The following, quoted from Barnes' History, is a fair sample of the
way in which it is treated:
"French-American Attack on Savannah.--In September, D'Estaing joined
Lincoln in besieging that city. After a severe bombardment, an
unsuccessful assault was made, in which a thousand lives were lost.
Count Pulaski was mortally wounded. The simple-hearted Sergeant Jasper
died grasping the banner presented to his regiment at Fort Moultrie.
D'Estaing refused to give further aid; thus again deserting the
Americans when help was most needed."
From this brief sketch the reader is at liberty to infer that the
attack was unwise if not fool-hardy; that the battle was unimportant;
and that the conduct of Count D'Estaing immediately after the battle
was unkind, if not unjust, to the Americans. While the paragraph does
not pretend to tell the whole truth, what it does tell ought to be the
truth; and this ought to be told in such a way as to give correct
impressions. The attack upon Savannah was well-planned and thoroughly
well considered; and it failed only because the works were so ably
defended, chiefly by British regulars, under brave and skillful
officers. In a remote way, which it is the purpose of this paper to
trace, that sanguinary struggle had a wider bearing upon the progress
of liberty in the Western World than any other one battle fought
during the Revolution.
Pages:
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103