In The Battle of Cowpens, Reexamined, I wrote about the way myths and legends had grown around the facts of the battle. One of the cherished legends of Cowpens involves Daniel Morgan’s orders to the militia. Morgan, everyone knows, wanted two volleys from the militiamen, after which they could retire to the rear with their commander’s blessings. As I discuss in some length in the book, this legend ultimately belongs in history’s dustbin. Morgan gave many orders to the militia, including some that dealt with the number of rounds he wanted fired, but he never limited any of his soldiers to two firings.

Morgan’s report on the battle provided a wonderful example of the accretion of material around a core of fact. Because the report and the accretions were all in writing, the process was perfectly visual. Morgan wrote a terse, no-nonsense report to Nathanael Greene on 19 January 1781. Major Edward Giles, Morgan’s aide-de-camp, brought the report to General Greene. A copyist transcribed the report into the army’s orderly book. He made few changes, none of substance, mostly relating to spelling. One obvious change was “Tarleton” from Morgan’s original “Tarlton.” The orderly book copy still exists. The original is in the National Archives, beginning on page 39 of volume 1 of Transcripts of Letters from Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene, 1780–1784. The original report may be accessed here.

The changes to Morgan’s report went far beyond corrections to his spelling. Greene needed to forward the report to Congress. He wanted it to say much more than the bare bones provided by Morgan. He wanted the report to serve as a vehicle to broadcast a message, to the government and to the citizens distant from the fighting. Greene sat down with his pen and added pages of material. He deleted nothing. Morgan’s original language exists below the additions piled on by Greene. But, his additions added a great deal to the scope of the report. For example, Morgan’s version of the battle’s prelude was typical of his just-the-facts approach: “The action happened on the 17th Inst. about sunrise at a place called the Cowpens near Pacolet River. On the 14th having received intelligence that the British Army were in motion, and that their movements clearly indicated their intentions of dislodging me.” Greene, by no means satisfied, egged the pudding: “The Action happened on the 17th Instant about Sunrise at the Cowpens. It perhaps would be well to remark, for the Honour of the American Arms, that Altho the progress of this Corps was marked with Burnings and Devastations & altho’ they have waged the most cruel Warfare, not a man was killed wounded or even insulted after he surrendered. Had not Britons during this Contest recieved so many Lessons of Humanity, I should flatter myself that this might teach them a little, but fear they are incorrigible. To give you a just Idea of our Operations, it will be necessary to inform you, that on the 14th Instant having recieved certain Intelligence that Lord Cornwallis and Lt. Colonel Tarlton were both in Motion, and that their movements clearly indicated their Intentions fo dislodging me.”

The difference between the two versions was stark. Morgan reported only the barest facts of the engagement. Greene turned the report into a weapon of propaganda. While this was his right to do so, the problem arose in later years, after Morgan’s original vanished to history and Greene’s additions endured. This was a very apparent way in which myth and legend attached to facts. And, so with much else from the battle. The legend of Morgan’s order for two volleys stands in the same shoes, as does the legend of Morgan achieving a double envelopment of Tarleton. All are later accretions. None are true. Cowpens was an astounding victory of tactical innovation and skilled leadership. It is a disservice to Morgan’s legacy to believe it needs augmentation by myths and legends. The facts, plain but still amazing, stand perfectly well without additions.

What I would call the “official version” of Greene’s rendition of the Cowpens report is in the compendium of Greene’s papers, beginning on page 152 of volume 7 of The Papers of General Nathanael Greene. In my book, I included my transcription of the report, which I recommend without hesitation. But, as always, don’t take my word for it. The original document is in the Library of Congress on microfilm reel 1 of the Nathanael Greene papers. It can be accessed here.

Looking at the original as it left Greene’s hands, one can only marvel. It is a disaster of interlineations and additions. There are entire pages that are almost impossible to read. We can only imagine what the Congress felt when this document arrived for their review.