in favor of the British and tories.  There was not a bayonet in the American army, whereas Ferguson trusted much to this weapon.  All his volunteers and regulars were expert in its use, and with his usual ingenuity he had trained several of his loyalist companies in a similar manner, improvising bayonets out of their hunting-knives.  The loyalists whom he had had with him for some time were well drilled.  The North Carolina regiment was weaker on this point, as it was composed of recruits who had joined him but recently. [Footnote:  There were undoubtedly very many horse-thieves, murderers, and rogues of every kind with Ferguson, but equally undoubtedly the bulk of his troops were loyalists from principle, and men of good standing, especially those from the seaboard.  Many of the worst tory bandits did not rally to him, preferring to plunder on their own account.  The American army itself was by no means free from scoundrels.  Most American writers belittle the character of Ferguson’s force, and sneer at the courage of the tories, although entirely unable to adduce any proof of their statements, the evidence being the other way.  Apparently they are unconscious of the fact that they thus wofully diminish the credit to be given to the victors.  It may be questioned if there ever was a braver or finer body of riflemen than the nine hundred who surrounded and killed or captured a superior body of well posted, well led, and courageous men, in part also well drilled, on King’s Mountain.  The whole world now recognizes how completely the patriots were in the right; but it is especially incumbent on American historians to fairly portray the acts and character of the tories, doing justice to them as well as to the whigs, and condemning them only when they deserve it.  In studying the Revolutionary war in the Southern States, I have been struck by the way in which the American historians alter the facts by relying purely on partisan accounts, suppressing the innumerable whig excesses and outrages, or else palliating them.  They thus really destroy the force of the many grave accusations which may be truthfully brought against the British and tories.  I regret to say that Bancroft is among the offenders.  Hildreth is an honorable exception.  Most of the British historians of the same events are even more rancorous and less trustworthy than the American writers; and while fully admitting the many indefensible outrages committed by the whigs, a long-continued and impartial examination of accessible records has given me the belief that in the districts where the civil war was most ferocious, much the largest number of the criminal class joined the tories, and the misdeeds of the latter were more numerous than those of the whigs.  But the frequency with which both whigs and tories hung men for changing sides, shows that quite a number of the people shifted from one party to the other; and so there must have been many men of exactly the same stamp in both armies.  Much of the nominal changing of sides, however, was due to the needless and excessive severity of Cornwallis and his lieutenants.]