A Journal of the Expedition to Carthagena, with Notes: In Answer to a Late Pamphlet Entitled, An account of the Expedition to Carthagena

In Short

This book serves as a point-by-point refutation of a contemporary pamphlet that scapegoated land forces for the British defeat at Cartagena. It provides a detailed, logistically dense journal of the expedition, tracking the fleet from Jamaica to the disastrous attempt on Fort St. Lazar. By contrasting the official record with the errors and slurs contained in the earlier account, the work functions as a primary-source corrective. It has endured as an essential text for historians interested in the friction between naval and land command during the War of Jenkins' Ear.

The Story

The narrative begins in the early months of 1741, as the British fleet gathers at Jamaica. The strategic objective is clear: neutralize the Spanish squadron under the Marquis d'Antin and seize the fortified port of Cartagena. What follows is not a tale of heroic conquest, but a slow, grinding decline into operational paralysis. The expedition initially meets with success at the harbor entrance, where the fleet overcomes the defenses of Boca-Chica. However, the momentum stalls almost immediately. The author meticulously details how the army, under the command of General Wentworth, becomes mired in the suffocating tropical climate and plagued by an increasing rate of death and sickness among the troops.

The central conflict of the story is the deepening rift between the sea and land commanders. As the army struggles to establish batteries and move heavy artillery through dense, swampy terrain, the naval leadership—epitomized by Admiral Vernon—grows impatient and critical. The account depicts a series of increasingly desperate councils of war where, rather than unified strategy, the reader finds heated exchanges, conflicting mandates, and a profound lack of cooperation. The climax of this failure is the ill-fated assault on Fort St. Lazar. The author describes a tactical disaster where soldiers were led into a lethal ascent, hampered by poor intelligence, steep terrain, and a catastrophic "mistake" by a guide that left the attacking columns exposed to slaughter.

Following the defeat at St. Lazar, the expedition descends into recrimination. The author tracks the orderly but demoralizing retreat, as the troops are re-embarked under the oppressive sun while being harried by Spanish cannon fire. The final chapters of the book pivot from reporting to interrogation. The author dissects the "Billingsgate" language used in a rival publication to mock the American regiments, defending them as men of real service and character rather than the "banditti" they were labeled. The story concludes not with a resolution of the conflict, but with an open demand for a full, honest scrutiny of the command’s conduct. It leaves the reader with the image of a broken army and a humiliated fleet, each side waiting for the other to admit that the expedition’s failure was less a product of cowardice and more a result of impossible conditions and deeply flawed, divided leadership.

How It Unfolds

The voyage begins The fleet departs Jamaica in late January, assembling its three divisions off the coast of Hispaniola. The narrative establishes the initial intelligence gathered by the Wolf sloop, setting the stage for the arrival at the Isle of Vache.

The attack on Boca-Chica The fleet forces the entrance to the harbor, with the Norfolk and Russel battering the forts under heavy fire. The author documents the logistical strain of landing the grenadiers and the beginning of the trench-work against the castle.

The capture of the boom After a period of siege and engineering, the land forces seize the gate of the castle and cut the defensive boom. The author highlights the specific, often overlooked efforts of the engineers and the lack of support provided by the navy in securing captured vessels.

The march on St. Lazar The narrative shifts to the assault on the city itself, describing the landing of 1,400 men and their march through difficult terrain. The author provides a harrowing account of the failed climb up the hill, noting the fatal errors in navigation and command.

The retreat and blame As sickness decimates the ranks, the council of war votes to abandon the enterprise. The book concludes by systematically debunking the lies spread by the rival pamphlet, defending the honor of the soldiers who served under brutal conditions.

The People

The book is defined by the toxic professional relationship between General Wentworth and Admiral Vernon. Wentworth is presented as a commander attempting to manage a rapidly dying force under immense pressure, while Vernon is characterized as a volatile, arrogant figure who prioritizes his own reputation over the safety of the mission. Wentworth’s frustration is evident in his insistence that the expedition was impossible without better naval cooperation.

Captain Knowles represents the controversial middle management of the fleet. He is often mentioned in the context of taking personal credit for tasks completed by the army, such as the capture of Castillo Grande. His presence serves to illustrate the author’s argument that naval officers were often elevated in the historical narrative at the expense of the land forces.

Brigadier Blakeney is cast as a steady, professional hand leading the American regiments. The author goes to great lengths to defend him and his men against charges of incompetence and low character, portraying them as a misunderstood and unfairly maligned group that faced the brunt of the work while being denied the equipment necessary for success.

In Its Own Voice

"Several Facts will be here found to be placed in a very different Light from the same Facts, as they are described in the Pamphlet, and others to be rejected, as absolutely false and groundless."

The author sets the tone for the entire book in the introduction, declaring their intent to correct the historical record.

"The Admiral, without further Deliberation, going to put the Question, whether the Troops should be reimbark'd or not, Mr. Wentworth declared, that he could not give his Vote, till he should be informed what Assistance they were to expect from the Fleet; who, being interrupted by the Admiral with great Heat and Passion, and not with the most polite Language, made a proper Reply."

This passage captures the volatile, dysfunctional atmosphere of the final council of war held on board the admiral's ship.

What It's Really About

At its core, this book is an argument about the nature of military responsibility and the dangers of political myth-making. The author is obsessed with the idea that an "exact and faithful" journal can serve as a shield against the "mask" worn by those who publish falsehoods for public consumption. It explores the tension between institutional survival—where commanders shift blame to save their careers—and the objective reality of the battlefield. The text raises uncomfortable questions about how history is written, suggesting that the version of events that reaches the public is rarely the one that happened on the ground, and that the "truth" is often buried under layers of official spin and personal vendettas.

Why Read It Today

Readers who enjoy military history will find this an engrossing, if dense, look into 18th-century warfare, specifically the friction between land and sea forces. It feels remarkably modern in its "he-said/she-said" quality; the author writes with a simmering, righteous anger that remains palpable centuries later. You are not reading a polished, third-person history, but a raw, argumentative document that demands you pay attention to the details—the dates of the bombardments, the exact number of sailors assigned to a battery, and the specific distances of mortar fire.

However, the book requires patience. It is heavily reliant on the technical jargon of the period, and the prose is shaped by the formal, long-winded style of mid-1700s political pamphlets. The author is deeply invested in the petty grievances of the time, and the frequent references to "Notes" in a pamphlet you are not reading can occasionally feel like being dropped into an argument where you only hear one side. Yet, for those willing to navigate its complexity, the book offers a rare, unflinching look at the human cost of a failed expedition and the inevitable struggle to reclaim the truth from the fog of war. It stays with you as a testament to the importance of the primary source in a world of conflicting narratives.