To James Madison from John P. Boyd, 26 March 1815
From John P. Boyd
New York mar 26. 1815
Sir
I have the honor to address your Excellency upon the subject of the contemplated reduction of the Army. The solicitude I feel for my own fate, arising from a long devotion to the profession of arms, & having no other, induces me to ask so much of your Excellency’s patronage, as is consistent with your estimation of my merits. I would not intrude upon your recollection a lengthend narration of my services; but allow me, Sir, briefly to state my pretensions. The first duty to which I was call’d, after having been commissioned in 1808, was the task of enforcing the restriction Laws upon the almost rebellious people of the East, which notwithstanding the sacrifices it cost, was, I believe, performd to the satisfaction of Government.
At Tippicannoe I had the honor of again encountering higher dangers in the cause of my country. On the frontiers in 1813 I participated in the few honors which were bestowed on the Army, & had perhaps more than a merited share of the obloquy with which it was visited, at the close of a hard perilous but unsuccessful campaign, by disappointed public1—but I trust the trial of Genl. Wilkinson where men have given testimony on oath, & not from feelings, or imagination, will place my conduct on the 11th novr. in a light satisfactory to your Excellency & my country.2
If the application & solicitude of the most respectable Republicans at the Eastward, should be considered as honorable testimonies in my favor, permit me to refer your Excellency to their address forwarded to the seat of Governt a few days since by William Gray Esqr.
One more remark & I cease to importune. When I enterd the service I possesd a large property, which has since been rob’d from me, by a British Vice Admty Court, I am one of the Elder Brigader Gens. in the service, the only one, I believe whose derangement would cause infinite pecuniary distress. Under these impressions I look with extreme anxiety for your patronage.3 With much respect I have the hnr to be Your Excellency’s Most Obedt. Sevt
Jno. P. Boyd
RC (DNA: RG 107, LRRS, B–261:8).
1. Boyd referred to his conduct as commander at Fort George during the summer of 1813, when he ordered an expedition that resulted in the loss of Lt. Col. Charles Boerstler’s troops at the Battle of Beaver Dams on 25 June, and to his command at the Battle of Crysler’s Farm on 11 Nov. 1813, in which his army was defeated by a British force approximately half its size. Among his fellow officers, Maj. Gen. Morgan Lewis and then Col. Winfield Scott left written statements disparaging his talents and character (Heidler and Heidler, Encyclopedia of the War of 1812, 60; Donald E. Graves, Field of Glory: The Battle of Crysler’s Farm, 1813 [Toronto, 1999], 35–36). Maj. William Clay Cumming wrote that the Battle of Crysler’s Farm was conducted by Boyd “without plan, system, or concert. No points of attack were designated; the line was not correctly formed—there was no reserve on hand, we were long unsupported by artillery & worst of all, no provision was made for supplying us with ammunition, till too late” (John C. Fredriksen, ed., The War of 1812 in Person: Fifteen Accounts by United States Army Regulars, Volunteers and Militiamen [Jefferson, N.C., 2010], 143–44, 153). In defense of his actions, Boyd asserted that the force under his command at Crysler’s Farm numbered only 1,300 and faced 2,000 British troops; that Maj. Gen. James Wilkinson had allotted too little of the available U.S. force to the battle and had sent reinforcements too late; and that Boyd’s troops had nevertheless pushed the British back in accord with Wilkinson’s order (Boyd, Documents and Facts, Relative to Military Events, during the Late War [ 36261], 11–12).
2. For Wilkinson’s 1815 court-martial, see 8:528 n. 1. Quartermaster Gen. Robert Swartwout’s testimony supported Boyd’s contention that the U.S. troops engaged at Crysler’s Farm had forced a larger British army to give ground. The balance of opinion, however, was against Boyd. Col. John Walbach testified that in his judgment the British army consisted of 1,200 men at most, while the Americans had at least 1,400. Brig. Gen. Eleazer W. Ripley estimated the British force at no more than 1,800, thought that the U.S. troops were slightly superior in numbers, and opined that the Americans should have won the battle (Wilkinson, Memoirs of My Own Times, 3:42, 48–49, 136, 139, 146, 151).