The contemporary journals of value are: Diary of Events in Charleston, S. C., from March 20 to April 20, 1780, by Samuel Baldwin, in New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc., 1st series, vol. ii. pp. 78-86,—Baldwin was a schoolteacher in Charleston; cf. Ibid. p. 77; Journal of the Siege of Charleston in 1780, by De Brahm (Feb. 9, 1780-May 12, 1781), in Gibbes, Doc. Hist. (1776-82), p. 124; and Memoirs of Andrew Sherburne, written by Himself (a "boy" on the American ship "Ranger"), first printed at Utica in 1828, and reprinted in an "enlarged and improved" form at Providence, in 1831. His curious journal begins on p. 24 of the 1st ed., and on p. 27 of the 2d. Maj. Wm. Croghan's journal at Charleston, S. C., Feb. 9-May 4, 1780, etc., is copied in the Sparks MSS., vol. lx. There are two journals in The Siege of Charleston by the British Fleet and Army, which terminated in the surrender of that place May 12, 1780, with notes, etc., by Franklin B. Hough (Albany, 1867). The first is contained in two letters by an unknown hand, and relates to the operations on Lincoln's line of communications. The author was not present at the siege itself. The other journal relates to the operations against the town, but it has little value. Indeed, this volume of Hough's is not so interesting as the similar work on Savannah. Another journal, which relates more especially to the movements in the country, is the Diary of Anthony Allaire, a lieutenant in Ferguson's corps, printed by Draper in his King's Mountain and its Heroes, p. 484. Allaire corroborates in a most striking manner the accuracy of the charges of cruelty and outrage made by the author of the "Notes" in Stedman's American War. The account of the defence in Johnson's Traditions was written by an eye-witness, though long after the event. It is often very inaccurate, but nevertheless interesting. The assertion therein made that Gadsden signed the capitulation, and that therefore all of South Carolina was included in its terms, cannot be substantiated.
[1109] According to Lincoln's official report, the Continental troops, "including the sick and wounded", surrendered prisoners of war at Charleston numbered 2,487. Adding to this the 89 Continentals killed, we have 2,576, or within five of the number of the garrison as given in the New Jersey Gazette for June 23, 1780 (Hough, Charleston, 198). Lincoln says further that at the time of surrender the militia "effectives" did not exceed 500 men (Lee, Memoirs, i. 141), in all not over 3,000. Clinton, in his report as usually printed, gives the total as 5,612, or 5,618, "together with town and country militia, French and seamen, make about six thousand men in arms." In Beatson, Memoirs, vi. 209, the number of seamen is printed as 100 instead of 1,000—a considerable reduction, and perhaps nearer the mark. Clinton's estimate was further increased in the royalist newspapers of the time to "between seven and eight thousand men." Lincoln's figures are probably the nearest to the truth, as all the contemporary writers on the American side insisted that Clinton counted among his prisoners every man capable of bearing arms in Charleston. At any rate, whatever their number, the militia, excepting the artillery company, seem to have been of but little service, as their loss in killed and wounded was not over forty, and in this estimate is included the total loss to those inside the lines not otherwise accounted for. Lincoln stated his killed at 89, and wounded at 140. But both Ramsay and Moultrie say that from five to six hundred Continentals were in the hospital at the time of the surrender.
In Beatson's Memoirs (vi. 204) there is a List of the different regiments and corps selected by Sir Henry Clinton to accompany him on the expedition against Charlestown. It gives the total, exclusive of staff, at 7,550. There were in Savannah at the time about 2,000 more, and the reinforcement which arrived in April numbered about 3,000 men. Clinton therefore had about 13,000 men at his disposal in May, 1780. Of course, a large proportion of this force was employed in detachments,—guarding Savannah, breaking up Lincoln's communications, and the like; so that it is impossible to say how many men Lincoln had in his front at any one time.
Clinton's loss from Feb. 11th to May 12th is given by himself at 76 killed and 189 wounded. To this should be added the loss of the sailors, who seem to have participated in a good many land expeditions,—23 seamen killed and 28 wounded, or a grand total of 316. None of these figures include the losses and numbers engaged in the minor actions. But there is so little data with regard to them that it has seemed best to omit them in these estimates.
[1110] It was widely reprinted, as, for instance, in The New Annual Register for 1780, under Principal Occurrences, p. 55; Pol. Mag., i. 455; Remembrancer, x. 41; Tarleton, 38, etc., etc. An abstract under title of A memorandum, etc., is given in the Ninth Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission, App. ii. p. 109. A previous report, bearing date of March 9th, has been found,—London Gazette for April 25-29, 1780; Pol. Mag., i. 397; Tarleton, 34; and Hough, Charleston, p. 190. The gap between March 9th and 29th must be filled from other sources. The instructions as to reducing South Carolina to obedience, from Germain to Clinton and Arbuthnot, are dated Whitehall, 3 Aug., '79 (Charleston Year-Book for 1882, p. 364). Clinton issued in all six proclamations, including the one signed by him conjointly with Arbuthnot, as commissioners. The first was dated at James's Island, March 3, 1780. It promised protection, etc., to all who should take the oath of allegiance. These protections were given in a most indiscriminate fashion, and caused the complaint of Cornwallis above noted. The paper was reprinted by Hough in his Charleston, p. 24. Next came the "Handbill", without date, but sent out soon after the capitulation (Remembrancer, x. 80). The proclamation of May 22d threatened vengeance on all who should prevent the loyalists from coming in (Remembrancer, x. 82; Ramsay, Rev. in S. C., ii. 435; and Tarleton, 71). The most important proclamation, however, and the one to which Cornwallis took such violent exception, pardoned all not included in a few specified classes (June 1st), and was signed by the two chief commanders (Remembrancer, x. 85; Hough, Charleston, 178; Ramsay, Rev. S. C., ii. 438; Tarleton, 74, etc.). A fac-simile is in Charleston Year-Book (1882), p. 369. The proclamation of June 3d called upon those on parole, with a few exceptions, to give up their paroles, take the oath of allegiance, and thereby secure "protections" (Remembrancer, x. 82; Hough, Charleston, 182; Ramsay, Rev. in S. C., ii. 441; Tarleton, 73; Moultrie, Memoirs, ii. 384, etc.). The Address of divers Inhabitants of Charleston to Sir Henry Clinton, June 5, 1780, is (Remembrancer, x. 93; Ramsay, ii. 443; Moultrie, ii. 386, etc.) without names, which are appended to the copy in Hough, Charleston, 148, where it is stated to be reprinted from Rivington's Royal Gazette of June 21, 1780. The names, however, are from the Gazette of June 24th. The letters of Cornwallis on this subject are in his Correspondence, i. 40, 46, and 48. There is a very striking passage in Moultrie, i. 276, with regard to this business. Cf. also Ibid. 314, and Johnson's Greene, i. 279.
[1111] Hough in his Charleston (p. 50) has reprinted a despatch purporting to have been written by Clinton and addressed to Lord George Germain. It was dated Savannah, Jan. 30, 1780; reprinted in Hough, Charleston, p. 50; and was said to have been captured by a privateer. In it Clinton described the dispiriting effect on the royalists of Georgia of D'Estaing's attack on Savannah. It has been regarded as a forgery, partly on this very account. It probably was a forgery. But it is curious to observe that the opening pages of Tarleton contain the same statement, and he repents the despatch without a hint as to its being a forgery. And this forms the ground of Mackenzie's first stricture.
[1112] Moore, Diary, ii. 269; "Allen", Hist. Am. Rev., ii. 296; An Impartial History (Bost. ed.), ii. 386; Beatson, Memoirs, v. 8; Soulés, Troublés, iii. 259; Johnson's Greene, i. 274; Sargent, Life of André, p. 225; Marshall's Washington, iv. 135; Sparks's Washington, vii. 92; Wilmot G. De Saussure in Charleston Year-Book (1884), p. 282; Eelking's Hülfstruppen, ii. 59; Ewald, iii. 252; and Lowell, Hessians, 243.
A good account of this and the other operations in South Carolina is in Mills's Statistics of South Carolina, while Mrs. Ellet, in her Domestic History of the American Revolution (pp. 151-290), has well set forth the services of the women of the South. Cf. the Letters of Eliza Wilkinson, during the invasion and possession of Charleston, S. C., by the British in the Revolutionary War. Arranged from the original manuscripts, by Caroline Gilman (New York, 1838). The articles of capitulation are in Tarleton, p. 61, and R. E. Lee's ed. Lee's Memoirs, p. 158. The correspondence of the commanders is in Polit. Mag., i. 454. The abject condition of South Carolina after the reduction of Charleston is set forth in Ardanus Burke's Address to the Freemen of South Carolina, Phil., 1783. The British exhilaration is shown in Moore's Songs and Ballads, 293. The Memoirs of Josias Rogers, Commander of H. M. S. "Quebec", by Rev. Wm. Gilpin (London, 1808), is said to have passages concerning the siege.—Ed.
[1113] Reprinted in Polit. Mag., i. 513; Remembrancer, x. 76; Ramsay, Rev. in S. C., ii. 432; Tarleton, Campaigns, 83; Cornwallis Correspondence, i. 45, etc. It is often accompanied by two letters: one from Cornwallis, approving his conduct; the other from Clinton to Germain, calling the latter's attention to the fact that "the enemy's killed and wounded and taken exceed Lieutenant-Colonel Tarleton's numbers with which he attacked them."
[1114] There are good descriptions in Lee, Memoirs, i. 148; Ramsay, Rev. in S. C., ii. 108; Moultrie, Memoirs, ii. 203; Gordon, iii. 360; and Stedman, ii. 192; though all these writers obtained their information from others.