E-mail From Groggydice
Webmaster's Note: The following e-mail is from Groggydice@aol.com and is published with his permission. It provides an excellent argument that the park service's new location for the third line is correct. Those with an interest in the topic should find this interesting.
I've been looking at what's online about the battle of Guilford
Courthouse, and while I'm not the Park Service, I may be able
to give you some idea why they've changed their mind about the
third line. Basically, the "new" location puts the third line
back where the contemporary British map said it was. Perhaps you
are already familiar with it, but you didn't have a link to it.
Right after the battle, a British field engineer drew up a map
of the battle. I ran across this "Cornwallis map" on the web,
but when I tried to look up its URL for this e-mail, I couldn't
find it. Fortunately, a very exacting reproduction, the "Tarleton
map," is also online (remember to click for the larger map):
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/32guilford/32locate2.htm
This map was drafted for Tarleton's memoirs from the Cornwallis
map, and I am impressed by its fidelity considering that this
was the pre-xerox era. The Tarleton map was cribbed in turn by
subsequent authors, apparently including "Light Horse" Lee and
Lossing. The 1961 Park Handbook has this caption:
[See Tarleton Map: This plan of battle, engraved for Henry Lee's
Memoirs of the War, is a copy of the so-called Tarleton Map, which
was published in London in 1787. It is not wholly accurate, and
the north point should be rotated 50 degrees to the left for
proper orientation.]
http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/guilfordcourthouse.htm
(Other sites also have the main text of the handbook, but not this
caption.)
Compare that to question 4 on the prior link:
4. The details and scale of the battlefield are quite accurate,
but the north point should be rotated 50 degrees to the left
for proper orientation... Why might such a basic error occur on
an otherwise accurate map?
So the Park Service's assessment of the map has gone from "not
wholly accurate" to "quite accurate." It seems the "not wholly
accurate" map has proven to be more accurate than their own maps.
You can compare the various maps for yourself, but I noticed,
before I knew of the dispute, that while I could match up bends
in the New Garden road between the Cornwallis map and the NPS
map, it was a lot harder to reconcile the positions of the third
line and British artillery. (This actually may not be quite as
clear with the Tarleton map, which seems to subtly flatten out
the great southward crook in the road, despite the painstaking
care taken to reproduce the Cornwallis map.) The NPS position
for the Royal Artillery is in the woods on the Cornwallis map,
and I thought the British must have dragged their cannons through
the woods to that position, until I read that the hill on which
they took position was at the edge of the woods. Learning that
the NPS had changed its stance made everything fit.
You wondered what evidence supported their new views, but that
can be turned around to ask what was the basis for their former
views. On a Consimworld discussion board, someone said that on
a visit to the park, a ranger told him that "the original guess
at the position was based on finding a British officer's sword
there, but now the thinking is it was moved." (The Handbook
mentioned the discovery of the sword of Stuart of the Guards in
1866, which I suspect may be the sword being talked about, though
this is supposition on my part. He is supposed to have been felled
at the third line, and 1866 is late enough that there would be
few if any veterans left to tell historians where the third line
really was.) So, the basis for the previous interpretation seems
to rest on ONE SWORD.
That Consimworld post was in relation to a wargame GMT Games
is working on about Guilford Courthouse that supposedly will
incorporate the latest research. One particular item the
designer is touting is a "new road," also supposedly confirmed
by the Park Service, that Cornwallis could have used as an
alternate route to Guilford Courthouse. On this point, I am the
skeptic wanting to see the evidence, since I can't discern any
sign in Greene's deployments that he was concerned about another
road, nor any sign that Cornwallis gave any thought to taking a
different road. I have left a post laying out some of my thoughts
and concerns about this project, but so far there has been no
response. I don't know if your interest in military history
extends to wargaming, but to follow the discussion about this
project, go to talk.consimworld.com, and on to Boardgaming>
Individual Game or Series Discussion>Era: Gunpowder (Other)>
American Revolutionary War series (GMT). (The post about the
officer's sword is #557.) Also, there is GMT's page:
http://www.gmtgames.com/p500/gces_p500.html
I personally am convinced of the restored location of the third
line. You have a map drawn by someone at the scene, right after
the battle. At least two of the commanders present implicitly
endorsed the map by copying it for their memoirs. Its accuracy
in depicting the road net suggests that it is reliable. Also, I
followed your link to the topographical map, and I thought I
could fit its contours to what I saw on the British map, further
reinforcing my faith in it. Against this, you have a single
sword, leading historians decades later to decide they knew
better than the battle's contemporaries where the third line
was.
As for what may have prompted the Park Service to reconsider at
this particular time, I don't know. There is an abstract for a
"new geologic survey" of Guilford Courthouse that comments that
"alternate placement of one of the American lines was given more
credence by this study," but without the paper or the map, I
can't even be sure they are talking about the third line:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001SE/finalprogram/abstract_4421.htm
Beyond that, I can only speculate. One possibility is the "Babits
factor." First, he wrote a well-received book on Cowpens which
argued that Morgan undercounted his force and that Tarleton's
estimate that he was outnumbered 2-1, long regarded as self-serving,
was accurate; this could have lent more credence to his memoirs
as a source. Second, Babits gave thought to following up with a
book on Guilford Courthouse, and perhaps his research has convinced
the NPS. Also, there may be more appreciation of the British maps.
I saw a program for "Partisans and Redcoats," a book on the war
in the Carolinas, and one of the participants commented on how
these maps are helping historians to better understand these
battles even today.
On the other matters you raised, I can offer little. Your page
was the first mention I'd seen of the 5th Maryland being at
Guilford. A search did turn up some other references, including
this bibliographic entry for an article which should deal with
just this question:
Babits, L. E. "The 'Fifth' Maryland at Guilford Courthouse: An
Exercise in Historical Accuracy." Maryland Historical Magazine,
84 (Winter 1989), pp. 370-378.
(http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/revbib/md.htm)
Unfortunately, I don't know what the article says. But the accounts
I've been reading seem to speak of the 2nd Maryland.
As for William Washington charging from the right instead of the
left, again you are the first to inform me of this. Admittedly it
is strange that Washington would go from being on the right flank
to taking up a position on the left. I went back and checked the
accounts in the West Point sourcebook, and none explicitly say
which flank he was on. "Light Horse Harry," for instance, says
that Washington had "placed himself upon the flank of the
continentals, agreeably to the order of battle." The last part
could be interpreted to mean that he kept a position on the
right, but it could also be interpreted to mean that his move
was smoothly carried out, or proved to be fortuitous. He tells
of how "Washington fell upon [Stuart] sword in hand, followed
by Howard with fixed bayonets..." Nathanael Greene wrote that
"lieutenant colonel Washington made a charge with the horse
upon a part of the brigade of guards, and the first regiment
of Marylanders, commanded by colonel Gunby, and seconded by
lieutenant colonel Howard, followed the horse with their
bayonets..." Tarleton speaks of "the Maryland brigade, followed
by Washington's cavalry" attacking the Guards. Again, "follow"
could be interpreted as meaning only that one unit's attack
came before the other, but it might mean that one unit was behind
the other, which would suggest that Washington was on the right.
None of these versions refers to a pincer or envelopment, as
one would expect if the Guards were being hit from two sides.
http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/pdfs/GCH-Book.pdf
This raises the question, if Washington was really on the right,
how did the idea get started that he was on the left? I don't
know, but popular accounts have Washington leaping across the
road and jumping over the ditch to charge into the Guards. If
you have a forward position for the third line, the only road
is the New Garden road and Washington must be coming from the
left. Further back, and the "road" could be the Reedy Fork road.
That's the only thing I can think of.
I decided not to attach a copy of the Cornwallis map, as it is
175KB and the Tarleton map reproduces it well, and for all I
know you have already seen it. Hopefully, a reply will come in
from the Park Service and you will have definitive answers.
----------------------------
Henri Navarre himself is confident of ultimate victory, and he has
communicated this to many of those who are counting on him. Said one
of them last week: "A year ago none of us could see victory. There
wasn't a prayer. Now we can see it clearly- like light at the end of
the tunnel."
--Time Magazine, September 28, 1953