I have completed the now-infamous Henry and John Laurens: Tragic Heroes by Richard Fowler. It certainly was...something. I found myself having to put down the book every couple of pages in order to check if a claim was actually correct (it often wasn't) and to make notes about some of the wilder things I read. Here are some of the most "notable" points from the remainder of the book, picking up just after the Battle of Germantown:
The amount of time spent on different battles and events in Laurens's life varies widely. The Battles of Brandywine and Germantown each get a short chapter dedicated to them. Meanwhile the Battle of Monmouth and the subsequent court-martial of and duel with Charles Lee get a 40-page chapter, with Fowler describing the action of the battle in significant detail. (For context, the entire section of the book dedicated to John's life is 158 pages - over 25% of this section is about Monmouth/Lee!) Laurens's diplomatic mission in France gets fewer than 10 pages. The action of the Battle of Yorktown is over in two paragraphs. Laurens's movements on August 25-27, 1782 and his death take up less than a page. There is much more time spent on the first 2 years of Laurens's military service, and as a result, the chapters covering 1779-1782 feel particularly lacking. Did the author just give up towards the end?
Fowler makes the choice to use phonetic dialogue for several non-white and non-American characters. George and Shrewsbury, two Black men enslaved by Henry Laurens, have this exchange:
[George] turned to Shrewsbury. "Is that Massa Jack, the tall one? Can you see him?" "Been so long, I can't tell," answered the servant, peering carefully. "I speck he done changed a whole lot since we last saw him."
Hamilton and Laurens later come across a man who left the British Army. He is described as having a Cockney accent. He refers to most people as "guv'nor" and refers to General Howe as "Papa Howe." Fowler's portrayal of the accent is quite bad:
"Guv'nor indeed I did have a coat. I started out with one. A nice snug 'un an' all. But on the road, I was stopped by two jackasses - I mean sorry gov'nor, I meant two GENTLEMEN stopped me and demanded me coat. I would na budge, and I suffered a right smart rap on the noggin'. An' they pinched me coat. Don't b'lieve me, have a look for yerself."
Related to "Papa Howe," Hamilton and Laurens refer to Baron von Steuben as "Papa Steuben." Terribly inaccurate, but it is kind of sweet.
When decrying the institution of slavery in a conversation with Hamilton and Lafayette, Laurens lists several American leaders who own slaves. He includes "the Adams cousins" in this list. To my knowledge, John and Samuel Adams never owned slaves, so I'm not sure why the author included them in this list. I have not extensively studied the Adamses, however, so please correct me if I am mistaken.
Hamilton and Laurens seem to have copious amounts of free time as aides and almost exclusively spend this time in taverns getting drunk. This is where most of their dialogue happens. Fowler tells us repeatedly that Hamilton and Laurens are each other's closest friends but never does much to actually show this.
Washington repeatedly asks his aides for advice on military tactics and battle plans. Why isn't he asking his generals?
Hamilton makes a big deal of his testimony at Lee's court-martial, with Hamilton being absent from Washington's camp for an extended period because of it. Meanwhile, Laurens's testimony at Lee's court-martial barely gets a mention. This is bitchy John "I have been in several actions; I did not call that an action, as there was no action previous to the retreat" Laurens erasure.
Fowler claims that Aaron Burr was an "outspoken defendant" of Charles Lee at Lee's court-martial. I am not very familiar with Burr's life, but on a cursory search, I could not find any mention of Burr in the transcript of the court-martial, and I could not find any correspondence between Burr and Lee on Founders Online. If anyone does have any information proving Burr's defense of Lee, please let me know. Perhaps Fowler was referring to (or getting his information from) the musical Hamilton, which portrays Burr as Lee's second in the Laurens-Lee duel? Fowler does, however, correctly include Evan Edwards as Lee's second later on in the book. Fowler also claims that Hamilton helped Burr after Burr's horse was shot at Monmouth. Again, on a cursory search, I can't find anything confirming this. Fowler seems to just want to make an unfounded ~ironic~ connection to Hamilton's later duel with Burr. (Hamilton once saved a man that was injured on the battlefield. That man was Aaron Burr. Everyone clapped.)
Fowler really wants the reader to know that Laurens DID NOT shoot to kill Charles Lee during their duel (emphasis mine):
Laurens wanted to say, "It was not my intent to kill you," but Lee spoke first. "No, no, my wound is not serious. Reload the pistols. We must take a second shot." It seemed obvious that Laurens had not aimed to kill. ... "Sir, it was never my intent to end your life. I desire that you receive medical attention with proper haste. And I also want to thank you for your actions in my native land when you helped to defend Charles Town." It was obvious first that Laurens did not want to kill the General, as his shot was wide, but even more importantly that he considered the matter settled."
Do I think Laurens necessarily wanted Lee to die for his actions? No. But to claim that Laurens's "shot was wide" and that he had no intention to harm or kill Charles Lee when Laurens's shot did in fact hit Lee is rather strange and revisionist. If Laurens truly did not want to hit Lee, why didn't he delope? It's clear that Laurens was at least aiming for Lee. He (and Lee) also wanted to go a second round! Why would he ask for a second round if he was not again intending to aim for Lee? Fowler also incorrectly claims that "Lee's shot was slightly wide and caught the arm of his opponent with only a slight wound." Laurens was not injured in his duel with Lee. To claim that he was again seems revisionist, wanting to put the men on more equal ground after the first round and make a second round seem more warranted. You can read the actual account of the Laurens-Lee duel here, as written by the seconds Hamilton and Edwards.
Laurens continues to carry/shoot a musket on horseback throughout the various battle scenes. How is this man doing this.
At one point Laurens drives a carriage to bring himself and Hamilton to a meeting with Comte d'Estaing. I am 99% sure there would have been a non-aide driver in this situation. Or they would have just ridden horses?
At this meeting with Comte d'Estaing, d'Estaing toasts "To John's wife and child, and may they prosper. (Well-informed.)" How would this man have known about them??? Hamilton (historically) doesn't even know about them at this point (mid-1778)! But I guess we're just ignoring that fact? Hamilton certainly knows about Martha Manning and Frances after this toast.
Fowler absolutely DETESTS Comte d'Estaing. Admittedly I'm not well-read on d'Estaing's involvements during the American Revolutionary War, but if you only read Fowler's book, you would come away with the impression that d'Estaing is the sole reason that the Americans did not win at the Battle of Rhode Island and the Siege of Savannah. Fowler also claims that d'Estaing left America in late 1778 to avoid "the approach of winter" and just dicked around in the West Indies for a few months before returning to assist in the Siege of Savannah. I guess we're just ignoring the Battle of St. Lucia and the Battle of Grenada? Fowler altogether portrays d'Estaing as a vain and extravagant Frenchman who looks down on the Americans and is incompetent in battle, which feels extreme.
Fowler is incapable of spelling Nathanael Greene's name correctly. He always writes it as Nathaniel.
After the South Carolina General Assembly rejects Laurens's plan to arm and free enslaved people to help the war effort, we get the following conversation between John Rutledge and John Laurens:
"Jack, I know this was important to you. But if it had passed, there is no clear idea of what would have happened to this body. We would have lost the support of almost every man in the Assembly. And it would not have worked. Your idea is sound, even laudable, but the men here would have simply refused to allow any slaves to serve or to be freed." "But, ...we hold these truths to be self-evident..." John uttered with a degree of sarcasm.
The image of Laurens pathetically quoting the Declaration of Independence to Rutledge in an attempt to convince this man that Slavery Is Bad, Actually, is unfortunately laughable. Where is angry, passionate, doesn't-back-down Laurens?
We get weirdly religious Laurens talking about Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where Lafayette was recovering from a fever:
"Bethlehem! Then there is every hope for his rebirth. Remember, that is where Mary and Joseph went for the birth of the child! First Christmas!"
There's an odd description of a carriage "covered with blankets." I think Fowler is describing the outside of a closed carriage being covered with blankets, which makes no sense:
John cut his departure by a day, and drove late into each night, sleeping usually under a mound of blankets in the carriage, which was also covered with blankets. He even put blankets around the horses.
This is the entire description of Laurens's last battle and death:
Impetuous as usual, Laurens ordered his outnumbered men to advance, and leading them, he was met with a volley of shots, and fell from his horse, already dying. In 2 seconds: Father...Fanny...Ham...then gone.
I'm going to get more into Fowler's handling of Laurens's relationship with Martha Manning and Alexander Hamilton in another post, but I am incredibly confused by Fowler's claim that "It may be that news of his wife's death spurred him to make the wrong decisions that led to his death." We have literally no account of how Laurens reacted to Martha's passing, but I guess he sought out his own death because he was just so distraught? Make it make sense.
Fowler is perplexed that a historical marker refers to Laurens as a "statesman." He surmises that this title was given solely because of Laurens's diplomatic mission to France. I guess we're ignoring all of Laurens's involvement in the South Carolina legislature? I'm not sure why Fowler is confused about this.
Fowler claims that Laurens's tombstone is "almost impossible to read." It's actually quite well-preserved and easy to read.
While this book is not intended to be a straightforward biography of John Laurens and is somewhat fictionalized, Fowler makes many incorrect statements, odd characterizations, and typos that make it difficult to appreciate the book either as an informative text or as a work of entertainment.
