Wlliam Gilmore Simms
South-Carolina in the Revolutionary War >> South-Carolina in the Revolution >> Page 22

image of pageExplore Inside

Page 22

Reviews/Essays | Walker & James, Publishers | 1853
Transcription 22 SOUTH-CAROLINA IN THE REVOLUTION.
" The whole number of regulars, enlisted for the continen-
tal service, from the beginning to the closing of the struggle,
was 231,950 ; of these, I have once remarked, 67,907 were
from Massachusetts ; and I may now add, that every State,
south of Pennsylvania, provided but 59,493 ; 8,414 less than
this single State ; and that New England—now, I grieve to
say, contemned and reproached—equipped and maintained
110,350, or above half of the number placed at the service
of Congress." * * * " In considering the political con-
dition of Virginia, and North-Carolina, it was admitted that
these States were not able to provide troops according to their
population, as compared with the States destitute of a peculiar
institution ? The same admission is now made in behalf of
South-Carolina. Yet did 6,660 whig soldiers exhaust her re-
sources of men ? Could she furnish only 752 more than Rhode
Island, the smallest State in the Confederacy; only one-fifth
of the number of Connecticut; only one-half as many as New
.HIampshire, then almost an unbroken wilderness ? She did
not ; she could not defend herself against her own tories ;
and it is hardly an exaggeration to add, that more whigs of
New England were sent to her aid, and now lie buried in her
soil, than she sent from it to every scene of strife from Lex-
ington to Yorktown."
The suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, are united in this
passage, in a hardihood of manner which is rarely exampled. It will probably surprise Mr. Sabine—who, no doubt, believes Y
all he says,—being willing to believe it,—when we tell him
that New England never had a dozen wliig soldiers in the
south at all ! The loose manner in which our early histories
were written, has led to frequent misapprehension of the facts
stated, which results in engrafting the most miserable errors
upon our chronicles. Thus, the common phrases, troops from
the north"--" a northern army"—has led to the inference
which the New-England writers, by whom most of our popular
histories have been prepared, readily adopt—that these north-
ern troops were from New-England chiefly. But when Moultrie,
Ramsay, and other southern historians speak of an army and