posed. On the contrary, General Greene says, in his letter to Congress, "it is said that Lord Rawdon was the great instigator and principal cause of Colonel Hayne's being executed;" and again, in his letter to President M'Kean, "Lord Rawdon was the principal instigator of his execution, and there is hardly a mile from Camden to Charleston, in which he has not left monuments of his barbarity, by arbitrary and savage executions, most of which happened even without the form of a trial;"* and we have it on the authority of an old and most respectable inhabitant of this city, now alive, "that Governor Bull caused himself to be carried in a litter to the quarters of Lord Rawdon, in order personally to intercede for the pardon of Colonel Hayne: that on his return home, the dejection of his countenance too plainly spoke the ill success of his interference, and he exclaimed, 'the die is cast, the unfortunate prisoner must suffer-Lord Rawdon is inexorable.'" Still it is possible, that the feelings of Lord Moira may have recoiled at the thoughts of awarding the death of a felon to "a gentleman, (we borrow the language of General Greene) amiable in his character, respectable in his connexions, and of eminent abilities." But he could not have felt any very vehement desire to save him from that fate, as it is clear, that without his concurrence, Colonel Balfour would not have dared to venture upon a measure, which, it must have been foreseen, would produce great excitement in the American camp. Without any regard to the question of military rank, we cannot hesitate to believe, that such a man as Balfour, "a mere petty tyrant, haughty, capricious and unfeeling"-a man, who, according to Ramsay, "had raised himself in the army by his obsequious devotedness to the humours and pleasures of Sir William Howe, and who displayed, in the exercise of his new office, all the disgusting insolence, natural to little minds, when puffed up by sudden elevation"-could have dared to resist the earnest, zealous and decided interference of Lord Rawdon, in behalf of Colonel Hayne. Nor do we consider it, in this point of view, of much importance, whether Lord Rawdon or Colonel Balfour was the senior officer. The fact that the concurrence of both was required to the order of execution, demonstrates that the * The spirit which animated Lord Rawdon at this time, is well exemplified in the following extract from his orders to Colonel Rugely, near Camden.-" If any person shall meet a soldier straggling without a written pass, and shall not do his utmost to secure him, &c. the persons so offending, may assure themselves of rigorous punishment by whipping, imprisonment, or being sent to serve in the West Indies," &c. and he adds, "I will give ten guineas for the head of any deserter belonging to the volunteers of Ireland, and fire guineas only, if he be brought in alive." Vide Ramsay's Revolution in South-Carolina, v. ii. p. 133. privileges of military rank were, on that occasion, disregarded. We cannot, however, pass over the assertion of Lord Moira, that Colonel Balfour was actually his commanding officer, without expressing our surprise, that this fact should, for the first time, have been made known to the world, by a letter published in 1824. It is certain, that General Greene, and all his officers, considered Lord Rawdon as the commanding officer in South-Carolina, after the departure of Lord Cornwallis. The idea that Lord Rawdon was the officer “on whose fiat the fate of Colonel Hayne depended," was so universal, both among whigs and tories, that of the numerous statements we have received, there is but one which expresses a doubt upon the subject. "It was most unquestionably considered, (says a venerable Judge, who was then in the city) that Lord Rawdon was the commanding officer in South-Carolina, and Colonel Balfour only commandant of Charleston and its vicinity, and there cannot be a question, that a fiat from Lord Rawdon would have saved Colonel Hayne." A respectable gentleman, then an officer of the British police, declares, "that not only in his own, but in the universal opinion of the garrison, the severity exercised towards Colonel Hayne, proceeded from Lord Rawdon." An officer, who was at that time the bearer of a flag of truce from General Marion, accompanied by a letter, distinctly recollects that it was addressed to "Lord Rawdon, and not to Colonel Balfour." Another old and respectable gentleman states, "that the first intimation received in the American camp of the event, was conveyed in the emphatical words, 'Lord Rawdon has hung Colonel Hayne;" and we have before us, the evidence of many others to the same effect. On referring to the Royal Gazette, we find a joint proclamation, under date of 24th May, 1781, in which, Lord Rawdon is first named as a Colonel, and Balfour as Licutenant Colonel, and last though not least, we have before us, the petition by the ladies of Charleston, for the pardon of Colonel Hayne, referred to by Lord Rawdon himself, as drawn by Major Barry, (we believe, at that time, military secretary) addressed not to Colonel Balfour, but to Lord Raudon, "AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF SOUTH-CAROLINA." We find also in the Royal Gazette, a letter from Sir Henry Clinton to Lord Rawdon, dated 13th July, 1781, announcing the promotion of Lord Rawdon to the rank of Brigadier General, a letter which ought to have been received here prior to the 4th August, the day of Colonel Hayne's execution. We profess not to be able to explain the contradictions between these facts and the letter of the Earl of Moira. But that Colonel Balfour was ever entrusted with any power beyond the mere police duties of the military commandant of Charleston, or that he had any actual "control" over Lord Moira, we cannot bring ourselves to believe. However this may be, we are sure that Lord Rawdon could have saved Colonel Hayne, and instead of doing so, that he gave his sanction to an execution which never would have taken place without it, and, therefore, whether that act entitles him to praise or to blame, he must bear it all. His theatrical display, in his dinner speech to the British officers, (as described by himself,) publicly announcing his concurrence with Colonel Balfour in the measure, must, forever, remove all doubts on this head. We have now performed, as well as we were able, what we conceived a duty to the memory of one of the most revered of our martyrs. It is due to the country, that not a single trophy of the Revolution should be suffered to be destroyed, and we should be sorry to see recorded on one of them, the memorable inscription on the beautiful naval monument in Washington, "mutilated by Britons." We would, if we could, preserve them all, in their simple majesty and beauty, to kindle in the bosom of our American youth, to the latest posterity, the sacred glow of patriotism. We have always considered the moral and politi cal lessons, taught by the history of the Revolution, as the most precious inheritance derived from our fathers. The exploits of our heroes-the wisdom of our statesmen, constitute a portion of our national wealth, which, we had fondly hoped, would have withstood the assaults of time itself. If we were called upon to decide, by what measures, those who live in the present age, could confer the greatest blessings on posterity, we should say, without hesitation, by leaving behind them, those great examples of wisdom and of virtue, which are the most enduring monuments of national greatness. To the youth of any country, and especially of a free country, what incentive to noble actions can be offered, equal to the examples of the poets, orators, statesmen and warriors, who have immortalized the country which gave them birth, and adorned the age in which they lived. It is not, therefore, without feelings of mortification and regret, that we have witnessed, of late years, repeated attempts to strip from American history, some of the most brilliant trophies of the Revolution. It may be true, that our history, like all others, is " of a mingled yarn of truth and falsehood," but we fear, that any person who employs himself, at this day, in picking out the threads, will impair the beauty, if he does not destroy the strength of the fabric. It is too late now, to make a fresh distribution of the honors awarded by their contemporaries to the worthies of the Revolution. The VOL. I. NO. 1. 14 partners of their toils the very witnesses of their exploits, are slumbering in the dust, and we may be assured, that, if with the feeble and glimmering lights we now possess, we attempt to correct the supposed errors in our revolutionary history, we shall leave it much more imperfect than we found it. Let all Americans, therefore, unite in guarding the fair fame of the patriots and sages, whose names are embalmed in our history, as we would guard the bones of our fathers. Let the chaplet which gratitude has bound around their brows, be as enduring, as the blessings we owe to their exertions. Note. We cannot close this article without bringing to the view of our readers, as affording an illustration of the truth of these remarks, the case of the gallant Colonel Campbell, who fell at the battle of the Eutaw Springs. The noble speech which Ramsay attributes to that distinguished soldier, who, after receiving a ball in his breast, asked, "which army is victorious?" and being answered, that of his country, exclaimed, "then I die contented," and expired-had placed him in public opinion, by the side of the proudest heroes of Greece and Rome. This distinetion he continued to enjoy, until the publication of Lee's Memoirs, in 1813. In that work, General Lee says, "Colonel Campbell, highly respected and beloved, was killed. This excellent officer received a ball in his breast, in the decisive charge which broke the British line, while listening to an interogatory from Lieutenant Colonel Lee, then on the left of the legion infantry, adjoining the right of the Virginians, the post of Campbell. He dropped on the pommel of his saddle, and was borne in the rear by Lee's orderly dragoon, in whose charge he expired, the moment he was taken from his horse. Dr. Ramsay has represented the death of this highly respected officer differently, from information which, no doubt, the Doctor accredited. But as the writer was personally acquainted with the transaction, he cannot refrain from stating it, exactly as it happened. The Virginians had begun a fire, which was not only against orders, but put in danger Rudolph and his party, then turning the enemy's left. To stop this fire, Lieutenant Colonel Lee galloped down the line to Campbell, and while speaking to him on the subject, the Colonel received his wound, of which he soon expired, without uttering a word." Now, on reading this, who could doubt that the exclamation ascribed to the last moments of Campbell, had never proceeded from his lips? General Lee's authority on the subject, was deemed conclusive. And yet Judge Johnson has since given to the world, the testimony of Major Pendleton, who states, "I was not present when Colonel Campbell received his wound; but late in the afternoon, I met with Colonel Campbell, carried upon a litter by some soldiers. I got off my horse, and went to him. He perfectly retained his senses, but was in great pain, and seemed near his end. He asked me "who had gained the battle?" I told him we had completely defeated the enemy; "then," said he, "I die contented." I left him, and understood he died shortly after." Major Lee, in the work before us, acknowledges that his father was mistaken, and accounts for the mistake by saying, that Colonel Campbell, after being seen by General Lee to fall senseless on the pommel of the saddle, revived so far, as to express the noble sentiments heard by Major Pendleton. The explanation is satisfactory. But who, after this, will be disposed to rely, implicitly, on newly discovered testimony for the correction of errors in our revolutionary history? It is obvious, that but for the circumstance of Major Pendleton's having survived the publication of Lee's Memoirs, one of our distinguished heroes of the Revolution, would have been despoiled of the fairest portion of his fame-American history would have been robbed of one of its most interesting and romantic incidents-and the country deprived of one of the brightest jewels in the crown of its glory. ART. IV.-1. Elements of Analytical Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical. By F. R. HASSLER, F. A. P. S. New-York. Published by the Author. 8vo. 1826. 2. The American Quarterly Review, No. 1. March, 1827. 2d Edition. pp. 38-54. 3. On the Arithmetic of Impossible Quantities; from the Works of JOHN PLAYFAIR, Esq. Vol. III. Edinburgh, 1822. pp, 1–30. Published originally in the Philosophical Transactions, for 1779. 4. On the Necessary Truth of Certain Conclusions obtained by means of Imaginary Quantities. By ROBERT WOODHOUSE, A.M. Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. Read January 8th, 1801. Philosophical Transactions. Vol. XIX. pp. 89-120. 5. On the Independence of the Analytical and Geometrical Methods of Investigation; and on the Advantages to be derived from their Separation. By ROBERT WOODHOUSE, A. M. &c. Read January 14, 1802. Philosophical Transactions. Vol. XX. pp. 85-126. 6. Memoire Sur les Quantités Imaginaires. Par M. BUÉE. Read June 20, 1805. Philosophical Transactions. Vol. XXIV. pp. 23-89.* IT is something very remarkable in the present advanced state of science, that, while its most abstruse and difficult branches are making rapid progress towards perfection, the very elements of those branches are neglected. There is scarcely a phenomenon in nature, which is not brought under the dominion of the modern analysis, technically termed the calculus. La Place, whose views of science are as extensive as they are profound, informs us, that, when a few more irregularities in the planetary motions, shall have been developed by time, “the geometrician will, at once, comprehend in his formulæ, both the past and future state of the system of the world." It is, however, an * The following essays have been also particularly referred to, and some of them partially reviewed: 1. On the Integration of certain differential Expressions, with which Problems in Physical Astronomy are connected, &c. By R WOODHOUSE, A.M. F.R.S. &c. Read April 12th, 1804. Philosphical Transactions. Vol. xxii. pp. 219-279. |