THE "FIFTH" MARYLAND AT GUILFORD COURTHOUSE:
AN EXERCISE IN HISTORICAL ACCURACY
- L. E. Babits, February 1988
Over the
years, an error has gradually crept into the history of the Maryland Line. The
error involves a case of mistaken regimental identity in which the Fifth
Maryland is credited with participation in the battle of Guilford Courthouse at
the expense of the Second Maryland.[1]
When this error appeared in the Maryland Historical Magazine,[2]
it seemed time to set the record straight.
The various
errors seem to originate with Mark Boatner. In his Encyclopedia of the
American Revolution, Boatner, while describing the fight at Guilford
Courthouse, states:
As the 2/Gds prepared to attack
without
waiting for
the three other regiments to arrive,
Otho
Williams, "charmed with the late demeanor of
the first
regiment (I Md), hastened toward the
second (5th
Md) expecting a similar display...".
But the 5th
Maryland was virtually a new regiment.
"The
sight of the scarlet and steel was too much
for their
nerves," says Ward.[3]
In this
paragraph Boatner demonstrates an ignorance of the actual command and
organizational structure of Greene's Southern Army because he quotes from
Ward's l94l work on the Delaware Line and Henry Lee's recollections of the war,
both of which correctly identify the unit in question as the Second Maryland
Regiment.[4]
The writer
of the Kerrenhappuch Turner article simply referred to Boatner's general
reference on the Revolutionary War for the regimental designation.[5]
Other writers have done likewise, even to the point of using dual designations
for the same unit within the space of two paragraphs.[6]
One battle game designer even "corrected" a nineteenth-century
account of the battle which correctly identified the regiment by inserting,
"(of the two regiments present, meaning the 5th Marylanders),"
something at least one professional historian has also done.[7]
Recourse to that nineteenth-century work, Charles Coffin's Boys of 76,[8]
shows that Coffin neither meant, nor said, Fifth Maryland in his account
of the battle.
Given the
large number of designations affixed to the group of men who became the Second
Maryland, it is not surprising that historians have made mistakes as to its
proper identification. At least ten different, though similar, designations
refer to this unit prior to December 1780.[9]
Misidentification of the "other" Maryland regiment at Guilford
Courthouse seems due to the Maryland Line table of organization effective on l
January l78l. This document identifies Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Ford as the
commanding officer of the Fifth Maryland Regiment.[10] There is no evidence that the Fifth Maryland
of l78l was ever raised.[11] This paper seeks to resolve confusion
surrounding the Second Maryland Regiment of l78l and to explain why the
regiment performed as it did.
When the
Revolutionary War broke out in 1775, there was no national American army.
Colonial militiamen provided the only military opposition to the British until
Congress authorized Continental regiments and called on the states to provide
them in early 1776.[12]
Maryland's first quota called for two companies of riflemen, which other units
augmented.[13] The best
known of the early Maryland troops and the main force Maryland sent in 1776,
the Maryland Battalion or Smallwood's Marylanders, took its name from its
commander, William Smallwood.[14]
As the war continued into the winter of 1776-1777, enlistments ran out and
Congress requested the states to supply more men. Effective 1 December 1776,[15]
Maryland was to provide seven regiments. These seven regiments, known as the
Maryland Line, served with distinction until August 1780.
In the late
spring of 1780, Maryland determined to raise another regiment, the Regiment
Extra, so called because it was in addition to those Congress had called for.
There was some confusion about where the officers for this unit would come
from.[16]
The Regiment Extra drew recruits from the entire state of Maryland.[17]
Equipment and uniforms arrived from Continental Army stores in September 1780.[18]
Alexander Lawson Smith commanded the additional regiment[19]
whose most prolific correspondent may have been Major Edward Giles, the second
in command. Giles's letters recorded details of uniforms (brown coats faced
with red, leather breeches), equipment and personnel.[20]
As the
Regiment Extra formed back home, the Maryland and Delaware Division underwest
reorganization while encamped along the Rocky River in North Carolina. In July
1780, personnel shortages (individual regiments numbered less than half their
authorized strength) forced the consolidation of eight regiments into four: The First Maryland and Seventh Maryland
became the new First Maryland; the Second Maryland and the Delaware Regiment
became the Second Maryland; the Third Maryland and Fifth Maryland became the
Third Maryland; the Fourth Maryland and Sixth Maryland became the Fourth
Maryland.[21]
This merger
lowered the number of regiments Maryland had in the field but it improved the
firepower and leadership of the units without affecting divisional structure
(since there were still two regiments in each of two brigades, the Division
continued to exist). The reorganization did not last long; General Horatio
Gates countermanded the order on 25 July 1780, immediately after joining the
army at Coxe's Mill, North Carolina.[22]
At the battle of Camden, South Carolina on 16 August, the Maryland and Delaware
division fought organized as its regiments had been since January 1777. Despite
the heroic efforts of the division, Camden proved an American disaster. The
Maryland Line retreated in small groups to Charlotte, North Carolina[23]
before withdrawing to Hillsborough, North Carolina[24]
to reorganize. At Hillsborough, the Maryland and Delaware division formally
reorganized into the Maryland Regiment of two battalions of four companies
each.[25]
It is clear
from studying the officers of this composite regiment that its two battalions
contained the nucleus of the two old divisional brigades. Each battalion
consisted of four companies and the company officers's names show that the
companies were designated according to the old regiments within the division.
It seems probable that keeping men of long service together was thought to be
important and that there was a desire to maintain a cadre for rebuilding the
division if sufficient men became available. At any rate, officers continued to
receive buttons identifying them as belonging to nonexistent regiments, such as
the Fourth Maryland.[26]
This use of an ideal, or paper, divisional organization implies some continuity
with an ideal conception of the old Maryland Line.
By this
time, 15 October 1780, Maryland's Regiment Extra was commencing its march south
through Virginia to Hillsborough, North Carolina.[27]
When the Continental troops, including the Maryland Regiment, marched to South
Carolina in December 1780, the Regiment Extra did not join forces with the main
army. During January 1781, the Regiment Extra refused to join the army and
remained at Haley's Ferry, North Carolina, upstream from the main camp at
Hick's Creek, South Carolina.[28]
The reason for not joining the main force centered around a dispute in rank
between the new officers and the veterans.[29]
The dispute
over rank was not petty jockeying for position. Continental officers, like
contemporary civilians, were jealous of their rank and constantly sought to
confirm their position in terms of seniority.[30]
Thus, when the Regiment Extra arrived in North Carolina, there were problems
with veteran officers who already had several years prior service but were
without commands. The veterans felt that, on the basis of their seniority, they
should be given commands commensurate with their rank as had been done after
Camden.[31]
The veteran officers without sufficient seniority had been placed all over
North Carolina in charge of magazines, militia units and town garrisons, or had
been sent back home to recruit men.[32]
In truth,
the matter may be even more complicated because at least one writer during the
raising of the Regiment Extra stated that the command of the "new regiment
was to go to officers in the Line."[33]
The officers of the Regiment Extra were upset because they had raised, trained
and commanded the men for at least six months. If veteran officers were to be
given commands in the Regiment Extra, the new officers would be without command
themselves.
Fed up with
the squabble, General Nathanael Greene sought the Maryland Council's permission
to re-staff the Regiment Extra with veteran Continental officers[34]
entitled to the positions on the basis of the table of organization, a formal,
reckoning of seniority and assigment to regimental positions drawn up effective
1 January 1781. Even before permission could reach him,[35]
Greene sent the Regiment Extra officers home.[36]
He then assigned veteran supernumery officers in the south to the unit.[37] Under the provisions of their dismissal,
officers of the Regiment Extra were to receive one year's pay and expenses, but
no pension. Alexander Lawson Smith, ex-commander of the Regiment Extra,
received special consideration. Smith was retained as a Lieutenant Colonel in
the table of organization because he held that rank before accepting command of
the Regiment Extra.[38]
The Regiment
Extra became the Second Maryland Regiment. Some of the noncommissioned officers,
and perhaps some privates as well, were transferred into the First Maryland.[39]
Even though the Second Maryland had more men than the first, it had fewer
officers.[40] Within the
next week, the newly designated Second Maryland would be fighting its first
battle at Guilford Courthouse.
As
commander, Greene chose Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Ford because he was the
senior officer available. Ford was on the table of organization as the
Lieutenant Colonel Commandant of the Fifth Maryland Regiment because of
seniority, although this regiment never existed in the field after Camden and
Fishing Creek. Any reliance on the table of organization, without attention to
actual details of the fluid field situation, could create confusion about the
numerical designation of the "other" Maryland Regiment.
From
approximately 10 March 1781, and certainly from 16 March, Greene and other
officers referred to the Regiment Extra as the Second Maryland.[41]
It was designated the second regiment because it was the less senior Maryland
Regiment in existence. After October 1780, Maryland was obligated to have five
regiments and with only two in the field, this new designation emphasized the
point.[42]
Most
secondary accounts relating to the performance of the Americans at Guilford
Courthouse seem content with reporting that the Second Maryland broke and ran.[43]
None of the accounts give any rationale for the collapse of the unit. Yet there
are good reasons relating to the reorganization and to their battlefield
position at Guilford Courthouse. The men were no longer led by officers they
had served with for some seven to nine months and there was also a shortage of
officers. The new officers had been in command less than ten days. Some of
their noncommissioned officers had been transferred to the First Maryland
Regiment as part of the reorganization.[44]
Another
reason for the flight might be seen as social. Papenfuse and Stiverson have
analyzed the origin and economic standing of the Maryland troops raised for the
Yorktown Campaign and found that they were generally of the lower sort. This
examiation reflects troops raised in 1781 but it should be seen as a generally
useful interpretation of the personnel of the year before.[45]
In actual fact, most of the enlisted personnel raised in European armies of
that time were of the "lower sort."[46]
If British and French troops stood their ground except in special
circumstances, even though they were raised from the bottom levels of society,
then reasons for the collapse of the 2nd Maryland must be sought in other than
social status.
The Regiment
Extra had been raised from all of Maryland rather than a single community.
Thus, most of its members probably did not know one another prior to enlisting.
Many of them were almost certainly "surplus" members of the
population without permanent ties of the community. Many, as Papenfuse and
Stiverson point out, may have been recently freed servants. They were not,
initially, a tightly bound group with common ties to bind them together in the
face of adversity. What little discipline had been instilled in the nine months
of service had probably been badly shaken by the changes in leadership just
before the battle.[47]
The command
and morale explanations do not account for the dismaying performance of the
Second Maryland in themselves. Lieutenant Colonel John Eager Howard, second in
command of the First Maryland, provides something of an explanation, when he
remarks that the:
...second regiment was at some
distance to the left of the first, in the cleared ground, with its left flank
thrown back so as to form a line almost at right angles with the 1. regt. The
guards, after they had defeated Genl. Stephens pushed into the cleared ground
and run at the 2d regiment, which immediately gave way, owing I believe to the
want of officers & having so many new recruits.[48]
Howard does
not relate whether or not the regiment was also under fire while waiting to
engage the British. If they were, in fact, at right angles to the rest of the
American battle line, it seems likely that scattering fire was falling around
them at times prior to their actual engagement. British accounts suggest that
the Second Battalion of the Guards ran to the attack, a fact confirmed by
Howard.[49]
If the Second Maryland had been under fire, then the reason for their breaking
in the face of the Guard's attack may well have been mental fatigue of the sort
reported by S. L. A. Marshall during the Pacific Campaigns of World War II:
...if a skirmish line was halted two or
three times during an attack by sudden enemy fire, it became impossible to get
any further action from the men, even though none had been hurt. ... The
explanation, though not sensed clearly at the time, was that the attacking
companies were being drained of their muscle power by the repeated impact of
sudden fear. The store of glycogen in the muscles of the men was being burned
up from this cause, just as surely, though less efficiently, than if than if
they were exhausting themselves in digging a line of entrenchments.[50]
William R.
Davie, Quartermaster of the Southern Army, reported virtually these conditions
as applying to the Second Maryland at Guilford Courthouse. Davie stated, in
commenting about the battle, that:
I have always understood that the
disgrace of the 2d Regiment that day was owen to the mistaken conduct of Colo
Ford and Colo Williams--that Ford ordered a charge, that proceeded some
distance, and were halted by Colo Williams, and perhaps ordered again to fall
back and dress wt the line. The British (The Guards) continued to advance (at
the run). This manouvre (reforming and dressing with the line) was performed
under a heavy fire--when the men were again ordered to advance they all faced
about, except a single company on the left which I think was Capt Oldhams.[51]
Even if the
Second Maryland was not brought to the charge and halted several times, the
mental stress involved in being under fire and doing nothing, must have been
tremendous. Since they were positioned at an angle, any British projectiles
would enfilade the Second Maryland. Thus, any stray bullets would be more
likely to hit someone than if the regiment had been arrayed in two ranks facing
the enemy. The effect of at least six hours of waiting, with stray rounds
hitting men up and down the lines during the last hour would have been similar
to that mentioned by Marshall. The precise effect on waiting troops can be seen
in the behavior of a private in the Texas Brigade of the Army of Northern
Virginia:
I soon saw that we were the reserve,
which is a dreaded position when kept up for you will hear the roar of the
battling front; and if advancing, as we were in this instance, passing the dead
and dying, and being exposed to shell, grape or canister shot; and as one has
ample time for reflection, they can well feel the seriousness of the
surroundings with all its horrors and to see the little regard for human life
and property... .[52]
The source
of this observation was in one of the best Confederate units of the Civil War.
His experience during the Seven Days battle in 1862 applies to the Second
Maryland since the Texas Brigade was also new to combat at the time. The Second
Maryland had certainly seen North Carolina militia as they withdrew from their
positions on the New Garden Road. After heavy fighting between the Virginia
militia and the British, many Virginians also passed around and through the
Marylanders.[53] Since both
groups of militia had numerous wounded, ranging from generals to privates, the
effect on green troops reported by Fletcher must have been felt by the Second
Maryland.
Fletcher
makes another comment about fear in battle which is relevant. During the Battle
of Gettysburg on 2 July 1863:
...We were halted and lined and
ordered in again. We advanced this time, knowing what was ahead of us if we
went far, for the acts of the men soon showed that we were of one mind. We
forwarded without a murmur, until we struck the danger point. The men
aboutfaced, near as if ordered and marched back.[54]
Fletcher's
terminology about turning around closely approximates ("faced about,"
"aboutfaced") that used by Davie in describing the Second Maryland
Regiment's behavior at Guilford Courthouse. Both the First Texas and the Second
Maryland had been halted and reformed before being ordered forward again. Since
Davie pointed out that the Second Maryland dressed the line under heavy fire,
conditions described by Fletcher and Marshall were met, thus offering a
physical, or biological, reason for the flight.
Whatever the
reasons for the collapse of the Second Maryland, it was not the Fifth
Maryland. The Fifth Maryland of 1781 has been laid to rest and the Second
should continue to receive the attention they are due.
References
I am
indebted to Chuck Fithian, archaeologist with the Delaware Bureau of Museums
and Historic Sites, for reading this manuscript and pointing out inconsistencies
and errors in the draft.
[1].. Rieman
Steuart, A History of the Maryland Line in the Revolutionary War, 1775-1783
(Towson, Md.: Society of the Cincinnati of Maryland, 1969), p. 162.
[2].. Curtis Carroll Davis, "The
Tribulations of Mrs. Turner: An Episode after Guilford Courthouse," Maryland
Historical
Magazine 76 (1981): 376-379.
[3].. Mark M. Boatner III, Encylcopedia
of the American Revolution (New York: David MacKay, 1966), pp. 466-7.
[4].. Henry Lee, Memoir of the War in
the Southern Department of the United States (2 vols,; New York: Burt
Franklin, 1970), 1:347; Christopher L. Ward, The Delaware Continentals
(Wilmington: Delaware Historical Society, 1941), p. 416.
[6].. Robert Middlekauff, The
Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1982), pp. 484-6; Richard Walsh and William L. Fox, eds., Maryland:
A History, 1632-1974 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1974), p.
110; Robert K. Wright, The Continental Army (Washington, D. C.: Center
of Military History, 1983), pp. 277-8. (The game designer error can be found in
James Grossman's The Complete Brigadier, Rules for Battles (Saint Paul:
Adventure Games, 1983), p. 81 and Greg Novack, The Battle of Guilford
Courthouse (Game Designers Workshop, 1980), p. 15).
[9].. Citations relating to the Regiment
Extra are varied. The diversity is shown by the following identifying terms
with citations:
"New Raised
Corps," Joseph Dashiell to T. S. Lee, 30 August 1780 Archives of
Maryland (72 vols. to date; Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-
), 45:129; "New Raised Regiment," George Plater et al. to T. S. Lee,
3 October 1780, Ibid., p. 134;
"Extra
Regiment," "Minutes of the Council," Ibid., p. 241;
"Regiment Extra," "Minutes of the Council," Ibid., p. 251;
"The Extra Regiment," Richard Harwood to Council, 9 July 1780, Ibid.,
p. 5; "The Regiment Extraordinary," Richard Dallam to T. S. Lee, 14
July 1780, Ibid., p. 13; "New Regiment," D. Jenifer to T. S. Lee, 25
July 1780, Ibid., p. 28-9; "Additional Regiment," Joshua Beall to T.
S. Lee, 30 July 1780, Ibid., p. 35-6; "New Battalion," Joshua Beall
to T. S. Lee, 3 August 1780, Ibid., p. 39; "Maryland Additional
Regiment," J. Bolton to T. S. Lee, 28 August 1780, Ibid., p. 62.
[11].. Fred A. Berg, Encyclopedia of
Continental Army Units (Harrisburg: Stackpole Books, 1972), p. 66.
[14].. Berg, Continental Line, p.
108; Ross M. Kimmel, In Perspective: William Smallwood (Annapolis:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1976), pp. 5-6.
[17].. Benjamin Mackall to Uriah Forrest,
28 July 1780, Archives of Maryland 45: 33; Joshua Beall to T. S. Lee, 30
July 1780, Ibid., p. 35-6; Charles Griffith to T. S. Lee, 24 July 1780, Ibid.,
45: 78.
[18].. Edward Giles to T. S. Lee, 15
September 1780, Archives of Maryland 45: 78; Edward Giles to T. S. Lee,
19 September 1780, Ibid., p. 110; George Plater, et al. to T. S. Lee, 3 October
1780, Ibid., p. 134.
[19].. Maryland Council to President of
the Board of War, 12 February 1781, Archives of Maryland 45: 308.
[20].. Edward Giles to T. S. Lee, 5
September 1780, Archives of Maryland 45: 78; Giles to Lee, 12 September
1780, Ibid., p. 100; Giles to Lee, 19
September 1780, Ibid., p. 110.
[22].. William Smallwood Orderly Book, 3
July - 20 October 1780, The Peter Force Collections, (8D Item 159)
Library of Congress.
[23].. Richard J. Batt, "The
Maryland Continentals 1780-1781," (Ph. D. dissertation, Tulane University,
1974), p. 41; Blackwell P. Robinson, The Revolutionary War Sketches of
William R. Davie (Raleigh, N.C.: Department of Cultural Resources, 1976),
p. 27.
[24].. Horatio Gates to George
Washington, 3 September 1780, State Records of North Carolina (26 vols.,
Raleigh: Department of Cultural Resources, 1886-1906), 15:65-6.
[25].. Gates to Washington, 3 September
1780, p. 66; Otho H. Williams, "Brigade and Regimental Orders," 12
September 1780, Revolutionary War Collection, (MS. 768, MdHS).
[26].. John Randall, Accounts of the
Clothier General for Maryland, 1780-1781, 11 June 1781, Revolutionary War
Collection, MS 1814, MdHs.
[27].. George Washington to T. S. Lee, 6
September 1780, in John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George
Washington (39 vols., Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1931-1944), 20: 2-3; 19: 85, 207; George Washington to the Board of War, 6
September 1780, Ibid., 20: 4-5; George
Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 11 September 1780, Ibid., 20: 29-30.
[28].. Benjamin Ford to Nathanael Greene,
28 December 1780, Nathanael Greene Papers, William L. Clements Library,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Edward Oldham to Mordecai Gist, 11 January
1781, Gist Papers, MdHS; Williams, "Orderly Book," 26 December 1780.
[29].. Nathanael Greene to T. S. Lee, 31
December 1780, in Calendar of Maryland State Papers, No. 3, The Brown Books
(Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1948), pp. 81-2.
[30].. John Eager Howard to William
Johnson (?), John Eager Howard Papers, MS 109, MdHS; Gordon S. Wood, The
Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (New York: W. W. Norton,
1969), pp. 71-75.
[31].. Gates to Washington, 3 September
1780, State Records of North Carolina 15:65-6; Otho H. Williams,
"Orderly Book, 13 September 1780 - 9 February 1781," 29 September
1780, MS 768, MdHS.
[34].. Nathanael Greene to Thomas S. Lee,
31 December 1780, in Calendar of Maryland State Papers, No 3, The Brown Books
(Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1948), pp.81-82.
[35].. Maryland Council to Nathanael
Greene, 19 March 1781, Archives of Maryland 45:356; Maryland Council to
President, Board of War, 12 February 1781, Ibid., 45:308.
[36].. Nathanael Greene to Commissioned
Officers of the Maryland Regiment, 10 March 1781, WRMS 8559, National Archives.
[39].. Greene to Commissioned Officers,
10 March 1781, ibid.; W. Lamar, "Muster Roll of the Late Capt. Beatty's
Company," Archives of Maryland 18:389.
[41].. Nathanael Greene to the President
of Congress, 16 March 1781 in Lee, "Memoirs," p. 597; Howard to
Johnson (?), ibid.; Randall, "Accounts," 10 June 1781, Ibid.
[43].. Coffin, Boys, p. 376;
Charles E. Hatch Jr., The Battle of Guilford Courthouse (Washington, D.
C.: National Park Service, 1971), p. 76; Ward, Delaware Continentals, p.
417.
[45].. Edward C. Papenfuse and Gregory A.
Stiverson, "General Smallwood's Recruits: The Peacetime Career of the
Revolutionary War Private," William and Maryland Quarterly, 30
(1973): 117-132.
[46].. Andre Corvisier, Armies and
Societies in Europe 1494-1789 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1976), pp. 13, 133, 145-6, 159-60.
[47].. Robert Middlekauff, "Why Men
Fought in the American Revolution," Huntington Library Quarterly,
43 (1980): 135-148;
Papenfuse and Stiverson,
"Recruits," pp. 120-125.
[50].. S. L. A. Marshall, The
Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation (Quantico, Va.: Marine Corps
Association, 1980), p. 46.