The order of Lord Cornwallis, as avowed by the commandant of Charleston, engaged the serious attention of Greene; who determined to resist, with all his power, the cruel and sanguinary system. The officers of the American army entered with zeal into the views of their leader; and urged, in a unanimous address, the propriety of retaliation. "Permit us to add," says the concluding paragraph of that manly paper, "that while we lament the necessity of such a severe expedient, and commiserate the sufferings to which individuals will be necessarily exposed; we are not unmindful that such a measure may, in its consequences, involve our own lives in additional danger. But we had rather forego temporary distinctions, and commit our lives to the most desperate situation, than prosecute this just and necessary war on terms so unequal and dishonorable." Greene was highly gratified with the cordial support, spontaneously pledged by his army; and, soon after his departure from the High Hills, issued a proclamation, severely arraigning the execution of Colonel Hayne, declaring his determination to "make reprisals for all such inhuman insults, and to select for the objects of retaliation officers of the regular forces, and not the deluded Americans who had joined the royal army."

The inhabitants of Carolina, whom the enemy had expected to intimidate by the wanton sacrifice of Hayne, discovering the generous and determined spirit of the American general and army, discarded the apprehensions at first excited, and flocked to the standard of their country. Emulating the ardor and decision of the regular troops, they were ready to subject themselves to all the perils to which they might be eventually exposed in the just cause of retaliation.

The British officers and soldiers were not unmindful of the changed condition of the war. The unpleasant sensations arising from this state of things naturally produced a serious examination of the cause; and the inquiry was not calculated to inspire confidence.

The feelings which it excited received a considerable addition from the representation which by permission of the American general, was now made by two British subalterns, taken prisoners shortly after the execution of Colonel Hayne was known in the American camp; and who, as soon as captured, were committed to the provost by order of General Greene. Apprehending that they would become the first victims of the barbarous policy introduced by their commanders, they addressed their friends in Charleston,

describing their condition, announcing their probable fate, and referring to that clause in the American general's proclamation, which confined his menaced retaliation to British officers only.

The honorable and reflecting of both armies perceived, that the justice of the sentence was at least questionable; that inconsistency and passion had marked the proceedings. Nor did it escape observation, that Colonel Balfour, when attempting to shield himself and coadjutor under cover of instructions, withheld their date. This suppression naturally excited a belief, that the orders of Lord Cornwallis were previous to Greene's recovery of that part of Carolina in which Hayne resided. Although his instructions might have comprehended the case of the ill-fated American, while the country around him was subject to the royal power; yet after the reconquest by Greene, they could not be applied with justice. The extraordinary condition which accompanied the respite, corroborated this conjecture. It was generally asked, if the decision be really conformable with the instructions of Cornwallis, why should Greene's expostulation be prohibited? The interposition of the American general could not prevent the execution of the sentence, if correct; but would lead to a discussion with his lordship, which might demonstrate its injustice—an event to be courted, not avoided, by honorable men dispensing death at their pleasure. It occasioned no little surprise, that Lord Rawdon, who had been deemed scrupulously observant of the nice bearings of honor, should have provoked a system of retaliation, in the unpleasant consequences of which he could not participate, being about to depart forever from the theatre of action! *

All these considerations, combined with the actual condition of two of their comrades, produced a meeting of the British officers in Charleston, who presented a memorial to the commandant, expressing their dissatisfaction at the changed condition of the war.

It was reported and believed that the memorial was answered by an assurance, that the late sanguinary precedent should never be repeated; which not only calmed the just apprehensions of the British army, but seems to have influenced the future conduct of British commandants.

When the execution of Hayne was known in England, it became a topic of animadversion. The Duke of Richmond introduced the

*The reader will find in the Appendix, Lord Rawdon's able justification of himself in a letter to the author.-ED.

subject in the House of Lords, by "moving an address to the king, praying that his Majesty would give directions for laying before the House the several papers relative to the execution of Isaac Hayne." His grace prefaced the motion with a succinct and correct narrative of the capture, condemnation, and execution of the American colonel; and charged the procedure with "illegality," "barbarity,” and "impolicy." He read to the House an extract from the proclamation of General Greene, in which the execution was "reprobated as a cruel and unjustifiable murder, and severe retaliation was threatened on the persons of British officers. His grace called on the House to institute an immediate and effectual inquiry, as the only means of securing their own officers from the dangers which hung over them; and of rescuing the British nation from the opprobrious charges of cruelty and barbarity, under which it labored in all the states of Europe." The motion was strenuously opposed by the lord chancellor, the Lords Walsingham and Stormont. They argued that "as his majesty's ministers had declared that no information had been received relative to the facts alluded to, it was inconsistent with the dignity and gravity of the House to proceed to a formal inquiry on vague and uncertain surmises; that it was still less candid and equitable, on such slight grounds, to call in question the characters of brave, deserving, absent officers. But were the facts true and authentic, these lords contended that Colonel Hayne, having been taken in arms after admission to his parole, was liable to instant execution, without any other form of trial than that necessary to identify the person." The Earl of Huntingdon, uncle to Lord Rawdon, acquainted the House, that "he had authority from the Earl of Cornwallis to declare, that this had been the practice in several cases under his command in North Carolina." The doctrine of the ministerial lords was denied, with great confidence, by the Earls Shelburne and Effingham. It was asserted by the former," from circumstances within his own knowledge, that the practice in the late war was totally different. A great degree of ignominy and stricter confinement were the consequences of a breach of parole, and the persons guilty of that offence were shunned by gentlemen; but it had never before entered into the head of a commander to hang them." The Earl of Effingham remarked, that "the practice of granting paroles was a modern civility of late date, not yet prevalent in all countries; and that the lord chancellor's quotation from Grotius related to spies, and not to prisoners who had broken their paroles." The motion of the Duke of Richmond

was rejected by a large majority; twenty-five lords voting in favor of the address, and seventy-three against it.

The arguments in opposition to the motion, are certainly feeble. Want of official information was a good reason for postponement, but not for rejection. If the principles of public law, relative to spies, can be applied to prisoners who violate their paroles, they were inapplicable to the case of Hayne; who was condemned for "being found in arms after he had become a subject." Nor is the doctrine of the Earl of Shelburne entirely correct. "Modern civility" has indeed meliorated the severities of war, by accommodating prisoners with paroles. Sometimes the indulged captive is permitted to return to his country; at others, he is restrained to a particular town or district; and in either case, he is required to remain neuter until officially exchanged. Ignominy justly follows the violation of parole in regard to limits; but the breach of it by resumption of arms is invariably and rightly punished with death. Had Hayne been guilty of this offence, his execution would have been indisputably just; but the virtuous American neither was nor could be charged with infraction of parole by resumption of arms. The parole, under which he retired to his seat after the capitulation of Charleston, was completely revoked by the order to repair to that city, and by the surrender of his person to the British commandant. He was then permitted to return to his family, not as a prisoner on parole, but as a British subject; of which character the reconquest by Greene entirely divested him, and restored him to his country, his liberty, and duty.

The ship in which Lord Rawdon embarked for England, was captured by some of the French cruisers, and brought into the Chesa peake. Soon afterward the propitious termination of the siege of York placed in our hands the Earl of Cornwallis. Washington had it now in his power to execute the intention of Greene; but the change in the demeanor of the British commanders, and the evident and fast approach of peace, rendered the severe expedient unnecessary. He therefore indulged his love of lenity, and conformed his conduct to the mild temper of the United States; forgiving an atrocity, which at any other period of the war, would not have been overlooked.

Relieved as must have been Lord Rawdon and Colonel Balfour, not more by the decision of the House of Lords, than by the clemency of the American commander-in-chief, they could not, with propriety, infer from either circumstance, justification of their con

duct. The rejection of the Duke of Richmond's motion grew out of considerations foreign to the real merits of the subject; and the lenity of Washington may be truly ascribed to an unwillingness to stain the era of victory and returning amity with the blood even of the guilty.

Had this principle, as amiable as wise, governed Lord Rawdon and Colonel Balfour, their fame would not have been tarnished by the blood of an estimable individual, wantonly and unnecessarily shed. How unlike the conduct of these commanders was that of the American chieftain to the unfortunate André ! At a period of the war, when a strict and stern execution of martial law was indispensable, the interposition of Sir Henry Clinton in behalf of an acknowledged spy was received by Washington with patience and with tenderness; and every argument, which the British general and his commissioners could suggest, was respectfully weighed. But in the closing of the war, when true policy and the mild tenets of Christianity alike urged oblivion and good will, Lord Rawdon and Colonel Balfour hurried an innocent American to the gallows, and cruelly interdicted previous communication with the general!

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Greene approaches Stewart.-Disperses his proclamation in regard to Hayne.-Is joined by Pickens, Col. Henderson, and by Marion.-Battle of the Eutaws.-British take post at Monk's Corner.-Greene retires to High Hills.-Marion to protect the country south of the Congaree.-Leslie to command the British in the Carolinas and Georgia.

THE deliberate resolve of Greene, guaranteed by the solemn and spontaneous pledge of his officers, changed the character of the war, and presented death to the soldier in the most ignominious form. Death, in the field of battle, has no terror for the brave; to expire on the gibbet shocks all the noble and generous feelings.

Major André's letter, when condemned as a spy, emphatically delineates this horror; and paints in vivid colors, sensations common to every soldier.*

* COPY OF A LETTER FROM MAJOR ANDRÉ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, dated TAPPAN, OCTOBER 1, 1780.

SIR: Buoyed above the terror of death, by the consciousness of a life devoted to honorable pursuits, and stained with no action that can give me remorse, I trust that the request I make to your excellency at this serious period, and which is to soften my last moments, will not be rejected.