George Washington Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="McHenry, James" AND Recipient="Washington, George"
sorted by: date (ascending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-21-02-0024

To George Washington from James McHenry, 8 October 1796

From James McHenry

War Office. October 8th 1796.

Sir,

The situation of the Garrison at West Point has for some time past attracted a considerable share of my attention. I had scarcely entered upon the duties of my Office, before I discovered those materials that soon after gave occasion to the Court of Inquiry upon the Commandant, and produced the Resignation of Capt. Wadsworth (a very valuable Officer) which followed that event.1 You will perceive, in the annexed letters, from and to that Gentleman and Colonel Rochefontaine, an evidence of the anxiety which I have experienced, and the mild means that I have employed to conciliate parties and restore harmony to the Corps.2

It may be said, that, generally speaking, the Officers at West point are of opinion, that the Commandant does not possess a sufficiency of scientific or practical knowledge in his profession, to enable him to be of much use to them as an Instructor. This is a painful insinuation that I am unwilling to admit. I have however so far regarded it, as to send Colo. Mentges to inspect and muster the Men, and report the actual state of discipline and improvement: and I am sorry to add that there is but too much correspondence between his opinion and theirs.3

Ought this coincidence in opinion to fix the charge of ignorance in his profession, upon the Commandant? May not his Officers have viewed him through the medium of an inveterate prejudice; and Col. Mentges formed his judgment upon too slight observations? perhaps too, it ought not to be expected, that the head of a Corps should act the part of a professor, or give lectures to his Officers on the principles of Gunnery and Fortification. Be this however as it may, it is at least to be regretted, that he has not been happy enough to satisfy them or the Inspector, that he understands the practical part of the Artillerist.

What can be done in this situation of things, that may restore to the Commandant, the confidence of the Officers, which he has lost; and at the same time, not retard their improvement?

To separate the Corps into parts, or to detach from West point, Companies, to garrison the most important forts on the seaboard is perhaps the most likely expedient to accomplish both purposes.

By an arrangement of this kind the principal School might still be at West point, from which place, an instructed Company could be sent to relieve a Company less instructed, till the whole by that means, were brought to the same level of improvement. Agreeably also to this plan the Corps might be united at particular times, either to acquire or to practice, what could not be so well practised or acquired in a state of disjunction.

One objection to such an arrangment as this, is the expence the public would incur in making these exchanges. I would submit however, whether this expence of transportation will not be more than countervailed by the immediate satisfaction it would produce in the Corps; and the saving to be derived from the Detachments improving or keeping those works in repair which have drawn considerable Sums from the United States to erect, and which if neglected, must fall into ruin. Further, this would put our most important harbours more out of the reach of insult than they are at present.

But to give a certain degree of perfection to the Corps; or to enable the Officers to become skilful Artillerists and Engineers, it may be necessary, in addition to furnishing them with proper Masters, that rules should be laid down, relative to their instruction in the Theory and practice. As yet there is no system for either, and of course, every thing must tend to confusion. The hours for teaching the Theory, as well as what is to be taught; the hours for teaching the practice, as well as what shall be the practice, should be detailed and the observance of the rules strictly enjoined. If the regulations that have been established in the Artillery Schools in France, under the monarchy, the utility of which has been so sensibly experienced by the Republic, were to be taken for a model; or such of them adopted as would apply to the circumstances and situation of the Corps, I should expect from such a measure, the happiest effects. These regulations, abstracted from the police of the institutions, are divided into two parts, the one, comprehending all that respects the Theory; the other whatever regards the practice. The first, is peculiar to the Officers; the second, or the practice, concerns both Officers and Soldiers. Were similar regulations to be digested, printed, and prescribed to the Corps by the president, and proper Masters provided to execute them, there can be no doubt as to its success. Every Officer would then know, what he had to learn himself, and what it was his duty to teach to others. I cannot presume that I am qualified to form such a System as ought to meet your mature approbation; but it strikes me, that even an imperfect one is preferable to none. I shall therefore, should you be of opinion, that rules and regulations for the instruction of the Officers in the Theory, and for the instruction of both them and the Soldiers in the practice, should be formed, make the attempt with such lights and helps as I have or can acquire.

In the mean while & till the proposed code can be completed, I would submit the following arrangement to your consideration.

1. To augment the Garrisons at Governor’s Island, Mud Island, Baltimore, Norfolk, and Charlestown to about one Company at each place. 2. To send to West point a person qualified to teach the Officers remaining there, Mathematics; the elements of Geometry; the fundamental principles of statical Mechanics; and designing. 3. To give the several Detachments, taken from the Corps, an opportunity to enjoy in rotation, the same means of instruction. 4. To require a written report from time to time relative to the progress of instruction. 5. To have each Detachment, frequently inspected by a well informed Officer, who should be specially charged to examine and give information of the state of the works, the discipline of the Men, and improvement of the Officers.4 With the greatest respect I have the honor to be Sir, Your most obedt servant

James McHenry

LS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW; copy, MHi: Adams Papers; copy, DLC: James McHenry Papers.

1Capt. Decius Wadsworth’s resignation stemmed from a disagreement with Lt. Col. Stephen Rochefontaine, chief of the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers and commandant of the garrison at the army post at West Point, New York. For the strife at West Point occasioned by Rochefontaine’s poor relations with Wadsworth and other officers, see Rochefontaine to Timothy Pickering, 19 Feb. 1796, in MHi: Pickering Papers; see also Crackel, West Point description begins Theodore J. Crackel. West Point: A Bicentennial History. Lawrence, Kans., 2002. description ends , 32–35. For the court of inquiry held in May and June to investigate complaints made against Rochefontaine by some of his officers, see McHenry to GW, 13 May, and n.4 to that document; see also Rochefontaine to Alexander Hamilton, 28 April 1796, and n.2 to that document, in Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 20:146. When Rochefontaine was not relieved of his command following the court of inquiry, Wadsworth submitted his resignation. Wadsworth subsequently published some of his correspondence with Rochefontaine during the affair (see The Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser [New York], 27 July 1796).

Decius Wadsworth (1768–1821), a 1785 graduate of Yale College (now Yale University), joined the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers as a captain in June 1794 (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 31 May 1794 [second letter], and the source note to that document). He resigned on 19 July 1796, but rejoined the corps as a captain in June 1798 and became a major in January 1800. He again resigned his commission in 1805 but was appointed a colonel and commissary general of ordnance in 1812. He was honorably discharged from the army in 1821.

2McHenry enclosed copies of four letters (all in DLC:GW): Wadsworth to McHenry, 19 June, complaining of accusations made by Rochefontaine; Rochefontaine to Wadsworth, dated “Monday Morning,” asking for a “private conversation” to show Wadsworth his letter of defense used in the court of inquiry and to which Wadsworth had taken umbrage as casting aspersions on his character; Wadsworth to McHenry, 24 June, requesting a copy of Rochefontaine’s defense; and McHenry to Wadsworth, 1 July, acknowledging the sensitivities involved in the dispute between the two men, but declining to provide Wadsworth with a copy of Rochefontaine’s letter of defense and stating his reasons for the refusal.

McHenry also enclosed a copy of his letter of 1 July to Rochefontaine: “The dissatisfaction that has prevailed among the Officers under your Command has been sensibly felt by the President, and has been to me a source of the greatest uneasiness, which I have experienced, since my coming into Office.

“What has given rise to it, I am ignorant of; and at this time I consider it as perfectly unnecessary and unavailing to make any inquiry after it. Laying therefore all investigations of this kind aside, wishing it to be entirely dropped; I desire only to discover, what may produce that order and harmony which has been so long extinct, and which if not restored, must end in the dissolution of the Corps.

“I know the American character, and the experience you have had of it, must have shewen you, that it may be moulded to the most perfect discipline and subordination, by mild means, and that where it comports with the service for a Commander to shew attention to his Officers of all grades, and to enter into their feelings, and save them where they may err from harsh reprimands, that he is almost always certain to subdue their prejudices if they have any against him, and finally to seize upon their hearts. You know that in all Armies a contrary conduct in Commanders, if it does not produce open mutiny, excites to the highest kind of dissatisfaction, and retards every military operation.

“Indeed I consider a settled dislike in the Officers of an Army, to its Commander, of so pernicious a nature, that I dread the first symptoms of its approach, and think that a Commander can hardly sacrifice too much, to prevent its admission, or to procure its expulsion.

“I do not mean that he ought to relax in discipline; or that he ought to make improper concessions to his Officers, in case of material misunderstanding between him and them, where they are evidently in the wrong; but if it is a case which admits of reconciliation, by a gentle procedure, his honour could receive no injury by convening his Officers, and saying to them, ‘Gentlemen, I am willing to forget all that is past; it is for the good of the service I should do so; I trust that you will do so also.’

“In this spirit, and in the hopes that order and harmony may yet be restored to a Corps which I flatter myself will form many heroes, and soldiers, I have written to Captain Wadsworth a letter of which the inclosed is a copy. It has, you will perceive, the same object as this which I write to you, and I shall rest in the expectation that the same effect will result from both” (DLC:GW).

3Francis Mentges, who had attained the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Continental army during the Revolutionary War, was at this time inspector of the troops and garrisons of the United States.

4GW replied to McHenry on 17 October.

Index Entries