xiii. 53, 495). Trumbull feared another invasion
in the autumn (_Hist. Mag._ ii. 10).
[Illustration: VERPLANCK'S POINT.]
The posts at Stony Point and Verplanck's had been begun as outposts
of West Point, and to protect King's Ferry, the crossing below the
Highlands. Before the works were finished the British had captured
them, in June (Sparks's _Washington_, vi. 292). Washington planned
a surprise of the British garrison, and the two annexed sketches,
furnished to him by Gen. Heath, seem to have been prepared in
anticipation of the movement.
The first, "Stoney Point", is from a pen-and-ink sketch, indorsed
"From Genl. Heath, letter 3d July, 1779", which is among the Sparks
maps in Cornell University library, and carries the following KEY:
1, the capital work on the highest part of the point, commanding the
out-flêches, which is conformed to the broken eminence it is built on;
2, 3, 4, 5, flêches built on so many little eminences, each with one
embrasure; but in the principal work (1) the number of embrasures is
uncertain, being covered by the works and the declivity of the hill.
Two rows of abatis (× × ×) cross the point from water to water. The
other plan, marked "Verplanck's Point", is sketched from a pen-and-ink
drawing in the same collection, also indorsed "From Gen^l. Heath,
letter 3d July, 1779", and bears this KEY: 1, Fort de la Fayette, with
block-house and barbette battery; 2, board huts in form of tents; 3,
American barbette; 4, British tents, about one regiment; 5, 6, two new
flêches by the Britons; 7, block-house on a stony hill, with a redoubt.
The abatis is marked × × ×.
[Illustration: FADEN'S STONY POINT, 1779.]
The lead of the movement was entrusted to Wayne. His instructions,
in Washington's handwriting, are given in Dawson, in fac-simile (p.
18). His orders are dated July 15 (Niles, _Principles_, 1876, p.
495; _Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, v. 7). Wayne's first report of his
successful attack to Washington is given in fac-simile in Armstrong's
_Wayne_, Dawson, and Lossing (ii. 179); and his longer account of the
next day is in Sparks's _Washington_, vi. 537; and in _Ibid._ vi. 298,
is Washington's report to Congress. H. B. Dawson's _Assault on Stony
Point_ (Morrisania, 1863) is an elaborate monograph. H. P. Johnston
has a special paper in _Harper's Monthly_ lix. 233 (July, 1879), and
J. W. De Peyster another in the _N. Y. Mail_, July 15, 1879, while a
controversy of Johnston and De Peyster is in the _Monmouth Inquirer_.
"Who led the forlorn hope at Stony Point?" is discussed in the
_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, Oct., 1885, p. 357. Cf. Armstrong's _Wayne_;
Dawson's _Battles_; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 192; _Penna. Archives_,
vii.; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. ch. 2; Irving's _Washington_, iii.
465; Hull's _Rev. Services_, ch. 16; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 110; Kapp's
_Steuben_, ch. 11; Hamilton's _Republic_, i. 443; acc. of Col. Febiger
in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, March, 1881; Duncan's _Royal Artillery_, 3d ed.,
ii. 353; Pattison in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 95; and Gen.
Joseph Hawley's _Centennial Address_, July 16, 1879. The British later
reoccupied the post (Sparks's _Corresp. of Rev._, ii. 328).
The chief map of the attack is a _Plan of the Surprise of Stoney
Point, 15 July, 1779, from surveys of Wm. Simpson, Lt. 17th Regt. and
D. Campbell, Lt. 42d Regt., by John Hills, Lt. 23d Regt., London,
Faden, March 1, 1784_. There is a fac-simile in the _N. Y. Calendar
of Hist. MSS._, p. 347, and in Dawson. It needs the following KEY:
1, Two companies of the 17th regiment. 2, Ditto. 3, Sixty of the
loyal Americans. 4, Two grenadier companies of the 17th regiment.
5, A detachment of the royal artillery. A, Ruins of a block-house
erected and destroyed by the Americans. B, A temporary magazine.
C, One 24 and one 18 pounder, ship guns. D, Ditto. E, One iron
12-pounder. F, One 8-inch-howitzer. G, One brass 12-pounder. H, One
short brass 12-pounder. I, One long brass 12-pounder. Cf. plans in
Hull's _Revolutionary Services_, ch. 16; Sparks's _Washington_, vi.
304; Guizot's _Washington_, Atlas; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 175.
The medals given to Wayne, De Fleury, and Stewart are described in
Loubat. (Cf. Lossing, ii. 180, 181.) A rude view of the capture in
Bickerstaff's (Boston) _Almanac_, 1780, is reproduced in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, xvi. 592.
A few weeks later (Aug. 19), Major Henry Lee emulated Wayne in a
sudden attack on Paulus Hook (Jersey City). We have reports on both
sides. That of the British, General Pattison's, is in Duncan's _Royal
Artillery_, ii. 355, and his letter to Townshend in _N. Y. Hist.
Coll._, 1875, p. 79. On the American side we have accounts in Sparks's
_Washington_, vi. 317, 326, 332-336, 376; Lowell (_Hessians_, 228) says
that R. E. Lee's statement (in H. Lee's _Memoirs_) that Paulus Hook was
captured by a stratagem is not borne out by Marshall (_Washington_, iv.
87) or by the German accounts (Ewald, ii. 295). Cf. Moore's _Diary_,
ii. 206; Irving's _Washington_, iii. 475; Dawson's _Battles_; Quincy's
_Shaw_, 65; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 125; Duer's _Stirling_, 204; Bancroft,
x. 229; J. W. De Peyster in _N. Y. Mail_, Aug. 18, 1879; and S. A.
Green in _Hist. Mag._, Dec., 1868 (2d ser., iv. 264). George H. Farrier
prepared a _Memorial of the centennial celebration of the battle
of Paulus Hook, Aug. 19th, 1879_ (Jersey City, 1879), which has an
appendix of documents.
Loubat and Farrier give an account of the medal presented to Lee.
The annexed sketch, "Paulus Hook", is from a draft of an original
Hessian map in the library at Cassel, furnished by Mr. Edward J. Lowell
(cf. his _Hessians_, p. 228), with the following KEY: A, Covering force
of the attacking Americans. B, Line of attack on the block-houses (1,
2, 3) and fort (C), which mounted seven six-pounders, which were not
used. D, Barracks in which one hundred and ten prisoners were taken. E,
Work occupied by a Hessian captain, one officer and twenty-five men,
possessed at the time the Americans retired, at daybreak. (Cf. plan in
Lossing, ii. 828.) Farrier gives a plan from an original in the library
of Congress.
The winter of 1779-80 was an exceptionally severe one in the North
(Jones's N. Y., i. 320; Greene's _Greene_, ii. 184; Leake's _Lamb_;
Almon's _Remembrancer_, ix.) After Clinton had gone South to attack
Charleston, Knyphausen was left in command in New York (Eld's journal
in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 73; Eugene Lawrence on life in N.
Y. in Hist. Mag., i. 37; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, vol. ii.).
[Illustration: OCTOBER 18-19, 1779.]
Washington was encamped at Morristown, New Jersey. Views of his
headquarters are in Lamb's _Homes of America_; _Appleton's Journal_,
xii. 129; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 309, and his _M. and M.
Washington_, 191. (Cf. _Poole's Index_, p. 873; _Harper's Mag._, xviii.
289; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 89, 118.) Letters of Washington, while
in Morristown, in addition to those given in Sparks, are in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iii. 496. Orderly-books are in N. Y. Hist. Soc. cabinet and in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. 48.
The trials and deprivations of the army were so great that Washington
did not dare take advantage of an ice-bridge formed across the Hudson,
for an attack on New York, though the British feared that he might.
There were varying councils on this point in the American camp (Duer's
_Stirling_, ch. viii.). The British apprehension (Feb., 1780) is shown
in Duncan's _Royal Artillery_, ii. 359; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
1875, pp. 147, 152. The difficulties in the American camp are followed
in Irving's _Washington_, iv. ch. 1 and 4; Thacher's _Mil. Journal_;
J. F. Tuttle in _Hist. Mag._, June, 1871, and _Harper's Mag._, Feb.,
1859. A lack of money in the paymasters' chests caused dissatisfaction,
which grew into an insurrection. The British, seeking to increase the
trouble, marched into New Jersey, under General Matthews, but they
were driven back, and waited on the coast till Clinton, returning
from Carolina, reinforced them, when they again advanced. Washington,
meanwhile, suspecting an incursion up the Hudson, had gone thither
with a large part of his troops, leaving Greene at Morristown. Greene
met the British and defeated them at Springfield, when they returned
to New York. The progress of these events can be followed. On the
American side, Greene's _Greene_, ii., and his letters in Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 75, 506; Gordon, iii. 368; Marshall's _Washington_;
Sedgwick's _Livingston_; Bancroft, x. ch. 18; Irving's _Washington_,
iv. 6; Carrington, 502; Lossing, i. 322; in histories of N. Jersey;
Atkinson's _Newark_, 104; Hatfield's _Elizabeth_, ch. 22; _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iii. 211, 490. On the British side, Moore's _Diary_, ii. 285;
Simcoe's _Queen's Rangers_; in letters in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
1875, p. 458. George Mathew, of the Coldstream Guards, wrote an account
(_Hist. Mag._, i. 103,—App., 1857), and some details are in the
_Court Martial of Col. Cosmo Gordon_ (London, 1783). For maps, John
Hill's, published by Faden, 1784, is the principal one. Cf. Carrington;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 322; and the map of Elizabethport Point
(1775-1783) by E. L. Meyer, published in 1879.
What is known as the affair of Bull's Ferry (July 21, 1780) was
an unsuccessful attempt by Wayne upon a block-house garrisoned by
Tories. (Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 161; Armstrong's _Wayne_; Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 116; and his _Corresp. of Rev._, iii. 34, 37;
Sargent's _André_, 234.) André wrote on this misadventure of Wayne the
well-known doggerel verses called _The Cow-Chace_, part of Wayne's
project having been to gather cattle. The verses appeared in three
numbers of _Rivington's Gazette_ (New York, Aug. 16, 30, Sept. 23,
1780; Menzies, $23), and were republished by Rivington separately,
1780 (J. A. Rice's sale, $265), and also in Philadelphia, 1780. The
book was reprinted at London with notes in 1781; at New York in 1789
(Morrell's _Catal._, $36); at London in 1799, with Dunlap's tragedy of
_André_ (Menzies, 61, $23); at Albany in 1866, edited by F. B. Hough;
at Cincinnati in 1869. André seems to have made several copies of the
MS. Sargent prints it from one of these. Another belonged to Dr. W. B.
Sprague, and Lossing printed from this (_Field-Book_, ii. 878; _Two
Spies_, 68). It will also be found in Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 299;
J. A. Spencer's _United States_, vol. ii. etc.
The summer was barren of military interest. Steuben was trying to
reorganize the army (Kapp's _Steuben_, ch. 12-15). The low condition of
the army is shown in Washington's letters (Sparks, vii. 156; _Corresp.
of Rev._, iii. 15; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1879). Washington issued
a circular letter on the army's distress (_New Hampshire State
Papers_, viii. 870; cf. _Journals of Congress_, iii. 469). The British
intercepted some mournful letters, and printed them (_Political Mag._,
ii. 73).
In August there was a gathering of delegates from the New England
States at Boston, "to advise the most vigorous prosecution of the war,
and provide for the reception of our French allies." The _Proceedings_
of this meeting have been edited from the original MS. by F. B. Hough
(Albany, 1867). In November a convention of the Northern States at
Hartford sought methods of furnishing men and supplies (_Mag. Amer.
Hist._, Oct., 1882, viii. 688; and Clinton's knowledge of it in _Ibid._
x. 411).
Hope revived with the prospect of the arrival of Rochambeau and the
French, in July, 1780 (Heath's _Memoirs_, 243; _Corresp. of Rev._,
iii. 12). The first communications of Washington and Rochambeau are
in Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 110, and App. 4, with an account of
Lafayette's conference with the French. Rochambeau's instructions are
in _Ibid._ vii. 493. The letters of Rochambeau and Lafayette are in the
_Sparks MSS._, lxxxv.
The English fleet blockaded the French in Newport harbor. The
_Political Mag._, 1780, has a map showing the blockade of the French
admiral Ternay by Arbuthnot. Letters of the English admiral are in the
_Hist. MSS. Com. Report IX._, App. iii. p. 106.
On the occupation of Newport by the French, see Mason's _Newport_;
_Newport Hist. Mag._, ii. 41; iii. 177; Stone's _French Allies_, 256;
_Lippincott's Mag._, xxvi. 351; Drake's _Nooks and Corners of the N.
E. Coast_; _Harper's Mag._, lix. 497. The correspondence of Rochambeau
and the Rhode Island authorities is in the _R. I. Col. Rec._, ix. There
is a diary of a French officer in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, iv. 209; and
Fersen's letters are in _Ibid._ iii. 300, 369, 437.
Several maps of Newport and vicinity are given in the _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, like the plan of the town by Blaskowitz; the _Defences of
Newport, 1781_, from a MS. French chart; and the _Scene of Operations
before Newport, 1781_, from a MS. survey by Robert Erskine, geographer
to the American army, of which the original is in the cabinet of the N.
Y. Hist. Society.
There are among the Rochambeau maps several plans of Newport and its
neighborhood, including no. 38, _Plan de Rhodes Isle et position de
l'armée française à Newport_, measuring 5 x 3 inches, colored and
showing roads, fences, forts, and the fleet in the harbor; no. 39,
_Plan de la ville, port, et rade de Newport, avec une partie de Rhode
Island, occupée par l'armée française_, evidently by the same draftsman
as the preceding, dated 1780, colored, measuring 24 x 30 inches,
showing forts, Gen. Sullivan's old camp, the old line of the English,
etc.; no. 41, a plan, 8 x 15 inches, called _Quatre positions de la
flotte française et position de la flotte anglaise_; no. 42, evidently
by Montresor, colored, measuring 4 x 3 inches, dated 1780, called _Plan
de la position de l'armée française au tour de Newport, et du mouillage
de l'escadre dans la rade de cette ville_. Le Rouge published a map of
this title in Paris, in 1783. Cf. map in _Political Mag._, i. 692.
On the French participation in the war we have Rochambeau, _Mémoires_,
with an English translation by Wright, and the _Troubles_ of Soulés,
which is supposed to have been inspired by Rochambeau. Cf. Walsh's
_Amer. Register_, ii. The other French contemporary accounts are the
_Mémoires_ of Count Ségur and the Duc de Lauzun; the _Travels_ of Abbé
Robin and of Chastellux, of which there is an English translation by
George Greive (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1869); the _Journals_
of Deux-Ponts, edited by S. A. Green, and of Claude Blanchard.
(Cf. _Revue militaire française_, and Tuckerman's _America and her
Commentators_.) The later French accounts in general are Leboucher's
_Hist. de la guerre de l'indépendance des Etats-Unis_; Balch's _Les
français en Amérique_ (1872), Chotteau's _Les français_, etc. A
comprehensive later American account is E. M. Stone's Our _French
Allies_. Cf. Lossing in _Harper's Mag._, xlii. 753.
Counter attacks of Clinton on Newport and of Washington and Rochambeau
on New York were prevented by untoward circumstances (Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 130, 137, 171, with App. 6; Jones's _New York during
the Rev._, i. 358; _Mémoires_ of Rochambeau).
In September, 1780, Washington had an interview with Rochambeau
at Hartford to devise further operations, but the plot of Arnold
disconcerted all measures (E. M. Stone, 281; Irving's _Washington_; J.
C. Hamilton's _Republic_, ii. 49). Alexander Hamilton had drawn up a
plan of combined operations.
In October there was an unsuccessful expedition to Staten Island (_Life
of Pickering_, i. ch. 17; _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 257; _Hist.
Mag._, i. 104).
Washington was now in camp at Totowa and Preakness, in New Jersey.
There are a map and view of his headquarters in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
Aug., 1879. Cf. orderly-book in _2 Penna. Archives_, xi., and Journal
of Capt. Joseph McClellan in _Ibid._
The Pennsylvania line was at Morristown, under Wayne, and in January,
being without pay and supplies, they revolted, and marched towards
Philadelphia to claim redress of Congress. The New Jersey line was
similarly affected. Prompt and judicious measures quelled the mutiny,
but not till some emissaries, whom Clinton had sent to increase the
trouble, had been hanged by the insurrectionists. Original sources:
Wayne's letters to Washington, in the _Corresp. of Rev._, iii. 192;
Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 348, with App. x.; proposal of a Committee
of Sergeants, with Wayne's comments, in the _Sparks MSS._, xxxix. p.
100 (also no. liv. 5); documents in _Penna. Archives_, viii. 698,
701, 704, and ix.; second series, xi.; _Colonial Records_, xii. 624;
_Hazard's Register_, ii. 160; _St. Clair Papers_, i. 108, 532; _Bland
Papers_, ii. Cf. also Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 393; Irving's, iv.
195; Hamilton's _Hamilton_, i. 323, and _Works_, ii. 147; Amory's
_Sullivan_, 181; _Madison Papers_, i. 77; Reed's _Reed_, ii. ch. 14.
Clinton's report is in Almon's _Remembrancer_, xi. 148. The information
reaching the British camp is in Clinton's _Secret intelligence_, in
_Mag. Amer. Hist._, x. 328, 331, 418, 497; an account of the hanging of
the British emissaries is in the _Hist. of First Troop of Philad. City
Cavalry_, p. 28.
Washington and Rochambeau had held a conference at Weathersfield, Conn.
(May 22, 1781), to arrange for a plan of combined action (Sparks's
_Washington_, viii. 517, for their views respecting the safety of
Newport, meanwhile). The conference was held at the Webb House (_Mag.
Amer. Hist._, June, 1880). The French army then moved by way of
Providence to the Hudson, and there is among the Rochambeau maps in
the library of Congress a plan of their route, with key, giving their
twelve encampments on the way (nos. 42 (bis), 43, 44). _Marche de
l'armée française de Providence à la Rivière du Nord, 1782._ In the
_Mag. Amer. Hist._ (iv. 299) there is a map of the _Route of the French
from Providence to King's Ferry_, following a MS. attached to a diary
of a French officer.
Rochambeau established his headquarters at the Odell House, in
Westchester (Stone, _French Allies_, 394; C. A. Campbell in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iv. 46). On June 12th, the two commanders held a council of
war at New Windsor (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, iii. 102). Clinton's secret
journal shows how well the British commander was informed of what was
going on (_Ibid._ xii. 73, etc., 162, etc.). Beside the correspondence
of Washington at this time, in Sparks, there are other letters in
Ibid. iv. and v. Washington's first attempt to act in union with the
French was in the proposed attack on the forts on New York Island.
(Cf. Washington's journal in _Ibid._ vi. 117; xi. 535.) There is
among the _Lincoln Papers_ (_Sparks MSS._, xii.) a "memorandum to
regulate the movements of the allied army on the night of the 31st
of July, 1781." J. A. Stevens follows the operations of the combined
armies at this time (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, iv., Jan., 1880). He gives
a map of the attempt at King's Bridge, July 3, 1781. There is among
the Rochambeau maps an excellent draft, about thirty inches wide by
fifteen high, showing New York with Long Island, with the French
camp as high up as Tarrytown, called _Position du camp de l'armée
combinée de Phillipsbourg du 6 Juillet au 19 Août, 1781_. Stevens
gives a fac-simile of this, and also a map of the environs of New
York between the Sound and the Hudson, called _Surveys in New York
and Connecticut States for his Excellency, Gen. Washington, by Robert
Erskine, Anno 1778, W. Scull delin._,—a MS. plan in the New York
Hist. Soc. library (_Proc._, 1845, p. 56), where is also a MS. _Chart
of the Harbour of New York, with a map of the Country bordering upon
the Sound, and extending to the Connecticut, with the names of the
principal places laid down thereon, by Robert Erskine, 1779_ (_N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1848, p. 188). The Rochambeau maps contain other
evidences of the activity at this time of the French topographical
engineers; as, for instance, a plan (no. 29) done in ink and color,
measuring ten inches wide by twelve high, and not very exact, called
_Reconnaisance Juillet, 1781, ouvrages [de] Morrisania, Isle de New
York_, by Montresor and Buchanan, and a second (12 x 15 inches) which
gives the works at Frog's Point (no. 30), and adds to the title "Plan
d'une batterie de Long Island." Another (no. 32), called _Reconnaisance
des ouvrages du nord de l'Isle New York, 22-23 Juillet, 1781_, measures
twelve inches wide by fifteen high, apparently the work of Montresor,
and shows Fort Washington, Laurel Hill, etc. It was Washington's
purpose at this time to make Clinton expect an attack on New York
(Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 54, 130, 517; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
2d series, i. 327). Clinton has recorded his reason why he did not
venture to attack Washington in July and August, while the Americans
were encamped at King's Bridge (_New York City during the Rev._, New
York, 1861, pp. 177-184). By August 14th, the coöperation of the French
fleet being assured, Washington decided to march to Virginia (_Mag.
Amer. Hist._, vii.; also xi. 343; _Diplom. Corresp._, xi. 417). He
said the main cause of his coming to this decision was the failure of
the New England States to supply men (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vi. 125).
Washington's headquarters at this time were in the Livingston mansion
(Lossing, ii. 195).
The question of Washington having been made a marshal of France has
caused some discussion. _Hist. Mag._, ii., iii.; E. M. Stone's _French
Allies_, 373; Balch, _Les Français en Amérique_, 122.
While Washington marched towards Virginia, the marauding expedition
which Clinton had sent under Arnold, along the Connecticut coast,
failed to divert him from his purpose, as the British commander had
hoped it would. The attack fell upon New London and Groton, early in
September. Trumbull's letter to Washington is in the _Corresp. of
Rev._, iii. 403. Cf. Stuart's _Trumbull_, ch. 45; Arnold's account in
the _Polit. Mag._, ii. 666; Sparks's _Arnold_, and Arnold's _Arnold_;
"Sir Henry Clinton and the burning of New London", in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, March, 1883, p. 187. There are contemporary accounts in _N.
E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, x. 127 (1856); Niles's _Principles_ (1876),
p. 143; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 479; and in the _Narrative of Jonathan
Rathbun, with accurate accounts of the capture of Groton fort, the
massacre that followed, and the sacking and burning of New London,
Sept. 6, 1781, by the British forces_, by Rufus Avery and Stephen
Hempstead, with an appendix (1810).
The principal monograph is William W. Harris's _Battle of Groton
heights: a collection of narratives, official reports, records, etc.,
of the storming of Fort Griswold, the massacre of its garrison and the
burning of New London by British troops. With introd. and notes; rev.
and enl. with additional notes, by Charles Allyn_ (New London, 1882).
The original issue was in 1870. The perfected edition is enriched with
many documentary proofs.
There have been other anniversary addresses: Tuttle's at Fort Griswold
(1821); W. F. Brainerd's (1825); Griswold's in commemoration of Col.
Ledyard (1826), who was run through by his own sword after he had
surrendered it; R. C. Winthrop's (1853) in his _Addresses_ (1852-1867,
p. 84); Leonard W. Bacon's, with an historical sketch by J. J. Copp, in
the _Battle of Groton Heights_ (1879).
The local authorities are Hollister's and other histories of
Connecticut; Caulkins' _New London_, ch. 32; Hinman's _Hist.
Collections_; L. W Champney's "Memories of New London" in _Harper's
Mag._, lx. (Dec., 1879), p. 62, with views in Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 43, 46.
A paper by C. B. Todd on the massacre (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 161)
has an account of Ledyard and his family, with views of his house in
Hartford and the monument on Groton Heights (cf. Harris and Allyn,
p. 179), and a list of the slain. Gov. Trumbull made a report on the
losses inflicted at New London and Groton, Sept. 6, 1781, which, with
affidavits respecting the conduct of the enemy, are in the State Dept.
at Washington.
There are critical accounts in Dawson's _Battles_ and in Carrington's
_Battles_. The latter has a plan. A map of Mass., Rhode Island, and
Connecticut, showing the geographical relations, is in _Polit. Mag._,
iii. 171.
A MS. "Sketch of New London and Groton, with the attacks made on Forts
Trumbull and Griswold by the British troops, under the command of
Brig.-Gen. Arnold, Sept. 6, 1781", is among the Faden maps (no. 98) in
the library of Congress, together with a separate ink drawing of Fort
Griswold (no. 99),—both of which are engraved in Harris and Allyn.