Among the extracts contained in this volume are three, referring to the operations in America subsequent to the capture of Charlestown, and describing in detail the affairs known as Camden, Ninety-six, and Guildford.
Before proceeding to other operations, the result of Bombardier Boddy's industry will be communicated to the reader. And if by means of this work any tribute can be paid to the memory of a non-commissioned officer, whose esprit, diligence, and unselfish labour are well worthy of imitation, not merely will justice have been done, but others may be inspired to follow his example. There is no rank in the service in which men may not do something,—not merely to add to, but also to commemorate, the distinction of the corps in which they serve. In the case of the Royal Artillery this has been emphatically proved, not merely by the industrious labourer now mentioned, but also by one already quoted, the author of 'England's Artillerymen.'[[46]]
The Battle of Camden was fought on the 16th August, 1780. Lord Cornwallis commanded the English troops, whose total strength did not exceed 2000. General Gates—who had received General Burgoyne's submission at Saratoga—commanded the Americans, who were nearly 6000 in number. The Royal Artillery was represented by two subalterns (one of whom, Lieutenant William Marquois, died on the 15th October of wounds received during this action), two sergeants, and fifteen men. In spite of the disparity of strength, so complete was the victory of the English that 1000 of the enemy were killed or wounded; the pursuit by Colonel Tarleton and the English cavalry extended as far as twenty-two miles; the whole of the enemy's artillery, a large number of waggons, and 2000 stand of arms were captured; and "of the 6000 men who composed Gates's army, not sixty could have again been collected."[[47]] The English regiments which most distinguished themselves were the 23rd, 33rd, and 71st, under Colonel Webster; and the heaviest loss fell upon the 33rd. Four guns were present with the Royal Artillery; but on account of the small number of gunners, men from the Line or volunteers must have assisted in working them. The total number of casualties on the English side was as follows—killed, 70; and wounded, 250.
The affair called "Ninety-six" in the MS. volume referred to is identical with that known as the "Battle of Cowpens." On this occasion the British were totally defeated, with a loss of their guns, two in number. Fortunately for the Royal Artillery, almost equal satisfaction can be obtained from this defeat as from many victories. Lord Cornwallis, in his despatch to Sir Henry Clinton, wrote as follows:—"In justice to the detachment of Royal Artillery, I must here observe that no terror could induce them to quit their guns, and they were all killed or wounded in defence of them." This engagement took place in January, 1781.
The last of the three actions mentioned in the extracts referred to, is that known as the "Battle of Guildford." It was a victory for the English arms, but a most expensive one. Nearly one-third of the Royal Army was left hors de combat. The Royal Artillery lost only Lieutenant Augustus O'Hara and one gunner killed, and four men wounded. Lord Cornwallis could not afford to follow up the victory; and although he captured the enemy's artillery, and the American losses far exceeded that of the English, there is no doubt that from this day the American spirits rose, and Lord Cornwallis's position became serious. The Battle of Guildford was fought in March, 1781. The American force was 5000 strong, but about one-half was composed of militiamen, who were of little use, and who fled to their homes after the battle. The total strength of the British force did not exceed 2400 of all ranks. Soon after the battle, Cornwallis had to commence a retreat.
It was in this battle that Lieutenant Macleod of the Royal Artillery—afterwards Sir John Macleod—behaved with a skill and gallantry which Lord Cornwallis never forgot. If the commendation of his own commanding officer must have been agreeable, how much more that of his enemies! Lee in describing this battle, of which he says, "On no occasion, in any part of the world, was British valour more heroically displayed," singles out young Macleod more than once for conspicuous notice. On one occasion he says that one battalion, which at a critical period had been driven back with slaughter, had "its remains saved by the British Artillery."
Leaving now these three engagements, the reader is requested to turn to an operation in the war, in which the Commander of the English forces was an Artilleryman.
In the beginning of 1781 Major-General Phillips, of the Royal Artillery, who had been a prisoner since the convention at Saratoga, was exchanged for the American General Lincoln. He was immediately appointed, by Sir Henry Clinton, to the command of a force of 2000 men to watch the French and prevent them from sailing for the south. He was then ordered to Virginia, to join General Arnold's force, which had been ravaging the country almost unopposed, but which was now in a somewhat hazardous position. On effecting the junction with Arnold, General Phillips assumed the command of the united force, numbering now about 3500 men. It was a change for the better in every way. Arnold was disliked by all under his command, for they never could forget that he was a traitor; and as a soldier he was in every way inferior to Phillips. Among the regiments forming the force for the service on which Phillips was to be engaged in Virginia were the 76th, 80th, Simcoe's Queen's Rangers, some German troops, and Arnold's American Legion. On the 19th April General Phillips proceeded up James River to Barwell's Ferry, and on the 20th he landed at Williamsburg, a body of the enemy's militia retiring on his approach. On the 22nd he marched to Chickahominy; and on the 25th,—early in the forenoon,—he set his army in motion for Petersburg, reaching it in the evening. A small encounter with some militia took place when within a mile of the town, in which the rebels were defeated, with a loss of 100 killed and wounded. Lee, in his 'Memoirs of the War in the Southern Departments,' writes very severely of the way in which untrained militia were exposed by the American Government to the attacks of regular troops. His strictures, and the lesson he draws from the experiences of this raid in Virginia, are worthy of quotation at a time when it is becoming more generally recognized in England that the profession of arms is one requiring special training as much as any other. "What ills," he writes, "spring from the timidity and impotence of rulers! In them attachment to the common cause is vain and illusory, unless guided, in times of difficulty, by courage, wisdom, and concert.... Whenever the commitment of our militia in battle with regulars occurs, the heart of the writer is rent with painful emotions, knowing, as he does, the waste of life resulting from the stupid, cruel policy. Can there be any system devised by the wit of man more the compound of inhumanity, of murder, and of waste? Ought any Government to be respected which, when peace permits the substitution of a better system, neglects to avail itself of the opportunity? Were a father to put his son, with his small sword drawn for the first time, against an experienced swordsman, would not his neighbours exclaim, 'Murderer! vile murderer!' Just so acts the Government, and yet our parents are all satisfied, although whenever war takes place, their sons are to be led to the altar of blood. Dreadful apathy! shocking coldness to our progeny!"
In Petersburg, and, indeed, wherever the British troops went in Virginia, all military stores belonging to the rebels were destroyed, and the warehouses with their cargoes of tobacco and flour were systematically burnt. Lee is very severe in his description of this method of warfare, very bitter in his denunciations of the human vultures who follow conquering armies, and very ironical in his allusions to the tobacco war carried on by the English; and yet, in the same breath, he admits that no human foe went out to meet them and give them battle; that everywhere there was, on the part of the Americans, "a fatal want of preparation, of military apparatus, and of system." Wanton and purposeless devastation is strongly to be deprecated in war; but was this raid a purposeless one? The garrison of New York had been wofully weakened, and the English troops in the south were at times dangerously divided. If the American armies could not be drawn apart to meet the English by hope of victory, perhaps they might be tempted by the hope of saving Virginia from this "so dreadful visitation, precursor of famine and of plague."[[48]] Doubtless there was this strategic purpose in the Virginian raid, just as there was later in the raid in Connecticut, by which Clinton hoped to tempt Washington back from that dreaded march which culminated so triumphantly for him at Yorktown.
Again, even admitting irregularities and excesses not to be justified by strategy (although this need only be done for the sake of argument, so much exaggeration is there in the American accounts of this expedition), were there not special reasons which might lead one to expect them? Who filled the ranks of the American Loyalist Regiments which fought under Phillips and Arnold? They were men who had lost everything for their King, whose homes had been confiscated, and who had been outlawed and execrated by their countrymen because, forsooth, they had come to a different opinion on a political question. Were these the men to walk through the enemy's country with dainty step and gloved hand? There is something brutalizing in war under the most favourable conditions; but when the combatants commence with feelings of hatred and thirst for revenge, he would indeed be a rare disciplinarian who could prevent an occasional outbreak in the course of a continued and successful campaign.