I'm in the midst of writing an article on the Battle of Waxhaws that will appear in the May/June issue of the magazine Patriots of the American Revolution. As part of my research, I've been given the opportunity to see an advance copy of a new book on Waxhaws by Jim Piecuch that will be the definitive work on the subject. Jim has done a tremendous amount of primary source research, and that research indicates that there may not have been a massacre of the Patriot troops by Tarleton's men after all. It makes for very interesting reading, and I will hint at it in my forthcoming article. Waxhaws is a difficult battle to study for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it was over so quickly. Abraham Buford so badly bungled that whole scenario that his defeat was not only inevitable, it was also unavoidable. There's a lot about this battle that we will never know, but Jim's book will come the closest to solving it that I think anyone will ever achieve. Anybody care to contribute? I learn from these posts, so the more discussion, the better. I will let you know when the book comes out, and I will similarly let you know when the article is published. Eric
Waxhaws has long interested me because of the Banastre Tarelton issue. The battle was over in about an hour & even though the Colonists out numbered the British 350-270, the American losses were staggering -- 270 vs. 18 for the Redcoats. It was a little league team vs. the NY Yankees. But the story that emerged of "Bloody Ban" & "Tarleon's quarter" did more, I'm guessing, for morale & recruiting. According to Savas and Dameron, "Depending on one's perspective, Waxhaws was either a well-executed tactical British victory or a bloody crime." I vote for the former. The colonies, IMHO, "spun" it into the latter. Not Abraham's best day ... Mike Peters
Eric, According to Christopher Ward, Buford made 2 major mistakes at Waxhaws. After refusing to surrender, he drew his men up in open ground instead of "throwing his wagons into a line across his front as a barricade peculiarly advantageous in opposing a cavalry attack." Ward also criticizes Buford's order to hold fire "until the enemy was within 30 feet of his line." Would you agree with this 1952 assessment of the battle? Buford aligned his units into one defensive line with a small reserve while Tarelton divided his guys into 3 detachments -- right flank, left flank & center. This allowed the Brits greater flexibilitry. They could attack each area simultaneously. What should Buford have done? Mike Peters
Mike - This is an interesting question. I have been to the Waxhaws field - it is now mostly farmland. I don't know what it was then - but, since I don't recall reading that it was wooded let us assume it is open fields. Men standing in a field are the meat of the cavalry. Henry V at Agincourt had his archers plant posts/poles/stakes in the ground to break up the cavalry charges. Abe Buford didn't have time for that. Old westerns had pioneers circling their wagons while Indians aimlessly circled them. I doubt Tarleton would have done that - but he would have been faced with a fortification of sorts which would have caused him serious problems. Any attack would have been a frontal attack. He might have laid seige to the circle of wagons....starved them out. Withholding fire to "whites of their eyes distance" is fine if you'e only given one shot. Perhaps Buford thought that with cavalry bearing down on them his men HAD only one shot - no time to reload before the horsemen were among the Patriots. If that was the scenario then withholding fire until they were close was the right choice. IF they'd fired at 100 yards - the Patriots would still not have gotten off a second shot. Without a barricade of some sort I don't see how Buford could keep the horsemen at bay. It would be interesting to hear his side of the story - I'm not aware he wrote one? Anyone know? Good question! Thanks. Hugh
Hugh, Herein lies the problem. He had a little time, IIRC. Didn't Buford try to march away instead of preparing a defense? I like the way you described the situation -- "Men standing in a field are the meat of the cavalry." Spot on assessment! Tarelton claims to have had his horse shot from under him, a result of the Anerican's only volley. Therefore, he could not control/halt the eventual slaughter. Mike Peters
Hugh, He did, in fact, write an account of the fight. It's his report to the Virginia legislature dated June 2, 1780. I have a copy of it and will transcribe it and post it here. Eric
Thank you! I'm wondering now whether he tried to cover his errors or what. Excellent! Much appreciated. Hugh
Okay, here's Abraham Buford's report. I have maintained his misspellings. For the want of horse it was 9 O'Clock that morning before I knew that the enemy were pursuing and totally at a loss for their force I continued my march, tho I had every reason to believe they were not more than three miles in my rear. The great and [illegible word] rains for three or four Days had made the roads almost impassable. My waggon Horses greatly reduced by long marches our waggons heavy loaded I was under the necessity of Leaving one or more waggons loaded with powder before I had intelligence of the enemy's approach. At 1 O'Clock PM a flag approach my rear guard tho I had Patrolls in rear I sent to know his business who Informd that it was with me. I return to the rear was presented with a letter address to me from Lt. Col Tarlton of the British legion the content was a prompt demand of the troops stores &c under my command with articles of capitulation anext To which I gave a verble answer and continued my march cault my officers to the rear informd them what had hapned describ'd our situation in all respects as near as I could, requested their opinions which was agreeable to my wish, at half past three O'Clock we was attack in rear by the Horse, my men & officers behav'd with the greatest coolness & Bravery tho a double number of horrse to oppose they soon flankd & their infantry or rather dismounted cavalry approach'd on our left who made a charge on us our men gave way but by the activity of the officers were within fifty yards ralleyd and form'd again. By this time we were completely surrounded by four time our numbers, saw no hope of driving them, I sent a flag to the commanding officer to offer a surrender which was refused in a very rude manner all this time my men were bravely fighting tho the enemies horse frequently charged through the battalion. I must add that my officers & men deserve every thing that bravery can intitle them to. Our loss is very great Two third of the officers & soldiers that were form'd in Battalion killed & wounded many of which were killd after they had lain down their arms my conduct on the occasion I have reason to believe will not suffer in the eyes of those who any thing of the matter. This document is found in the Thomas Addis Emmet Collection at the New York Public Library. It's very enlightening. Buford does not acknowledge any of the many mistakes that he made in deciding to stand and fight. Eric
A most incredible report. I would assume any sort of inquiry would blow holes through virtually every aspect of it. His officers and men might have an entirely different view. Hard to imagine when he receives the surrender demand that he simply keeps on marching. He does not describe any sort of defense. Amazing. Thanks for sharing. Hugh
Hugh, Agreed. It's really pretty remarkable. Buford bollixed that thing up in multiple ways. He's lucky any of his men escaped. Eric
Eric et al, I seem to remember something about a massacre of Tories by "Light Horse Harry's" unit at Haw River. Didn't "Marse Robert's" Daddy claim, in his memoirs, that it was worse than Waxhaws? Am I remembering that right? I am not privy to "Light Horse Harry's" book. Mike Peters
I think you may be remembering an event involving William Washington's unit. At Hammond's Store on the road to Ninety-Six they met a force of 250 tory militia from GA under command of Thomas Waters. It happened just prior to Cowpens. There is a good telling of the incident on page 302 of Buchanan's Road to Guilford Courthouse although, in my opinion, Buchanan is incorrect to identify him as Frances Waters instead of Thomas Waters. I posted some information in the Armchair General forums on Waters that covered this action. Out of 250 Tories trying to run away (without firing a shot it seems), some 150 were hacked to death or seriously maimed with sabres. Another 40 were captured leaving only 60 to escape back to GA. A definite black spot for the Patriots. I asked in the other forum if anyone had read the biography of William Washington. I would be interested to hear about that point of view. His official report virtually ignored the situation.
