Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-06-08
From the Balfimore Patrios.


mailer vessels near the mouth OF that river.
" From the baltimore Patriot.
B,ifish Official Account Of the attack on
Osssego.
Our readers, If they we're never partisans
before. we imagine must be compelled to
battle.
The account of the Adiutant General of
North America. Edward Baynes. 1--WE give
his title az he gives IT'D differs so material
ly from that Of Colonel Mitchell. that no
compromise of creduliy will answer in this
case. Either this great British officer whose
name so often sounds in our ears, or Col.
Mitchell, says the thing which is not. -
independent OF the other reasons which
would operate in our minds, In favor of gi-
wing credence to orr countrymen, we should
really suppose il would be more likely that
the officer who hadt the inspection of the
muster rolls. would know how many were
dead and missing, better than the enemy's
| Officer. who could have had no equal oppor
tunities of ascertaining the fact, and who
obviously had every inducementto distortit.
We are to remember that these dashing de-
tails OF British proves. are calculated for
the meridian of London. The same prac>
tice prevailed during the contest of the Re-
violation; and the populacc OF England bes
iicved America vanquished, till the undis
tiBguisable fact of Corvallis capture wax.
ed them from their dream OF delusion-
The British account says we lost 1000
killed Our officers account says six. Our
officer states the wounded at thirty .eight
and this paragon of veracity, Baynes, gives
go, who were sent to the Canadian hospital
for cure. ~.
But the falsehood Of the British account,
(Which we ought not to wonder at, for from
Dacres to Baynes they have been consistent
i'll it, this war: and last war, it was matter
of anger or merriment, among the London
ers as they CHANGED to be irascible or hu-
Roreus) appears tous too ridiculousiy gross,
even for their ordinary purpose of des-
cription. A hundred to dwind!e down to
six. Allow only the lega, interest per cen
tum, for British official statement In,
deed, it is too bold deduction. They
should study the digestion of their dupes
better. 1t wonld require an ostrich-like
stomach and shark like swallow, to cred-
it such tale as this of Falstaff Baynes. -
But the judieious remarks of Mr.. BmBs,
which follow, will afford our readers an OPP
portunity to dissect tho tale, and to estimate
the yeracity of those who relate it.
The British eNSoI retors of the attack upon
oswego is as usual, pregnant with fatseheads.
A COMPARISON between the report published to
day and that ofcol. Mitchell. will exhibit some
remarkable agreements as we'll as disagree
mcnts, all tending to do credit to the American
army. $50 fe
The British force is admitted to be pretty
near as great as col. Mitchell reported it, near
800 men; our force which was but 29U is exa.
gerated TO 800 artillery and " numerous bo-
dy of militia"
The British admit only loss of 10 killed
| and IS wounded, whereas col. Mitchell I" upon
| the authority OF deserters and citizens of ouds
! taken prisoners and afterwards released. state
| their killed at 81, and wounded in proportion d
| BY the way, Col Mitchell accidentally mentions
deserters." whereas the british adiuiant ge-
neral makes occasion to note as strange fact,
that there were no deserters from them ON this
! occasion.
| Colonel Mitchell states our loss at 6 killed
SO wounded and IS MISSING. whereas the Bril-
| tish officer states our loss to have been loo
killed, not word Of wounded, except 60
whom they humanity took TO the Canada hos
| pitfalls to cure.
The British say nothing of resistance or
bloodshed on the 5th insrant, but falsely say
that 9 storm, drove them off Oswego or
| that day whereas col. Mitchell and his gal
liant troops" compelled them twice to retire, .
Our readers will do we'll to compare these &C.
counts.--Pyess.