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_,