[ Previous ] [ Next ]

Nisbet Balfour served as commandant of the garrison at Charleston throughout much of the Southern Campaign.

He was born 20 January (old style date), 1744 in Dunbog, county Fife, in Scotland, of a military family which had supported the Jacobites in both the 1715 and 1745 uprisings. (Both his grandfather and an uncle suffered forfeiture for treason.). He spent a term or two at the University of St. Andrews, and was commissioned as an ensign in the 4th Regiment in 1761. By the time he arrived in America in 1774, he was a captain but had not yet seen active service. He soon remedied that at Bunker Hill, where he was wounded slightly when a musket-ball glanced off his cartridge box and hit him in the belly. He also fought at Long Island and Brooklyn. As a reward for his services during the New York campaign (in which he also served as one of Howe's aides-de-camp), he was sent home with the despatches announcing its success (Sept. 1776), and promoted to major.¹

After his return to America (March, 1777), Balfour fought at Elizabethtown, Brandywine, and Germantown, and was appointed lieutenant-colonel in the 23rd regiment in 1778. According to John Graves Simcoe, he also "successfully managed" the business of intelligence gathering for the British during the winter garrison in Philadelphia.²

In 1780, his regiment went south with Sir Henry Clinton's expedition, and after the surrender of Charleston, Balfour was put in command of the frontier post of Ninety-Six. While there, he helped Patrick Ferguson recruit some 4000 Tory militia. It must have been an uncomfortable collaboration for both of them, since the two men did not get along. (Balfour seems to have been of a testy temperament. He fell out with other colleagues at various times.)

In mid-August, Lord Cornwallis recalled Balfour to Charleston to replace General Patterson, who was ill. His services as commander of the garrison earned praise from both Cornwallis and Lord Rawdon. In mid-September, Cornwallis told Lord George Germain that,

I must assure your lordship that His Majesty's service has derived the greatest advantages from the ability and great exertion of Lieut. Colonel Balfour in the very important post of commandant of Charleston, where he has put everything into such perfect order and has formed so respectable a militia that with the concurrence of Major Moncrief, the chief engineer, he is enabled to spare another battalion for the field, notwithstanding the increase of prisoners, in consequence of which the 7th regiment is now on its march to join me.³

Summarized by a modern writer, "Balfour became a kind of chief of staff in South Carolina on whom Cornwallis relied to keep supplies flowing to the troops in the interior, to interview and recommend loyalist officers for important commands, to handle communications between his army and Clinton in New York and the ministry in England, and other tasks well beyond those normally associated with the post....Balfour was, after Cornwallis himself, the most influential officer in the Carolinas and Georgia.⁴

As usual, rebel histories were less complimentary, though their view does not seem to stand up to modern scrutiny. A recent analysis of the occupation of Charleston dismisses the most vocal complaints as little more than heated partisan feelings:

[S]cathing attacks on Balfour's character and the conduct of his office were levied by...Gen. William Moultrie, and by David Ramsay, one of the St. Augustine exiles. Moultrie said that Balfour had a "tyrannical, insolent disposition" and that he "treated the people as the most abject slaves." Ramsay stated that in the exercise of his office as commandant, Balfour displayed "all the frivolous self-importance, and all the disgusting insolence, which are natural to little minds when puffed up by sudden elevation, and employed in functions to which their abilities are not equal."

However, little can be found to substantiate the accusations of Moultrie and Ramsay....[Balfour] favored the exile of those gentry who refused to take British protection and who continued to sympathize with the republican forces. As British commandant, Balfour was understandably unyielding towards the revolutionaries. He scrupulously carried out the commands of his superiors in regard to policies in Charleston...Thus there would seem to be little reason to regard Balfour as the villain of the British occupation of Charleston. Perhaps Moultrie and Ramsay were too personally involved in the events of the time to evaluate objectively the effectiveness of this British officer...⁵

Along with Lord Rawdon, Balfour drew censure for the execution of rebel parole breaker Isaac Hayne. Rebel sympathizers within the city and Greene's threats of retaliation against British prisoners made life so uncomfortable for him that Alexander Leslie wrote to Clinton in March that, "I beg leave to enclose to your Excellency copies of some letters that have passed between Genl. Greene, Lt. Balfour and me respecting the execution of Colonel Hayne, and the discrimination of prisoners in this district. The very disagreeable predicament which Lt. Colonel Balfour and other officers of rank in this army stand in, from this business renders it necessary for me to receive your Excellency's commands upon that point as soon as possible."⁶

This letter went north to New York at roughly the same time that Rawdon tried to challenge the Duke of Richmond to a duel over Richmond's comments in Parliament on the matter (see Rawdon's bio note). Even though Balfour was still firmly ensconced in Charleston, the news that he had requested leave to return home reached London and prompted the Morning Herald to tease that

The late recantation of a certain Duke, tho' somewhat extraordinary after the direct charge he made, is nothing new. He was reduced to the same awkward kind of dilemma about three years ago, and for a similar reason, by Colonel Cunningham. But though he has settled the matter with Lord Rawdon, he has not, in all probability, got himself entirely out of the scrape. Col. Balfour, whom he likewise attacked with the same licentiousness of language on that meritorious occasion, is now on his way home; and it is not very likely that that gentleman will tamely put up with his share of the abuse!⁷

The shuffling of command in New York delayed the granting of Balfour's leave. While Clinton promised to deal with the matter promptly, he went home without taking action, so in July, Leslie wrote to the new Commander-in-Chief, Sir Guy Carleton, that he was sending Balfour to New York so he could request Carleton's permission to return to Europe.⁸

Even then, Balfour's return was delayed. In August, 1782, the Herald again reported that he was "soon expected." The editor added another pointed dig at the Duke of Richmond, which offers more evidence that Balfour was of a contentious temperament: "The Colonel has been trained to arms in the school of honor from his infancy; and never yet was known to receive personal reflection without inflicting prompt chastisement."⁹

It wasn't until October, 1782 that the papers could finally announce Balfour's arrival in London, and on November 27, the promotions list named him as one of the King's aides-de-camp.¹⁰

Although the newspaper mentions of him were generally positive, one paper did take a passing swipe (or perhaps it was meant as a compliment) at him with a charge of profiteering, claiming that "Colonel Balfour, the late Commandant at Charlestown, is reported to have realized a fortune of upwards of £100,000 during his residence in America." Profiteering was a serious and costly problem for both the British and the Continental armies. In 1779, John André filed a special report with Sir Henry Clinton on the magnitude of the problem in New York. (Clinton ignored it. Though scrupulously honest himself, he believed that turning a blind eye was the price to be paid for getting the supplies he needed.) In the other camp, even the sober-minded Nathanael Greene is known to have made spare cash in under-the-table speculation when he was QMG. On the other hand, newspapers of the time happily reported unsubstantiated gossip as fact, so the charge would need further investigation. Cornwallis was one of the few senior officers in the army who sincerely deplored profiteering and attacked it wherever he became aware of it. If Balfour did manage to tuck away that much extra cash on the side while staying in his commanding officer's good books, he was either extremely clever or devilishly lucky.¹¹

After his return to Britain, Balfour was appointed to the commission formed to deal with loyalist claims for recompense of losses. In 1790, he entered Parliament as a representative for the Wigton Burghs. He held that seat until 1796, then served as representative for Arundal from 1797 until 1802.

In 1793, he was promoted to major-general and joined Earl Moira's (i.e. Lord Rawdon's) expedition to relieve the Duke of York in Flanders. He remained with that army, serving under Abercromby until December 1794, in command of the reserve. This was his last period of active military service. He received the colonelcy of the 93d regiment in 1793, and of the 39th in 1794, was promoted lieutenant-general in 1798 and general in 1803. Living out his retirement years in Dunbog, he died there in Oct. 1823, and is buried in the village. (See the "Lobster Creel" section on Doc M's site for more information and photos.) By the time of his death, he was the sixth senior general of the army. He never married.

Notes:

¹ General information for this article, not otherwise noted, comes from Balfour's entry in Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, ed., The Dictionary of National Biography, 22 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1882), 1:976-977, Sir Henry Clinton, The American Rebellion. Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative of his Campaigns, 1775-82, ed. William B. Willcox (New Haven: Yale University Press; 1954) Banastre Tarleton, A History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Southern Provinces of North America (London: Printed for T. Cadell, in the Strand, 1787) and email from Marianne Gilchrist. Boatner's biographical note on Balfour is largely a rework of the DNB write-up (although he got the date of birth wrong). The information that Balfour was an aide-de-camp to Howe comes from Morning Post, 30 Oct 1782, and General Sir William Howe's Orderly Book at Charleston, Boston and Halifax, June 17, 1775 to 1776, 26 May to which is added the official abridgement of General Howe's correspondence with the English government during the seige of Boston, and some military returns and now first printed from the original manuscripts with an historical introduction by Edward Everett Hale, ed. Benjamin Franklin Stevens, (London: B.F. Stevens, 1890), p108. [ back ]

² John Graves Simcoe, A History of the Operations of a Partisan Corps called the Queen's Rangers ([New York: Bartlett & Welford, 1844] North Stratford, New Hampshire: Ayer Company, 2000), p56. [ back ]

³ Earl Cornwallis to Lord George Germain, 19 Sep 1780, in K. G. Davies, ed., Documents of the American Revolution, 1770-1783, 21 vols. (Dublin: Irish University Press, c1977-1982), 18:170. [ back ]

⁴ Robert Stansbury Lambert, South Carolina Loyalists in the American Revolution (Columbia, South Carolina: the University of South Carolina Press, 1987), pp98-99. [ back ]

⁵ George S. McCowen, The British Occupation of Charleston, 1780-72 (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press; 1972), pp144-145. [ back ]

⁶ Alexander Leslie to Sir Henry Clinton, March 1782, in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institute of Great Britain, 4 vols. (London: Printed for His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1901-9), 2:438. [ back ]

⁷ The Morning Herald, 15 Mar 1782. [ back ]

⁸ Alexander Leslie to Sir Guy Carleton, 19 Jul 1782, in Report on Amer. MS, 3:28-9. [ back ]

⁹ The Morning Herald, 24 Aug 1782. [ back ]

¹⁰ The Morning Herald, 22 Oct 1782, 28 Nov 1782. The Morning Post, 27 Nov 1782. [ back ]

¹¹ The Morning Post, 30 Oct 1782. R. Arthur Bowler, Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America, 1775-1783 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp85-6, p181. William B. Willcox, Portrait of a General: Sir Henry Clinton and the War of Independence (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1964), pp448-9. [ back ]