Cowpens in Miniature 17

Part 17: The Second Crisis

Previous: The First Crisis

Next: The Third Crisis

In the center of the battlefield, the British front line bore down on the American Continentals.

Major-General Chastellux commented that when the British were on the offensive, their "attack is not hot, but consists in general of a brisk fire, rather than in closing with the enemy." This seems to have been the tactic used on this occasion. The British front line advanced steadily on the Continentals, stopping repeatedly to fire. At the same time, the Continentals repeatedly volleyed at the British. Lieutenant Thomas Anderson of the Delaware Continentals recorded that the British "advanced On boldly under a Very heavy fire until they got Within a few yards of us" [see Note 1].

Tarleton saw that the American Continentals would not easily be driven off. He saw too that the right wing of the main line had fled. Now was the moment to launch the final attack that would end the battle in a decisive British victory.

"As the contest between the British infantry in the front line and the continentals seemed equally balanced, neither retreating, Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton thought the advance of the 71st into line, and a movement of the cavalry in reserve to threaten the enemy's right flank, would put a victorious period into the action. No time was lost in performing this manoeuvre. The 71st were desired to pass the 7th before they gave their fire, and were directed not to entangale their right flank with the left of the other battalion."

In making this maneuver, the two regiments did become entangled. Major George Hanger learned that the 71st "moved up; and when moving up to form in line with the rest of the troops, whether from their not taking ground enough, or from some other circumstance, their right flank brushed the left flank of the 7th regiment, and intermixed one with the other."

Meanwhile, according to Tarleton, "The cavalry were ordered to incline to the left, and to form a line, which would embrace the whole of the enemy's right flank."

The entanglement between the 71st and the 7th was not allowed to slow the attack. In Tarleton’s words, "Upon the advance of the 71st, all the infantry again moved on."

The 71st Foot Enters the Fight. 1 = Continental Light Dragoons, 2 = Mounted Militia, 3 = Right Wing of the Main Line (broken by Ogilvie's charge), 4 = Continental Infantry, 5 = Left Wing of the Main Line, 6 = Right Wing of the Militia Line (reforming / retreating), 7 = Left Wing of the Militia Line (reforming), 9 = British Front Line, 10 = Captain David Ogilvie's Company, 11 = Other British Legion Dragoons, 12 = 17th Light Dragoons, 13 = 71st Foot, 14 = Main British Legion Dragoon Reserve.

Main Line Fighting (two views; click to enlarge). The events shown in this image overlap with some of those shown in the last post. Ogilvie’s charge is visible in both images. The British front line advances on the Continentals. Meanwhile, the 71st Foot has advanced alongside the 7th Foot and the British Legion dragoon reserve advances towards the American right.

As the British made their final push, the Continentals began to retreat. François-Jean de Chastellux learned that "the whole line… [wheeled] to the right," and wondered at its cause. Other writers noted the retreat but gave no explanation for it. Tarleton, for example, recalled only that "The continentals and back woodsmen gave ground" [see Note 2].

This retreat would become one of the most commented upon features of the battle.

Historian David Stewart assumed that the retreat of the Continentals was related to the retreat of the front line. "the second [line], which had as yet taken no share in the action, observing confusion and retrograding in their front, suddenly faced to the right, and inclined backwards; a manoeuvre by which a space was left for the front line to retreat, without interfering with the ranks of those who were now to oppose the advance of the Highlanders, "who ran in, with characteristic eagerness, desirous to take advantage of the confusion which appeared among the enemy." This description, however, does not mesh well with participant accounts.

More credibly, others claimed that the retreat occurred because the Continentals had been outflanked. Thomas Anderson wrote in his journal that "their line Was So much longer than ours the turn'd our Flanks Which Caused us to fall back Some Disstance." This is also the reason that Daniel Morgan gave in his official report of the battle: "their numbers being superior to ours, they gained our flanks, which obliged us to change our position."

However, there was another reason for the retreat. Morgan admitted "very candidly" to François-Jean de Chastellux, "that the retrograde movement he had made, was not premeditated." The retreat, in other words, was an accident.

Henry Lee, who knew Morgan and Howard, elaborated on this theme in his history of the battle. He noted that the British, "outstretching our front, endangered Howard's right." The threat stemmed from the dissolution of the right wing of the main line and the advance of the 71st Foot. Therefore, Howard "instantly took measures to defend his flank, by directing his right company to change its front; but, mistaking this order, the company fell back; upon which the line began to retire, and General Morgan directed it to retreat to the cavalry. This manoeuvre being performed with precision, our flank became relieved, and the new position was assumed with promptitude."

After historian William Johnson inaccurately described the causes of this retreat (see Flight of the Militia - Part 1), Howard felt compelled to comment on this incident at length. This retreat, he said:

"was not occasioned by the fire of the enemy… I soon observed, as I had but about 350 men and the british about 800 [see Note 3], that their line extended much further than mine particularly on my right, where they were pressing forward to gain my flank.--To protect that flank, I ordered the company on my right to change its front so as to oppose the enemy on that flank [see Note 4]. Whether my orders were not well understood or whether it proceeded from any other cause, in attempting this movement some disorder ensued in this company which rather fell back than faced as I wished them." As a consequence, "first a part, and then the whole of the company commenced a retreat."

Regarding the cause of the confusion, Howard (fairly or not) placed the blame firmly on the company commander:

"This company on my right were Virginians, commanded by Capt. Wallace who some time previous had formed a connexion with a vile woman of the camp, and the infatuation was so great that on guard or any other duty he had this woman with him and seemed miserable when she was absent. He seemed to have lost all sense of the character of an officer. He was in this state of mind at the time of the action. As well as I can recollect Morgan afterwards reprimanded him severely & forced him to break off the connexion."

In any case, the effect of this error was not limited to Wallace’s company. "The rest of the line expecting that a retreat was ordered, faced about and retreated but in perfect order."

Lieutenant Thomas Anderson recorded what happened next: "The Enemy thinking that We Were broke set up a great Shout Charged us With their bayonets but in no Order."

The British had paid a steep price in blood, but now at least victory seemed imminent. The Continentals, the last significant form of resistance on the battlefield, were retreating. They would not be allowed to retreat peacefully. The British infantry stormed after them.

According to Howard, "Morgan, who had mostly been with the militia, quickly rode up to me and expressed apprehensions of the event; but I soon removed his fears by pointing to the line, and observing that the men were not beaten who retreated in that order. He then ordered me to keep with the men, until we came to the rising ground near Washington's horse; and he rode forward to fix on the most proper place for us to halt and face about.

Howard clearly indicated that he was ordered to take a position near Lieutenant-Colonel William Washington’s dragoon reserve, or at least that portion not engaged with Ogilvie. "At this moment Genl. Morgan rode to me and ordered me to retreat to Washington's horse about 100 yards, and there form."

Other sources, however, indicate that not only were the Continental infantry retreating to the rear, but that Washington’s dragoons approached the Continental infantry as they were retreating.

William Moultrie stated in his postwar history that "Colonel Washington perceiving this [retreat], immediately rode up close to the rear of the second line [i.e., the Continentals] with his cavalry… Colonel Washington, riding up so close to the rear of our second line stopped the British for a moment, which gave time to Colonel Howard to rally his men."

On the British side, Lieutenant Mackenzie also believed this is what occurred. Morgan "ordered Colonel Washington, with his dragoons, to cover his [Howard’s] retreat, and to check the pursuit."

The Continentals in Retreat. The Continentals are retreating to the rear and wheeling to the right. A portion of the American cavalry marks the spot where they will halt. Meanwhile, the British infantry pursue.

Notes:

1. That the Continentals fired repeatedly on the advancing British is also indicated in the statement by John Thomas, who lost track of the number of volleys. He noted that when the British began their attack, "The musquetry [i.e., Continentals]… had orders to fire but doesn't know how many times they fired before they retreated."

2. Tarleton knew that the right wing of the main line had retreated. Unclear from this or other statements is whether the left wing of the main line retreated at the same time as the Continentals. It seems unlikely that they did. Virginian rifleman John Thomas notably used "they" rather than "we" to describe the retreat of the Continentals. Lawrence Babits also quotes a Virginian riflemen by the name of Jeremiah Preston who claimed to have "fired 17 rounds," which also suggests that Triplett’s Virginians remained in place (and continued to fire on the British as the Continentals retreated). Triplett’s Virginians probably would have remained behind the Continentals, after the latter completed their retreat, which makes it plausible that Triplett would have remained in place.

3. According to my order of battle, he has somewhat overstated British strength and understated American strength. See Cowpens in Miniature 2, Cowpens in Miniature 3.

4. In my order of battle, I noted that Wallace’s Virginians numbered only 20 men. This number would seem to be far too few to have effectively checked the more than 250 men of the 71st Foot. It’s possible that Wallace’s small company was augmented with some of the miscellaneous troops assigned to Howard’s battalion (specifically, the North Carolina continentals and Virginia State Troops; see the American order of battle for details). However, even in that case this company would still have been outnumbered 5-1. A retreat, it would seem, was unavoidable.

Sources:

François-Jean de Chastellux's 1787 Travels in North-America, in the Years 1780, 1781, and 1782.

John Moncure's online history of the battle, The Cowpens Staff Ride and Battlefield Tour, has a transcription of the statements by Anderson, Howard, and Thomas, among others.

Marg Baskin's Banastre Tarleton website has a transcription of Tarleton's, Hanger's, and Mackenzie's accounts of the battle.

David Stewart's 1825 Sketches... of the Highlanders of Scotland

James Graham's 1856 The Life of General Daniel Morgan has a copy of Morgan's report.

Henry Lee's 1812 Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States.

William Johnson's 1822 Sketches of the Life and Correspondence of Nathanael Greene.

William Moultrie's 1802 Memoirs of the American Revolution

Lawrence Babits' A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens is available through amazon.com.

Related: The Main Line: The Right Wing Collapses, The American Cavalry - Part 1, Cowpens Battlefield in Miniature

British Cavalry Charges at Cowpens - Part 1

In a recent series of posts I considered the question of how the militia retreated from the front line to a new position behind the main line during the battle. I noted that histories of the battle generally maintain that the militia retreated around the left flank of the Continental line. I also argued that it is unlikely that the militia would have retreated in this manner. Instead, I argued that the front-line militia were divided into a left and right wing and that the two wings retreated, respectively, around the left and right flanks of the Continentals. I pointed out that a withdrawal in this manner was not only relatively simple and safe, but it also appears to be indicated by a handful of participant accounts. (See Flight of the Militia - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4).

Participant accounts provide very strong evidence that the militia were assailed during the battle by the British dragoons. A statement in British commander Lieutenant-Colonel Banastre Tarleton’s memoir -- “The cavalry on the right were directed to charge the enemy's left" -- is commonly understood to be his way of saying that he dispatched a troop of dragoons to attack the militia during their retreat. Therefore, my position -- that the militia simultaneously retreated to both the left and right rear of the main line -- would seem to be problematic. Why would Tarleton only dispatch a troop of dragoons to attack the militia on the American left when there was also a large body of militia on the American right?

Tarleton indicated that he stationed a troop of dragoons on both of his flanks at the onset of the battle and Lawrence Babits, in A Devil of a Whipping, argued that both of these troops saw combat during the battle. Babits specifically identified the troop on the British right as the company of 17th light dragoons under the command of Lieutenant Henry Nettles, and the troop on the British left as the company of British Legion dragoons under the command of Captain David Ogilvie. I find these arguments convincing.

Babits has both Nettles and Ogilvie in action not long after the militia began their flight. In his account, Nettles on the British right attacked the front-line militia who were mostly (although not entirely) reforming in the left rear of the American main line (his account is fairly conventional on this point; cf. Flight of the Militia - Part 1). He also claimed that Ogilvie, on the British left, helped drive off Major Joseph McDowell’s North Carolinians.

My review of the source documents has convinced me that Babits is correct about the occurrence of separate charges by Nettles and Ogilvie. That two charges occurred is indicated in reliable sources. Major Joseph McJunkin noted that "Tarleton then made a charge on the right & left wings, treading & cutting till he got in the rear of Howard's command, when Col. Washington made a charge upon him." Major-General François-Jean de Chastellux also learned that both flanks were targeted. He wrote that the British cavalry “endeavoured to turn the flanks of General Morgan's army, but were kept in awe by some riflemen, and by the American horse detached by Colonel Washington, to support them, in two little squadrons.”

Other accounts explicitly mention a British cavalry attack on either the American left flank or right flank, further indicating that both flanks were attacked. One mounted militiaman, Jeremiah Dial, remembered that the British cavalry "broke through the leftwing of the Malitia," while another, Thomas Young remembered when "the British cavalry had charged the American right."

However, I take a different view about the timing of and targets of those charges. Specifically, I believe that a) the first British cavalry charge was made by Ogilvie's company, and b) that the British cavalry charges were directed against the retreating militia.

The accounts quoted above do not suggest that the retreating front-line militia were the targets of these attacks. The flanks, rather, seem to be extensions of the main line. In McJunkin's account, the wings are broken through before the cavalry reaches the American rear where the American militia were rallying.

A comparison of the several British accounts of the battle suggest that the first British cavalry charge was directed against the right wing of the American main line.

Tarleton said that "The cavalry on the right were directed to charge the enemy's left," but Lieutenant Roderick Mackenzie corrected him, saying "Captain Ogilvie, with his troop, which did not exceed forty men, was ordered to charge the right flank of the enemy."

Tarleton did seem to have the American right flank in mind as a target. He mentioned in his description of the American deployment that his reserve infantry, the 71st Foot, was placed on behind the far left of the British line, rather than in the center. For a later point in the battle, when the attack on the American main line was underway, he described his intention to envelop the right of the main line:

"Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton thought the advance of the 71st into line, and a movement of the cavalry in reserve to threaten the enemy's right flank, would put a victorious period into the action."

Moreover, British and American accounts suggest that this charge by Ogilvie was successful insofar as it resulted in the rout of the right wing (see: The Main Line: The Right Wing Collapses for details).

However, Tarleton also claimed that these dragoons were "drove back by the fire of the reserve, and by a charge of Colonel Washington's cavalry." My belief is that when Ogilvie's dragoons succeeded in breaking through the right wing of the main line, they then ran into (most likely unexpectedly) into the right wing of the front line, which would have been at that moment reforming a short distance nearby.

Ogilvie's Attack. 1 = Continental Light Dragoons, 2 = Mounted Militia, 3 = Right Wing of the Main Line (broken by Ogilvie's charge), 4 = Continental Infantry, 5 = Left Wing of the Main Line, 6 = Right Wing of the Militia Line (reforming), 7 = Left Wing of the Militia Line (reforming), 9 = British Front Line, 10 = Captain David Ogilvie's Company, 11 = Other British Legion Dragoons, 12 = 17th Light Dragoons, 13 = 71st Foot, 14 = Main British Legion Dragoon Reserve.

This second encounter, between Ogilvie's dragoons and the reforming militia is what gave rise to the impression that the retreating militia had been targeted. In McJunkin's words, "Then there is a charge of the dragoons even past the line of regulars after the retreating militia. Numbers are cut down." This "reserve" (Tarleton's term) was significantly larger than the force Ogilvie had just routed and they, with the assistance of the American cavalry, defeated Ogilvie's attack. Noteworthy is that McJunkin and most of the would-be pensioners mentioning a British cavalry attack were in the units I've located on the right wing of the militia line and that would have been in the line of Ogilvie's charge (see The Militia Line: Composition and Organization; Flight of the Militia - Part 1).

Sources:

Marg Baskin's Banastre Tarleton website has a transcription of Tarleton's and Mackenzie's accounts of the battle.

Lawrence Babits' 1998 A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens is available through amazon.com.

This issue (.pdf file) of The Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution magazine includes an article by Will Graves that provides a thorough treatment of McJunkin's statements.

François-Jean de Chastellux's 1787 Travels in North-America, in the Years 1780, 1781, and 1782.

Will Graves transcribed the pension application of Jeremiah Dial (.pdf file).

Related: The Main Line: The Right Wing Collapses, Flight of the Militia - Part 1, The American Cavalry - Part 1

The Main Line at Cowpens: Organization

Morgan, in his after action report, briefly summarized the deployment of his forces. In regards to the second, or main line, he reported that “The light infantry, commanded by Lieut. Col. Howard, and the Virginia militia under the command of Major Triplett, were formed on a rising ground, and extended a line in front." He also mentioned, in an aside, that "Tate and Buchanan, with the Augusta riflemen, [were deployed] to support the right of the line.”

This description is not detailed. The idea, like other post battle reports written during this period, was to provide a synopsis of the battle and to officially recognize the contributions of important subordinates.

To find a detailed description of how the main line was deployed, it is necessary to sift through the accounts of participants, written after the war.

Captain Samuel Hammond of South Carolina wrote that, "The second line will be composed of the continental regiment of Maryland troops, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Howard; on the left of the second line, falling back one hundred yards in its rear, a continuation of the second line, or third line, will be formed, advancing its left wing towards the enemy, so as to bring it nearly parallel with the left of the continental troops, upon the second line. The Virginia militia, commanded by Major Triplet, with the South-Carolina militia, commanded by Captain Beaty, will form to the right of the second line; the left nearly opposite to the right of the second line, one hundred yards in its rear; the right extending towards the enemy, so as to be opposite to or parallel with the second line."

The units numbered 3, 4, and 5 in the map below show what this formation would have looked like.

1 = Continental Light Dragoons, 2 = Mounted Militia, 3 = Right Wing of the Main Line, 4 = Continental Infantry, 5 = Left Wing of the Main Line, 6 = Right Wing of the Militia Line, 7 = Left Wing of the Militia Line, 8 = Skirmishers

What Hammond described seems unconventional. However, there is confirming evidence that it is correct. Major-General François-Jean de Chastellux (a member of the French expeditionary force in America) interviewed one of the Augusta county riflemen that served in this formation and learned that Morgan "divided his riflemen upon the two wings, so as to form, with the line, a kind of tenaille, which collected the whole fire, both directly and obliquely, on the center of the English…" He also wrote that he later met Morgan and that Morgan confirmed his understanding of how the battle was fought. (For examples of a what a tenaille can look like, see here and here).

This "tenaille"-like formation seems sensible for the occasion. By placing rifle-bearing militiamen 100 yards behind and to the side of the regulars, Morgan enabled these militia to aid the regulars with their fire, while at the same time shielding them from a British bayonet charge. Because the rifles of the militia had a much longer range than the muskets of the Continentals, both groups would have been able to commence firing on the British at the same time.

This formation also seems superior to the one usually attributed to the American main line in which the Continentals and militia are placed side-by-side. The two types of units had very different fighting styles. The Continentals fought in a tight formation, using tactics very similar to those of the British. At Cowpens, according to Thomas Young, "The regulars, under the command of Col. Howard, a very brave man, were formed in two ranks." The militia were less well disciplined, their rifles were slower-loading, they fought in a single rank (see statement by William Neel), and they were ill-equipped to withstand a bayonet charge. A bayonet charge directed against the militia on the main line would most likely have forced them to suddenly flee, leaving the Continentals dangerously exposed.

Sources:

John Moncure's The Cowpens Staff Ride and Battlefield Tour webpage has a transcription of the statements by Daniel Morgan, Samuel Hammond, Thomas Young and William Neel.

Joseph Johnson's 1851 Traditions and Reminiscences Chiefly of the American Revolution in the South is the original source of Hammond's statement.

François-Jean de Chastellux's 1787 Travels in North-America, in the Years 1780, 1781, and 1782.