[1152] Pp. 258-329; 290-312 dealing more especially with this engagement. See also Johnson's Greene, vol. ii. pp. 346, 370, 372, and 410, and Charleston News and Courier for May 10, 1881. Some part at least of the correspondence of General Morgan is in the collection of Theodorus Bailey Myers (Johnson's Orderly-book, p. 211). There are a few letters in the Correspondence of the Revolution, iii. 217, with Greene's official announcement of the victory to Washington (pp. 207, 214). Greene's letter to Marion is in Gibbes, Doc. Hist., 1781-82, p. 16.
[1153] The London Gazette, March 27-31, 1781, reprinted either in whole or in part in Remembrancer, xi. 272; Pol. Mag., ii. 221; Tarleton, 249; Cornwallis, Answer to Clinton's Narrative, App. 1; Cornwallis, Corr., i. 81. Balfour, then the commander at Charleston, also reported the particulars to Germain. Cf. London Gazette, as above, etc. Cornwallis's order to Tarleton to "push Morgan to the utmost" is in Graham's Morgan 227, and in Tarleton, Campaigns, 244.
[1154] Mention should also be made of Lee, Memoirs, i. 252-266, and R. E. Lee's ed., 229; Moultrie, Memoirs, ii. 252; Gordon, Ramsay, Rev. in S. C., ii.,—all at second hand. See also Johnson's Greene, i. 368; Greene's Greene, iii. 139; Travels in North America in the years 1780, 1781, and 1782. By the Marquis de Chastellux—translated from the French by an English Gentleman (London, 1787), ii. 60. The marquis claimed to have derived his account from Morgan, but he probably did not understand him, as his description is at variance with the best authorities. There are accounts of more or less value in McSherry, Maryland, 276; Memoir of General Graham, p. 38; Marshall, Washington, iv. 342; Lossing, Field-Book, ii. 636; Carrington, Battles, 546; Historical Magazine, xii. 356 (Dec., 1865), a "traditionary account;" Harper's Monthly, xxii. 163, etc. Probably as good an estimate as can be formed of Morgan's force is that contained in a letter from Greene to Marion of January 23, 1781. He there gives it at 290 infantry and 80 cavalry of the line, and about 600 militia; total, 970. The estimate of the militia is too high, and might be reduced by 100. Then, too, there were a few small detachments. So that Morgan's assertion in his official report, that he fought with only 800 men, is not incompatible with this statement of Greene's. The British brought, or should have brought, into action at least 1,000 men, including 50 militia and a baggage-guard, which made off, without striking a blow, as soon as the news of the defeat reached it. Greene rates Tarleton's force at 200 more. But 1,000 was probably not far from his number of "effectives" on the morning of Jan. 17, 1781, as opposed to Morgan's 800.
In his official report Morgan gave his loss as 12 killed and about 60 wounded. He states, however, that he was not able at the time of writing to ascertain the loss of the militia in the skirmish and front lines. It must have been very small, however. The British loss he gives as more than 110 killed, more than 200 wounded, and between 500 and 600 prisoners. Morgan states, however, that, as he was obliged to move off the field so quickly, the estimate of killed and wounded was very imperfect. The loss of the British in officers was very large, and it is safe to follow Graham (Life of Morgan, p. 308) and place the killed at 80, the wounded at 150, and the prisoners at 600. The important fact is the deprivation to Cornwallis of his light infantry at a time when he was sorely in need of such.
A good plan will be found in Johnson's Greene, i. 378, of which a reduced fac-simile is given by Graham (p. 297). A more valuable plan as coming from an actual observer, Colonel Samuel Hammond, is in Johnson's Traditions, pp. 529, 530. The best plan is in Carrington's Battles, p. 547. The medals given to Morgan, Colonels Washington and Howard are figured in Loubat's Medallic Hist. of the U. S., and in Lossing's Cyclop. U. S. Hist., p. 341. Lossing, Field-Book, ii. 637, gives a view of the field.—Ed.
[1155] Those from Morgan are in Graham's Morgan, 328 et seq. The most interesting letter from Greene is one that he wrote to Reed (March 18), in Reed's Reed, ii. 348. A letter to Washington (Irwin's Ferry on Dan, Feb. 15, 1781) may be regarded as his official report. Cf. Corres. Rev., iii. 233. It should be read in connection with one of six days earlier, in the same volume, p. 225. Cf. also a letter to Lieutenant Lock as to militia in Hist. Mag., v. 86; Caruthers' Incidents, p. 195; originally printed in Tarleton, 252. Lee's description of the retreat after the union of the two wings at Guilford is admirable (Memoirs, i. 267-298).
[1156] London Gazette for June 2-5, 1781; Annual Register for 1781 (Principal Occurrences, p. 62); Cornwallis, Answer to Clinton, Appendix, p. 23; Cornwallis, Corres., i. 502; Tarleton, 259, etc. For a less official account, see Cornwallis to Rawdon, Feb. 4 and Feb. 21, in Cornwallis, Corres., 83, 84.
[1157] Cf. also British Invasion of North Carolina in 1780 and 1781. A Lecture, by Hon. Wm. A. Graham, delivered before the N. Y. Hist. Soc. in 1853. This short and interesting account of the campaign is printed as part iii. of Revolutionary History of North Carolina (Raleigh and N. Y., 1853), pp. 180-187. General Joseph Graham also presented the local idea of this campaign in the University of North Carolina Magazine, vol. iii.
[1158] See also Ramsay, Rev. in S. C., ii. 203; Greene's Greene, iii. 148-175; Johnson's Greene, i. 387. Johnson thinks that too much credit has been given to Cornwallis. Lamb's Journal, 343; Marshall's Washington, iv., etc.
[1159] The map is on p. 245. Stedman also gives a plan in Amer. War, ii. 328. The whole march can be traced on the general maps, especially the map in Caruthers' Incidents, second series. Cf. Lossing, ii. 598.