Banastre Tarleton

Re: Banastre Tarleton
I have a fair understanding of why Tarleton is considered by Americans to have been a lout. However, some have struck such a position of staunch advocacy on his behalf that I can't fathom why. This support seems at times to be more an advocacy borne of contrarianism than by actual meritorious service. I'm afraid it has less to do with "contrarianism" (or "revisionism at its worst" as another poster on here might put it), and more to do with the fact that most of what has been written - and virtually all of what is taught - about him on your side of the Atlantic is pure, unadulterated nonsense. "Tarleton's Quarter" was little more than an excuse to butcher Loyalist prisoners; even his nicknames are post-war inventions, some as recent as the 20th Century (Robert Bass's "Green Dragoon" being one offender). Try this excellent site which debunks the myths, particularly about the Waxhaws "massacre" (and by the use of Continental, not British or Loyalist, accounts):- http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/btintro.html Whilst he was not infallible as a leader - and certainly was not above blaming others when things went "belly up" - the evidence suggests that, on a daily basis, he was more humane towards his enemies than most of his opponents (Greene and Lee, for example) were towards theirs.

Hello, Not sure I have an 'opinion' as such; to judge historical actions by 21st century standards is inappropriate. If this is attempted at all it is only possible to attempt to 'judge' actions by the standards of their contextual time... but if you want 'opionons' here's Hugh Bicheno p189 Rebels+Redcoats: "...(Tarleton) whose main claim to obloquy seems not to have been the swaggering ruthlessness he shared with every light cavalryman in history, but the unsettling good looks displayed in the homoerotic portrait Reynolds painted of him. which made him doubly offensive to the fabricators of the Foundation Myth." Hornets Nest? This sentence is taken out of context and is not quite as strident as it at first sounds, there is a heavy seam of wit running throughout Bicheno's book - his comments below the pictures are a good example of his style... the subtitle to the Reynold painting of BT is: 'Light Cavalry Apollo', La Fayette is 'Teacher's Pet' John Burgoyne is 'Stage Strutter' Comte de Grasse is 'Victor at Yorktown' The Bicheno BT quote above is making the point that Tarleton is no worse than anyone else, that Tarelton was leading a loyalist unit makes his a Civil War and Civil Wars are always messy and involve (in the language of the time) 'outrages'. Bicheno cites Sumter, Marion (plus Tarleton+Wemyss): thus p188/9: "All were to be denied the acceptance they sought because they did not observe the forms of civilised behaviour so dear to their social superiors. They tortured prisoners, hanged fence-sitters, abused parole and flags of truce, and shot their own men when they failed to live up to the harsh standards they set." The real question as I see it seems to be why is Tarelton singled out for vilification when there are others of equal merit to chose from... But then many Members of Parliament have character faults so maybe we should refer this to the people of Liverpool who elected him... his opinions on slavery were also not unique among commanders in the AWI... :shock: Hornets nest? GJ

Aha, RtL's reply came in while I was typing the previous one!

The real question as I see it seems to be why is Tarelton singled out for vilification when there are others of equal merit to chose from. Well, history is written by the winners. Hence Lee's "outrage" (far worse than Waxhaws, even if you accept the anti-Tarleton propaganda - and with none of the latter's "post-match" chivalry towards the wounded) has been disguised as "Pyle's Massacre" whilst the accounts of other Loyalist "bogeymen", such as Girty, often omit that these people were invariably the victims of legalised excesses in the pre- and early-war period and merely responded in kind. The modern response is to play the "moral equivalence" card, shrug the shoulders and say "Oh well, both sides did it." Whilst that is true in the later years of the war, from 1770 until the middle of the war, the planned (as opposed to "heat of the moment") outrages were pretty much one-way traffic. The Founding Fathers realised early on that ruthlessness was essential for their minority view to prevail over inertia and the status quo, whereas the broad aim of the British was to win back hearts and minds. This latter goal was frustrated by the politically-motivated outrages of Loyalists (who were often incensed at Crown leniency) to a much greater extent than it was by the more often-quoted excesses of drunkeness and plundering by British/Hessian troops, in my opinion.

Any group of people tend to look at history through colored lenses.A natural bias always creeps in even with the best of intentions.Once this common factor is established,then reasonable discourse can happen. Tarleton was ruthless,but so were many commanders and that has been pointed out.There can be no doubt accounts of him are exaggerated,but to say it is unjust in the reputation he received is also not accurate.Basically,don't believe everything you read and discount everything said as both are probably inaccurate. As far as the Founding Fathers being ruthless,I don't doubt they were,but the Crown wasn't just trying to win hearts and minds either.Rummaging through peoples homes and beating them up when they protest doesn't curry favor either.Revolutions don't happen unless people are very unhappy indeed:wink: No,I think abuse can be laid at the feet of both sides involved.This is typical of all wars and even more so in a civil war.

1) My point about Tarleton was that his reputation for nastiness is based almost entirely on the Waxhaws "massacre". The "Oatmeal" site completely debunks the idea that he gave no quarter at that battle - using comments from Continental Army officers, no less - and pointing out that the guy whose version of events claims that he did was most likely a prisoner in Charleston at the time and not even present. 2) I'm not aware of Loyalists in general, and certainly not Royal officials, tarring and feathering their opponents and vandalising or burning down their houses, nor of troops plundering people's homes and beating them up when they protested, prior to the outbreak of war as the "sons of liberty" did repeatedly in the years up to 1775. One could argue that "quartering" was an infringement of personal liberty, but it was hardly unique to North America as a punishment for recalcitrant or disorderly civilian populations. Gage - who was mocked by officers and men alike for his "soft" attitude towards the Whigs in Boston - chose Lt Col Smith to lead the Lexington expedition precisely because the latter supported his views on the protection of private property. Revolutions don't happen unless people are very unhappy indeed. 3) Or they are lied to repeatedly about the intentions/actions of the other side by rich people with a hidden agenda. :wink:

This is exactly what I mean in viewing things through a colored lens. 1) My point about Tarleton was that his reputation for nastiness is based almost entirely on the Waxhaws "massacre". The "Oatmeal" site completely debunks the idea that he gave no quarter at that battle - using comments from Continental Army officers, no less - and pointing out that the guy whose version of events claims that he did was most likely a prisoner in Charleston at the time and not even present. This is prime example of picking and choosing in what happened.I think what happened was exaggerated,but at the same time some serious brutality happened here.It can be argued that it wasn't completely his fault as his horse was shot out from under him after a truce had been declared and his men in fit of rage set about slaughtering soldiers that had surrendered.They did this because they thought their commander was killed under a flag of truce.It's understandable,but not an excuse for that type of behavior.I believe Tarleton put a stop to it,but he was the man in charge so he will bear the responsibility as is they way of the military.So in my opinion both accounts are wrong and if you blend both together you will get closer to the truth. 2) I'm not aware of Loyalists in general, and certainly not Royal officials, tarring and feathering their opponents and vandalising or burning down their houses, nor of troops plundering people's homes and beating them up when they protested, prior to the outbreak of war as the "sons of liberty" did repeatedly in the years up to 1775. One could argue that "quartering" was an infringement of personal liberty, but it was hardly unique to North America as a punishment for recalcitrant or disorderly civilian populations. Gage - who was mocked by officers and men alike for his "soft" attitude towards the Whigs in Boston - chose Lt Col Smith to lead the Lexington expedition precisely because the latter supported his views on the protection of private property. Yep,I already agreed that some extreme elements of the patriots went way overboard and this really isn't a question. The question was if crown troops were free sin and didn't sack any homes and this I argue is not true.Examples are: 1.This painting by Alfred Wordsworth http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/PRELUDE.HTM to include the text. 2.In what Americans call the"Intolerable Acts."Parliament closed the port of Boston,Established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, it also went on to make British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and required colonists to quarter British troops.This will not exactly win hearts and minds.I would say you can ignore whats not underlined as being specific to one city,but what's underlined will tick folks off and did. 3) Or they are lied to repeatedly about the intentions/actions of the other side by rich people with a hidden agenda. Wink That's perspective now isn't it.I'm happy this web page includes both British and Americans so some balance can be brought to these discussions. :shock:

That's perspective now isn't it.I'm happy this web page includes both British and Americans so some balance can be brought to these discussions. Shocked That came out sounding more negative then I intended.I was saying that it's a compliment to the site in that both perspectives can be argued and are aired. :D

Christopher Ward in his War of the Revolution says of Tarleton: "... Lieutenant Colonel Banaste Tarleton, who was destined to achieve fame and merited obloquy in the south. Entering the British serivce at the outbreak of the war in America, he had proved himself an able soldier in Cornwallis' command throughout ... the campaigns in the north, gaining personal distinction. He was at this time 26 years old. In person he was short, stout, and strongly built, muscular and active. His countenance was handsome in feature, bold, insolent and domineering in expressioin, revealing notable resolution, bravery and pertinacity. In action, he was shrewd, sudden and swift to strike. As a leader of cavalry he was unmatched on either side for alterness and rapidity of movement, dash, daring and vigor of attack. As a man he was cold-hearted, vindictive and utterly ruthless. He wrote his name in letters of blood all across the history of the war in the south." Lawernce Babbits in "A Devil of a Whipping" say this about Tarleton: "Tarleton deserves credit for his rapid marches, hard driving attacks and an approach to warfare that seems more modern than that of some contemporaries. The ability to obtain information ahead of the army, the rapidity with which he pursued and destroyed opposition forces and achieved maximum efforts at times from a rather motely group, reflect favorably on his abilites, even though he was often somewhat implusive on the battlefield. ... His destruction of Buford's command at Waxhaws, South Carolina, and infamous brutality of his officers and men toword wounded and prisoners there and elsewhere, created an impression of savagery that served both to enhance his operations and rally opposition. ... American writers have generally portayed him as "Bloody Tarleton" for destroying patriot milita units in the south. To some extend this is unwarranted but a perception of cruelty and arrogance seems to surround Tarleton and his legion, even though there are examples of humanity to friends and enemies alike." Ward wrote his history in 1952 (I think) but it is still regared as a very work on the war. Babits published his book in 1999. He has a good reputation, even among this group if I remember correctly. Both writers agree on Tarleton's skill as a cavalry commander and touch on some commonality with regards to his personality and behavior. Babits seems to think much (or some) of Tarelton's reputation for brutality is unwarranted. Hummm, I didn't know Babits was English? No ignorant American could write something like that. I did look at the web page that RTL suggested on Tarleton. I found it very interesting. I'm not sure I would agree with him on how credible it all is. But it certainly gives pause to consider that some of Tarleton's reputataion is unwarranted; the same conclusion that Babits reached. As for Waxhaws; whether or not Tarleton ordered the murder of the wounded and prisoners or not, he was incommand. As such he was responsible for the actions of his soldiers. As a former chief of police I can assure you that the fellow in charge is ALWAYS held responsible for the actions of his subordinates. It is a paramount feature of command. As an intersting aside: Wasn't Tarleton captured at Yorktown? Had he been as "Bloody" as we are led to believe, I wonder if he would have been released without a trial or other consequences. My best guess it that Tarleton was not quite as Bloody as his reputation. And there is scholarship, even over here, that dispells some of his Bloody myth. Mike B

As for Waxhaws; whether or not Tarleton ordered the murder of the wounded and prisoners or not, he was incommand. As such he was responsible for the actions of his soldiers. As a former chief of police I can assure you that the fellow in charge is ALWAYS held responsible for the actions of his subordinates. It is a paramount feature of command. As an intersting aside: Wasn't Tarleton captured at Yorktown? Had he been as "Bloody" as we are led to believe, I wonder if he would have been released without a trial or other consequences. My best guess it that Tarleton was not quite as Bloody as his reputation. And there is scholarship, even over here, that dispells some of his Bloody myth. Yep,I more or less go with that as I feel that's a more accurate statement on him then absolving him of guilt or exaggerating events that happened under his command. This was the point I was trying to get across on Tarleton,but you just did it better then I did. :)

View Full Version: Banastre Tarleton