from theory; for, until the theory of the art be well established and generally understood, the practice will be desultory, empirical, and unintelligible. It is to the enlightened part of our community that we are to look for useful explanations, and permanent improvements in the practice of this first of arts. The suggestions of this paper, therefore, are addressed to the wellinformed class of our readers, in hopes of exciting attention and reflection among those of our citizens, who are most capable of adding to the common fund of useful knowledge.

ART. III.-1. The Campaign of 1781, in the Carolinas; with Remarks, Historical and Critical, on Johnson's Life of Greene, &c. By H. LEE. Philadelphia. 1824.

2. Letter of the Earl of Moira (formerly Lord Rawdon) to General Henry Lee, in relation to the Execution of Colonel Isaac Hayne. Written, 1813: Published, 1824.

THE work which stands at the head of this Article, is one of those controversial publications which owes its existence to Johnson's "Sketches of the Life of Greene." It is written by Henry Lee, of Virginia, son of the late General Henry Lee, who states, that he wishes it to be regarded merely as "the effort of a son to defend the memory of his father. It is not our purpose, however, to enter into the merits of the controversy between the author of the "Sketches," and of the "Campaign of 1781." We do not propose to become umpires between these literary combatants, but merely to call the attention of our readers to an incident in our revolutionary history, which is alluded to in the work before us, and which produced the letter of the Earl of Moira. We mean, THE EXECUTION of COLONEL ISAAC HAYNE.

Perhaps, no event involving the fate of an individual, ever excited deeper interest in the public mind than that execution.

From one end of the continent to the other, the transaction filled every bosom with indignation, and threatened to give to the war a darker and more melancholy character. Every circumstance connected with it was fully canvassed, every minute detail was eagerly listened to, and public opinion, at least, in this country, finally settled down into a conviction, that a more barbarous and useless sacrifice of the life of an innocent and estimable man, never disgraced any age or any country. Nor was this sentiment confined to those who had taken part with the Americans in the great struggle :-We have the authority of eye and ear witnesses of the fact, that the excitement in Charleston, (then a Royal garrison) among the adherents of the British Government, was deep and profound, and the expression of their regret and condemnation by no means stifled. Even in England, the fate of Colonel Hayne, created an interest scarcely inferior to that produced by the death of André. The merits of the proceeding were discussed by the press, and within the walls of Parliament, with a boldness and freedom, which shewed, that however it might be in the power of the Ministry to prevent an official inquiry into the subject, they could not prevent the formation and expression of opinions extremely unfavorable to the conduct of the Royal commanders in South-Carolina. It is not to be supposed, that under these circumstances, any justification or apology that could have been offered for the act, was omitted. The public attention both in Great Britain and this country was too much roused, the reputation of Lord Rawdon and Colonel Balfour too deeply involved in the inquiry, to permit them to remain indifferent, or to omit to offer any defence of which the act was susceptible. Accordingly, we find that the grounds on which they pretended to justify their conduct were immediately after the execution of Colonel Hayne, explicitly stated and publicly avowed, and every thing they had to urge in their defence was submitted to the judgment of the world. Public opinion was formed on these full and authentic materials, and when the transaction came finally to be recorded in the histories of the day, the proceedings, documents and arguments in relation to it, were all referred to, as the basis of the judgment which the impartial historian felt himself compelled to pronounce. We venture to say, that if there be a single event connected with our revolutionary history, on which a fixed and settled opinion has been entertained by all classes of men, it is, that the execution of Colonel Hayne was an illegal and barbarous act of vengeance, executed by Lord Rawdon and Colonel Balfour, without even the shadow of excuse or apologyand, that this opinion rested not on the prejudices and passions

of the day-not on loose rumours or doubtful allegations-but on well authenticated, notorious and admitted facts. Under these circumstances, it was certainly calculated to excite no little astonishment, that an attempt should have been made upwards of thirty years after the transaction occurred, and when almost all the contemporaries of the parties had been “gathered to their fathers," to give an entirely new aspect to the affair.The author of the "Campaign of 1781," attempts to excuse the course he has pursued in publishing the letter of the Earl of Moira, by suggesting, that "it will afford a fair opportunity to such of his (Colonel Hayne's) surviving friends, as may be best acquainted with the facts, to give a definite and categorical refutation of whatever incorrect opinions or inaccurate statements it may contain, and to satisfy, not their countrymen, but the world, that the doom of this lamented patriot was as unmerited, as the fortitude with which he met it, was touching and heroic."

But it does appear to us, that in publishing the letter of Lord Moira, (if there was any propriety in publishing it at all) Mr. Lee would have done but a simple act of justice to the memory of Colonel Hayne, and we think to the reputation of his own Father, if he had turned to the histories of the day, and demonstrated from them, that the facts of the case afford no support for the apology now offered by one of the perpetrators of the deed. If he had taken this course, one of the most interesting events in our history would not have been subjected to suspicion, the memory of one of the most distinguished of our martyrs, would not, even for a moment, have been sullied by the breath of calumny, and we should have been saved the trouble of exposing the misrepresentations of the Earl of Moira.

The author of the "Campaign of 1781," speaks of the letter of the Noble Earl, as distinguished for "its calm and elevated tone, its lucid and modest sratements, its mild sensibility and noble moderation," and expresses his regret "that the liberal and enlightened were induced to entertain opinions so injurious to the character of its author." "It is plain (adds Mr. Lee) from this document, that many of the circumstances previous to the Execution have been misunderstood in this country; and, that in so far as the resentment and abhorrence which the calamity occasioned, received aggravation from them, it was unfounded;"and he concludes by charging Judge Johnson with "re-echoing, amplifying and distorting the prevailing misapprehensions regarding it." Now, we regret extremely that we are not informed, which are "the many circumstances," connected with the execution of Colonel Hayne, that have been "misunderstood.

in this country," and we confess that we cannot comprehend how it was possible that a simple letter from Lord Moira, unsupported by a single document of any kind, could be deemed of sufficient weight and authority to overthrow the statements of every American historian, including General Lee himself, and to stamp as "prevailing misapprehensions," historical facts never questioned until now. Will the author contend that the loose statements of Lord Moira in a letter written on ship-board, upwards of thirty years after the melancholy transaction to which it refers had taken place, could be sufficient to disprove facts, stated by Dr. Ramsay, who was present at the time, and speaks, (as we have every reason to know) from his own personal observation and knowledge? Shall they be received as conclusive, against the concurring testimony of every American officer who witnessed the transactions?-Of every historian who records them-and even against the public documents, copies of which were carefully preserved, and are recorded by Ramsay in his History of the Revolution in South-Carolina? If Mr. Lee does not contend for all this—if he is not disposed unconditionally to declare that the mere unsupported statement of a British officer, shall outweigh all other testimony in relation to the events of our Revolution, we think he will find it extremely difficult to specify one of the "many circumstances," bearing at all on the merits of the question, which "it is plain" from this letter "have been heretofore misunderstood." We are surprised that it did not occur to a writer so ingenious as Mr. Lee has proved himself to be, that Lord Moira was the worst possible authority on the question, and that his unsupported assertions, so far from being conclusive, must absolutely go for nothing, as they can, in this case, no more be received in the Forum of Letters than they could in a Court of Justice. So far as he gives us arguments on acknowledged facts, and no further, can he be listened to. He is a party to the cause, and of all living men, was the most deeply interested in perverting judgment. If the Execution was a murder, he is one of the perpetrators of the bloody deed; if it was a mere act of wanton cruelty and oppression, the stain rests upon him. The statements of such a man, in his own favour, and especially when marked by a determination to transfer to his partner in guilt, the whole blame of the transaction, certainly cannot afford that species of moral evidence on which alone we would be justified in reversing the judgment of all the American historians: nay, of the whole American people on a point which has now remained undisturbed for upwards of forty years. We repeat, therefore, it is wholly unaccountable to us how the author of the work before us could have taken for granted all VOL. I.-No. 1. 10

the loose and unsupported statements of Lord Moira, and jumped at once to the conclusion, "that it was now plain that the circumstances were misunderstood," inasmuch as the noble Earl had written a letter, in which he had, very plainly, said so. We will venture to assert, that, tried by the same test, there is not a single incident in our revolutionary history that has been supposed to reflect credit on our arms, or dishonor on the enemy, but can be plainly shown to have been altogether misapprehended. Let Mr. Lee read "Tarleton's Campaigns," and take for granted every thing therein asserted, without further question or inquiry, and we think he will find that many, nay, almost all of the circumstances recorded by the American writers on the subject, including the author of the " Memoirs," are mere "misapprehensions." Tried by that test, what is to become of the character of Lee, and of Greene, and even of Washington himself? Does the author really believe that Weyms, or Watson, or Brown, could not, as well as Tarleton or Moira, make it plainly appear, (if their own statements could suffice for that purpose) that all the circumstances by which "the liberal and enlightened are induced to entertain opinions injurious to their characters," were altogether "misunderstood?" And thus, one by one, may our history be rifled of every incident calculated to confer honor on the American character. We do solemnly protest against the indulgence of this false and sickly sensibility towards the British officers who disgraced themselves by their oppressions during the revolutionary war. But we are done with the author of the "Campaigns of 1781". As he has left us in the dark as to the circumstances which he considers as disproved by the letter, and to which he calls the attention of the friends of Colonel Hayne, we have no alternative but to resort to the letter itself, and going through (even at the risk of being tedious,) all the circumstances therein stated, with a view to injure the reputation of Colonel Hayne, to inquire how far the statements are sustained by historical facts.

In order to understand the force and bearing of the arguments to which we are about to call the attention of our readers, it is necessary to accompany them by an exposition of the case of Colonel Hayne, (as it is presented by the historians, from Gordon and Ramsay, down to Lee and Johnson,) with which we shall take the liberty of interweaving a few facts drawn from other unquestionable sources. We think it proper, however, in the beginning, to declare, that we shall not be content with examining the case of Colonel Hayne on legal or constitutional principles merely. We cannot rest satisfied with shewing that the avowed grounds on which Lord Moira and Colonel Balfour pro