'Eutaw Springs: the Final Battle of the American Revolution's Southern Campaign'

Home , Final Battle (2015), Final Battle (2016), Final Battle (2018), Final Battle (2020)

H-War Ault on Dunkerly and Boland, 'Eutaw Springs: The Final Battle of the American Revolution's Southern Campaign'

Review published on Friday, September 7, 2018

Robert M. Dunkerly, Irene B. Boland. Eutaw Springs: The Final Battle of the American Revolution's Southern Campaign. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2017. 168 pp. $21.99 (paper), ISBN 978-1-61117-758-9.

Reviewed by Jon Ault (Independent Scholar)Published on H-War (September, 2018) Commissioned by Margaret Sankey (Air War College)

Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=52060

One of the most bitterly contested battles of the American War of Independence is also one of its most obscure. Eutaw Springs, fought in South Carolina between armies under General Nathanael Greene and Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Stewart on September 8, 1781, was a costly fight in which both sides subsequently claimed victory. Ambiguous in its outcome and overshadowed by the climactic siege of British forces under Charles, Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia, the following month, this particular engagement faded from public memory, with consequent neglect of the battle site. Military historian Robert M. Dunkerly and geology professor Irene B. Boland seek to remedy this oversight with their brief but compelling study. Further, this interdisciplinary team of scholars emphasizes the important impacts, often overlooked by historians, which physical geography and geology exert upon the unfolding of military history: “For centuries military leaders have used knowledge of terrain and geography to plan tactics and troop movements and thus to win battles and wars” (p. 4).

An overview of the opposing forces provides brief biographical sketches of Greene, Stewart, and several junior officers. In addition, it reminds the reader of the significant number of Americans who fought for the Crown, particularly in the southern theater of operations. Dunkerly and Boland then set the stage for the battle, briefly summarizing the course of hostilities after the British decided to concentrate their military effort on the southern colonies in 1778. By the late summer of 1781, Greene “was anxious for his army to score a victory” (p. 20), after success had eluded him earlier that year at Guilford Courthouse (March 15), Hobkirk’s Hill (April 25) and the siege of the Loyalist garrison at Ninety-Six (May 22-June 19). He devoted much of that summer to replenishing and re- equipping his ranks, tirelessly imploring the Continental Congress and regional governors for assistance. Although “recruiting was agonizingly slow” (p. 23) due to neighboring states contending with more immediate military threats, by early September Greene had a “small but formidable” force which he prudently encamped on the High Hills near the Santee River (avoiding the nearby swampy, mosquito-infested lowlands). Adding to his advantage was a potent cavalry contingent, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry (“Light-Horse Harry”) Lee and Lieutenant-Colonel William Washington (a second cousin of General George Washington). For his part, Stewart was a “tenacious and innovative commander” in charge of veteran British and Loyalist units with personnel that had been in arms since the first years of the war (although several recently arrived units were untested in combat). Of his shortage of cavalry, Stewart was all too aware; however, the cavalry at his disposal

Citation: H-Net Reviews. Ault on Dunkerly and Boland, 'Eutaw Springs: The Final Battle of the American Revolution's Southern Campaign'. H-War. 09-07-2018. https://networks.h-net.org/node/12840/reviews/2351791/ault-dunkerly-and-boland-eutaw-springs-final-battle-american Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-War was under the command of Brevet-Colonel John Coffin, a Loyalist who would prove his mettle.

As the authors establish, Greene went into battle on September 8 with a considerable edge: he was finally able to “attack an enemy, control the battle himself, and fight where and when he chose” (p. 33). Moreover, when his army struck, three hundred soldiers from Stewart’s best units were detached, foraging for potatoes in a nearby field. The Continentals, bolstered by militia units that performed exceedingly well, swiftly advanced in the early stages of the battle. However, the momentum eventually stalled for reasons that remained controversial for years afterward. Reaching the British camp, the attackers fell into disarray, looting its supplies. Loyalists occupying a brick house put up a stout defense, tying down a large number of Greene’s troops. Finally, Greene’s cavalry faltered. Washington was wounded and captured; Lee, his cavalry units scattered and engaged at numerous points, was unable to mount a cohesive assault (and unfair accusations of dereliction of duty plagued him for the rest of his life). The British resurged, recapturing lost artillery and lost ground. In the end, Greene retreated, leaving his foe in possession of the field. However, the Crown forces paid dearly; the authors state in an appendix which assesses the human cost that Stewart suffered a casualty rate of 35 percent (one of the highest of the entire war), with one unit (the 63rd Regiment) incurring an appalling 70 percent rate (p. 114).

Dunkerly and Boland conclude their study by asserting their case for the battle’s historical importance, and, therefore, for protecting the site from further encroachment by developers. “Damaged beyond repair” by the fight at Eutaw Springs, “the British never again moved an army into the field beyond Charleston in an attempt to control the countryside.” As a result, “the Americans had effectively reconquered nearly the entire state” (p. 84). The authors then offer a brief travel guide to those who would like to visit the battlefield and urge their readers to support ongoing archaeological research and preservation efforts. It had long been believed that the creation of Lake Marion by damming the Santee River in 1941 had submerged the entire site. Fortunately, the authors demonstrate that the action occurred on higher ground that remains above water today. However, a significant portion of the battlefield has been lost to housing developments built over the last fifty years.

Dunkerly and Boland have given us a thoroughly researched and lively account of an episode of the American War of Independence that deserves to be rescued from obscurity, and of a tract of land that deserves to be protected for the benefit of this and future generations of Americans. Boland’s perspectives on the geology and landscape of the contested area add an important dimension that military historians often take for granted. In an era in which too many historical sites are threatened by real estate development, their impassioned defense of this particular site could not be more timely. By raising awareness on behalf of this and, by extension, other historically significant places, this book does a major service.

Citation: Jon Ault. Review of Dunkerly, Robert M.; Boland, Irene B., Eutaw Springs: The Final Battle of the American Revolution's Southern Campaign. H-War, H-Net Reviews. September, 2018. URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=52060

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.