America Untold:
Forgotten heroes, Forgotten Stories
Scarlet Ingstad
Christian, Independent Author, Historian
Christian, Independent Author, Historian
Welcome back to Revolutionary Voices, a series aimed at highlighting the lesser-known figures of the American Revolution era. This month, I introduce you to some of the first women to spy for America! A disclaimer for this special edition article for Women’s History Month: these stories are difficult to prove, given their very nature. The history of espionage is challenging, for many obvious reasons, and a lot of the stories and information come from oral history told through generations. Also, be sure to check the "Upcoming Heroes and Heroines" section for a sneak-peek at what's to come in the "Revolutionary Voices" series! Anna Strong Anna Strong was born on April 14, 1740 in Setauket, New York. She married a man named Selah STrong in 1760 and the couple had nine children together. Selah was a Patriot judge, and Anna's family owned a large manor on Long Island. These two factors made them prime targets for the British soldiers who occupied Long Island near the end of 1776. In 1778, Selah was arrested after the British determined he was a Patriot sympathizer and a threat. He was sent to the British prison ship, Jersey, in New York harbor, which was essentially a death-sentence. Prisoners who boarded this ship rarely ever came back alive. However, Anna managed to successfully appeal to have Selah paroled in Connecticut instead. Selah would stay there for the remainder of the war, along with their children, while Anna stayed behind to take care of the family manor. It was during this time when Anna became a spy for the Americans, joining with her childhood friends Caleb Brewster, Abraham Woodhull, and the spymaster himself, Benjamin Tallmadge. Brewster was tasked with crossing the Long Island sound to drop off and receive messages for the Culper Spy Ring. Having already been identified as a spy, Brewster was constantly at risk of being captured. Because of this, Brewster began hiding his boat in one of six different locations to throw off the British soldiers. The issue became quickly apparent: how was Woodhull going to know which of the six coves to meet Brewster in order to drop off his intelligence? The answer: Anna Strong. As the story goes, Tallmadge and Woodhull allegedly approached Anna and requested her assistance. Given what she had endured regarding the treatment of her husband, Anna likely did not hesitate to join in with their espionage endeavors. The devised a system of hanging laundry that would serve as a way to send signals to Woodhull regarding which cove Brewster was hiding in. Anna would hang a black petticoat on the line, signalling to Woodhull that Brewster had arrived and made contact with her. She would then hang one to six white handkerchiefs next to the petticoat to indicate which of the coves Brewster selected. Woodhull would then travel to the indicated cove, pass the information to Brewster, then Brewster would row back across the sound and deliver the information to Tallmadge. Agent 355 Anna's name is not specifically mentioned in any of the Culper letters that the spies exchanged between one another, but an "Agent 355" is. 355, according to Tallmadge's codebook, stood for "lady." There are many theories as to who this 355 could be--Anna Strong, a mysterious woman in New York, or a young enslaved woman named Elizabeth. The concept of "Agent 355" and her existence is highly debated by historians to this day. Some believe that she did not exist, others claim that she changed the entire course of the war. One letter sent by Abraham Woodhull seems to refer to a specific woman he was working with: "I intend to visit 727 [New York] before long and think by the assistance of a 355 of my acquaintance, shall be able to out wit them all." In 1948, a newspaper article titled, "Girl Who Spied for Washington Died on Wallabout Prison Ship. Say Child was Born to Her in Hulk of Vessel," insinuated that 355's fate was rather grim in the final years of the war. However, it is impossible to know if this story is true. Another possibility could be an enslaved woman named Elizabeth who was a childhood friend of Robert Townsend, a leading figure of the Culper Spy Ring. Elizabeth's story was uncovered and made public in a recent book by Claire Bellerjeau and Tiffany Yecke Brooks: Espionage and Enslavement in the Revolution: The True Story of Robert Townsend and Elizabeth. Elizabeth also played a prominent role in turning one of America's first spies into an ardent abolitionist. Regardless of who "Agent 355" was, it is incredible that this woman was not only able to maintain her cover throughout the Revolution, but also remain a mystery to us today. Lydia Darragh Lydia Darragh was a Quaker woman who supported the Patriot side of the American Revolution. Her story was not revealed until years after the war by her daughter, Ann. During the British occupation of Philadelphia in 1777, Lydia was a housewife who lived on Second Street. Shortly after the British arrived, Major John Andre, the Head of British Intelligence, knocked on Lydia's door and ordered her to move out so her come could be used by his officers. Lydia decided to visit Lorde Howe, a British General, to contest the matter. On her way to Howe's quarters, she ran into a British officer who was also her second cousin, Captain Barrington. Barrington interceded on her behalf and Lydia was granted permission to stay in her own home as long as she kept a room free for British officers to conduct their meetings. On December 2, 1777, high-ranking British officers held a conference in Lydia's home. Howe took the opportunity to finalize his plans to launch an attack against Whitemarsh on the 4th. Lydia placed herself in a nearby linen closet next to the meeting room and eavesdropped. After the meeting, Lydia retreated to her room where she feigned sleep. In reality, she began planning how to get this information to the American forces within the short two-day window before the planned attack. The next morning, Lydia left her home and walked several miles through snow toward the Rising Sun Tavern. According to her daughter, just before Lydia reached the tavern, she ran into Thomas Craig, a member of the Pennsylvania militia. She passed along her information to the militiaman who stated he would report to General George Washington. Another version of this story came from a man named Elias Boudinot, Commissary of Prisoners, who was at the Rising Sun Tavern. He said that he and several others spoke to Lydia while they dined and asked her why she was there. Elias claimed Lydia left an old book behind that contained several hidden pockets. Inside one of these pockets was a message with detailed information regarding Howe's plan of attack. Elias then took this information to headquarters immediately. Regardless of how the information arrived, it was evident that it had been leaked by someone close to the British soldiers that night. George Washington's men were prepared for the attack and responded accordingly. Desperate to find the source of the leak, Major John Andre returned to Lydia's home and asked her if anyone had been awake on the night of December 2nd while they were planning their attack. Lydia told Andre that everyone was sleeping during that time and Andre believed her. He left, stating: "One thing is certain, the enemy had notice of our coming, were prepared for us, and we marched back like a parcel of fools. The walls must have ears." Little did he know exactly how right he was. Upcoming Heroes and Heroines: - Next month, I will introduce you all to a man who was often accused of being a pirate and later became known as the "Father of the American Navy," John Paul Jones! - In May, I introduce you all to Phillis (also spelled Phyllis) Wheatley, the first African-American woman to publish a book of poetry, which challenged many prominent figures during this era. - In June, prepare to meet a woman who manned a cannon after witnessing the death of her husband on the battlefield, Molly Pitcher. - For July, we'll learn about a very-successful African-American abolitionist, privateer, and entrepreneur during the Revolution named James Forten. - In August, we'll return to the world of the Culper Spy Ring by way of the privateer-spy, and forerunner of the United States Coast Guard, Caleb Brewster. Sources: - "Revolutionary Spies," National Women's History Museum - "History of American Women," www.womenshistoryblog.com - "Culper Spy Ring," George Washington's Mount Vernon. Washington Library, Center for Digital History. - Washington's Spies: The Story of America's First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose - Spies, Patriots, and Traitors: American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War, by Kenneth A. Daigler - George Washington, Spymaster: How the Americans Outspied the British and Won the Revolutionary War, by Thomas B. Allen - Spies of Revolutionary Connecticut: From Benedict Arnold to Nathan Hale, by Mark Allen Baker - "The Mystery of Agent 355, The Unknown Woman Who Spied for General George Washington," by Genevieve Carlton - Espionage and Enslavement in the Revolution: The True Story of Robert Townsend and Elizabeth, by Claire Bellerjeau and Tiffany Yecke Brooks - "Lydia Darragh," edited by Dr. Debra Michals, National Women's History Museum - "Lydia Darragh," additional biography article from the National Women's History Museum website.
0 Comments
Welcome back to my 14-part series on the life of Banastre Tarleton during the American Revolution! If you missed earlier installments, click the links below and read those chapters first. 1. Meet the Tarleton Family 2. Road to Revolution 3. "I'll Cut off General Lee's Head!" Chapter 4: Theatre in Theater Near the end of 1776, George Washington faced humiliation after losing battle after battle in New York. These losses added further strain to his soldiers, many of whom were nearing the end of their terms of service. Some of these soldiers opted to not reenlist and chose to return home, leaving Washington with only 12,000 troops. However, in December of 1776, Washington’s men began to win a series of skirmishes, which helped to lift their moods. The successful and famous crossing of the Delaware occurred on Christmas morning of that year, and the Americans continued to surprise their British counterparts. The British, however, saw these losses as inconveniences rather than actual setbacks and appeared wholly unaffected. However, the British underestimated the actual significance of these losses. During this time, they lost control of large swathes of New Jersey. Additionally, Washington was able to re-inspire his soldiers, thereby reinvigorating the cause itself. What the British once considered an unworthy opponent had just become an actual threat. Colonel Harcourt stated, “though it was once the ton of this army to treat them in the most contemptible light, they are now become a most formidable enemy.” Following the events at Princeton, both forces retreated to their winter encampments. Tarleton spent the winter of 1776 into 1777 in Brunswick, a time he did not particularly enjoy. He wrote to his mother in May of 1777, stating: “Winter Quarters in America are stupid & afford no Description for the Pen.” In this particular letter, Tarleton also lamented his financial situation. He admitted to the “obligations” which he owed his mother, while simultaneously requesting additional clothing items. He mentioned receiving “bottled beer” and that he found it to be “a very acceptable Present.” Interesting to note in this May 1777 letter to Jane Tarleton, Banastre mentions his new, and very close, friendship with Harcourt, specifying that Harcourt “processes Friendship & says he will move Heaven & Earth in my Favour.” It was also revealed in this letter that Ban started to consider joining a “Company of Foot” due to his extreme boredom over the past year, specifically during his time in the winter quarters. The monotony of routine and duty had left Banastre wanting. He desired action, not drills, and he was desperate to find a way to acquire it. Luckily, for the sake of his career, he did not carry through with his desire to join a foot unit. As Banastre noted in his letters to home, very little occurred during this time period. Tarleton drilled his men rigorously and made every attempt to gain additional attention from his superiors, eager to prove he was worthy of both promotions and additional assignments. Finally, on June 30, 1777, Sir William Howe recalled all the British troops from New Jersey. Colonel Harcourt dispatched his 16th Light Dragoons to New York. The troops boarded a ship along with their horses on July 9. Embarking with horses sent a signal that was music to Tarleton’s ears: he was about to see action. Unfortunately, the voyage itself was wholly unpleasant. The slow progress alongside significantly hot weather led to the deaths of many horses, most of which were tossed overboard before they even anchored up. The loss of horses was a devastating one for a light dragoon unit. Finally, they dropped anchor in the Delaware Bay, but found it was unsuitable for disembarking. Howe had the ship swing around and headed toward the Chesapeake Bay where they anchored near the Elk River on August 25. Shortly after disembarking, the light troops found themselves in a series of small skirmishes with American forces. George Washington heard about the arrival of the dragoons and raced south to protect Philadelphia. Unfortunately for Washington, his efforts were in vain. Opposing forces gathered at Chad’s Fork near Brandywine and a major battle commenced. On September 11, 1777, the British were declared the victors of the battle and camped nearby until September 16. At this point, the British forces made their way into Philadelphia. Along the way, they discovered troops under the command of Mad Anthony Wayne in the woods. Howe instructed General Charles Grey to destroy the camp, but Captain John Andre interjected, suggesting they attack in quiet. He proposed removing the powder and flints from their weapons, utilizing only their bayonets to kill the sleeping enemy. Andre’s suggestion proved to be brilliant, and the attack was skillfully and quickly carried out. Later, this would be dubbed the Paoli Massacre. The following morning, Harcourt’s dragoons, Tarleton included, destroyed all the weapons left behind at Paoli and captured 150 horses to replace those they had lost on their journey to the continent. On September 26, Lord Cornwallis, Sir William Erskine, Commissary General Weir, all led by Colonel Harcourt and his light dragoons, marched into Philadelphia singing “God Save the King.” During the winter of 1777 into 1778, the British enjoyed the comforts and privileges of Philadelphia while Washington and his men endured the struggles and suffering of Valley Forge. However, this time of rest would later haunt Sir William Howe as his superiors in England grew weary of his do-nothing attitude. In the meantime, Tarleton continued with his favorite pastimes of gambling and womanizing, thoroughly enjoyed all forms of entertainment in the city. He frequently lost his bets and sent the bills to his mother who, despite her displeasure with his antics, paid them. When he wasn’t losing at cards, Tarleton found women to be equally entertaining. One of his own men by the name of Crewe had a mistress he was rather fond of. Unfortunately for Crewe, she also caught Tarleton’s eye. According to the London Political Magazine, “Cornet Tarleton was fairly caught in bed with major Crewe’s mistress.” Later, Crewe would serve under Tarleton in the 17th Light Dragoons. Similarly, according to Bass’ account, Tarleton courted Margaret Shippen, who was a future personal interest of John Andre. Andre was a close friend of Tarleton’s, but it appears that Tarleton’s fascination with women tended to override his brotherly affections for fellow officers. Described as being short, yet muscular and strong, Tarleton is also said to have strutted about the town with an air of arrogance and refinement. His looks and mannerisms drew women to him, but they also attracted several male companions who spoke highly of Banastre’s character, charm, and wit. John Andre, who had moved into Benjamin Franklin’s empty house at the time, became the ringleader of the more socially acceptable exploits of the bored British soldiers in Philadelphia. Andre took over the Southwark Theater and began writing plays, designing and painting sets, and encouraging his other officers to perform. Banastre was a reoccurring actor in Andre’s plays, alongside John Graves Simcoe, the recently-appointed commander of the Queen’s Rangers, formed in October of 1777 on Staten Island. Tarleton loved the arts and frequented the theater back in England. The notion of performing on a stage in front of both his fellow officers and eligible ladies likely thrilled him. His noted charisma and charm earned him many friends since arriving in America, and his time in Philadelphia only increased the number of his contacts and comrades. When he wasn’t gallivanting around Philadelphia, gambling, indulging in women, or putting on plays with Andre and Simcoe, Tarleton was frequently in the saddle patrolling and drilling his men. His eagerness to attract the attention of his fellow officers, more specifically his superiors, drove many of his actions during this time. His actions paid off and on January 8, 1778, Tarleton skipped over the rank of lieutenant and was elected by his hometown of Liverpool to be the captain of the 1st Company of the Liverpool Volunteers, a group of officers created after the expansion of the War Office. However, just before Tarleton was informed of this promotion, he nearly lost his life to a patriot by the name of Harry Lee. British Brigadier General Sir William Erskine discovered a party of Continental horsemen were staying at the Spread Eagle Tavern just six miles from the main contingent of the Continental Army camp at Valley Forge. On January 20, 1778, he dispatched 200 light dragoons, led by the newly appointed Captain Tarleton, to extinguish this group of Americans. Tarleton happily led the charge, pleased to be seeing action once again and raced toward the tavern. This would be yet another opportunity to show off his prowess to his superiors. However, Tarleton was unprepared for the equally ambitious and cunning Captain Henry Lee who commanded the Continental unit. Lee’s men fired from inside the tavern and five of Tarleton’s dragoons fell. Tarleton’s leather helmet was shot, and buckshot pierced through his jacket, along with three wounds in his horse. The Americans thwarted the British attack successfully and Tarleton and his remaining men were forced to retreat. Banastre barely escaped with his life. The newly-appointed Captain Tarleton and Captain John Andre continued with their theater productions in Philadelphia all the way through the spring of 1778. Perhaps their biggest performance was the Meschianza on May 18, 1778, in honor of General Howe. Howe had faced growing criticisms from both the British press and Parliament for his lack of action the last several months. Their primary cause of frustration was the surrender of General John Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga on October 17, 1777. They held General Howe responsible for this loss and, after months of continued disappointment, Parliament recalled him from North America. Admiral Howe learned of his brother’s recall and handed in his resignation in solidarity. Despite the negative press and Parliament’s disdain, General Howe’s men admired him greatly. Because of this, Captain John Andre put together a grand celebration to see General Howe off.
The celebration began with a regatta of overly-decorated ships carrying the Howe brothers and other high-ranking British officers down the Delaware. The Royal Pennsylvania Gazette reported that a large group of people gathered near the “wharfs, the shipping, the balconies, and the tops of houses” to witness the parade. The officers arrived at Walnut Grove, the location of the event and former home of patriot Joseph Wharton. Andre was the master of ceremonies and he made sure that every single detail was just as he wanted it, paying special attention to the grand ceremony: the mock jousting tournament. He divided the officers he chose to participate in the ceremony into two different groups: Knights of the Blended Rose, dressed in red, pink and white with the motto “We droop when separated” and a standard of two intertwined flowers; and the Knights of the Burning Mountain, dressed in black and orange with gold accents and the motto of “I burn forever” with the standard of a smoking volcano. He also had officers dressed as squires, heralds, and trumpeters with coordinating outfits alongside the “knights.” Andre even went so far as to costume the women of Philadelphia’s elite class as Turkish maidens. These maidens were each assigned a knight who would joust for their favor. Tarleton served as a Knight of the Burning Mountain and chose “Swift, Vigilant, and Bold” as the motto written upon his shield. General Howe’s aide-de-camp, Captain Friedrich von Muenchhausen commented on the events of that night, stating that, “Everything was as splendid and magnificent as possible and all, even those who have been in Paris and London, agree that they have never seen such a luxurious fete.” However, this luxury proved to be rather costly. Twenty-two officers gathered funds and gave £3,312 toward the event. The costumes Andre carefully created were £12,000 total. Despite how lavish and extravagant this send-off was, it also had its fair-share of critics. Ambrose Serle, Admiral Howe’s secretary, stated, “Every man of Sense, among ourselves, tho’ not unwilling to pay a due Respect, was ashamed of this mode of doing it.” As for Tarleton, an excuse to impress ladies with his grandiose costume and riding prowess while also drinking heavily could not have been more perfect. At the conclusion of the Meschianza, command passed from General Howe to General Henry Clinton. It would not be long before the Light Dragoons, led by Captain Tarleton, would find themselves leaving the pleasures of Philadelphia for the state of New Jersey. Sources: G.D. Scull, ed., The Evelyns in America he Evelyns in America; compiled from family papers and other sources, 1608-1805, 233 Tarleton to his mother, Brunswick, May 25, 1777, NRA 7189 Tarleton. Robert Bass, The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson, 1957 John Knight, The War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion, 2020 Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, Extracts from the Journal of Elizabeth Drinker from 1759 to 1807 A.D., ed. Henry B. Biddle (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1889), 450 Mary Kate Robbett, “Mischianza,” George Washington Library, Center for Digital History, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/meschianza/ John Andre, “Major Andre’s Story of the ‘Mischianza,’” in The Century, Vol. XLVII (March 1894): 688; Royal Pennsylvania Gazette, May 26, 1778, 3. Friedrich von Muenchhausen, At General Howe’s Side, 1776-1778: The Diary of General William Howe’s Aid de Camp, Captain Friendrich Von Muenchhausen, ed. Friedrich Ernst von Muenchhausen (Monmouth Beach: Phillip Freneau Press, 1974), 52 Ambrose Serle, The American Journal of Ambrose Serle: Secretary to Lord Howe, 1776-1778, ed. Edward Howland Tatum (New York: The Huntington Library, 1940), 294 Welcome back to my 14-part series on the life of Banastre Tarleton during the American Revolution! If you missed earlier installments, click the links below and read those chapters first. 1. Meet the Tarleton Family 2. Road to Revolution 3. “I’ll Cut Off General Lee’s Head!” What happened to Banastre Tarleton after landing in Cape Fear, North Carolina in early May of 1776 is unknown. He did not record anything about his first months in America. This is likely due to Cornet Tarleton being one of the newest members of the unit and likely quite busy with tasks and training. Thrown off course due to bad weather and logistical concerns, the envoy was unable to arrive in South Carolina when they originally planned. Once at Cape Fear, Sir Henry Clinton took command and began the delayed expedition to subdue the southern colonies. On June 4, 1776, they landed in Charles Town, South Carolina near the southern end of Sullivan’s Island. There were approximately 375 Continental troops at the fort, all under the command of General Charles Lee. After three weeks of failed raid attempts around Charles Town, Clinton abandoned the endeavor and withdrew his forces. They left for Staten Island, where George Washington had approximately 20,000 troops in the vicinity. Nearly one third of the Continental army lay across the fortified line that reached across Manhattan and all the way to Brooklyn Heights on Long Island. After Clinton attempted negotiations that got neither side anywhere, he decided to attack their left flank. After careful maneuvering by Clinton, Howe, James Grant, and Cornwallis, the Americans found themselves surrounded by enemy combatants. They fled from the field toward their forts in Brooklyn. So where was Tarleton during all of this? We are not entirely sure. It is likely that he was in reserve with Lord Cornwallis during this time. It is also possible that he saw action in the failed Siege of Charles Town. Continued assaults on Washington’s forces occurred throughout September and October of 1776. Gripped by panic, Continental forces once again fled, this time toward Harlem Heights, crying out “Here come the dragoons!” The American forces were terrified by the men who wielded their swords with precision and the fear spread like wildfire. As Washington watched his troops flee across Manhattan, he reportedly threw his hat and shouted: “Are these the men with which I am to defend America?” After seizing New York, the British turned their eyes to Harlem Heights. They were pushed back and chose to rest for a moment, until October 12, 1776 when Howe pushed his troops through Hell Gate and landed at Throgg’s Neck. Outflanked, Washington left 2000 men at Fort Washington and began the retreat to White Plains. George Washington’s woes would continue on October 28, 1776 at White Plains, New York. After Washington’s men retreated north from New York City, Howe landed his troops at Westchester County to cut off the Continental’s escape route. The Continental force responded by continuing their retreat to White Plains but they were unable to gain control over the high ground. Howe’s troops then pushed Washington’s out of White Plains, forcing the Americans to continue retreating north. The British remained inactive during this time while the Americans moved into North Castle. From here, General Howe turned his troops back to Fort Washington in an attempt to take it over, but Washington had anticipated this move and left General Charles Lee at the fort to command the forces he’d left behind. Lee observed the British and Hessian troops moving toward Fort Washington from Fort Lee. On November 16 Hessian Lieutenant General Wilhelm von Knyphausen and his 3000 Hessian mercenaries with an additional 5000 Redcoats lay siege to Fort Washington. General Washington ordered General Nathanael Greene to abandon Fort Lee, but Green hesitated. He waited until November 19th when Lord Cornwallis brought 4500 troops across the Hudson River and attacked the fort. Greene barely managed to save his own men. And so began Washington’s long retreat across New Jersey with Cornwallis following closely at his heels. Washington wrote many letters to Charles Lee, begging him to bring his troops from North Castle, but Lee opted to follow his own plan instead of the General’s. Howe ordered Cornwallis to wait for reinforcements and met up with him at Brunswick. Once they assembled their combined forces, the continued pursuing Washington’s men on December 6th and arrived in Trenton on December 7th. Unfortunately for Howe and Cornwallis, the Continental forces managed to elude them. On December 8, 1776, George Washington and his troops crossed the Delaware. Cornwallis stalked along the river for about thirteen miles searching for boats. Once he realized this was hopeless, he moved his troops into winter quarters in Trenton and Princeton. General Lee finally decided to follow Washington’s orders and crossed the Hudson in early December with 4000 of his men. On December 8th he’d made it to Morristown, New Jersey where he would remain until December 11. Debating on whether or not to follow Washington across the Delaware, he chose to go south. On December 12 he told General John Sullivan to lead their army toward Philadelphia. Meanwhile, Lee opted to spend the night at White’s Tavern at Basking Ridge. Since the tavern sat about three miles away from their main camp, he took about a dozen guards with him, including his aide Major William Bradford. Cornwallis was well-aware of the approaching Lee army. He sent out a scouting party on December 12th to locate the advancing troops. He placed Lieutenant Colonel Harcourt in charge of this operation, and Harcourt chose, according to Ensign Glyn’s journal, “…a party of Light Dragoons having Cornets Geary and Tarleton with him, was detached from Trenton beyond Pennington, to gain intelligence of the Rebel General Lee’s Corps.” Banastre would later record that this was “a circumstance I ever shall esteem as one of the most fortunate of my life.” General Lee hung about White Tavern, seemingly unconcerned. He worked on correspondence, as indicated by a letter he wrote to General Gates complaining about General Washington. According to Bass’ account of the events, one of Lee’s men, Major Wilkinson, looked up and saw a flash of red out the window of the tavern. A group of dragoons were bearing down upon the tavern with Cornet Tarleton at the head. Shouting, cursing and gunfire erupted at the front of White’s Tavern. In about twenty minutes after the chaos began, General Charles Lee had been captured. The 16th Light Dragoons, which Lee himself once commanded, now were riding toward Princeton. Although Banastre did not end up cutting off General Lee’s head as he so boldly proclaimed that day at the Cocoa Tree in England, he played a vital role in Lee’s capture. Bass notes that after these events, Tarleton and the dragoons celebrated, even getting Lee’s horse drunk in the process.
On December 17, Banastre began feeling a bit nostalgic and decided to write a lengthy letter to his mother, recounting in great detail the events of this day. In the letter he tells his mother, Jane Tarleton, that their house caught fire at one point along their journey to pursue General Lee. He explained that none were hurt and they made their beds in the straw that night until they received orders to continue their march. He stated that Colonel Harcourt gave him the advanced Guard. After Harcourt received information regarding Lee’s location at White’s Tavern, likely an informant(s) they came across along the way, Harcourt ordered Tarleton to advance. After travelling for approximately three miles, Tarleton reported that he came across two sentries whom they were able to capture without having to deploy any weaponry. In Tarleton’s words, “The Dread of instant death obliged these Fellows to inform me, to the best of their Knowledge, of the Situation of General Lee.” These men, according to Banastre, informed him that Lee was only a mile away and that his defensive force was not very large. Tarleton’s letter describes how Harcourt then detached him and two other men to move ahead and gather whatever intelligence they could to corroborate the story the two captives told. Banastre reported that he came across a “Yankee Light Horseman” whom he attacked and made his prisoner, then brought him before Harcourt. This prisoner confirmed the story the other two told, and Harcourt sent Tarleton onward with five other men. Banastre stated that he continued at full speed, “making all the noise” he could to startle the two sentries they found at the door of the tavern. Once the sentries dropped their weapons, startled at the noise, Tarleton ordered his men to fire their weapons into every window and door of the tavern and to “cut up as many of the Guard as they could.” Banastre said that an old woman went to her knees before him and begged for her life, informing him that General Lee was inside the house. “This Assurance gave me Pleasure,” Tarleton wrote, and he carried on his attack with “all possible Spirt & surrounded the House.” At this point, Harcourt arrived with the rest of the dragoons. The fight continued for about eight minutes, according to Tarleton’s record, and he himself fired through the door of the tavern twice. He announced to the inhabitants of the tavern that he knew General Charles Lee was inside and if he was to surrender himself, then he and his attendants would be safe. However, if he did not comply with his command, Banastre promised to burn the tavern and “every Person without Exception, should be put to the Sword.” At that moment, Tarleton received word from one of his men that General Lee was attempting to escape out the back door along with his aides and some of the Guard. Tarleton stated they took one Colonel prisoner and put the others to the sword. General Lee surrendered to the sentry Tarleton placed at the front door while Tarleton and his units dealt with the other men in Lee’s command. Banastre reported there were no injuries or losses to any of the British dragoons. This 18th century-style special operations mission lasted approximately only fifteen minutes. The British dragoons then forded a river and began to celebrate their great success “with every Symptom of Joy.” While Tarleton may have boasted a bit about his involvement or his success, the capture of Charles Lee stands undoubtedly as one of the most important events in his early military career. Putting him at the forefront in the eyes of his superiors, Ban was able to show off his skills and willingness to do what it takes to conquer an enemy. However, it also reveals some concerning aspects of Banastre’s preferred warfare tactics. Three different times on his way to White’s Tavern, Tarleton threatened “instant death” upon Continentals he came across. Additionally, his threat to burn down White’s Tavern and put everyone within it to the sword also reveals his rather volatile nature. While these might have been nothing more than grandiose threats, they do stand as a precursor to actions Tarleton took in the southern colonies all in the name of “bloody virtue.” Preview of Next Week’s Article: The British occupation of Philadelphia was a lot more entertaining than you might think. Did you know that Tarleton partied and put on theatrical plays with Major John Andre, the head of British Intelligence? And just wait till you find out about the biggest party they threw. Guarantee they never taught you about this in school! Sources: Anthony J. Scotti, Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton. Berwyn Heights: Heritage Books, Inc., May 1, 2019. John Knight, The War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. Yardley: Westholme Publishing, December 18, 2020. Robert Bass, The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson, 1957. David Lee Russell, Victory on Sullivan’s Island: The British Cape Fear/Charles Town Expedition of 1776. Haverford: Infinity Publishing, December 4, 2002. Banastre Tarleton to Jane Tarleton, “Princes Town Decr. 17,1776,” New War Letters, ed. Ketchum, 68-72. Welcome back to my 14-part series on the life of Banastre Tarleton during the American Revolution! If you missed the first installment, click the link below to access the introduction and the first chapter. Otherwise, scroll down to begin reading about how and why Tarleton got himself involved in the American Revolution 1. Meet the Tarleton Family 2. The Road to Revolution: Banastre Tarleton attended school in Liverpool. According to accounts from classmates, Banastre was well-liked and considered one of the more popular students among his peers. One such peer referred to him as the “Gallant Tarleton.” This peer signed his name only as “Liberty” and stated: “During the Colonel’s minority, he has had frequent opportunities of gaining Friendship from his scholastic acquaintance. The author is an old school fellow of the Gallant Tarleton, and as such will do the utmost in his power to be his friend. Consider, my Brother Freeman, that as School-fellows and Citizens, there is a tie that Human Nature cannot efface.” Banastre is described as being intelligent in some respect and smaller in stature, but unusually strong and muscular. Banastre did not do exceptionally well in school, most likely due to his lack of interest in most of the subject matter, but he excelled in Latin and in many different sports. Crickett was one of his favored pastimes, alongside public speaking and acting. This is perhaps one of the reasons his father pushed him to study the law, possibly concerned with Banastre’s future if his interests were not of a profitable nature. Banastre registered in London on April 10, 1770 at nearly sixteen years of age to attend Middle Temple, likely at his father’s insistence. John Tarleton IV also hired a tutor for Banastre and his older brother Thomas in order to prep them both for entrance into Oxford. Both Banastre and Thomas entered Oxford together in the fall of 1771, but they enrolled at colleges on opposite sides of High Street. Banastre opted for University College while Thomas went to Brasenose College. At University College, the reigning specialty of the professors was the law. Sir William Blackstone himself was once the Vinerian Professor of English Law at University College. A young, brilliant scholar and professor at Oxford by the name of William Scott accepted the appointment as Banastre’s personal tutor. Scott was later elected Camden Professor of History for the University. Many of Banastre’s University friends would also rise to prominence after graduation. Ironically one of these friends, James Bland Burgess, was elected to Parliament and stood opposed to Banastre in the debates regarding the end of the slave trade. Burgess sided with William Wilberforce and William Pitt, seeking to end the slave trade, while Banastre adamantly fought to maintain the practice. Banastre’s closest friend at University was a man by the name of Francis Rawdon, the eldest son of Sir John Rawdon of Moira, County Down, Ireland. Rawdon would go on to serve with the British forces in the American Revolutionary War alongside Tarleton, emerging after the war as Lord Rawdon after his father was named Earl of Moira. Rawdon also adopted the role and title of earl in 1793 after his father’s death. During the American Revolution, Rawdon shared many of Tarleton’s views regarding “brutal suppression” of enemy combatants. Despite the fact Banastre’s University friends succeeded in their educational and occupational endeavors, Ban did not share the ambition and focus necessary to do the same. His temperament was not conducive to that of a dedicated student. Instead, Banastre preferred to focus on various sports to include the previously-mentioned Crickett, riding, boxing, and tennis. He excelled in this realm and turned most of his attention to any activities that involved a demonstration of his physical prowess. This might explain Banastre’s ill-fated decision following the death of his father on September 6, 1773. John Tarleton IV left nineteen-year-old Banastre with an inheritance of £5,000. Thomas Tarleton, the eldest son, received the majority of the family property and businesses. Banastre withdrew his newly-acquired finances and proceeded to spend it all within a year on gambling, women, and drinking, a decision that would change the trajectory of his life forever. Banastre spent his next two years mostly neglecting his studies, cavorting around Drury Lane, and gambling his money away at the Cocoa Tree. The Cocoa Tree was a rather popular hangout spot for young men on St. James Street, and Banastre was a regular attendee. The area of Pall Mall held most of his attention, and for a young man full of both ambition and fortune, it was irresistible. Coffeehouses during this era were a cultural phenomenon, as John Knight described in his 2020 book, War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. Very few homes during this era had the ability to brew their own coffee, which made coffeehouses the places to be for Londoners of every class. In these locations, residents would gossip over steaming cups of coffee and even conduct business. These coffeehouses rose to the height of popularity in both England and America just before the American Revolution began. Soon, other items were made available within the coffeehouses, such as newspapers and various forms of gambling games. They became a mainstay of information sharing, trade, and commerce. It was also in and around these establishments where prostitutes lingered, eager to sway the wealthy men and turn a profit. But it was the Cocoa Tree on St. James Street that snagged the full attention of Tarleton. It became his usual haunt in the evening, and he would begin his gambling around 11 at night, continuing until around 4 or 5 the next morning. Heavy drinking and the promise of young prostitutes further lured Tarleton into the establishment. Although details regarding Tarleton’s gambling exploits within the Cocoa Tree are unknown, it is evident that he was not a successful or lucky man in this endeavor. His financial loss was significant, as recorded by the Morning Herald after the Revolution: “A certain Colonel is said to have lost lately at Brooke’s upwards of £30,0001.” After the war, Tarleton’s lover, Maria Robinson, published her opinion on Tarleton’s activities in London. According to Robinson, Tarleton, because of his “volatile disposition,” found himself “drawn by gay companions into a vortex of fashionable amusements, and by the eager pursuit of them exhausted his finances.” Tarleton was pulled into the Cocoa Tree for the thrill of the risk, the danger, and the ever-present chance of winning. This would be an aspect of his personality that would translate to the Revolution and various other future endeavors. Banastre’s addiction to gambling would continue throughout his life. Despite his mother’s pleas to cease these activities, Banastre could not seem to help himself. Constantly drawn to the thrill and the risk, he found himself frequently tempted by women, money, gambling, and drinking, which became the only constant things in Tarleton’s life. He always managed to convince his mother to pay for his debts, but she began to insist that he retreat to the Continent to avoid being put into debtors’ prison. Perhaps the most glaring example of Tarleton’s addiction to thrill and danger occurred when he took a bet from his friend Lord Malden which combined his two biggest temptations: women and gambling. Malden at the time had been involved in an affair with the aforementioned Maria Robinson, who was a writer and actress, and the former courtesan to George the Prince of Wales. Malden felt so secure in his relationship with Maria that he bet a thousand guineas that she could not possibly be seduced by any other living man. Tarleton readily accepted this challenge and within a matter of days managed to do exactly what Malden said no man could do: seduce Maria Robinson. This gamble resulted in a long-term affair that would last for about fifteen years. What exactly drew Banastre Tarleton to officially join the 1st Regiment of Dragoon Guards in 1775 remains unknown. Tarleton was an expert rider, as indicated by the recordings of his prowess while in school, but he did not have the ambition or the discipline that often drove other men to war. It is likely that Tarleton’s mounting debt due to his gambling addiction is the true reason for his departure to America. Pressure from his mother alongside his inability to continue with his addiction after losing much of his inheritance, Tarleton realized a military commission might be the best course of action. Luckily for Banastre, in the spring of 1775 a man by the name of John Trotter put his commission up for sale. Tarleton was so destitute at this point in time that he had to borrow money from his mother to purchase the £800 commission. The annual pay of a cornet, the lowest rank for commissioned officers, in the Dragoon Guards was a mere £255, demonstrating both Tarleton’s desperation to find a means of settling his debts, and his mother’s devotion to her son combined with her frustration with his current trajectory. Tarleton received his commission on April 20, 1775, exactly one day after the battles of Lexington and Concord. He celebrated at the Cocoa Tree, then set out to join his regiment at Norwich to begin his training. On June 22, General Charles Lee resigned his commission in the English Army, renounced his half-pay, and officially joined the rebellion. A few months later, Tarleton volunteered to join one of the regiments slated to head off to the war in the colonies and was marked “Absent by King’s leave” on December 24. Banastre was so ecstatic that when he passed through London on his way to Portsmouth, he decided to stop by the Cocoa Tree to show off his new scarlet coat and gigantic saber. Banastre celebrated with his friends, drinking heavily as the conversation steered toward the traitor Charles Lee. With a flourish, Cornet Tarleton leapt to his feet, swinging his new saber over his head, and exclaimed: “With this sword I’ll cut off General Lee’s head!” On December 26, 1775, Banastre Tarleton left to join his unit and head to America under the command of Earl Cornwallis, hoping to make good on his proclamation. The convoy assembled and set sail on February 12, 1776. Next week, find out the details behind Tarleton's first month's in America, as well as one of his most colorful stories involving a tavern and General Charles Lee--yes, the very same Charles Lee whose head Tarleton swore to "cut off." Tarleton's story gets more and more chaotic as we move along. Thank you for reading! Sources: Anthony J. Scotti, Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton. Berwyn Heights: Heritage Books, Inc., May 1, 2019. Robert Bass, The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson, 1957. John Knight, The War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. Yardley: Westholme Publishing, December 18, 2020. Arthur Pitt, “A Study of Gamblers and Gaming Culture in London circa 1780.” (MA diss., 2012), 23. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3291/2/Pitt_Arthur_MA_Dissertation_Final.pdf Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (London), August 3, 1784; The London Magazine, vol. 51, March 1782 Mary Robinson, The Memoirs of Perdita. London: G. Lister, 1784 A.P.C. Bruce, The Purchase System in the British Army, 1660-1871 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1980), 32; Scott’s Magazine, Edinburgh, May 1775 Welcome to a brand new article series all about the life of Banastre Tarleton! This content was originally part of a biography I was working on, but after some "soul-searching," I realized my passion is in writing my blog posts and historical fiction novels. So, instead, every so often I'll release another chapter of what would have been the bio for you all to read for free! This series will cover Tarleton's life from this segment, the intro and history of the Tarleton family line, through the Battle of Waxhaws. Enjoy! Introduction Bloody Ban, The Butcher, The Green Dragoon. These are all monikers applied to Banastre Tarleton both during his life and after his death. For centuries, Banastre inspired both fear and rage, becoming the quintessential villain of the American Revolutionary War. But does Banastre Tarleton deserve some of these colorful nicknames? What did he do to earn these labels, who assigned them, and why do we still view him this way today? While the Americans vilified him, the British hailed him as a darling of the American Revolution, and to this day, describe him as victorious, daring and courageous. Much of Banastre’s time during the American Revolution is well-documented, but by very biased sources. Banastre exalts himself in his own memoirs for his efforts during the Southern Campaign, criticizing his superiors and expressing his frustrations with the rebel forces of General George Washington. These rebel forces frequently wrote about Banastre as well, describing him as a terror, a hellion, and a man filled with uncontrollable rage and a thirst for blood. However, many of these rebel officers and soldiers wrote these words after losing to Banastre in battle. So, what is the truth? Is Banastre Tarleton truly the horrific individual we’ve come to accept? Or are the descriptions simply exaggerated tales from bitter, defeated enemies? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I posit that both reputations are true, but they have both been exaggerated to extremes. Banastre Tarleton was brutal and ruthless in defending the Crown, making him a true villain to the American forces and simultaneously a hero to England. In 1835 a man by the name of Moses Hall appealed to the United States government for a pension due to his service during the American Revolution. He claimed to remember the events that took place in the Southern Campaign with startling clarity, recounting events in great detail. Hall explained that one day, a detachment of North Carolina militiamen discovered an abandoned British Legion campsite. Hall tripped over something, realizing a moment later it was a sixteen year old boy, barely alive. The British thought the boy was a spy and allegedly ran him through with a bayonet, leaving him to die slowly. The boy spoke as he bled, and in the words of Hall: “The sight of this unoffending boy, butchered rather than be encumbered...on the march, I assume, relieved me of my distressful feelings for the slaughter of the Tories, and I desired nothing so much as the opportunity of participating in their destruction.” This single account became the foundation for Banastre Tarleton’s long-standing reputation. The movie The Patriot has also done Tarleton no favors with his modern-day reputation and legacy. The fictional character, Colonel William Tavington, portrayed by Jason Isaacs, is loosely based on the rumors, legends, and true stories of Banastre Tarleton’s actions during the Southern Campaign of the American Revolution. In June of 2020, Dr. Craig Bruce Smith published an article analyzing The Patriot, including how the British Legion, specifically Colonel Tavington, are portrayed. According to Dr. Smith, The Patriot managed to capture the brutality and terror of 18th century combat in the southern states. It also questioned the concepts of honor and morality, debating the meaning behind how one defines civilized warfare and patriotism. Tavington even asks the main protagonist, South Carolina planter Benjamin Martin, “Would you like a lesson, sir, on the rules of war?” This question remains present in every analysis of the real Banastre Tarleton. Later in the film, Col. Tavington makes another problematic statement as he orders the burning of a church full of men, women and children: “The honor is found in the end not the means. This will be forgotten.” Utilizing this concept of “bloody virtue,” Tavington justified all of his violent actions, claiming that after the war ended everything he did would be understood and accepted. While this is a fictional rendition of Tarleton and the Southern Campaign, it does exemplify the reputation assigned to him over the past couple centuries as well as an interesting notion of “bloody virtue,” a concept this study center around. The British Legion burned towns and killed their enemies with precision, speed, and efficiency. But does this warrant their reputation? What exactly are these “rules of war” in the 18th century world? Analyzing both Tarleton’s actions, and the actions of those he fought against will provide a complete understanding of warfare in the south during the Revolution and a better understanding of who Banastre Tarleton truly was. Christopher Ward's opinion of Tarleton is worthy of additional analysis. Ward was a notable historian who served as president of the Historical Society of Delaware who also worked with the Federal Writer’s Project. Ward’s 1941 two volume publication, The War of the Revolution, was hailed as an instant modern classic of American historical scholarship and a masterpiece of narrative nonfiction Revolutionary War history. Regarding Tarleton, Ward stated: “He was shrewd, sudden, and swift to strike. As a leader of cavalry, he was unmatched on either side for alertness and rapidity of movement, dash, daring, and vigor of attack. As a man, he was cold-hearted, vindictive, and utterly ruthless. He wrote his name in letters of blood all across the history of the war in the South.” Anthony Scotti cites this in his 2019 study on Tarleton and posits that: “It is necessary ‘to move beyond the prevailing posture of contempt’ for Banastre Tarleton. Indeed, the man is a controversial subject even to this day, but understanding him is undoubtedly more useful to historical inquiry than merely condemning him.” As the author and historian of this particular work on Tarleton, I readily agree and intend to achieve this very goal. The only complete biography about Banastre Tarleton was written in the 1950’s by a man named Robert Bass. His book, The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson, provides a full analysis of Tarleton’s life, but it is not a perfect book. There are many instances where Bass makes definitive claims with little to no evidence. Additionally, the stories of Tarleton’s actions in the 1780 and 1781 Southern Campaign are embellished, adding to the legends and myths behind what truly happened during this time period. Portions of this book color Tarleton’s reputation and are partially responsible for the modern-day view of who Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion were. One of the most recent books about Banastre was released in 2020 by John Knight, War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. Knight’s extensive research aided in revealing a different side to the demonized-Tarleton, demonstrating how many of his peers, subordinates, and supervisors viewed him. Additionally, Knight explored Tarleton’s incredible battle tactics and examined the actions of those he interacted with, comparing and contrasting them to Banastre’s own actions. Knight’s research is thorough, making his analysis considerably more reputable than many others. Banastre Tarleton interacted with numerous well-known figures from 1770 until his death in 1833. This study analyzes these interactions and provides a new perspective into events that transformed both America and England. In addition to revealing a more complete assessment of Tarleton, this article series will also lend new insights into the historiography of the time period, the perspective of the British during the American Revolution, and the Southern Campaign. 1. The Tarleton Family
Banastre Tarleton was born on August 21, 1754 to an upper-middle class family in England. To fully understand Banastre’s life, it is imperative to take a gander at where his family came from. Tudor registrars were the first to record the Tarleton family and referred to them as yeomen and “stubborn [Roman Catholic] Recusants” during the reign of King George II. By the time King George III took the throne, the Tarletons transitioned from farmers and defenders of Rome to merchants and traders. The Tarletons originated from Fazakerley and Aigburth near Liverpool, a town built on the shipping industry, specifically the cargo the ships carried. This cargo consisted of sugar, Indigo, rice, cotton, and enslaved persons. In 1771, there were 23 slaver ships that sailed from Bristol, 58 from London, and 107 from Liverpool alone. The slave trade essentially created Liverpool and turned it into a prosperous town whose dependence on the trade shaped both its culture and politics. In the early seventeenth century, Aigburth Hall served as the family seat, but how Aigburth Hall came to the Tarletons possession remains unknown. In the late seventeenth century, Aigburth Hall transferred to the Harringtons due to the lack of a male Tarleton heir in the senior branch of the family. Dorothy Tarleton married John Harrington of Huyton Hey, thereby transferring the Tarleton possession of Aigburth Hall to the Harrington family. Over the course of the next century, the possession of the property changed multiple times until John Tarleton IV and his son, Thomas, purchased it just before the onset of the American Revolutionary War. John Tarleton IV and Thomas Tarleton represented a junior family line called the Bolesworth branch which had just begun to settle in Liverpool during the seventeenth century. This junior line began with John Tarleton I, the son of Edward Tarleton I. John was not mentioned in Edward Tarleton’s will upon his death at Aigburth in 1626. John then died shortly after his father, leaving behind his son, Edward Tarleton II born in 1628. Edward died in 1690 after serving as mayor of Liverpool in 1682, marking the first of a long line Tarletons serving as mayors of the city. Edward was also a ship-owner and the owner of multiple residences in town, specifically the Church Stile house in the Chapel Yard, a fish house on Chapel Street, and a rope house on the Heath. Essentially, Edward Tarleton served as the cornerstone of the Bolesworth Tarleton fortune. His property, specifically his ships, would shape the Tarleton legacy for many generations. In the eighteenth century, Edward’s children continued adding to the Tarleton wealth. His oldest son, John Tarleton II, became a popular physician in Lancaster and later Fenwick Street. Edward’s second son, Edward Tarleton II, became mayor of Liverpool in 1712. Carefully arranged marriages also began to shape the Tarleton name and fortune. Anne Tarleton, daughter of John Tarleton II, married Ralph Williamson. Their children became very successful slave traders and West India merchants about halfway through the eighteenth century. Through a series of marriages, the Tarleton family drew closer to the Clayton and Houghton families, who had very strong ties to the Atlantic trade. The slave trade during the eighteenth century became the backbone for the Tarleton fortune. The Liverpool Tarletons participated in the African and West Indian trades over the span of several generations. In 1720, Thomas Tarleton I prepared ships for numerous trips to Africa. Along with his brother John Tarleton III, he even commanded voyages to Africa himself. However, with their premature deaths, the Tarleton family’s trade activity declined in the 1730s through the early 1740s. Thomas’ son, John Tarleton IV, revived the family trade business in ways that would change the trajectory of the Tarleton fortunes. John IV invested in multiple forms of trade with several countries, to include Ireland, Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Greenland for whale fishery business. However, John’s trade endeavors primarily centered around Africa and the West Indies due to the sheer prosperity of the slave trade and sugar plantations from 1763 through 1776. The “silver age of sugar” encouraged many planters at this time to expand their output of sugar, which in turn led to an increase in demand for slave labor. John IV took full advantage of the situation and began to build up the Tarleton family fortune based on the trade of both sugar and enslaved persons. The last half of the eighteenth century became a fortuitous era for African and West Indian merchants and traders. John IV became a manager and part-owner of several slave ships, to include the Swan and the Tarleton in the 1750s, and the John in the 1760s. These ships frequently unloaded their cargo of enslaved persons in Jamaica. The Tarleton, according to the Liverpool Registry of Merchant Ships, could carry over 500 enslaved persons per voyage. John IV also held multiple shares in various West Indian traders, especially within the Leeward Islands, specifically Antigua. Following the Seven Years War, John expanded this trade to the Ceded Islands. During the cessation of Grenada by France to Britain, John IV purchased a house and store at St. George’s, Grenada to assist with his business. Prior to his death in 1773, he also owned the Belfield Estate at Dominica. John followed his fellow traders regarding their motivation to trade with foreign colonies like Cuba and Martinique during the Seven Years War. During the 1750s, John Tarleton’s wealth lay primarily in ships and goods, but after purchasing the sugar house in Castle Street near the end of the decade, a new era began to emerge for the Tarleton family fortune. The purchasing of estates both at home and overseas began to add significant funds to the Tarleton wealth, especially the estates in the West Indies. In 1770 John was even able to purchase a portion of the Aigburth Hall estate, the original family house. Upon his death in 1773, approximately one-third of John Tarleton IV’s fortune lay in real estate acquired from 1763 through 1773. From 1748 through 1773, John’s fortune grew from approximately £6,000 to about £80,000. At the time of his death. John’s fortune amounted to the equivalent of 8 million dollars by today’s standards. Through John Tarleton IV’s endeavors, the Tarletons emerged as one of the most prominent merchant families in Liverpool during the mid-to-late-eighteenth century. He also served as mayor of Liverpool in 1764 and, three years later was asked to serve as a parliamentary candidate for the Liverpool constituency. Prominent African and West Indian merchants underwrote his candidacy. Despite John’s decision to decline this offer (allegedly after whale-men rioted and prevented his appearance at the Liverpool hustings), the offer itself reveals how society at this time viewed John and the Tarleton name. He was so well-liked he was even given the nickname “The Great T.” This societal notoriety is also noted in other ways, including the fact that he sent three of his sons to Oxford colleges to study the law, and the drastic change in the composition of his wealth in the final ten years of his life. John Tarleton established an amicable business relationship with Henry Laurens of South Carolina. In 1760 the Charles Town company, Austin, Laurens, and Appleby, frequently filled John Tarleton’s brigantine Fanny with a variety of cargo, primarily food-related items, supplies for making clothes, and household items bound for Jamaica and other islands in the West Indies. Henry Laurens considered John Tarleton a vital customer. He wrote to John IV, saying that he was “always glad to receive your commands,” thanked him for his politeness and many favors, and mentioned that he looked forward to meeting John in Bristol. The irony of this friendly work relationship is that both men are the fathers of Revolutionary War heroes on opposing sides of the war. Henry Laurens was the father if John Laurens, an important member of George Washington’s inner circle who history hailed as a hero, and John Tarleton IV was the father of Banastre Tarleton, a man whom history would remember for his less-than-savory actions during the war. John Tarleton IV married Jane Parker of Cuerden, Lancashire and they had seven children in total. They lost their first child, a girl named Jane, when she was an infant. The fourth son, William Tarleton, died at a young age in 1778. The remaining children, four sons and one daughter, added to the family legacy in very different ways. John V, Clayton, and Thomas decided to continue the family business of trading enslaved persons and investing in property. Later on, John V would become a Member of Parliament and stand opposed to his own brother, Banastre, while Thomas inherited the majority of his father’s property, including the Bolesworth Castle, the family seat at the time, making him the central figure of the Tarleton family. Thomas also became a notable sugar refiner, while his brothers John and Clayton married wealthy women from prominent families. Bridget, the only surviving daughter of John and Jane Tarleton, married Edward Falkner, another wealthy Liverpool merchant who also served as a Justice of the Peace and High Sheriff of Lancashire in 1788. The joining of the Tarletons and Falkners through this marriage added wealth and notoriety to both families. John, Clayton, and Thomas all partnered with Daniel Backhouse in the African and West Indian trading firm they named Tarleton & Backhouse. Clayton later became mayor in 1792 after leaving the firm the year prior. John allegedly left the firm just before Clayton did after a “very violent quarrel” with Backhouse over terms of renewal. Despite these changes, Thomas reportedly remained with the firm. Whether partnered together or on their own, the three brothers continued the legacy left behind by their father. Clayton’s correspondence during the 1790s provides additional evidence that the Tarleton family remained heavily vested in the African slave trade. In March of 1790, the investment in Liverpool ships and cargo totaled over £1 million, £85,000 of which accounted for the Tarleton & Backhouse firm. Tarleton & Backhouse, at this point in time, was the third largest firm engaged in the Liverpool slave trade. However, unlike his siblings, Banastre Tarleton, second son of John IV and Jane, had no interest in the family business. Instead, Banastre squandered some of the family’s fortune (his inheritance to be exact) through his actions shortly after his father’s death. These actions eventually led Banastre playing a leading role in the American Revolution as commander of the British Legion in the southern colonies, where his name became synonymous with death, terror and destruction. Stay tuned for the next segment of the “Bloody Valor” series, where we’ll learn about Banastre’s early years in England and how he found himself in the midst of the American Revolution. Sources: John C. Dann, ed., The Revolution Remembered; Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 201-203. Craig Bruce Smith, “Revolution then: The Patriot stands alone.” The Spectator, June 29, 2020. https://spectator.us/book-and-art/revolution-then-patriot-stands-alone/. Christopher Ward, The War of the Revolution. NewYork: Skyhorse Publishing, 2011. Anthony J. Scotti, Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton. Berwyn Heights: Heritage Books, Inc., May 1, 2019. Robert Bass, The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson, 1957. John Knight, The War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. Yardley: Westholme Publishing, December 18, 2020. British History Online, “Aigburth” and “Fazakerly,” www.british-history.ac.uk. Tarleton Family Archives, Liverpool Records Office, ref NRA 7189 Tarleton. “European Traders,” International Slavery Museum, Liverpool. www.liverpool-museums.org.uk/history-of-slavery/europe. P.D. Richardson, "American Material from the Tarleton Papers in Liverpool Record Office.” British Records Relating to in Microform (BRRAM) Series, 1974 https://microform.digital/map/guides/R96797.pdf. Robert Craig and Rupert Jarvis, Liverpool Registry of Merchant Ships. Manchester: Chetham, 1967. Robert Hamilton Vetch, “John Tarleton.” Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Vol. 55. “The Henry Laurens Papers, 1747-1860,” The South Carolina Historical Society, SCHS 37/3, Microfilm Roll #45/132 Letter book, 1762-1764. 1 vol. Nora McMillan, “Mrs. Edward Bury (Priscilla Susan Falkner), Botanical Artist,” The Nook, Vol 5: pgs 71-75. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/jsbnh.1968.5.1.71 |
Details
Scarlet Ingstad
I am an independent author and historian seeking to uplift the stories of the lesser-known heroes and heroines of the American Revolution, alongside modern-day heroes and heroines who have served in the U.S. military and continue their service through their historical work. Archives
March 2022
Categories |