British cruelty and of American forbearance. Impartial readers will probably form a more moderate opinion, and conclude that in all civil wars — where feeling runs high, and where the population is drawn into the struggle — there is likely to be some harshness on both sides. In fact, if the Americans had to complain, so also had the English military authorities bitterly to protest against the barbarities practised by their opponents.
But the most important accusation comes from Washington, who, in October, 1780, wrote to Clinton impeaching the acts of both Cornwallis and Rawdon; as Washington was not opposed to those commanders at the time, it is to be inferred that he spoke not of his own knowledge, but reproduced what others (not so fair-minded perhaps as himself) had reported to him. Both the officers concerned vehemently repudiated the aspersions cast upon them, and Rawdon remarks sarcastically, 'the rebels have by the rigour of their administration reaped too many advantages over our forbearance to wish that we should affect more energy[1].' Even Bancroft does not deny that treachery was practised against the British, and quotes a case with apparent satisfaction, where a militia commander waited till his men were supplied with arms and ammunition, and then conducted them over to the enemy[2]. This was no solitary instance; on the contrary, constant and persistent efforts were
