_Memoirs_, privately printed in London in 1786, in two volumes, and
_The narrative of Captain Samuel Mackay, commandant of a provincial
regiment in North America; by the appointment of Lieut.-Gen. Burgoyne_
(Kingston, 1778). The author gives an account of his services as a
royalist in command of a company of provincials attached to General
Burgoyne's army, and complains of the refusal of the British generals
to recognize him as an officer.
The British Museum has recently acquired a contemporary military
critique of the campaign, by one of the actors in it, Lieut. Digby, of
the British army.
The diary of the Hanau artillerist, Pausch, is preserved at Cassel,
and a copy is in the hands of Mr. Edw. J. Lowell, from which a second
copy was made, and from this no. 14 of _Munsell's Hist. Series_ was
printed as _Journal of Capt. Pausch, chief of the Hanau artillery
during the Burgoyne campaign. Translated and annotated by W. L.
Stone. Introduction by E. J. Lowell_ (Albany, 1886). Pausch covers
the interval from the day he left Hanau, May 15, 1776, to the close
of Burgoyne's last battle, Oct. 7, 1777. There is in the notes (p.
149) a letter of one John Clunes, which shows some of the perils of
the attempt to keep Burgoyne's rear open at Ticonderoga. A journal of
Johann Konrad Döhla, a private of the regiment of Anspach, 1777-1783,
is in the _Deutsch-Amerikanisches Mag._, 1886-1887.
[859] Less important accounts are in Hildreth and Gay; in Thaddeus
Allen's _Origination of the Amer. Union_, etc.
[860] Mr. Stone adds a note (p. 149) on the periodical contributions of
Gen. J. Watts De Peyster to the history and criticism of the campaign,
aimed in large part to vindicate Schuyler and portray the patriotism
of New York State. Cf. his paper in the _United Service_, ix. 365. A
paper on the campaign in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, Dec., 1881, p.
457, refers to an article on the same topic in _Graham's Magazine_
(Apr., 1847), by N. C. Brooks, mentioning original documents. A. B.
Street printed a paper on Saratoga in the _Hist. Mag._, March, 1858.
Cf. Lemoine's _Maple Leaves_, second series (Quebec, p. 123).
[861] Stone says it is "characterized by great fairness and liberality."
[862] Other German authorities are given in Lowell's _Hessians_, App. A.
[863] In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is a "Plan of the
encampment and position of the army under Gen. Burgoyne at Sword's
House, on Hudson River, near Stillwater, on Sept. 17th, with the
positions of that part of the army engaged on the 19th Sept., 1777.
Drawn by W. C. Wilkinson, Lt. 62d Reg. Engraved by Wm. Faden", and
published in London, Feb. 1, 1780. It has a portion superposed, showing
later positions. There is a composite map in Carrington's _Battles_ (p.
344); and in _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 164) fac-simile of drawn plans of
the order of march and order of battle on Sept. 19. There is a map of
the battle of the 19th in _Pausch's Journal_, p. 163. Loosing (i. 53)
gives a view of the Stillwater ground.
Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ also contains a "Plan of the
encampment and position of the army under Gen. Burgoyne at Bræmus
Heights, on the 20th Sept., with the position of the detachments in
the action of the 7th Oct., and the position of the army on the 8th
Oct. Drawn by W. C. Wilkinson. Engraved by Wm. Faden", and published
Feb. 1, 1780. This is reproduced in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 292).
Carrington (p. 350) gives an excellent eclectic map.
A plan of the battles of Freeman's Farm and Bemis's Heights, made by
Col. Rufus Putnam, is preserved at Marietta, Ohio, and a copy is in
Col. Stone's collection at Jersey City. There is also a plan given in
Charles Wilson's _Account of Burgoyne's Campaign_ (Albany, 1844), which
is revised in Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_. Stedman's plan (_American
War_, i. 352) traces the movements from Sept. 10th to the capitulation.
Cf. Grant's _British Battles_, ii. 150.
The positions from Oct. 10th, when the investment of Burgoyne's camp
began, to the 16th, when the surrender took place, are shown on the
American side in a map sketched by Chapman from an original of an
officer, which appeared in the _Analectic Mag._ (Philad., 1818, p.
433), and is reproduced herewith.
In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is Faden's "Plan of the
position which the army under Lt.-Gen. Burgoyne took at Saratoga on
the 10th of Oct., 1777, and in which it remained till the convention
was signed." It is reproduced in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 302).
Carrington (p. 354) gives a careful plan, and there are others in
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (vol. i. 273) and Lowell's _Hessians_ (p. 163),
taken from Lossing's _Field-Book_ (i. 77). Lossing also gives a view
(p. 80) of the field of surrender, the signatures to the convention
(p. 79), the medal given to Gates (p. 83), the house used by Gates as
headquarters (p. 75), and the house occupied by the Baroness Riedesel
(pp. i. 89, 557; cf. also Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_, p. 94).
Upon the landmarks and topography of this series of movements, see
papers in the _Boston Monthly_ (i. 505) for a visit to Bemis's Heights;
a paper by W. L. Stone in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (Nov., 1885, p. 510)
on the remains of the works as now seen; and an examination of the
localities in G. W. Schuyler's _Colonial New York_ (ii. 128). Cf.
Lossing's _Field-Book_ and his _Book of the Hudson_.
[864] Cf. also _Trumbull MSS._ (vol. vi. and vii.); the _Sparks MSS._
(lii. vol. iii, p. 223); the lives of Putnam; and Upham's _Life of
Glover_.
[865] A letter of Gen. Parsons to Gov. Trumbull, on the capture of Fort
Montgomery, is in Hildreth's _Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_ (p. 534). The
personal narrative of Thomas Richards is in _United Service_ (xii. 274).
[866] Cf. also Clinton's letter in _Rockingham and his Contemporaries_
(ii. 334), and his annotations on the account in Stedman (ch. 18)
in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._ (i. 704). A journal of a British
officer is printed in Scull's _Evelyns in America_ (p. 345).
The journal of Capt. Scott, who was sent by Burgoyne to open
communication with Clinton, is in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 287).
The later accounts are in Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 21);
Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch. 20), and his _Field-Book_ (ii. 165);
Leake's _John Lamb_ (p. 179), where is controverted the opinion
expressed in Hamilton's _Life of Alex. Hamilton_ (i. 321), that the
defence of the forts was feeble; Carrington's _Battles_; and Sargent's
_André_ (p. 102).
[867] There was also a map of the river in the _Gent. Mag._, 1778.
[868] Letters of Greene and others, May 17, 1777, respecting the
obstructions in the North River at Fort Montgomery, are in the _Sparks
MSS._ (lii. vol. iii.).
[869] _Boston Monthly Mag._, July, 1826; Loring's _Hundred Boston
Orators_, 174; Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 283. The brief letter sent by
Gates to the Mass. Council is in the Mass. Archives, and is printed in
Hale's _Franklin in France_, p. 160. The letter of the Mass. government
to Franklin (Oct. 24th) covered a copy of Gates's letter (Hale, p. 155).
[870] The effect in England is seen in the _Debates in Parliament_;
Curwen's _Journal_ (p. 175); P. O. Hutchinson's _Diary of Thomas
Hutchinson_ (vol. ii.); Donne's _Corresp. of Geo. III. and Lord North_
(ii. 93, 111); excerpts in Moore's _Diary_, i. 525, Macknight's _Burke_
(ii. 202); Russell's _Mem. and Corresp. of Fox_ (i. 161); Fitzmaurice's
_Shelburne_ (iii. 12); Bancroft's _United States_ (ix. 478); Mahon's
_England_ (vi. 206, and App. p. xxxix.); Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (ch.
8); Madison's _Writings_ (i. 31). Walpole (_Last Journals_, ii. 170)
tells us how the king received the news of Burgoyne's disaster.
[871] Fonblanque, p. 333, and _Almon's Remembrancer_, vi. 207; but they
do not agree upon the name of the vessel by which he sailed.
[872] Walpole (_Last Journals_, ii. 278) describes Burgoyne's
appearance in the Commons.
[873] Cf. Bancroft's character of Burgoyne, in his orig. ed., vii.
245. Fonblanque (p. 5) charges Bancroft with coarseness in speaking
of alleged but unfounded statements of Burgoyne's shame of birth.
A certain swagger about the man laid Burgoyne open to the stinging
burlesques of the small writers of the day. Cf. _The Lamentations of
Gen. Burgoyne_ (Sabin, iii. 9,262); _Calendrier de Philadelphie_, 1779
(_Ibid._ xiv. 61, 511), Moore's _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._ (176,
185, 189); Stone, _Campaign of Burgoyne_ (App. xvi.).
[874] There were six editions printed in London, and one in Dublin, in
1778 (Sabin, iii. no. 9,257; Menzies, no. 264). These speeches were in
response to a motion of inquiry made by John Wilkes, whose copy of this
pamphlet belongs now to Mr. Charles Deane; and, by Wilkes's annotations
upon it, it seems that Wilkes recalled a good deal that Burgoyne said
and did not print, and qualified other parts which he did print.
[875] Sabin, iii. no. 9,257. There were six editions the same year.
Menzies, no. 266.
[876] Sabin, iii. no. 9,266,—three editions; Menzies, no. 268.
[877] Sabin, iii. no. 9,263; Menzies, no. 267.
[878] Sabin, iii. no. 9,258; Menzies, no. 265.
[879] Sabin, iii. no. 9,260; _Sparks's Catal._, no. 405. Menzies, no.
272.
[880] Sabin, iii. no. 9,261; Menzies, no. 273.
[881] It appeared in two editions, and the book is now usually priced
at about £3 (Sabin, iii. no. 9,255; Sparks, no. 404; Stevens, _Bibl.
Amer._ (1885), no. 58; Menzies, no. 269.)
Burgoyne's documents, as laid before Parliament, had been printed in
the _Parliamentary Register_. The _Gentleman's Mag._ had chronicled the
progress of the investigation. Cf. _Annual Register_ (xxi. 168) and
Russell's _Memoirs and Correspondence of Fox_ (i. 176).
The principal English MS. sources for the study of the whole campaign
are these: The minutes of inquiry into the causes of Burgoyne's failure
in the volume "Secretary of State, 1777-1781", in the War Office,
London; Quebec series, in the Public Record Office, vols. xiv., xvi.
(Cf. Brymner's _Reports on Canadian Archives_, 1883, p. 77; 1885, p.
xi.)
[882] The volume contains Burgoyne's speech, prefatory to his
narrative; his narrative; the evidence of Carleton, Balcarras,
Harrington, Major Forbes, Lieut.-Colonel Kingston, and others; a
review of the evidence and conclusion. In the Appendix are Burgoyne's
"Thoughts for conducting the war from the side of Canada;" various
letters of Burgoyne, Carleton, etc.; Burgoyne's speech to the Indians;
Baum's instructions; St. Leger's letter from Oswego, Aug. 27, 1777;
Burgoyne's letter from Albany, Oct. 20th; his councils of war, Oct.
12th and 13th; the terms proposed by Gates. There are added various
plans of battle, elsewhere mentioned.
[883] Sabin, iii. no. 9,256; Menzies, no. 270. Privately reprinted in
New York (75 copies) in 1865. It is said to have been printed without
the sanction of Burgoyne.
[884] Sabin, iii. no. 9,265.
[885] Menzies, no. 271; Sabin, iii. no. 9,264. Sabin also notes, no.
9,267, _Reponse à un des articles des Annales politiques de M. Linguet
concernant la défaite du Général Burgoyne en Amérique_ (Londres, 1788).
Cf. on Burgoyne's subsequent exchange, Rogers's _Hadden's Journal_.
[886] Other addresses are N. B. Sylvester's _Saratoga and
Hay-ad-ros-se-ra_ (July 4, 1876); George G. Scott's Saratoga County
address; J. S. L'Amoreaux at Ballston Spa (July, 1876); Edward F.
Bullard's, at Schuylerviile (July 4, 1776); H. C. Maine's _Burgoyne's
Campaign_. The remarks of Messrs. Edward Wemple and S. S. Cox in
Congress, Dec. 4, 1884, on the Saratoga monument, have been printed.
[887] The evidence on this point is overwhelming. "Those", wrote
Washington, in a letter intended only for the eye of his step-son,
"who want faith to believe the accounts of the shocking wastes of
Howe's army—of their ravaging, plundering, and the abuse of women—may
be convinced to their sorrow ... if a check cannot be put to their
progress."
[888] Cf. letter of the Secret Committee of Congress to Silas Deane
in Paris, Aug. 7, 1776 (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1877, p.
99). Pertaining to this movement is a journal of a campaign from
Philadelphia to Paulus Hook, by Algernon Roberts (_Sparks MSS._), which
is printed in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, vii. 456. It covers Aug.
16-Sept. 17, 1776. Cf. orderly-book in _Hist. Mag._, ii. 353; and a
journal in the _Penna. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 223.
[889] His letters (Sparks, iv., and 5 Force, iii.) give details of
this retreat. Cf. also G. W. P. Custis's _Recollections_, p. 538. Howe
has been much blamed for his want of enterprise in allowing Washington
to escape (Galloway's _Examination_; Gordon's _Amer. Rev._, ii. 355;
Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 120).
[890] Lee was wrought upon by Joseph Reed writing to him, Nov. 21st, of
Washington's "indecisive mind" (C. Lee's _Memoirs_; Moore's _Treason of
Lee_, p. 46), and the next day Lee wrote in the same spirit to Bowdoin
(_Ibid._, p. 49), and on the 24th he wrote to Reed of Washington's
"fatal indecision." Moore examines this hesitancy of Lee (pp. 48, 57).
For suspicions as to Lee's conduct at this time, see Moore's _Treason
of Lee_; Heath's _Memoirs_, 88; Reed's _Jos. Reed_, i. 253; Drake's
_Knox_; J. C. Hamilton's _Republic_, i. ch. 6; Lee Papers (_N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Coll._), ii. 337, etc.
[891] Cf. Force's _Archives_, 5th ser., vol. iii.; Jones's _N. Y.
during the Rev._, i. 173; Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 105; Sparks's
_Washington_, iv. App. p. 530; Robert Morris's letter, Dec. 17th,
in _Pa. Hist. Soc. Bull._, vol. i.; Moore's _Treason of Lee_, 61;
Bancroft, ix. 210; Irving's _Washington_, ii. 433; Scull's _Evelyns in
America_, 211; _Memoir of Mrs. E. S. M. Quincy_ (1861); Fonblanque's
_Burgoyne_, p. 50.
A contemporary picture of the capture of Lee, in Barnard's _Hist. of
England_, represents him in uniform at the door of his house, handing
his sword to a mounted officer, whose horse prances among dead bodies,
while a platoon of dragoons stands at a little distance.
[Illustration]
Lee's exchange was rendered possible when Washington acquired a
prisoner of equal rank by the exploit of Colonel Barton. This
Rhode Island officer summoned a party, and in whale-boats crossed
Narragansett Bay, and (July 10, 1777) surprised Gen. Richard Prescott
in bed at his headquarters, a few miles north of Newport where he
held command of the British who, under Clinton and Percy, had taken
possession of that port in Dec., 1776 (Almon'S _Remembrancer_, iii.
261; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 639). The parole of Gen.
Prescott, July 14, 1777, given at Providence, as well as a letter
from Lambert Cadwalader, "being greatly indebted to his politeness
and generosity while a prisoner in New York", are in the _Trumbull
MSS._ (vol. vi.). The parole is printed in Arnold's _Rhode Island_,
ii. 403. General Smith's letter, July 12th, to Howe is in the _Sparks
MSS._, lviii. Contemporary accounts are in Moore's _Diary_, i. 468. Cf.
Force's _Archives_, 4th ser., vol. iv., and Thacher's _Mil. Journal_.
Barton was assisted by a negro. _Livermore's Historical Research_,
143. There was an address by Professor Diman on the centennial of the
capture, which was printed as no. 1 of the _R. I. Hist. Tracts_. Cf.
_Narrative of the surprise and Capture of Maj.-Gen. Richard Prescott,
July 9, 1777_ (Windsor, Vt., 1821), and a tract of similar title,
Philadelphia, 1817; Mrs. C. R. Williams's _Biog. of Revolutionary
Heroes_ (William Barton and Stephen Olney), Providence, 1839; Andrew
Sherburne's _Memoirs_, App.; Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 495; Arnold's
_Rhode Island_; Scull's _Evelyns in America_, 280. Diman gives a
photograph of a portrait of Barton, and a fac-simile of his orders.
Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 75. Scull (p. 140) gives a likeness
of Prescott. Views of the house where the capture took place are in
Mason's _Newport_, p. 8; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 76, and his
_Cyclo. U. S. Hist._, p. 1133.
[892] _Penna. Archives_, vi. (1853); _Colonial Records of Pa._, xi.
(1852); Hazard's _Register_, iii. 40; Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg's journal in
_Pa. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i.; Robert Morris's letters in _Pa. Hist. Soc.
Bull._, i. 50, etc.; broadsides enumerated in Hildeburn's _Issues of
Pa. Press_, ii.; the diary of Christopher Marshall (Philad., 1839, to
Dec. 31, 1776; again to Dec. 31, 1777; in full, Albany, 1877).
[893] See _ante_, p. 272.
[894] Wallace's _Col. W. Bradford_, p. 140. Mr. Stone indicates the
following authorities on these points: Charles Thomson's letter to
Drayton (_Pa. Mag. of Hist._, ii. 411; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1878,
p. 274); Reed's _Reed_ (ii. ch. i.); Anna H. Wharton on Thomas Wharton,
Jr., in _Pa. Mag. Hist._ (v. 431, 437,—also in _The Wharton Family_);
_St. Clair Papers_ (i. 370, 373); _Proceedings relative to calling the
Conventions of 1776 and 1780_ (Harrisburg, 1825); _Journals of the Ho.
of Rep. of Penna._ (vol. i.—Philad., 1782); _Pa. Col. Rec._, xi.; and
other titles in Hildeburn.
[895] For further aspects of a political nature, see Wells's _Sam.
Adams_, ii.; Ellery's letter to the governor of Rhode Island (_R. I.
Col. Rec._, viii.), and the _Corresp. of the Executive of New Jersey,
1776-1786_ (Newark, 1846); Read's _George Read_, 212, 216, and (Cæsar
Rodney's letter) 256. The leading biographies give some original
aspects: Greene's _Greene_, i. 299 (in which Bancroft's statements
are controverted); Reed's _Reed_, ch. 14; Drake's _Knox_, 36; Stone's
_John Howland_, who was with the troops from Lee, which reinforced
Washington; Williams's _Olney_. There is a contemporary "Relation of
the Engagement at Trenton and Princetown on Thursday and Friday the 2d
and 3d of January, 1777, by Mr. Wood, 3d Battalion", in the _Penna.
Mag. of Hist._, x. 263.
A journal of Sergeant William Young is in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._,
Oct., 1884, vol. viii. 255. A little chapbook, _Narrative of events
in the Revolutionary war; with an account of the battles of Trenton,
Trenton-bridge and Princeton_ (Charlestown [1833]), by Joseph White, an
orderly-sergeant of artillery, gives some personal experiences.
[896] C. C. Haven's tracts: _Washington and his army in New Jersey_
(Trenton, 1856), _Thirty days in New Jersey ninety years ago_
(1867), _Annals of the City of Trenton_ (1867), and _Historic Manual
concerning Trenton and Princeton_. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii.
335.) Joseph F. Tuttle's papers: _Annals of Morris County_ (187-),
_Revolutionary forefathers of Morris County_ (Dover, 1876), "Washington
in Morris County", in _Hist. Mag._, June, 1871. E. D. Halsey's _Hist.
of Morris County_ (N. Y., 1882). W. A. Whitehead's _Perth Amboy_ (p.
329), and _Penna. Hist. Coll._, i. 223. Hatfield's _Hist. of Elizabeth_
(ch. 20). A paper, "Washington on the west bank of the Delaware", by
Gen. W. W. H. Davis, giving local details, in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._
(iv. 133). _Historical Mag._, xix. 205. _Harper's Mag._, July, 1874.
_Potter's Amer. Monthly_, Jan., 1877. Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_
(ch. 8).
[897] Gordon (vol. ii.); Bancroft (orig. ed. ix. ch. 12; final
revision, v. ch. 6, 7, 8); Irving's _Washington_ (vol. ii.); Gay, _Pop.
Hist. U. S._ (iii. 520).
[898] Bancroft, ix. 218; Reed's _Reed_, i. 270.
[899] Other contemporary American accounts are by Major Morris (_Sparks
MSS._, no. liii.; Chalmers's MSS. in Thorpe's _Catal. Suppl._, 1843,
no. 632); by R. H. Lee (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1878, xix. 109); by
Sullivan (_N. H. State Papers_, viii. 492); in Stirling's letter (Dec.
28, 1776) (Sedgwick's _Livingston_, 211). The order of march to Trenton
is in Drake's _Knox_, 113. Capt. Wm. Hull's letter, Jan. 1, 1777, is
in Bonney's _Legacy of Hist. Gleanings_, 1875, i. p. 57. (Cf. Hull's
_Rev. Services_, ch. 5.) See also Greene's _Greene_ (book ii. ch. 13);
Reed's _Reed_ (i. 273); Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (ch. 3); Smith's _St.
Clair_; Stone's _John Howland_ (p. 72); Marshall's _Washington_ (ii.
ch. 8); Drake's _Knox_ (p. 37); _Memoirs_ of Tench Tilghman (p. 148);
_Journals_ of Samuel Shaw; Capt. Thomas Rodney's letter in Niles's
_Principles_ (1822, p. 341); Force's _Amer. Archives_ (5th, iii.);
_Freeman's Journal_ in Moore's _Diary_ (p. 364). The account in the
_Penna. Evening Post_, Dec. 28, 1776, is copied in _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, July, 1886, p. 203.
Local publications are: Raum's _Trenton_ (1866); C. C. Haven's _Annals
of Trenton_; Henry K. How's _Battle of Trenton_ (N. Brunswick, 1856).
Of the more general accounts, Bancroft (ix. 218) is the best. Cf.
_Hist. of First Troop of Pa. Cavalry_, p. 7. Cf. also Gordon (ii. 393);
Irving's _Washington_ (ii. 449); Dawson (i. 196); Carrington (ch. 39);
Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_ (p. 288, with docs. pp. 151, 153). Also
articles in _Godey's Mag._ (xxxii. 51) and _Harper's Mag._ (vii. 445),
and details in Lossing's _Field-Book_.
[900] Cf. Lowell's _Hessians_, ch. 8; Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_, i.
113, 132. The oft-printed letter of the Prince of Hesse-Cassel to
Baron Hohendorf or Hozendorf is a forgery (Kapp's _Soldatenhandel_, 2d
ed. 199). A court-martial of the Hessian officers was held at Cassel
in 1782, and the report of it is in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, vii.
45 (April, 1883), a paper of much use to the writer of the preceding
narrative.
The battle is the subject of one of Trumbull's pictures. On a Hessian
flag captured, see Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 413. Moore, _Songs and
Ballads_, 150, 156, 165, gives some of the current verses.
The movements of Washington after Trenton in recrossing the Delaware,
are easily followed in Washington's letters to Congress, in Reed's
narrative (_Penna. Mag. Hist._, viii. 391); in Sergeant William
Young's Journal (_Ibid._ viii. 255); in Reed's _Reed_ (i. 277); and in
Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (i. 133).
[901] Gordon (ii. 398); Bancroft (ix. 248); Dawson (ch. 17); Carrington
(ch. 41); Irving's _Washington_ (ii. 477); Johnston's _Campaign of
1776_ (p. 293,—quoting from a Rhode Island officer's statement in
Stiles's diary). G. W. P. Custis's _Recollections_ (ch. 3).
[902] The narrative of George Inman is in the _Pa. Mag. of Hist._, vii.
240; and he tempers on some points the assertions of Stedman.
Upon Howe's evacuation of New Jersey and the sluggishness of his
subsequent movements, see Sparks's _Washington_ (iv.); Bancroft (ix.
ch. 20); Graydon's _Memoirs_; Green's _Greene_: Graham's _Morgan_;
_Life of Timothy Pickering_, i.; Irving's _Washington_, iii. ch. 8;
Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_; Lecky, iv. 58. Cf. Journal of Capt. Rodney in
_Campaign of 1776_, Doc. 158, and the Journal of Capt. John Montresor
(_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1881, p. 420; and in part in _Pa. Mag. of
Hist._, v. and vi.). Howe's losses, Aug.-Dec., 1776, are tabulated in
the _War in America_ (Dublin, 1779). The campaign is examined in Gen.
Carrington's _Strategic Relations of New Jersey to the War of Amer.
Independence_ (Newark, 1885).
[903] The principal controversial tracts upon the charges of
incompetency preferred against Howe are these: The _Narrative of
Lieut.-Gen. Howe relative to his Conduct during his late command in
North America_ (London, 1780, several eds.). _Letters to a nobleman
on the Conduct of the War in the middle Colonies_, (London, 1780,
various eds.). Howe replied in _Observations_; and this led to a _Reply
to the Observations_ (London, 1781). Another severe critic appeared
in _Two letters from Agricolas to Sir William Howe_ (London, 1779).
Galloway was sharp in his _Examination_. The loyalists felt Howe's
shortcomings poignantly, as they prolonged, as was thought, their exile
(_Life of Peter Van Shaack_, 167). The contemporary historians, like
Murray and Gordon, did not spare him. The later ones, like Andrews
(ii. ch. 26), Adolphus (ii. ch. 31), Smyth (_Lectures_, no. 34), were
quite as severe. The American historians have not disputed the adverse
conclusion (Marshall, Bancroft, Irving, etc.). Cf. Sargent's _André_,
ch. 7, and a note in his _Stansbury and Odell_, 137. The current story
that the charms of Mrs. Loring paralyzed the English general finds
occasional record (John Bernard's _Recoll. of America_, N. Y., 1887, p.
60). On General Howe's lineage, as affecting his characteristics, see
_General Sir William Howe's Orderly-Book, 1775-1776_, etc., _collected
by B. F. Stevens, with hist. introd. by Edw. E. Hale_ (London, 1884);
also Dawson's _Westchester_, p. 217.
[904] Jones, i. 187, 252, 256, 714; ii. 431.
[905] The charge of treason is also disputed (_Hist. Mag._, v. 53). Cf.
G. W. Greene's _Gen. Greene_, i. 385; his _Historical View_, 62, 265;
Lossing in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1879, p. 450.
[906] Cf. W. T. Read in the _Hist. Mag._, July, 1871, p. 1. Cf. Gordon;
_Penna. Archives_, 1st and 2d series; Reed's _Reed_, i. ch. 15, 16;
Drake's _Knox_, 43; Greene's _Greene_; Irving's _Washington_, iii. ch.
18, 19; Hamilton's _Republic_, i. ch. 10; Mahon, in the main just;
histories of Pennsylvania; McSherry's _Maryland_, ch. 11; Quincy's
_Shaw_, ch. 3; _Evelyns in America_, 302. For political aspects,
Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. ch. 44; Lee's _R. H. Lee_; Adams's _John
Adams_.
[907] Hutchinson, in London, seems to have thought Boston the object
of the campaign (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 165; Adams's _Familiar
Letters_, 286; Hutchinson's _Diaries_, ii. 152). James Lovell writes
from Philadelphia, July 29, 1777, that Howe seems bound up the
Delaware; but he warns his friends in New England that his present
movements may be undertaken to cloak an ultimate design upon the New
England coast (_Charles Lowell MSS._).
[908] J. F. Tuttle's _Washington at Morristown_, in _Harper's Mag._,
xviii. 289; _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, v. 665.
[909] There are in the Persifer Frazer papers (_Sparks MSS._, xxi.)
some letters from the Mount Pleasant camp, near Bound Brook and
Morristown, in June and July, 1777. For the British movements at this
time, cf. the journal in Scull's _Evelyns in America_, p. 328.
[910] Sparks, iv. 442, 453, 501, 505; v. 42; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
xliv.; Greene's _Greene_, i. 400, 429; _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 620.
[911] _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 652, 653; Adams's _Familiar
letters_, 294; Heath Papers in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, p. 71. Howe's
_Narrative_ gives his reason for not going up the Delaware.
[912] Various papers relating to the raid and the inquiry are in the
_Sparks MSS._, no. liv. For the inquiry, see also the _N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 704. A diary of Andrew Lee is in the _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, iii. 167. The current American and British accounts are in
Moore's _Diary_, i. 482.
[913] Hamilton's _Works_, vii. 519; _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 673;
Jones's _New York_, ii. 431. His advance is followed in Futhey's Paoli
address, and in his notes as printed in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._ Cf.
also Montresor's journal.
[914] The orders of march are recorded in W. T. R. Saffell's _Records
of the Rev. War_ (p. 333), and John Adams's account of the march
through Philadelphia is in his _Familiar Letters_. A sermon preached
on the eve of the battle of Brandywine, by Rev. Jacob Trout, Sept.
10th, is given in L. M. Post's _Personal Recoll. of the Amer. Rev._
(1839,—App.) _Penna. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i.; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, March,
1885, p. 281 (fac-simile). Confidence prevailed in Philadelphia that
Howe could be beaten. Shippen letters in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1864, p. 32.
[915] _Washington_, vol. v. App. p. 456. Some confusion has arisen from
the fact that the ford called Buffenton's at a later day was not the
one so known at the time of the battle, and there are in the _Sparks
MSS._ (lii. vol. iii.) some letters upon this point from William B.
Reed (with a small pen-map) and Alfred Elwyn.
There has been some question upon the responsibility of Sullivan for
the defeat; but Washington asked to be allowed to suspend the execution
of the orders of Congress, withdrawing Sullivan from the army. Bancroft
(ix. 395) has been the chief accuser of late, and T. C. Amory, in his
_Mil. Services of Gen. Sullivan_ (pp. 45, 50), the principal defender.
Sullivan's letter to Congress, Sept. 27th, which Bancroft (ix. 397)
considers "essential to a correct understanding of the battle", is in
_N. H. Hist. Coll._, ii. 208; Dawson, i. 279; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Dec., 1866, p. 407; his letter of vindication, Nov. 5th, is in _N. H.
State Papers_, viii. 743. A copy of Sullivan's defence (Nov. 9, 1777)
is among the Langdon Papers, and is copied in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii.
vol. ii. p. 199). The counter-arguments of the case are examined in
the _Penna. Hist. Soc. Bulletin_, vol. i. Read's _George Read_, 273,
questions Sullivan's vigilance. Cf. Sparks's _Washington_, v. 108, 456,
for the charges against Sullivan. Bancroft also criticises the conduct
of Greene, and Geo. W. Greene (_Life of Greene_, i. 447, 453; ii. 460)
defends that general.
[916] Cf. Reed's _Reed_, i. ch. 15; Read's _George Read_; Lee's _War
in the Southern Dep't._, 16; Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_, ch. 3, and the
_Bland Papers_. For special treatment, see Carrington, ch. 50; Dawson,
ch. 24; the account by Joseph Townsend, and the sketch by J. S. Bowen
and J. S. Futhey, in _Penna. Hist. Soc. Bull._, i., where various
essential documents are printed; H. M. Jenkins in _Lippincott's Mag._,
xxx. 329; _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, vii. 94. There are local aspects
in Smith's _Delaware County_, p. 305, and Lewis's _Chester County_.
The services of John Shreve, of the New Jersey line, are told in _Mag.
Amer. Hist._ (1879), iii. 565. The widow of a wounded guide, Francis
Jacobs, applied for a pension as late as 1858 (_Senate Repts., no.
213, 35th Cong., 1st sess._). Washington's headquarters are shown in
Smith's _Del. County_, p. 304, and _Penna. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i.; and
Lafayette's in _Smith_, 310. A view of the field is given in Day's
_Hist. Coll. Penna._, p. 213.
Accounts more or less general are in Gordon, Irving (iii. ch. 18),
Lossing, Gay (iii. 543), Thaddeus Allen's _Origination of the Amer.
Union_; Hollister's _Conn._, ii. ch. 16; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, ii. 310.
Washington seems to have been poorly informed about the country, and to
have relied on false intelligence.
[917] The Journal of Capt. John Montresor, July 1, 1777, to July 1,
1778, edited by G. D. Scull, is in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, v. 393; vi.
34, 189, 284, 295, with corrections, 372. There are letters in Scull's
_Evelyns in America_, 244; Moore's _Laurens Correspondence_, 52; and
others from Gen. Fitzpatrick in _Walpole's Letters_.
[918] Cf. Eelking, ch. 6, and Du Portail in Mahon, vi. App. 27.
[919] Bisset's _George III._, ch. 19, 25; _N. E. Hist. and Gen.
Reg._, April, 1879, p. 240, and July, p. 351; J. Watts de Peyster in
_Scribner's Monthly_, April, 1880, p. 940.
[920] Cf. also Moore's _Diary_, 498; Pennypacker's _Phœnixville_, 101;
Bell's address in Hazard's _Register_; _Laurens Correspondence_, 53;
_Hist. Mag._, iii. 375; iv. 346; J. W. De Peyster in _United Service_,
1886, p. 318; and lives of Wayne by Armstrong and Moore.
[921] Howe's _Narrative_; the _Conduct of the War_; Ross's
_Cornwallis_; papers on the war in _Penna. Archives_, 1st, v., and 2d,
iii.; Thomas Paine's letter to Franklin (_Penna. Mag. Hist._, ii. 283);
_Penna. Evening Post_; Watson's _Annals of Philad._; Drake's _Knox_;
Greene's _Greene_; _Mem. of B. Tallmadge_; Bancroft, ix. ch. 23, etc.
Howe's proclamations during this period are noted in the _Catalogue
Philad. Library_, p. 1553; Hildeburn's _Issues of the Press_ (under
1777).
Congress fled to York, and occupied the old court-house, of which a
view, in fac-simile of an old print is given in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
Dec., 1885, p. 552.
[922] _Washington_, v. 463; Dawson, 326; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Dec., 1866, p. 418; Amory's _Sullivan_, 57; and in part in _N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 705.
[923] Sparks, v. 78, 86, 102; Dawson, i. 325; Heath Papers, _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 76. Other contemporary evidence is in the
letters of Wayne (Dawson, i. 328; cf. lives of Wayne); Gen. Adam
Stephen (Sparks, v. 467): Gen. Armstrong (Dawson, 329); Knox (Drake,
52); William Heth (Leake's _Lamb_, 183). Other contemporary statements
and documents are in Moore's _Diary_, 504; _Penna. Archives_, v.
646; _Pa. Mag. of Hist._, i. 13, 399, 400, 401; ii. 283; Tilghman's
_Memoirs_, 160; Davis's _Lacey_, 48; Watson's _Annals of Philad._,
ii. 67; _Hist. Mag._, xi., 82, 148; Moore's _Laurens, Corresp._, 54.
Accounts of participants given at a later day are by C. C. Pinckney
(1820), who was on Washington's staff (_Hist. Mag._, x. 202), and Col.
J. E. Howard, who addressed a letter to Pickering in 1827, a copy of
which in his own hand, with a rude plan, is in the _Sparks MSS._, no.
xlix. vol. i., and it is printed in Sparks, v. 468.
[924] Cf. _No. Amer. Rev._, April, 1825, p. 381; Oct., 1826, p. 414;
_National Intelligencer_, Dec. 5, 1826, and Jan. 27, Feb. 24, 1827. Cf.
Hazard's _Register_, i. 49. On the 21st November, 1777, James Lovell
at York expressed the discontent with Washington in a letter to Joseph
Whipple at Portsmouth. He complained that the naval force at Fort
Mifflin was not properly seconded by the land force; and adds: "I have
reason to think the battle of Germantown was _the_ day of salvation
offered by Heaven to us, and that such another is not to be looked for
in ten campaigns."
[925] Lives of Washington by Sparks (vol. i.), Irving (iii. ch. 23); of
Greene by Johnson and Greene; Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_; the collated
narrative in Dawson (i. 318); the military criticism in Carrington
(ch. 51), and accounts in Bancroft (ix. 424,—controverted in Amory's
_Sullivan_); Reed's _Reed_ (i. 319); Sargent's _André_ (p. 112);
Lossing, Gay, etc. Cf. Lowell's _Hessians_ (p. 197); notes in _N.
Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 183; _Harper's Mag._ (i. 148; vii. 448);
_Potter's Amer. Monthly_ (vii. 81); T. Ward on the Germantown Road, in
_Penna. Mag. Hist._, v. p. 1, etc. At the centennial ceremonies in 1877
there were addresses by Judge Thayer and by A. C. Lambdin (_Penna. Mag.
Hist._, i. 361).
[926] Cf. Stedman (i. ch. 15); Mahon (vi. 163); Hamilton's _Grenadier
Guards_ (vol. ii.). Also see Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 369, for Howe's
orders; Hunter's diary in Moorsom's _Fifty-second Reg._, 20; Lord
Lindsay in _Memoirs of Admiral Gambier_ (_Hist. Mag._, v. 69); Harcourt
in _Evelyns in America_, 244.
[927] Wallace's _Col. Wm. Bradford, the patriot printer of 1776_
(Philad., 1884), ch. 30; Bancroft, ix. ch. 25.
[928] Local details are in Smith's _Delaware County_, p. 289.
Washington was opposed to trying to match an inferior navy with the
British (Wallace, p. 271), and Wallace weighs the advantages (p. 296).
There are some current observations in Adams's _Familiar Letters_, p.
257. The ultimate destruction and scuttling of the American vessels
is described by Wallace (p. 247), referring in connection to the
_Universal Mag._, vol. lxii. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iii. 201. The principal
loss of the British fleet was the blowing up of the frigate "Augusta"
(Wallace, P. 187; _United Service_, May, 1883, p. 459).
[929] For other contemporary records see 2 _Penna. Archives_, v.;
Moore's _Diary_, 514; Pickering's in _Life of Pickering_, i. 174;
Joseph Reed's letter, Oct. 24, to President Wharton (cf. Reed's _Reed_,
i. 336); Jones (i. 193) gives the accredited British reports. The best
later narrative is in Wallace's _Bradford_ (p. 183). Cf. Bancroft, ix.
430; Smith's _Delaware County_, p. 321.
[930] Varnum's and Angell's letters in Cowell's _Spirit of '76 in
R. I._, 296; Col. Laurens' diary in the _Army papers of Col. John
Laurens_, p. 74, and his letter to Henry Laurens in Moore's _Laurens
Correspondence_ (1861), p. 63; Major Fleury's diary in Marshall and
in Sparks (v. 154); Robert Morton's diary in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._
(i. 28); Bradford's letter in Force (vi. p. 11). The story as given in
the _United States Mag._, May, 1779 (p. 204), used by Bancroft (ix.
434), is reprinted in the _Penna. Mag. Hist._, App. 1887, p. 82. Moore
(_Diary_, i. 520) reprints the account in the _N. Jersey Gazette_.
Washington's instructions and his report to Congress are in Sparks (v.
100, 112, 115, 151, 154; Dawson, i. 364).
Other details are found in Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 3, 7,
12, 18, 20, 42; _Penna. Archives_, v. and vi.; Chastellux's _Travels_,
Eng. tr., i. 260; _Hist. Mag._, xxi. 77; Tuckerman's _Com. Talbot_;
Hamilton's _Repub. U. S._, i. 297; _Life of Pickering_, i. 174;
Greene's _Greene_, i. 501; Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, Feb., 1877.
[931] There is some confusion in the accounts of the grounds given for
the defence (Arnold's _Rhode Island_, ii. 410).
[932] Pickering's Journal in his _Life_ (i. 180); Knox's letters
in Drake's _Knox_, 135, and in Leake's _Lamb_, 192; the account in
Williams's _Olney_; and further in Gordon, Marshall (i. 178), Henry
Lee's _Memoirs_; Reed's _Reed_ (i. ch. 16); Almon, v.; Stone's
_Invasion of Canada_ (p. 75); _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1872; Dawson, i. ch.
29, 30; Carrington (ch. 52); Lossing, etc.
[933] The broadside orders of the British commanders can be found in
Sabin, xv. p. 577, etc.; Hildeburn's _Issues of the press_, under 1777
and 1778; some of them are in fac-simile in Smith's _Hist. and Lit.
Curios._, 2d series.
[934] Those of Christopher Marshall; James Allen (_Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, Oct., 1885, p. 278; Jan., 1886, p. 424); Robert Morton
(_Ibid._, i. p. 1); Miss Sally Wister (_Ibid._, 1885 and 1886; Howard
Jenkins' _Hist. Coll. relating to Gwynedd_; extracts in Watson's
_Annals_); Margaret Morris, _Private journal kept for the amusement of
a sister_, Philadelphia, 1836, p. 31,—(also copy in _Sparks MSS._, no.
xlviii.); notes in _Evelyns in America_ (also in _Penna. Mag. Hist._,
1884, p. 223). Cf. also a letter, Oct. 23, 1777, in Lady Cavendish's
_Admiral Gambier_ (also in _Hist. Mag._, v. 68); the letters of
Samuel Cooper in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, April, 1886; the account of a
Hessian captain, Henrich, is in the _Schlözer Correspondenz_, vol.
iii.,—translated in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, vol. i. 46; cf. Lowell's
_Hessians_, p. 100.
[935] Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_; Sargent's _André_, p.
119; _Penna. Mag. Hist._, iii. 361, by F. D. Stone; _Life of Esther
Reed_, p. 278, by W. B. Reed; _United Service Journal_, 1852. The house
in Market Street, occupied successively by Washington and Howe as
headquarters, is depicted in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 302; Scharf
and Westcott, i. 351; Brotherhead's _Signers_ (1861), p. 3.
[936] The contemporary accounts of it are in the _Annual Register_,
1778, p. 264; _Gent. Mag._, August, 1778; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 52;
_Bland Papers_, i. 90; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 242,
718. André played a conspicuous part and described it (Sargent's
_André_, 168; Lossing's _Two Spies_, 46). Israel Mauduit made it the
occasion of a severe condemnation of Howe in his _Strictures on the
Philadelphia Mischianza, or Triumph upon leaving America unconquered_
(London, 1779,—_Sparks Catal._, no. 2,550). Later accounts will be
found in the _Lady's Mag._ (Philad., 1792); Anna H. Wharton's _Wharton
Genealogy_, and her paper in the _Philadelphia Weekly Times_, May 25,
1878; Watson's _Annals_, vol. iii.; Egle's _Penna._, 185; Mrs. Ellet's
_Women of the Rev._, i. 182, and _Domestic Hist._, etc., ch. 12;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 303. Views of the Wharton house and other
illustrations are in Smith and Watson's _Lit. and Hist. Curiosities_;
Lossing; Scharf and Westcott (i. 377-380).
[937] Sparks's _Washington_, i. 276; v. 240, 522; _Corresp. of the
Rev._, ii.; Custis's _Recollections_, ch. 9.
[938] Henry Dearborn's, the original of which is in the Boston Public
Library, is printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1886, p.
110; Surgeon Waldo's, in _Hist. Mag._, May, 1861, vol. v. p. 129; of
John Clark, in _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Coll._, vii. There is illustrative
material among the John Lacey papers in the N. Y. State Library, and
various letters from the camp in the _Trumbull MSS._ (vol. vi. pp. 46,
50,—from Jed. Huntington, speaking of their "shameful situation");
others in _Hist. Mag._, April, 1867; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, July,
1860 (v. 48), and Feb., 1874 (xiii. 243),—the last from Col. John
Brooks. More or less of personal experience and observation of the
suffering will be found in Greene's _Greene_ (i. ch. 24, 25); Reed's
_Reed_ (i. ch. 17); Pickering's _Pickering_ (i. 200); Read's _Geo.
Read_ (326); Hull's _Rev. Services_ (ch. 12).
General treatment will be found in Bancroft (ix. ch. 27); Egle's
_Penna._, 955; Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 27, 31); T. Allen's
_Origination of the Amer. Union_ (vol. ii.); Lossing's _Field-Book_
(ii. 331); Mrs. Ellet's _Domest. Hist._; T. W. Bean's _Washington and
Valley Forge_; Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, May, 1875, and July, 1878.
[939] Col. H. A. Dearborn's, Jan. 12-Feb. 4, in J. H. Osborne's
collection at Auburn, N. Y.; of a German battalion of Continentals,
Jan., 1777-June, 1781, in the Penna. Hist. Society. General Wayne's was
sold in the Menzies sale, no. 2,095 ($100); it covered Feb. 26-May 27,
1778, and had been used by Sparks, Irving, and Bancroft. One covering
May-June is in the Boston Athenæum, extracts from which are in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (vii. 133), which speaks of the mud being
removed towards spring from the chinks of the huts, to increase the
fresh air. Records of some courts-martial are in the Moses Greenleaf
MSS. (Mass. Hist. Soc.). Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vii. 133.
[940] Cf. further, on this reorganization of the army, Hamilton's
_Works_, ii. 138; Bancroft, ix. ch. 27. In the spring (May 5th) a new
impulse was given in this direction by the appointment of Steuben
as inspector-general (_Journals of Congress_, ii. 539; Sparks's
_Washington_, v. 349, 526; Greene's _Hist. View_, 233; Kapp's
_Steuben_; Greene's _German Element_; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, iii. 2).
[941] Cf. _Washington at Valley Forge, together with the Duché
Correspondence_ (Philad., 1858?); Graydon's _Memoirs_, 429; Scharf and
Westcott's _Philadelphia_; Wilson's _Memoir of Bishop White_.
[942] Cf. Simcoe's _Journal_; Reed's _Reed_, i.; Greene's _Greene_, i.
ch. 24; Pickering's _Pickering_, i. 193; Graham's _Morgan_.
[943] Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 209; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.;
_Mag. Amer. Hist._, April, 1882, p. 296; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 5.
[944] Cf. Simcoe; Stedman, ii.; Dawson, i. ch. 33, 34; Lossing, ii.
344; Johnson's _Salem, N. Jersey_.
[945] Dawson, i. 386; W. W. H. Davis's _John Lacey_, Doylestown, 1868;
_Hist. Mag._, vi. 167; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 41.
[946] Sparks, v. 368, 378, 545; _Sparks MSS._, xxxii., for Lafayette's
narrative given to Sparks; Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 822; Irving, iii.
33.
[947] Sparks, v. 320; _Sparks MSS._, lii. vol. iii.; Muhlenberg's
_Muhlenberg_, chap. 5.
[948] Wayne's letter, May 21st, in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, April, 1887, p.
115; journal by Andrew Bell, Clinton's secretary, of the march through
New Jersey, in _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi., and journal of Joseph
Clark in _Ibid._, vii. 93; Eelking, ch. 10; _Mag. Am. Hist._, Jan.,
1879, p. 58. A British orderly-book, Philad., April-June, 1778, is in
the Amer. Antiq. Society. The American vessels scuttled above the city
were raised (Wallace's _Bradford_, 292).
[949] Sparks, v. 422, 431; Dawson, i. 412; _Lee Papers_, N. Y., 1872,
p. 441. Cf. _Recollections_ by Custis, ch. 5.
[950] _Lee Papers_, p. 467; _Pa. Mag. Hist._, ii. 139; Hamilton's
_Works_, ed. Lodge, vii. 550; Hamilton's _Repub. U. S._, i. 468, 478.
[951] _Sparks MSS._, xxxii., printed in Sparks's _Washington_, v. 552,
and his letter in Marshall's _Washington_, i. 255.
[952] By Col. John Laurens (_Lee Papers_, pp. 430, 449); by W. Irvine
(_Penna. Mag. Hist._, ii. 139); by Colonel Richard Butler, July 23,
1778, to General Lincoln, in _Sparks MSS._, lxvi., and other light in
the Lincoln papers as copied in _Ibid._, xii.; by Generals Wayne and
Scott (_Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 150; _Lee Papers_, 438); by
Wayne to his wife (_Ibid._, 448); by Knox (_Sparks MSS._, xxv.; Drake's
_Knox_, 56); by Persifer Frazer (_Sparks MSS._, xxi.); the account in
the _N. Jersey Gazette_, June 24, 1778 (_Lee Papers_); the narrative
from the _N. Y. Journal_ (Moore's _Diary_, ii. 66); the journal of
Dearborn (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1886, p. 115); diary of John
Clark (_N. Jersey Hist. Soc._, vii.). Cf. James McHenry in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, iii. 355.
[953] Other editions: Cooperstown, 1823; N. Y., private ed., 1864;
Sabin, x. nos. 39,711, etc. It is reprinted in the _Lee Papers_ (_N.
Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 3 vols., 1873), as is also (iii. 255) Lee's
vindication, printed in the _Penna. Packet_, Dec. 3, 1778. Cf. also
Langworthy's _Lee_, p. 23; Sparks's _Lee_; Davis's _Burr_; Reed's
_Reed_, i. 369; and the correspondence of Washington and Lee after the
battle, in Sparks, v. 552, etc.
The _Sparks MSS._ contain various papers, including the statement
of John Clark, who bore Washington's orders to Lee (dated Sept. 3,
1778), and a statement of John Brooks, who had personal knowledge of
Washington's treatment of Lee in the field.
Sargent (_André_, 188) is inclined to acquit Lee of blame for his
retreat at Monmouth.
Colonel Laurens called Lee out for using language disrespectful to
Washington, when Lee was slightly wounded (account by the seconds in
Hamilton, Lodge's ed., vii. 562).
The more general accounts, early and late, are in Marshall (iii.
ch. 8,—who was present); Heath's _Memoirs_ (p. 186); Hull's _Rev.
Services_ (ch. 14); Reed's _Reed_ (i. ch. 17); Williams's _Olney_ (p.
243); Armstrong's _Wayne_; _Washington_, by Sparks (i. 298), and Irving
(iii. ch. 34, 35); Drake's _Knox_; Kapp's _Steuben_ (p. 159); Quincy's
_Shaw_ (ch. 4); Hamilton's _Hamilton_ (i. 194), and his _Repub. U. S._
(i. 471); Bancroft (ix. ch. 4); Gay (iii. 603).
Henry Armitt Brown delivered the oration in the Centennial ceremonies
(_Memoir with orations, edited by J. M. Hoppin_, Philad., 1880).
Critical examinations of the battle have been made by Gen. J. W. De
Peyster in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, July and Sept., 1878; March and
June, 1879; cf. 1879, p. 355 (by J. McHenry); by Dawson (ch. 37,
praised by Kapp); and by Carrington (ch. 54-56).
Cf. for various details, C. King in _N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 125;
_Amer. Hist. Rec._, June, 1874; Barker and Howe's _Hist. Coll. N. J._;
Linn's _Buffalo Valley_, 159; the Moll Pitcher story in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, Sept., 1883, p. 260, and _Penna. Mag. Hist._, iii. 109. For a
visit to the field a few days after the battle, _U. S. Mag._, Philad.,
1779, by H. H. Brackenridge, reprinted in _Monmouth Inquirer_, June,
1879. For landmarks, Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 356, and _Harper's
Mag._, vii. 449, lvii. 29.
[954] Cf. further Simcoe's _Journal_; Stedman (ii. ch. 22); Murray (ii.
448); Mahon (vi. ch. 58).
[955] Vol. v. 483-518; cf. also _Ibid._, i. 266; v. 97, 390; and his
_Gouverneur Morris_, i. ch. 10.
[956] Hamilton's _Works_, i. 100; J. C. Hamilton's _Repub. U. S._, i.
339; Irving's _Washington_, iii. ch. 25.
[957] Vol. i. 311; v. 530 (App.); vi. 106, 114, 149. There are extracts
from the Lafayette papers in _Sparks MSS._, no. xxxii. Cf. Marshall,
iii. 568; Irving, iii. 334; Jay's _Jay_, i. 83; Stone's _Brant_, ch. 14.
There is a good account of the conspiracy in Greene's _Greene_ (ii. p.
1; also see i. 22, 34, 483). The account in the _Memoirs_ of Wilkinson
(i. ch. 9) is called grossly inaccurate in Duer's _Stirling_ (ch.
7). Cf. Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 390); Kapp's _De Kalb_; Hamilton's
_Hamilton_ (i. 128-163); Reed's _Reed_ (i. 342); Wirt's _Patrick Henry_
(p. 208); Stone's _Howland_ (ch. 5); Marshall's _Washington_ (iii. ch.
6); Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 25, 28, 29, 30); Bancroft (ix.
ch. 27); Lossing's _Field-Book_ (ii. 336); the account of Col. Robert
Troup, written for Sparks in 1827 (_Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. i. no. 3);
Dunlap's _New York_, ii. 131, and a note in Sargent's _Stansbury and
Odell_, p. 176.
[958] Vol. x. 378.
[959] It was at this time, Feb., 1779, that a story reached Christopher
Marshall, in Lancaster, Pa., that Arnold had gone over to the British.
_Hist. Mag._, ii. 243.
[960] _Report to Germain._
[961] _Life and Treason of Arnold._
[962] _Life of André._
[963] Clinton says Arnold "found means to intimate to me", etc.
[964] The question of Mrs. Arnold's privity to her husband's plot has
been much discussed, but most investigators acquit her. Her innocence
is maintained by Irving (_Washington_, iv. 151), Isaac N. Arnold
(_Arnold_ ch. 17), Sargent (_André_, p. 220), and Sabine (_Loyalists_,
i. 122). The chief accusations are in Leake's _General Lamb_, 270, and
in the Lives of Aaron Burr by Davis (i. 219) and Parton (p. 126). Cf.
Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Rev._, ii. 213; Stone's _Brant_, ii. 101;
Reed's _Joseph Reed_, ii. 373. The scene in which she showed disorder
of mind, when she accused Washington of attempting to kill her child,
is held by some to have been mere acting. (Cf. Jones, _N. Y. during
the Rev._, i. 745.) It seems clear that she did not wish to join her
husband when the authorities of Pennsylvania drove her to New York.
[965] He wrote to Gates, "By heavens! I am a villain if I seek not a
brave revenge for injured honor!" Bancroft, ix. 335.
[966] Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 344, 351, 408.
[967] Irving's _Washington_, iv. 96.
[968] Sparks's _Washington_, v. 529; Austin's _Gerry_, i. 356.
[969] The writing in which Washington conveyed this reprimand is about
the most adroit piece of literary composition which we have from his
pen, and he contrived, while complying with the sentence of the court,
to signify his estimate of the venial character of the offences, and to
pronounce what some have considered a practical eulogy on a brilliant
soldier. (Isaac N. Arnold's _Arnold_, Irving's _Washington_.) The
former book gives a full examination of Arnold's career during his
command in Philadelphia (chapters 12-14). For the trial, see Sparks's
_Washington_, vi. 231, 248, 261, and App. p. 514. The trial closed
Jan. 26, 1780. Congress ordered the report of the trial to be printed:
_Proceedings of a general Court-Martial for the trial of Benedict
Arnold_. Philadelphia, 1780. It was reprinted in a few copies for
presentation, with introduction, notes, and index, by F. S. Hoffman,
in New York in 1865. A letter of Arnold, transmitting the report to
President Weare of New Hampshire, dated March 20, 1780, is in MS.
_Miscell. Papers_, 1777-1824, vol. i. p. 156 (Mass. Hist. Soc. library).
[970] It is believed that the writer of this letter was Beverley
Robinson, a loyalist in the British service. The letter is only known
through the French version in Marbois' _Complot_, and it has not passed
without some suspicion of its genuineness. (Cf. Arnold's _Arnold_, p.
275; Sargent's _André_, 446; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1878, p.
756; Reed's _Jos. Reed_, ii. 54, etc.)
[971] Several attempts at invasion from Canada are supposed to have
been timed in unison with Arnold's plot (Hough's _Northern Invasion_,
New York, 1866; Lossing's _Schuyler_, ii. 407.)
[972] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 2; Irving's _Washington_; Lossing's
_Schuyler_, ii. 52; Arnold's _Arnold_.
[973] For views of this house, see Boynton's _West Point_; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 140; his _Hudson_, 236; his _Two Spies_, p. 95;
_Harper's Mag._, iii. 827. Cf. Sargent's _André_, 263; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._ (Feb., 1880), iv. 109, by C. A. Campbell.
[974] Johnson says (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. 731) that Varick's
papers show that Arnold's letter to Anderson of Aug. 30th never reached
André, though Sparks and Sargent print it as having been received.
This is the letter which Sargent supposes may have been conveyed to
André by Heron. This and Arnold's of Sept. 15th are the only ones of
"Gustavus" preserved. Fac-similes of a part of one of these letters,
with a portion of one of "Anderson's", are given in Sparks's _Arnold_;
in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 146; in the _Cyclop. of U. S. Hist._,
ii. 1410, etc. Cf. _Harper's Monthly_, lii. 825. Fac-similes of
Arnold's passes are in Lossing, ii. 155. These passes are printed in
Dawson's _Papers_, 60; H. W. Smith's _Andreana_; McCoy's edition of the
_Proceedings_, etc., and in other places.
[975] There are views of this house in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i.
25; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 152; _Harper's Mag._, iii. 829; his
_Two Spies_, 82; his _Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, ii. 1411.
[976] This view is given in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 185.
[977] Percy Greg, in his _History of the United States_ (London, 1887),
vol. i. p. 304, thinks Joshua Smith was in the pay of Washington,
and persuaded André to put on a disguise in order that he might be
condemned as a spy if caught! This opinion is of the character of most
of the speculations in the book; of course it condemns the execution.
[978] Sargent's _André_, p. 306.
[979] These papers, having been used in André's trial, were passed over
to Governor Clinton to be used in the civil trial of Smith, and from
Clinton's descendant Sparks procured them when he was writing his _Life
and Treason of Arnold_. Lossing also got them from the same source,
and collated them with Sparks's copies before he printed them in his
_Field-Book_, ii. 153. They were subsequently bought by the State of
New York, and are now in the State library at Albany. They have since
been printed by McCoy in his edition of the _Proceedings_ of André's
examination; by Boynton in his _West Point_, ch. 7; by Dawson in his
_Papers_ ("Gazette series"), 51; in the Appendix of his edition of
Smith's trial, and in _Revolutionary Relics or Clinton Correspondence,
comprising the celebrated papers found in André's boots, etc.,
published originally in the N. Y. Herald_, N. Y., 1842 (Menzies, no.
1,687); and in _Cent. Celeb. of the State of N. Y._ (1879).
[980] There is a view of his quarters in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
188.
[981] View of the breakfast room in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 158.
[982] Some memoranda of his aide, Colonel Varick (_Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, viii. 727) show that Arnold's movements were hastened by the
arrival of Washington's servant at this moment, announcing the near
approach of his master.
[983] They were subsequently released in New York. Dr. William Eustis's
account of this flight to the "Vulture", written May 8, 1815, is in
the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet (_Letters and Papers_, 1777-1824, vol.
ii. 206), and is printed in their _Collections_, xiv. 52. Its purport
is to emphasize the patriotic resistance of the boatmen to Arnold's
offers for their desertion. He says some of them were sent ashore in an
inferior boat, Arnold keeping the barge. Cf. Heath's _Memoirs_.
[984] The Varick memoranda (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii.) would seem to
indicate that Varick, Franks, and Dr. Eustis had already begun to be
suspicious, and Arnold's barge had been observed by some one to go down
stream and not to West Point.
[985] Arnold had, before leaving, cautioned this messenger to keep
quiet, and this also becoming known increased the suspicion of his
aides (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii.).
[986] These aides were Colonel Richard Varick and Major David S.
Franks. Henry P. Johnston, in a paper, "Colonel Varick and Arnold's
Treason", printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1882 (viii. p.
717), has thrown some new light, from papers of Colonel Varick, on
the life at Robinson's house previous to the flight of Arnold, and
on the evidence, both of Varick, Franks, and Dr. Eustis, brought out
before a board of inquiry, Nov. 2, which acquitted these officers of
any complicity in the plot. On the night when Smith had been dragged
from his bed and put in confinement, Arnold's aides had been put under
arrest. This paper also shows, from a deposition of General Knox, that
Varick had found in one of Arnold's trunks, after his desertion, some
plans and profiles of the West Point works.
[987] These orders are in Dawson's _Papers_, p. 63. Colonel Lamb had
command of the immediate works at West Point at the time; but being
absent, Col. Nathaniel Wade had temporary charge (_Ipswich Antiq.
Papers_, ii. no. 19). Lamb's orderly-book, July-Dec., 1780, is owned by
the Cayuga County Hist. Society.
St. Clair succeeded Arnold in command of the post, and his instructions
from Washington are in the _St. Clair Papers_, i. 528.
[988] There are views of the De Wint house at Tappan, occupied by
Washington as headquarters, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (v. 105; cf.
p. 21), with a paper by J. A. Stevens. Cf. also Irving's _Washington_,
4^o ed., vol. iv.; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 196, etc., his _Hudson_,
p. 336, and his _Two Spies_, 100; Ruttenber's _Orange County_ (1875),
p. 215.
The house in which André was confined, known as the "Seventy-six Stone
House", is described, with a plan of its rooms and the village, and a
view of the building, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, (Dec., 1879), iii.
p. 743, etc. Cf. Lossing's _Two Spies_, 97. The earliest description
was written in 1818, and is cited in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. 57.
[989] It is only within a few years, and since the publication of
Clinton's record of the secret service of headquarters, that it has
been known that Gen. S. H. Parsons, of Connecticut, was at this time
acting as a spy for the British general. André, who saw him in the
court, may have known this.
[990] _Proceedings of a board of General Officers, by order of General
Washington, ... respecting Major John André, ... Sept. 29, 1780; to
which are appended the several letters which passed to and from New
York on the occasion. Published by order of Congress_ (Philad., 1780).
There is a copy in Harvard College library, and others are noted in
Menzies (no. 63, $63); Morrell (no. 20, $26); Brinley (ii. no. 3,937);
John A. Rice (no. 45, $67.50). There were editions the same year at
Hartford (Brinley, ii. 3939) and at Providence (no date; Cooke, iii.
91, now in Harvard College library). Cf. also _N. Y. Gazette_, Nov. 6,
1780, and _Political Mag_., i. 749. It was reprinted in London, 1799,
in conjunction with Dunlap's _Tragedy of André_. Later reprints are:—
_Proceedings, etc., A Reprint with additional matters_ (Philad., 1865;
50 copies in quarto, 100 in octavo). _Andreana: containing the trial,
execution, and various matters connected with the history of Maj.
John André_ (Philad., 1865), with an introduction by Horace W. Smith
(Brinley, ii. 3943; Cooke, iii. 94). _Minutes of a Court of Inquiry
upon the case of Maj. John André, with accompanying documents and an
Appendix_ (Albany, 1865; privately printed, 100 copies, for John F.
McCoy; Brinley, ii. 3941; Cooke, iii. 92).
Sargent, in printing it in his _André_, collated the original MS.,
which is preserved at Washington. It is also to be found in Boynton's
_West Point_, 127; in Dawson's _Papers_ (Gazette series). The Cooke
Catalogue (iii. 92) gives an edition, New York, 1867.
The original edition (1780) contains: Washington's letter, Sept. 26th,
to the president of Congress; André's letter to Washington, Sept. 24th;
Arnold's letter to Washington, Sept. 25th; B. Robinson's to Washington,
Sept. 25th; Clinton to Washington, Sept. 26th; Arnold to Clinton, Sept.
26th; and the award of the court. The appendix has André's letter
to Clinton, Sept. 29th; Washington to Clinton, Sept. 30th; Arnold's
commission left at West Point; Arnold to Washington, Oct. 1st; André to
Washington, Oct. 1st.
André's statement is not given in full, but only in substance, in
this volume, but it is included as written by him in Sargent, p. 349;
Boynton's _West Point_; Dawson's _Papers_. (Cf. _Amer. Bibliopolist_,
1870, p. 15.)
[991] By Clinton and Capt. Sutherland of the "Vulture", dated Oct. 4th
and 5th. They are in the _Sparks MSS._, vol. lviii. Cf. Sargent, p. 385.
[992] One of these is preserved in the Trumbull gallery at New Haven.
It represents André himself sitting in a chair at a table on which is
an inkstand and pen. It has been engraved in fac-simile in Sparks's
_Arnold_, 280; in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 203; in George C. Hill's
_Arnold_, etc. Another is a sketch of the landing by boat from the
"Vulture", showing André rowed ashore. An aquatint engraving from it
was published in New York in 1780, of which there is a reproduction in
_Harper's Mag._, lii. p. 835, and Lossing's _Two Spies_. Cf. _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, vol. xiii. (Feb., 1885), p. 173, for a paper by L. Wilson
on André's landing-place at Haverstraw.
[993] An engraving of the scene is given in Barnard's _History of
England_ (p. 694), which is reproduced in H. W. Smith's _Andreana_.
[994] The amount of the removal by James Buchanan, who effected it, is
in the _United Service Journal_, Nov., 1833. Cf. for other details W.
Sargent's _André_; Stanley's _Westminster Abbey_; _Penna. Hist. Soc.
Mem._, vi. 373; _N. Y. Evangelist_, Jan. 10 and Feb. 27, 1879; _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, iii. 319; L. M. Sargent's _Dealings with the Dead_, i. 58.
[995] This monument has been often represented in engravings (for the
first time in _The Universal Mag._, 1782; cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_;
_Cyclo. U. S. Hist._, i. 46; _Two Spies_; and guide-books to the
Abbey). Germain informed Clinton, Nov. 28, 1780, that a pension had
been bestowed on André's mother, and the offer of knighthood made to
his brother, "in order to wipe away all stain from the family."
Col. John Trumbull, who had been Washington's aide, was arrested in
London with threats of retaliatory treatment; but he was released at
the intercession of Benjamin West, the painter. Trumbull tells the
story in his _Autobiography_. Cf. Walpole's _Last Journal_, ii. 434,
436.
[996] View of it in Lossing's _Two Spies_, 109; his _Field-Book_, ii.
204. It was placed there in 1847.
[997] View and account in Lossing's _Two Spies_, 110.
[998] The amount received was £6,315 (Sargent's _André_, 450). He
issued an address of exculpation to the inhabitants of America, dated
New York, Oct. 7, 1780, which is printed by Isaac N. Arnold (p. 330)
from the original MS. in a text varying slightly from other printed
copies, as in the _Political Mag._, i. 734. A fortnight later (Oct.
20th) he issued a proclamation to induce defection among the officers
and soldiers of the army, the original draft of which is among the
Force Papers in the library of Congress. It is printed in I. N. Arnold,
p. 332; in _Polit. Mag._, i. 766, etc.
Sargent thinks that a vindication of Arnold which appeared in _Remarks
on the Travels of M. de Chastellux_, London, 1787, was instigated by
Arnold himself.
[999] Cf. "Arnold at the Court of George III.", by I. N. Arnold, in
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1879, and in his _Life of Arnold_. Cf.
Sargent's _André_, App. i.; and Walpole's _Last Journal_, ii. 493, 494,
501, 511.
[1000] _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Oct., 1883, p. 307; _Amer. Hist. Record_,
iii. 495; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xxxiv. 196.
[1001] The original records of this trial are said to have disappeared
from the State archives at Albany, but they had been printed in the
_New York Herald_. Dawson reprinted this Herald text in the _Historical
Mag._, vol. x., July-Nov., 1866, and issued it separately as _Record
of the trial of Joshua Hett Smith, Esq., for alleged complicity in the
treason of Benedict Arnold, 1780, Ed. by H. B. Dawson_ (Morrisania,
1866). Sparks made use of the record; and the evidence has been
examined in P. W. Chandler's _American Criminal Trials_, ii. 155, 183.
The _Gentleman's Mag._, 1780, Supplement, p. 610, gave an account of
the trial and printed the chief documents.
[1002] Sargent's _André_, p. 281.
[1003] Smith published in London in 1808, and there was reprinted in
N. Y. in 1809, _A Narrative of the causes which led to the death of
Major André_ (Cooke, iii. 101; Brinley, ii. 3,954). Sargent found that
it must be used with caution. Sparks says (p. 298) that as "a work of
history this volume is not worthy of the least credit, except where the
statements are confirmed by other authorities."
[1004] Sargent, 266; George W. Greene, _Hist. View_. Marbois was
translated by Walsh in the _Amer. Register_, vol. ii. Cf. a French view
in Léon Chotteau's _Les Français en Amérique_, p. 199.
[1005] There are in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix., no. 14, various papers
used by Sparks in writing his life of Arnold, including the action of
Congress on the seizure of Arnold's papers, and copies of the papers;
letters written in 1833-1834 to Sparks and others, by David Hosack,
Benj. Tallmadge, James Thacher, Nathan Beers, Professor Woolsey, John
D. Dickinson, Samuel Eddy, James Lanman, James Stedman, J. Bronson, and
William Shimmin,—mainly reminiscences. Cf. for some of these letters,
the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1879. Copies of Arnold's letters from
Philadelphia in 1779-1780 are in _Ibid._, lii. vol. ii. no. 3. There is
a "Genuine history of Arnold by an old acquaintance" in the _Political
Mag._, i. 690.
[1006] Duyckinck's _Cyclo. Am. Lit. Suppl._, p. 130.
[1007] André had been a prisoner at Lancaster, Pa., after his capture
at St. John, Nov. 2, 1775, to Dec., 1776, when he was exchanged. He
was paroled in Feb., 1776 (_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i.). Afterwards
he served with General Grey, and in 1780 was placed on Clinton's
staff. There are contemporary accounts of him by "intimate friends"
in _Political Mag._, i. 688; ii. 171. His lineage is traced by J.
L. Chester in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, March, 1876 (xiv. 217). His
will is in the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, vi. 63, and in Dawson's
_Papers_, 241. For bibliography, see Sabin, i. no. 1,449, and _Mag.
of Amer. Hist._, viii. pp. 61, 145, 149. A daily record of his life
from Sept. 20 to Oct. 2, 1780, is _Ibid._, iii. 157 (1879). On his
career in general, see articles in _No. Amer. Review_, vol. xxxviii.,
by Bancroft and Bigelow; vol. lxxx., by Sargent; vol. xciii., by C. C.
Smith; _Harper's Mag._, 1879, p. 619; _N. Y. Semi-weekly Evening Post_,
March 3, 1882; Earl Stanhope's _Miscellanies_; _Atlantic Monthly_,
Dec., 1860; L. M. Sargent's _Dealings with the Dead_; Sabin's _Amer.
Bibliopolist_, 1869-1870; _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1876; _Poole's
Index_, p. 38.
The _Monody on Major André by Miss Seward, to which are added letters
addressed to her by Major André in 1769_, was published at Lichfield,
Eng., in 1781, and reprinted in New York in 1792; in Boston, 1798
(fourth Amer. ed.); in Smith's _Narrative_, London, 1808; in Lossing's
_Two Spies_, N. Y., 1886. Cf. _The Galaxy_, Feb., 1876.
His fate has been the subject of several tragedies: by William Dunlap
(1799); by W. W. Lord (1856); by George H. Calvert (1864), etc. W. G.
Simms has examined the story as a subject for fiction in his _Views and
Reviews_.
[1008] It passed to a second edition in 1871. A company orderly-book
showing the disposition of troops at West Point on the discovery of the
plot is in the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Proc._, xix. 385).
[1009] Orig. ed., x. 395; final revision, v. 438, where, contrary to
his custom, he retains a part of his note.
[1010] Isaac N. Arnold was of very remote kin to Benedict. He had
access to the Shippen Papers, the papers owned by Arnold's descendants
in England and in Canada, and used the letters of Arnold, his wife and
sister, in the Department of State. His praise of Arnold's "patriotism"
in the earlier years of the war, which he thought was evinced by his
brilliant acts in the field, induced a paper by J. A. Stevens on
"Arnold and his Apologist" (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, March, 1880), who
contended that there was "no evidence that the heart of Arnold ever
beat with one patriotic thrill." The biographer, while condemning the
treason, makes the best show which he can of the provocations which
led Arnold to be false. He adds considerable that is new to Arnold's
story. Mr. I. N. Arnold died in 1884, and addresses upon him before the
Chicago Hist. Society were printed.
Lossing has written much on the subject of Arnold's treason:
_Field-Book_, ii. ch. 6, 7, and 8; _Harper's Monthly_, iii., xxiii.,
and liii.; _Two Spies_ (Hale and André), N. Y., 1886. Cf., on these two
spies, Hull's _Rev. Services_.
Other American treatments of the subject are in the lives of Washington
by Marshall (iv. 274) and Irving (iv. ch. 9-11); Greene's _Greene_
(ii. 227); Leake's _Lamb_, ch. 19 and App. D; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 252
Hamilton's _Hamilton_, i. 262; Quincy's _Shaw_, 77; Dunlap's _New
York_, ii. ch. 13; E. G. Holland's "Highland Treason", in his _Essays_;
Winthrop Atwill's _Treason of Arnold_, Northampton, 1837; _Niles's
Register_, xx.
[1011] There remained for a long time no doubt as to the unalloyed
patriotism of the three men who captured André. Washington praised
their resistance to bribes, and Congress gave them a medal (figured
in Loubat's _Medallic Hist. U. S._, and in Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 205). Some of those who came in close contact with André after
his capture, and heard his account of the arrest, were convinced that
André felt that if he could have made any considerable sum certain
to them they would have let him go. This belief, on their part, of
these keepers of André did not come to public notice till, in 1817,
John Paulding, one of the captors, and the leader of them, petitioned
Congress for an additional pension. This gave occasion to Benj.
Tallmadge, who had been André's chief-keeper, and who was then in
Congress, to oppose the bill on the grounds of André's statements. The
_Journals_ of the House of Representatives show the debate, which is
reprinted in Dawson's _Papers_, 127. A letter of Gen. Joshua King, also
in André's confidence at the time, confirms Tallmadge's view, and there
is also a similar statement by Bowman, one of André's guards (Sparks's
_Arnold_; _Notes and Queries_, ix.; _Niles's Register_; _Hist. Mag._,
i. 204, 293; iii. 229; Dawson's _Papers_, 45; Jones's _N. Y. during the
Rev._, i. 733; _Boston Sunday Herald_, Sept. 14, 1879).
The captors did not want for friends. Judge Egbert Benson published a
_Vindication of the Captors of Maj. André_, 1817 (cf. _Analectic Mag._,
x. 307), which was reprinted in N. Y. in 1865, in two editions, with
additional matter, one by Sabin, the other by Hoffman. John Paulding,
the son of one of the captors, published a paper in their defence
(_Hist. Mag._, i. 331). The three captors were then all living, and
each made statements and affidavits respecting the event. These can
be found, whole or in part, in Benson; in the _Hist. Mag._, ix. 177,
xviii. 365; in Dawson's _Papers_, 119, 123, 182; in H. J. Raymond's
_Address_ (N. Y., 1853) at Tarrytown; in _Cent. Celebrations of N.
Y._ (1879); in Sabin's _Amer. Bibliopolist_, 1869, p. 335; in Simms's
_Schoharie County_, 646. Sargent thinks that Paulding (of whom there is
a portrait in H. W. Smith's _Andreana_) was the one of the three that
most firmly resisted André's bribes.
A monument was erected at Tarrytown in 1853, when Henry J. Raymond
delivered an address; it was remodelled in 1883, and capped with a
statue of a captor, when Chauncey M. Depew spoke in defence of the
good names of the captors; and a _Centennial Souvenir_ was prepared
by Nathaniel C. Husted (N. Y., 1881). Monuments have been erected at
the graves of the three captors: for Paulding's and Van Wart's, see
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 171, 192; for Williams's, erected at Old
Fort Schoharie in 1876, when addresses were given by Daniel Knower and
Grenville Tremain, see _Centennial Celebrations of the State of N. Y._
(Albany, 1879). For memorials of Williams, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Feb., 1887, p. 168.
A letter of Maj. Henry Lee describing the capture is in the _Penna.
Mag. of Hist._ (1880), iv. 61. Cf. _Amer. Hist. Rec._, Dec., 1873;
_Potter's Amer. Monthly_, vii. 167; Bolton's _Westchester_, i. 213.
Respecting André in confinement, Major, later Colonel, Tallmadge has
left several statements,—letters, Sept. 23, 1780 (_Sparks MSS._, xlix.
vol. iii.); to Heath, Oct. 10, 1780 (_Heath MSS._, printed in Dawson,
194, and in Sargent, 469); his letters to Sparks in 1833-4 (_Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, 1879, pp. 748, 752); his _Memoir_, privately printed by
his son, F. A. T., and the extracts from it (_Hist. Magazine_, Aug.,
1859; and Dawson's _Papers_).
Washington gave his version of the conspiracy at a dinner-table in
1786, which is contained in Richard Rush's _Washington in Domestic
Life, being letters addressed to his secretary, Lear, 1790-97_ (also
in Dawson, 139). There are many references in the letters of 1780 in
Sparks's _Washington_ (vii, 205, 212-222, 235, 241, 256, 260-65, 281,
296, and in the App. pp. 520-552, most of the documentary proofs), and
in his _Letters to Washington_ (iii. 101-111), much of which is given
in Dawson.
Several letters of Hamilton, contained in his _Correspondence_, are
of interest: one to Greene; one to Miss Schuyler, usually dated Oct.
2, but Bancroft says it is without date and must have been written
later, and, as usually printed, has omissions and interpolations.
Of particular value is a letter of Hamilton's to Henry Laurens, in
which he wished André's desire for a soldier's death could have
been gratified (Lodge's ed. _Works_, viii.; Dawson; H. W. Smith's
_Andreana_; McCoy's ed. _Proceedings_. Cf. _Pennsylvania Packet_, in
Moore's Diary, ii. 333).
Lafayette's account is in his _Memoirs_, Eng. trans., N. Y., i. 253-56,
349, as well as letters to Luzerne and others (Dawson, 204, etc.).
Sparks held various conferences with Lafayette in later life, and his
notes are in the _Sparks MSS._, xxxii. J. F. Cooper, in his _Notions of
the Americans picked up by a travelling Bachelor_, has an account which
he says he derived from Lafayette in later years and from a British
officer who had heard Arnold tell his story at a dinner.
In Dawson's _Papers_ are included various other contemporary accounts:
letters of Alex. Scammell (Oct. 1st, in Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet;
_Misc. Papers_, 1777-1824, i. 192; Oct. 3d, in _Hist. Mag._, xviii.
145; and Farmer and Moore's _Hist. Coll. N. H._); of Anthony Wayne,
Sept. 27 and Oct. 1, 1780 (_Amer. Bibliopolist_, 1870, p. 62); extracts
from the _Bland Papers_, ii. 33-38; and Maj. Samuel Shaw to the Rev.
Mr. Eliot, in Shaw's _Journals_, 77-82.
Some papers of Timothy Pickering, formerly possessed by the Hon. Arad
Joy, of Ovid, N. Y., and now in the War Department, were printed in the
_N. Y. Tribune_. Letters of General Greene are in Greene's _Greene_,
ii. 227-40, and in the _R. I. Col. Records_, ix. 246, and in the _R.
I. Hist. Coll._, vi., and one of R. R. Livingston in the _Sparks
MSS._, xlix. vol. iii. Moore's _Diary_ (ii. 323, etc.) gives various
contemporary newspaper reports.
The records of observers of André's last hours and execution have been
precise: Dr. Thacher's _Military Journal_, 274 (Dawson, 130; McCoy;
Smith's _Andreana_, 58), and his additional statements, together with
Maj. Benjamin Russell's account in the _N. E. Mag._, vi. 363 (also in
Dawson and _Andreana_); letter of Col. Van Dyk in 1821 (_Hist. Mag._,
Aug., 1863, vol. vii. 250); Todd's _Joel Barlow_, 35; the _Military
Journal of Gen. Henry Dearborn_, a MS. (J. W. Thornton's sale, no.
284, bought by Dr. T. A. Emmett); _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1879, p. 574;
_Amer. Whig Rev._, v. 381; _Southern Lit. Messenger_, vii. 856; xi.
193; Sparks's _Arnold_ (p. 255); Irving's _Washington_ (iv. 149, 157);
Sargent's _André_, 395; and others cited by Dawson.
[1012] In a letter by Clinton, Oct. 11, 1780, to Germain, he details in
an accompanying narrative the rise of the correspondence with Arnold,
which began eighteen months before. Sargent notes it as being in the
State Paper Office, "America and West Indies, vol. cxxvi.", and says
it has not been printed. The _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxxii.) has a copy,
where is his next letter of the 12th, telling the story of André's
execution, which is printed in the _Remembrancer_, vii. part 2, p. 343,
and in Dawson, p. 240. Clinton also wrote to Lord Amherst on the 16th;
and on the 30th he wrote a secret letter to Germain, in which he says
that he has paid £6,315 to Arnold (_Sparks MSS._, xxxii. and xlviii.).
Germain's letters to Clinton and Arnold of Nov. 28th and Dec. 7th are
in _Sparks MSS._, xlviii. On a fly-leaf of Stedman's _History of the
Amer. War_, Clinton, having dissented to that writer's narrative (vol.
ii. p. 249,—given in Dawson, 196), wrote what he called an extract
from his MS. History of the War, no other portion of which is known.
This is printed in Mahon, vii. App.; Sargent's _André_; Dawson, p. 177,
and Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, vol. i. App. p. 737. Washington
in this extract is severely criticised, and this is also the case in
a pamphlet, _The Case of Major John André, who was put to death by
the Rebels, Oct. 2d, 1780, candidly represented, with remarks on said
case_ (pp. 28), New York, Rivington, 1780,—a copy in proof-sheets
in the Carter-Brown library, being the only one known, and it has
been supposed that it was prepared under Clinton's supervision and
suppressed (Sargent, 274; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1879, iii. 739).
The introduction is dated N. Y., Nov. 28, 1780.
Cf. also Simcoe's _Mil. Journal of the Queen's Rangers_, pp. 150, 292
(in Dawson, 149, 151). Simcoe offered to try to rescue André. Mahon's
_England_, vii. ch. 62; journal of Gen. Matthews, cited in Balch's
_Les Français en Amérique_. A long letter on the conspiracy and events
attending it, varying in some ways from the American account, and
possibly furnishing Arnold's story, was written by Andrew Elliott to
William Eden, Oct. 4 and 5, 1780, and is among the Auckland MSS. in the
Cambridge University library (England). Mr. B. F. Stevens has furnished
to me a printed copy of it. The account in Jones's _N. Y. during the
Rev._ (i. 370) misses or perverts the story throughout, and gives
that writer the occasion to abuse Clinton, which he does not fail to
use. Any opinion of Jones is liable to be confused by his cynical and
misplaced irony, which singularly accords with the countenance of the
man as portrayed in his picture.
[1013] The questions at issue were these: Was André protected by
a flag? Arnold says Yes, and André himself says No. They were the
principal parties who could know the fact. If there was a flag, does
such use of a flag come within the purport of the military law which
defines flags? Is the question of good faith in flags one only between
the giver and the receiver of a flag, and can the giver of a flag act
in good faith to the receiver and with perfidy to his own principal,
with that perfidy known to the receiver? Can the passport of a general
engaged in treasonable correspondence with the enemy protect an officer
of that enemy when clothed in a disguise and bearing papers to the
enemy, such as might give that enemy an unfair advantage?
These are questions which Washington and the board of inquiry and all
American writers have decided in the negative. Clinton, in his notes
on Stedman already referred to, Cornwallis (_Corresp._, i. 78), Simcoe
(_Mil. Journal_, pp. 152, 294), and other British military writers
then, as well as historians like Adolphus (_Hist. England_, iii. ch.
39) and Mahon (both in his _History_, vii., and his _Miscellanies_),
have supported the affirmative view. The most conspicuous dissent to
the general English opinion at the time was Sir Samuel Romilly, in
a letter to Roget, Dec. 12, 1780 (_Memoirs_, i. 140, quoted in P.
W. Chandler, _Amer. Crim. Trials_). The more reasonable among the
Tories, like Curwen (_Journal_, p. 323), defended the sentence. Later
English military writers like Mackinnon (_Coldstream Guards_), and
historians like Massey (_England_, iii. ch. 25) and Lecky (_England_,
iv. 155), have held that "the justice of the sentence cannot be
reasonably impugned;" and this seems to be the drift of the best
current English opinion to-day (cf. Dawson's _Papers_, 211, etc.;
Sargent, p. 413, who in chapter 22 gives the characters of the members
of the board, which English writers have attacked), though there is
an occasional exception. The _Saturday Review_, for instance, in
1872 (_Amer. Bibliopolist_, Oct., 1872), contended that a technical
construction of the law should not have guided Washington. The last
considerable discussion of the case was raised by Mahon, whose views
were controverted in Chas. J. Biddle's _Case of Major André_ (_Penna.
Hist. Soc. Mem._, vi. 317-416, Philad., 1868; _Hist. Mag._, i. 193),
and in Arnold's _Life of Arnold_. Irving (_Washington_, iv. 101) is the
most signal instance among American writers of the power to hold the
judgment apart from sympathetic emotion, when he pronounces André's
exploits are "beneath the range of a truly chivalrous nature." (Cf.
Bancroft, x. 393, and _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1885, p. 620.) There
is some evidence to show that André in the spring of 1780 had been a
deliberate spy at Charleston.
If there are any aspects of the circumstances attending the discovery
of the plot with which one would willingly dissociate the name of
Washington, it is the countenance which he gave to the proposition to
Clinton to exchange André for Arnold, and his encouragement of the
attempt of Sergeant Champe, a little later, to abduct Arnold from New
York. Henry Lee (_Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department_, ii.
159-187; R. E. Lee's ed., p. 394) gives the most detailed account of
Champe's connived-at desertion, but he evidently mixes together the
later with the earlier incident, and has brought the story in some
minds into the category of myths. Lee's story appeared in New York
in 1864 in a separate brochure as _Champe's Adventures in attempting
to capture Gen. Arnold_ (pp. 48). _The House Reports, no. 486,
Twenty-seventh Congress, 2d session_, ii. (1842), show a petition
of "Sergeant-Major Champe" for reward for services. Cf. Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 546; Niles's _Principles_, etc. (1876), p. 307;
Arnold's _Arnold_, 336; Sargent's _André_, 451; Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 207.
[1014] Lincoln's order-books bear witness to the seriousness of the
trouble. Even Moultrie became alarmed, and wrote to C. C. Pinckney that
he was afraid lest by straining after too much liberty they might lose
all.
[1015] A court-martial, presided over by Moultrie, censured Ashe for
his lack of the proper precautions, while acquitting him of the charge
of cowardice on the field of battle.
[1016] Curry, the deserter, was taken at Hobkirk's Hill by his former
friends and hanged.
[1017] The Santee in its upper course as far as the line separating the
two Carolinas is known as the Catawba; thence to its junction with the
Congaree it is called the Wateree. The three names should be borne in
mind.
[1018] It seems, however, tolerably certain that he had greatly
overestimated the size of his army, rating it at seven thousand,
while in reality the returns showed an effective force of only "three
thousand and fifty-two, rank and file." When Williams explained this to
Gates, the latter replied: "Sir, the number of the latter (privates)
are much below the estimates formed this morning; but these are enough
for our purpose." It seems never to have occurred to Gates that
Cornwallis would attempt to bring him to action.
[1019] What brought these men together is not certainly known; but a
determination to keep the war away from their homes seems to have been
the main cause of their action. Probably the threats which Ferguson
made, in the vain hope of intimidating them, may have had a good deal
to do with it.
[1020] The court of inquiry into Gates's conduct was never convened; at
first, because it was impossible to get it together without injury to
the service, since Steuben's presence was necessary. Later, when Greene
became cognizant of the whole affair, he became convinced that Gates
was the victim of circumstances, and advised against holding the court.
[1021] Afterwards, when his attention was called to this hazardous
position, Morgan declared that had he passed the Broad River his
militia would have left him. As to the unprotected condition of his
flanks, he asserted that had there been a swamp in the neighborhood the
militia would have taken refuge in it. He added that he should have
viewed the surrounding of his army with unconcern, as then his men
would have been obliged to fight it out. In fact, like his great chief,
Morgan had a very poor opinion of the militia. He placed them in the
front rank with orders to fire at least two shots, and then to retire
behind the regulars, who were posted on a slight eminence in their
rear. A skirmish line of militia sharpshooters protected the front,
while the cavalry remained in reserve. The best proof of the excellence
of these dispositions is to be found in the results of the encounter.
[1022] Tarleton had some "grasshoppers" at the Cowpens, but they did
little execution. For grasshoppers, cf. Stone's _Brant_, ii. 106, and
_Centennial Celebration of Sullivan's Expedition_, p. 109, note.
[1023] In numbers the two commands were about equal,—not far from
one thousand on either side, excluding detachments. In discipline
and equipment the British were far superior. Their defeat was mainly
due to the rash impetuosity of their young commander, to his unwise
dispositions, and especially to his unmilitary conduct in leading his
men into action before the formation was complete. Above all, however,
their defeat was due to the confidence of Morgan's men in their leader,
to his admirable tactics, and to the splendid behavior of the Maryland
line. The "unaccountable panick", as Tarleton calls it, which seized
the British infantry, and the poor use the "Legion" commander made
of his horse contributed in no small degree to the result which was
probable whenever Tarleton should meet with a real soldier.
[1024] A court of inquiry, summoned at Gunby's request, found that his
order "was extremely improper and unmilitary, and, in all probability,
was the only cause why we did not obtain a complete victory." At the
same time the court declared that Gunby's spirit and activity were
unexceptionable. This court was presided over by Huger, or Hugee, as
his name is not infrequently spelled in the old books.
[1025] This seizure of Fort Granby greatly displeased Sumter, who
had marked it for himself. He tendered his commission to Greene, who
returned it with such an effusion of compliments that Sumter could not
refuse to keep it. But his conduct at a time when it was especially
important for the patriots to act in concert was a good illustration of
the way in which he systematically thwarted Greene. Before the Cowpens
he had ordered his subordinate to obey no orders coming from Morgan.
And now, instead of coming to the aid of Greene, when hard pressed,
he contented himself with desultory operations of no utility in the
campaign. They secured to himself, however, a separate command.
Even Marion, that most steadfast and gallant leader of Southern
militia, was impatient at the way in which he was treated by the
commander-in-chief. It seems that Greene thought Marion might easily
spare a few horses in order that Washington's men could be mounted.
It will be remembered that Greene had before this taken occasion to
declaim against the practice of the Southern irregulars in always
wishing to serve mounted, as it added greatly to the expense. Marion
took the implied censure to himself, and wrote that as soon as the
siege of Motte's was over he wished to give up his present command and
go to Philadelphia. Greene induced him to give over his contemplated
retirement, and Marion's reply to Greene's urgent letter furnishes the
real reason for his wish to attain to some other command than that of
"Marion's men", for whom he appears to have had any but the kindest
feelings. Indeed, the popular idea of "Marion's men" seems to be far
from correct, for his band was composed largely of renegades, drawn
together by the hope of booty. They deserted their leader when anything
serious was to be attempted, and this "infamous behavior", as Marion
rightly terms it, was very distressing to him. However, for a time the
storm blew over, and for the future Lee was regarded as under Greene's
own immediate orders.
[1026] It was at this time that Grierson himself was shot by one of
the militia after he had surrendered. Lee asserts that the murderer
could not be discovered, though a large reward was offered for his
apprehension; but Brown has declared that his name was well known, and
that he was purposely shielded by the American commanders
[1027] That chieftain showed at this time a disregard for the orders
and wishes of Greene which counterbalanced whatever good his former
vigorous though unfortunate conduct may have produced. Instead of
acting in harmony with Marion, and delaying Rawdon by every means
within his reach, Sumter by contradictory letters neutralized Marion's
force, and rendered his own quite harmless by shutting himself up in
Fort Granby and allowing the British to march by unopposed. Greene
seems never to have forgiven Sumter for his behavior at this time; and,
indeed, it cannot be too warmly censured.
[1028] He then went to Charleston, and soon after the hanging of Hayne
sailed for home.
[1029] Four cruisers had been sent out by the Americans to give them
warning of the English fleet then in the neighborhood. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xii. 229. Cf. letters of Gerry in _Letters of Washington
to Langdon_ (1880), p. 111.—ED.
[1030] Ternay was buried in Newport. Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Genial.
Reg._, 1873, p. 409, and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiii. 105; and
Anthony's speech on a bill to repair the tomb (H. B. Anthony's
_Memorial Addresses_, Providence, 1875).—ED.
[1031] The Marquis of Rochambeau, in his _Memoirs_, took to himself
the credit of appointing the Chesapeake as a rendezvous for the fleet.
He also claims to have intimated to De Grasse that perhaps it would
be best to attack the English in Virginia. At all events, the French
admiral sent word that he should go into the Chesapeake, and he hoped,
as his stay on the coast would be short, that the land forces would be
ready to coöperate with him. This decided the matter. There is in print
(dated Mount Vernon, July 13, 1788; Carey's _Museum_; also in Niles,
_Principles and Acts_, 1st ed, p. 273) a letter from Washington to the
effect that, although the point of attack was not decided on at the
outset, the movement against New York was a feint.
[1032] The documents recently printed by the Royal Commission on
Historical Manuscripts convey the impression that Rodney preferred not
to act in conjunction with Sir Henry Clinton.
[1033] It was while reconnoitring on the morning of this day that Col.
Alexander Scammel, of the New Hampshire line, was captured by a party
of Legion dragoons, and mortally, though accidentally, wounded after he
had surrendered.
[1034] _History of the Revolution of South Carolina from a British
Province to an Independent State_, Trenton, 1785,—cited in this
chapter as _Rev. in S. C._
[1035] There is no formal biography of Moultrie. Brief sketches of his
career may be found in Hartley's _Heroes of the South_, 231-268, and
in _A New Biographical Dictionary or Remembrancer of Departed Heroes,
compiled by T. J. Rogers_, Philadelphia, 1829, pp. 317-322. Cf. also
_ante_, p. 171, 229.
[1036] _Memoirs of the American Revolution, so far as it related to the
States of North and South Carolina, and Georgia. By William Moultrie._
New York, 1802. This work, though written long after the event,
consists so largely of letters and other original material that it may
be regarded almost as a contemporary work.
[1037] _Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department, by Henry Lee,
lieutenant-colonel commandant of the Partisan Legion during the
American War_, Philadelphia, 1812; reprinted in 1819. In 1827 appeared
_A New Edition, with corrections left by the author, and with Notes
and Additions by H. Lee, the author of the Campaign of '81_. Many
years later, in 1869, _A New Edition, with Revisions, and a Biography
of the Author, by Robert E. Lee_, was published in New York. This is
the best memoir of "Legion Harry" that has yet appeared. Cf. also G.
W. P. Custis's _Recollections_, p. 354, and Rogers, _Biog. Dict._,
p.271. There are portraits of Henry Lee as a young man in Continental
uniform in the Penna. Hist. Society. Cf. Irving's _Washington_, quarto
ed., iii. 197; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 591; R. E. Lee's ed. of the
_Memoirs_. Cf. C. C. Jones, _Last days, death, and burial of General
Lee_ (Albany, 1870).—ED.
[1038] And the same criticism applies with still greater force to the
writers who have based their narratives on this work.
[1039] Cf. Charles C. Jones, _Reminiscences of the Last Days, Death,
and Burial of General Henry Lee_, Albany, 1870.
[1040] For Washington's opinion of Lee, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii.
81.
[1041] H. E. Turner's _Greenes of Warwick_ (Newport, 1877).
[1042] See especially Greene's _Greene_ (all references in this chapter
are to the three-volume edition, unless otherwise stated), iii.,
Appendix, pp. 541-547; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 218-221 and 326; Sparks,
_Correspondence of the Revolution_, iii. 118-189; Reed's _Reed_, ii.,
_passim_ and App.; _Maryland Papers_; _Charleston News and Courier for
May 10th, 1881_; _Rhode Island Colonial Records_, vol. ix., and _R. I.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. vi. Many of these letters will be referred to
in the notes. In two letters from Knox to Greene (Drake's _Knox_, 67
and 68) the lighter side of Greene's character appears.
[1043] Caldwell sought interviews with Greene's relatives, and says
that his sources were "as ample and authentic as any now existing;"
and he represents that his account of the fight at Ramsour's Mill is
the only event of moment in which he differs materially from other
writers.—ED.
[1044] _Sketches of the Life and Services of Nathanael Greene,
Major-General of the Armies of the United States, in the War of the
American Revolution. Compiled chiefly from original materials. By
William Johnson of Charleston, South Carolina, 1822._ Two volumes,
folio. A good review of this work is in the _United States Magazine and
Literary Repository_ for January, 1823, pp. 3-23.
[1045] This of course provoked the reviewers, and especially Jared
Sparks,—then editor of the _North American Review_,—though his
criticisms are for the most part directed against portions of the work
that do not concern us here.
[1046] _The Campaign of 1781 in the Carolinas, with remarks, historical
and critical, on Johnson's Life of Greene, to which it added an
Appendix of original documents, by H. Lee_, Philadelphia, 1824.
[1047] _The Life of Nathanael Greene, ... by George Washington
Greene_, N. Y., 1871. The life intermediate between these two was
written in Rome, far away from the proper materials. It therefore is
of little value compared with the larger work. It forms volume xx.
of Sparks's _American Biography_. In 1877 appeared _A Biographical
Discourse delivered at the unveiling of the statue ... to the memory
of Major-general Nathanael Greene, by his Grandson, G. W. Greene_. But
the address, owing to the ill-health of the author, was not delivered.
It contains a good short summary of the Southern campaign. Cf. an
_Eulogium on Major-general Greene, delivered before the Society of
the Cincinnati by Alexander Hamilton, July 4, 1789_, in Hamilton's
_Works_, ii. 481; and Lodge's ed., vol. vii.; see also Headley's
_Washington and his Generals_, ii. 7-77; _Lives of the Heroes_, 27-75;
Wilson, _Biography_, 278-286; Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 170-185; _American
Biography_ (1825), pp. 158-182, etc., etc.
On the grant to Greene for his services, see the paper on the
sea-islands, in _Harper's Mag._, Nov., 1878. Cf. B. P. Poore, _Desc.
Catal. of gov't publ._, p. 1293. Recently published personal detail is
in _Providence Plantations_ (Providence, 1886), p. 62; John Bernard's
_Retrospections_, p. 103.—ED.
The place of Greene's burial has aroused some controversy. Cf. C. C.
Jones, _Sepulture of Greene and Pulaski_ (1885). A description of the
monument to his memory at Savannah is in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, xvi.
297. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iii. 369.
[1048] _The Life of General Daniel Morgan, with portions of his
correspondence, compiled by James Graham_, N. Y., 1856. Besides this
there is a sketch of Morgan's career in Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 386. Cf.
also _Lives of the Heroes_, 76-89; Wilson, _Biography_, etc., 31-38;
Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 309-316; Headley, ii. 366-372. _The Hero of
Cowpens, A Centennial Sketch by Mrs. McConkey_, N. Y., 1881, is of no
value. _Am. Hist. Record_, i. 111, contains an account of _The Grave of
Daniel Morgan_, with illustrations.
Portraits of Daniel Morgan were painted by C. W. Peale (engraved by
David Edwin) and John Trumbull (engraved by J. F. E. Prud'homme).
Cf. Dennie's _Portfolio_, viii.; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 637
(also, _Cyclo. U. S. Hist._, p. 920, etc.). The picture (_Mag. Amer.
Hist._, April, 1884), representing him sitting on a chest, and dressed
in a hunting-shirt, is no further a likeness than his features are
preserved. There is a statue of him by Ward. Morgan lived after the war
in the Shenandoah Valley, and a view of his house, "Saratoga", is given
in _Appleton's Journal_, 1873, July 16, p. 67; Mrs. Lamb's _Homes of
America_; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, x. 455.—ED.
[1049] _The Life of General Francis Marion, by Brig.-gen. P. Horry, of
Marion's Brigade, and Mason L. Weems_, Baltimore, 1815. This volume
went through many editions. (Cf. Sabin.) The _Sketch of the Life of
Brig.-gen. Francis Marion, and a History of his Brigade, by William
Dobein James_ (Charleston, 1821), is now very rare. John James based
on it a _Life of Marion_ (N. Y., 1856). For an appreciative sketch of
the noted partisan, see Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 394. Cf. also _The Life of
Francis Marion_, by W. G. Simms, N. Y. (1846 and 1860); Headley, ii.
225; Lossing, in _Harper's Monthly_, xvii. 145; P. D. Hay, _The Swamp
Fox_, in _Ibid._, lxvii. 545,—especially valuable as containing some
original entries from the general's order-book; Hartley, _Heroes_,
1-212; Wilson, _Biography_, 82; Rogers, _Biograph. Dict._, 284;
_Charleston Year Book_ (1885, p. 338), where Marion's epitaph is given,
etc. For portraits of Marion, see Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed.,
iv. 196; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 684.—ED.
[1050] _Documentary History of the American Revolution, consisting of
letters and papers relating to the contest for liberty, chiefly in
South Carolina, by William Robert Gibbes._ There are three volumes
with titles not unlike the above. The first relates to events not
touched on in this chapter, the second (N. Y., 1855-57) covers the
period 1776-1782, while the third volume (Columbia, 1853) relates
more especially to the years 1781-1782. Many of the documents are of
interest to local readers only, and as a whole the volumes are of less
value than their titles would indicate.
[1051] Hartley, _Heroes_, 269-290; Dawson, _Battles_, i. 487; and Lee,
_Memoirs_ (2d ed.), App. p. 442. Some autographic letters of Pickens
are in the _Sparks MSS._, lix. 24.
[1052] In Sparks, _American Biography_, xxiii. pp. 205-434. Cf. also
_Notices of the Life of Major-General Benjamin Lincoln_, by "P. C." in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 2d series, iii. 233-255,—pp. 238-244 deal
with his Southern campaigns; Thacher, _Military Journal_, 504-517;
J. T. Kirkland, _Notices of the Life of Benjamin Lincoln_; Headley,
_Washington and his Generals_ (N. Y., 1847), ii. 104; Rogers, _Biog.
Dict._, 276, etc., etc.
[1053] There are among the Lincoln Papers (copied in the _Sparks
MSS._, xii.) a considerable mass of documents relating to Lincoln's
service in Carolina in 1779-1780; his correspondence with Marion,
Pinckney, Rutledge, Pulaski, Moultrie, Horry, John Laurens, Commodore
Whipple, etc., and the public authorities of Congress and the Assembly
of Georgia. His Journal, Sept. 3—Oct. 19, 1779, covers his plans of
normally coöperation with D'Estaing. There are records of the councils
of war in Charleston, April 20, 21, 26, May 11,—the latter advising
him to capitulate. Letters of Adj.-Gen. Ternant recount the strength
and losses of the garrison during the siege. Various letters between
Clinton and Lincoln concern the provisions and interpretation of the
terms of surrender. A proclamation of Clinton and Arbuthnot to the
South Carolinians is dated June 1, 1780.—ED.
[1054] There is a _Life of Anthony Wayne by John Armstrong_ in Sparks,
_Amer. Biog._, iv. pp. 1-84. See especially pp. 56-71 for his Southern
campaigns.
[1055] General Joseph Graham contributed many of these articles in
vols. i., iii., iv., and v. He took part in many of the operations. Cf.
_N. C. Univ. Mag._, iii. 433; Wheeler's _North Carolina_, ii. 233, and
Foote's _Sketches of Western North Carolina_, 251. There are sketches
of Caswell's life in the above-mentioned magazine, vols. vii. pp. 1-22,
and iv. 68. For a loyalist's view of the war in general, see Col.
Robert Gray in _Ibid._, viii. 145. Hugh Williamson collected material
for N. C. revolutionary history. Cf. _Pennsylvania Magazine of Hist._,
vii. 493. Cf. _Harper's Mag._, xv,. 159.
[1056] _Interesting Revolutionary Incidents and Sketches of Character,
chiefly in the "Old North State", by the Rev. E. W. Caruthers, D. D._,
second series, Philadelphia, 1856. The title of the first series,
which relates to the Camden campaign, wants the word "_Interesting_."
Cf. the same author's _Sketch of the Life and Character of the Rev.
David Caldwell, ... with Account of the Revolutionary Transactions
and Incidents in which he was concerned_, etc. (Greensborough, N. C.,
1842), and W. A. Graham's _British Invasion of N. C._, in W. D. Cooke's
_Rev. Hist. of N. C._ (1853).
[1057] _Traditions and Reminiscences chiefly of the American Revolution
in the South, by Joseph Johnson, M. D., of Charleston, S. C._,
Charleston, 1851.
[1058] The best biography of Steuben is the life by Friedrich Kapp, 2d
ed., N. Y., 1859. But Kapp is often ridiculously partial to his hero.
In the _Magazine of American History_, viii. pp. 187-199, is a valuable
and graphic account of Steuben, written in 1814 by his former aide,
William North. See also Thacher, _Military Journal_ 517-531; Professor
Ebeling in _Amerikanisches Magazin_, 1797, iii. 148; G. W. Greene,
_German Element in the War of American Independence_, N. Y., 1876, pp.
11-87; Francis Bowen, _Life of Baron Steuben_, in Sparks, _Am. Biog._,
ix. pp. 1-88; Headley, _Generals_, i. 293; Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 370;
and his character, by Richard Peters in _Mag. of Western Hist._, 1886,
p. 680.
[1059] Light-Horse Harry Lee in his _Memoirs_ was especially severe
on Jefferson's actions at this time, and later during Cornwallis's
campaign. To this Jefferson replied in a letter to the younger Henry
Lee, dated May 15, 1826, in Lee's _Memoirs_ (2d edition), p. 204. In
his _Notes on Virginia_, Jefferson attempted a defence of his conduct,
and in his _Writings_ (ix. 212 and 220) there appeared an attack on the
elder Lee. This brought forth a pamphlet entitled _Observations on the
Writings of Thomas Jefferson, with particular reference to the attack
they contain on the memory of the late Gen. Henry Lee_, by Henry Lee,
New York, 1832. This was suppressed (cf. Sabin, x. 172), but in 1839 a
second edition, "with an introduction and notes by Charles C. Lee", was
published. See especially pp. 119 to 141 of the 1st ed., and pp. 129
to 147 of the 2d. See also Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 291-343; Giradin,
_Continuation of Burk_, iv. 452-470; and, on the other side, Howison,
ii. 251-265.
[1060] Parton in his interesting life of the Virginia statesman, pp.
224-256, gives a lifelike picture of Jefferson's share in the war. He
dwells on the more picturesque incidents, like Tarleton's raid, which,
though giving a pleasant color to the story, had little influence on
the course of events.
[1061] _The History of Virginia, commenced by John Burk, and continued
by Skelton Jones and Louis Hue Giradin_, Petersburg, 1816. What
part Jones took in the work is not clear. Volume iv. relates to the
Revolution. The editors of _Jefferson's Works_ (i. 41) say of Giradin:
"Mr. Jefferson supplied him with a large amount of manuscript matter
which greatly enriched his volume. His admiration for Mr. Jefferson
sometimes approaches the ludicrous." Cf. also Howison, ii. 278. The
volume closes abruptly after the capitulation of Yorktown. Further
publication seems to have been suspended on account of what M. Giradin
terms in his preface "typographical difficulties."
[1062] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts
preserved in the Capitol at Richmond_, 1652-1781. Volume i., arranged
and edited by Wm. P. Palmer. Volume ii. prepared for publication by
Sherwin McRae (Richmond, 1875 and 1881). Volume ii. deals almost
entirely with the period covered by this chapter.
[1063] _Letters of Thomas Nelson, Jr., Governor of Virginia_, Richmond
1874; (No. I. of the New Series of the _Publications of the Va. Hist.
Soc._)
[1064] _Mémoires Militaires, Historiques, et Politiques de Rochambeau_,
Paris, 1809, vol. i. pp. 237-330, relating to his share in this war.
This portion was translated by M. W. E. Wright, Esq., and printed
as _Memoirs of the Marshall Count de Rochambeau relative to the War
of Independence of the United States_, Paris, 1838. It is generally
thought that the portion of Soulés' _Troublés_ dealing with Yorktown
was the work of Rochambeau, or written by his inspiration.
[1065] See also appendices to the _Third_ and _Fifth Reports_ for
other papers of interest in the present examination. Some notes in
the Westmoreland Papers (_Tenth Report_, App., iv. 29) supplement the
Sackville Papers.
[1066] Volume xxv. pp. 88 _et seq._, _Hansard_, xxii. 985 _et seq._,
contains the debates in the "Lords", but no documents. Abstracts of the
important papers are in the _Political Magazine_.
[1067] For some account of the career of Cornwallis, see
_Correspondence of Charles, First Marquis Cornwallis_. _Edited with
Notes by Charles Ross, Esq._, London, 1859 (ably reviewed by C. C.
Smith in _North American Review_, lxxxix. 114). Most unfortunately,
many of the letters are printed in extract without any indication
being made of the fact. Several of the most important documents in
the book are printed in the appendix. Cf. also _Lives of the Most
Eminent British Commanders, by the Rev. G. R. Gleig_, iii. 115, being
vol. xxxvi. of Lardner's _Cabinet Cyclopædia_; G. W. Kaye's _Lives of
Indian Officers_, i. 1; the contemporary _Political Magazine_, ii. 450;
Jesse's _Etonians_; E. E. Hale in _Christian Examiner_, lxvii. p. 31;
and Poole's _Index_, p. 303.
[1068] Cf. Cornwallis to Clinton, dated New York, Dec. 2, 1781, in
_Parliamentary Register_, xxv. 202; _Political Magazine_, iii. 350;
_Germain Correspondance_, 269; and Cornwallis's _Answer_, App., p.
228. This was followed by _The Narrative of Lieutenant-general Sir
Henry Clinton, K. B., relative to his conduct ... particularly to
that which respects the unfortunate issue of the campaign in 1781,
with an appendix containing copies and extracts of his correspondence
with L^d G. Germain, Earl Cornwallis_, etc. (London, 1783, several
editions. Reprinted in Philadelphia (1865) as _Narrative of the
Campaign of 1781 in America_ (250 copies).) Next came _A Reply to Sir
Henry Clinton's Narrative ... by Themistocles_ (Cornwallis?) (London,
1783, two editions), and _An Answer to that part of the Narrative of
Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Clinton, K. B., which relates to the
conduct of Lieutenant-general Cornwallis during the campaign in North
America in the year 1781, By Earl Cornwallis_ (London, 1783, and
Philad., 1866). In reply to this appeared _Observations on some parts
of the answer of Earl Cornwallis to Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative
by Lieutenant-general Sir Henry Clinton, K. B._ (London, 1783). In
_Notes and Queries_, Oct. 28, 1882, mention is made of a copy of the
_Correspondence between Clinton and Cornwallis_, July-Dec., 1781, with
marginal MS. notes by Clinton. Cf. On this controversy Jones's _New
York during the Rev._, ii. 464, 466.—ED.
[1069] Cf. _Ninth Report_ of the Royal Commissioners, as above, App.,
iii. p. 100. Soon after his arrival at New York, Clinton demanded that
either the admiral or himself should be relieved (see Eden to Germain,
enclosing letters from Clinton, in _Ibid._, p. 106). Arbuthnot asking
to be relieved on account of his advanced age, the command of the fleet
was given to Graves. Soon, however, Clinton found himself involved in a
similar dispute with a more influential man. _The Seventh Report of the
Commissioners appointed to examine, take, and state the Public Accounts
of the Kingdom_ appeared in 1782 (also printed in _Parliamentary
Register_, xxiv. pp. 517-622). In his evidence before this board (cf.
above, p. 537) Cornwallis repeated Arbuthnot's charge, and plainly
implied that the final cessation of the plundering was due to his
own efforts. To this Clinton replied in a _Letter from Lieut.-gen.
Sir Henry Clinton, K. B. to the Commissioners on Public Accounts,
relative to some observations in their Seventh Report_ (London, 1784).
The order of Cornwallis, on which so much emphasis was laid, is in
_Parliamentary Register_, xxiv. 617. Stedman, as commissary under
Cornwallis, had excellent facilities for observation. He repeated the
old accusations in a note to his _History_. Clinton deemed the attack
worth noticing. Cf. his _Observations on Mr. Stedman's History of the
American War_ (London, 1794; reprinted, New York, 1864). It is but fair
to say that Cornwallis seems to have done everything in his power to
prevent plundering during his march through North Carolina. Cf. his
"Order-Book" in Caruthers' _Incidents_, 2d series, App. Cf. further,
Clinton's _Memorandum respecting the Unprecedented Treatment which
the Army have met with respecting Plunder taken after a Siege and of
which Plunder the Navy had more than ample share_ (privately printed,
1794).—ED.
[1070] _A History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Provinces of
North America, by Lieutenant-colonel Sir Banastre Tarleton, Commandant
of the late British Legion_ (London, 1787). There is in the Boston
Public Library a copy of this book which has bound with it a MS. diary
of Lieutenant Eld, of the Coldstream Guards, from his arrival at New
York, in the summer of 1779, to March, 1780, at the South (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xviii. 70). There is a statement of Tarleton's losses in
the _Sparks MSS._, lvi.—ED.
Tarleton rose to the rank of lieutenant-general. He was a member of the
House of Commons, 1790-1806, and again 1807-1812. Ross, the editor of
Cornwallis's _Correspondence_, says (note to p. 44) that "in the House
of Commons he [Tarleton] was notorious for his criticisms on military
affairs, the value of which may be estimated from the fact that he
almost uniformly condemned the Duke of Wellington." Cf. also a sketch
of his career in _Political Magazine_, ii. 61.
There is a well-known portrait of Tarleton by Reynolds (1782),
representing him in uniform, with hat, and his foot on a cannon. It
was engraved in mezzotint by J. R. Smith. Cf. E. Hamilton's _Catal.
raisonné of the engraved works of Reynolds_ (London, 1884), p. 67,
and John C. Smith's _Brit. Mez. Portraits_, iii. 1305. It is engraved
on wood in _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 331. Cf. also _London Mag._, 1782;
Johnston's _Yorktown Campaign_, p. 41; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
607.—ED.
[1071] _Strictures on Lt.-Col. Tarleton's History, &c., by Roderick
Mackenzie, late Colonel of the 7th Regiment_ (London, 1787). This in
turn called forth _An Address to the Army; in reply to the Strictures
... by Roderick M'Kenzie_, by George Hanger, Tarleton's second in
command. Hanger, afterwards Lord Colerain, also wrote or inspired a
work entitled _The Life, Adventures, and Opinions of Col. G. Hanger,
Written by himself_ (London, 1801). As to the authorship of this, see
_Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. xxxvii.
[1072] _A Journal of the Operations of the Queen's Rangers, From the
end of the year 1777 to the conclusion of the late American War, by
Lieut.-colonel Simcoe, commander of that corps_ (Exeter, "printed
for the author", 1787). Reprinted, with some slight alterations and
additions, as _A History of the Operations of a Partisan Corps called
The Queen's Rangers, commanded by Lieut.-col. J. G. Simcoe, during
the War of the Revolution_. _Now first published. With a memoir of
the author and other additions_ (New York, 1844). The memoir is by an
unknown hand.
[1073] _Memoir of General_ [Samuel] _Graham, edited by his son Colonel
J. J. Graham_, "privately printed" (Edinburgh, 1862). The portions of
this book dealing with America were reprinted in a condensed form in
_The Historical Magazine_ for August and November, 1865.
[1074] _An Original and Authentic Journal of Occurrences during the
late American War, By R. Lamb—late Serjeant in the Royal Welsh
Fuzileers_ (Dublin, 1809).
[1075] _The Origin and History of the First or Grenadier Guards, By
Lieut.-Gen. Sir F. W. Hamilton_ (London, 1874).
[1076] Major Weemys, who commanded in the night assault on Sumter at
Fishdam Ford, was unfortunate in his later career, and died in poverty
in the city of New York. His manuscripts came into the possession
of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Among them is one entitled
_Sketches of Characters of the General Staff Officers ... in the
British Army_. It is the work of a disappointed man, but probably
reflects the opinions of many officers in the British army.
[1077] The number of men nominally under Howe's orders cannot be
stated. He probably had not over 700 in action. Cf. Huger in Moultrie's
_Memoirs_, i. 251. Campbell had with him 3,500 men. Of these 2,500 were
in the fight. The total American loss in this preliminary campaign was
not far from 900 killed, wounded, and missing; while the British do
not seem to have lost more than 40 men. Probably many of the Americans
missing sought safety on their plantations. See further returns annexed
to the official reports as above; Gordon, iii. 218; and _Proceedings_
of the Robert Howe Court-Martial, _passim_.
[1078] C. C. Jones has a description of Sunbury in his _Dead Towns of
Georgia_ (_Ga. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv.).
[1079] Portrait in _London Mag._, 1781.—ED.
[1080] Cf. also Moultrie, _Memoirs_, i. 252.
[1081] For some account of Howe, see _Charleston Year-Book_ for 1882,
p. 359, and Dawson's _Battles_, i. 479. There is a "Sketch of Gen.
Robert Howe", by Archibald M. Hooper, in _North Carolina University
Magazine_, ii. 209-221, 305-318, 358-363, and iii. 97-109, and 145-160.
The first number of this magazine was printed in March, 1844, and it
was continued to 1860. L. C. Draper writes to me that of vol. vi.
he has "only one number, issued in March, 1857." He adds: "I have
been told that none others appeared of that volume." This statement
is confirmed by K. P. Battle, the present head of the university.
Mr. Draper tells me also that "there are some valuable Revolutionary
papers in the _Magnolia_, a magazine published in Georgia, and then in
Charleston in ante-war times; some in the _Orion_, a Georgia magazine;
some, I think, in _Russell's Magazine_, published at Charleston."
[1082] For other accounts, see Dawson, _Battles_, i. 472; Marshall,
_Washington_, iv. 62; F. D. Lee and J. L. Agnew, _Historical Record of
the City of Savannah_, Savannah, 1869, p. 45; T. S. Arthur and W. H.
Carpenter, _Georgia_, Phila., 1853, p. 134; Stevens, _Georgia_, ii.
160; Eelking, _Die deutschen Hülfstruppen_, ii. 23; Lowell, _Hessians_,
239; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 524; Beatson, _Military Memoirs_, iv.
371; James Grant, _British Battles on Sea and Land_, ii. 156-160;
Allen, _American Revolution_, ii. 214; _An Impartial History_ (Bost.
ed.,) ii. 361; Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 15; and Andrews' _History_,
iii. 63.
This attack on Savannah is illustrated in the Faden map (1780)
called _Sketch of the Northern Frontiers of Georgia, from the mouth
of the River Savannah to the Town of Augusta, by Lieut.-Col. Archd.
Campbell_.—ED.
[1083] Cf. Moultrie's _Memoirs_, i. 241, and _Remembrancer_, viii. 177.
An abridgment is in Dawson, _Battles_, i. 482. There is an interesting
account of the affair in Johnson's _Traditions_, p. 211. See also
Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 12, and Gordon, iii. 230. The numbers
given in the text are derived from Moultrie's "Orders" of February
7th (_Memoirs_, i. 296), and from a letter written by General Bull
to Moultrie (_Memoirs_, i. 312). Des Barres published a large map of
this region under the title of _Port Royal in South Carolina, taken
from surveys deposited at the Plantation Office, 1777_. Cf. _Neptune
Americo-Septentrional_ (1778), no. 23, and _N. Amer. Pilot_ (1776),
nos. 30, 31.
[1084] _Georgia_, ii. 192. See also Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 14;
Gordon, ii. 230; Stedman, ii. 106; White, _Hist. Coll._, p. 683; and
Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. 188. In the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1st
ser., vol. ii. pp. 41-240, there is a valuable "Historical Journal of
the American War." Pp. 178-234 relate to the events described in this
chapter.
[1085] This is given entire by Moultrie, who presided over the court
(_Memoirs_, i. 337-354. The finding of the court is on p. 353). The
assertion of Lossing that Ashe was acquitted "of every charge of
cowardice and deficiency of military skill" is not correct, as the
court expressly stated that it was of the opinion that "Ashe did not
take all necessary precautions." There is a "Sketch" of Ashe's career
in _North Carolina University Magazine_, iii. pp. 201-208 and 366-376.
[1086] Accounts of varying degrees of excellence are in McCall,
_Georgia_, ii. 206; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, i. 310-330; Gordon, iii. 232;
Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 16; Stedman, ii. 107. See also Lossing,
_Field-Book_, ii. 507; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 23; C. C. Jones,
_Georgia_, ii. 346, etc.; Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. 180; Moore's _Diary_,
ii. 138; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, 1880, p. 249.
[1087] Cf. Prevost to Lord G. Germain in _The London Gazette_,
April 17-20, 1779; reprinted in _Remembrancer_, viii. 168; and in
_Gentleman's Magazine_ (1779), p. 213.
[1088] Prevost had about three thousand men, but of these only two
thirds were fit for duty when he retired from Charleston. Moultrie
(_Memoirs_, i. 430) gives his own force at three thousand one hundred
and eighty, including eight hundred Continentals. According to
Prevost, Maitland had at Stono not far from eight hundred men, though
Lowell (_Hessians_, 241) gives him only five hundred. The attacking
party numbered twelve hundred. The American loss was one hundred and
sixty-two; that of the British one hundred and thirty-one.
[1089] See also Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 23; Gordon, iii. 254;
Stedman, ii. 109, 120 (115-120 deal with Stono); Johnson's _Greene_, i.
271; Johnson's _Traditions_, 217; Flanders's _Rutledge_, in his _Lives
of the Chief Justices_, ii. 358-365. Something has also been gleaned
from Eelking, ii. 24; Lowell, _Hessians_, 240 (giving June 19 instead
of 20 as the date of the attack on Stono); Marshall's _Washington_,
iv. 28; and P. J. S. Dufey, _Résumé de l'histoire des Revolutions de
l'Amérique Septentrionale, depuis les premières découvertes jusqu'au
voyage du Général Lafayette_, Paris, 1826, i. 293-312. The British are
supposed to have carried away a large amount of plate and more than
a thousand slaves. The terror they inspired in the souls of the fair
Carolinians is well set forth in the _Letters of Eliza Wilkinson during
the invasion and Possession of Charleston, S. C., by the British in the
Revolutionary War_. _Arranged by Caroline Gilman_, N. Y., 1839.
[1090] _Life of Lincoln_ in Sparks's _Am. Biog._, xxiii. 285.
[1091] Judge Johnson, in his _Greene_, went out of his way to assert
that Pulaski slept at his post just before the battle at Germantown. In
a defence of his former commander, Paul Bentalou put forth the claim
that the retreat of Prevost was due to Pulaski. Unless the documents
(cited above) are untrustworthy this claim cannot be maintained. On
the contrary, a gallant charge that the brave Pole made had no other
effect than to dispirit the garrison. Cf. _Pulaski Vindicated by Paul
Bentalou, a captain in his "legion",_ Baltimore, 1824, p. 27; Jared
Sparks in the _North American Review_, xx. 385; _Remarks_, etc., on the
above article, by Judge Johnson, Charleston, 1825; Bentalou's _Reply to
Judge Johnson's Remarks_; and another article by Sparks in the _North
American Review_, xxiii. 414.
[1092] There are two editions of this book in the Harvard College
library bearing the same date. One contains 158 pages, the other 126,
but in other respects they seem to be the same. The portion dealing
with Savannah, which Mr. Jones has translated (_Siege_, pp. 57-76),
runs from page 128 to 158 in one edition, and from page 101 to 126
in the other. In Sabin this journal is attributed to D'Estaing. (Cf.
Sabin, under Estaing.) There seems to be no authority for this, and
it would certainly be astonishing for an officer to speak of his own
conduct as the writer of this journal constantly speaks of D'Estaing's
motives and actions.
[1093] In F. B. Hough's _Siege of Savannah by the combined American
and French forces, in the Autumn of 1779_, Albany, 1866, p. 171, it is
reprinted from the _New Jersey Journal_, June 21, 1780, as a _Summary
of the Operations of the King's squadron commanded by the Count
D'Estaing, Vice Admiral of France, after the taking of Grenada, and the
Naval Engagement off that Island with Byron's Squadron_.
[1094] Reprinted in _Remembrancer_, ix. 71; _Gentleman's Magazine_,
1779, p. 633; and, in an abridged form, in _Political Magazine_, i. 50,
also 106; and _Historical Magazine_, viii. 290.
[1095] It usually precedes Prevost's report, and may also be found
in Hough, _Savannah_, 134, and in White, _Hist. Coll._, 343. T. W.
Moore, one of Prevost's aides, wrote a long letter to his wife, which
was printed in Rivington's _Royal Gazette_, Dec. 29, 1779; reprinted
by Hough in his _Savannah_, p. 82. Governor Tonyn, of Florida,
inclosed some interesting letters to Clinton bearing on the siege
(_Remembrancer_, ix. 63, and elsewhere).
[1096] The first (pp. 25-52, with some "additions" running from p. 52
to p. 56) is by an unknown hand. It was copied from Rivington's _Royal
Gazette_, Dec., 1779. The second journal, which he for convenience
calls "Another Journal" (cf. his _Savannah_, pp. 57-79), was also
copied from Rivington. It appears, however, to be identical with the
"Journal" (Sept. 3d-Oct. 20th) which E. L. Hayward sent to John Laurens
in December, 1779,—reprinted in Moore's _Materials for History_, N.
Y., 1861, pp. 161-173, and in _Historical Magazine_, viii. 12-16. It is
interesting, but hardly worth so many repetitions.
[1097] To this should be added an extract from a letter of Anthony
Stokes, the colonial chief justice of Georgia to his wife, which Moore
found in Orcutt's _Collection of Newspaper Scraps_ in the library of
the N. Y. Hist. Soc., and printed in his _Diary_, ii. 223.
[1098] Cf. Garden, _Anecdotes of the American Revolution_ (Brooklyn
ed.), iii. 19, and Hough, _Savannah_, 157. It was not written till
long after the event, and has no value for fixing dates, as Pinckney
confesses to having relied on Moultrie for the dates he gives.
[1099] The French, in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1878), P. 548, where
it is stated that they were "translated from an original MS. in the
possession of Mr. Frank Moore." Lincoln's orders, as then given, are
stated to be on the same sheet and in the same handwriting as those of
the French, though in English. A somewhat different and more accurate
copy of Lincoln's orders is printed in Moultrie's _Memoirs_, ii. 37.
Cf. Lincoln's MS. order-book.
There has been much dispute as to the size of the opposing armies. In
the report which I have somewhat incautiously attributed to D'Estaing,
the French army actually on shore is given at 2,823 Europeans, 165
volunteers from Cape François, and 545 "volunteer chasseurs, mulattoes,
and negroes newly raised at St. Domingo." The American force is rated
at 2,000, or 5,524 men in all. Cf. Hough, _Savannah_, 173, and Jones,
_Savannah_, p. 40, note. Moultrie (_Memoirs_, ii.) increases the
number of the Americans to 4,000, while lowering that of the French
to 2,500. Stedman (_Am. War_, ii. 127) is even wilder when he says
that the combined armies numbered more than ten thousand men, of whom
about five thousand were French. In this he is followed by Mackenzie
(_Strictures_, p. 12), and as both were officers in the force which
came South with Clinton, it is probable that that was the impression
prevalent in the British army. Chief-Justice Stokes (_View of the
British Constitution_, etc., Lond., 1783, p. 116) estimates the
Americans at 2,500 and the French at 4,500, while Jones (_Savannah_,
p. 39) rates the French at 4,456, and the Americans at 2,127. This is
probably as accurate an estimate as can now be made.
The writer of the so-called D'Estaing report says that the force in
Savannah was composed of 3,055 English European troops, 80 Cherokee
savages, and 4,000 negroes, or 7,155 men in all. Stedman gives the
garrison at 2,500 "of all sorts", while T. W. Moore says that there
were but 2,000 in the town. The legend on Faden's _Plan_ gives the
number at 2,360, while the writer of the first journal in Hough (p. 43)
says that there were but 2,350 "effectives" in the place.
The Allies lost in the sortie of the 23d, 24th, or 25th of
September—for the journals differ as to the date—from 70 to 150 in
killed, wounded, and missing. Cf. Jones, _Savannah_, 22, 53. The writer
of the _Extrait_, ec. of 158 pages, p. 141, says that this great loss
was due to the fact that M. O'Dune, who had the immediate command at
the time, was intoxicated, and pursued the assaulting column too far.
The assault of Oct. 9th cost D'Estaing, according to the _Extrait_
(as above, p. 148), 680 men, while the author of the other journal
translated by Jones gives it as high as 821. The American loss was
not far from 312, though Moultrie rates it at 457, or a total loss
of about 1,133 in killed, wounded, and missing. The French suffered
severely from sickness,—malaria on shore and scurvy in the fleet.
So that Captain Henry, when he wrote (_Remembrancer_, ix.) that "we
have every reason to believe that this expedition cost the enemy two
thousand men", was probably not far from correct. In the document which
I have called the D'Estaing report the French losses are given as
follows (Hough, _Savannah_, p. 174): "Killed, 183; wounded, 454." But
the figures have not been verified by a comparison with the original
_Gazette_.
The English loss in the sortie was very slight,—not more than
twenty-one. Repelling the assault on the 9th cost Prevost 16 killed
and 39 wounded. But to these numbers should he added those picked off
from time to time, which swelled the total to 103 in killed and wounded
(Prevost's report in _Remembrancer_, iv. 81). He lost, in addition,
52 in missing and deserters, or 155 in all. But this was more than
counterbalanced by desertions from the French ranks. It should be
stated, however, that T. W. Moore, Prevost's aide, gave the loss of the
garrison in killed and wounded alone at 163.
[1100] C. C. Jones, _Georgia_, ii. 375-416; Lee and Agnew, _Historical
Record_, 50-64; Arthur and Carpenter, _Georgia_, 174-193. Cf. also
Allen, _History_, ii. 264; _An Impartial History_, p. 605; Andrews,
iii. 309-318; and Beatson, _Memoirs_, iv. 516-534. The most inaccurate
account known to the present writer is in E. Ryerson, _The Loyalists of
America and their Times_, Toronto, 1880, vol. ii. p. 22.
[1101] Dufey, _Résumé_, i. 312-321; François Soulés, _Histoire des
Troublés de l'Amérique Anglaise_, Paris, 1787, iii. 211-219. See also
Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 66-75; and Giuseppe Colucci, _I casi della
Guerra per l'Independenza narrati dall' ambasciatore della Republica di
Canova presso la corte D'Inghilterra nella sua corrispondenza officiale
inedita_, Genoa, 1879, ii. 536.
[1102] Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 57, and Lowell, _Hessians_, 242.
Major-General John Watts De Peyster has an article on the siege in the
_New York Mail_ for Sept. 24, 1879. Something may also be found in
Lossing, _Field-Book_; Stone, _Our French Allies_, etc. A description
of Ebenezer, a town which constantly figures in this campaign, is in
C. C. Jones, _Dead Towns of Georgia_, p. 183; also in _Ga. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, vol. iv.; while the experience of the Salzburg settlers of that
region is well set forth in P. A. Strobel's _The Salzburghers and their
Descendants_, Balt., 1855, pp. 201-211.
[1103] Cf. _A Journal_, in Hough, p. 46; _Another Journal_, in _Ibid._
79; and the other original sources as above.
[1104] As to the sufferings of the sailors and the lack of energy
displayed by the officers of the fleet, see _Extrait du Journal_ (158
page edition), p. 138 _et seq._ This part is translated in Jones,
_Savannah_, p. 61.
[1105] The verses of the royalist wits are in Moore's _Songs and
Ballads_, 269, 274.
[1106] The former had come into notice during the gallant defence of
Fort Moultrie. Later he rendered important service, and was wounded in
the lungs while carrying off the colors from the deadly Spring Hill
redoubt at Savannah. There is no doubt of the truth of this intrepid
bravery of Sergeant Jasper. Cf. McCall, _Georgia_; Horry, _Life of
Marion_, p. 66; Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. 217. Cf. especially C. C.
Jones, _Serjeant William Jasper, An Address delivered before the Ga.
Hist. Soc. in 1876_.
The "impetuous Polander" was mortally wounded while making some kind of
a charge in the rear of the enemy's line on the right. As to Pulaski,
see, beside the general accounts and C. C. Jones's Address in _Georgia
Hist. Coll._, iii., the _Life of Count Pulaski_ by Sparks, in his
_American Biography_, xiv. 365-446; pp. 431-443 relate to the Southern
campaign. Cf. also an article in _American Historical Record_, i.
397-399; and note in Hough, _Savannah_, p. 175, abridged from Stevens,
_Georgia_, ii. According to Paul Bentalou, who claimed to have been
with him when he died, his body became so offensive immediately after
his death that it was thrown overboard from the vessel which was
bearing the wounded to Charleston. Nevertheless, at the laying of the
corner-stone of a monument to his memory in Savannah, a metallic box
supposed to contain his remains was placed within the plinth alongside
the corner-stone. With regard to his place of burial, see Bentalou,
_Pulaski Vindicated from a charge in Johnson's Greene_ (Balt., 1824),
p. 29; C. C. Jones, _Sepulture of Major-General Nathanael Greene and
of Brigadier-General Count Casimir Pulaski_, Augusta, Ga., 1885; and a
letter from James Lynch, of South Carolina, to the editor of the _New
York Herald_, Jan. 7, 1854,—reprinted in the _Hist. Mag._, x. 285;
Johnson, _Traditions_, note to p. 245, where another Pole, who claimed
to have been aide-de-camp to Pulaski, and to have supported him in the
death struggles, says that he was buried under a large tree, about
fifty miles from Savannah.
The Maryland Historical Society has the banner presented to Pulaski by
the Moravian Sisters of Bethlehem in 1778. It was saved when Pulaski
fell at Savannah in 1779, and came into the possession of the society
in 1844 (_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., xi.). There is a portrait of
Pulaski, engraved by H. B. Hall in Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 402. (Cf.
Lossing, ii. 735.) The history of efforts to establish Pulaski's
service and recompense by the United States Government is traced in
_Senate Exec. Doc. 120, 49th Cong., second session_ (1887).—ED.
[1107] Printed in various places,—as, for example, in Hough,
_Charleston,_ p. 173; _Remembrancer_, x. 140. Other letters from
Lincoln to Washington are in _Corresp. Rev._, ii. 344, 385, 401, 403,
418, and 433, etc. Some of them, especially one of April 9th, are of
considerable value. Among Lincoln's MSS. is a long letter from Lincoln
to Washington, dated Hingham, July 17, 1780, defending his conduct. It
is of value, but, if sent, has never, to my knowledge, been printed.
The reasons for abandoning the defence of the bar are given in a letter
from Captain Whipple and other commanders and pilots to Lincoln, dated
Charleston, Feb. 27, 1780, in Ramsay, _Rev. S. C._, ii. 397. See
Lincoln MS. defence as above. There are also several papers relating to
this portion of the siege in the third volume of the _Commodore Tucker
Papers_ in the Harvard College library. But see Moultrie (_Memoirs_,
ii. 50) for his strictures on the giving up the position near Fort
Moultrie. It is probable that, had the British fleet been kept out of
the Cooper River, the surrender would have been long deferred, perhaps
even until the hot season and the arrival of the French at Newport had
compelled its abandonment.
[1108] There are several other descriptions from American sources.
The most valuable, so far as it goes, is the report of Du Portail
to Washington (_Corresp. Rev._, ii. 451). It relates, however, to a
limited period. The same must be said of a few letters from the younger
Laurens and from Woodford, the commander of seven hundred Virginians
who arrived on the 21st of April. Laurens's first letter, bearing
date of Feb. 25th, is in Moore's _Materials for History_, p. 173. The
second, written on March 14th, is in _Corresp. Rev._, ii. 413. The
third, which bears date of April 9th, is in _Ibid._ 435. Woodford's
letter of April 8th is in _Ibid._ 430. Cf. also _Ibid._ 401, 420, and
Moore's _Materials_, 175.
The contemporary journals of value are: _Diary of Events in Charleston,
S. C., from March 20 to April 20, 1780, by Samuel Baldwin_, in New
Jersey _Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1st series, vol. ii. pp. 78-86,—Baldwin
was a schoolteacher in Charleston; cf. _Ibid._ p. 77; _Journal of the
Siege of Charleston in 1780_, by De Brahm (Feb. 9, 1780-May 12, 1781),
in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1776-82), p. 124; and _Memoirs of Andrew
Sherburne, written by Himself_ (a "boy" on the American ship "Ranger"),
first printed at Utica in 1828, and reprinted in an "enlarged and
improved" form at Providence, in 1831. His curious journal begins
on p. 24 of the 1st ed., and on p. 27 of the 2d. Maj. Wm. Croghan's
journal at Charleston, S. C., Feb. 9-May 4, 1780, etc., is copied in
the _Sparks MSS._, vol. lx. There are two journals in _The Siege of
Charleston by the British Fleet and Army, which terminated in the
surrender of that place May 12, 1780_, with notes, etc., by Franklin
B. Hough (Albany, 1867). The first is contained in two letters by
an unknown hand, and relates to the operations on Lincoln's line of
communications. The author was not present at the siege itself. The
other journal relates to the operations against the town, but it has
little value. Indeed, this volume of Hough's is not so interesting
as the similar work on Savannah. Another journal, which relates more
especially to the movements in the country, is the _Diary of Anthony
Allaire_, a lieutenant in Ferguson's corps, printed by Draper in his
_King's Mountain and its Heroes_, p. 484. Allaire corroborates in a
most striking manner the accuracy of the charges of cruelty and outrage
made by the author of the "Notes" in Stedman's _American War_. The
account of the defence in Johnson's _Traditions_ was written by an
eye-witness, though long after the event. It is often very inaccurate,
but nevertheless interesting. The assertion therein made that Gadsden
signed the capitulation, and that therefore all of South Carolina was
included in its terms, cannot be substantiated.
[1109] According to Lincoln's official report, the Continental troops,
"including the sick and wounded", surrendered prisoners of war at
Charleston numbered 2,487. Adding to this the 89 Continentals killed,
we have 2,576, or within five of the number of the garrison as given
in the _New Jersey Gazette_ for June 23, 1780 (Hough, _Charleston_,
198). Lincoln says further that at the time of surrender the militia
"effectives" did not exceed 500 men (Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 141), in all
not over 3,000. Clinton, in his report as usually printed, gives the
total as 5,612, or 5,618, "together with town and country militia,
French and seamen, make about six thousand men in arms." In Beatson,
_Memoirs_, vi. 209, the number of seamen is printed as 100 instead of
1,000—a considerable reduction, and perhaps nearer the mark. Clinton's
estimate was further increased in the royalist newspapers of the time
to "between seven and eight thousand men." Lincoln's figures are
probably the nearest to the truth, as all the contemporary writers on
the American side insisted that Clinton counted among his prisoners
every man capable of bearing arms in Charleston. At any rate, whatever
their number, the militia, excepting the artillery company, seem to
have been of but little service, as their loss in killed and wounded
was not over forty, and in this estimate is included the total loss to
those inside the lines not otherwise accounted for. Lincoln stated his
killed at 89, and wounded at 140. But both Ramsay and Moultrie say that
from five to six hundred Continentals were in the hospital at the time
of the surrender.
In Beatson's _Memoirs_ (vi. 204) there is a _List of the different
regiments and corps selected by Sir Henry Clinton to accompany him on
the expedition against Charlestown_. It gives the total, exclusive of
staff, at 7,550. There were in Savannah at the time about 2,000 more,
and the reinforcement which arrived in April numbered about 3,000
men. Clinton therefore had about 13,000 men at his disposal in May,
1780. Of course, a large proportion of this force was employed in
detachments,—guarding Savannah, breaking up Lincoln's communications,
and the like; so that it is impossible to say how many men Lincoln had
in his front at any one time.
Clinton's loss from Feb. 11th to May 12th is given by himself at
76 killed and 189 wounded. To this should be added the loss of
the sailors, who seem to have participated in a good many land
expeditions,—23 seamen killed and 28 wounded, or a grand total of 316.
None of these figures include the losses and numbers engaged in the
minor actions. But there is so little data with regard to them that it
has seemed best to omit them in these estimates.
[1110] It was widely reprinted, as, for instance, in _The New Annual
Register_ for 1780, under _Principal Occurrences_, p. 55; _Pol. Mag._,
i. 455; _Remembrancer_, x. 41; Tarleton, 38, etc., etc. An abstract
under title of _A memorandum_, etc., is given in the _Ninth Report of
the Hist. MSS. Commission_, App. ii. p. 109. A previous report, bearing
date of March 9th, has been found,—_London Gazette_ for April 25-29,
1780; _Pol. Mag._, i. 397; Tarleton, 34; and Hough, _Charleston_, p.
190. The gap between March 9th and 29th must be filled from other
sources. The instructions as to reducing South Carolina to obedience,
from Germain to Clinton and Arbuthnot, are dated Whitehall, 3 Aug.,
'79 (_Charleston Year-Book_ for 1882, p. 364). Clinton issued in all
six proclamations, including the one signed by him conjointly with
Arbuthnot, as commissioners. The first was dated at James's Island,
March 3, 1780. It promised protection, etc., to all who should take
the oath of allegiance. These protections were given in a most
indiscriminate fashion, and caused the complaint of Cornwallis above
noted. The paper was reprinted by Hough in his _Charleston_, p. 24.
Next came the "Handbill", without date, but sent out soon after the
capitulation (_Remembrancer_, x. 80). The proclamation of May 22d
threatened vengeance on all who should prevent the loyalists from
coming in (_Remembrancer_, x. 82; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 435;
and Tarleton, 71). The most important proclamation, however, and the
one to which Cornwallis took such violent exception, pardoned all not
included in a few specified classes (June 1st), and was signed by the
two chief commanders (_Remembrancer_, x. 85; Hough, _Charleston_, 178;
Ramsay, _Rev. S. C._, ii. 438; Tarleton, 74, etc.). A fac-simile is
in _Charleston Year-Book_ (1882), p. 369. The proclamation of June 3d
called upon those on parole, with a few exceptions, to give up their
paroles, take the oath of allegiance, and thereby secure "protections"
(_Remembrancer_, x. 82; Hough, _Charleston_, 182; Ramsay, _Rev. in S.
C._, ii. 441; Tarleton, 73; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 384, etc.). _The
Address of divers Inhabitants of Charleston to Sir Henry Clinton_,
June 5, 1780, is (_Remembrancer_, x. 93; Ramsay, ii. 443; Moultrie,
ii. 386, etc.) without names, which are appended to the copy in Hough,
_Charleston_, 148, where it is stated to be reprinted from Rivington's
_Royal Gazette_ of June 21, 1780. The names, however, are from the
_Gazette_ of June 24th. The letters of Cornwallis on this subject are
in his _Correspondence_, i. 40, 46, and 48. There is a very striking
passage in Moultrie, i. 276, with regard to this business. Cf. also
_Ibid._ 314, and Johnson's _Greene_, i. 279.
[1111] Hough in his _Charleston_ (p. 50) has reprinted a despatch
purporting to have been written by Clinton and addressed to Lord George
Germain. It was dated Savannah, Jan. 30, 1780; reprinted in Hough,
_Charleston_, p. 50; and was said to have been captured by a privateer.
In it Clinton described the dispiriting effect on the royalists of
Georgia of D'Estaing's attack on Savannah. It has been regarded as a
forgery, partly on this very account. It probably was a forgery. But
it is curious to observe that the opening pages of Tarleton contain
the same statement, and he repents the despatch without a hint as to
its being a forgery. And this forms the ground of Mackenzie's first
stricture.
[1112] Moore, _Diary_, ii. 269; "Allen", _Hist. Am. Rev._, ii. 296;
_An Impartial History_ (Bost. ed.), ii. 386; Beatson, _Memoirs_, v.
8; Soulés, _Troublés_, iii. 259; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 274; Sargent,
_Life of André_, p. 225; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 135; Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 92; Wilmot G. De Saussure in _Charleston Year-Book_
(1884), p. 282; Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 59; Ewald, iii. 252; and
Lowell, _Hessians_, 243.
A good account of this and the other operations in South Carolina is
in Mills's _Statistics of South Carolina_, while Mrs. Ellet, in her
_Domestic History of the American Revolution_ (pp. 151-290), has well
set forth the services of the women of the South. Cf. the _Letters of
Eliza Wilkinson, during the invasion and possession of Charleston,
S. C., by the British in the Revolutionary War_. _Arranged from the
original manuscripts, by Caroline Gilman_ (New York, 1838). The
articles of capitulation are in Tarleton, p. 61, and R. E. Lee's ed.
Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 158. The correspondence of the commanders is in
_Polit. Mag._, i. 454. The abject condition of South Carolina after the
reduction of Charleston is set forth in Ardanus Burke's _Address to
the Freemen of South Carolina_, Phil., 1783. The British exhilaration
is shown in Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 293. The _Memoirs of Josias
Rogers, Commander of H. M. S. "Quebec", by Rev. Wm. Gilpin_ (London,
1808), is said to have passages concerning the siege.—ED.
[1113] Reprinted in _Polit. Mag._, i. 513; _Remembrancer_, x.
76; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 432; Tarleton, _Campaigns_, 83;
_Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 45, etc. It is often accompanied by two
letters: one from Cornwallis, approving his conduct; the other from
Clinton to Germain, calling the latter's attention to the fact that
"the enemy's killed and wounded and taken exceed Lieutenant-Colonel
Tarleton's numbers with which he attacked them."
[1114] There are good descriptions in Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 148; Ramsay,
_Rev. in S. C._, ii. 108; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 203; Gordon, iii.
360; and Stedman, ii. 192; though all these writers obtained their
information from others.
[1115] Good accounts of this affair are in Marshall's _Washington_, iv.
208, and Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 458.
[1116] It was reprinted by Wheeler in his _North Carolina_, ii. 227,
and in an abbreviated form in Hunter's _Sketches of Western North
Carolina_, p. 206. It forms the basis of the account in Dawson,
_Battles_, i. 592. See also _Historical Magazine_, xii. 24.
[1117] They can also be found in full in the _Ninth Report of the Royal
Commission on Historical MSS._, Appendix, iii. p. 103; _Cornwallis
Correspondence_, i. 488 and 492; Tarleton, 128; _Annual Register_
(1780), under Principal Occurrences, p. 72; and _Political Magazine_,
i. 675, 678. The second one is in the _Remembrancer_, x. 267; Tarleton,
128; _Gentleman's Magazine_ for Oct., 1780; and in many other places.
Not long before the battle, Gates supposed himself to be at the head
of 7,000 men,—Williams in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 493,—while an
estimate found in De Kalb's pocket (_Remembrancer_, x. 279) gives the
size of the American army at some day before the battle at 6,000,
less 500 deserters. In this estimate the Virginians were reckoned at
1,400,—twice their real number. Jefferson in "Memoranda" (Giradin,
iv. 400) gives the total at 2,800,—the North Carolina militia being
rated at 1,000, far below their real strength. Williams (_Narrative_,
in Johnson's _Greene_) gives the "rank and file present and fit for
duty" as 3,052. Gordon gives the total, including officers, as 3,663.
If we add to this number the light infantry and cavalry we get a total
of 4,033 men of all arms. This is probably as correct an estimate as
can be made. Cf. J. A. Stevens in _Mag. Am. Hist._ (v. 267), where the
subject is fully discussed.
Cornwallis had in the engagement itself 2,239 men, of whom 500
were militia. Cf. _Field Return of the troops under the command of
Lieutenant-general Earl Cornwallis, on the night of the 15th of August,
1780_, in _Remembrancer_, x. 271, etc. This is given by Beatson,
_Memoirs_, vi. 211, as _Return of troops ... at the Battle of Camden_.
As to the American loss, it appears that Cornwallis, without taking
much pains to inquire, wrote to Germain that between 800 and 900 of
the enemy were killed and wounded, about 1,000 being prisoners. Even
supposing the wounded to have been counted twice, this is too high.
Only three Virginia and sixty-three North Carolina militiamen are
anywhere reported as wounded, while none were killed. In fact, from
their speedy dispersal the militia loss must have been very slight. In
any correct return they would have appeared as missing. But no attempt
at such a return was made. The nearest approach to it is _A List of
Continental Officers, killed, captivated, wounded, and missing in the
actions of the 16 and 18 August, 1780_. This is signed by Otho H.
Williams, and is in _Remembrancer_, x. 338; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._,
ii. 454. It is erroneously printed in the _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._,
xxvii. 376, as a _Return of the Killed, wounded, captured, and missing
at the Battle of Camden_, which it certainly is not. There were between
ten and twelve hundred Continentals present. They bore the brunt of
the action and suffered nearly all the loss. Yet Gates wrote on the
29th of August that "seven hundred non-commissioned officers and men of
the Maryland division have rejoined the army." See, also, Williams in
Johnson's _Greene_, i. 505. In view of this it seems that even Gordon's
estimate of 730 is too high, while Cornwallis's figures are simply
ridiculous. He certainly did not overstate his own loss when he gave it
as 68 killed, 245 wounded, and 11 missing, or 324 in all. Cf. return
usually annexed to his report, and printed separately by Beatson in his
_Memoirs_, vi. 211.