Alexander Hamilton Papers

To Alexander Hamilton from Nathan Rice, 4 October 1799

From Nathan Rice

Hingham [Massachusetts] Octr 4th. 1799

My dear General

Your favour Circular of 17th Sept.1 I have receivd. I hope & trust the suggestions therein of the incautious remarks of officers were not applicable to any of my regiment. I am too sensible of the use which would be made by the soldiery of such remarks from their officers, not to have instantly checked them. You request of me a very accurate & special report of the quantity and quality of all the articles which have been receivd. I do not judge myself sufficiently informed of the quality of all the articles supplied, to make a report. I will make it a subject of my investigation but will observe that the article of Shoes is a sourse of great complaint both on account of the size & quality, my paymaster informs me of the number he has recevd. as many as one half can never be worn by the men; being so much under size & by the officers I am told they are of a very inferior quality particularly in the making.

In reply to yours of the 9th I should not have solicited Mr. Roulstons appointment to a first Lieutenantcy,2 had I conceived it was to be made on the principle of regular promotion—but the appointments being incomplete—new ones daily making & the relative rank in the different grades unsettled; I judged no one would consider himself superseded any more than he was by the last appointments of Hastings Mackay3& others.

In settling the relative rank of the company officers, are we to be pointed to no principle by which we are to be governed? Is former rank & service to have no precedency? Nor the first apointments to have no priority over those appointed to vacancies happening consequent on nonacceptances. It is an unplesant & unthankfull task & I must beg, the arrangement may be considered as comeing from you or the War office.

Permit me to beg that some payment may be speedily made the Troops. It will satisfy the engaged and I think very much accelerate the filling up of the regiments.

I am with the utmost respect   your Obt. Servant

N: Rice

P.S. Are all Majors of Infantry considered of one Grade or are the first Majors a grade superior to the 2d Majors of Regiments. If they are not I am apprehensive the principle of rank will so opperate in the two Regts. of Massachutts,4 as to induce Major Walker to resign; as it will give Roe of Colo Hunnewells rank of him.5 I should regret it much as he is an excellent of⟨ficer⟩.

Yrs

N: Rice

ALS, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress.

3This is a reference to the fact that most of the officers in the Fourteenth Regiment of Infantry had been appointed on January 8, 1799 (Executive Journal, I description begins Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate (Washington, 1828), I. description ends , 299–301, 303), and that Samuel Mackay had been appointed a first lieutenant on March 3, 1799 (Executive Journal, I description begins Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate (Washington, 1828), I. description ends , 322, 323). For the dates of Daniel Hastings’s appointments, see Rice to H, May 24, 1799, note 2. For the dates of John Roulstone’s appointments, see Rice to H, August 31, 1799, note 4.

4This is a reference to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Regiments of Infantry.

5Rice may have been confused, for both men held the same rank. John Walker was the first major and Isaac Winslow the second major in the Fourteenth Regiment of Infantry (Heitman, United States Army description begins Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army, From Its Organization, September 29, 1789, to March 2, 1903 (Washington, 1903). description ends , I, 107). In the Fifteenth Regiment, John Rowe was the first major and William Jones the second major (Heitman, United States Army description begins Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army, From Its Organization, September 29, 1789, to March 2, 1903 (Washington, 1903). description ends , I, 109). On the other hand, Rice may be referring to the fact that Rowe was a veteran of the American Revolution, in which he had held the rank of ensign, while Walker had not held a military commission before his appointment in 1799 (Heitman, United States Army description begins Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army, From Its Organization, September 29, 1789, to March 2, 1903 (Washington, 1903). description ends , I, 848). Walker’s name, however, had been placed ahead of Rowe’s on the list submitted to the Senate (Executive Journal, I description begins Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate (Washington, 1828), I. description ends , 299). Rice was concerned about the relative rank of the majors because, of the lieutenant colonel commandants of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Regiments, he was senior in rank and therefore would be commandant of the brigade at their winter quarters (H to Rice, October 4, 1799, note 4).

For the rules governing relative rank, see the enclosure to James McHenry to H, July 20, 1799. See also H to McHenry, July 8, 1799; McHenry to H, September 3, 1799.

Index Entries