Battle of Eutaw Springs in the American Revolution

Battle of Eutaw Springs in the American Revolution The Battle of Eutaw Springs was fought September 8, 1781, during the American Revolution (1775-1783). Armies Commanders Americans Major General Nathanael Greene2,200 men British Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Stewart2,000 men Background Having won a bloody victory over American forces at the Battle of Guilford Court House on March 1781, Lieutenant General Lord Charles Cornwallis elected to turn east for Wilmington, NC as his army was short on supplies. Assessing the strategic situation, Cornwallis later decided to march north into Virginia as he believed the Carolinas could only be pacified after subjugating the more northern colony. Pursuing Cornwallis part of the way to Wilmington, Major General Nathanael Greene turned south on April 8 and moved back into South Carolina. Cornwallis was willing to let the American army go as he believed that Lord Francis Rawdons forces in South Carolina and Georgia were sufficient to contain Greene. Though Rawdon possessed around 8,000 men, they were scattered in small garrisons throughout the two colonies. Advancing into South Carolina, Greene sought to eliminate these posts and reassert American control over the backcountry. Working in conjunction with independent commanders such as Brigadier Generals Francis Marion and Thomas Sumter, American troops began capturing several minor garrisons. Though beaten by Rawdon at Hobkirks Hill on April 25, Green continued his operations. Moving to attack the British base at Ninety-Six, he laid siege on May 22. In early June, Greene learned that Rawdon was approaching from Charleston with reinforcements. After an assault on Ninety-Six failed, he was compelled to abandon the siege. The Armies Meet Though Greene had been forced to retreat, Rawdon elected to abandon Ninety-Six as part of a general withdrawal from the backcountry. As the summer progressed, both sides wilted in the regions hot weather. Suffering from ill-health, Rawdon departed in July and turned command over to Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Stewart. Captured at sea, Rawdon was an unwilling witness during the Battle of the Chesapeake in September. In the wake of the failure at Ninety-Six, Greene moved his men to the cooler High Hills of Santee where he remained for six weeks. Advancing from Charleston with around 2,000 men, Stewart established a camp at Eutaw Springs approximately fifty miles northwest of the city. Resuming operations on August 22, Greene moved to Camden before turning south and advancing on Eutaw Springs. Short on food, Stewart had begun sending out foraging parties from his camp. Around 8:00 AM on September 8, one of these parties, led by Captain John Coffin, encountered an American scouting force overseen by Major John Armstrong. Retreating, Armstrong led Coffins men into an ambush where Lieutenant Colonel Light-Horse Harry Lees men captured around forty of the British troops. Advancing, the Americans also captured a large number of Stewarts foragers. As Greenes army approached Stewarts position, the British commander, now alerted to the threat, began forming his men to the west of the camp. A Back and Forth Fight Deploying his forces, Greene used a formation similar to his earlier battles. Placing his North and South Carolina militia in the front line, he supported them with Brigadier General Jethro Sumners North Carolina Continentals. Sumners command was further reinforced by Continental units from Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The infantry was supplemented by units of cavalry and dragoons led by Lee and Lieutenant Colonels William Washington and Wade Hampton. As Greenes 2,200 men approached, Stewart directed his men to advance and attack. Standing their ground, the militia fought well and exchanged several volleys with the British regulars before yielding under a bayonet charge. As the militia began to retreat, Greene ordered Sumners men forward. Halting the British advance, they too began to waver as Stewarts men charged forward. Committing his veteran Maryland and Virginia Continentals, Greene stopped the British and soon began counterattacking. Driving the British back, the Americans were on the verge of victory when they reached the British camp. Entering the area, they elected to stop and pillage the British tents rather than continue the pursuit. As the fighting was raging, Major John Marjoribanks succeeded in turning back an American cavalry attack on the British right and captured Washington. With Greenes men preoccupied with looting, Marjoribanks shifted his men to a brick mansion just beyond the British camp. From the protection of this structure, they opened fire on the distracted Americans. Though Greenes men organized an assault on the house, they failed to carry it. Rallying his troops around the structure, Stewart counterattacked. With his forces disorganized, Greene was compelled to organize a rearguard and fall back. Retreating in good order, the Americans withdrew a short distance to the west. Remaining in the area, Greene intended to renew the fighting the next day, but wet weather prevented this. As a result, he elected to depart the vicinity. Though he held the field, Stewart believed his position was too exposed and began withdrawing to Charleston with American forces harassing his rear. Aftermath In the fighting at Eutaw Springs, Greene suffered 138 killed, 375 wounded, and 41 missing. British losses numbered 85 killed, 351 wounded, and 257 captured/missing. When members of the captured foraging party are added, the number of British captured totals around 500. Though he had won a tactical victory, Stewarts decision to withdraw to the safety of Charleston proved a strategic victory for Greene. The last major battle in the South, the aftermath of Eutaw Springs saw the British focus on maintaining enclaves on the coast while effectively surrendering the interior to American forces. While skirmishing continued, the focus of major operations shifted to Virginia where Franco-American forces won the key Battle of Yorktown the following month.

The Great Compromise of 1787

The Great Compromise of 1787 The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates of the states with large and small populations that defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress according to the United States Constitution. Under the agreement proposed by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, Congress would be a â€Å"bicameral† or two-chambered body, with each state getting a number of representatives in the lower chamber (the House) proportional to its population and two representatives in the upper chamber (the Senate). Key Takeaways: Great Compromise The Great Compromise of 1787 defined the structure of the U.S. Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress under the U.S. Constitution.The Great Compromise was brokered as an agreement between the large and small states during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman.Under the Great Compromise, each state would get two representatives in the Senate and a variable number of representatives in the House in proportion to its population according to the decennial U.S. census. Perhaps the greatest debate undertaken by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 centered on how many representatives each state should have in the new governments lawmaking branch, the U.S. Congress. As is often the case in government and politics, resolving a great debate required a great compromise- in this case, the Great Compromise of 1787. Early in the Constitutional Convention, delegates envisioned a Congress consisting of only a single chamber with a certain number of representatives from each state. Representation The burning question was, how many representatives from each state? Delegates from the larger, more populous states favored the Virginia Plan, which called for each state to have a different number of representatives based on the state’s population. Delegates from smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan, under which each state would send the same number of representatives to Congress. Delegates from the smaller states argued that, despite their lower populations, their states held equal legal status to that of the larger states, and that proportional representation would be unfair to them. Delegate Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened that the small states could be forced to â€Å"find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.† However, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts objected to the small states’ claim of legal sovereignty, stating that â€Å"we never were independent States, were not such now, and never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States and the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty.† Shermans Plan Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman is credited with proposing the alternative of a bicameral, or two-chambered Congress made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each state, suggested Sherman, would send an equal number of representatives to the Senate, and one representative to the House for every 30,000 residents of the state. At the time, all the states except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures, so the delegates were familiar with the structure of Congress proposed by Sherman. Sherman’s plan pleased delegates from both the large and small states and became known as the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, or the Great Compromise. The structure and powers of the new U.S. Congress, as proposed by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, were explained to the people by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Apportionment and Redistricting Today, each state is represented in Congress by two Senators and a variable number of members of the House of Representatives based on the state’s population as reported in the most recent decennial census. The process of fairly determining the number of members of the House from each state is called apportionment. The first census in 1790 counted 4 million Americans. Based on that count, the total number of members elected to the House of Representatives grew from the original 65 to 106. The current House membership of 435 was set by Congress in 1911. Redistricting to Ensure Equal Representation   To ensure fair and equal representation in the House, the process of â€Å"redistricting† is used to establish or change the geographic boundaries within the states from which representatives are elected. In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all of the congressional districts in each state must all have roughly the same population. Through apportionment and redistricting, high population urban areas are prevented from gaining an inequitable political advantage over less populated rural areas. For example, if New York City were not split into several congressional districts, the vote of a single New York City resident would carry more influence on the House than all of the residents in the rest of the State of New York combined.