The Loyalists of America and Their Times Volume II Part 2
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:
[Footnote 13: "They urged D'Estaing to return with his fleet into the harbour; but his princ.i.p.al 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 Hanc.o.c.k, 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 embarra.s.sing circ.u.mstances, 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.)]
[Footnote 14: "The inveteracy to the French, traditionally inherent in the lower cla.s.ses 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. x.x.xviii., pp. 172, 173)]
[Footnote 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 hors.e.m.e.n 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 princ.i.p.al 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.]
[Footnote 16: Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
iii., p. 231.]
[Footnote 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.)]
[Footnote 18: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xvi., p. 275.]
[Footnote 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 pa.s.sage, 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.)]
[Footnote 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.)]
[Footnote 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.)]
[Footnote 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.]
[Footnote 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 surpa.s.sed their exertions in the previous campaign." (Dr.
Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xvii., p. 302.)]
[Footnote 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 ent.i.tled." (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. III., Chap, xlv., pp. 312, 313.)]
[Footnote 25: Count D'Estaing was afterwards so ashamed of this inhuman refusal, that after the repulse of his a.s.sault 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 circ.u.mstance, 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, x.x.x., p. 127.)]
[Footnote 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 a.s.sault, 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, x.x.x., 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 coa.r.s.est 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.)]
[Footnote 27: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap.
xiii., pp. 297, 298.]
[Footnote 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.]
[Footnote 29: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap.
xvii., pp. 305, 306.]
[Footnote 30: Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
iii., p. 282.]
[Footnote 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 pa.s.sing the Atlantic. 'For G.o.d's sake,' thus writes La Fayette from France, 'For G.o.d'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 doc.u.ment 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.]
[Footnote 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.]
[Footnote 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.)