mrrrm
How has Col. Tarleton been portrayed by American Historians? Why?
To what extent does this offer the modern reader of Tarleton?
When different Historians views and accounts of battles in which Col. Tarleton engaged in are compared, an alarming number seem to agree and push the idea that he was ruthless, vindictive and overly arrogant in everyway. The judgments made on his personality are sometimes over-done yet there is no denying that Col. Tarleton was an arrogant and boastful young man yet some go to the point to portray him as some kind of murderous, sex manic, such as Christopher Hibbert stated that he ‘Butchered more men and lain with more women then anyone in the Army’
But what is more disturbing is how the so-called facts about controversial battles -in, which Tarleton was involved- that Historians states as truth, are nearly all completely different. The battle of Waxhaw’s is the epitome of this; every account of this battle seems to be different. It began when Cornwallis ordered Col. Tarleton, with a mixed force of 700 Calvary and infantry, was sent in pursuit of Col. Buford. After a 155-mile march in fifty-five hours Tarleton caught up to Buford on the Waxhaw, what happened next is extremely muddled and Historians have many different opinions on the matter. There are those that seem to stay on a logical path but some who kept their information completely one-sided, not even offering another view or any facts that go against their thesis. The worst two of these is the author of ‘The Fire of Liberty’ and an expert from ‘Household History for All Readers’ by Benson J. Lossing. The Fire of Liberty states that ‘Col. Tarleton advanced to the charge with the horrid yells of an infuriated demon’ he carries on ‘Buford, now perceiving that futher resistance was hopeless, ordered a flag to be hoisted … expecting the usual treatment from civilized warfare … the demand for Quarter, seldom refused was at once found to be in vain. Not a man was spared.’
Yet others take a more balanced approach, Don Higginbotham believes that the details, such as when Buford offered the white flag and at what point did Tarleton try and stop his legion from senseless killing is utterly confused. Higginbotham states that ‘Tarleton may have not been a butcher, but he was ruthless by the standards of Warfare in his day’ The reasons behind the eager nature in which the his men killed the Americans may have an explanation behind it, perhaps the Loyalist who were in Tarleton’s Legion were embittered by Whig suppression and anxious to avenge the recent executions. Nether the less, after that day ‘Tarleton’s Quarter’ and ‘Bloody Tarleton’ became household epithets for British cruelty in the South.
The information provided by some Historians does not offer an accurate portrayal of Col. Tarleton, as you can see most of it conflicts and it is hard to judge which is truth and which is not. He may have been an arrogant, vivacious 26 year-old but he was no butcher or cold-blooded murderer, he was simply a man doing what he could in times of war.
2.What certain events and actions he took made him into such a controversial figure and were these accounts of events exaggerated?
Colonel Tarleton’s early military career was uninteresting and quite normal; it wasn’t until he served under Cornwallis in the Southern Campaigns that this reputation for cruelty and unscrupulous behavior arose. This sudden change in view point can be narrowed down to only a few key events. The battle of Waxhaw’s was the turning point for Col. Tarleton and the way that the colonials and his officers saw him. Waxhaw’s is normally known as ‘The Slaughter of Waxhaw’s’ because Tarleton’s Dragoons slaughtered 300 continentals. When the white flag was offered the Green Dragoons continued to charge and rammed into the continentals with their sabers waving. There were no survivors that could properly decipher what exactly happened that night, except that Tarleton earned the name ‘Bloody Ban’ but what was worse was how it inspired a bitter revenge in the Americans and brought to the fighting some of the worst aspects of a civil war. After Waxhaw’s the vehemence of Tarleton’s campaigning grew and grew until it hit its climax at the battle of Cowpens. He was sent by General Cornwallis to pursue Colonel Nathaniel Greene who had a small force of militia and ragged continentals, Tarleton followed them with such vigor and haste that he managed to cover 250 miles in less than 72 hours. When both parties finally met Col. Greene picked a small, grassy field called Cowpens. Tarleton agreed with Greene’s choice, it seemed to be disadvantageous for the Americans and convenient for the British, also he underestimated Greene’s Militia and their ability to stay and not flee at the first shot fired.
Tarleton’s arrogance towards Greene’s men was his undoing, because in the entire history of the American War of Independence Cowpens was tactically, the best battle ever fought by the continentals. During the battle Col. Greene was desperate to kill Tarleton and even pursued him after it was over for a couple of days, as you can see the events at Waxhaw’s had led Colonel Tarleton’s reputation into a downward spiral that would continue to haunt him for the rest of the war and sometime after.
The way these controversial points in Tarleton’s history have been portrayed are sometimes exaggerated, sadly by those who are from the United States tend to over-dramatize the bare facts and turn it into some kind of simple tale of good and evil. Such as in ‘The Fire of Liberty’ the author writes ‘He advanced with the Charge of an Infuriated Demon … Buford now perceiving that further resistance was hopeless, raised the white flag, expecting the usual Treatment by civilized warfare … The demand for Quarter, seldom refused … was at once found to be in vain’ he does not even bother to offer another version of the tale, or state, as most Historians have done. The details of this battle are extremely confused, so trying to come to a completely truthful conclusion is utterly hopeless.
Perhaps if he had taken a more subtle road this diminished reputation would not have formed and history would not think him so cruel and unworthy of reputation.
3. Why has history and historians overlooked him as a good military commander and concentrated more on his ‘unscrupulous’ deeds during the American War of Independence?
His skill as a military commander was ahead of his time in the way he made quick, calculated moves that were unannounced and deemed by those Military experts of the day ‘brutal’. He was best at slashing, fast attacks that didn’t require a huge army behind him, that is why General Cornwallis used him so much in the Carolina’s because the type of war the American’s were fighting needed to be countered with Tarleton’s frightening Calvary attacks. He was, undeniably one of the most successful Calvary officers of his day.
Yet this entire wealth of Tarleton’s military history has almost been completely forgotten. The victories of Camden and Charlestown in which he helped achieve have become irrelevant when discussing him. Although, the Battle of Cowpens is always a relevant topic when Tarleton is concerned. Because tactically considered Cowpens was the best battle the American’s fought and Col Tarleton just happened to be on the losing side. It was his dismissal of Militia as worthy soldiers who lost him the battle, even though Tarleton was pleased with the terrain and thought it ‘disadvantageous for the Americans and convenient for the British’ -as he stated in his autobiography- but the Americans still managed to win. The odds were stacked in Tarleton’s favor, his had more troops and artillery yet it turned to complete chaos when then the British Charged of their own accord, leading to many soldiers fleeing and Tarleton unable to control the remaining army. After Tarleton fled to Cornwallis’s camp he immediately asked him to ‘Either give his approbation of his proceedings or leave to retire until an inquiry could be instituted, to investigate his conduct’ But Cornwallis knew he could not afford to lose Tarleton.
This fact is not very well known, because it shows how adept Tarleton was at leading and directing his troops.
Most historians concentrate on his ugly reputation because his nasty character traits and the controversy which surrounds him is far more interesting then his brilliant military career. The loyalty that his Legion had for Tarleton was quite amazing, in the Battle of Waxhaw’s they threw themselves into the American opposition when they feared their Colonel dead. Cornwallis also needed him desperately throughout the War in the Carolina’s and even before that he was a valued Calvary officer. The disinterest of Historians is due to the way this information on Tarleton’s career and personality traits sheds a different light on the stereotype that has been created for him.
To what extent does this offer the modern reader of Tarleton?
When different Historians views and accounts of battles in which Col. Tarleton engaged in are compared, an alarming number seem to agree and push the idea that he was ruthless, vindictive and overly arrogant in everyway. The judgments made on his personality are sometimes over-done yet there is no denying that Col. Tarleton was an arrogant and boastful young man yet some go to the point to portray him as some kind of murderous, sex manic, such as Christopher Hibbert stated that he ‘Butchered more men and lain with more women then anyone in the Army’
But what is more disturbing is how the so-called facts about controversial battles -in, which Tarleton was involved- that Historians states as truth, are nearly all completely different. The battle of Waxhaw’s is the epitome of this; every account of this battle seems to be different. It began when Cornwallis ordered Col. Tarleton, with a mixed force of 700 Calvary and infantry, was sent in pursuit of Col. Buford. After a 155-mile march in fifty-five hours Tarleton caught up to Buford on the Waxhaw, what happened next is extremely muddled and Historians have many different opinions on the matter. There are those that seem to stay on a logical path but some who kept their information completely one-sided, not even offering another view or any facts that go against their thesis. The worst two of these is the author of ‘The Fire of Liberty’ and an expert from ‘Household History for All Readers’ by Benson J. Lossing. The Fire of Liberty states that ‘Col. Tarleton advanced to the charge with the horrid yells of an infuriated demon’ he carries on ‘Buford, now perceiving that futher resistance was hopeless, ordered a flag to be hoisted … expecting the usual treatment from civilized warfare … the demand for Quarter, seldom refused was at once found to be in vain. Not a man was spared.’
Yet others take a more balanced approach, Don Higginbotham believes that the details, such as when Buford offered the white flag and at what point did Tarleton try and stop his legion from senseless killing is utterly confused. Higginbotham states that ‘Tarleton may have not been a butcher, but he was ruthless by the standards of Warfare in his day’ The reasons behind the eager nature in which the his men killed the Americans may have an explanation behind it, perhaps the Loyalist who were in Tarleton’s Legion were embittered by Whig suppression and anxious to avenge the recent executions. Nether the less, after that day ‘Tarleton’s Quarter’ and ‘Bloody Tarleton’ became household epithets for British cruelty in the South.
The information provided by some Historians does not offer an accurate portrayal of Col. Tarleton, as you can see most of it conflicts and it is hard to judge which is truth and which is not. He may have been an arrogant, vivacious 26 year-old but he was no butcher or cold-blooded murderer, he was simply a man doing what he could in times of war.
2.What certain events and actions he took made him into such a controversial figure and were these accounts of events exaggerated?
Colonel Tarleton’s early military career was uninteresting and quite normal; it wasn’t until he served under Cornwallis in the Southern Campaigns that this reputation for cruelty and unscrupulous behavior arose. This sudden change in view point can be narrowed down to only a few key events. The battle of Waxhaw’s was the turning point for Col. Tarleton and the way that the colonials and his officers saw him. Waxhaw’s is normally known as ‘The Slaughter of Waxhaw’s’ because Tarleton’s Dragoons slaughtered 300 continentals. When the white flag was offered the Green Dragoons continued to charge and rammed into the continentals with their sabers waving. There were no survivors that could properly decipher what exactly happened that night, except that Tarleton earned the name ‘Bloody Ban’ but what was worse was how it inspired a bitter revenge in the Americans and brought to the fighting some of the worst aspects of a civil war. After Waxhaw’s the vehemence of Tarleton’s campaigning grew and grew until it hit its climax at the battle of Cowpens. He was sent by General Cornwallis to pursue Colonel Nathaniel Greene who had a small force of militia and ragged continentals, Tarleton followed them with such vigor and haste that he managed to cover 250 miles in less than 72 hours. When both parties finally met Col. Greene picked a small, grassy field called Cowpens. Tarleton agreed with Greene’s choice, it seemed to be disadvantageous for the Americans and convenient for the British, also he underestimated Greene’s Militia and their ability to stay and not flee at the first shot fired.
Tarleton’s arrogance towards Greene’s men was his undoing, because in the entire history of the American War of Independence Cowpens was tactically, the best battle ever fought by the continentals. During the battle Col. Greene was desperate to kill Tarleton and even pursued him after it was over for a couple of days, as you can see the events at Waxhaw’s had led Colonel Tarleton’s reputation into a downward spiral that would continue to haunt him for the rest of the war and sometime after.
The way these controversial points in Tarleton’s history have been portrayed are sometimes exaggerated, sadly by those who are from the United States tend to over-dramatize the bare facts and turn it into some kind of simple tale of good and evil. Such as in ‘The Fire of Liberty’ the author writes ‘He advanced with the Charge of an Infuriated Demon … Buford now perceiving that further resistance was hopeless, raised the white flag, expecting the usual Treatment by civilized warfare … The demand for Quarter, seldom refused … was at once found to be in vain’ he does not even bother to offer another version of the tale, or state, as most Historians have done. The details of this battle are extremely confused, so trying to come to a completely truthful conclusion is utterly hopeless.
Perhaps if he had taken a more subtle road this diminished reputation would not have formed and history would not think him so cruel and unworthy of reputation.
3. Why has history and historians overlooked him as a good military commander and concentrated more on his ‘unscrupulous’ deeds during the American War of Independence?
His skill as a military commander was ahead of his time in the way he made quick, calculated moves that were unannounced and deemed by those Military experts of the day ‘brutal’. He was best at slashing, fast attacks that didn’t require a huge army behind him, that is why General Cornwallis used him so much in the Carolina’s because the type of war the American’s were fighting needed to be countered with Tarleton’s frightening Calvary attacks. He was, undeniably one of the most successful Calvary officers of his day.
Yet this entire wealth of Tarleton’s military history has almost been completely forgotten. The victories of Camden and Charlestown in which he helped achieve have become irrelevant when discussing him. Although, the Battle of Cowpens is always a relevant topic when Tarleton is concerned. Because tactically considered Cowpens was the best battle the American’s fought and Col Tarleton just happened to be on the losing side. It was his dismissal of Militia as worthy soldiers who lost him the battle, even though Tarleton was pleased with the terrain and thought it ‘disadvantageous for the Americans and convenient for the British’ -as he stated in his autobiography- but the Americans still managed to win. The odds were stacked in Tarleton’s favor, his had more troops and artillery yet it turned to complete chaos when then the British Charged of their own accord, leading to many soldiers fleeing and Tarleton unable to control the remaining army. After Tarleton fled to Cornwallis’s camp he immediately asked him to ‘Either give his approbation of his proceedings or leave to retire until an inquiry could be instituted, to investigate his conduct’ But Cornwallis knew he could not afford to lose Tarleton.
This fact is not very well known, because it shows how adept Tarleton was at leading and directing his troops.
Most historians concentrate on his ugly reputation because his nasty character traits and the controversy which surrounds him is far more interesting then his brilliant military career. The loyalty that his Legion had for Tarleton was quite amazing, in the Battle of Waxhaw’s they threw themselves into the American opposition when they feared their Colonel dead. Cornwallis also needed him desperately throughout the War in the Carolina’s and even before that he was a valued Calvary officer. The disinterest of Historians is due to the way this information on Tarleton’s career and personality traits sheds a different light on the stereotype that has been created for him.