Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO GEORGE WILLIAM FAIRFAX, ENGLAND. - The Writings of George Washington, vol. II (1758-1775)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. II (1758-1775)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Subject Area: War and Peace
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

TO GEORGE WILLIAM FAIRFAX, ENGLAND. - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. II (1758-1775) [1889]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889). Vol. II (1758-1775).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


TO GEORGE WILLIAM FAIRFAX, ENGLAND.

Philadelphia, 31 May, 1775.2

Dear Sir,

Before this letter will come to hand, you must undoubtedly have received an account of the engagement in the Massachusetts Bay, between the ministerial troops (for we do not, nor can we yet prevail upon ourselves to call them the King’s troops), and the provincials of that government. But as you may not have heard how that affair began, I enclose you the several affidavits, which were taken after the action.

General Gage acknowledges, that the detachment under Lieutenant-Colonel Smith was sent out to destroy private property; or, in other words, to destroy a magazine, which self-preservation obliged the inhabitants to establish. And he also confesses, in effect at least, that his men made a very precipitate retreat from Concord, notwithstanding the reinforcement under Lord Percy; the last of which may serve to convince Lord Sandwich, and others of the same sentiment, that the Americans will fight for their liberties and property, however pusillanimous in his Lordship’s eye they may appear in other respects.

From the best accounts I have been able to collect of that affair, indeed from every one, I believe the fact, stripped of all coloring, to be plainly this, that, if the retreat had not been as precipitate as it was, and God knows it could not well have been more so, the ministerial troops must have surrendered, or been totally cut off. For they had not arrived in Charlestown (under cover of their ships) half an hour, before a powerful body of men from Marblehead and Salem was at their heels, and must, if they had happened to be up one hour sooner, inevitably have intercepted their retreat to Charlestown. Unhappy it is, though, to reflect, that a brother’s sword has been sheathed in a brother’s breast, and that the once happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?

I am with sincere regard, and affectionate compliments to Mrs. Fairfax, dear Sir, your &c.1

[2 ]Washington was now attending the second Continental Congress, which assembled in Philadelphia on the 10th of May.

[1]elected commander-in-chief of the continental army.

While the appointment of Washington to the command of the Continental army appears a natural one when regarded from a military standpoint—as he was about the only man of American birth in the colonies who could lay claim to any extensive military experience,—the political reasons that controlled the choice were by no means unimportant. The contest between the colonies and the mother country had naturally centred in the colony of the Massachusetts Bay, and Boston had in consequence assumed the leading part. When hostilities had actually begun and the siege of Boston attempted, the Provincial Congress was met by the serious question of how to maintain, control, and utilize the force that had so suddenly been collected and looked to it for commands. To continue the men in service for any time was more than the Congress could accomplish; and to disband them would defeat their cause, and ruin their character with the other colonies, from which aid was expected. It was thus very natural that the Provincial Congress should turn to the Continental Congress and seek advice and assistance.

There existed reasons, however, why this advice and active aid should not be at once granted. I have already quoted what Mr. Charles Francis Adams believed of “one of the most characteristic as well as important productions that remain to give an insight into his [Washington’s] mind” (page 444 ante). Other evidences are at hand of a little jealousy subsisting on the part of the Southern Colonies of the New England provinces, dating from a very early period of the contest. The people of Boston, it was said, “do affect to dictate and take the lead in Continental measures,” and were apt “from an inward vanity and self-conceit, to assume big and haughty airs.” Hawley to John Adams, 25 July, 1774. Even General Gage intimated that to persuade the other colonies to make the cause of Boston the common cause of America, the delegates from Massachusetts to the General Congress would probably “pay the rest the compliment of taking their advice.” Gage to the Earl of Dartmouth, 20 July, 1774. It was to a Virginia delegate, Peyton Randolph, that the post of honor in the Congress was given, and the efforts of the Boston representatives were exerted to remove distrust, and were in a measure crowned with success. “Heretofore, we have been accounted by many intemperate and rash; but now we are universally applauded as cool and judicious, as well as spirited and brave. This is the character we sustain in Congress. There is, however, a certain degree of jealousy in the minds of some, that we aim at total independency, not only of the mother country, but of the colonies, too, and that, as we are a hardy and brave people, we shall in time overrun them.” Samuel Adams to Joseph Warren, 25 September, 1774.

In the second Congress Adams found that this jealousy was directed against a New England army, commanded by a New England general, and that to gain the aid of the Congress, or induce it to assume the maintenance, regulation and direction of the motley force then collected before Boston, the point of command must be yielded. Writing many years after the event he recalls that some of the leading Sons of Liberty in Philadelphia took pains to warn him and his colleagues to be moderate, and to recognize the lead of Virginia—the colony, doubtless, that had exhibited the most marked jealousy, if not suspicion, of the motives of the New England provinces. Again was Randolph unanimously chosen to the chair, but in a few days was obliged to return to Virginia to open the session of the Assembly. Hancock, of Massachusetts, was elected to the vacancy,—presumably a political choice—and soon the affairs of the continent, rendered doubly momentous by the shedding of blood at Lexington, pressed upon the attention of Congress. Washington, it is recorded by John Adams (Works, i., 173) was attending the sessions of Congress in military uniform—blue and buff. Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, January, 1859. This action was, as Mr. Charles Francis Adams suggests, an announcement that his mind was made up, and, as it were, an unconscious nomination of himself for a command. The Massachusetts and Virginia delegates were at this time working together, this unity being secured mainly through the intimacy existing between the two Adamses and Richard Henry Lee.

On June 2d a letter from the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was laid before the Continental body, asking advice respecting the institution of a civil government in the colony, and also suggesting that as the army then collecting from different colonies was for the general defence of the rights of America, the regulation and direction of it were proper subjects for Continental action. Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, ii., 621. It is not known whether the question of command was connected with this suggestion, and Mr. C. F. Adams regards the appointment by the Provincial Congress of Artemas Ward to the chief command on the day after this letter was written, as an indication that it was not. I am inclined to believe, however, that this appointment of Ward was not intended to forestall any nomination by the Continental Congress, but was local in its nature, for he was to command only the forces raised by the Congress from which he received his commission. The issuing of the commission was deemed “expedient.” The conception of a continental army was probably then forming, as the New York delegates in the Continental Congress wrote on June 3 to the Provincial Assembly about the “command of the Continental army in our Province,” as “general officers will, in all probability, be shortly appointed by this Congress.” So again on the 7th, the Provincial Congress wrote in reply. “The colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut have formed their respective armies, and nominated to the general command of them; the supposition that in case a continental army should be established by authority of your respectable body, their officers will be permitted to preserve their respective ranks, appears to us highly probable.” It does not follow that the matter had as yet been formally brought before Congress. Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, ii., 898, 1282, 1292. James Warren had already hinted the name of Washington to John Adams for the command. “They [the army] seem to want a more experienced direction. I could for myself wish to see your friends Washington and L [ee] at the head of it; and yet dare not propose it, though I have it in contemplation.” 7 May, 1775. Step by step the idea of Continental control gained force, and matters were in train for the nomination of officers.

The Southern delegates were in favor of Washington, but even some of the members from Virginia were “very cool” about his appointment, while Pendleton was “very clear and full against it.” Furthermore the New England delegates were divided in opinion, an embarrassment that Adams believed “was never publicly known.” It was, however, soon known to Gage, for he wrote to the Earl of Dartmouth on October 15th of “much division in the Congress, jealousy of the Eastern delegates, owing to which Washington was appointed to the chief command of the rebel army.” Weary of waiting and convinced that a concession must be made John Adams determined to bring the matter to a head by moving that Congress should adopt the army before Boston, and appoint Colonel Washington commander of it. “Accordingly, when Congress had assembled, I rose in my place, and in as short a speech as the subject would admit, represented the state of the Colonies, the uncertainty in the minds of the people, their great expectation and anxiety, the distresses of the army, the danger of its dissolution, the difficulty of collecting another, and the probability that the British army would take advantage of our delays, march out of Boston, and spread desolation as far as they could go. I concluded with a motion, in form, that Congress would adopt the army at Cambridge, and appoint a general; that though this was not the proper time to nominate a general, yet, as I had reason to believe this was a point of the greatest difficulty, I had no hesitation to declare that I had but one gentleman in my mind for that important command, and that was a gentleman from Virginia who was among us and very well known to all of us, a gentleman whose skill and experience as an officer, whose independent fortune, great talents, and excellent universal character, would command the approbation of all America, and unite the cordial exertions of all the colonies better than any other person in the union. Mr. Washington, who happened to sit near the door, as soon as he heard me allude to him, from his usual modesty, darted into the library room. . . . Mr. Samuel Adams seconded the motion. . . . The subject came under debate, and several gentlemen declared themselves against the appointment of Mr. Washington, not on account of any personal objection against him, but because the army were all from New England, had a general of their own, appeared to be satisfied with him, and had proved themselves able to imprison the British army in Boston, which was all they expected or desired at that time. Mr. Pendleton, of Virginia, Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, were very explicit in declaring their opinion; Mr. Cushing and several others more faintly expressed their opposition, and their fears of discontents in the army and in New England. Mr. Paine expressed a great opinion of General Ward and a strong friendship for him, having been his classmate at college, or at least his contemporary; but gave no opinion upon the question. The subject was postponed to a future day. In the meantime, pains were taken out of doors to obtain a unanimity, and the voices were generally so clearly in favor of Washington, that the dissentient members were persuaded to withdraw their opposition, and Mr. Washington was nominated, I believe by Mr. Thomas Johnson of Maryland, unanimously elected, and the army adopted.” Adams, Works, ii., 415-418.

The choice was made on Thursday, June 15th, and on the next day Washington was notified of his election and accepted in the modest speech printed above. It was soon apparent that the opinion of Washington entertained by “many of the staunchest” members of Congress had been adopted in Massachusetts where the inactivity and almost incompetency of General Ward to meet the emergency were leading the Provincial Congress to look elsewhere for a commander. “I should heartily rejoice to see this way the beloved Colonel Washington and do not doubt the New England generals would acquiesce in showing to our sister colony, Virginia, the respect which she has before experienced from the Continent, in making him Generalissimo. This is a matter in which Dr. Warren agrees with me, and we had intended to write you jointly on the affair.” James Warren to John Adams, 4 June, 1775. (The letter may have reached Philadelphia before the choice had been made.) The battle of Bunker’s Hill only served to increase the feeling against the provincial general. “Fine fellows you know our countrymen are; and want nothing but a general of spirit and abilities to make them a fine army. All our efforts, which are many, cannot supply that defect,—yours must do it. Could you believe, he [Ward] never left his house on Saturday; but I shall add no more. I wish that was the worst of it” Warren to Samuel Adams, 21 June, 1775. And to John Adams he wrote: “Had our brave men, posted on ground injudiciously at first taken, had a Lee or a Washington instead of a general destitute of all military ability and spirit to command them, it is my opinion the day would have terminated with as much glory to America as the 19th of April. This is our great misfortune, and it is remediless from any other quarter than yours. We dare not supercede him here—it will come well from you, and really merits your attention.” 20 June, 1775. On the same day the Massachusetts Provincial Congress wrote to the Continental Congress: “We beg leave humbly to suggest that if a commander in chief of the army of the United Colonies should be appointed, it must be plain to your Honors, that no part of this Continent can so much require his immediate presence and exertions as this colony.” While we find the suggestion of Washington for the command among both the Southern members and in Massachusetts, it would not be a correct statement to assert that he was chosen in obedience to a general demand. The act was rather due to the efforts of a few of the more far sighted leaders of the Revolution, in which colonial pride and jealousy played not an unimportant part.

The political effect of the appointment was clearly recognized by some. “I can now inform you that the Congress have made choice of the modest and virtuous, the amiable, generous, and brave George Washington, Esquire, to be general of the American army, and that he is to repair, as soon as possible, to the camp before Boston. This appointment will have a great effect in cementing and securing the union of these colonies.” John Adams, 17 June, 1775. “George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, is, at the particular request of the people in New England, and with the unanimous consent of the Congress, appointed commander in chief of the Continental forces, with a handsome salary per annum. The commission he received with pleasure, but positively refused any pay, requiring only a reimbursement of his actual expenses.” Letter dated Philadelphia, 20 June, 1775, in Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, ii., 1033. There are some personal records of the appointment that do not lack interest. “There is something charming to me in the conduct of Washington. A gentleman of one of the first fortunes upon the continent, leaving his delicious retirement, his family and friends, sacrificing his ease, and hazarding all in the cause of his country! His views are noble and disinterested. He declared, when he accepted the mighty trust, that he would lay before us an exact account of his expenses, and not accept a shilling for pay.” John Adams to Elbridge Gerry, 18 June, 1775. Samuel Adams speaks of “our patriotic General Washington” (to Gerry, 22 June), and Hancock, recovering from his chagrin at being passed over, could say “He is a fine man.” (To Gerry, 18 June.) In the camp at Cambridge the appointment was gracefully accepted and his conduct after his arrival greatly increased the esteem in which he was held and prevented much of that discontent which, it was feared, would follow the supercession of the provincial generals. Greene, Life of Greene, i., 101.

As a curiosity, I give the following memorandum:—

“When Congress determined to be independent and appointed general officers to command our armies to prosecute the war for independence and defending our liberty, they nominated Gen’l Washington to the chief command; but his great modesty recommended Genl Lewis in preference to himself. But one of his colleagues from Virginia observed that Genl Lewis’s popularity had suffered much from the declamation of some of his troops on the late expedition against the Indians, and it would be impolitick at that juncture to make the appointment.” Narrative of Captain John Stuart, Magazine of American History, 1877, 740.