To James Madison from James Monroe, 8 September 1814
From James Monroe
8 Sepr 1814
I send you several interesting letters from Bal: particularly one from Genl winder to which I will prepare an answer & submit it to you early this morning.1
The report from Commodores Rodgers, Porter and Perry ought not to be publishd, till I get one from Genl. Hungerford & also from Stuart.2 It is I rather think an anomaly, for naval commanders, on land, to report at all, to the Secry of the navy. Naval officers ought in principle & in reason, when on land, to be considerd, as volunteering their services, and acting under the military comr. I wish however, in this instance, to dispense with any form, not indispensable in such a case, and above all to do full justice to the patriotism & gallantry of the naval officers. All I wish to secure is, such a view of these occurrencies, to be presented by the militia Genls. as may do justice to the conduct of the militia, and operate as an excitment to that body in future, on whom so much depends.
The reports of the naval gentlemen ought not to be publishd, till those of the militia genls. are prepard, & likewise publishd. I hint these ideas for your consideration.
J.M.
RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers); FC (DLC: Monroe Papers). FC in a clerk’s hand, docketed by Monroe: “private—mine / copy—to the President.” Minor differences between the copies have not been noted.
1. For Brig. Gen. William H. Winder’s problems with his command at Baltimore, see Monroe to JM, 31 Aug. 1814, and n. 2. Winder wrote to Monroe complaining about the situation on 4 and 5 Sept. 1814, and continued in the same vein in his letter of 7 Sept. 1814, which Monroe enclosed here. He noted that since Maryland Maj. Gen. Samuel Smith had been given command of the U.S. forces in Baltimore, and Monroe was in charge of those “on or near the Potomac,” his own command was limited to a “little force at Annapolis.” He nevertheless faced recruiting and supply problems at Baltimore that neither he nor Smith was authorized to address effectively, and the resulting state of confusion was such that “no commanding officer can … be responsible for any result which may happen” (DNA: RG 107, LRRS, W-82, 83, 84:8). Monroe replied on 8 Sept., recounting the circumstances that led to his assuming command at Washington and offering to turn it over to Winder immediately; agreeing that the situation of which Winder complained was highly undesirable but noting that John Armstrong had allowed it to develop to a point at which, after his resignation, “it was thought improper to make any change in the Command at Baltimore lest it might cause some derangement there injurious to the public interest”; observing that if the British did not attack Baltimore, Winder might soon be able to resume command there; and commenting that the larger problem of militia officers claiming to outrank regular army district commanders could only be solved by appointing to the latter positions “officers who would take Rank of Major Generals of the militia” (DNA: RG 107, LSMA; extract printed in Robinson, “Controversy Over the Command at Baltimore,” Maryland Historical Magazine 39 [1944]: 192–93).
2. Monroe referred to the U.S. attack on the British fleet from the vicinity of Belvoir on the Potomac River (see Monroe to JM, 31 Aug. 1814, and n. 3), and to a second unsuccessful attempt to prevent the British from descending the river by a battery under the command of navy Capt. Oliver Hazard Perry a few miles further down (Quimby, U.S. Army in the War of 1812, 2:703–4). Capt. David Porter’s and Perry’s reports to William Jones of these engagements, dated 7 and 9 Sept. 1814 respectively, were published in the National Intelligencer on 12 Sept., and Capt. John Rodgers’s 9 Sept. 1814 report appeared on 14 Sept., along with a note to Porter from Virginia militia Lt. Col. Richard E. Parker, recounting the movements of his troops during the first attack. No reports from Virginia militia Brig. Gen. John P. Hungerford or Maryland militia Brig. Gen. Philip Stuart were published in the National Intelligencer in September 1814.