The North and the South : a statistical view of the condition of the free and slave states |
| I. |
| II. |
| III. |
 | IV. |
| V. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
| VIII. |
| IX. |
| X. |
| XI. |
| XII. |
| XIII. | CHAPTER XIII. |
 | CHAPTER XIII. The North and the South : |  |
CHAPTER XIII.
EXTRACT FROM AN ARTICLE BY CHARLES C. HAZEWELL, IN
THE BOSTON DAILY CHRONICLE, OF AUGUST 12, 1856.
The first Southern authority that we shall quote, is that of
an actor in the business spoken of—William Moultrie. There
is no purer name connected with the history of our Revolution
than that of Moultrie. He commanded the American forces
that successfully defended the fort on Sullivan's Island, June
28th, 1776, against a strong British squadron—perhaps, all
things considered, the most gallant action of the war, and the
last that was fought, so far as we know, while our country was
still in a formal condition of colonial dependence. The fort
was subsequently named after him. He served with brilliancy
and usefulness subsequently to the date mentioned, and rose to
the rank of major-general in the national service. He was
elevated to the place of Governor of South Carolina, in days
when men thought worthy of that post would sooner have died
than have approved of an attempt to commit murder. In 1802,
Governor Moultrie published, in two volumes, Memoirs of the
American Revolution, so far as it related to the States of North
and South Carolina, and Georgia, ete. This is an interesting
work, boldly written and faithfully compiled, and bearing on
every page evidences of the author's ability, integrity, and enlightened
patriotism. He was, in short, worthy to stand side
by side with Marion, Sumpter, Laurens, and the rest of those
Carolina soldiers who served their country so well, and whose
eminent worth has ever been admitted by all Northern men.
When the British Gen. Prevost (Moultrie calls him Provost)
appeared before Charleston, May 11th, 1779, Gen. Moultrie
Rutledge and the council, who were then and there present.
He represents the governor to have been much frightened,
overrating the enemy's force, and underrating that of the
Americans. Governor Rutledge, says Gen. Moultrie, "represented
to me the horrors of a storm; he told me that the State's
engineer (Col. Senf) had represented to him the lines to be in
a very weak state: after some conversation, he proposed to me
the sending out a flag, to know what terms we could obtain;
I told him, I thought we could stand against the enemy; that I
did not think they could force the lines; and that I did not
choose to send a flag in my name, but if he chose it, and would
call the council together, I would send any message: they
requested me to send the following, which was delivered by
Mr. Kinloch:
"General Moultrie perceiving from the motions of your army, that
your intention is to besiege the town, would be glad to know on what
terms you would be disposed to grant a capitulation, should he be inclined
to capitulate." (Moultrie's Memoirs, vol. I., p. 427.)
To this message, Gen. Prevost made a reply, full of those
promises which the British commanders were so ready to give,
and equally ready to break after their enemies had been deluded
into placing faith in them. This letter was given to the
governor, who called a meeting of the council, at which Moultrie,
Pulaski, and Laurens were present. The question of
giving up the town was argued, the military men all advising
the civilians not to think of surrendering, and showing that the
enemy could be beaten off; but Gov. Rutledge would have it
that the American force was much exaggerated, and was ready
to believe in any statement that exaggerated the British strength.
Finally, Gen. Moultrie was authorized to send an answer to
Gen. Prevost, refusing to surrender on the latter's terms, but
offering, if he would appoint an officer to confer on terms, to
might fix on. Gen. Moultrie says:
"When the question was carried for giving up the town upon a neutrality,
I will not say who was for the question but this I well remember, that Mr.
John Edwards, one of the privy council, a worthy citizen, and a very
respectable merchant of Charleston, was so affected as to weep, and said,
'What, are we to give up the town at last?'
"The governor and council adjourned to Colonel Beekman's tent on
the lines, at the gate. I sent for Colonel John Laurens from his house, to
request the favor he would carry a message from the governor and council
to General Prevost; but when he knew the purpose, he begged to be
excused from carrying such a message that it was much against his inclination;
that he would do anything to serve his country; but he could not
think of carrying such a message as that! I then sent for Colonel
M'Intosh, and requested he would go with Colonel Roger Smith, who
was called on by the governor, with the message; they both begged I
would excuse them; hoped, and requested I would get some other person.
I, however, pressed them into a compliance; which message was as
follows:
"'I propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain and America,
and the question, whether the State shall belong to Great Britain,
or remain one of the United States? be determined by
the treaty of peace between those two powers.'" (Memoirs, Vol. I., pp.
432–33.
John Marshall, so long Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court, a Virginian by birth, and a man of the highest
reputation, has given a brief account of what happened at
Charleston after Prevost's arrival befor it, "The town was
summoned to surrender," he says, "and the day was spent in
sending and receiving flags. The neutrality of South Carolina,
during the war, leaving the question whether that State should
finally belong to Great Britain or the United States to be settled
in the treaty of peace, was proposed by the garrison and
rejected by Prevost." (Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. I.
pp. 298–9, Phil, ed., 1832.)
Among the historians of the American Revolution is Dr.
Ramsay, of South Carolina, whose history was published in
Gen Prevost's arrival before that place, occurs the following
passage: "Commissioners from the garrison were instructed to
propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain and
America, and that the question whether the State shall belong
to Great Britain, or remain one of the United States, be decided
by the treaty of peace between these powers." The
British commanders refused this advantageous offer, alleging
that they had not come in a legislative capacity, and insisted
that, as the inhabitants and others were in arms, they should
surrender prisoners of war. (Ramsay, p. 425.)
The last authority we shall quote is Professor Bowen.[1]
After
mentioning the proposal made to the British commander, he
comments on it as follows:
"This proposal did not come merely from the commander of a military
garrison, in which case, of course, it would have been only nugatory; the
governor of the State, clothed with discretionary powers, was in the
place, and probably most of his council along with him. Whether such
a proposition would have been justifiable under any circumstances is a
question that needs not be discussed; at any rate, it would not have
evinced much honorable or patriotic feeling. But to make such an offer
in the present case was conduct little short of treason. Till within a fortnight,
not an enemy's foot had pressed their ground; and even now, the
British held no strong position, had captured none of their forts, and
occupied only the little space actually covered by the army in front of the
town. The garrison equalled this army in strength, and might safely bid
it defiance. No succors were at hand for the British, while the certain
arrival of Lincoln within a week would place them between two fires, and
make their position eminently hazardous. Yet, with these prospects before
them, the authorities of the place made a proposition, which was
equivalent to an offer from the State to return to its allegiance to the British
crown. The transaction deserves particular notice here, because the surrender
of Charleston, in the following year, a surrender brought about by
the prevalence of the same unpatriotic feelings, was made the ground of
some very unjust reflections on the conduct of Lincoln, their military
commander." (Life of Benjamin Lincoln, in Spark's American Biography,
Sec. Ser., vol. XIII, pp, 285–6 "
"The Committee appointed to take into consideration the circumstances
of the Southern States, and the ways and means for their safety and
defence, report, that the State of South Carolina (as represented by the
delegates of said State, and by Mr. Huger, who has come here at the
request of the governor of said State, to explain the circumstances
thereof,) is UNABLE to make any effectual efforts with militia, by reason
of the great proportion of citizens necessary to remain at home to prevent
insurrection among the negroes, and to prevent the desertion of them to
the enemy. That the state of the country and the great number of
these people among them, expose the inhabitants to great danger from
the endeavor of the enemy to excite them to revolt or desert." (From
the Secret Journal of the Continental Congress, vol. I, page 105, under
date of March 29,1779.)
| CHAPTER XIII. The North and the South : | |