From George Washington to Samuel Huntington, 3 April 1780
To Samuel Huntington
Head Quarters Morris Town 3d April 1780
Sir,
I have frequently had the honor to address Congress on the subject of those Corps; which are unconnected with the lines of particular States.1 Satisfied of the numerous perplexities, under which they labour; it is with pain and reluctance I trouble them with repeated representations of the same nature; but in the present case it is so indispensible something should be done, that I cannot forbear the repetition, however disagreeable.
The situation of the Officers of these Corps is absolutely insupportable. Unless something effectual can be done to make it more comfortable, it is impossible they can remain in the service. The resolution of Congress for making them part of the State Quotas has rather been a disadvantage, than an advantage.2 It has had a very partial operation, and the benefit resulting to a few has only served to establish a contrast that embitters the sufferings of the rest. Nothing can be conceived more chagrining, than for an Officer to see himself destitute of every necessary, while another, not only in the service of the same Government, engaged in defending the same cause, but even in the same regiment and sometimes standing by his side, in the same Company, is decently, if not amply, provided. Enthusiasm alone can support him in a moments perseverance; but even this principle must give way to a necessity so continued and so hopeless. Dayly applications are made to me to know whether there is a prospect of relief, always accompanied with a declaration, that it is impossible any longer to endure the extremities to which they are driven.
I intreat the attention of Congress to this matter. If there is no way to make provision for the Officers, it would be better to dissolve the Corps—incorporate the Men with the regiments belonging to the State lines; and let the Officers retire with pay and subsistence and such other emoluments as may be enjoyed by others after the War. In their present state, they are actually suffering every inconvenience, in fruitless expectation of a remedy, that will perhaps never come—Those who have less resource otherwise—less zeal, or less fortitude are resigning from day to day3—a relaxation of care in the interior of the regiments must be a necessary consequence and many valuable men will be gradually lost to the service who might be saved. It is much better therefore that the expedient suggested should be adopted than that things should remain as now circumstanced—But if it were possible to obviate the necessity for it, it were much to be wished; as it would preserve many of our best Officers to the Army, who would with infinite reluctance quit the field while the defence of their Country called for their services.4
Before I conclude I think it my duty to touch upon the general situation of the Army at this juncture. It is absolutely necessary Congress should be apprised of it—for it is difficult to forsee what may be the result—and as very serious consequences are to be apprehended I should not be justified in preserving silence—There never has been a stage of the War in which the dissatisfaction has been so general or alarming—It has lately in particular instances worn features of a very dangerous complexion.5 A variety of causes has contributed to this—The diversity in the terms of enlistments—the inequality of the rewards given for entering into the service; but still more the disparity in the provision made by the several States for their respective Troops. The system of State supplies, however, in the commencement, dictated by necessity, has proved in its operation pernicious beyond description. An Army must be raised, paid, subsisted and regulated upon an equal and uniform principle, or the confusions and discontents are endless. Little less than the dissolution of the Army would have been long since the consequence of a different plan, had it not been for a spirit of patriotic virtue both in officers and men of which there are few examples; seconded by the unremitting pains that have been taken to compose and reconcile them to their situation. But these will not be able to hold out much longer against the influence of causes constantly operating and every day with some new aggravation.6
Some States from their internal ability and local advantages furnish their Troops pretty amply not only with Cloathing; but with many little comforts and conveniences—others supply them with some necessaries, but on a more contracted scale—while others have it in their power to do little or nothing at all. The Officers & Men in the routine of duty mix dayly and compare circumstances—Those who fare worse than others of course are dissatisfied and have their resentment excited, not only against their own States, but against the confederacy. They become disgusted with a service that makes such injurious distinctions. No arguments can persuade an Officer it is justice he should be obliged to pay £[ ] a yard for Cloth and other things in proportion while another is furnished at a [ ] part of the price. The Officers resign, and we have now scarcely a sufficient number left to take care even of the fragments of Corps which remain.7 The men have not this resource—they murmur—brood over their discontents, and have lately shown a disposition to enter into seditious combinations.8
A new scene is now opening which I fear will be productive of more troublesome effects than any thing that has hitherto taken place—Some of the States have adopted the measure of making good the depreciation of the money to their Troops as well for the past as the future9—If this does not become general, it is so striking a point, that the consequences must be unspeakably mischievous—I enter not into the propriety of this measure in the view of finance; but confine myself to its operation upon the Army. Neither do I mean to insinuate that the liberality of particular States has been carried to a blameable length. The evil I mean to point out is the inequality of the different provisions—and this is inherent in the present system. It were devoutly to be wished a plan could be adopted by which every thing relating to the Army could be conducted on a general principle, under the direction of Congress. This alone can give harmony and consistence to our Military establishment—and I am persuaded will be infinitely conducive to Public œconomy.
I hope I shall not be thought to have exceeded my duty in the unreserved manner in which I have exhibited our situation. Congress I flatter myself will have the goodness to believe that I have no other motives—than a zeal for the Public service10—a desire to give them every necessary information, and an apprehension for the consequences of the evils we now experience. I have the honor to be With the highest respect Yr Excellencys Most Obet & hum. servant
Go: Washington
LS, in Richard Kidder Meade’s writing, DNA:PCC, item 152; Df, DLC:GW; copy, DNA:PCC, item 11; copy, in Robert Hanson Harrison’s writing, DNA:PCC, item 39; copy, DNA:PCC, item 169; Varick transcript, DLC:GW.
Congress read GW’s letter on 6 April and resolved to appoint a three-member committee “to proceed to headquarters, to confer with the Commander in Chief on the subject of his letter of the 3d instant, together with the report of the Board of War, and the letter from Baron Steuben, on the subject of a reduction of the regiments, and the report of the commissioners on the arrangement of the staff departments of the army, and that a committee of three be appointed to report instructions for such committee” (, 16:332–33; see also Huntington to GW, 25 Jan., and notes 1 and 2 to that document; Steuben to the Board of War, 29 March, found at Steuben to GW, 6 April, n.1; and Nathanael Greene to GW, 28 March, and n.5 to that document). Congress then elected New York delegate Robert R. Livingston, Connecticut delegate Oliver Ellsworth, and South Carolina delegate John Mathews as “a committee to report instructions” (, 16:333).
Eager to assist GW, whom he characterized as “my amiable Chief,” New York delegate Philip Schuyler commented on the proposed committee when he wrote GW’s aide-de-camp Alexander Hamilton from Philadelphia on 8 April: “The pride, the folly, and perhaps too the Wickedness of some on a Certain floor Combine to frustrate every Intention to promote the public Weal … They have now proposed that a Committee should repair to head Quarters, Invested Conjointly with the General, with a kind of dictatorial power in order to afford Satisfaction to the Army and to arrange the great departments thereof. Livingston, Elsworth and Mathews are appointed to prepare Instructions. Some good may result if Gentlemen who love the General are not Jealous of the army, and of a Generous turn are sent, but should General Sherman be at the head of the Triumvires the General will be tormented with the thousand littlenesses which Roger has thrown together and which he Entitles a System. I shall not be sent on this business ‘because It would not be proper to send a person who as he has been In the Army will probably have a Bias in Its favor.’ This reasoning is Conclusive.” Schuyler added a postscript: “Yesterday a matter was agitated which aforded me an Opportunity of Insisting on the Justice & propriety of making good to the army the deficiency of pay Occasioned by the depreciation of the Continental Currency. I was heard so favorably on the Subject that I shall this day venture a Motion for a Resolution to that Effect, and Believe Success will Crown my Endeavour. If so, It will, I hope, relieve the General from much Inquietude on this Account” (, 15:22–24). For Schuyler’s motion to secure deficiency pay for the army, see , 16:344–45.
Massachusetts delegate James Lovell, writing to Samuel Adams on 11 April, described the debate in Congress over instructions for the committee: “I am now standing at a Window to scratch this while Esqr. Burke is speaking. … A Reduction will be one of the Points on which they will have discretionary Power, late in the Season as it is . … A Preparitory Dulcedo was yesterday passed relating to the Staff of the Army, but it was not possible to go into a Detail of Regulations respecting them so as not to throw Money away . … But you may depend upon it that every Thing proper will be done for the deserving Classes of the Staff upon the Principles which have governed us as to the Line vizt” (, 15:31–32). Lovell referred to Schuyler’s motion on deficiency pay (see preceding paragraph).
Debate in Congress over instructions to guide what became known as the “Committee at Headquarters” transpired over most of the week following 6 April and resulted in a composite document that reads: “You are to confer with the commander in chief on the subjects contained in the resolution for your appointment, and such others as are committed to your charge by the following instructions.
“1. You are to consult him about the propriety of reducing the number of regiments: you may wish his advice [to] reduce, incorporate or unite to state lines the several additional corps.
“2. You together with the commander in chief are to limit the number of horses to be kept by the officers of the line and regimental staff, and to make such regulations with respect to the soldiers employed as servants as will, as far as is consistent with the convenience of the officers they serve, enable the United States to avail themselves of their services as soldiers.
“3. Together with the commander in chief you are to suggest such measures, and to form such plans for the general advantage of the officers and soldiers with respect to cloathing and necessary supplies as will tend to remove all just ground of complaint, which Congress sincerely lament that there should be any room for, and to adapt them to the abilities & circumstances of these United States, and immediately to lay them before Congress.
“4. You are to consult with the commander in chief and the commissary and quarter master general about the defects of the present system, the abuses to which it is liable, and the best methods of reforming the same. …
“5. You are to inquire minutely into the management of the hospitals and medical departments, & after consulting the commander in chief & director general, you are empowered to discharge unnecesary officers, to retrench expences, to abolish purveyorships, unless when they shall appear absolutely necessary. …
“6. You are to inquire into the management of the hide department and to reform or abolish the same, substituting contracts in the lieu thereof, if upon advising with the commander in chief it shall appear most salutary.
“7. You are to pay particular attention to the department of ordnance and military stores, and after consulting with the commander in chief and the heads of the departments, to lay down such rules for the management thereof as to you shall seem necessary.
“8. After the establishment of general regulations you shall visit the different posts as far as you shall judge necessary, in order to see the same carried into execution. …
“You are to abolish unnecessary posts, to erect others, to discharge useless officers, to stop rations, improperly issued, and are hereby further authorized to exercise every power which may be requisite to effect a reformation of abuses and the general arrangement of those departments, which are in any wise connected with the matters committed to your charge.
“You are from time to time to inform Congress of the measures you have taken in consequence of these powers and instructions, & to transmit them lists of the names and occupations of the persons you shall discharge and of those new officers, if any, which you shall find necessary to appoint” (, 15:15–17; see also , 16:350–52, 354–57; Steuben to GW, 6 April; and Huntington to GW, 18 April).
Deliberating on 13 April how to appoint members to the Committee at Headquarters, Congress rejected North Carolina delegate Thomas Burke’s motion to require “seven votes at the least” for confirmation (, 16:359–60). Burke then proposed that appointees must receive “the votes of a majority of the states present in Congress.” That motion carried, despite some opposition (, 16:360–61; see also Burke to Cornelius Harnett, 15 April, in , 15:37–38). Congress then elected Schuyler, Mathews, and New Hampshire delegate Nathaniel Peabody as “the committee to proceed to headquarters” (, 16:361–62; see also Huntington to Thomas Mifflin and Timothy Pickering, 17 April, in , 15:45–46).
Writing to Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates on 18 April, Mathews described the committee’s purpose as regulating “the Staff departments.” He then elaborated: “What success we shall meet with, or whether we shall do any good, time only can shew. That there are abuses, & very gross ones, no body doubts & its high time some enquiry was made into them” (, 15:51–52; see also Schuyler to Livingston, 23 April, and Mathews to Livingston, 24 April, in , 15:65–67). Writing on the same date from Philadelphia to Rhode Island governor William Greene, Rhode Island delegate William Ellery sounded a more optimistic note: “A Committee hath lately been appointed to repair to head quarters to arrange departments . … It is expected that great advantage will result to the public from this measure” (, 15:48–50). Even before leaving for GW’s headquarters, the committee eliminated “the Office of magazine keeper at the post of Philadelphia” and discharged a few dozen laborers (see , 15:53–54).
The Committee at Headquarters arrived at Morristown on 28 April. Schuyler, Mathews, and Peabody explained their delay and subsequent activities in a letter to Huntington dated 10 May: “The necessary enquiries at the posts in the communication from Philadelphia hither, & the heavy rains which fell, retarded our Journey so much, that we did not reach this place untill the 28th Ulto.
“Judging it advisable to inform ourselves, as fully as possible on the general subject of our Mission, before we attempted an alteration in any of the departments, We held conferences with the Commander in Chief for several days succeeding our arrival. The result of which, was, that the distressed State of the army, in point of provisions, should claim immediate attention, to the arrangement of the two great staff Departments, so as, to adapt them to securing & bringing on the supplies called for from the several States, by the act of the 25th of February last.” The committee then delineated how state laws prohibiting Continental officers from purchasing supplies and a lack of money had caused “a repetition of want” with “a very pernicious influence on the soldiery. Their patience is exhausted, by being exposed to such frequent sufferings, that they already begin to ascribe to a defect of resources, what they have hitherto been taught to believe arose from accidental impediment. Their starving condition, Their want of pay, & the variety of hardships they have ben driven to sustain, has soured their tempers, & produced a spirit of discontent which begins to display itself under a complexion of the most alarming hue. If this spirit should fully establish itself, it must be productive of some violent convultion, infinitely to our prejudice at home, & abroad, as it would evince a want of means, or a want of wisdom to apply them. Either of which must bring our cause into discredit & draw in its train, consequences of a nature too serious to be contemplated without the deepest anxiety. Permit us therefore to intreat the immediate attention of Congress to this necessary supply, for the purpose we have mentioned. And, for the payment of the troops, to whom the Paymaster is now greatly in arrears, and the Officers so entirely destitute, that many for want of their subsistance money, with which they made some addition to their single rations, are now reduced to the disagreeable necessity of making it their whole support.
“On examining into the State of provisions in Camp we find there is not more meat than will last untill the 12th Inst. Collo. Blane is come up, & we learn from him that he has no prospect of an immediate supply of this article. The only resource we can turn our eyes to, in this exigency is, the State of Pensylvania. If they fail to make instantaneous exertions for the relief of the army—We will not pretend to say, what may be the event!
“Before we had an opportunity closely to view and examine into the real State of things, we had no conception of the almost inextricable difficulties, in which we found them involved.
“We have stated matters plainly. We have been impelled to it by every consideration of duty, by the sincere desire we have to fulfill the views & expectations of Congress, in our appointment, And by the principles of unbounded affection for our Country. These will lead us to every exertion And without a moments delay to lop of[f] every exuberancy which can be effected without material injury.
“We have omitted observing that the Medical department are destitute of those necessaries, which are indispensable for the sick. They have neither wine, Tea, sugar, Coffee, Chocolate, or spirits. We wish orders may be given for an immediate supply, as the army grow more sickly every hour.
“Inclosed is a Copy of a letter from the Commissaries Genl. of purchases, & Issues, to the Commander in Chief” (, 15:104–7; see also , 16:196–201; for the enclosure, see Charles Stewart and Ephraim Blaine to GW, 9 May). Congress read the committee’s letter on 12 May and referred it to a three-member committee charged with seeking aid from Pennsylvania officials (see , 17:423–24).
Huntington subsequently wrote the Committee at Headquarters from Philadelphia on 16 May. His letter in part reads: “Your favour of the 10th Instant hath been duly received and laid before Congress, a Committee were appointed thereon to confer with the Executive, and Assembly of this State, which are now sitting, the Committee have not yet reported” (, 15:140–41). One of the committee members appealing to Pennsylvania officials, New Jersey delegate William Churchill Houston, wrote Schuyler from Philadelphia on 13 May in response to the committee’s letter to Huntington of 10 May and to articulate the need for significant provision procurement and distribution reforms. Houston derided the suggestion that “a military Force” might be required to obtain supplies that went not to “the Army” but “it’s appendages … I believe we are the only Nation under Heaven who do these Things: I cannot recollect, nor have I ever heard that such was the Case when we formerly supported an Army in America.” Houston then added: “Your Letter mentions the distressed State of the Hospitals for Want of proper Stores. It is painful to say, I cannot be surprised at it. The prodigious numbers of idle Officers in that Department is a publick Scandal. …
“I have written my Sentiments freely to you, not officially as one of the Committee or on their Behalf. … Your Committee, in my Apprehension, have Power to redress the Mischiefs to which I have pointed as far as they are redressible, by a proper Order for the Purpose. Difficulties will arise at first, but a little Resolution and Perseverance will reconcile them. We may as well be embarrassed in one Way as another” (, 15:118–22; see also the postscript to Schuyler to James Duane, 15 May, in , 15:129–31).
Prior to its initial report to Congress, the Committee at Headquarters experienced a testy exchange with Q.M. Gen. Nathanael Greene, who wrote the committee from Morristown on 3 May: “As you did me the honor yesterday to consult me upon the subject of the Quarter Master’s Department, and to ask my opinion respecting the most proper mode for accommodating it to the new plan for obtaining supplies for the army, I think it my duty to inform the Committee, that I cannot venture to offer my sentiments upon the matter until they have made such enquiry into the management and order of the business heretofore as to enable them to judge whether it has been conducted properly or not. When this enquiry shall be made; and if it shall be found that it has been conducted with as much oeconomy and order as the nature of the business, and the demands of the service would admit; and the Committee shall satisfy Congress thereof, I shall most chearfully give every assistance in my power for changing the present plan for conducting the business in every branch of the department, where it shall be found necessary to accommodate it more effectually to the proposed plan for obtaining supplies. But if it shall be found, that there have been those abuses prevailing in the department which have been represented; and that the reports have not originated from the arts of some, and ignorance of others; delicacy would forbid the Committee of either advising with, or adopting the opinion of a person who had detrayed a want of capacity to arrange, or atten[tio]n and industry to execute the business committed to his care.
“I pretend not to say, that there may not have been instances of personal abuse of public trust, tho I know of none; and upon every enquiry that has ever been made, they have been found to be the offspring of private spleen, or public prejudice; and I cannot help thinking, that the public business in this department, has been as faithfully and honestly executed as the nature of the service, and the circumstances of the times would admit. If my past conduct is not satisfactory, both to Congress and the army, I should not have the least hopes of rendering it more so, was I to serve the time over again; nor do I choose to stem the Current of prejudices any longer; or continue in an employment, which is so ungrateful to my feelings” (, 5:541–42; see also Charles Pettit to Greene, 18–19 April, in , 5:528–30).
Nothing that Greene’s letter “claimed our serious attention,” the Committee at Headquarters responded from Morristown on 5 May: “It is the wish as well as the inclination of this committee to give you every satisfaction, as far as their power extends; But to undertake an investigation into the state and conduct of your department at this moment, the business being of so diffuse and complex a nature, we conceive would be highly inconsistent with the public welfare, as the consequent delay attending such an enquiry would evidently tend to defeat the great object we have primarily in view; the immediate supply of the Army.
“We feel great Anxiety, Sir, at your seeming determination, not to enter into business with us, until such enquiry shall have been previously made. We cannot however but flatter ourselves, that on mature reflection, taking in view the great object by us alluded to, on the immediate execution of which you well know so much depends, you will wave the application, and with that zeal and alacrity, which have hitherto distinguished you, in the service of your country, afford that aid which your abilities and experience enable you so effectually to give, and which we had in charge from Congress to require of you” (, 15:81–82).
Greene replied to the committee from Morristown on 6 May: “I am very sorry to find the Committee averse to making an enquiry into the order and arrangement of the Quarter Master’s department; nor can I conceive how they can execute their commission without it. On what grounds can they make any alterations, or confirm any part of the present plan, without such an investigation? …
“If my further services are wanted by the public in the Quarter Master’s department, I conceive it highly reasonable, and absolutely necessary to remove every shadow of imputation which may effect my character or standing with Congress; nor will I agree to conduct the business, where so much is left to be governed by discretion, unless there is the most unlimitted confidence in my integrity and ability. …
“I am afraid the public will feel the bad effects of that policy which has been directed to excite jealousy and distrust in the people respecting the civil staff of the army. One indiscriminate load of censure has been poured out upon every order without regard to their merit or services, or without fixing a single crime upon an individual. The business has been rendered by this policy, so odious, that every man is determined to quit it; and could they be prevailed on to continue, a great part of their usefulness is lost for want of a proper confidence of the people. Neither do I see but very little prospect of engaging others in so disageable an employment, in which those who have gone before them, have been treated more like Galley-Slaves, and public pick-pockets, than faithful Agents!” (, 5:544–46).
After quietly gaining Greene’s compliance despite his strong objections, the Committee at Headquarters remained active through the spring, sending memoranda, reports, or letters to Congress or the states on 14, 15, 16, 25, and 28 May, and 1, 2, 5, 12, 16, and 19 June (see Smith, Letters to Delegates, 15:123–25, 127–28, 131–35, 186–92, 200–202, 223–32, 247–48, 297–302, 326–27, 346–47). The committee wrote its final circular letter to the states from Tappan, N.Y., on 19 Aug.: “When America stood alone against one of the most powerful nations of the earth, the spirit of liberty seemed to annimate her sons to the noblest exertions, and each man chearfully contributed his aid in support of her dearest rights. When the hand of tyranny seemed to bear its greatest weight on this devoted country, their virtue and perverence appeared most conspicuous, and rose superior to every difficulty. If then, such patriotism manifested itself throughout all ranks, and orders of men among us, shall it be said at this day, this early day of our enfranchisement, and independence, that America, has grown tired of being free? …
“These reflections arise, Sir, from the extraordinary backwardness of some States, and great deficiencies of others, in sending the men into the field, that was required of them, near three months ago, and ought to have joined the Army fifty days past; and an apprehension that, from this torpitude, America has forgot she is contending for liberty, and independence, and the good intentions of our generous ally will be totally frustrated by our unpardonable remissness. Our former letters to the states, have been full on this very important subject, and we are concerned to be driven to the necessity of reiteration; but our duty to our Country, our respect for the reputation of the Commander in Chief of our Army, impel us to it. …
“You must pardon us, worthy Sir, for the freedom with which we have now delivered our sentiments on this truly interesting subject. We flatter ourselves, great allowances will be made for our situation, when we daily have before our eyes specimens, of that want of energy in conducting our affairs, which must shortly, so far embarrass us, as to render all future exertions inadequate to the attainment of those great purposes, at which we aim. America wants not resources; we have men (independent of those necessary for domestic purposes) more than sufficient to compose an Army capable of answering our most sanguine expectations: And our Country teems with provisions of every kind necessary to support them. It requires nothing more than a proper degree of energy to bring them forth, to make us a happy people. This we trust, Sir, the state over which you preside, will shew no reluctance in contributing her aid to, by taking such decisive measures, as will, without loss of time, bring into the field, the remainder of your quota of men, that have been required for the campaign” (, 15:600–603).
Writing from Philadelphia on 12 Aug., one week before the date of the Committee at Headquarter’s final circular letter to the states, Huntington informed the committee members that Congress had decided on their discharge the previous day “and ordered that they report their Proceedings” (, 15:569–70; see also , 17:719–20). GW, who disliked the decision, masked his feelings when he wrote Huntington from Liberty Pole, N.J., on 28 Aug. “to testify to Congress” his “grateful sense … of the chearful and vigorous exertions of the Committee during their residence with the Army.” GW continued: “I now beg leave … to assure Congress that I feel myself under the greatest obligations to them for having done all in their power to accomplish the objects of their appointment and forward the measures which the good of the service and the exigency of the conjuncture demanded” (DNA:PCC, item 152; see also Mathews to GW, 15 Sept., DLC:GW). Congress considered “a partial report” from the Committee at Headquarters in September and combined those proposals and additional committee recommendations into a new Continental army arrangement adopted on 3 Oct. (Mathews to GW, 24 Sept., DLC:GW; see also , 16:105–7; , 18:893–97; and , 156–57).
Mathews reflected on the Committee at Headquarters when he wrote Peabody from Philadelphia on 3 Oct.: “As to ‘the Committee’s wanting to be made Lords and Protectors.’ I can say thus much—That by the Great God that made me! If I thought I could have influence enough, to make any honest set of men, the Real Protectors of this grievously injured people, I would harange the multitude, night & day! I would rush into the midnight cabals of artful & designing men & drag them forth to public view! In short, what is it I would not do, at the hazard of my life, to save this land from impending ruin! … I tremble for our fate” (Smith, Letter of Delegates, 16:143–45).
For secondary accounts evaluating the Committee at Headquarters, see , 397–401, 442–68; , 5:158–59, 187; , 191–95; and , 398–417, 420–23. See also , 7–9; , 122–25; and 160–64.
1. GW is referring particularly to the Additional Continental Regiments, the 1st and 2d Canadian Regiments, and the Continental cavalry and artillery regiments.
2. Congress adopted this resolution on 9 Feb. (see , 16:150–51; see also Huntington to GW, 10 Feb., and n.1 to that document; Joseph Reed to GW, 16 Feb.; and GW to Reed, 23 Feb.).
3. See the editorial essay “Officer Resignations, 10 March–10 May 1780” and associated documents .
4. At this place on the draft, which is in the writing of GW’s aide-de-camp Alexander Hamilton, several struck-out lines read: “Yet even in this case an incorporation of these corps into each other will be necessary; from the extreme weakness of several of them as proposed in my letter of the [ ]. The supernumerary officers may retire on the terms before mentiond.”
5. For a recent court-martial that convicted a soldier for mutinous behavior, see the general orders for 2 April; see also William Heath to GW, 10–11 Jan., and GW to Heath, 14–15 Jan., postscript.
6. A struck-out portion of the draft at this place reads: “The discontents have been rankling by degrees and in spite of every palliative seem on the point of breaking out into some violent and fatal disorder. Congress may be assured no expedient shall be left untried on my part to prevent extremities but unless the present system can be changed I very much dread every effort will be unavailing.”
7. See n.3 above.
8. See n.5 above.
9. For the adoption of such a measure in Connecticut on 6 June, see Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., to GW, that date (DLC:GW); see also , 3:21–23.
10. At this place on the draft, Hamilton initially wrote “good.” He then struck out that word and wrote “service” above the line.