To James Madison from Alexander J. Dallas, 21 May 1815
From Alexander J. Dallas
21 May 1815.
Dear Sir,
I have just received your letter, expressing a wish that Colonel Croghan’s resignation should be accepted;1 but the Army Register has been actually printed, including his name, for the reason which I assigned in my last letter. I think, however, you will not regret the occurrence when you observe that Major Taylor must have been promoted to a higher rank in order to take Colonel Croghan’s place, who is a lieutenant-colonel in the line; and this course would not have corresponded with the general principle of the selections, which admitted of an officer’s being reduced with his own consent, but has not been applied to give any officer higher rank in the line. But you will find that both Major Taylor and Major Bradford, who were united in Colonel Owing’s protest, are retained as captains, with brevets as majors. Bradford has expressed perfect satisfaction with the arrangement, and he told me that the protest had been written under a misapprehension of the course taken by the board of general officers; but that he was confident, upon better information, that the selections would be approved and supported in Kentucky. Colonel Jessup and Major Bradford told me that they doubted whether Major2 Taylor would consent to remain in the Army, on any terms; that he was a man of fortune; and that he had long ago expressed a determination to resign. But viewing the subject in its general aspect, you will find, I believe, that the western country has a full portion of the peace establishment. Generals Jackson, Gaines, Smith, &c. Colo. Miller, Col. Nicholas, Col. Croghan, Col. Jessup &c &c. are at the head of a long western list.
I inclose letters from St. Louis on Indian affairs;3 and a report from Col. Jessup of his proceedings in Connecticut.4
There are no details of the news sent by Dr. Bullus to Commodore Rodgers.I am, Dr Sir, most respectfully & faithfully Yrs.
A. J. Dallas
Be so good as to state whether you have received my report in the case of Mr. Eustaphieve, the Russian Consul.
I open my letter to add that letters from New-Orleans inform us, that provision was made at that place for paying the whole of the Regulars and militia, the Banks advancing money for drafts on the paymaster of the Army, which will be punctually paid here. The northern army is amply provided for; and I think that our funds cannot fail in any quarter.
Partial RC (CSmH); printed copy (Dallas, Life and Writings of Alexander James Dallas, 423–24). For enclosure, see n. 4.
2. Partial RC begins here.
3. JM’s 24 May 1815 reply to this letter suggests that these letters were from Col. William Russell, district commander at St. Louis, and Missouri Territory governor David Holmes. In an 8 Apr. 1815 letter addressed to James Monroe (DNA: RG 107, LRRS, R-105:8; 2 pp.), Russell reported that Indian hostilities continued in the territory, and that he had sent fortified boats up the primary rivers to convey the news of peace to the Indians and British and to prevent the former from attacking Missouri settlements via those channels. On 24 Apr. 1815 Russell addressed a letter to William Harris Crawford, the incoming secretary of war (ibid., R-106:8; 3 pp.), stating that one of the boats mentioned in his earlier letter had fought off an attack by Indians in “considerable force”; and that the British at that location said they “were not able to controwl the saviges,” still held U.S. prisoners, and claimed that they had not previously received news of peace. Holmes’s letter, dated 11 Apr. 1815 (ibid., H–116:8; 1 p.), recommended Lt. Col. Thomas Hinds of the Missouri militia for the rank of brigadier general in the place of Ferdinand Claiborne, who had died. The letter bears Dallas’s 26 May 1815 signed note: “The Commission to issue, by direction of the President.”
4. Dallas enclosed Col. Thomas S. Jesup to James Monroe, 2 May 1815 (8 pp.; ibid., J-252:8), opining that the “real objects” of the Hartford Convention had “never been developed—they were no doubt detered from their intended course by want of means to organize an armed force, and by the powerful and determined opposition which they were likely to encounter among their own countrymen.” Jesup dismissed the “threatening attitude” of New England Federalists as “merely intended to intimidate the Government—power and not revolution was their object.” After the convention dispersed, Jesup wrote, Hartford authorities had tried to ban U.S. forces from the city but thought better of it when Jesup informed them he would not comply with such an act. The Connecticut legislature, as well, attempted to interfere with the U.S. Army by passing an act prohibiting the enlistment of minors as authorized by Congress, but an initial provision for the imprisonment of officers who violated it was removed. For the Hartford Convention and Jesup’s assignment there, see 8:387 n. 1.