To John Jay from Edward Rutledge, 25 December 1778
From Edward Rutledge
Charles Town, Decr 25th. 1778
My dear Jay.
It is a long Time since we have had any Correspondence, but I see no Reason why it should be longer, when we have any Thing to say & Leisure to say it in. Such is just my Situation, for it is Christmas Day, & all the World, (i:e: my Clients) being either at their Devotion, or their Amusements, I have Time to tell you that, I fear & with some Reason, (as it comes North about) that a damned, infamous Cabal, is forming against our Commander in Chief, & that whenever they shall find themselves strong enough, they will strike an important Blow—1 I give you this Hint that You may be on your Guard, & I
know you will excuse me for doing so, when you recollect that there are some Men of our Acquaintance, who are in the Possession of all the Qualities of the Devil, his Cunning not excepted— Remember the indirect Attempts that were repeatedly made against the Command & Reputation of poor Schuyler, & the Fatal Stab, that was at Last endeavour’d at both; & let us be taught, how necessary it is to oppose a Cabal in its Infancy— Were it in my Power, I would stifle it in its Birth— Conway, the Lees & M2 are said to be at the Bottom of this, besides an abundance of Snakes that are concealed in the Grass— If they are not encouraged to come forward, they will continue where they are; but, if the former, are permitted to bask in the Sunshine of Congressional Favour, the Latter will soon spread themselves abroad, & an extended Field, will be immediately occupied by the Factious, & the Ambitious; the Fate of America, will then be like the Fate of most of the other Republics of Antiquity, where the designing, have supplanted the Virtuous, & the worthy, have been sacraficed, to the Views of the wicked. Indeed my Friend, if the Congress do not embrace every Opportunity, to extinguish that Spirit of Cabal, & unworthy Ambition, it will finally, be more essentially injurious, to the well-being of this Continent, than the Swords of Sir Harry, & his whole Army—
I view the Body of which we were for a long while Members, as to possessing in a very eminent Degree, the Powers of Good & Evil— It depends on those who manage the Machine to determine its Object. I hear you have returned to Congress, & I hope you will have your full Share in the Management— I do not know what Gentlemen we shall send from this State, we have some fine Plants, nay Saplings, that will do wond’rous well, in a few Years, but are too tender at present to bear up the weight of this Continent. Were it now to be imposed upon them, it might check their Growth, or as they are the Production of a Southern Clime, it is possible they might be blighted by a northern Wind. When you write me let me know how Robert R: L: is, remember me to him for I esteem him highly— God bless you my dear Jay, & believe me to be with great Sincerity Your affectionate Friend
Edward Rutledge
ALS, NNC (EJ: 7088). Endorsed.
1. Whether or not there was in fact a formal, coordinated conspiracy to oust Washington is a matter of dispute among historians. There was within Congress a loosely associated group, led by Samuel Adams, John Adams, James Lovell, Benjamin Rush, and Thomas Mifflin, who were dissatisfied with Washington’s handling of the army during the winter of 1777–78, especially at Brandywine and Germantown, and disturbed by the mystique that surrounded the commander in chief. These men looked for leadership to Gates, victor at Saratoga, to Conway, and to other frustrated and ambitious rivals of Washington. To discredit Washington, his critics in Congress relied primarily on innuendo, veiled suggestions, and anonymous attacks. What is certain is that Washington, his staff, and his close friends firmly believed that a clearly defined, well-planned cabal existed, with the probable aim of elevating Gates to commander in chief, that the strength of the plot was great enough to be taken seriously, and that it must be destroyed decisively. , 11: 159–60, 164–65. A detailed account of the “cabal” is in , 4: 581–611. For opposing views, see Bernard Knollenberg, Washington and the Revolution (New York, 1940), 65–77, and Nelson, General Horatio Gates, 157–85.
2. Thomas Mifflin.