Banastre Tarleton

Cavalry Commanders
One thing I think that is generally overlooked is that the fighting in the south during the Revolution, especially from 1780 on, was a civil war between Loyalists and Rebels. It wasn't always based on who was on whose side. Old family scores were settled and hangings were common. As Tarleton commanded a Loyalist unit, some of that mess undoubtedly permeated the ranks of his Legion. In short, there were hard feelings on both sides. As a cavalry commander Tarleton was excellent, but I do believe Simcoe was a better cavalry commander and combat leader. Tarleton was a failure as an independent commander. There are similarities between Tarleton and Henry Lee as commanders. To my mind William Washington was the best battlefield cavalry commander of the war. His performance at Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse was exemplary. Sincerely, G

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. 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. What, even when unconscious and pinned to the ground by his horse? Jeez - tough audience! Good job you guys weren't on the My Lai panel - LBJ and Westmoreland would have been seeking asylum in Cuba! If it's any consolation mikeb, if one of your officers had killed or injured members of a crowd that had tipped over your patrol car and pinned you underneath (possibly dead) and I was on the jury, you - and probably he as well, depending on exact circumstances - would walk. Nor would I entertain you being called "murdering mikeb" in perpetuity. On a serious level, I can't ever recall Lee or Greene - both of whom, unlike Tarleton, actively encouraged atrocities by their men against prisoners - ever being held to that kind of standard. Just out of interest, what prompts both of you to say that you find the "Oatmeal" site less than completely credible and correct? Both the owner and her main historical advisor are Americans, as are the overwhelming majority of those listed in the Acknowledgements section, who have vetted and provided information for the site. Her vindication of Tarleton at Waxhaws not only cites two Continental officers supporting his version of events, but also casts doubts over the veracity of the sole source hitherto used to discredit him. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever challenged this interpretation. 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. Ward undoubtedly represents the better end of pre-Bicentennial knowledge, but a lot of new information has been unearthed that makes him very dated now, especially where "interpretation" of events is concerned. I would look to something newer in terms of general history of the war. The "Oatmeal" site post-dates Babitts' book by 2-3 years, which could easily explain why he still harbours some doubts - bear in mind that examining Waxhaws wasn't part of the remit of his book. The question was if crown troops were free of sin and didn't sack any homes and this I argue is not true. Examples are: 1. This painting by Alfred Wordsworth I don't have a problem with the idea that Crown troops looted, but please tell me you aren't citing a late 19th Century painting by a guy who was paid to illustrate newspaper articles as evidence? (Incidentally, I think the site has his name wrong, he was actually Alfred Wordsworth Thompson; bear in mind also that he was working around the time of the Centennial, when Anglo-American relations were extremely fraught and demonising the British was considered fair game.) 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. Well no, not so much - try and get hold of the original Whig accounts of the Boston Massacre that reached the UK before Gage's official report. They have British troops rampaging through the streets, killing, raping and burning down private buildings. As Mark Twain said, a lie can travel half way around the world whilst the truth is still putting its shoes on. Whilst president of the Continental Congrees, John "King" Hancock was a leading campaigner for Americans to boycott British tea, whilst simultaneously running a business that smuggled Dutch tea into America, which was offered as a "patriotic" alternative. Rumsfeld/Haliburton? When the Tea Tax was reduced to a penny, the price of British tea undercut his smuggled product and left him out of pocket, so he organised the Boston Tea Party, ostensibly as a protest against the tax, but by a happy coincidence also rubbing out the competition. In 1774, when Congress was schmoozing up to the French Canadians, it allowed John Jay to distribute a pamphlet stating that there was evidence George III was planning to raise an army of 10,000 French Catholics who would lay waste the American Colonies, and then be shipped over to Ireland to do the same, citing the Quebec Act as support. Given how seriously the King took his role as head of the Protestant church, this seems just a tad unlikely - quite apart from the duplicity aspect. (Lanctot Canada and the American Revolution.) During the Lexington/Concord raid, there were all sorts of lurid atrocity stories, but in particular much was made of a group of British soldiers bayonetting to death a woman who was in the process of giving birth. Later investigation showed that the woman was not only still alive, but her youngest child was over three years old at the time. Turned out she was the wife of a militia officer who was responsible for the pay chest. When soldiers entered the house she jumped into bed and hid the chest on her belly under the bedclothes. A British officer then ordered his men out of her house, placing a man on guard at her front door, and apologised for any inconvenience. (Either Murdoch's 19th April or Tourtellot's William Diamond's Drum - can't recall which off-hand - I think Tourtellot is the one who discusses Sam Adams' possible role in instigating the firing of the first shot on Lexington green.) Somewhere in Boatner's Encyclopedia (and I must confess that I've lost where - it's not under an obvious title such as "Propaganda") there is an account of Congress setting up a committee, towards the end of the war, to investigate atrocities committed by Crown forces with a view to claiming compensation from the British Government. After interviewing the staff of newspapers that had publsihed these stories (and been told by the printers that their editors had paid them to invent stuff), the committee abandoned its task as futile, stating that the overwhelming majority of stories had been made up, and even those that had not, were so exaggerated it was no longer possible to ascertain their veracity. There were undoubtedly genuine questions of Parliamentary democracy and legitimacy in the years before 1775. Equally, the Royal authorities were clumsy at best, and arrogant at worst, but they did not manufacture words or deeds and attribute them to their opponents. There is no question that one side understood the value of propaganda far better than the other, and was not afraid to "gild the lily" when it suited.

Atrocities
What 'atrocities' did Greene advocate? As for commanders being held responsible for their actions, the division commander of Calley's unit, the 23d Infantry Division, was held responsible for what Calley did. He was relieved of his post as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy because he was the division commander at the time of the atrocity. The cadets paraded for him right before he left, protesting how he was being treated. It should also be remembered that it was an American helicopter pilot who stopped the massacre. He threatened to fire on the American troops if they didn't stop the mess. Westmoreland being exiled would have been a good thing. Sincerely, G

What, even when unconscious and pinned to the ground by his horse? Jeez - tough audience! Good job you guys weren't on the My Lai panel - LBJ and Westmoreland would have been seeking asylum in Cuba! If it's any consolation mikeb, if one of your officers had killed or injured members of a crowd that had tipped over your patrol car and pinned you underneath (possibly dead) and I was on the jury, you - and probably he as well, depending on exact circumstances - would walk. Nor would I entertain you being called "murdering mikeb" in perpetuity. On the flip side can you imagine him shrugging his shoulders and saying it's not my fault I didn't order them to do this,I guess I need to pass the buck to captain so and so. :wink:It's not how the military operates as I had to answer for stupid things my men did while serving. Also ,please keep in mind that just because someone is overall held to be responsible doesn't mean a jury/people/authorities won't consider mitigating circumstances as in the case of LBJ and Westmoreland.I think this was also the situation with Tarlton and that's why he didn't swing from an apple tree. On a serious level, I can't ever recall Lee or Greene - both of whom, unlike Tarleton, actively encouraged atrocities by their men against prisoners - ever being held to that kind of standard. I can't say yet, as I'm simply not educated enough yet.I'm working on it though. :) As for the rest of your reply I'm not going to answer as I feel I'm punching above my belt still and your knowledge of this period is far superior to mine.My answers are only from what I've read and seen so far and compared to you it is limited. Still,I love debates and when I can I will jump in and try going a few rounds. I'm been actively reading more over the period when I can and I hope over the course of time I can add more to the discussions and give a better debate. I'm enjoying this thread quite a bit as these discussions help educate and bring to light things not considered.Well,at least for myself anyways. :D

I couldn't agree more that this has been a fascinating thread. I came late to the AWI and RtL(and others) have probably forgotten more about the period than I will ever know, being more a gamer than historian. These topics are really enlightening, educational and a very good reason for coming to this forum. Keep up the good work, it is much appreciated. Paul

Re: Atrocities
What 'atrocities' did Greene advocate? I would not go so far as to suggest he "advocated" atrocities; I said he encouraged them, which of course can be passive, as well as active. I've been trying, via a friend who has the recently-published multi-volume book on the Greene papers, to track down a letter I recall seeing in which he sets out his policy of making examples of any Loyalists he comes across. Despite his Quaker background, Greene was ruthless in dealing with any kind of transgression - his disciplinary record with his own men is extremely strict and includes executions and floggings and contrasts with Cornwallis's policy of avoiding capital punishment (even to the extent of forbidding Balfour to carry out such punishments as governor of Charleston). However, in the meantime, I can refer you to the journal of Sgt Mjr William Seymour of Kirkwood's Delaware company, quoted in Urban's "Fusiliers". Four entries for May 1781 refer to the capture and summary execution of dozens of deserters and Loyalists. As far as I am aware, Greene did nothing to halt such activities (I have come across a suggestion that he may have acted to save the life of a Loyalist colonel - though that may have been as much through fear of reprisal against his own officers).

Greene
I have Seymour's Journal as well as Urban's Fusiliers and one of the volumes of Greene's correspondence. I did my master's thesis on Guilford Courthouse. I would highly recommend Long, Obstinate, and Bloody not only for an excellent account of Guilford, but for uniform information on the Continentals, but also for how the armies were made up and how they operated. It seems to me that you're applying early 21st century sensibilities to 18th century warfare and military discipline. It is not, and was not, an atrocity to execute recalcitrant soldiers for capital crimes (desertion, murder, rape). Washington certainly did it for desertion and Greene, being a strict commander, also did it. For no other reason, it is for the 'encouragement of others. Not to enforce discipline leads to commanding slackly. As to the attitude towards Loyalists, you should remember that the war in the south was also a civil war and those can be nasty in the extreme. Both sides, not just Greene, fought a hard war-one that is generally overlooked. One of the problems that can be encountered in combat generally is to get your own troops to stop shooting when the other side actually quits and starts to surrender. You've taken losses and the troops are angry. It isn't the easiest thing in the world to do even with well-trained and disciplined troops when their 'blood is up.' With troops that are not well-disciplined it can be dangerous to do. And one thing that is generally also overlooked is the object is to win. If you come across evidence where Greene 'encouraged' atrocities I would like to see it. I haven't found any yet. With Lee that is the case. He was young and hot-headed and needed to be slapped down from time to time. However, operating alone or with partisans he could generally have his own way. His commanders did attempt to moderate his fury. Sincerely, G

Re: Greene
I would highly recommend Long, Obstinate, and Bloody not only for an excellent account of Guilford, but for uniform information on the Continentals, but also for how the armies were made up and how they operated. Got it, read it, enjoyed it. It seems to me that you're applying early 21st century sensibilities to 18th century warfare and military discipline. Au contraire, I'm completely against that kind of "reverse-engineered" morality as a general principle. However, I would postulate that, based on contemporary mores, the systematic killing of PoWs who were fellow white Europeans was "not the done thing" at the time. As to the attitude towards Loyalists, you should remember that the war in the south was also a civil war and those can be nasty in the extreme. Both sides, not just Greene, fought a hard war-one that is generally overlooked. Again, exactly my point; Tarleton is villified, yet behaved better than many others who are not. One of the problems that can be encountered in combat generally is to get your own troops to stop shooting when the other side actually quits and starts to surrender. You've taken losses and the troops are angry. It isn't the easiest thing in the world to do even with well-trained and disciplined troops when their 'blood is up.' With troops that are not well-disciplined it can be dangerous to do. Once more, that was my point precisely; there is no leeway allowed to Tarleton at Waxhaws - even when dismounted and barely conscious. The systematic killing of Loyalists after capture by the Southern forces of Congress was considerably worse than anything going the other way, and not analogous to what happened at Waxhaws. I'm still looking for Greene's letter.

Regulars v Militia, et al...
One thing you're comparing, or failing to, is that Tarleton was a regular. Atrocities committed by Americans against Americans took place on both sides, usually by militia or volunteers, and was done by both sides. In those type of units, discipline may or may not have existed, the officers may not have had much authority, or they permitted what went on. Trying to defend historic figures for whatever reason using 21st Century 'standards' just doesn't work. You may not be doing that, but that is what it looks like. Gates, Lee, Tarleton, etc., 'screwed the pooch' and either really erred or were incompetent and history has been harsh judging them. The only way to 'set the record straight' if that is at all possible is to have primary source information that proves it. You have to look for it and that is historical inquiry. You have to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' so to speak, and so far that hasn't been done. Just wishing it to be or saying it doesn't make it so. Further, when using primary source material, such as correspondence, you also have to find the replies to them for a better picture or see if (1) the actions directed in the correspondence were actually carried out or (2) if they were later changed or negated, and (3) what prompted the letter in the first place. Sometimes just the letter itself isn't enough to use to form a judgment. Sincerely, G

View Full Version: Banastre Tarleton