1. For discussion of the dispute about the relative ranks of Virginia brigadier generals William Woodford, Peter Muhlenberg, Charles Scott, and George Weedon, see GW to Henry Laurens, 1 Jan. 1778, and note 8. On 2 Mar. the camp committee provided a “State of the Case of Brigr Genls Mulenbergh Weedon Woodford and Scott with their Claim of Rank.” After giving a chronology of various appointments and resolutions bearing on the controversy, the committee reported: “Woodford claims to Rank as the eldest Brigr because before his Resignation he was the eldest Colo. to which Resignation he was compelled by the Injustice done him. To this Claim Scott assents but Mulenbergh & Weedon oppose it upon the Principle that Woodford having resigned held no Rank at the time of his Promotion. Scott claims to Rank before Weedon because he did so when they were Colonels. To this Claim Weedon objects. The within Case and the Claims thereon having been referred to the Committee of Congress they request the Opinion of a Board of General Officers more properly on the foregoing state of Facts which is submitted to them as more properly cognizable by Gentlem[en] of the Army than those in a civil Line” (DNA:PCC, item 33; see also Smith, Letters of Delegates description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends , 9:197–99).

2. These unidentified proposals probably concerned the employment of Col. George Baylor to purchase horses in Virginia and North Carolina (see GW to Baylor, 4 Mar.).

3. See William Howe to GW, 21 February.

4. GW was responding to the congressional resolution of 21 Feb. directing him “to order a major general to take the command of the troops in the State of Rhode Island, in the place of Major General Spencer, resigned” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 10:188).

5. On the draft GW originally wrote, “give me Tools I cannot work with, and expect nevertheless that business must be done,” but he struck out those words and substituted the text of the LS. He then added two insertions, which would have changed the text to read, “expect good workmanship from them.”

6. On the draft GW wrote initially “must strike” but crossed those words out and substituted “cannot have escaped.”

7. For Duportail’s recommendation of Jean-Bernard-Bourg Gauthier de Murnan, see his letter to GW of 18 Jan., n.3. GW presented the recommendation to the camp committee on 19 February. The committee recommended Murnan’s appointment in a letter to Henry Laurens of 3 Mar. (see Smith, Letters of Delegates description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends , 9:205–8), but Congress did not act until 13 Jan. 1779, when it appointed him “a major in the corps of engineers, to take rank as such from the 1st day of March last, and to receive pay and subsistence from the 1st day of February last, the latter being the time he was employed by Brigadier du Portail, and the former the time he was directed by the Commander in Chief to act as major” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 13:57–58).