Historical marker photo, courtesy of royalprovincial.com |
Reports on this battle later fueled what I can only term Revolutionary propaganda.
Lt.
Col. Banastre Tarleton will have his own article next month, but for now
suffice it to say that he was a rising star in the British army, unremarkable during the northern part of the war, but later distinguished himself in
a handful of skirmishes in the countryside around Charleston. The battle at Waxhaws was relatively minor, all things considered.
But the British were
brutal, they said. Tarleton ignored any pleas for surrender, they said.
It
was a massacre, they said.
And
thus the term “Tarleton’s Quarter” was born, and became the rallying cry all
across the Carolinas. But what really happened?
Banastre Tarleton, by Joshua Reynolds |
As they neared, Tarleton devised a
plan to delay Buford. He sent an officer ahead with a flag of truce to offer
terms of surrender—the same terms General Clinton had offered Charleston, as
this was a fairly standard operating procedure before a battle—but greatly exaggerated his numbers (he told Buford they had 700 men). Even then, Buford
refused. Some say this was his first tactical error. Surrender would not have
been any more disgraceful than what just occurred at Charleston, but it’s
possible Buford felt he couldn’t surrender without at least attempting a fight.
With a detachment of his own men too far away to help, and knowing he was
outnumbered, Buford stopped and formed up his troops in a single line. At least
one of his fellow officers said this was his second tactical error.
We
might be tempted to say, a battle is a battle, but I’ve learned in my research
that this is not so—any more than we can say “a dress is a dress” when dealing
with style and modesty and historical accuracy. Certain things went into making
good decisions about whether to fight or not (are we outnumbered? does the lay
of the land favor us?) and how to carry out the battle. Buford should have
arranged his troops differently, for one—and then his last and possibly gravest
error was to tell his forces to hold their fire. This works when you have
infantry (men on foot) but not for cavalry. The single volley of fire had
little effect before the line of Tarleton’s cavalry swept over the line,
shattering their formation.
Some
of Buford’s men started trying to surrender, and Buford himself attempted to
raise a white flag, but some of his men were still fighting, with at least one shooting
at Tarleton himself. In the heat and passion of battle—both sides were exhausted
and doubtless half out of their heads with the intensity of the early summer
sun—Tarleton’s horse was killed, trapping him underneath. The men of his
detachment (he’d divided his forces into three sections and was leading the
left flank), thought their leader had fallen in battle and went into a frenzy.
By the time Tarleton got out from under his horse and got his men under
control, enough damage had been done to create the rumor of brutality and
massacre.
Military
analysts later point out that the officers in charge of the center and right
flanks maintained control of their men, and the fighting was soon halted in
their quarter. The losses were indeed heavy—113 killed, 150 wounded, 53
captured compared to the British losses of 5 killed and 13 wounded. But later
reports of “all wounded dying” or the British executing all their prisoners
were rubbish. The British provided for the care of their own and enemy wounded
alike, setting up a nearby church as a hospital and summoning doctors from
neighboring communities. All the wounded were paroled (released to go
home when they were recovered enough). Enough reports exist of civility of behavior by Tarleton and his men after things had calmed down, that it throws the hysteria that followed after into serious question.
Considering
what we know today of the psychological impact of war, and the shock it must
have been to the backcountry folk for this first battle to arrive on their
doorsteps, it’s probably no wonder the event became the rallying cry all the
way to the Overmountain settlements, or that they immediately began referring
to this young British officer as “Bloody Tarleton.”
The Blood Be Upon Your Head by Jim Piecuch |
For
more reading on this subject, and a fascinating look into the early months of
the Southern Campaign, I recommend The Blood Be Upon Your Head: Tarleton and the Myth of Buford’s Massacre by Jim
Piecuch. (You can find this in many local bookstores in the Carolinas, or Google it ... almost anywhere is better than Amazon for purchasing this one, I think!) A much shorter read, covering several of the salient points, can be
found at the Oatmeal for the Foxhounds site: the Waxhaws “Massacre.” (More
about this site later!)
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteI knew a lot of history had been twisted to fit the story in the Mel Gibson film, "The Patriot", but this explains where the scriptwriter(s) got their villain for that story.
I'm actually going to address that next month, Keanan! There were men on both sides of the conflict who committed unspeakable things ... but more on that later. :)
Delete