New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-04
THE BATTLE OF THE HISTORIANS
Many Original Appealed To Reinforce The Lesson Of
Lundy's Lane
the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: In the interest Of true conception
Of American military history, allow me, as
briefly a. possible TO reply to the criticism
Of my letter, "The Lesson of Lundy's Lane"
by Mr. C.. c. Carson, whose letter appears in
The Tribune of September y.
/ Mr.. Carson says I misstate the facts when
claim that "at Bladensburg 5,40l Ameri-
cans, unframed and unorganized as whole,
were routed by less than 1900 trained British
troops" He informs me that Henry Adams
and other Americans estimate the number Of
British troops under Ross at $500 men. Il
Mr. Carson had read my previous letter IN
The Tribune about Badensburg he would
have seen my statement that "the British
force which landed at Benedict on the
Patuxent numbered $500, of which only a
part of the advanced division of 1,500 were
Engaged" Mr.. Carson agrees with me, then,
/ i'm considering the total number of the British
to have been $500. As a matter of fact, this
number is shown by the records in the War
Department, Adjutant Generals Office. Mr..
Carson differs with my statement that only
part of the advanced division of 1900 were
engaged at the battle of Bladensburg, and
asserts that elsewhere my letter "bristles
with inaccuracies"
/ invite Mr.. Carsons attention to the fol-
lowing American and British original sources
and authorities:
Cd Report of General Wrder, american
State Papers, Military Affairs" volume /; pub
lished as Appendix No, 1, History of the In
vasion and capture Of Washington" John S.
Williams, Harpers, 1857. Throughout this
official report the American commanding
officer makes mention only Of the enemy's
light troops. the enemy's advanced brigade,
az taking part in the battle Since the re-
port Is an explanation of the defeat, we can
hardly presume that General Winder would
underestimate the forces engaged on the
British side
/ (2) That there was but one brigade Of light
troops in Ross's army is shown by the mar
rative OF Lieutenant G. R. Gleig, Of the S5th
Light Regiment, of II. VI. Infantry, London,
John Murray, 1927, page %: "The first,
or light brigade, consisted of the 85th, the
light infantry companies of the 4th, DIST
and 44th regiments, with the party Of dis
ciplined negroes and a company Of marines,
amounting in all to about 1,l00 men"
Gleig's narrative agrees with Winder's in
mentioning only the first, advanced, light
brigade, until the point of th6 battle when
the complete rout began
(3) Report Of Rear Admiral Cockburn to
Vice Admiral Cochrane, II. ". Sloop Manly,
off Nottingham, Patuxent, August p, 1914;
james. MILITARY Occurrences" volume II,
page 493: "The enemy was dislodged, AS soon
as reached, and victory gained over him By a
division Of the British army, not amounting
to more than ] 500 men"
(4) Manuscript journal of a British officer
Who took part in the battle, library Of
Admiral D. D. Porter. To quote from page
<: "The attack Of the 4th and s5th rcgi-
ments. the only portion Of our army actually
engaged" The context indicates that these
two regiments only were engaged when the
rout of the Americans, except for Bamey's
houlla men, was complete.
90 1.-THE British Invasion Of Maryland"
by William ". Marine, published 1913, by
the Society OF the War OF 1872 in Maryland.
On page 10 we find that "the account uni
.yersally acknowledged TO be the fairest and
least BIASED is that Of &. R. Gleig, an
English subaltem officer" which Mr..
Marine proceeds 20 quote in full. thus giving
the opinion Of an American scholar, Mary
lander, that the British force engaged was
about LOO. as Gleig states.
90 The same opinion is given in Edward
d. lngraham's Capture of Washington"
published in Philadelphia by Carey &
Hart. 1Sl9 a thoroughly accurate analysis,
which IS quoted by Roosevelt
CD Roosevet's NAVAL War of 1872" page
liza. only about LOCO British had time to