e. The
American militia, flushed with the hope of speedily expelling the
British from their southern possessions, turned out with an alacrity
which far surpassed their exertions in the previous campaign." (Dr.
Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xvii., p. 302.)]

[Footnote 24: "The French and the Americans encamped separately. Count
D'Estaing thought it most prudent to keep them apart. He knew by
experience how apt they were to disagree; and he hoped that, by acting
asunder from each other, a reciprocal emulation would be excited. It was
agreed, accordingly, that each of them should carry on their respective
approaches without interference from the other side. This method was
particularly agreeable to the French, who, looking upon themselves as
incomparably superior to the Americans, did not choose to divide any
honour with these, to which they imagined that they alone were
entitled." (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. III., Chap, xlv.,
pp. 312, 313.)]

[Footnote 25: Count D'Estaing was afterwards so ashamed of this inhuman
refusal, that after the repulse of his assault upon the garrison he
apologized for it, and offered the permission requested, but which was
no longer needed, and therefore refused.

General Stedman, referring to this circumstance, says: "On the morning
of the 4th of October, the batteries of the besiegers having opened with
a discharge from fifty-three pieces of heavy cannon and fourteen
mortars, a request was made by General Prevost that the women and
children might be permitted to leave the town and embark on board
vessels in the river, which should be placed under the protection of
Count D'Estaing, and wait the issue of the siege. But this proposal,
dictated by humanity, was rejected with insult. Fortunately, however,
for the inhabitants as well as the garrison, although an incessant
cannonade from so many pieces of artillery was continued from the 4th to
the 9th of October, less injury was done to the houses in the town than
might have been expected; few lives were lost, and the defences were in
no respect materially damaged." (Stedman's History of the American War,
Vol. II., Chap, xxx., p. 127.)]

[Footnote 26: Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap,
iii., p. 250.

This disastrous attack upon Savannah was followed by mutual
recriminations between the French and American officers and soldiers.

"No good agreement, it has been said, subsisted between