New York Convention to the President of Congress (John Hancock), 10 July 1776
New York Convention to the President of Congress (John Hancock)
[New York, 10 July] 1776
Sir
In Pursuance of a Resolution of your hon’ble House of the 17th: June last we passed a Resolve to authorize the Commander in Chief to call out all or any Part of the ^our^ Militia whenever he might think it necessary Of this Resolve the Inclosure No. 1 is a Copy—1
We have also taken into Consideration the Recommendation of the Congress relative to providing Cloathing for the Troops, and thereupon passed a Resolution of which the Inclosure No. 2 is a Copy—2
On the Rect. of the Resolution of Congress relative to making Provision for the officers who had served in Canada by raising a Regt. in this Colony, we referred it to a Come. in order that such an arrangement might be made as would be ^by^ avoidg all clashing of Rank, would not be attend followed by Disgust and Resignations—We being of Opinion that young officers should ^not^ be raised over the Heads of elder ones except in Cases of extraordinary ^& distinguished^ Merit. And we3 intended to have complyed with the Request of Congress by nominating Mr. Dubois for one of the Field officers, tho we would not forbear observing that such Recommendations tend not a little to destroy that Liberty of nomination so essen[tial] to constitute it a Priviledge.
While we were engaged in settling that arrangement we were surprized as well as hurt at recg a Resolution of Congress of the 26. June, fro by which it appears that your honorable House had taken from us the Right of nominating not only the Field Officers but also the Capts & Lieutenants of that Regt. contrary
to the common Usage obs hitherto observed & practiced in all similar Cases, & making a Discrimination invidious to this Colony—
The ^three^ Reasons assigned for this extraordinary Proceedure are by no means satisfactory to us—The
The first is That the Congress were furnished with the a List of the Officers who had served in Canada & therefore were enabled to appoint without our Interposition.
That the Congress were in this and in all Cases adequate to the Task of such of Appointments is a Matter Proposition which we readily admit to be true, but with all Submi[ssion] we beg Leave to observe that Ability to do an Act was never supp supposed to involve a Right to do it—We consider such ^those^ appointments as appertaining to us, and cannot be vested in any Body of Men whatever however able to make them, without our Consent
The second Reason assigned is “That the Congress have appointed only such officers as were originally appointed & recommended by us, and that we shd. probably have fixed our Choice on the same Persons—[”]
It is true that the greater Part of the Officers were appointed & recommended by us the last Year but not to the same Rank & Commissions now given them ^but & it is also true that we have never recommended or appointed or know—Evans Wherry—Henry Van DenBurgh—Nathaniel Concklin—Henry Dodge—John Coats or—Henry DuBois4—all of whom we find on the List of Officers^ And we can assure the Congress that they were exceedingly mistaken in apprehending that we should have classed them in the Manner they now are, for the Arrangement we had prepared is widely different from the one they have made are really at a Loss to concieve how our having nominated certain Persons to Offices in a Regiment now who was ^which was^ disbanded on the Expiration of the Term of its Inlistment shd. on the raising of a New Regt. either confine us to our Nomination to the same Persons or vest the Right of Nomination in the Congress—Respect doubtless ought & wd. have been had to the Merit of those who by their Services deserved well of their Country, but we consider that merit, as giving them only a Recommendation not a Title to Preference—and therefore we shd have been permitted ^our Right of Nomination remained^ just as complete & as competent to this ^as to other^ Cases.
The third Rea As to the Probability of our fixing our Choice on the same Persons, we cannot not think that Circ Conjecture to even if well founded, can justify the Conclusions drawn from it Conjectures & Probabili because if the Right of choosing be in us, no other Body can claim a Right of choosing for us from a mere Apprehension that their Choice would be similar to
ours—But the Fact really is that the Arrangement made by your hon’ble House is materially & widely different from the one we had prepared—
The third Reason given for depriving us in this Instance of the Right of Nomination, is the good of the Service the Danger of Delay—
The necessity of the Case has in all Ages & Nations of the World been a fruitful tho dangerous Source of Power—on that Foundation many Despotisms have been reared ^It has often sown Tares in the fair Fields^ of Liberty and like a malignant Blast destroyed the Fruits of Patriotism & public Spirit. The ^whole^ History of Mankind bears Testimony against the Propriety of considering this Principle as giving the Parent of civil Rights, and a free People jealous of their Liberties will ever reprobate it—5 But from ^[in margin] this we would not be understood to be tenacious of this Right, & we are content that it be vested in the Congress, provided the other Colonies do the like—^
We believe the Congress did went ^went^ into this Measure with pure Intentions and with no other Design than that of serving their Country—but Sir good Things may be done in a Manner not to be approved & particularly ^and we entertain too high an opinion of their Virtue & Integrity to apologize^ for a Plainess ^of^ Speech becoming Freemen & which we know can give Offence only to that counterfiet & adulterated Dignity which swells the Pride of those who instead of lending borrow a Consequence from their Offices—And Sir we beg Leave to assure the Congress that tho we shall always complain & oppose their Resolutions when they [encroach] ^injure^ our Rights we shall ever be ready (however callumniated by Individuals whose Censure we consider as Praises) to risque our Lives and Fortunes in supporting the American Cause
But on percieving the Interference & clashing of Rank which marks the List of Officers sent us—^and the Disgust it has given to many who deserved better^ we cannot think of intermeddling with it, & must therefore beg of the Congress to make the few remaining appointments wanting to compleat the Complement of Officers necessary for that Battalion—
We have recd. so many Complaints and Applications on that Head and think many of them so well founded, that we wish to avoid all Interference with it—It cannot be necessary to point out the ^its several^ Deviations from ^the Line of^ Rank—a Comparison of the present Arrangement with the last Years Rank Roll will [illegible] discover them.
The Enclosure No. 3 is a Copy of a Letter we have recd. from William Goforth a very good Man & we are informed a good Officer who served ^all^ the last Campaign in Canada, containing the Reasons of his quitting the Service—6
The Enclosure No. 4 is a Copy of a Letter from Coll. Fleming on the same Subject—7
We daily expect other Resignations, and among others that of ^we think the Case of^ Lieutnt. Coll. Cortlandt8 which we cant but think ^whose Case^ singularly ^hard^—, he entered the Service last Year as Lieutt. Collonel, in which Capacity is he continues still but ^and^ is ^now^ made an inferior Officer to Mr. DuBois who entered the Service last year as a Capt.—
Mr. Pell and some other spirited good Officers have been wholly laid aside, and younger Officers promoted.—9
If by such Neglect of Rank many respect[able] Inhabitants among us should with their numerous & extensive Cong Connections be disgusted and rendered inactive, we flatter us ourselves that some allowance will be [may?] this Colony will not be censured for any Ill Consequences which may result from it—
Yesterday we recieved ^took into Consideration^ the Declaration of your Honorable House proclaiming the united Colonies free and independent States, & thereupon came to the unanimously came to a Resolution of which the Enclosure No. 5 is a Copy—
Governor Tryon and [illegible] has enlisted ^into the Kings Service certain^ some number of People disaffected Persons in ^belonging to^ this Colony New Jersey &c. some of whom are now in ^our^ Custody—We are greatly at a Loss what to do with them, there being no Laws according to which they can be tryed and punished, and ^ex^ post Facto Laws being ^are^ liable to many Objections—we unanimously join in requesting the Favor of your Honorable House to advise us what would be proper to do in this Case.
We take the Liberty of suggesting to your Consideration also the Propriety of taking some Measures for expunging s expunging from the Book of Common Prayer, such Parts as interfere with the Interest of the American Cause, and whether a Convention of the Clergy would not be proper for that Purpose—It is a Subject we are afraid to meddle with—M[illegible] The Enemies of America having taken great Pains to insinuate into the Minds of the Episcopalians that the Church was in Danger—We could wish the Congress would pass some Resolve to quiet these Fears, & we are confident it would do essential Service to the Cause of America, at least in this Colony—
Dft, in JJ’s hand, NNC (EJ: 9218). Endorsed by JJ: “Dr. Letter of Convention to Congress 1776.” LS version, as approved by the New York Convention, in DNA: PCC, item 67, 1: 232–48, with enclosures as listed in JJ’s draft. Enclosures: (1) Resolutions of the New York Congress, 22 and 30 June 1776, , 1: 503–4, 512; (2) resolution of the New York Congress, 24 June 1776, , 1: 505; (3) William Goforth to the New York Congress, 6 July 1776, , 2: 313; (4) Edward Fleming to the New York Congress, 21 June 1776, , 6: 1013–14; (5) resolution of the New York Congress, 9 July 1776, , 1: 518.
1. On 17 June the Continental Congress ordered that letters be written to the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut governments asking them to “authorize the commander in chief in the colony of New York, to call to the assistance of that colony, when necessity shall require it, such of the militia of those colonies as may be necessary; and to afford him such assistance as the situation of affairs may require.” John Hancock’s letter of 18 June recommending this measure was read in the New York Congress on 21 June 1776. The next day, the provincial congress adopted a resolution promising, “upon application” from Washington, to “call to his assistance . . . such part of the militia . . . as the said Commander-in-Chief shall think necessary.” On 30 June, before adjourning to White Plains, the New York Congress passed a second resolution that allowed Washington to apply directly to militia commanders for reinforcements. , 5: 452; , 2: 501–2, 503–4, 512; Hancock to the New York Congress, 18 June 1776, , 6: 949–50.
2. The Continental Congress’s resolution of 19 June required that the colonial assemblies provide “a suit of cloaths for each soldier enlisted in the province in the present campaign.” Hancock’s letter of 21 June enclosing this measure was read in the New York Congress on 24 June, and resolutions were adopted later that day for the purchase of “all the coarse woolen cloth that is for sale in and about this city,” as well as of deerskins, blankets, hats, shirts, hose, and shoes. , 5: 466–67; Hancock to the New York Congress, 21 June 1776, , 6: 1009; , 1: 505.
3. Block of text enclosed in box and excised here appears in next paragraph.
4. Wherry, Conklin, and Dodge were sergeants in the 3rd New York Regiment at the beginning of the Canadian expedition; Vandenburgh was a corporal in the same unit. During the campaign, Montgomery promoted the four noncommissioned officers to the rank of second lieutenant. The nomination of “John Coats” as surgeon by the Continental Congress was probably a clerical error. Samuel Cooke, who served as surgeon in the 3rd New York in the 1775–76 campaign, was listed as surgeon of the regiment under DuBois later in 1776. Henry DuBois, Lewis DuBois’s younger brother, was appointed adjutant of the Canadian regiment in June 1776. Cal. of Hist. Mss., 2: 30, 36, 41; , 1: 55.
5. JJ further challenged use of the argument of necessity in 1778 in his “A Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York,” [15 Jan.–2 Apr. 1778], below.
6. In his letter of 6 July 1776, Goforth resigned after being notified that he had been commissioned a major in the battalion to be raised by Lewis DuBois. In 1775, Goforth, DuBois, and Jacobus Bruyn had been named captains in the four regiments raised in New York for the Canadian expedition. Goforth, as fourth captain of the 1st Regiment, was then considered senior to DuBois and Bruyn, the fourth and seventh captains of the 3rd New York. In the arrangement of 26 June 1776, Goforth was to serve under DuBois as colonel and under Bruyn as lieutenant colonel. Goforth remarked acidly: “I view my appointment as speaking two things: first, that you have found men of greater merit than myself, and men who are better qualified for the public service, of which I am extremely glad; and secondly, that your now appointing me to serve under two junior officers, is no more than taking the most genteel way of discharging me from the public service as an officer.” Cal. of Hist. Mss., 1: 105, 106, 107.
7. Fleming, first deputy adjutant of the army during the Canadian campaign, submitted his resignation on 21 June 1776, when he learned that Joseph Reed had been named to succeed Horatio Gates as adjutant general. “As first Deputy,” Fleming declared, “I naturally expected to succeed to the adjutant Generalship when it became vacant.”
8. Philip Van Cortlandt. See Alexander McDougall to JJ, 20 Mar. 1776 (first letter), and JJ to the President of Congress (John Hancock), 6 July 1776, above.