Talk:Banastre Tarleton

Robert Bass biography

The lead mentions a biography of Tarleton by Robert Bass which refers to Tarleton as "butcher" and "Bloody ban," yet it should either be deleted, or made more clear that these nicknames were invented by Bass in the 20th century, and not attributed to Tarleton in his lifetime. I don't think the bias of someone writing a hundred eighty years later should be included in the articlePolkadreamer (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I will again point out that the Robert Bass biography is laden with insults that are not historically accurate. This article should reflect facts on the subject(Tarleton), not latter day opinions from those who were not present or alive at the time.Polkadreamer (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Four years on, I have clarified this and documented it for future editors who may think erroneously that the names were contemporary. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Legendary sexual assault

Previously, the article about Banastre Tarleton included a paragraph saying that “a soldier of the British Legion was involved in an attempted sexual assault that entered legend.” The diarist, Allaire, says only that a few women had been “abused”, and describes cuts and bruises. He does not say that the “villain” was a member of the British Legion or that this was a sexual assault. The word “legendary“ might be a clue that the incident is a popular myth that lacks authentication.

I have no doubt that something took place, but based on the diary cannot be sure of anything more than some women being roughed up by an unknown assailant, although his use of the word “plunderer” suggests the motive was theft. There is no firm connection with Banastre Tarleton or the British Legion. In fact, the apparent cordial relations between the women and the British soldiers leads me to think they were loyalists. If that were all, it couldn’t be ruled out that the assailant was a vengeful “rebel”. However, Allaire’s statement that Mrs. Fayssoux came to the (presumably) British camp to testify, and that the villain was sent to Headquarters for trial, indicates that the villain was probably serving in some capacity with the British forces.

Allaire says “... three ladies came to our camp in great distress: Lady Colleton, Miss Betsy Giles, and Miss Jean Russell. They had been most shockingly abused by a plundering villain. Lady Colleton badly cut in the hand by a broadsword,and bruised very much. After my friend, Dr. Johnson, dressed her hand, he, with an officer and twelve men, went to the plantation, about one mile from camp, to protect Mrs. Fayssoux, whom this infamous villain had likewise abused in the same manner. There he found a most accomplished, amiable lady in the greatest distress imaginable. After he took a little blood from her she was more composed, and next morning come to camp to testify against the cursed villain that abused them in this horrid manner. He was secured and sent to Headquarters for trial.

“My friend, Dr Johnson, and myself had the happiness of escorting the ladies to their plantation. Before we got there we were met by a servant informing us that there were more plunderers in the house. This news so shocked Lady Colleton and Mrs. Fayssoux, who were some distance before us, and the young ladies in a carriage, that I am not able to describe their melancholy situation, which was truly deplorable. After their fright was a little over we passed on to their house; but the ladies fearing to stay alone, Lady Colleton and Mrs. Fayssoux got into the carriage, Miss Giles behind me, and Miss Russell on a horse, which I led for fear he should make off with my fair one; they passed on with us four miles to a plantation called Mulberry Broughton, and here we bid adieu to our fair companions with great regret, they thinking themselves out of danger of any insults.”

By all means revert it if you can add information connecting the incident with Tarleton. If someone had been tried for the offence, there would be a record. Please also cite the source of the legend. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As I dig deeper into the history, I am beginning to believe there might be more substance to this event. In fact, the “legendary sexual assault“ and the “argument between Ferguson and Tarleton” might refer to the same event. Stay tuned. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Argument between Ferguson and Tarleton

The quotation regarding an argument seemed odd. The first sentence is an explicit quotation; the second is not in quotation marks, yet it is given a reference.

Furthermore, Washington Irving's biography of George Washington doesn’t mention an argument between Ferguson and Tarleton. Regarding that particular event, it says:

“On the evening of the 13th of April, Tarleton moved with the van toward monks corner… …The surprisal of General Huger’s camp was complete.

< two paragraphs later>

“In the course of the maraud which generally accompanies a surprisal of the kind, several dragoons of the British legion broke into a house in the neighborhood of Monk's Corner, and maltreated and attempted violence upon ladies residing there. The ladies escaped to Monk's Comer, where they were protected, and a carriage furnished to convey them to a place of safety. The dragoons were apprehended and brought to Monk's Comer, where by this time Colonel Webster had arrived. Major Ferguson, we are told, was for putting the dragoons to instant death, but Colonel Webster did not think his powers warranted such a measure. "They were sent to headquarters," adds the historian, "and, I believe, afterwards tried and whipped." *

“We gladly record one instance in which the atrocities which disgraced this invasion met with some degree of punishment ; and we honor the rough soldier, Ferguson, for the fiat of "instant death," with which he would have requited the most infamous and dastardly outrage that brutalizes warfare.”

Perhaps Tarleton was confused with Webster by the editor who wrote this. Nevertheless the quotation included in the Wikipedia article doesn’t apply to Tarleton. Therefore I have been bold and deleted the entire passage about an argument. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As I dig deeper into the history, I am beginning to believe there might be more substance to this event. In fact, the “legendary sexual assault“ and the “argument between Ferguson and Tarleton” might refer to the same event. Stay tuned. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Naming of the ship

Thomas (The slave trade : the story of the Atlantic slave trade, 1440-1870) says the ship was named after Banastre Tarleton, but he provides no evidence for this.

In addition to the Banastre, the partnership had other ships, including the Backhouse, the Tarleton, and the Anne. It is a reasonable assumption that two of them were named for the partners. Since they were apparently using family names for the ships, the Anne might logically have been named for Anne (Clayton) Parker, the mother of Jane (Parker) Tarleton. She is the closest relative having the first name Anne.

Amongst the other ships associated with the Tarleton family is the Clayton. That is the maiden name of John Tarleton’s mother-in-law. The husband of Anne (Clayton) Parker was Banastre Parker, the father-in-law of John Tarleton. Perhaps John Tarleton and Banastre Parker had a business relationship; that is often how marriages resulted. According to the Slave Voyages database, Jane (Parker)Tarleton was also an “enslaver”; this could be another clue linking John Tarleton with Banastre Parker.

Given the connections between John Tarleton and Banastre Parker, albeit circumstantial, I believe the Banastre was more likely to have been named after Banastre Parker than after Banastre Tarleton. Until there is evidence to resolve the question, I have deleted the ship from this article. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Perceptions

I have added this section for topics which are, or have been, widely stated but lack evidence. I chose to call it Perceptions—from a similar section in the book by Scotti—to validate beliefs rather than calling them misconceptions or fallacies. I plan to add to this as time permits. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference 12, Nathan Bedford Forrest by Brian Steel Wills

Reference 12 is to a book about general Nathan Bedford Forrest by Brian Steel Wills: The River Was Dyed with Blood: Nathan Bedford Forrest and Fort Pillow.

I am unable to locate a copy. However, the Internet archive has two other books about Bedford Forrest by this author. My searches in them for the words Tarleton or Waxhaws were unsuccessful. The word Buford turned up because there was an officer by the name of Abraham Buford, a great nephew of the revolutionary war officer. Wrong person, wrong war!

Nevertheless, Bedford Forrest commanded troops accused of a massacre at Fort Pillow during the American Civil War. The similarities with the alleged massacre at Waxhaws are interesting, but that is not the subject of this article. However, the reference explicitly mentions page 7, so I suspect that the Battle of Waxhaws might be mentioned in the introduction to the book.

Reference 12 is applied to the paragraph quoting from a letter by Robert Brownfield. Consequently, I propose to replace Steel Wills with a reference to Brownfield’s original, which was published as an appendix to a book about Francis Marion. Some rewriting will probably be needed to integrate it, and I’d like to add some discussion of the letter as well.

I don’t think my proposal is contentious but Tarleton is. So I’m posting my intentions here for a week or so in case anyone is especially attached to Steel Wills. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

DONE Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Representations in other media

Some of the items in this list have little to do with Banastre Tarleton. Having the same name is just a coincidence if the character is a different person. So I am inclined to delete the science-fiction entries. But first I will put the issue here to see what others think. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Deleted four Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Repression

Tarleton actually wrote that by trying to please all, Cornwallis didn’t please anyone. I will expand on this in conjunction with correcting the article. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Rather than some paraphrase, the actual wording that Tarleton used seems needful and can be found on Page 92 of his 1787 book at: this Google book URL. I've adjusted the section in this article a bit. Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have converted several references to the Internet archive Shearonink (talk · contribs), to give readers a direct source rather than going through the Google view. I have found the following to be the best copy of Tarleton.

https://archive.org/details/historyofcampaig00tarl/page/n8/mode/1up

However the pagination is slightly different; the passage in question is on page 90 in this copy. I want to use this copy in the article but I’m proceeding carefully. That passage actually has nothing to do with the Battle of Waxhaws but finding a new spot for it is not so simple. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

PS The IA copy was printed by Cadell in London. The Google copy was printed by someone else in Dublin. Same year. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Wounds, and bias

It took me quite a while to find the Philadelphia Inquirer article about the “Battle of Chesco” in which it claims Tarleton was wounded. The incident is actually taken from Buchanan so I have replaced the reference with the appropriate page of that book. Buchanan claims that Tarleton was “dusted with buckshot”. If that was a wound, Banastre Tarleton wasn’t aware of it. He says that the injury to his hand at the battle of Guilford courthouse was his first wound. Therefore, I have deleted the incorrect information.

The bias and distortion of history by both the Philadelphia Inquirer and Buchanan is apparent in the following chance passage from the newspaper: “Tarleton returned to England, but not to honors. He was given a number of backwater command posts in the army, was a member of Parliament but made many enemies, and generally led a dissolute life, according to Buchanan. When he died in 1833, "the London papers took little notice, Buchanan wrote.” I conclude that the Philadelphia Inquirer is not a reliable source, and I now doubt the accuracy of Buchanan as well.

Nevertheless, I really don’t know why this minor incident is featured. I will try to put it in context as I work on the article, and reserve the possibility of deleting it entirely. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Harvard cite errors & warnings

All of the 'Harv cite' warnings that were littering the Bibliography section of this article have now been fixed/adjusted/corrected. If anyone around these parts doesn't get these warnings when they edit, go to User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, read that explanatory page and consider installing the userscript User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js only after reading the complete instructions at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors#Installation. Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Politics

Thank you for your work on the politics, 87.242.223.122 (talk · contribs). I can’t find this information in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1754-1790. Please provide volume number, page number, and a link to the appropriate archive.org copy.

I think political parties were evolving at that time. Is there an explicit reference to Tarleton’s membership in the “Tory” party? Thorpe says “Tarleton joined the Whig Club, 14 July 1788”.

The information about Penrhyn doesn’t seem relevant to Tarleton other than the elections in which he ran. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Skirmish at Gloucester

reference 25 only exists in archive form. There is no indication of the owner of the site although it appears to be something to do with gaming. Not reliable source. I’m inclined to delete it but if the other two references aren’t sufficient a replacement is needed. Suggestions? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by 24.2.149.109

{{User |24.2.149.109}} left several suggestions on my talk page [[User talk: Humphrey Tribble|talk]] under the topic  Banastre (1787 ship). I am re-posting them here where they are readily available to all editors. My responses are indented.

Thank you for your work on the Tarleton page which has greatly improved the language and biased sentiment. There are howvever still a few inaccuracies.

• :: Many errors remain. I chose to edit the article methodically rather than doing a total rewrite.

Tarleton was a life-long Whig. He never stood for election as a Tory as is now shown.

• :: Someone revised the politics section, mostly not useful, and added erroneous material. I deleted a lot but left the Tory comment hoping to draw an explicit reference. Feel free to contribute one.

Banastre Tarleton was the third of seven children born to merchant John Tarleton. This is incorrect. The family consists of four boys and one daughter. He was the second boy.

• :: I believe Banastre Tarleton was second of FIVE boys, total six. Some sources ignore William Tarleton (1758 - 1778), the fourth. But Ormerod shows him first; I don’t know the reason and don’t understand the abbreviations:
• :: https://archive.org/details/historyofcountyp02orme/page/372/mode/1up
• :: I’d like someone to put this chart into commons and, thence, into this article.
• :: Feel free, also, to track down a source for William. I’d like to know more.
• :: Note, further, possible confusion of names, especially Johns and Thomases, as well as Banastres. (An interesting example: Thomas married a Mary Robinson, a different one from Banastre Tarleton’s poet partner, also Mary Robinson.)

Tarleton sailed with Lord Cornwallis as part of an expedition to capture the southern city of Charleston, South Carolina...Incorrect the original destination was North Carolina to rendezvous with the Highland loyalists. Only after the fleet landed was Clinton informed of their defeat at Moore's Bridge and they moved on to Charleston.

• :: correct, though I don’t recall the reason for the diversion

In the course of the colonial war in North America, Cornet Tarleton's campaign service during 1776 earned him the position of brigade major at the end of the year; he was twenty-two years old.....This is inelegantly expressed and factually wrong. Tarleton was promoted on Harcourt's recommendation following the coup at Basking Ridge. His pervious service was limited.

• :: I agree the statements are too condensed and vague. I haven’t addressed that section yet.

On seeing that, the Loyalist cavalrymen believed that the Virginia Continentals had shot their commander – while they asked him for mercy..This line is controversial and poorly expressed. .

• ::The entire battle seems controversial. I hope to write a more balanced account when I get around to it. But I’m leaving the most challenging to last.

In either event, on 7 October 1780, at the Battle of Kings Mountain, South Carolina, soldiers of the Continental Army, having heard of the slaughter at Waxhaw Creek, killed American Loyalists who had surrendered after a sniper killed their British commanding officer, Maj. Patrick Ferguson.[15]..This is irrelevant to the battle of Waxhaw's and highly debatable. The loyalists were hanged as a result of local politics, not the Waxhaw massacre.

• :: I think it relevant to discuss the repercussions of events, even if they result from erroneous beliefs, though not in detail since Banastre Tarleton wasn’t at Kings Mountain. Still, I won’t decide until I write it.

Sniper is a modern term and should be removed.

:: I, too, shake my head at “sniper”!

Tarleton materially helped Cornwallis to win the Battle of Camden in August 1780....Not really. His success stemmed from the British Legions actions following the battle. (Led By George Hanger not Tarleton)

:: I don’t know; haven’t worked on it yet. Source needed.

A cornet of the 17th, Thomas Patterson, rode up to strike Washington but was shot and killed by Washington's orderly trumpeter..this is not correct. Patterson is killed a few days later while crossing the Broad River.

::Please supply your source for Patterson’s death; it’s a useful point.

Washington survived this assault and in the process wounded Tarleton's right hand with a sabre blow, ...Not true.   

:: I agree. One source says a head wound.

Tarleton creased Washington's knee with a pistol shot that also wounded his horse. ..Not true.  Possible myth.

:: The entire “duel” episode seems a legend, occurring in several variations. I haven’t found a reliable source yet.

Like Tarleton’s mark on the history of the war, the painting is larger than life...Emotive delete.

:: quotation needed; but here’s the elegance you wanted!

The portrait by the third artist, Richard Cosway, is on quite a different scale. During the late Georgian and Regency periods, Cosway became a sought-after miniaturist as well as receiving commissions for his full-sized portraits. He was the only artist ever appointed official painter to the Prince of Wales. Miniatures were the wallet photos of their era, meeting the need for images which could be transported easily, and it is for these which Cosway is most famous today...Irrelevant to the subject of Tarleton.

:: it explains the art

Some good quality engravings of Tarleton exist, having met the popular interest in him. Most commonly, they were based on the Reynolds painting. Others likely arise from the Gainsborough. Some are inaccurate, perhaps imagined by the engraver. A few were coloured to show him in a red uniform, presumably to meet the expectations of some readers...Irrelevant.

::This paragraph is minimal. I plan to expand the relevant information about engravings.

Tarleton was known for speaking on military matters as well as opposing the abolition of the slave trade, a requirement for Liverpool MPs...Untrue. Gascoyne a contemporary Liverpool MP was a leading abolitionist. Suggest changing 'requirement' to 'expectation.'

:: see quotation in section on slave trade

:: Gascoyne’s role is probably immaterial. As I’ve said, someone rewrote the MP section; fixing it all is a low priority for me.

She was important to his parliamentary career, writing many of his speeches...Source?

::Yes, please!

The Source bibliography is way too long and features publications with little or no relevance to Tarleton.

O'Shaughnessy, Andrew..Bare mention of Tarleton.

Pancake, John S (1985)...as above.

Pearson, Kenneth..General book about the war not Tarleton.

Wilson, David K (2005)..As above.

:: O'Shaughnessy mentions Tarleton 62 times. Pancake mentions him 110 times, including the invention of “Bloody Ban”. The notes for ‘1776’ are excellent and unbiased, even though his name only comes up 25 times.

:: I plan to use all three, and more. Wilson is a leftover and might go.

:: Useful information often appears in peripheral sources. Footnotes are a prime example.

:: If only the “standard” sources are used, readers receive a “standard” story. Sadly, the “standard” sources often copy from each other without questioning the veracity of a tale. Consensus requires looking at several and tracking down the facts, which should then be documented.

Regards [[Special:Contributions/24.2.149.109|24.2.149.109]] ([[User talk:24.2.149.109|talk]]) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your ideas, 24.2.149.109.

I’d welcome help with revisions. I suspect many editors aren’t interested because they think they know the story of Banastre Tarleton… or don’t want to know the truth. My strength is writing so I would be pleased to have someone else do the actual coding. I can find references but the grunt work of adding them (and coding in general) slows me down a lot.

I began by dealing with major misconceptions—there might be more—then moved on to filling holes. Correcting minor points comes “as needed”.

More information about Robert Brownfield is at the top of my research wish list.

Correcting a fact about Banastre Tarleton often creates a discrepancy with other articles such as various battles and other soldiers. I can’t fix them all. My solution is rigorous documentation and quotations, which can’t be questioned. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Machete357 edits of 23 November 2022

I am unable to decipher your edits, Machete357 (talk · contribs), never mind understand them, due to the absence of edit summaries. It appears several things are being done at once, rather than incrementally with summaries of each, and some might require discussion. Please explain what you have done fully. The only alternative is reversion. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Use British English

This article is about a British Army officer and politician. Hence, it uses British English in spelling (e.g. valour) and international terminology (American War of Independence). These examples come from the first non-stub version of 14 May 2004: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banastre_Tarleton&oldid=3857398 Quotations always retain the form used by their writer.

I have placed a notice on this talk page. Please discuss on the talk page before changing the style. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The "duel" with Washington

The "duel" is legendary but the existence of multiple versions without confirmation by either Washington or Tarleton renders the story doubtful. An IP user said Patterson was killed later in the war; unfortunately, that user didn't provide a source. If anyone can confirm the fact, please post it here or on my user page.

There are at least three other claims, including another by Washington, to have wounded Tarleton. Yet Tarleton wrote after the loss of part of his hand at guilford courthouse that he had FINALLY been wounded. Humpster (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)