THE

LOYALISTS OF AMERICA

AND

THEIR TIMES:

From 1620 to 1816.

BY EGERTON RYERSON, D.D., LL.D.,

Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada from 1844 to 1876.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. II.

Volume I is also available from Project Gutenberg

TORONTO:
WILLIAM BRIGGS, 80 KING STREET EAST;
JAMES CAMPBELL & SON, AND WILLING & WILLIAMSON.
MONTREAL: DAWSON BROTHERS.
1880.

Entered, according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year One thousand eight hundred and eighty, by the Rev. Egerton Ryerson, D.D., LL.D, in the Office of the Minister of Agriculture.

CONTENTS.

[CHAPTER XXVII.]

Alliance between Congress and France not productive of the effect anticipated; efforts
of the British Government for reconciliation with the Colonies 1-16
Alliance deferred twelve months by France after it was applied for by Congress, until the King of France
was assured that no reconciliation would take place between England and the Colonies [1]
Lord Admiral Howe and his brother, General Howe, Commissioners to confer with Congress with a view
to reconciliation; their power limited; Congress refuses all conference with them, but the vast majority of
the Colonists in favour of reconciliation [2]
Reasons of the failure of the two Commissioners [4]
New penal laws against the Loyalists [5]
Three Acts of Parliament passed to remove all grounds of complaint on the part of the Colonists, and the appointment of five Commissioners; Lord North's conciliatory speech; excitement and opposition in the
Commons, but the bills were passed and received the royal assent [6]
Lord North's proposed resignation, and preparations for it [8]
Opinions of Lords Macaulay and Mahon as to the success of a commission; proposed terms of reconciliation
if appointed and proposed by the Earl of Chatham [8]
The large powers and most liberal propositions of the five Royal Commissioners for reconciliation between
the Colonies and the Mother Country [11]
The refusal of all negotiation on the part of Congress; bound by treaty to the King of France to make no
peace with England without the consent of the French Court [12]
The three Acts of Parliament, and proposals of the five Commissioners of all that the Colonists had desired
before the Declaration of Independence; but Congress had transferred allegiance from England to France,
without even consulting their constituents [12]
Appeal of the representative of France to the Canadians to detach Canada from England (in a [note]) [12]
Sycophancy of the leaders of Congress to France against England [13]
The feeling of the people in both England and America different from that of the leaders of Congress [14]
The war more acrimonious after the alliance between Congress and the Kingof France and the failure
of the British Commissioners to promote reconciliation between Great Britain and the Colonies [16]

[CHAPTER XXVIII.]

Complete Failure of the French Fleet and Army, under Count D'Estaing, to assist
the Congress 17-32
Count D'Estaing arrives in America with a powerful fleet and several thousand soldiers [17]
Anchors off Sandy Hook for eleven days; goes to Long Island by Washington's advice, and sails up
Newport River, whither he is pursued by the Lord Admiral Howe with a less powerful fleet; the ships,
with 4,000 French soldiers and 10,000 Americans, to land and attack the British on Long Island, who
were only 5,000 strong [17]
The two fleets separated by a storm; only fighting between individual ships [18]
Count D'Estaing, against the remonstrances and protests of American officers, determines to sail for
Boston Harbour for the repair of his ships [18]
Bitter feeling and riot between the American sailors and citizens and French seamen and soldiers in the
streets of Boston [19]
Raids in New England by British expeditions (in a [note]) [19]
Differences between Count D'Estaing and the American officers as to the mode of attacking the British on
Long Island [19]
Early in November Count D'Estaing with his fleet quitted the port of Boston and sailed for the West Indies,
thus disappointing the hopes of the Americans from the French alliance [20]
Count D'Estaing, though strengthened by the fleet of Count De Grasse, could not be induced to come to
close fight with Admiral Byron [21]
The French take St. Vincent [21]
Count D'Estaing complained of by the Americans to the French Court, which orders him to return to the
American coasts and assist the Colonists [22]
D'Estaing arrives suddenly on the American coasts with twenty-two sail-of-the-line and eleven frigates and
six thousand soldiers; his magnificent plans and expectations [22]
D'Estaing arranges with General Lincoln to attack Savannah and rescue the province of Georgia, and
afterwards other Southern provinces, from the British [23]
Account of the Siege of Savannah, and the defeat of the French and their American allies; result of the contest [24]
Mutual recriminations and jealousies between the French and American officers; Count D'Estaing sails
with his fleet for France [25]
Why this minute account of Count D'Estaing's abortive expeditions to America; the barren results of the first
two years' alliance between Congress and the King of France, by Dr. Ramsay [27]
Spain joins France against England in 1779 [28]
Low state of the American army and finances; discouragement and despondency of the Americans in 1780 [28]
The degeneracy of Congress in 1778, as stated by General Washington [29]
Depreciation of public credit; sale of the confiscated property of "Tories" [30]

[CHAPTER XXIX.]

1780—A year of weakness and disaster to the American cause, and of success to
the British 32-41
Depression of American finances [32]
Weakness of Washington's army [32]
La Fayette returns from France with a loan of money and reinforcements of naval and land forces [33]
The British receive naval reinforcement of war ships, and become superior to the French [33]
Failure of the French reinforcements [33]
Sir Henry Clinton goes South; besieges and takes Charleston [34]
Conditions of the surrender and treatment of the inhabitants, as stated by Dr. Ramsay and misrepresented
by Mr. Bancroft [35]
Sir Henry Clinton's bad administration and bad proclamation in South Carolina; his exaggerated statements
of his success; re-embarks at Charleston for New York [36]
Expeditions to secure the universal submission of the people; but they weakened the cause of the British
in the hearts of the people [36]
The military power of Congress reduced and crushed in the Southern States [37]
Lord Cornwallis's antecedents, and those of Lord Rawdon (afterwards Marquis of Hastings); but their
severe policy unjustifiable and injurious to the British cause [38]
Military proceedings in the North also unfavourable to the Congress; its confessed weakness and gloomy
prospects [40]
Appeal of Congress to France for men and money as their only hope [40]
Washington's despondency without French aid (in a [note]) [41]
Mr. Hildreth, the historian, on the gloomy state of American affairs at the close of the year 1780, though
the English victories and rule did not attract the hearts of the people to the British cause [41]

[CHAPTER XXX.]

The French and Congress Allies recover Virginia; surrender of Lord Cornwallis; results 42-52
General Washington and the French Commander plan an expedition to the South [42]
Sir Henry Clinton deceived as to their design [43]
Count De Grasse sails for the Chesapeake with a fleet of 28 ships and 7,000 French troops [43]
Remarkable march of the allied army, five hundred miles from New York to Virginia, without committing any depredations whatever upon the inhabitants, even in the season of fruits [43]
Plan of the siege of York Town [44]
Earl Cornwallis's measures of defence [44]
Position and strength of the allied forces, and their process of operations [45]
Lord Cornwallis's courageous and protracted defence; is disappointed of promised reinforcements from
New York [45]
Lord Cornwallis capitulates to superior forces [45]
Conditions of capitulation [46]
Circumstances of the Loyalists [46]
Groundless boastings of American orators and writers over the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, commanding
but a small part of the British forces [47]
The unrivalled skill and courage of Washington undoubted, as well as the bravery and endurance of his
soldiers; but the success of the siege of York Town chiefly owing to the French, but for whose ships,
artillery and land forces, Lord Cornwallis would have been the conqueror, rather than conquered, in
this famous siege and battle [47]
The resources of England; the peace party opposed to the continuance of the American War irrespective
of the Battle of York Town [48]
The war party and corrupt administration at length defeated in the House of Commons, after repeated and protracted debates and various intrigues [50]
Change of Government, and end of Lord North's twelve years' administration [51]
Seven years' war and bloodshed, and an unnatural alliance would have been prevented, liberty secured,
and the united life of the Anglo-Saxon race saved, had Congress, in 1776, adhered to its previous
professions (in a [note]) [52]

[CHAPTER XXXI.]

Change of administration in England; change of policy for both England and the Colonies;
peace negotiations at Paris; cause of the United Empire Loyalists; change of ministry;
the King compelled to yield 53-65
Names of the new Ministers; death of the Marquis of Rockingham, the Premier, succeeded by the Earl
of Shelburne, in consequence of which several Ministers resign, and are succeeded by others, among
whom was Pitt, as Chancellor of the Exchequer (in a [note]) [53]
Correspondence between Dr. Franklin, at Paris, and the Earl of Shelburne, which led to negotiations for
peace [54]
Parliament does not pass an Act to authorize peace with America until three months after the accession of
the new Ministry [54]
Dr. Franklin proposes to include Canada in the United States [54]
English and American Commissioners meet at Paris and hold protracted negotiations, with many delays,
in regard to terms of peace [56]
Two most difficult questions of the treaty—The fishing grounds of Newfoundland and the Loyalists [56]
It was agreed that the Americans should have the right to take fish on the Banks of Newfoundland, but
not to dry or cure them on any of the King's settled dominions [56]
Preamble and articles of the treaty (in a [note]) [56]
The most important question of the Loyalists [57]
They constituted the majority of the population of the Colonies at the beginning of the contest [57]
It was at length agreed that the Congress should recommend to the several States to compensate the
Loyalists; but Dr. Franklin anticipated no success from it, as of course he did not desire it [58]
Dr. Franklin's counter-scheme to defeat the proposition of the English Commissioners, who gave way [58]
Dr. Ramsay on the Loyalists being "sacrificed" to their sufferings [59]
Mr. Hildreth on the same subject [61]
What was demanded for the Loyalists had been sanctioned by all modern civilized nations in like circumstances [61]
How honourable to the United States to have imitated such examples [62]
The fallacy of the plea or pretext that Congress had no power to grant an amnesty and compensation
to the Loyalists [62]
Severe censure of the royal historian, Dr. Andrews, upon the English Commissioners for having agreed
to sacrifice the Loyalists (in a [note]) [62]
"All parties in the Commons unanimously demand amnesty and indemnity for the Loyalists."
(Bancroft, in a [note]) [62]
Dr. Franklin and his colleagues outwitted the English Commissioners not only in regard to the Loyalists
but also in regard to immense territories [63]
Deplorable condition of the Loyalists during the war; utter abandonment by the English Commissioners [64]

[CHAPTER XXXII.]

Origin of Republicanism and hatred of Monarchy in America; Thos. Paine, sketch of his
life, character, and writings, and their effects 66-71

[CHAPTER XXXIII.]

The hiring of Foreign soldiers and employment of Indians in the Civil War 72-84
The policy of the British Ministry in employing foreign soldiers and Indians in the war with the Colonies
deprecated by all classes in England and America and throughout Europe [72]
Violent opposition in Parliament to the hiring of foreign troops; exasperation in the Colonies (in a [note]) [73]
Unreliable and bad character of the Hessian mercenaries [74]
Remarks upon the bad policy of employing them, and their bad conduct, by the royal historian (in a [note]) [74]
The employment of Indians still more condemned and denounced than the hiring of foreign troops [74]
Employment of Indians by both the French and English during the war of 1755-63, between France
and England [75]
At the close of the war the French authorities recommended the Indians to cultivate the friendship of England [75]
Both Congress and the English sought the alliance and co-operation of the Indians; misstatements of the
Declaration of Independence on this subject (in a [note]); the advantages of the latter over the former in
conciliating the Indians [75]
The employment of the Indians in every respect disadvantageous to England [76]
English Generals in America individually opposed to the employment of the Indians in the military campaigns [76]
Failure, if not defeat, of General Burgoyne's army by the bad conduct, and desertion, of his Indian allies [76]
But Washington and Congress, as well as the English Government, sanctioned the employment of the
Indians in the war, and the first idea of thus employing them originated with the first promoters of revolution
in Massachusetts [77]
Omissions of American writers to state that the aggressions and retaliations of the Congress soldiers and
their coadjutors far exceeded in severity and destruction the aggressions and retaliations of the Indians
on the white inhabitants [77]
Many letters and biographies of actors in the Revolution show that very much of what was written or
reported during the Revolution against the English Loyalists and Indians was fictitious or exaggerated [78]
Proceedings of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts (before the affairs of Concord and Lexington)
to enlist and employ the Indians against the British [79]
General Washington, under date of July 27th, 1776, recommends the employment of Indians in the
revolutionarycause [80]
The Americans have no ground of boasting over the English in regard to the employment of Indians and
their acts during the war [81]
Efforts of General Burgoyne to restrain the Indians, who were an incumbrance to his army, and whose
conduct alienated great numbers of Loyalists from the British cause [82]
The conduct and dread of the Indians roused great numbers to become recruits in General Gates' army,
and thus rendered it far more numerous than the army of General Burgoyne (in a [note]) [83]
American invasion and depredations in the Indian country the latter part of 1776, as stated by Dr. Ramsay [84]
The invasion unprovoked, but professedly as a "precaution" to "prevent all future co-operation between
the Indians and British in that quarter" bordering in Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia [84]
Complete destruction of Indian settlements; their country a desolation [84]

[CHAPTER XXXIV.]

The massacre of Wyoming; four versions of it by accredited American Historians, all
differing from each other; the facts investigated and false statements corrected 85-98
The original inflated and imaginary accounts of the "Massacre of Wyoming" [85]
Four versions of it by accredited historians [85]
The account given by Dr. Ramsay [87]
Remarks upon Dr. Ramsay's account [88]
Description of Wyoming [88]
Mr. Bancroft's account of the "Massacre" [88]
Mr. Tucker's brief account of the "Massacre" [90]
Mr. Hildreth's more intelligible and consistent account of the "Massacre" [90]
Remarks on the discrepancies in four essential particulars of these four accounts [94]
Supplementary remarks, founded on Colonel Stone's refutation of the original fabulous statements of
the "Massacre," in his "Life of Joseph Brant, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution" [98]

[CHAPTER XXXV.]

American retaliation for the alleged "Massacre of Wyoming," as narrated by American historians 99-122
Destruction of Indian villages and settlements for several miles on both sides of the Susquehanna by
the Americans [99]
Attack in retaliation "by Indians and Tories" on Cherry Valley, but more than revenged by Colonel
G. Van Shaick on the settlements [99]
The destruction of Indian villages and other settlements to the extent of "several miles on both sides of the Susquehanna," more than an equivalent revenge for the destruction of Wyoming (in a [note]) [100]
This only the beginning of vengeance upon the Indian settlements on the part of the "Continentals;" cruelties compared [100]
General Sullivan's expedition, and destruction of the towns, settlements, crops, and orchards of the Six
Nations of Indians, as stated by Dr. Andrews [100]
The same expedition, as stated by Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Hildreth, Mr. Holmes, and Dr. Ramsay [102]
Further examples of "retaliation," so-called, inflicted upon the Indians and their settlements (in a [note]) [106]
The "Tories," driven among the Indians as their only refuge, treated as traitors; their conduct and duty [108]
Colonel Stone's account in detail of General Sullivan's expedition of extermination against the Six
Nations of Indians [108]
Dr. Franklin's fictions on the massacre and scalping of the whites by Indians, in order to inflame the
American mind against England; his fictions recorded as history [115]
Injustice done to the Indians in American accounts of them; their conduct compared with that of their
white enemies [119]

[CHAPTER XXXVI.]

Situation and treatment of the Loyalists during the War 123-138
Summary of the condition and treatment of the Loyalists [123]
The relation of both parties before the Declaration of Independence [123]
How the Declaration of Independence changed the relations of parties both in England and America [123]
At the Declaration of Independence the adherents to England the largest part of the population of the Colonies [124]
Elements of their affectionate attachment to England [125]
Their claims to have their rights and liberties respected [125]
Their position and character stated by Mr. Hildreth; abused by mobs and oppressed by new Acts
and authorities [125]
John Adams the prompter and adviser for hanging "Tories;" his letter to the Governor of Massachusetts on
the subject [127]
First scene of severity against Loyalists at Boston; new American maxim of morals for not forgiving "Tories" [127]
Treatment of Loyalists in New York, Philadelphia, Virginia, and other places [128]
Kindness of the French officers and soldiers after the defeat of Lord Cornwallis [129]

[APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXXVI.]

State Legislative and Executive acts against the Loyalists [130]
Rhode Island; Connecticut [130]
Massachusetts [131]
New Hampshire; Virginia; New York [131]
New Jersey; Pennsylvania; Delaware [132]
Maryland; North Carolina; Georgia [132]
South Carolina [134]
Remarks on the Confiscation Acts and policy of the several States mentioned [136]

[CHAPTER XXXVII.]

Treatment of the Loyalists on their applications for redress after the Revolution 139-144
Impolicy of such persecuting proceedings on the part of the States, by an American writer [141]

[APPENDIX "A" TO CHAPTER XXXVII.]

Review of the principal characteristics of the American Revolution, and remarks on the feelings which
should now be cultivated by both of the former contending parties, by Mr. J.M. Ludlow [145]

[APPENDIX "B" TO CHAPTER XXXVII.]

Reflections of Lord Mahon on the American contest; apology for George III.; unhappiness of Americans
since the Revolution; unity of the Anglo-Saxon Race [154]

[CHAPTER XXXVIII.]

Treatment of the Loyalists by the British Government and Parliament after
the Revolution 159-182

[PART FIRST.]

Proceedings in Parliament; refusal of the States to compensate the Loyalists, as proposed in the
Treaty of Peace, and contrary to the example and practice of civilized nations [159]
In the House of Commons, Mr. Wilberforce, Lord North, Lord Mulgrave, Secretary Townsend,
Mr. Burke, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Norton, Sir Peter Burrell, Sir William Bootle, and other members
of Parliament, spoke on the subject [160]
In the House of Lords, Lords Walsingham, Townsend, Stormont, Sackville, Loughborough and Shelburne,
also advocated the claims of the Loyalists [163]
Grounds of the responsibility of Parliament to the Loyalists for compensation [164]
Unpopular and unprecedented omissions in the terms of Peace [164]
Fallacy of the argument of advocates of the Treaty [165]

[PART SECOND.]

Agents in England of the Loyalists; proceedings of the Parliamentary Commission; results 166-182

[CHAPTER XXXIX.]

The Loyalists driven from the United States to the British Provinces 183-190

[CHAPTER XL.]

Brief sketches of some individual Loyalists in the British Provinces; first settlers
in Canada, and how they travelled hither 190-208
1. Samuel Anderson; 2. Rev. John Bethune; 3. Doanes—five brothers; 4. Stephen Jarvis;
5. Wm. Jarvis; 6. David Jones; 7. Jonathan Jones; 8. Captain Richard Lippincott; 9. The McDonalds;
10. John McGill; 11. Donald McGillis; 12. Thomas Merritt; 13. Beverley Robinson; 14. Beverley
Robinson, jun.; 15. Christopher Robinson; 16. Sir John Beverley Robinson; 17. Sir Charles
Frederick Phillipse Robinson; 18. Morris Robinson; 19. John Robinson; 20. Roger Morris;
21. Allen McNab; 22. Luke Carscallen; 23. John Diamond; 24. Ephraim Tisdale; 25. Lemuel Wilmot
Dr. Canniff's account of the migration of the first Loyalists from Lower Canada, and settlement on the
North Shore of the St. Lawrence, and in the country round and west of Kingston [204]

[CHAPTER XLI.]

First settlement of Loyalists in the British Provinces—especially of Upper
Canada,—their adventures and hardships, as written by themselves or their
descendants 208-270
First settlement of the first company of Loyalists at the close of the Revolutionary War, in and near
Kingston, Upper Canada, by the late Bishop Richardson, D.D. [208]
First settlement of Loyalists in Nova Scotia, by a gentleman of that Province [211]
Colonel Joseph Robinson, his adventures and settlement, by the late Hon. R. Hodgson, Chief Justice
of Prince Edward Island [213]
Robert Clark, his sufferings in the Revolutionary War, and settlement in the Midland District, U.C.;
by his son, late Colonel John C. Clark [216]
Captain William B. Hutchinson, his sufferings and settlement in Walsingham, County of Norfolk, U.C.;
by his grandson, J.B. Hutchinson, Esq. [218]
Patriotic feeling and early settlement of Prince Edward County and neighbouring Townships; by
Canniff Haight, Esq. [219]
Colonel Samuel Ryerse, his adventures, settlement, and character, in the County of Norfolk; in letters
by his son, the late Rev. George J. Ryerse; and in a memorandum, including a history of the early
settlement of the County of Norfolk, and recollections of the war of 1812-1815; by Mrs. Amelia Harris,
of Eldon House, London, U.C. [226]
Colonel Joseph Ryerson, his adventures, sufferings, and settlement in the County of Norfolk, U.C.;
by an intimate friend of the family [257]
Note.—Colonel Samuel Ryerse and Colonel Joseph Ryerson were brothers, and both officers in the
British army during the Revolutionary War; but in the commission of the former, his name was spelled
Ryerse; and it being difficult at that time to correct such an error, he and his descendants have always
spelt their name Ryerse, though the original name of the family, in the records of New Jersey, in Holland,
and previously in the history of Denmark, is Ryerson.
Interesting piece of local history; by the Rev. Dr. Scadding [259]
Loyalty and sufferings of the Hon. John Monroe; by his son [261]
Sufferings of the U.E. Loyalists during the Revolutionary War; vindication of their character—including
that of Butler's Rangers—their privations and settlement in Canada; by the late Mrs. Elizabeth Bowman
Spohn, of Ancaster, in the County of Wentworth, U.C., together with an introductory letter by the writer
of this history [264]

[CHAPTER XLII.]

Origin and Character of the Governments of British North America.—Nova Scotia 271-276

[CHAPTER XLV.]

Government of Lower Canada 281-306
The famous Quebec Act, 14th Geo. III.; its provisions; why and by whom opposed; opposed in the
Lords and Commons, and in the Colonies; supposed to have promoted the American Declaration
of Independence [281]
Constitutional Act of 1791—Act 31st George III., chapter 31 [285]
Mr. Pitt explains the principal provisions of the Bill; provided against the imposition of taxes in the colonies
by the Imperial Parliament; opposed by some members in the Commons; rupture between Burke and
Fox (in a [note]); Pitt's defence of the Bill [285]
The Bill becomes an Act; separates Upper from Lower Canada; constitutes a legislature for each province;
how the two branches of the legislature were constituted; the representative form of government obtained
by the United Empire Loyalists [286]
The Administration of the Government and Legislation in Lower Canada under the new constitution [288]
Lord Dorchester Governor-General; first session of the Legislature; Speakers of the two Houses;
a Speaker elected in the House of Assembly who could speak both the French and English language [289]
The Governor's first speech to the Legislature [290]
The cordial and loyal response of the House of Assembly
[290]
Useful and harmonious legislation; a noble example and illustration of loyalty by the House of Assembly
before the close of the session [292]
The Governor's speech at the close of the session [294]
Unjust statements against the French corrected (in a [note]) [294]
Second session of the Legislature called by Lord Dorchester on his arrival from England; his cordial
reception; beneficial legislation; Canadians recoil from the horrors of the French Revolution [295]
French Republican agents endeavour to incite Canadians to revolt, and to excite hostilities against England
in the United States [297]
Mutual cordiality between the Governor-General and the House of Assembly [297]
Visit of the Duke of Kent to Lower Canada as Commander of the Forces; his wise and patriotic counsels;
beneficial influence of his visit and residence [297]
Lord Dorchester lays the public accounts before the Assembly; their contents; this proceeding highly
satisfactory to the Assembly; bills passed and assented to [298]
Interval of quiet between the second and third Sessions of the Legislature; Lord Dorchester's practical
and noble speech at the opening of the third Session; Mr. Christie's remarks upon it; cordial answer of
the House of Assembly, to whom the public accounts were transmitted, even more comprehensive
and complete than those sent down the previous Session [299]
Commissioners first appointed to adjust the revenues between Upper and Lower Canada; their courteous
and fair proceedings on both sides [301]
Gratifying close of the third Session [302]
Auspicious opening, useful legislation, and happy conclusion of the fourth and last Session of the first
Parliament of Lower Canada [302]
Termination of Lord Dorchester's thirty-six years connection with Canada; review of his conduct and
character by the historian Bancroft; cordial addresses to him, and his affectionate answers [303]
Meritorious conduct of the French Canadians [305]

[CHAPTER XLVI.]

Government of Upper Canada 307-315
How governed and divided by Lord Dorchester before the Constitutional Act of 1791 [307]
The Constitutional Act of 1791, 31 George III., chapter 31, and construction of governments under it [307]
General John Graves Simcoe the first Governor; character of his government; arrives at Kingston 8th
July, 1792, where the members of the Executive Legislative Councils were sworn into office, and writs
issued for the election of members of the House of Assembly [308]
The seat of government first established at Newark, now Niagara, where a small frame house was built
for the Governor, and in which also the first Session of the Legislature was held [308]
Number of members of the Legislative Council and House of Assembly present at the opening of the
Session; their character [309]
Number and character of the population of the country, including the Mohawk Indians, headed by Joseph
Brant [309]
First Session of the first Parliament and its work [309]
Remarkable speech of Governor Simcoe at the close of the Session, explanatory of our constitution of
government [310]
Change of the seat of government and reasons for it [311]
Governor Simcoe's work and policy; removal to the West Indies, and abandonment of his wise policy [311]
Parliament meets at Niagara until 1797; its legislation; Governor Simcoe's successor, the Hon. Peter
Russell and General Hunter; population of Upper Canada in 1800 [312]
Legislation, progress, trade, custom-houses [313]
Provision for one Grammar School Master in each of the eight districts [314]
Emigration; legislation; experience of the country during sixteen years under the new constitution [314]
State of the country in 1809 [314]
Anticipated hostilities between Great Britain and the United States; concluding remarks on this period
of Canadian history [315]

[CHAPTER XLVII.]

War of the United States against Great Britain, from 1812 to 1815 316-317
Introductory and general remarks; illustrations of true loyalty; war struggles of England for human liberty
when the United States joined the tyrant of Europe in war and invaded Canada; comparative population
of Canada and the United States; Canada, almost unaided, successfully resists the eleven invasions of the
United States against her; phases of the war against her [316]

[CHAPTER XLVIII.]

Declaration of War by the United States against Britain, and preparations for the
invasion of Canada 318-330
The alleged and real causes of the war; the Democratic party in the United States always hostile to
England and her colonies, and sympathisers with every raid against Canada [318]
Two alleged causes for the war by the United States; Berlin decrees, and answers to them by British
Orders in Council—results [319]
Collusion between Napoleon and the President of the United States against England; seduction and
desertion of British sailors (nearly 10,000) besides soldiers; the justice and acknowledged right of the
British claims, and injustice and unreasonableness of the Madison Government's proceedings [319]
The event between the warships Leopard and Chesapeake; American misrepresentations of it; dishonest
conduct of President Madison in respect to it; noble and generous proposal of the British Government,
disclaiming the conduct of the captain of the Leopard, and offering to compensate all parties for injuries
done them by the Leopard [323]
The "Henry Plot" affair; conduct of President Madison in respect to it; declaration of war by the United
States [327]

[CHAPTER XLIX.]

Declaration of War by the United States 331-336
Declaration of war, June 18, 1812; votes in the House of Representatives for and against it [331]
Character of the war party and its Generals [333]
Opposition to the war, and reasons against it, by a State Convention of New York [333]
Address of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts against the war [334]
The Orders in Council, as administered, beneficial to American merchants [335]

[CHAPTER L.]

Preparations made by the Canadians for their defence 337-351
War against the Canadas being contemplated in the United States [337]
Preparations by Lower Canada; Sir George Prevost succeeds Sir James Craig as Governor-General;
his character and first speech to the Legislature [338]
The loyal answer of the Assembly, and liberal provisions for the defence of the Province [338]
Organization of militia [339]
American residents allowed twenty days to leave the Province [340]
Second Session of the War Legislature, 16th July, 1812; the Governor's speech, relying upon the Province,
and noble reply, and further various and liberal supplies and measures of the Legislative Assembly to meet the emergency [340]
Preparations in Upper Canada for self-defence [341]
General Brock calls a meeting of the Legislature, July 27, 1812; his stirring speech at the opening of the
session; hearty response and liberal supplies of the House of Assembly [342]
Patriotic address of the Assembly to the people of Upper Canada, and remarks upon it [342]

[CHAPTER LI.]

First Invasion of Upper Canada, in the Western District, by General Hull, and his
Proclamation to the Inhabitants of Upper Canada, given entire in a [note] 346-351
General Brock's manly and overwhelming reply to General Hull's proclamation, in an address to the
people of Canada [349]

[CHAPTER LII.]

General Brock takes Detroit, General Hull's Army, the Territory of Michigan, and
Immense Military Stores 352-364

Incidents of this Great Achievement.

1. Smallness of General Brock's army, and the manner in which he collected it [353]
Preparations at Windsor for the attack upon Detroit before General Brock's arrival there [353]
Crossing the river, and the surrender of Fort Detroit, &c. [354]
2. General Brock's council with the Indians at Sandwich before crossing the river at Detroit; his conversation
with the great chief Tecumseh; and after the taking of Detroit, takes off his sash and places it around
Tecumseh, who next day placed it around the Wyandot chief, Round Head; reasons for it given to
General Brock [355]
General Brock's estimate of Tecumseh, and the latter's watching and opinion on the conduct of the former [356]
Particulars of Tecumseh's personal history and death (in a [note]) [357]
Surprise and taking of Michillimackinack, and other defeats, discouraging to General Hull, before his
surrender of Detroit [358]
Particulars of the surrender [361]
General Brock's proclamation to the people of Michigan [362]
Remarks on the difference in sentiment and style between this proclamation to the inhabitants of Michigan
and that of General Hull to the inhabitants of Canada [363]
General Brock's return to York; having in 19 days settled public legislative business, raised a little army,
taken a territory nearly as large as Upper Canada, and an army three times as numerous as his own [364]

[CHAPTER LIII.]

Second Invasion of Upper Canada at Queenston 365-371
Crossing of the river from Lewiston to Queenston of 1,500 regular troops, who, by a private path,
gain Queenston Heights; death of General Brock; the invaders dislodged from the Heights and driven
down the banks of the river; American militia refuse to cross the river; American soldiers surrender to
General Sheaffe to the number of 900 men, besides officers, including General Wadsworth and Colonel
Winfield Scott [365]
Armistice [368]
Incidents on the Niagara frontier after the death of General Brock, by Lieutenant Driscoll, of the 100th
Regiment [368]

[CHAPTER LIV.]

Third American Invasion of Canada 372-379
A large American army assembled; confidence of its success [372]
No reinforcements from England; but the sacrifice and zeal of the Canadians for the defence of their
country against this third and most formidable invasion of the year [373]
The Commander-in-Chief's (General Smyth) address to his army, given entire in a [note] [373]
Its effect to bring 2,000 volunteers from the State of Pennsylvania [374]
The troops embark; General Smyth does not appear; failure of the attempted invasion; General Smyth's
flight from his own soldiers, who shoot off their guns in disgust and indignation [375]
Three armies, altogether of 10,000 men, defeated by less than 1,000 Canadian volunteers and soldiers [378]

[CHAPTER LV.]

An Invading Army of 10,000 men, under General Dearborn, defeated by Colonel De
Salaberry, with 300 Canadians, at Chateauguay; Description of the Battle 380-382
The Canadian militia put in readiness to repel a second apprehended invasion, but General Dearborn
does not venture it, and retires with his hosts into winter quarters [381]
The Canadian militia allowed to retire for the winter [382]
The armistice between Generals Sheaffe and Smyth injurious to Upper Canada (in a note) [382]

[CHAPTER LVI.]

Campaigns of 1813 383-425
Americans determined to conquer Canada this year [383]
Disadvantage of the Governor-General of Canada from the fewness of his troops, regulars and militia,
compared with those of the invading armies [383]
Three American invading armies—one consisting of 18,000 men, the second of 7,000 men, and the third
of 8,000 men [384]
General Proctor's slender force at Detroit [384]
Battle of Frenchtown; victory of Colonel Proctor; American misrepresentations respecting it corrected [385]
Colonel Proctor promoted to be General [388]
Several American plundering raids on Brockville and neighbourhood; retaliatory raid of the British on
Ogdensburg; town ordnance, arms, &c., taken, and vessels destroyed [388]
Canadian preparations in the winter of 1813 for the season's campaign; U.E. Loyalist regiment comes from Fredericton, New Brunswick, to Quebec, on snow shoes [390]
The American plan of campaign to invade and take Canada in 1813 [390]
The American fleet on Lake Ontario superior to the British fleet; attack upon York with 1,700 men,
commanded by Generals Dearborn and Pike; battle, explosion of a magazine; many of both armies
killed; Canadians defeated and York taken [391]
Americans evacuate York and return to Sackett's Harbour, after having destroyed public buildings, and
taken much booty [393]
Americans attack Fort George, Newark (Niagara), by land and water, and after a hard fight take the town
and fort, the British retiring to Queenston [393]
General Vincent, having destroyed the fortifications on the frontier, retreats to Burlington Heights, pursued by Generals Chandler and Winder, with an army of 3,500 infantry and 300 cavalry [394]
Colonel Harvey, with 700 men, surprises the whole American army at Stony Creek, captures their two
generals and 150 men, &c. [395]
American army retreats in great disorder towards Fort George [396]
The affair at the Beaver Dams; the capture of 700 American soldiers, with their officers, by a small party
of soldiers and Indians—the captured prisoners being five to one of their captors [397]
The American army confined to Fort George and its neighbourhood [397]
A small party of the British retaliate the marauding game of the Americans by crossing the river at
Chippewa, attacking and dismantling Fort Schlosser and bringing off military stores; and seven days
afterwards, 11th July, crossing from Fort Erie to Black Rock, and burning the enemy's block-houses,
stores, barracks, dockyards, &c. [397]
The two armies almost within gunshot of each other at Fort George; but the Americans could not be drawn
out to a battle, though their numbers were two to one to the British [398]
General Harrison prepares to prosecute the war for recovering the Territories of Michigan; General Proctor
raises the siege of Lower Sandusky and retires to Amherstburg [399]
Unsuccessful expedition of Governor-General Prevost and Sir James L. Yeo against Sackett's Harbour;
Sir George Prevost orders the withdrawment of the troops, at the very crisis of victory, to the great
disappointment and dissatisfaction of his officers and men [399]

Occurrences on Lake Ontario.

Second unsuccessful attempt of Commodore Sir James Yeo on Sackett's Harbour [401]
Commodore Chauncey's expedition to the head of the lake to take Burlington Heights is deferred by the preparations of Colonels Harvey and Battersby to receive him [402]
Commodore Chauncey makes a second raid upon York (Toronto), plunders, burns, and departs; singular coincidence [402]
The British fleet, sailing from Kingston the last day of July, with supplies for the army at the head of the lake, encounters the American fleet at Niagara, and after two days' manœuvring, a partial engagement ensues,
in which the British capture two small vessels—the Julia and Growler [402]
A graphic account of the naval manœuvring and battle by the American historian of the war, Brackenridge
(in a [note]) [402]
Encounters and tactics of the British and American fleets on Lake Ontario for the rest of the season [404]

Occurrences on Lake Erie and in the West.

Fleet fitting out by Commodore Perry at Presqu' Isle (Erie) blockaded by Commodore Barclay, who,
neglecting his duty and absenting himself from Presqu' Isle, allowed the American fleet to get over the bar
at the mouth of the harbour, and getting into the lake with their cannon reshipped and completely equipped [405]
Commodore Barclay, the enemy too well manned and too powerful for him, sails for Amherstburg;
is pursued by Commodore Perry and compelled to fight, in which he lost his fleet, though he fought bravely [406]
In consequence of the loss of the fleet on Lake Erie, the British army in possession of the territory of
Michigan, left without resources, evacuate the territory and Fort Detroit, before an American army of 7,000
men and 1,000 dragoons, under General Harrison [407]
General Proctor retreats up the Thames; is pursued by General Harrison, with a force of 3,000 men,
including 1,000 Kentucky dragoons, and overtaken near Moravian Town, where a battle ensues, in which
General Proctor is defeated with heavy loss—the Indians remaining loyal, fighting longest, suffering most,
with the loss of their chief, Tecumseh [408]
Shameful burning of Moravian Town by the Americans [410]
Americans accept Indian alliance; Americans intoxicated by these successes, but driven from every inch
of Canadian territory before the end of the year [410]

American Invasion of Lower Canada.

Defeat of an American advance invading division, and capture of two vessels, the Growler
and Eagle, of eleven guns each, at the Isle-aux-Noix, by 108 men, under the command of Lieut.-Col.
George Taylor [411]
Attacks upon and capture and destruction of the American war materials, hospitals, barracks,
&c., at Plattsburg, under Colonel Murray (General Moore retreating with 1,500 men), at Burlington
(where was encamped General Hampton with 4,000 men), capturing and destroying four vessels, and
afterwards at the towns of Champlain and Swanton, destroying the block-houses and barracks [412]
These successes but preliminary to the Canadian victories of Chateauguay, and Chrystler's Farm [413]

Battle of Chateauguay.

General Hampton, with 5,000 men, defeated by the skill and courage of Colonel De Salaberry
with 300 Canadians; the battle described, and the close of it witnessed, by the Governor-General Prevost
and Major-General De Watteville [413]
General Hampton with his demoralized army retires into winter quarters at Plattsburg [417]
Next expedition against Montreal by the St. Lawrence, under command of General Wilkinson, with
a force of 10,000 men; the American soldiers promised grand winter quarters at Montreal [417]
American army descends the St. Lawrence from near Kingston in 300 boats; is followed by a detachment
of the British from Kingston, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Morrison, who overtakes and
skirmishes with divisions of the American army on the way; at the American post, at the town of Hamilton,
takes a considerable quantity of provisions and stores, and two pieces of ordnance [418]

Battle of Chrystler's Farm.

American force engaged between 3,000 and 4,000 men; the British forces were about 800 rank and file; preliminaries and description of the battle, said to be the most squarely and scientifically fought battle
of the war [419]
Losses; General Wilkinson's testimony as to the loyalty and courage of the Canadians [420]
General Wilkinson proceeds down the St. Lawrence with his flotilla; disappointment and mortification
at General Hampton's disobedience and failure to meet him at St. Regis; crosses the St. Lawrence and
retires into winter quarters at Salmon River [420]
The campaign of the season terminated in Lower Canada; the Canadian militia dismissed to their homes
with thanks and applause [421]

British Victories in Upper Canada.

In December, 1813, Lieutenant-General Drummond supersedes Major-General De Rottenburgh in
command of Upper Canada, and proceeds to York and the head of the Lake at Burlington Heights;
despatches Colonel Murray to arrest the predatory incursions of General McClure in the neighbourhood
of Fort George, of which he was then in possession [422]
McClure's plundering the inhabitants; his barbarous act in burning the town of Newark (Niagara), and flight
to the American side of the river [423]
The British, under command of Colonel Murray, take Fort Niagara, the whole garrison, and much
warlike supplies [423]
Lewiston, Manchester, Black Rock and Buffalo destroyed in retaliation for the burning of Newark (Niagara),
and exposure of 400 women and children, by McClure [424]
Proclamation issued by General Drummond, deprecating this savage mode of warfare, and declaring his
purpose not to pursue it, unless compelled by the measures of the American Government [425]

[CHAPTER LVII.]

Movements and Campaigns in 1814—The third and last year of the war 426-434
Two years' expensive failures of American invasions against Canada; preparations on both sides for the
third year's campaigns [426]
Volunteers, soldiers and sailors, march through the woods from New Brunswick to Canada [426]
Expression of Royal satisfaction and admiration of the loyalty and courage of the Canadians during the
war, making special mention of the affair of Chateauguay and Colonel De Salaberry [427]
First American invasion of Lower Canada in 1814; the American soldiers, crossing Lake Champlain on
the ice, attack Le Colle Mill (Block-house), and are driven back by a small but heroic force of Canadians [427]
General Wilkinson returns with his army to Plattsburg; and, disappointed and mortified at his failures, retires
from the army [428]
Prairie du Chién, on the Mississippi, taken by the British, and Fort Michillimackinack triumphantly defended
against a large American force; and Sir John C. Sherbrook, Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, reduces an extensive portion of American territory adjoining New Brunswick, and adds it to that Province [428]
Peace in Europe; reinforcements of 16,000 veteran soldiers from England to Canada [430]
Sir George Prevost's abortive expedition against Plattsburg censured; recalled to England to be tried by court-martial; dies a week before the day of trial [330]
The estimate of Mr. Christie, the Canadian historian, of the character and policy of Sir George Prevost [431]
Opening of the campaign in Upper Canada; expedition from Kingston against Oswego, which is dismantled,
its fortifications destroyed, military stores, &c., seized [432]
British fleet, supreme on Lake Ontario, blockades Sackett's Harbour; intercepts supplies being sent from
Oswego to Sackett's Harbour, but is unsuccessful in pursuing American supply boats up the Sandy Creek;
the pursuers taken prisoners and well treated by the Americans [433]

[CHAPTER LVIII.]

Last Invasions and last Battles of the war 435-460
Americans, in two divisions, under command of Brigadier-Generals Scott and Ripley, cross the river and
land on the Canadian side above and below Fort Erie, which is commanded by Major Buck, and
surrendered without firing a shot, to the great loss of the British, and to the great advantage of the Americans [435]
General Brown, with a force of over 4,000 troops, advances down the river from Fort Erie, with a view
of taking Chippewa; is encountered by General Riall, who is compelled to retire to the rear of his works at Chippewa; heroism of the Lincoln Militia [436]
General Riall retires to Fort George, pursued by General Brown; pillage of the American soldiers and
officers in the neighbourhood of Fort George [437]
Both armies reinforced; General Brown in difficulties; retreats towards Chippewa; is pursued by General
Riall; burns the village of St. David's; makes a stand at Lundy's Lane—called Bridgewater by the Americans [437]
Battle of Lundy's Lane; preliminaries to it [438]
The battle itself; protracted and bloody struggle; Americans retreat to beyond Chippewa [439]
Forces engaged; losses on both sides; victory absurdly claimed on the American side [441]
American army retreats to Fort Erie, pursued by General Drummond, who invests the fort [443]
Storming the fort; terrible conflict; on the point of victory a magazine blown up, destroying all the British
soldiers who had entered the fort—including Colonels Drummond and Scott—compelling the retirement
of the assailants; British losses severe [444]
The enemy shut up for a month in the fort by the British investment [445]
At the expiration of a month the enemy makes a sortie, with his whole force; surprises and destroys the
batteries; a bloody conflict; the enemy compelled to return to the fort with a loss of 600 men [445]
Incessant rains prevent General Drummond repairing his batteries; he raises the siege and tries in vain to
bring General Brown to a general engagement, but he evades it and evacuates Fort Erie [446]
Thus terminates the last American invasion of Canada, without acquiring possession of an inch of
Canadian territory [446]
Summary review of Canadian loyalty, and the causes, characteristics, and the results of the war, in an
address delivered at Queenston Heights, near Brock's Monument, by the author, at the anniversary of
the Battle of Lundy's Lane, July, 1875 [447]

[CHAPTER LIX.]

Miscellaneous Documents and Papers extracted from United Empire Loyalist
Manuscripts in the Dominion Library at Ottawa 461-464
Character of the Canadian Militia [461]
American invasions of Canada and their military forces [462]
Notice of Colonel John Clarke and his manuscript contributions [462]
The treatment of Canadians by the American invaders [463]
The Royal Patriotic Society of Upper Canada and its doings in raising and distributing upwards of £20,000
to relieve Canadian sufferers by the war [466]

[CHAPTER LX.]

State of Canada after the Close of the War; Conclusion [469]

THE

LOYALISTS OF AMERICA

AND

THEIR TIMES,

FROM 1620 TO 1816.

CHAPTER XXVII.

The War of the American Revolution after the Declaration of Independence—The Alliance between the Congress and King of France—The Alliance not Productive of the Effects Anticipated—Efforts of the British Government for Reconciliation with the Colonies not Successful.

It was supposed, both in America and France, that when the alliance between the King of France and Congress, referred to in the last chapter of the previous volume, became known in England, though it was not publicly avowed until February, 1778, England would be weakened and discouraged from further warlike effort, and immediately offer terms of peace, upon the ground of American independence; but the reverse was the case.

The alliance between Congress and the King of France was kept in abeyance by the latter during more than a twelvemonth after it was applied for by the agents of Congress, until after the defeat and capture of General Burgoyne and the refusal of Congress to confer with Lord and General Howe, as British Commissioners, without the previous acknowledgment by the Commissioners of the independence of the United States.[1]

Lord Admiral Howe, having spent some months with his fleet at Halifax, did not arrive at Sandy Hook until the 12th of July, eight days after the Declaration of Independence. "Besides the troops, Lord Howe had brought with him a document which it was hoped might render them unnecessary—the Royal warrant appointing himself and General Howe Commissioners under the Act of Parliament for the pacification of America. No doubt the selection of such men was most wisely made. The memory of their elder brother, who had fallen gloriously in the wars against the French in Canada, was endeared to the colonists, who had fought by his side. Both Lord Howe and the General, but Lord Howe especially, had ever since cultivated a friendly intercourse with Americans, and now entertained a most earnest wish to conclude the strife against them. But judicious as was the choice of the Commissioners, the restricted terms of the Commission were certainly in the highest degree impolitic. Lord Howe had laboured, but vainly, to obtain its enlargement; it amounted, in fact, to little more than the power, first, of receiving submissions, and then, but not till then, of granting pardons and inquiring into grievances.[2] Yet, still, since these terms had not been divulged, and were much magnified by common rumour, the name of the Commission was not ill adapted for popular effect. Had Lord Howe arrived with it a few weeks before, as he might and should have done, we are assured by American writers that an impression might have been produced by it, in some at least of the thirteen colonies, to an extent which they 'cannot calculate,' or rather, perhaps, which they do not like to own. But these few months had been decisive in another direction. During these months both the feeling and the position of the insurgents had most materially changed."[3]

"The two Royal Commissioners," says Dr. Ramsay, "Admiral and General Howe, thought proper, before they commenced their military operations, to try what might be done in their civil capacity towards effecting a reunion between Great Britain and the colonies. It was one of the first acts of Lord Howe to send on shore a circular letter to several of the Royal Governors in America, informing them of the late Act of Parliament 'for restoring peace to the colonies, and granting pardon to such as should deserve mercy,' and desiring them to publish a declaration which accompanied the same. In this, he informed the colonists of the power with which his brother and he were entrusted 'of granting general or particular pardons to all those who, though they had deviated from their allegiance, were willing to return to their duty:' and of declaring 'any colony, province, county or town, port, district or place, to be in the peace of his Majesty.' Congress, impressed with the belief that the proposals of the Commissioners, instead of disuniting the people, would have a contrary effect, ordered them to be speedily published in the several American newspapers. Had a redress of grievances been at this late hour offered, though the honour of the States was involved in supporting their late Declaration of Independence, yet the love of peace, and the bias of great numbers to their parent State, would, in all probability, have made a powerful party for rescinding the Act of Separation, and for re-uniting with Great Britain; but when it appeared that the power of the Royal Commissioners was little more than to grant pardons, Congress appealed to the good sense of the people for the necessity of adhering to the Act of Independence."[4]

It was a diplomatic blunder and an unwise policy for the English Commissioners to make known to the public the restricted authority of their commission, instead of simply stating in general terms their commission under the authority of the Act of Parliament "for restoring peace to the colonies." On such grounds and for such an object the Congress could have offered no justifiable excuse for refusing a conference with the Royal Commissioners; and when, in the course of the discussion, it should have been found that the Commissioners could not agree with, and did not feel themselves authorized to accede to, all the demands of the agents of Congress, the Royal Commissioners (both of whom were known to be friends of the colonies, and opposed to the high-handed measures of the Parliament) could have noted the points of difference, and agreed to recommend the demands made upon them to the most favourable consideration of the King's Government: at all events, friendly intercourse and negotiations would have been opened which would have been probably followed by a suspension of hostilities, if not complete reconciliation. But this was what Congress, led by John Adams and Dr. Franklin—bitter enemies to reconciliation—dreaded; and they very shrewdly saw and improved the imprudent exposure of the Royal Commissioners, by directing the publication of their circular letter and declaration in all the provincial newspapers, "that the good people of the United States may be informed of what nature are the Commissioners, and what the terms, with expectation of which the insidious Court of Great Britain had endeavoured to amuse and disarm them; and that the few who still remain suspended by a hope, founded either on the justice or moderation of their late King, might now at length be convinced that the valour alone of their country is to save its liberties."

Thus all conference with the Royal Commissioners was refused on the part of the leaders in Congress; war and bloodshed followed, and a year of disastrous defeats to the Revolutionists; but the position of the Loyalists may be inferred from the resolution of the New York Revolutionary Convention, adopted a few days after the Declaration of Independence, and before the actual commencement of hostilities, and which was as follows: "That all persons residing within the State of New York, and claiming protection from its laws, owed it allegiance; and that any person owing it allegiance, and levying war against the State, or being an adherent to the King of Great Britain, should be deemed guilty of treason and suffer death." The Convention also resolved: "That as the inhabitants of King's County had determined not to oppose the enemy, a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the authenticity of these reports, and to disarm and secure the disaffected, to remove or destroy the stock of grain, and, if necessary, to lay the whole county waste." Such treatment of adherents to the unity of the empire, and of even neutrals, at the very commencement of the war, goes far to account for the warfare of extermination in many places between the two parties in subsequent years. This mode of warfare was first instituted against the Loyalists, who acted on the defensive, and who have been loudly complained of by American historians for having afterwards, and on some occasions cruelly retaliated upon those who had driven them to desperation.

A little more than eighteen months after the Declaration of Independence, 17th of February, 1778, three Bills were introduced into and passed by the British Parliament, which entirely removed all the grounds of complaint made by the colonists in previous years, and provided for the appointment of Commissioners to settle all differences between the colonies and the mother country. The first of these Bills was entitled, "For removing Doubts and Apprehensions concerning Taxation by the Parliament of Great Britain in any of the Colonies." It expressly repealed by name the tea duty in America, and declared: "That from and after the passing of this Act the King and Parliament of Great Britain will not impose any duty, tax, or assessment whatever in any of his Majesty's (American) colonies, except only such duties as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce; the net produce of such duties to be always paid and applied to and for the use of the colony in which the same shall be levied." "Thus," says Lord Mahon, "was the claim of parliamentary taxation fully, at last, renounced."

The second Bill was "To enable his Majesty to appoint Commissioners with sufficient power to treat, consult, and agree upon the means of quieting the disorders now subsisting in certain of the colonies, plantations, and provinces of North America." The Commissioners were to be five in number, and were invested with extensive powers; they were to raise no difficulties as to the rank or title of the leaders on either side, but were left at liberty to treat, consult, and agree with any body or bodies politic, or any person or persons whatsoever; they might proclaim a cessation of hostilities on the part of the King's forces by sea or land, for any time, or under any conditions or restrictions; they might suspend any Act of Parliament relating to America passed since the 10th of February, 1763. In short, it was intimated that the Commissioners might accept almost any terms of reconciliation short of independence, and subject to be confirmed by a vote of Parliament.

Lord North introduced his Bills in an able and eloquent speech of two hours, in which he reviewed his own career and the several questions of dispute with the colonies.[5]

But though taunted from all sides, his Bills passed speedily through both Houses of Parliament. Lord Mahon remarks: "In spite of such taunts and far from friendly feelings on all sides, the Conciliatory Bills, as they have been termed, were not in reality opposed from any quarter. There was only one division on a clause moved by Mr. Powys, to repeal expressly by name the Massachusetts Charter Act. Lord North induced a large majority to vote against that clause, but agreed that the object in view should be attained by a separate measure. A Bill for that purpose was therefore introduced by Mr. Powys, and passed through Parliament concurrently with the other two. In the House of Lords the same arguments were, with little change, renewed. Lord Shelburne took occasion to declare his full concurrence in the sentiments of Lord Chatham, expressing 'the strongest disapprobation of every idea tending to admit the independence of America,' although acknowledging that future circumstances might create a necessity for such a submission. Lord Chatham himself was ill with gout at Hayes, and did not appear. There was no division; and on the 11th of March (1778), the King, seated on his throne, gave to all three measures the royal assent."[6]

Lord North and other members of his Administration were convinced that the American problem could not be solved by their own party; that such a work could be accomplished by the Earl of Chatham alone, as he had a few years before, by his skill and energy, when the affairs of America were in a desperate state after five years' unsuccessful war with France, dispossessed France, in the short space of two years, of every inch of American territory. The Duke of Richmond advocated immediate surrender of independence to the Americans, and peace with them, in order to avoid a war with France; he doubted the possibility of even Lord Chatham being able to effect a reconciliation between the American colonies and Great Britain. Three-fourths of a century afterwards, Lord Macaulay expressed the same opinion; but Lord Mahon, in his History, has expressed a contrary opinion, and given his reasons in the following words, well worthy of being carefully read and pondered:

"In the first place, let it be remembered with what great and what singular advantages Lord Chatham would have set his hand to the work. He had from the outset most ably and most warmly supported the claims of the colonists. Some of his eloquent sentences had become watchwords in their mouths. His statue had been erected in their streets; his portrait was hanging in their Council Chambers. For his great name they felt a love and reverence higher as yet than for any one of their own chiefs and leaders, not even at that early period excepting Washington himself. Thus, if even it could be said that overtures of reconciliation had failed in every other British hand, it would afford no proof that in Chatham's they might not have thriven and borne fruit.

"But what at the same period was the position of Congress? Had that assembly shown of late an enlightened zeal for the public interests, and did it then stand high in the confidence and affection of its countrymen? Far otherwise. The factions and divisions prevailing at their town of York (in Virginia, where they removed from Baltimore), the vindictive rigour to political opponents, the neglect of Washington's army, and the cabals against Washington's powers, combined to create disgust, with other less avoidable causes, as the growing depreciation of the paper-money, the ruinous loss of trade, and the augmented burdens of the war. Is the truth of this picture denied? Hear then, as witnesses, the members of Congress themselves. We find in this very month of March (1778), one of them write to another on the necessity of joint exertions to "revive the expiring reputation of Congress." (Letter from William Duer, of New York, to Robert Morris, dated March 6th, 1778, and printed in the Life of Reed, Vol. I., p. 365.) We find another lamenting that 'even good Whigs begin to think peace, at some expense, desirable.' (General Reed to President Wharton, February 1, 1778.)

"When such was the feeling in America, both as regarded Lord Chatham and as regarded the Congress, it would not certainly follow that any overture from the former would be rejected on account of the disapprobation of the latter. The provinces might, perhaps, have not been inclined to the deliberations, or even cast off the sway of the central body, and make terms of peace for themselves. At any rate, all such hope was not precluded; at least some such trial might be made.

"Nor does it appear to me, as to Mr. Macaulay, that there was any, even the slightest, inconsistency in Lord Chatham having first pronounced against the conquest of America, and yet refusing to allow her independence. After the declaration in her behalf of France, Lord Chatham had said, no doubt, that America could not be conquered. Had he ever said she could not be reconciled? It was on conciliation, and not on conquest, that he built his later hopes. He thought the declaration of France no obstacle to his views, but rather an instrument for their support. He conceived that the treaty of alliance concluded by the envoys of the Congress with the Court of Versailles might tend beyond any other cause to rekindle British feelings in the hearts of the Americans. Were the glories of Wolfe and Amherst, in which they had partaken, altogether blotted from their minds? Would the soldier-yeomen of the colonies be willing to fight side by side with those French whom, till within fifteen years, they had found in Canada their bitter hereditary foes? That consequences like to these—that some such revulsion of popular feeling in America might, perhaps, ensue from an open French alliance, is an apprehension which, during the first years of the contest, we find several times expressed in the secret letters of the Revolution chiefs; it was a possibility which we see called forth their fears; why then might it not be allowed to animate the hopes of Chatham?"[7]

But Lord Chatham was not destined even to try the experiment of giving America a second time to England; in a few days he fell in the House of Lords, to rise no more, with the protest on his lips against the separation of the American colonies from England. The Americans had no confidence in the professions of a Parliament and Ministry which had oppressed and sought to deceive them for twelve years. As low as the Congress had fallen in the estimation of a large part of the colonists, the English Ministry was regarded with universal distrust and aversion. The Congress refused even to confer with the Royal Commissioners, and had sufficient influence to prevent any province from entering into negotiations with them. All the former grounds of complaint had been removed by the three Acts of Parliament above referred to, and all the concessions demanded had been granted. The Royal Commissioners requested General Washington, on the 9th of June (1778), to furnish a passport for their Secretary, Dr. Ferguson with a letter from them to Congress; but this was refused, and the refusal was approved by Congress. They then forwarded, in the usual channel of communication, a letter addressed "To his Excellency Henry Laurens, the President, and other Members of Congress," in which they enclosed a copy of their commission and the Acts of Parliament on which it was founded; and they offered to concur in every satisfactory and just arrangement towards the following among other purposes:

"To consent to a cessation of hostilities both by sea and land;

"To restore free intercourse, to revive mutual affection, and renew the common benefits of naturalization through the several parts of this empire;

"To extend every freedom to trade that our respective interests can require;

"To agree that no military forces shall be kept up in the different States of North America without the consent of the General Congress, or particular Assemblies;

"To concur in measures calculated to discharge the debts of America, and to raise the credit and value of the paper circulation;

"To perpetuate our union by a reciprocal deputation of an agent or agents from the different States, who shall have the privilege of a seat and voice in the Parliament of Great Britain; or if sent from Great Britain, in that case to have a seat or voice in the Assemblies of the different States to which they may be deputed respectively, in order to attend to the several interests of those by whom they are deputed;

"In short, to establish the power of the respective Legislatures in each particular State; to settle its revenue, its civil and military establishment, and to exercise a perfect freedom of legislation and internal government; so that the British States throughout North America, acting with us in peace and war under one common sovereign, may have the irrevocable enjoyment of every privilege that is short of total separation of interests, or consistent with that union of force on which the safety of our common religion and liberty depends."[8]

The three Acts of Parliament and the proposals of the five English Commissioners were far in advance of any wishes which the colonists had expressed before the Declaration of Independence, and placed the colonists on the footing of Englishmen—all that the Earl of Chatham and Mr. Burke had ever advocated—all that the free, loyal, and happy Dominion of Canada enjoys at this day—all and nothing more than was required for the unity of the empire and of the Anglo-Saxon race; but the leaders of Congress had determined upon the dismemberment of the empire—had determined to sever all connection with the elder European branch of the Anglo-Saxon family—had determined, and that without even consulting the constituents whom they professed to represent, to transfer their allegiance from England to France, to bind themselves hand and foot to France—that they would make no peace with England, upon any terms, without the consent of the French Court.

It may be easily conceived what an effect would be produced upon the truly national mind of both England and America by such a transition on the part of the leaders of Congress and their representatives abroad—a transition which might be called a revolution, involving new issues and new relations of parties; for the question was no longer one of mere separation from England, much less the question of Stamp Acts, or taxation without representation, or suspension of charters—all acts and pretensions of this kind having been repealed and renounced; but the question was now one of union with the hereditary foe of England and her colonies; and the unnatural alliance contemplated the invasion of England by the French, the destruction of British commerce, the wresting from England of the West Indies as well as Canada,[9] and the possession by France of whatever islands or territory her navy and army should conquer.

All this was a different thing from mere independence of the mother country. The United Empire Loyalists and advocates of colonial rights were now subject to a new allegiance, and punished as rebels and their property confiscated if they would not unite with the French against their English forefathers and brethren. So enamoured were the leaders of Congress with their new allies, that they interrupted the reading of the official letter from the British Commissioners on account of a passage which reflected upon France, and debated three days whether they should allow the remaining part of the letter to be read.[10]

But the feelings of all classes in England, and of a large part, if not the great majority, of the colonists, were different from those of the leaders of Congress, now depleted of many distinguished men who attended its previous year's sittings.[11]

By this alliance with France the allied colonies became, as it were, a part of France, bound up in oneness with it—refusing all overtures or negotiations with the representatives of England without the approval of the French Court. The coasts, cities, towns, etc., of the American allies of France therefore became liable to the same treatment on the part of the British army and navy as the coasts, cities, and towns of France. Of this the British Commissioners informed the Congress, after the latter had declared its identity with France, and refused any further intercourse with them.[12]

The war for a short time after this period became more acrimonious and destructive on both sides than before, as between the French and English. But this policy of devastation and retaliation was disapproved of by the British Government—was confined mostly to some certain coast towns in New England, while in the South the conduct of Col. Campbell, on the subjugation of Georgia, was marked by lenity and generosity.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "While the American Commissioners were urging the Ministers of the King of France to accept the treaty proposed by Congress, they received assurances of the good wishes of the Court of France; but were from time to time informed that the important transactions required further consideration, and were enjoined to observe the most profound secrecy. Matters remained in this fluctuating state from December, 1776, till December, 1777. Private encouragement and public discountenance were alternated; but both varied according to the complexion of news from America. The defeat on Long Island, the reduction of New York, and the train of disastrous events in 1776, which have already been mentioned, sunk the credit of the Americans very low, and abated much of the national ardour for their support. Their subsequent successes at Trenton and Princeton effaced these impressions, and rekindled active zeal in their behalf. The capture of Burgoyne (October, 1777) fixed these wavering polities. The successes of the American campaign of 1777 placed them on high ground. Their enmity proved itself formidable to Britain, and their friendship became desirable to France. It was therefore determined to take them by the hand and publicly espouse their cause. The Commissioners of Congress, on the 16th of December, 1777, were informed by M. Gerard, one of the Secretaries of the King's Council of State, 'that it was decided to acknowledge the independence of the United States, and to make a treaty with them; that in the treaty no advantage would be taken of their situation to obtain terms which otherwise it would not be convenient for them to agree to; that his Most Christian Majesty desired the treaty, once made, should be durable, and their amity to subsist for ever, which could not be expected if each nation did not find an interest in its continuance as well as in its commencement.'" (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xv., pp. 246, 247.)

[2] "MS. Instructions, May, 6th, 1776, State Paper Office.—It is therein required as a preliminary condition, before any province shall be declared in the King's peace, that its Convention, or Committee, or Association 'which have usurped powers,' shall be dissolved."

[3] Lord Mahon's History of England, Vol. VI., Chap. liii., pp. 137, 138.

Lord Mahon adds: "At the beginning of the troubles, as I have already shown, and for a long time afterwards, the vast majority of the Americans had no wish nor thought of separation from the mother country. Their object was substantially, and with some new safeguards for their rights, to revert to the same state in which they had been before the Administration of George Grenville. But the further the conflict proceeded, the less and less easy of attainment did that object seem. How hard, after what had passed, to restore harmonious action between the powers now at strife, for the people to trust the Governors appointed by the King, and for the King to trust the Assembly elected by the people. Even where the actual wrong might have departed, it would still leave its fatal legacy, rancour and suspicion, behind. Under the influence of these feelings a great number of persons in all the colonies were gradually turning their minds to the idea of final separation from the parent State. Still, in all these colonies, except only in New England, there were many lingering regrets, many deep-rooted doubts and misgivings. John Adams writes as follows: 'My dear friend Gates, all our misfortunes arise from a single source—the reluctance of the Southern colonies to republican government' (March, 1776, American Archives, Vol. V., p. 472). Here are the words of another popular leader: 'Notwithstanding the Act of Parliament for seizing our property, there is a strange reluctance in the minds of many to cut the knot which ties us to Great Britain'" (Letter of Reed to Washington, March 3rd, 1776).—Ib., pp. 139, 140.

[4] Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xi., pp. 121, 122.

[5] "The impression on the House that night, while Lord North was speaking, and after he sat down, is well described by the pen of a contemporary—no other, in all probability, than Burke: 'A dull, melancholy silence for some time succeeded to this speech. It had been heard with profound attention, but without a single mark of approbation to any part, from any description of men, or any particular man in the House. Astonishment, dejection, and fear overclouded the whole assembly. Although the Minister had declared that the sentiments he expressed that day had been those which he always entertained, it is certain that few or none had understood him in that manner; and he had been represented to the nation at large as the person in it the most tenacious of those parliamentary rights which he now proposed to resign, and the most remote from the submissions which he now proposed to make.'

"It may be said, indeed, that there was not a single class or section within the walls of Parliament to which the plan of Lord North gave pleasure. The Ministerial party were confounded and abashed at finding themselves thus requested to acknowledge their past errors and retrace their former steps. Some among them called out that they had been deceived and betrayed. In general, however, the majority acquiesced in sullen silence. On the other part, the Opposition were by no means gratified to see the wind, according to the common phrase, taken from their sails. They could not, indeed, offer any resistance to proposals so consonant to their own expressed opinions, but they took care to make their support as disagreeable and damaging as possible." (Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. lvii., pp. 327-329.)

[6] History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. lvii, pp. 329, 330.

Lord Mahon adds: "Only two days previously, Lord North, who had opened his Budget on the 6th, had carried through his financial resolutions in the House of Commons, involving a new loan of £6,000,000, which was contracted on advantageous terms. Thus were funds provided to pursue the war, should that be requisite. Thus was an opening made for negotiations should they be practicable. In either case the path was cleared for a new Administration. Here then was the moment which Lord North had for some time past desired—the moment when, with most honour to himself and with most advantage to his country, he could fulfil his intentions of resigning." (Lord Mahon's History of England, Vol. VI., Chap. lvii, pp. 330, 331.)

[7] Lord Mahon's History of England, Vol. VI., Chap. lvii., pp. 344-347.

[8] Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xv., pp. 254, 255.

[9] While Count D'Estaing was at Boston repairing his shattered fleet, he was not unmindful of an essential part of his commission—to detach Canada from England. "In pursuance of this design, a Declaration was published (dated the 28th of October, 1778), addressed in the name of the King of France to the French inhabitants of Canada, and of every other part of America formerly subject to that Crown. This Declaration contained the highest praises of the valour of the Americans; it laid before the inhabitants of Canada the mortification they must endure in bearing arms against the allies of their parent State; it represented to them, in the strongest terms, the ties formed by origin, language, manners, government, and religion, between the Canadians and the French, and lamented the misfortune which had occasioned a disjunction of that colony from France; it recalled to their remembrance the brave resistance they had made during the many wars they had been engaged in against England, especially the last; it reminded them of their favourite warriors and generals, particularly the valiant Montcalm, who fell at their head, in defence of their country; it earnestly entreated them to reflect seriously on their disagreeable subjection to strangers living in another hemisphere, differing from them in every possible respect, who could consider them no otherwise than as a conquered people, and would always, of course, treat them accordingly. It concluded by formally notifying, that the Count D'Estaing was authorized and commanded by the King of France to declare, in his name, that all his former subjects in North America who should renounce their allegiance to Great Britain might depend on his protection and support." (Dr. Andrews' History of the American War, Vol. III., Chap. xxxviii., p. 171.)

[10] The conciliatory acts of the British Parliament and the letter of the Commissioners were referred by the Congress to a Committee of three—all known to be opposed to any reconciliation with England. This Committee made, the next day after its appointment, a report which was adopted by Congress, that the British acts were merely intended to operate upon the hopes and fears of the American people, and to produce divisions among them; "that those who made any partial convention or agreement with the Commissioners of Great Britain would be regarded as enemies; and that the United States could hold no conference with such Commissioners until the British Government first withdrew its fleets and armies, or acknowledged the independence of the United States."

"This rejection of terms which they not long before would have cordially welcomed, was, no doubt, caused by the confident expectation they then had of the support and alliance of France; and accordingly the news of that alliance soon after reached them, and diffused a general joy throughout the land." (Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 221, 222.)

[11] "The Declaration of Independence effected an alteration of sentiments in England. It was esteemed by many of the most judicious persons in this country, a measure wholly unnecessary, and without recurring to which America might have compassed every point proposed by continuing its resistance to Britain on the same footing it had begun. This measure occasioned an alienation from its interests in the minds of many of its former adherents. It was looked upon as a wanton abuse of the success with which it had opposed the efforts of the British Ministry to bring them to submission, and as an ungrateful return for the warmth with which their cause had been espoused in Parliament, and by such multitudes as in the idea of many amounted to a plurality."

"The Declaration of France completed the revolution that had been gradually taking place in the opinions of men on their being repeatedly apprised of the determination of Congress to break asunder all the bonds of former amity, and to unite themselves in the closest manner with that kingdom." (Dr. Andrews' History of the American War, Vol. III., Chap. xxxiv., pp. 82-84.)

The Declaration of France in favour of the independence of the American colonies, and of alliance with them, was officially communicated to the British Government the 13th of March, 1778, a few days after which the French fleet under the command of Count D'Estaing sailed from Toulon, and arrived off the coast of America in July—after a long voyage of eighty-seven days. On learning the departure of the French fleet for America, the British Government sent out, in the same ships with the Peace Commissioners, orders to Sir Henry Clinton to concentrate his forces on Long Island and at New York. "The successor of Howe, Sir Henry Clinton, was," says Lord Mahon, "in character, as upright and amiable; in skill and enterprise, much superior. Had the earlier stages of the war been under his direction, his ability might not have been without influence upon them. But it was his misfortune to be appointed only at a time when other foes had leagued against us, when the path was beset with thorns and briars, when scarce any laurels rose in view. In consequence of the impending war with France, and in conformity with the advice of Lord Amherst to the King, instructions had been addressed to Sir Henry, on the 23rd of March, to retire from the hard-won city of Philadelphia, and concentrate his forces at New York. This order reached him at Philadelphia, in the month of May, only a few days after he had assumed the chief command; only a few days before, there came on shore the British Commissioners of Peace. These Commissioners might well complain with some warmth, in a secret letter to Lord George Germaine, that an order so important, so directly bearing on the success of their mission, should have been studiously concealed from them until they landed in America, and beheld it in progress of execution. Thus to a private friend wrote Lord Carlisle (one of the Commissioners): 'We arrived at this place, after a voyage of six weeks, on Saturday last, and found everything here in great confusion—- the army upon the point of leaving the town, and about three thousand of the miserable inhabitants embarked on board of our ships, to convey them from a place where they think they would receive no mercy from those who will take possession after us.'"

"Thus from the first," says Lord Mahon, "the Commissioners had against them the news of a retreat from Philadelphia, and the news of the treaty of Paris; further, they had against them, as the Opposition in England had long foreseen and foretold, the fact of their connection with Lord North. Even at the outset, before their affairs could be known (June 14, 1778), one of the leaders in America, General Joseph Reed, answered a private note from one of them as follows: 'I shall only say that after the unparalleled injuries and insults this country has received from the men who now direct the affairs of Great Britain, a negotiation under their auspices has much to Struggle with.'" "How different," remarks Lord Mahon, "might have been his feelings, had they brought their Commission from Lord Chatham." (History of England, Vol. VI., Chap. lviii., pp. 372-374.)

Lord Mahon adds: "Not any, even the smallest opening, was afforded to these messengers of peace. They desired to despatch to the seat of Congress their Secretary, Dr. Adam Ferguson, the well-known Professor of Edinburgh, and they applied to Washington for a passport, but Washington refused it until the pleasure of Congress should be known. The Congress, on their part, had put forth a resolution declining even to hold any conference with the Commissioners unless, as a preliminary, they should either withdraw the fleets and armies, or else, in express terms, acknowledge the independence of the United States. In vain did the Commissioners address the President of the Congress, and entreat some consideration of their terms. (For the terms, see page [11].) To none of these terms, so tempting heretofore, would the Congress hearken; and after their first letter, they decided in a summary manner that no further reply should be returned."—Ib., pp. 374, 375.

[12] "Finding it impossible to proceed with their negotiations, the Commissioners prepared to re-embark for England. First, however, they issued a manifesto, or proclamation, to the American people, appealing to them against the decisions of the Congress, and offering to the colonies at large, or singly, a general or separate peace. This proclamation was in most parts both ably and temperately argued. But there was one passage liable to just exceptions. The Commissioners observed, that hitherto the hopes of a reunion had checked the extremes of war. Henceforth the contest would be changed. If the British colonies were to become an accession to France, the law of self-preservation must direct Great Britain to render the accession of as little avail as possible to her enemy. Mr. Fox and others in the House of Commons inveighed with great plausibility against this passage, us threatening a war of savage desolation. Others again, as friends of Lord Carlisle and Mr. Eden (afterwards Lord Auckland), asserted that no such meaning was implied. The error, whatever it might be, lay with the Commissioners, and in no degree with the Government at home; for Lord North denied, in the most express terms, that his Ministers had intended to give the least encouragement to the introduction of any new kind of war in North America." (Debate in the House of Commons, Dec. 4, 1778.)

Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. lviii., pp. 376, 377.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Complete Failure of the French Fleet and Army, under Count D'Estaing, to Assist the Congress.

The leaders of Congress were disappointed in the high expectations which they had entertained from their unnatural alliance with France. Count D'Estaing left France with a much more powerful fleet than Lord Howe commanded in America, besides bringing an army of several thousand soldiers. He had expected to surprise and capture the British ships in the River Delaware; but Lord Howe had sailed for New York several days before his arrival. Count D'Estaing pursued, and lay eleven days at anchor off Sandy Hook, not being able to get his large ships over the bar into New York harbour. He at length directed his course, by Washington's advice, to Long Island, and sailed up the Newport river, whither he was followed by Lord Howe. "An attack against the British in that quarter had been projected between the new allies. The French promised to land from their ships four thousand troops, and the Americans actually sent a detachment of ten thousand under General Sullivan. The British troops, only five thousand strong, retired within their lines at Newport.

"At these tidings, Lord Howe, whose intended successor, Admiral Byron, had not yet arrived, issued forth from the Hudson and sailed in pursuit of D'Estaing. The two fleets were on the point of engaging when separated by a violent storm; there were conflicts between individual ships only, in which the honour of the British flag was worthily maintained. D'Estaing now declared his fleet so far damaged by the storm as to compel him to put into Boston harbour and refit. In this resolution he persisted, though Sullivan, Greene, and other American officers altogether denied the necessity, and even transmitted to him a written protest against it, couched in the most acrimonious terms."[13]

Certain it is, that the course which D'Estaing pursued on this occasion not only forced the Americans to relinquish their enterprise upon Long Island, but roused up among them a bitter feeling against the French. To such an extent was this animosity carried that riots ensued in the streets of Boston [14] between the American seamen and their new allies.[15]

Even in regard to the mode of attacking the British on Long Island, differences arose between Count D'Estaing and his new American friends on questions of etiquette. Mr. Tucker says: "D'Estaing's fastidiousness on points of etiquette, and his refusal to aid in what would have given so serious a blow to the British power in America, is calculated to raise a doubt whether he was really anxious to bring the war to an immediate conclusion."[16] Early in November, Count D'Estaing, with the French squadron, quitted the port of Boston and sailed for the West Indies, there to pursue exclusively French objects. "Deep was the disappointment and loud the animadversion of the Americans in the Northern provinces. They had formed the most sanguine hopes from the French alliance. They had found that alliance as yet little better than a name."[17]

The results of Count D'Estaing's expedition, and of the French alliance thus far, are well summed up by Dr. Ramsay in the following words: "With the abortive expedition to Rhode Island there was an end to the plans which were in this first campaign projected by the allies of Congress for co-operation. The Americans had been intoxicated with hopes of the most decisive advantages; but in every instance they were disappointed. Lord Howe, with an inferiority of force, not only preserved his own fleet, but counteracted and defeated all the views and attempts of Count D'Estaing. The French fleet gained no direct advantages for the Americans; yet their arrival was of great service to their cause. Besides deranging the plans of the British, it carried conviction to their minds that his Most Christian Majesty was seriously disposed to support them. The good-will of their new allies was manifested to the Americans; and though it had failed in producing the effects expected from it, the failure was charged to winds, weather, and unavoidable incidents. Some censured Count D'Estaing; but while they attempted to console themselves by throwing blame on him, they felt and acknowledged their obligation to the French nation, and were encouraged to persevere in the war, from the hope that better fortune would attend their future co-operation."[18] Count D'Estaing proceeded with his fleet to the West Indies, where he did nothing worthy of the large fleet, reinforced by that of Count de Grasse with several thousand troops, against the English fleet under the command of Admiral Byron—much inferior in both men and metal; but the French admiral declined and evaded any general engagement, though repeatedly provoked to it. "The British fleet endeavoured in vain to compel the enemy to come to close fight; they avoided it with the utmost circumspection and dexterity."[19]

It became indispensably necessary for Admiral Byron to provide a powerful convoy to the merchant shipping now on the eve of their departure for England, and whose cargoes were of immense value. Under all the circumstances, Admiral Byron determined to convoy the homeward trade with his whole fleet, till it was out of danger of being followed by Count D'Estaing or of falling in with M. de la Motte, who was on his way from France to the French islands with a strong squadron. During Admiral Byron's absence, Count D'Estaing directed an attack to be made on the island of St. Vincent, the garrison of which was very inconsiderable, and soon surrendered to the superior strength of the French, assisted by a great multitude of the Caribbee Indians, and who seized this opportunity of revenging themselves for injuries inflicted upon them by the English during the last French war.

In the meantime Count D'Estaing was still further reinforced by the arrival of the squadron commanded by M. de la Motte. His fleet now consisted of twenty-six ships of the line and twelve frigates, and his land force amounted to ten thousand men. With this powerful armament he sailed for the island of Grenada, the strength of which consisted of about one hundred and fifty regulars and three or four hundred armed inhabitants. The garrison was compelled to yield to the prodigious superiority of force against them, after a most heroic defence, in which no less than three hundred of the French were killed and wounded.[20]

The complaints of the Americans of the failure of Count D'Estaing's expedition to America, of his abandoning the expedition against Long Island, of his leaving the coasts of the Southern colonies unprotected and exposed, and proceeding to the West Indies, reached the French Court, which sent instructions to Count D'Estaing enjoining him to return with all speed to the assistance of the colonies. For this purpose he left the West Indies on the 1st of September. Mr. Tucker remarks: "General Lincoln (commander of the colonial forces in Carolina) having informed Count D'Estaing that the British ships had gone into port to repair the damages sustained in the late engagement with his fleet in the West Indies, and that a fair opportunity was presented of destroying the British army in Georgia, with the co-operation of the French fleet, the Count immediately left the West Indies, with twenty-two sail of the line and eleven frigates. He had on board six thousand land forces, and arrived so unexpectedly on the coast that a British fifty-gun ship and three frigates fell into his hands. He then, in conjunction with General Lincoln, planned an attack on the town of Savannah."[21]

The arrangements for the attack having been made, the whole French fleet came to anchor at the mouth of the Savannah river on the 1st day of September. He was occupied ten days in landing his troops and artillery; on the 15th of September a junction was formed between the French and General Lincoln,[22] and with the utmost confidence of success.[23]

They determined to take the town by siege rather than by storm in the first instance.[24]

On the 16th of September they demanded, in a very confident and haughty tone, the surrender of the town to the arms of the King of France; but General Prevost declined surrendering on a general summons, and requested a specific statement of the terms of it. The Count replied that it was for the besieged to propose the terms. General Prevost requested and obtained twenty-four hours' suspension of hostilities to prepare his answer. Before the twenty-four hours had elapsed, Lieutenant-Colonel Maitland, with several hundred men who had been stationed at Beaufort, made their way through inland channels and swamps, and joined the royal standard at Savannah; and General Prevost gave his answer of no surrender. The French and Americans, who formed a junction the evening after, resolved to besiege the town, and consumed several days in preparing for it, while the works of the garrison were hourly strengthened by great labour and skill. From the 24th of September to the 4th of October a heavy cannonade on both sides was kept up; but the allied army, finding that they could make little or no impression on the works of the besieged, resolved on a bombardment, with a stronger cannonading than ever. On the 4th of October the besiegers opened on the town three batteries, with nine mortars, thirty-seven pieces of cannon from the land side, and fifteen from the water. The firing from these batteries lasted, with little intermission, during five days; but the damage they did was confined mostly to the town, where some houses were destroyed and some women and children killed. Soon after the commencement of the cannonade, General Prevost requested permission to remove the women and children out of the town to a place of safety; but this request was refused in offensive terms on the part of Count D'Estaing, by the advice of General Lincoln, on the pretext that a desire of secreting the plunder lately taken from the South Carolinas was covered under the veil of humanity, but the real reason was that the surrender of the town would be expedited by keeping the women and children in it.[25]

Count D'Estaing, finding that his five days' cannonading made no impression on the defensive works of the city, and his officers remonstrating against his continuing to risk so valuable a fleet on a dangerous coast, in the hurricane season, and at so great a distance from shore that it might be surprised by a British fleet, now completely repaired in the West Indies and fully manned, he decided to assault the town. The attack was commenced in three columns on the 9th, an hour before sunrise.

"Though the besieged were prepared for the assault, and their fire was very destructive, the assailants pressed on and planted (for a few minutes) the standard of both nations on the walls; but the contest being still obstinately continued, the assailants were brought to a pause by the fall of Count Pulaski (commanding an American corps), who received a mortal wound; and Major Glaziers, who commanded the garrison, rushing at the head of a body of grenadiers and marines, drove back the allied troops, who were ordered to retreat. The French lost seven hundred men; the Americans, two hundred and thirty-four. The British garrison lost only fifty-five in killed and wounded. On the 16th of October the siege was raised by the Count, who thus for the third time failed in his co-operation with the Americans, after the fairest prospects of success."[26]

Mr. Bancroft states the final struggle of this eventful contest, and the results and effects of it on the Southern colonies, in the following words:—"After an obstinate struggle of fifty-five minutes to carry the redoubt, the assailants retreated before a charge of grenadiers and marines, led gallantly by Maitland. The injury sustained by the British was trifling; the loss of the Americans was about two hundred; of the French, thrice as many. The French withdrew their ships, and sailed for France; the patriots of Georgia who had joined them fled to the backwoods or across the river.

"Lincoln repaired to Charleston, and was followed by what remained of his army; the militia of South Carolina returned to their homes; its continental regiments were melting away; and its paper money became so nearly worthless, that a bounty of twenty-five hundred dollars for twenty-one months' service had no attraction. The dwellers near the sea between Charleston and Savannah were shaken in their allegiance, not knowing where to find protection. Throughout the State the people were disheartened, and foreboded desolation."[27]

I have given a more minute account of Count D'Estaing and his abortive expeditions to America, and of his final attack upon Savannah and its results; how completely disappointed were the American revolutionists thus far in their unnatural alliance with France against England; how little mutual respect or good-will, and what quarrels occurred, whenever they came or attempted to act together, whether at Boston, or Long Island, or Charleston, or Savannah; and how much feebler the army and more gloomy the prospects of the Congress party were at the end of 1779 than they were two years before, when the alliance with France was formed. Dr. Ramsay well sums up these events as follows:

"The campaign of 1779 is remarkable for the feeble exertions of the Americans. Accidental causes, which had previously excited their activity, had in a great measure ceased to have influence. An enthusiasm for liberty made them comparatively disregard property and brave all dangers in the first years of the war. The successes of their arms near the beginning of 1777, and the hope of capturing Burgoyne's army in the close of it, together with the brisk circulation of a large quantity of paper-money, in good credit, made that year both active and decisive. The flattering prospects inspired by the alliance with France in 1778 banished all fears of the success of the revolution, but the failure of every scheme of co-operation produced a despondency of mind unfavourable to great exertions. Instead of driving the British out of the country, as the Americans vainly presumed, the campaigns of 1778 and 1779 terminated without any direct advantage from the French fleet sent to their aid. Expecting too much from their allies, and then failing in these expectations, they were less prepared to prosecute the war with their own resources than they would have been if D'Estaing had not touched on their coast. Their army was reduced in its numbers and badly clothed.

"In the first years of the war, the mercantile character was lost in the military spirit of the times; but in the progress of it the inhabitants, cooling in their enthusiasm, gradually returned to their former habits of lucrative business. This made distinctions between the army and citizens, and was unfriendly to military exertions. While several foreign events tended to the embarrassment of Great Britain,[28] and indirectly to the establishment of independence, a variety of internal causes relaxed the exertions of the Americans, and for a time made it doubtful whether they would ultimately be independent citizens or conquered subjects."[29]

Even a year later—"The military force," says Mr. Tucker, "embarked in the beginning of 1781, to maintain the cause of independence, is thus stated in (Chief Justice) Marshall's Life of Washington: The Southern troops, from Pennsylvania to Georgia, did not exceed three thousand men. Of the Northern troops, twelve hundred had been detached to Virginia, under La Fayette; with these they amounted only to three thousand effective men in April. The cavalry and artillery was less than one thousand. With some small additions, the whole reached four thousand men in May. They were ill supplied with clothing, and were seriously threatened with a want of provisions. The quartermaster's department was without means of transport," (Marshall, Vol. IV., p. 446).[30]

Such was the character and such the fruits of the alliance with France during the first two years of its existence; and such was the state of the revolutionary army in 1780, and which seems to have been largely owing to the incapacity and ill conduct of the Congress itself, which had become degenerate and corrupt—equal to that of any British Parliament, or of any Provincial Legislature, under any Royal Governor.[31]

Abundant evidence can be adduced in proof and illustration of this statement from the warmest partizans of Congress; but the testimony of Washington himself is ample and indisputable. In the winter of 1778-9 he had to concert his measures with Congress at Philadelphia, and he writes from thence as follows to his friend Benjamin Harrison:

"If I were to be called upon to draw a picture of the times and of men from what I have seen, heard, and in part known, I should in one word say that idleness, dissipation, and extravagance seem to have laid fast hold of them; that speculation, peculation, and an insatiable thirst for riches seem to have got the better of every other consideration and of every order of men; that party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the day; whilst the momentous concerns of an empire, a great and accumulating debt, ruined finances, depreciated money, and want of credit, which in its consequence is the want of everything, are but secondary considerations, and postponed from day to day, and from week to week, as if our affairs wore the most promising aspect. * * Our money is now sinking fifty per cent. a day in this city, and I shall not be surprised if in the course of a few months a total stop is put to the currency of it; and yet an assembly, a concert, a dinner, a supper, that will cost three or four hundred pounds, will not only take men from acting in this business, but from thinking of it; while a great part of the officers of our army, from absolute necessity, are quitting the service. * * I have no resentments, nor do I mean to point at particular characters. This I can declare upon my honour, for I have every attention paid me by Congress that I could possibly expect. * * But such is the picture which from my inmost soul I believe to be true; and I confess to you that I feel more real distress on account of the present appearances of things, than I have done at any time since the commencement of the dispute."[32]

Such is General Washington's own account of the character and occupation of the Congress of the United States in the third year of the revolutionary war, and in the second year of their alliance with France—idleness, dissipation, extravagance, speculation, peculation, avarice, party and personal quarrels, dancing, feasting; while the credit was reduced almost to nothing, and the army neglected and suffering.[33]

Such was the progress of the war; such the failure of the expeditions of the French alliance; such the state of the revolutionary army, and of the public credit; and such the degenerate character and proceedings of Congress and its surroundings in the beginning of 1780—the fifth year of the civil war.

FOOTNOTES:

[13] "They urged D'Estaing to return with his fleet into the harbour; but his principal officers were opposed to the measure, and protested against it. He had been instructed to go into Boston if his fleet met with any misfortune. His officers insisted on his ceasing to prosecute the expedition against Rhode Island, that he might conform to the orders of their common superiors. A protest was drawn up and sent to him, which was signed by John Sullivan, Nathaniel Greene, John Hancock, I. Glover, Ezekiel Cornel, William Whipple, John Tyler, Solomon Lovell, John Fitconnel. They protested against the Count's taking the fleet to Boston, as derogatory to the honour of France, contrary to the intention of his Christian Majesty and the interests of his nation, destructive in the highest degree to the welfare of the United States, and highly injurious to the alliance formed between the two nations. Had D'Estaing prosecuted his original plan within the harbour, either before or immediately after the pursuit of Lord Howe, the reduction of the British post on Rhode Island (which had been in the possession of the British since 1776) would have been probable; but his departure in the first instance to engage the English fleet, and in the second from Rhode Island to Boston, frustrated the whole." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xvi., p. 272.)

"Whatever were the reasons which induced Count D'Estaing to adopt that measure (of sailing with his fleet direct for Boston), the Americans were greatly dissatisfied. They complained that they had incurred great expense and danger, under the prospect of the most effective co-operation; that depending thereon, they had risked their lives on an island, where, without naval protection, they were exposed to particular dangers; that in this situation they were first deserted, and afterwards totally abandoned, at a time when, by persevering in the original plan, they had well-grounded hopes of speedy success. Under these apprehensions the discontented militia went home in such crowds that the regular army, which remained was in danger of being cut off from a retreat. In these embarrassing circumstances, General Sullivan extricated himself with judgment and ability. He began to send off his heavy artillery and baggage on the 26th, and retreated from the lines on the night of the 28th." (Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. lviii., p. 173.)

[14] "The inveteracy to the French, traditionally inherent in the lower classes of the New England people, could not be restrained from breaking out in Boston, in manner that might have been attended with the most serious consequences to the interests of both France and America, had not the prudence of the magistracy interposed on the one hand, and the sagacity of Count D'Estaing co-operated on the other. A desperate fray happened in that city between the populace and the French sailors, in which these were roughly handled, and had much the worse. A number of them were hurt and wounded, and some, it was reported, were killed."

"Precisely at the same time, a disturbance of a like nature happened at Charleston, in South Carolina, between the French and American seamen, but it was carried to much greater extremities; they engaged on both sides with small arms, and even with cannon. A number of people were killed and wounded" (Dr. Andrews' History of the American War, Vol. III., Chap. xxxviii., pp. 172, 173)

[15] Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. lviii, pp. 380, 381.

"During this time Sir Henry Clinton sent out several expeditions in various quarters. Near Tappan, a body of American horsemen under Colonel Baylor were surprised and routed, or put to the sword. In Egg-Harbour, great part of Count Pulaski's foreign legion was cut to pieces. At Buzzard's Bay, and on the island called Martha's Vineyard, many American ships were taken or destroyed, store-houses burned, and contributions of sheep and oxen levied. In these expeditions the principal commander was General Charles Grey, an officer of great zeal and ardour, whom the Americans sometimes surnamed the 'No-flint General,' from his common practice of ordering the men to take the flints out of their muskets, and trust to their bayonets alone. After some twenty years of further service, the veteran was raised, by the favour of his Sovereign, to the peerage as Lord Grey of Howick, and afterwards Earl Grey. His son became Prime Minister (father of the present Earl Grey), and the greatest orator who, since the death of Chatham, had appeared in the House of Lords."—Ib., pp. 382, 383.

[16] Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 231.

[17] Lord Mahon's History of England, Vol. VI., Chap. lviii., p. 384.

Mr. Tucker remarks on this subject: "On the 3rd of November D'Estaing sailed for the West Indies, and thus ended the costly and fruitless expedition which bade fair to be decisive of the contest; and which failed first by disasters from the elements, and then from misunderstandings in which the interests of the common cause seem to have been sacrificed to paltry personal feelings on both sides." (History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap, iii., p. 234.)

[18] Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xvi., p. 275.

[19] "Early in January, 1779, reinforcements under Admiral Byron transferred maritime superiority to the British; and D'Estaing for six months sheltered his fleet in the bay of Port Royal. At the end of June, Byron having left St. Lucia to convoy a company of British merchant ships through the passage, D'Estaing detached a force against St. Vincent, which, with the aid of the oppressed and enslaved Caribs, was easily taken. At the same time the French admiral made an attack on the island of Grenada, whose garrison surrendered on the 4th of July, at discretion." (Bancroft, Vol. X., Chap, xiii., p. 295.)

[20] "Two days after the taking of Grenada," says Mr. Bancroft, "the fleet of Byron arrived within sight of the French, and, though reduced in number, sought a general close action, which his adversary knew how to avoid." (History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap, xiii., p. 295.)

[21] History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap, iii., p. 249.

"Count D'Estaing's intentions and his hopes were, as before, directed to objects of the first magnitude. The first measure of the plan and contemplation was to expel the British forces out of Georgia, and to place that province and the contiguous province of South Carolina, and in short all the Southern colonies, on a footing of perfect security from any future invasions by the British troops. After the accomplishment of this object, he next proposed no less than a total deliverance of America from the terror of the British arms. This was to be effected by the destruction of the British fleet at New York. The latter part of the plan he doubted not to accomplish through the co-operation of the American army under Washington." (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. III., Chap. xlv., pp. 308, 309.)

[22] "A junction being formed by the French and American forces, they amounted together to between nine and ten thousand men. Count D'Estaing had five thousand regulars, and near one thousand stout mulattos and free negroes, well armed. The body of Americans that joined him under the command of General Lincoln consisted of about two thousand at first, but were soon augmented to twice that number.

"To oppose this formidable strength, General Prevost (the commander of Savannah) had no more, altogether, than three thousand men; but they were such as continual experience had shown he could place the utmost dependence on. Numbers were refugees (loyalists), whom resentment for the usage they had received exasperated to a degree that rendered them desperate."—Ib., p. 312.

[23] "As soon as the arrival of Count D'Estaing on the coast was known, General Lincoln, with the army under his command, marched for the vicinity of Savannah; and orders were given for the militia of Georgia and South Carolina to rendezvous near the same place. The British were equally diligent in preparing for their defence. The American militia, flushed with the hope of speedily expelling the British from their southern possessions, turned out with an alacrity which far surpassed their exertions in the previous campaign." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xvii., p. 302.)

[24] "The French and the Americans encamped separately. Count D'Estaing thought it most prudent to keep them apart. He knew by experience how apt they were to disagree; and he hoped that, by acting asunder from each other, a reciprocal emulation would be excited. It was agreed, accordingly, that each of them should carry on their respective approaches without interference from the other side. This method was particularly agreeable to the French, who, looking upon themselves as incomparably superior to the Americans, did not choose to divide any honour with these, to which they imagined that they alone were entitled." (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. III., Chap, xlv., pp. 312, 313.)

[25] Count D'Estaing was afterwards so ashamed of this inhuman refusal, that after the repulse of his assault upon the garrison he apologized for it, and offered the permission requested, but which was no longer needed, and therefore refused.

General Stedman, referring to this circumstance, says: "On the morning of the 4th of October, the batteries of the besiegers having opened with a discharge from fifty-three pieces of heavy cannon and fourteen mortars, a request was made by General Prevost that the women and children might be permitted to leave the town and embark on board vessels in the river, which should be placed under the protection of Count D'Estaing, and wait the issue of the siege. But this proposal, dictated by humanity, was rejected with insult. Fortunately, however, for the inhabitants as well as the garrison, although an incessant cannonade from so many pieces of artillery was continued from the 4th to the 9th of October, less injury was done to the houses in the town than might have been expected; few lives were lost, and the defences were in no respect materially damaged." (Stedman's History of the American War, Vol. II., Chap, xxx., p. 127.)

[26] Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap, iii., p. 250.

This disastrous attack upon Savannah was followed by mutual recriminations between the French and American officers and soldiers.

"No good agreement, it has been said, subsisted between the French and Americans from the commencement of the siege, and their mutual dislike was now increased by disappointment. After the assault, the French could no longer conceal their contempt for their new allies; they styled them 'insurgents' in common conversation and even in written memorials." (General Stedman's History of the American War, Vol. II., Chap, xxx., p. 132.)

"While the British troops were enjoying the satisfaction resulting from the success that was due to their conduct and valour, the enemy was in a condition of discontent and sullenness which had like to have terminated fatally. The Americans could not conceal their disapprobation of the whole proceedings of Count D'Estaing, nor he the contemptuous light in which he held them. Reciprocal taunts and reproaches came to such a height between both the officers and soldiers of either party, that it was once thought they would have proceeded to actual violence.

"A motive which strongly influenced the Americans was the jealousy they had conceived against the French commander, on account of his having summoned General Prevost to surrender to the arms of France, without including those of the United States of America. They inferred from thence, that either he considered them as unworthy of the honour of being mentioned conjointly with the King of France, or that he meant to retain the province of Georgia for that Crown in case of reduction. Whichever of the two was the meaning of the French commander, it exposed him equally to the indignation of the Americans.

"To this it may be added, that the inhuman refusal of the request of General Prevost for a permission to the women and children to depart from the town of Savannah during the siege, was now by the French attributed to the Americans, whom they accused of brutality, and whose general, a French officer of rank, was loaded with the coarsest and most injurious appellations, in common with his other countrymen.

"From the day of their repulse, both the French and Americans abandoned all further prosecution of the siege.

"In this manner was the province of Georgia cleared a third time of the enemy, after the most sanguine expectations had been entertained by all America that the reduction of this province would have been a preparatory step to the expulsion of the British fleets and armies from every part of the continent." (Dr. Andrews' History of the War, etc., Vol. III., Chap. xlv., pp. 316-318.)

[27] Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. xiii., pp. 297, 298.

[28] "In the latter part of this year (1779), Spain decided on joining France in the war, anxious as she was to take the chance of recovering Gibraltar, Jamaica, and the Floridas." (Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 251.)

Thus England had arrayed against her two of the most powerful Governments, with the two most powerful fleets in Europe, besides the war in America.

[29] Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xvii., pp. 305, 306.

[30] Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 282.

[31] "There were never more than forty members present—often no more than twenty. These small numbers, however, by no means insured harmony, nor precluded violent and unseemly quarrels, rumours of which were not slow in passing the Atlantic. 'For God's sake,' thus writes La Fayette from France, 'For God's sake prevent the Congress from disputing loudly together. Nothing so much hurts the interest and reputation of America.' (Letter of La Fayette to Washington, June 12th, 1779.) Thus the object of concealment, unless, perhaps, for private purposes, was most imperfectly attained, although, in name at least, the deliberations of Congress at this time were secret. Historically, even the Journal which they kept gives little light as to their true proceedings. An American gentleman, who has studied that document with care, laments that it is painfully meagre, the object being apparently to record as little as possible." (Life of President Reed, by Mr. William Reed, Vol. II., p. 18.)

Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. lviii., pp. 420, 421.

[32] Letter to Benjamin Harrison, December 30th, 1778. Washington's Writings, Vol. VI., p. 151, quoted in Lord Mahon's History, Vol. VI., Chap. lviii., pp. 419, 420.

[33] Dr. Ramsay, referring to this depreciation of the currency, says: "The confiscation and sale of the property of Tories, for the most part, brought but very little into the public treasury. The sales were generally made on credit, and by the progressive depreciation, what was dear at the time of the purchase, was very cheap at the time of payment. When this measure was first adopted, little or no injustice resulted from it, for at that time the paper bills were equal, or nearly equal, to gold or silver of the same nominal sum. In the progress of the war, when depreciation took place, the case was materially altered.

"The aged, who had retired from the scenes of active business to enjoy the fruits of their industry, found their substance melting away to a mere pittance, insufficient for their support. The widow who lived comfortably on the bequests of a deceased husband, experienced a frustration of all his well-meant tenderness. The laws of the country interposed and compelled her to receive a shilling, where a pound was her due. The hapless orphan, instead of receiving from the hands of an executor a competency to set out in business, was obliged to give a final discharge on the payment of sixpence in the pound." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp. 315, 316.)

"The paper-money," says Lord Mahon, "had gradually fallen to one-twentieth, to one-thirtieth, nay, in some cases to not less than one-hundredth of its nominal value! But perhaps one practical instance may make this case clearer. In December of this year (1779), and in the State of Maryland, an English officer received an innkeeper's bill, which in his Travels he has printed at full length, amounting in paper-money to £732 and some shillings; and this bill he paid in gold with four guineas and a half." (Aubury's Travels, Vol. II., p. 492.) (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. lviii., p. 416.)

General Washington thus describes this state of things in regard to every man in the public service: "What officers can bear the weight of prices that every necessary article is now got to? A rat, in the shape of a horse, is not to be bought at this time for less than two hundred pounds, nor a saddle under thirty or forty pounds; boots twenty, and shoes and other articles in like proportion. How is it possible, therefore, for officers to stand this without an increase of pay? And how is it possible to advance their pay when flour is selling at different places from five to fifteen pounds per hundredweight, hay from ten to thirty pounds, and beef and other essentials in like proportion?" The depreciation still proceeding, Washington a few months afterwards says that "a waggon load of money will now scarcely purchase a waggon load of provisions." (Letters to Governor Morris, October 4th, 1778; and to the President of the Congress, April 23rd, 1779.)

CHAPTER XXIX.

1780—A Year of Weakness and Disaster to the American Cause, and of Success to the British Arms.

The year 1780 was inauspicious for the revolutionary cause, but auspicious for the English. The financial embarrassments arising from the depreciation of the paper-money engaged the anxious deliberations of Congress,[34] and Washington's army was by no means able to cope with the northern division of the English army.[35]

But La Fayette, now returned from a recent visit to France, during which he had obtained from the French Court a loan of money and reinforcements of naval and land forces, Washington contemplated the recovery of New York, which had long been a favourite object with him. The French squadron of seven sail of the line, and five frigates and transports, under the command of Chevalier de Ternay, arrived at Newport harbour, Long Island, on the 10th July, having on board six thousand troops, under the command of Count de Rochambeau, who, in order to prevent the repetition of previous disputes, was directed to put himself under Washington's orders; and on all points of precedence and etiquette—this was the first division of the promised reinforcements from France—the French officers were to give place to the Americans. Washington and Count de Rochambeau agreed upon an attack on New York. The British had in New York only four ships of the line and a few frigates; but three days after the arrival of the French squadron, Admiral Graves reached New York with six ships of the line. Having now the naval superiority, the British, instead of waiting to be attacked, proposed to attack the French at Newport, and for which purpose Sir Henry Clinton embarked with six thousand men; but as Sir Henry Clinton and Admiral Arbuthnot could not agree on a plan of operations, the British troops were disembarked. The fleet proceeded to blockade the French ships, and the revolutionary army was obliged to remain at Newport for their protection. "News presently arrived that the French second division was detained at Brest, blockaded there by another British squadron. Instead of being an assistance, the French auxiliaries threatened to be a burden; three thousand troops and five hundred militia were kept under arms at Newport to assist in guarding the French ships. Thus a third time—as it seemed, almost a sort of fatality—the attempt at French co-operation proved a failure."[36]

Sir Henry Clinton, on leaving the Count D'Estaing after his defeat at Savannah, had left the coast of Georgia with his fleet for France, determined to extend his military operations south, with a view of completing the submission of the Southern States. Leaving the garrison of New York under the command of General Knyphausen, he proceeded in person on an expedition against South Carolina, and besieged Charleston, the capital. Information had been obtained at Charleston of Sir Henry Clinton's intention two months before the arrival of his fleet and troops, and the city was fortified on all sides, and on its redoubts, lines, and batteries were mounted eighty pieces of cannon and mortars. The commander, General Lincoln, had a force of 7,000 men of all denominations under arms, and was expecting large reinforcements. The army of Sir Henry Clinton was increased by a reinforcement of 3,000 men—making in the whole about 9,000 men under his command.

At the commencement of the siege, the Governor of the State, by the extraordinary powers conferred upon him by the Legislature, issued a proclamation requiring such of the militia as were regularly drafted, and all the inhabitants and owners of property in the town, to repair to the American standard and join the garrison immediately, under pain of confiscation.

The siege commenced the 3rd of April, and was protracted to the 11th of May. The terms of capitulation proposed by each party in the earlier part of the siege were mutually declined. Cannonading continued on each side until the British opened batteries on the third parallel, played upon the American garrison with cannon and mortars at a distance of less than a hundred yards, advanced within twenty-five yards of the American works, and were ready for making a general assault by land and water when, on the 11th of May, "a great number of citizens addressed General Lincoln in a petition, expressing their acquiescence in the terms which Sir Henry Clinton had offered, and requested his acceptance of them. On the reception of this petition, General Lincoln wrote to Sir Henry, and offered to accept the terms before proposed. The royal commanders, wishing to avoid the extremity of storming the city, and unwilling to press to unconditional submission an enemy whose friendship they wished to conciliate, returned a favourable answer. A capitulation was signed on the 12th of May, and Major General Leslie took possession of the town the next day. Upwards of 400 pieces of artillery were surrendered.[37] By the articles of capitulation, the garrison was to march out of town and deposit their arms in front of the works, but the drums were not to beat a British march, nor the colours to be uncased. The continental troops and seamen were to keep their baggage and remain prisoners of war till exchanged. The militia were to be permitted to return to their respective homes, as prisoners on parole; and while they adhered to their parole, were not to be molested by the British troops in person or property. The inhabitants, of all conditions, were to be considered as prisoners on parole, and to hold their property on the same terms with the militia. The officers of the army and navy were to retain their servants, swords, pistols, and baggage unsearched. They were permitted to sell their horses, but not to remove them. A vessel was allowed to proceed to Philadelphia with General Lincoln's despatches unopened."[38]

Shortly after the capture of Charleston, Sir Henry Clinton embarked for New York with the principal part of his army;[39] but before his departure he performed several important acts both as Royal Commissioner and as Commander-in-Chief of the army.

After the surrender of the capital, it was proposed to awe the disaffected and secure the universal submission of the people by sending out three expeditions.

"One expedition was sent by Clinton up the Savannah, to encourage the loyal and reduce the disaffected in the neighbourhood of Augusta: another proceeded for like purpose to the district of Ninety-Six, where Williamson surrendered his post and accepted British protection. A third and larger party, under Cornwallis, moved across the Santee towards Camden."[40]

These expeditions rather weakened than strengthened the influence of the British cause, as compulsion rather than conciliation was employed to re-establish British supremacy; and the proclamations and orders issued by Sir Henry Clinton before his departure for New York, defeated rather than promoted the objects intended by them.[41]

After issuing his proclamation (for the purport of which see previous note), Sir Henry Clinton took his departure, with the major part of his army, for New York, leaving Lord Cornwallis in command with four thousand troops.[42]

"Lord Cornwallis, considering South Carolina as entirely reannexed to Great Britain, would admit of no neutrality among the inhabitants; but insisted on their taking the oath of allegiance, which, however, was generally taken with reluctance by the people of the lower country. This part of the State was still further alienated by the licentious and plundering habits of the British soldiers over a conquered country, and by the seduction of many of the slaves from their masters."[43]

There can be no justification of Lord Cornwallis's policy; but there were some mitigating circumstances that palliate the severities which he inflicted. Among those who had been taken prisoners at the capture of Charleston, and professed loyalty, was, as Lord Mahon says, "One Lisle, who had not only taken the oath of allegiance, but accepted military rank as a King's officer; waited just long enough to supply his battalion with clothes, arms, and ammunition from the royal stores, and then quietly led them back to his old friends. Highly incensed at such signal acts of treachery as Lisle's, Lord Cornwallis had recourse to some severe orders in return. The penalty of death was denounced against all militiamen who, after serving with the English, went off to the insurgents. Several of the prisoners in the battle of Camden, men taken with arms in their hands and British protections in their pockets, were hanged. Other such examples were made at Augusta and elsewhere. Some who had been living on their parole at Charleston, and who, in spite of that parole, carried on a secret correspondence with their insurgent countrymen, were shipped off to St. Augustine. A proclamation was issued, sequestering the estates of those who had been the most forward to oppose the establishment of the royal authority within the province. Perhaps these measures exceeded the bounds of justice; certainly they did the bounds of policy. This was shown by the fatal event, when, on the overthrow of the royalist cause in South Carolina, the measures of Lord Cornwallis became the plea for other executions and for every act of oppression that resentment could devise."

"Within the more limited sphere of his own command, Lord Rawdon had recourse to, or at the very least announced, some measures still more severe, and far less to be justified. In a letter to one of his officers, which was intercepted, we find, for example, what follows: 'I will give the inhabitants ten guineas for the head of every deserter belonging to the volunteers of Ireland; and five guineas only if they bring him in alive.' No amount of provocation or of precedent in his enemies, no degree of youthful ardour in himself, are at all adequate to excuse these most blamable words. When, however, he was called upon to vindicate them, Lord Rawdon declared that many of his threats were meant only 'to act on the fears and prejudices of the vulgar,' and by no means to be carried into practical effect."[44]

During the latter part of the year there were various skirmishes and battles between volunteer parties of Independents, under such leaders as Sumpter and Clarke, and detachments of the British army, with various success, but nothing which affected the supremacy of the royal cause, though the moral influence of it was widely weakened by the arbitrary policy of the British commanders and the conduct of the British troops. The prospects of the revolution were very gloomy,[45] and its leaders were much disheartened. In these circumstances of depression and despondency, an earnest appeal was made to France for men and money,[46] and the transactions following show that the appeal was not made in vain, and that French ships and troops were the main instruments in deciding the battle which was followed by the acknowledgment of American Independence.[47]

Mr. Hildreth, referring to the close of this year, says: "So far, indeed, as related to America, Great Britain had good reason to be satisfied with the late campaign. Georgia was entirely subdued, and the royal government re-established. The possession of Charleston, Augusta, Ninety-Six, and Camden, supported by an army in the field, secured entire control over all the wealthy parts of South Carolina. North Carolina was full of Tories, anxiously awaiting the approach of Cornwallis. The three Southern States were incapable of helping themselves, and those further north, exhausted and penniless, were little able to send assistance. It seemed as if the promises so often made by Lord George Germaine's American correspondents were now about to be fulfilled, and the rebel colonies to sink beneath the accumulated pressure of this long-protracted struggle."[48]

Thus, at the close of 1780, the military conflicts were almost invariably successful on the side of the British; the resources of the revolutionists in both money and men were exhausted, and their hopes of success utterly extinguished without foreign aid. But though the British were successful on the fields of battle, they everywhere lost in the confidence, esteem, and affections of the people, even of the Loyalists. Yet the prospects of the war party of independence were gloomy indeed. General Washington felt that some great achievement was necessary to revive the hopes of his fellow-countrymen, and save from dissolution his daily decreasing army. His only hope was in aid from France. His words were:

"Without an immediate, ample, and efficacious succour in money, we may make a feeble and expiring effort in our next campaign, in all probability the period of our opposition. Next to a loan in money, a constant naval superiority on these coasts is the object the most interesting."

FOOTNOTES:

[34] "The commissaries, greatly in debt, had neither money nor credit, and starvation began to stare the soldiers in the face. To support his army, Washington was again obliged to resort to the harsh expedient of levying contributions on the surrounding country. Each county was called upon for a certain quantity of flour and meat; but as the civil authorities took the matter of supply in hand, for which certificates were given by the commissaries on the appraisement of two magistrates, the use of force did not become necessary." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xi., p. 301.)

[35] "Washington's entire force scarcely exceeded ten thousand men, a number not equal to the (British) garrison of New York; and even of these a considerable number were militia drafts, whose terms of service were fast expiring."—Ib., p. 303.

But though New York was in possession of the British, and strongly garrisoned, apprehensions were entertained of attacks upon the several English garrison posts in the State from invasions of marauding parties of the revolutionary army, from facilities of approach on account of the freezing over of all the rivers from the extreme severity of this winter. It is singular that while Benjamin Franklin was leader of the Revolutionists, and now United States Minister to France, his son was one of the leaders of the Loyalists. "It was now," says Mr. Hildreth, "that the 'Board of Associated Loyalists' was formed, of which Franklin, late Royal Governor of New Jersey, released by exchange from his tedious confinement in Connecticut, was made president. Washington, however, was in no condition to undertake an attack, and the winter passed off with few skirmishes." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xi., p. 303.)

[36] Ib., pp. 311, 312.

[37] "In the siege, the British lost seventy-six killed and one hundred and eighty-nine wounded; the Americans about an equal number. The prisoners, exclusive of sailors, amounted to five thousand six hundred and eighteen, counting all the adult males of the town." (Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. lii., p. 253.)

[38] Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xx., pp. 337, 338.

Yet in the face of the facts above stated by Dr. Ramsay, who was an officer on General Washington's staff, and afterwards member of Congress, where he had access to the official documents and letters from which he compiled his history, Mr. Bancroft makes the following statements and remarks: "The value of the spoil, which was distributed by English and Hessian commissaries of captures, amounted to about £300,000 sterling, so that the dividend of a major-general exceeded 4,000 guineas. There was no restraint on private rapine; the silver plate of the planters was carried off; all negroes that had belonged to the rebels were seized, even though they had themselves sought an asylum within the British lines; and at one embarkation 2,000 were shipped to a market in the West Indies. British officers thought more of amassing fortunes than of re-uniting the empire. The patriots were not allowed to appoint attorneys to manage or sell their estates, a sentence of confiscation hung over the whole land, and British protection was granted only in return for the unconditional promise of loyalty." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. xiv., pp. 305, 306.)

[39] "Sir Henry Clinton, having left about 4,000 men for Southern service, embarked early in June with the main army for New York. On his departure the command devolved on Lieutenant-General Cornwallis." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xx., p. 341.)

"They saw South Carolina apparently won back to the royal cause, and with some probability that North Carolina would follow the example. But at this crisis intelligence reached Sir Henry Clinton that the Americans upon the Hudson (under the command of General Washington) were on the point of receiving considerable succours; that a French fleet sent to their aid, with several French regiments on board, might soon be expected off the New England coasts. Sir Henry deemed it his duty to provide in person for the safety of his principal charge. In the first days of June he accordingly re-embarked for New York, with a portion of his army; leaving, however, about 4,000 men under Lord Cornwallis's command. The instructions given to Lord Cornwallis were to consider the maintenance of Charleston, and in general of South Carolina, as his main and indispensable objects; but consistently with these, he was left at liberty to make 'a solid move,' as it was termed, into North Carolina, if he judged it proper or found it possible." (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lxii., p. 70.)

On the eve of leaving Charleston for New York, Sir Henry reported to the British Colonial Minister, Lord Germaine: "The inhabitants from every quarter declare their allegiance to the King, and offer their services in arms. There are few men in South Carolina who are not either our prisoners or in arms with us."

[40] Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. xiv., p. 306.

"The universal panic consequent on the capture of Charleston had suspended all resistance to the British army. The men of Beaufort, of Ninety-Six, and of Camden, had capitulated under the promise of security. They believed that they were to be treated as neutrals or as prisoners on parole. There remained to them no possibility of flight with their families; and if they were inclined to take up arms, there was no American army around which they could rally." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. xiv., p. 307.)

"No organized American force was now left in either of the Carolinas. The three most Southern States had not a battalion in the field, nor were the next three much better provided. The Virginia line had been mostly captured at Charleston, or dispersed in subsequent engagements. The same was the case with the North Carolina regiments. The recent battle of Camden had reduced the Maryland line to a single regiment—the Delaware line to a single company." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xi., p. 316.)

[41] "On the 22nd of May, confiscation of property and other punishments were denounced against all who should thereafter oppose the King in arms, or hinder any one from joining his forces. On the 1st of June, a proclamation by the Commissioners Clinton and Arbuthnot, offered pardon to the penitent on their immediate return to allegiance; to the loyal, the promise of their former political immunities, including freedom from taxation, except by their own Legislature. This policy of moderation might have familiarized the Carolinians once more to the British Government; but the proclamation was not communicated to Cornwallis—so that when, three weeks later, two leading men, one of whom had been in a high station, and both principally concerned in the rebellion, went to that officer to surrender themselves under its provisions, he could only answer that he had no knowledge of its existence.

"On the 3rd of June (the day of his departure from Charleston), Clinton, by a proclamation which he alone signed, cut up British authority in Carolina by the roots. He required all the inhabitants of the province, even those outside of Charleston, 'who were now prisoners on parole,' to take an active part in securing the royal government. 'Should they neglect to return to their allegiance,' so ran the proclamation, 'they will be treated as rebels to the government of the King.' He never reflected that many who accepted protection from fear or convenience, did so in the expectation of living in a state of neutrality, and that they might say, 'If we must fight, let us fight on the side of our friends, of our countrymen of America.'" (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. xiv., pp. 307, 308.)

[42] "Earl (afterwards Marquis) Cornwallis was born in 1738. Early in life he had embraced the military profession, which he pursued with undeviating honour, though variable success. In him the want of any shining talents was in a great measure supplied by probity, by punctuality, by steady courage, by vigilant attention to his duties. In 1776, on the Declaratory Bill, he had shown his conciliatory temper to the colonies; denying, with Lord Camden and only three Peers besides, any right we had to tax them while they remained unrepresented in the House of Commons. When, however, the war broke forth, he acted solely as became a soldier. Under Lord Cornwallis was now serving a young officer of no common spirit and daring, destined, like himself, to attain, at another period, the highest office that an Englishman out of England can fill—the office of Governor-General of India. This was Francis Lord Rawdon, subsequently better known, first as Earl of Moira, and then as Marquis of Hastings. In the ensuing battle of Camden, where he held a second rank, he played a distinguished part; he was not yet twenty-six years of age, and he had already gained renown five years before, in the battle of Bunker's Hill." (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lxii., p. 71.)

[43] Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 254.

"There was no longer any armed American force in South Carolina; and Lord Cornwallis resorted to energetic means of preventing disaffection. All those who were found in arms after they had submitted to British protection were considered as having forfeited their lives, and several of them were hung on the spot. But these severities, instead of their intended effect, produced a strong reaction."—Ib., p. 256.

[44] Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lxii., pp. 75, 76.

[45] "While the war raged in South Carolina, the campaign of 1780, in the Northern States, was barren of important events. The campaign of 1780 passed away in the Northern States, as has been related, in successive disappointments and reiterated distresses. The country was exhausted; the continental currency expiring. The army, for want of subsistence, was kept inactive and brooding over its calamities. While these disasters were openly menacing the ruin of the American cause, treachery was silently undermining it. A distinguished officer (General Arnold) engaged, for a stipulated sum of money, to betray into the hands of the British an important post committed to his care," etc. (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxiv., pp. 364-377.)

[46] "Congress could do nothing, and confessed that it could do nothing. 'We have required,' thus they wrote to the States on the 15th of January, 1781, 'aids of men, provisions and money; the States alone have authority to execute.' Since Congress itself made a public confession of its powerlessness, nothing remained but to appeal to France for rescue, not from a foreign enemy, but from the evils consequent on its own want of government. 'If France lends not a speedy aid,' wrote General Greene from the South to her Minister in Philadelphia, 'I fear the country will be for ever lost.' It was therefore resolved for the moment to despatch to Versailles, as a special minister, one who had lived in the midst of the ever-increasing distresses of the army, to set them before the Government of France in the most striking light. The choice fell on the younger Laurens, of South Carolina. To this agent Washington confided a statement of the condition of the country; and with dignity and candour avowed that it had reached a crisis out of which it could not rise by its own unassisted strength. To Franklin he wrote in the same strain; and La Fayette addressed a like memorial of ripe wisdom to Vergennes" (the French Minister for Foreign Affairs). (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap., xix., pp. 417, 418.)

"Scarce any one of the States had as yet sent an eighth part of its quota into the field; and there was no prospect of a glorious offensive campaign, unless their generous allies should help them with money, and with a fleet strong enough to secure the superiority at sea."—Ib., p. 425.

[47] It was in the latter part of this year, 1780, that the treachery of General Arnold and the melancholy tragedy of Major André's execution took place.

[48] Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xli., p. 331.

"Though British conquests had rapidly succeeded each other, yet no advantages accrued to the victors. The minds of the people were unsubdued, or rather were alienated from every idea of returning to their former allegiance. Such was their temper, that the expense of retaining them in subjection would have exceeded all the profits of the conquest. British garrisons kept down open resistance, in the vicinity of the places where they were established; but as soon as they were withdrawn and the people left to themselves, a spirit of revolt hostile to Great Britain always displayed itself; and the standard of independence, whenever it was prudently raised, never wanted followers among the active and spirited part of the community." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xx., p. 363.)

CHAPTER XXX.

The French and Congress Allies in 1781 Recover Virginia—Surrender of Lord Cornwallis—Results.

Under the adverse circumstances and gloom which attended and closed the year 1780, as stated in the preceding chapter, Washington felt the necessity of doing something bold and great to revive the confidence of his countrymen and arrest the decline of his army.

Under these circumstances, a campaign of operations was devised and agreed upon by Washington and the commander of the French troops. The centres of British power in America were the army of about ten thousand men in New York, under the immediate command of Sir Henry Clinton, who was, indeed, Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in North America; and secondly, the army of Virginia, about seven thousand men, under the command of Earl Cornwallis; and thirdly, the garrison of Charleston, South Carolina, under the command of Lord Rawdon; Savannah, the capital of Georgia, was also occupied by a British garrison. Washington's plan was to pretend an attack upon New York, but to make a real attack upon the army of Virginia, with the view of extinguishing British power in the Southern States. So well was the appearance of an intended attack upon New York kept up, that Sir Henry Clinton made all needful preparations for its defence, and actually ordered Lord Cornwallis to send a detachment of his men to New York to strengthen its defence; but after their embarkation for that purpose the order was countermanded, and Lord Cornwallis was allowed to retain them. Nothing could be more complete than the deception practised upon Sir Henry Clinton; nor did he suspect the real intention of the allied armies until they had crossed the Hudson and were on their way, through the Jerseys, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, to Virginia.[49]

"In the latter end of August," says Dr. Ramsay, "the American army began their march to Virginia from the neighbourhood of New York. Washington had advanced as far as Chester before he received information of the arrival of De Grasse. The French troops marched at the same time, for the same place. In the course of this summer they passed through all the extensive settlements which lie between Newport and Yorktown. It seldom if ever happened before, that an army led through a foreign country at so great a distance from their own, among a people of different principles, customs, language, and religion, behaved with so much regularity. In their march to Yorktown they had to pass through five hundred miles of a country abounding in fruit, and at a time when the most delicious productions of nature, growing on and near the public highways, presented both opportunity and temptation to gratify their appetites, yet so complete was their discipline, that in this long march scarce an instance could be produced of a peach or an apple being taken without the consent of the inhabitants."[50]

On the 14th of September, Washington and De Rochambeau, in advance of their armies and with their respective staffs of officers, arrived at Williamsburg; and with Generals Chastellux, Du Portail, and Knox, visited Count de Grasse on board his famous ship, the Ville de Paris, and agreed on the plan of operations against Earl Cornwallis at Yorktown, on York river, to which the allied armies at once proceeded, for the purpose of besieging it. On the 1st day of October, General Washington was able to report to the President of Congress that the investment of the place was completed. "Gloucester (on the opposite side of the river, not a mile wide there), which was held by Colonel Dundas, was beleaguered by some Virginian troops, and by the French legion of the Duke de Lauzun. Yorktown, where Cornwallis in person, and with his main force, commanded, saw to his left the division of La Fayette, and to his right the division of St. Simon. Other bodies of troops filled the space between them, while Washington and Rochambeau fixed their posts near together, towards the centre. They brought up fifty pieces of cannon, for the most part heavy, by aid from the French ships, as also sixteen mortars, and they lost no time in commencing their first parallel against the town.[51] By the 9th the first parallel was completed, when the town and its defences were cannonaded and shelled. Within another week a second parallel was completed within three hundred yards of the defences, two redoubts stormed and taken—one by the French and the other by the Americans—and the further defence of the town rendered impossible."

"Down to this time, the 15th of October, Lord Cornwallis had expected reinforcements of ships and troops from New York;[52] but he now despaired of aid from that quarter, and attempted to escape with his army in the night across the river, which was prevented by a storm, when the only alternative left him was to surrender on the best terms he could obtain. On the morning of the 17th he sent a flag of truce to Washington, proposing a cessation of arms, and a treaty for the capitulation of his post. Hostilities ceased; the terms of surrender were discussed and agreed upon on the 18th by four commissioners, two field officers being named on each side. The army, and all that belonged to it, was surrendered to Washington; and the ships and seamen to Count de Grasse" (Tucker).

"All the artillery and public stores in the two forts, together with the shipping and boats in the two harbours, were to be surrendered by the English. On the other hand, private property of every kind was to be respected by the Americans and French. The garrisons of York and Gloucester were to march out with the same honours of war as had been granted by Sir Henry Clinton at Charleston; the land forces to remain prisoners of the United States, and the naval forces prisoners of France. The soldiers were to be kept in Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania, and as much by regiments as possible. The general staff and other officers not left with the troops to be permitted to go to New York, or to Europe, on parole."[53]

The battle of Yorktown, and the surrender of Lord Cornwallis to the arms of the French and the Americans, may be regarded as the last battle of importance of the civil war in America. American writers and orators are fond of saying that here was brought face to face on the battle-field the strength of Old England and Young America, and the latter prevailed. No statement can be more unfounded, and no boast more groundless than this. England, without an ally, was at war with three kingdoms—France, Spain, and Holland—the most potent naval and military powers of Europe; while were also arrayed against her, by an "armed neutrality," Russia, Prussia, Denmark, and Sweden. England was armed to the teeth for the defence of her own shores against threatened invasion, while her navies were maintaining in sundry battles the honour of the British flag on three seas.

A small part only of the British land and naval forces was on the coast of America; yet there were garrisons at Savannah and Charleston, and a much larger military force at New York, under the command of Sir Henry Clinton, than that of Yorktown, under Lord Cornwallis. In the following campaign the English fleet was victorious over the French fleet in the West Indies, capturing the great ship Ville de Paris, and taking Count de Grasse himself prisoner. In the siege of Yorktown there were about 18,000 of the allied army of French and Americans, besides ships of the line and sailors, while the effective men under command of Lord Cornwallis amounted to less than 4,000. It was a marvel of skill and courage that with an army so small, and in a town so exposed and so incapable of being strongly fortified, and against an allied force so overwhelming, Lord Cornwallis was able to sustain a siege for a fortnight, until he despaired of reinforcements from New York.

Be it also observed, that the greater part of the forces besieging Yorktown were not Americans, but French, who supplied the shipping and artillery; in short, all the attacking forces by water, and a duplicate land enemy—the one part under the command of Count de Rochambeau, and the other part under the command of the Marquis de La Fayette. Had it not been for the French fleet and the French land forces, Washington would not have attempted an attack upon Yorktown. The success of the siege was, therefore, more French than American, though Washington had the nominal command of the allied army.

No one can doubt the undaunted courage and matchless skill of Washington, and his great superiority over any English general ever sent against him; nor can the bravery and endurance of his army be justly questioned; nor the dash and boldness and gallantry of the French army. But it is idle to speak of the siege of Yorktown as a trial of strength between Young America and Old England. And it is equally incorrect to say that the resources of England, in men or money, in ships or land forces, were exhausted, or that England was compelled to make peace in consequence of the disaster of Lord Cornwallis. There had been a peace party, both in and out of Parliament, opposed to the American war from the beginning. That party included some of the ablest statesmen in England, and increased in strength and influence from year to year, by exposing the incompetence, extravagance, and corruption of the Administration, the failure of all their plans, and the non-fulfilment of any of their promises in regard to America; that although they could defeat the Americans in the field of battle, they had not conquered and they could not conquer the hearts of the people, who became more and more alienated from England by the very example and depredations of the British officers and soldiers. The surrender of Lord Cornwallis, the importance of which was greatly magnified, increased the intensity of English feeling against the continuance of the American war, until the peace party actually gained a majority in the House of Commons, compelled the retirement of the old and corrupt Ministry, which had been the cause of all the oppressions in the American colonies and all the miseries of the war. Session after session, the leaders of the Opposition in both the Lords and Commons moved resolutions condemning the American war and the manner of conducting it; the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis of Rockingham, the Earl of Shelburne in the Lords; and General Conway, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Lord John Cavendish, Mr. Hartley, Mr. Dunning (afterwards Lord Ashburton), and Sir James Lowther in the Commons. Several resolutions were introduced into the Commons condemnatory of the war in America, with a view of reducing the colonies to submission, and were defeated by small majorities—in one a majority of ten, and in another a majority of only one. At length they were censured and rejected by the Commons without a division.

On the 22nd of February, General Conway moved "That an address should be presented to his Majesty, to implore his Majesty to listen to the advice of his Commons, that the war in America might no longer be pursued for the impracticable purpose of reducing the inhabitants of that country to obedience by force, and to express their hopes that his Majesty's desire to restore the public tranquillity might be forwarded and made effectual by a happy reconciliation with the revolted colonies."

After a lengthened debate, this resolution was negatived—one hundred and ninety-three for the resolution, against it one hundred and ninety-four—a majority of one for the continuance of the war.

The motion having been objected to as vague in its terms, General Conway, on the 27th of February, introduced another motion, the same in substance with the previous one, but varied in phraseology, so as to meet the rules of the House, and more explicit in its terms. This resolution was strongly opposed by the Ministry; and after a long debate the Attorney-General moved the adjournment of the House: For the adjournment voted two hundred and fifteen; against it, two hundred and thirty-four—majority of nineteen against the Ministry—so that the original question, and an address to the King, framed upon the resolution, were then earned without a division.[54] The King returned a gracious but vague answer.

General Conway, after moving a vote of thanks to the King for his gracious answer, followed by moving a resolution: "That this House would consider as enemies to his Majesty and the country all those who should advise or by any means attempt the further prosecution of offensive war, on the continent of North America, for the purpose of reducing the revolted colonies to obedience by force." This motion, after a feeble opposition from the Ministry, was allowed to pass without a division.

The loyalists of America and their times

THE

LOYALISTS OF AMERICA

AND

THEIR TIMES:

BY EGERTON RYERSON, D.D., LL.D.,

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. II.

CONTENTS.

THE

LOYALISTS OF AMERICA

AND

THEIR TIMES,

FROM 1620 TO 1816.

CHAPTER XXVII.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XXVIII.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XXIX.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XXX.