Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in this country," and we confess that we cannot comprehend how it was possible that a simple letter from Lord Moira, unsupported by a single document of any kind, could be deemed of sufficient weight and authority to overthrow the statements of every American historian, including General Lee himself, and to stamp as "prevailing misapprehensions," historical facts never questioned until now. Will the author contend that the loose statements of Lord Moira in a letter written on ship-board, upwards of thirty years after the melancholy transaction to which it refers had taken place, could be sufficient to disprove facts, stated by Dr. Ramsay, who was present at the time, and speaks, (as we have every reason to know) from his own personal observation and knowledge? Shall they be received as conclusive, against the concurring testimony of every American officer who witnessed the transactions?-Of every historian who records them—and even against the public documents, copies of which were carefully preserved, and are recorded by Ramsay in his History of the Revolution in South-Carolina? If Mr. Lee does not contend for all this-if he is not disposed unconditionally to declare that the mere unsupported statement of a British officer, shall outweigh all other testimony in relation to the events of our Revolution, we think he will find it extremely difficult to specify one of the "many circumstances," bearing at all on the merits of the question, which "it is plain" from this letter "have been heretofore misunderstood." We are surprised that it did not occur to a writer so ingenious as Mr. Lee has proved himself to be, that Lord Moira was the worst possible authority on the question, and that his unsupported assertions, so far from being conclusive, must absolutely go for nothing, as they can, in this case, no more be received in the Forum of Letters than they could in a Court of Justice. So far as he gives us arguments on acknowledged facts, and no further, can he be listened to. He is a party to the cause, and of all living men, was the most deeply interested in perverting judgment. If the Execution was a murder, he is one of the perpetrators of the bloody deed; if it was a mere act of wanton cruelty and oppression, the stain rests upon him. The statements of such a man, in his own favour, and especially when marked by a determination to transfer to his partner in guilt, the whole blame of the transaction, certainly cannot afford that species of moral evidence on which alone we would be justified in reversing the judgment of all the American historians: nay, of the whole American people on a point which has now remained undisturbed for upwards of forty years. We repeat, therefore, it is wholly unaccountable to us how the author of the work before us could have taken for granted all VOL. I.-NO. 1. 10

the loose and unsupported statements of Lord Moira, and jumped at once to the conclusion, "that it was now plain that the circumstances were misunderstood," inasmuch as the noble Earl had written a letter, in which he had, very plainly, said so. We will venture to assert, that, tried by the same test, there is not a single incident in our revolutionary history that has been supposed to reflect credit on our arms, or dishonor on the enemy, but can be plainly shown to have been altogether misapprehended. Let Mr. Lee read "Tarleton's Campaigns," and take for granted every thing therein asserted, without further question or inquiry, and we think he will find that many, nay, almost all of the circumstances recorded by the American writers on the subject, including the author of the" Memoirs," are mere "misapprehensions." Tried by that test, what is to become of the character of Lee, and of Greene, and even of Washington himself? Does the author really believe that Weyms, or Watson, or Brown, could not, as well as Tarleton or Moira, make it plainly appear, (if their own statements could suffice for that purpose) that all the circumstances by which "the liberal and enlightened are induced to entertain opinions injurious to their characters," were altogether "misunderstood?" And thus, one by one, may our history be rifled of every incident calculated to confer honor on the American character. We do solemnly protest against the indulgence of this false and sickly sensibility towards the British officers who disgraced themselves by their oppressions during the revolutionary war. But we are done with the author of the "Campaigns of 1781". As he has left us in the dark as to the circumstances which he considers as disproved by the letter, and to which he calls the attention of the friends of Colonel Hayne, we have no alternative but to resort to the letter itself, and going through (even at the risk of being tedious,) all the circumstances therein stated, with a view to injure the reputation of Colonel Hayne, to inquire how far the statements are sustained by historical facts.

In order to understand the force and bearing of the arguments to which we are about to call the attention of our readers, it is necessary to accompany them by an exposition of the case of Colonel Hayne, (as it is presented by the historians, from Gordon and Ramsay, down to Lee and Johnson,) with which we shall take the liberty of interweaving a few facts drawn from other unquestionable sources. We think it proper, however, in the beginning, to declare, that we shall not be content with examining the case of Colonel Hayne on legal or constitutional principles merely. We cannot rest satisfied with shewing that the avowed grounds on which Lord Moira and Colonel Balfour pro

ceeded, were altogether untenable. We must do more-we feel ourselves called upon to prove that the deep feeling which that event excited in the army, and throughout the country, sprung from no unworthy sources-that the opinion which has assigned to Isaac Hayne a conspicuous place among American Martyrs, rests on no doubtful grounds. In short, that the page which emblazons the purity, patriotism, and self-devotion of this gallant officer, is not now to be torn from the history of the Revolution, and substituted by a cold record of pity for his misfortunes, and regret for his errors. If, in the prosecution of our design, we shall find ourselves compelled, unequivocally, to condemn the conduct of the Earl of Moira and his coadjutors, we shall do so with reluctance, and we trust, without asperity. We can have no desire to rouse sleeping passions or enkindle dormant prejudices. But to the sanctity of American history, all other considerations must yield. To the vindication of the fair fame of our revolutionary worthies, every thing but truth must be fearlessly sacrificed. Before we sat down to the preparation of this article, we endeavoured to obtain accurate information from those who knew Col. Hayne during the Revolution, who were present when he came to Charleston in 1780-who saw him brought in a prisoner in 1781, and were personally acquainted with the transactions which preceded and accompanied his examination, condemnation and death. Most of the friends and companions of Colonel Hayne, have, it is true, "paid the debt of nature," but a few still survive, and we have now before us the written statements of men whose names and characters give the stamp of authority to all their allegations.

Isaac Hayne, destined to become so unfortunately conspicuous in the revolutionary war, was a South-Carolina planter of unblemished character and independent fortune. He was descended on the father's side from English ancestors, who came over to South-Carolina in the year 1700, bringing with them sufficient property to enable them to establish themselves respectably, as planters, about forty miles from Charleston. The Revolution found this family reduced to but two individuals of mature age, (Abraham and Isaac Hayne,) both of them in easy circumstances, well-educated gentlemen, married, and settled on their plantations, and (except when occasionally called upon to serve in the Provincial Assembly, or to perform other parochial duties) exclusively devoted to the cultivation of their plantations, on which (contrary to the practice in our times) they resided the whole year. Though neither of these gentlemen seemed to have a military turn, or to have been animated by an ambitious spirit, the war was destined to be peculiarly calamitous to them. They

both took up arms in behalf of their country; the one, fell a victim to the prison ship; the other, perished on a scaffold-while their estates were devastated, and their families almost annihilated. Isaac Hayne, of whom it is our duty more particularly to speak, was distinguished among his neighbours as a just man, a man, in every sense of the word, of principle; kind and conciliating in his disposition, accomplished in his manners, and withal, known to be firm and immoveable in his adherence to what he believed to be his duty. In politics, he was a zealous whig, and though as a subject, it was impossible to be more scrupulous in fulfilling every public duty; yet, no one who knew him could have doubted on which side he would be found in such a contest as that which sprung up between the mother-country and the colonies in 1775. We are told by Lee, that prior to the year 1780, he had risen to the rank of captain in a corps of militia cavalry, and that he was, at the same time, serving as a senator in the State Legislature. We learn, from the same authority, that, at the siege of Charleston, he was found acting as a private in that corps, having resigned his commission and returned to the ranks, in consequence of a junior officer having been unjustly put over his head. At the time of the fall of Charleston, the corps in which Col. Hayne served was not employed within the lines, but in the rear of the British army, and when Charleston fell, it was of course disbanded, and the members returned to their respective homes. The military principle is well settled, that all the outposts of an army share the fate of the main body, and therefore, we presume, that the corps of which Col. Hayne was a member, was entitled to all the privileges secured by the capitulation of Charleston, which stipulated for the protection of the persons and property of the vanquished. Mr. Hayne retired with his family to his farm, and there he would unquestionably have remained to the termination of the war, but for events to which we must now advert.

The British officers, on the fall of Charleston, considered the whole State as virtually subdued, and very soon began to throw off all restraint, and to act towards the inhabitants as towards rebels, who had been brought back to their allegiance by the force of arms. It has been remarked by Dr. Ramsay and others, that if the conduct of affairs, at that period, instead of being confided to narrow-minded and cruel men, had been committed to mild, humane, and judicious public officers; if, instead of attempting to punish those who had revolted, they had prudently declared an amnesty; and, practically observing a generous mildness and forbearance, had endeavoured, by gentle means, to draw back the people to their allegiance, there might have

been a very different issue to the contest. But Providence, which, in its wise dispensations, is constantly bringing good out of evil, had ordered otherwise; and, on reading over the list of outrages practised towards the colonists, we are compelled to conclude with Ramsay, that it was the deliberate purpose of the Royal commanders, at this time, to break the spirits of their opponents, and to bring them back to the Royal fold by the mere influence of terror.

At the period of which we are speaking, the fortunes of the south were at their lowest ebb; nearly the whole State, if not conquered, had been overrun :-Gates had been defeated and driven out of the State, and almost the only resistance to British authority, was offered by the remnant of Marion's gallant band, which still occupied the swamps, whence it issued from time to time, to hang upon the rear, or threaten the advance of the numerous parties of the enemy who were traversing the country in every direction. At one period, even this last hope of Carolina, was so reduced, that we are informed by the historian, "that Marion's whole force consisted of about twenty-five men, living without shelter in the swamps, and employed in manufacturing swords out of old saws taken from a mill." The Civil Government was, also for a time, suspended. Governor Rutledge had been compelled to fly to an adjoining State; and, looking at every thing around him, the most devoted of our patriots might almost have despaired of his country. The British officers, who, from the beginning to the end of the war, never understood the true nature of the contest, believed that their work was done.— They appear never to have perceived that this contest did not originate merely in excited passions; that it did not owe its existence to any of those transient causes which sometimes urge a people to fly to arms on the first favourable opportunity, only to lay them down under the pressure of reverses. Ours was a war of opinion, which cannot be terminated in a field of battle, in which the victors gain nothing beyond the ground on which they stand. A people engaged in such a struggle can never be subdued by the sword. It is only by the slow and silent operation of moral causes, moulding the principles, sentiments and habits of a people to the wishes of their rulers, that a nation, deeply excited and fairly involved in such a contest can ever be reduced to subjection.

The whole country was, at this time, overrun by small parties of royalists; the men employed in these predatory excursions were usually needy adventurers, the very scourings of the gaols, horse-thieves and desperadoes, let loose like so many bloodhounds, with free license to plunder and to gorge themselves

« AnteriorContinuar »