Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians, with Illustrations and Speeches

by Unknown

It is my deliberate opinion that no battles of the Revolution will compare in brilliancy with the defense of Moultrie, the defeat of Ferguson at King's Mountain, and the defeat of Tarleton at Cowpens, all fought by Southern troops on Southern soil. In the last fight the victory was won when almost lost by the cavalry charge of William Washington, and the free use of the bayonet by that peerless soldier, your own John Eager Howard. The old "tar-heel" State, on the 16th of May, 1771, in the Battle of Alamance, poured out the first blood of the Revolution in resistance to British tyranny. The battle of Guilford Court House, fought on her soil solely by Southern troops, gave Cornwallis his first check in his career of victory, and led eventually to his capture. The first victory of the Revolution was won at Moore's Creek Bridge, in North Carolina, by Caswell and Lillington, in which one thousand Scotch loyalists were captured. Who knows of that battle? Oh, modest tar-heel State, in the slang of the newly-discovered country, "modesty does not pay!" Nevertheless, true courage and true modesty walk hand in hand. One word as to the misleading rolls of the Revolution. I was born in the Scotch-Irish settlement of Carolina, which furnished troops to Sumter, Pickens, Davie, Davidson, Shelby, and others. These men were never regularly enrolled; they gathered together for battle, and went back to their plows when the fight was over. There were no Tories in that regiment; it was thoroughly Whig. But I never heard of more than one pensioner in all that country. These men scorned the bounty of the Government for simply doing their duty. No official records ever bore the names of those gallant partisans, whose daring deeds are known only to the Omniscient. There were no horn-blowers and quill-drivers among them.

If we come to the war of 1812, all will concede that Jackson, of North Carolina, and Harrison, of Virginia, gained the most laurels, as shown by the elevation of both of them to the Presidency. All, too, readily concede that the brilliant land fights of that war were in defense of New Orleans, Mobile, Craney Island, and Baltimore, all fought by Southern troops on Southern soil.

Although the war was waged in the interest of the maritime rights of the North, it soon became unpopular in New England, because it seriously damaged trade and commerce. The Hartford Convention shows how deep was the defection in that region. The doctrine of secession was taught there half a century before the South took it up.[2] Hence, in this war, the Old South furnished more than her proportion of troops. Southern troops flocked North, and in the battles in Canada a large number of general officers were from the Old South; Harrison, Scott, Wilkinson, Izard, Winder, Hampton, Gaines, Towson, Brooke, Drayton, and others. Kentucky sent more men for the invasion of Canada than did any other State.

[2] In Barnes' History of the United States the author tells us (page 167) of the ravaging of the Southern coast in the war of 1812 by the noted Admiral Cockburn. He says: "Along the Virginia and Carolina coast, he (Cockburn) burned bridges, farm-houses, and villages; robbed the inhabitants of their crops, stock, and slaves; plundered churches of their communion services and murdered the sick in their beds." And then the author explains why the Southern coast was devastated and the New England coast was not disturbed. This explanation is in a foot-note, which reads as follows: "New England was spared because of a belief that the Northern States were unfriendly to the war and would yet return to their allegiance to Great Britain."

This is the statement of a Northern writer, and not the fabrication of an enemy. How did the belief start among the British people that New England wished to return to its allegiance to the "mother country?"

All honor to the United States sailors of the North who had no sympathy with the Hartford Convention, and nobly did their duty—Perry, Bainbridge, Stewart, Lawrence, Porter, Preble, and others. The "Don't give up the ship" of the dying Lawrence is a precious legacy to the whole American people.

But the unmaritime South claims among the naval heroes of that period Decatur, of Maryland; Macdonough, of Delaware; Jacob Jones, of same State; the two Shubricks of South Carolina; Jesse D. Elliott, of Maryland; Blakely, of North Carolina, and others. A very large proportion of the naval heroes of the war of 1812 came from Maryland.

In the Mexican war the commanders-in-chief on both lines were born in Virginia, one of whom became President for his exploits, and the other an unsuccessful candidate for the Presidency. This war was unpopular in the North, and hence the South furnished troops to carry it on out of all proportion to her population. The Old South, out of a total population of 9,521,437, gave 48,649 volunteers, and gave also the rifle regiment, recruited within her borders, making in all 50,000 soldiers. The North, out of a population of 13,676,439, gave but 24,698 volunteers. All New England gave 1,057 volunteers. (I use the American Almanac for these figures and the census report of 1850.)

It will be admitted, without question, that Butler's South Carolina and Davis' Mississippi gained more reputation than the other volunteer regiments. I think it will be equally admitted that Quitman's Southern division of volunteers had the confidence of General Scott, next to his two divisions of regulars. Scott's chief engineers on that wonderful march from Vera Cruz to the City of Mexico were Swift, of North Carolina, and R. E. Lee, of Virginia. His chief of ordnance was Huger, of South Carolina.

The most brilliant exploit of that war was the attack of Tattnall, of Georgia, in a little gunboat, upon the castle of San Juan D'Ulloa and the land batteries at Vera Cruz. If there was anything more daring in that war, so full of great deeds, my eyes were not so fortunate as to behold it.