Circular to Major Generals and Officers Commanding Brigades, 22 January 1780
Circular to Major Generals and Officers Commanding Brigades
Head Quarters Morristown 22d Jany 1780
Sir
I am extremely concerned to find by the late reports of the Inspector General, that most of the corps in the army are in worse order than I had flattered myself. That in general it does not make that progress in order and discipline which might reasonably be expected: that some corps have even gone backward: and that almost every one has defects and abuses which have existed a considerable time, and ought no longer to be tolerated.
In all our returns there is a greater disproportion between the total number, and the men fit for duty, or who could really be employed in action than in any other army in the world. This of late is not to be attributed to the sickness of the troops, for they have enjoyed very good health for a long time past. The column of sick present is moderate, but the columns of sick absent, and on command are excessive. The former far exceeds the Hospital returns, and a very small part of the latter is employed on military duty. A great many of both are probably not to be found any where, only serving to swell the pay-rolls, and deceive the government with an idea of its having a larger army on foot than it really has, and perhaps excite expectations which it is not in our power to fulfil. The ill consequences of this in a variety of respects are obvious.
You will be pleased without delay carefully to examine the State of the different regiments, have all the men who have been so long absent, that cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, and whose return is therefore become improbable, struck off the rolls; and take effectual measures to collect those who are improperly absent and who are still recoverable. This is a matter in which I would wish the most rigid exactness to be observed.
There are in some of the Regime⟨nts,⟩ too many officers absent on furlough, so that they are left without a sufficient number to preserve order, and perform the common routine of service. Several of the companies it appears are without a single commissioned officer. This is directly contrary to General orders, and inadmissible on every principle.1 I must intreat your particular attention to prevent it in future, and to make such a distribution of the remaining officers, that no company may be without a commissioned officer to take care of it at all times agreeably to the regulations.2
Another defect is, in some corps, an insufficiency of noncommissioned officers, in others an improper destribution of them; some companies having more than their compliment, others less. It need not be urged that the regularity of service greatly depends on having a sufficient number of good noncommissioned officers. Where there is an overpluss, these ought to be given to those companies which have not their proportion, and their places supplied in the companies from which they are taken by the same number of private men drawn from those to which they are annexed. By this method one company will not be benefited at the expence of another. But where there is a deficiency in some companies, and no excess in others, the former ought to be made good by new appointments.
In some instances (though they are not numerous) offic[e]rs are employed in stations not authorised by the establishment of the army, and derogotary to their rank. This is a practice that ought at all events to be discountinanced.
As you will find these defects, and others pointed out in the inclosed reports of the last inspection, I shall not enter into a more minute detail.3 I shall only add in general that I have remarked with chagrin, that there is not so punctual an attention to the regulations which have been established for the goverment of the army, nor so emulous a spirit of discipline and improvement, as a regard to the success and reputation of our arms demands. I sincerely wish it were in my power to make a contrary declaration; but we ought not to flatter ourselves in a point of so much importance. We ought impartially to open our eyes to our true situation, as the surest way to make it better; uniting our exertions to correct our defects and to acquire that perfection and respectability which we are bound equally to aspire to from a sense of what we owe to the public and to ourselves. I am Sir your obt & hble servt
Go: Washington
P.S: You will observe in the repor⟨t of⟩ the 10th Pennsylvania regt that a more th⟨an⟩ ordinary number of men are absent no⟨t on⟩ military duty. To this you will pay particular attention. The case of Capn Ashmea⟨d⟩ ought to be determined. He should eith⟨er⟩ be superseded or obliged to return and g⟨ive⟩ an account of his conduct.
The companies of Light Infantry in the 3d and fifth regiments should be re⟨duced⟩ to a more proportionable standa⟨rd,⟩ and the improper incorporation of the 5th company in the 9th rectified.4
N.B. In order to collect the absent men an officer from each Brigade may be sent or two offic[e]rs if necessary whose reasonable expences will be paid. You will please to return the inspector⟨’s⟩ reports after you have made the intended use of the⟨m⟩.5
LS, in James McHenry’s writing, DLC:GW; Df, DLC:GW; Varick transcript, DLC:GW. The text in angle brackets, where the manuscript is obscured or mutilated, is taken from the draft. The LS has no address, but it has a docket in the writing of Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair and it carries the postscript intended for that general. It is almost certainly the LS sent to him. St. Clair was in camp at Morristown during this period.
1. See General Orders, 8 Dec. 1779.
2. GW is referring to the army’s new regulations for order and discipline drafted by Major General Steuben, the army’s Inspector General. For GW’s orders to implement the regulations in the army, see the general orders of 12 April and 30 June 1779; see also General Orders, 9 Oct. 1779.
3. These enclosed reports have not been identified. Returns from the inspection accompanied by Steuben’s remarks on the condition of the regiments and brigades are in reel 2, pages 94–141. Many of GW’s remarks in the postscripts quoted in n.4 reflect Steuben’s remarks on the returns. For GW’s order to have the whole army inspected, see General Orders, 12 Dec. 1779.
4. The postscript of the individual circulars varied for each general. Most divisions and brigades had temporary commanders due to their major general or brigadier being on furlough. The drafts of the individual postscripts, all in Alexander Hamilton’s writing, are in DLC:GW following the draft of the main portion of the circular.
The postscript intended for the circular addressed to the officer commanding Major General Stirling’s division reads: “In Col. William Butler’s regiment the light infantry company is under the command of the Major. This is irregular and must be corrected—Both this regiment and that of Col. Hubley are represented as in exceeding bad order; I am sensible this is to be attributed to their being so long on the frontier, but as they have now the same advantages with the other troops, I hope the officers commanding will exert themselves to put them upon an equal footing.
“I am sorry to find the Jersey brigade appears to have fallen off from what it formerly was—one of the best in the army. The emulation of the officers I am persuaded will not permit them to let it remain inferior to any. It has been for some [time] past returned deficient in arms; This is to me inconceivable considering that many men have been discharged whose arms ought at least to have replaced those which may have been necessarily lost on the late [Sullivan’s] expedition. The waste of arms is a capital delinquency.
“In Col. Hazens Regiment are two Ensigns forage Masters—This is inadmissible & must be immediately rectified—The Colonels guard of a serjeant and twelve and the Commissary’s of a corporal & six b[e]ing contrary to the regulations must be dismissed.” GW may have discussed these problems directly with Stirling (see GW to Stirling, 5 March; see also Stirling to GW, 1 March).
The postscript intended for the officer commanding the New York brigade reads: “I am sorry to observe that this brigade is reported in as bad order as possible—I hope this is occasioned by the want of cloathing at the time and the service they lately performed to the Westward [Sullivan’s Expedition]— But it concerns the reputation of the officers to exert themselves that the next inspection may exhibit a more favourable account. I am persuaded they have too just a sense of what they owe to their state and to themselves to suffer its troops to be inferior in military perfection to those of any other part of the Union.
“A deficiency of arms has appeared in all the late returns—I do not conceive how this can happen; for making the most ample allowance for unavoidable losses, the arms of the men discharged ought to have been more than sufficient to replace casualties—I must request to have this matter particularly explained.” After apparently receiving no reply, GW addressed a second letter on this subject directly to Brig. Gen. James Clinton, commander of the brigade, who had been on furlough (see GW to Clinton, 12 Feb.; see also GW to Clinton, 24 Jan.).
The postscript intended for the officer commanding the 2d Connecticut Brigade reads: “I wish to be informed particularly of the reason of Col. Zebulon Butlers absence at Wyoming.” Lt. Col. Joseph Hait, of Butler’s 2d Connecticut Regiment, replied on 30 January.
Hamilton prefaced the postscript intended for Maj. Gen. Johann Kalb, commander of the Maryland division, with the following notes: “Maryland— Lt Col. forrest absent Lt Col. Pope absent on furlough all last Campaign Delaware.” The postscript itself reads: “You will be pleased to enquire into the principles on which Lt Col. Forrest being disabled and absent is continued in the Maryland, and what is his present situation and make me a report.” Kalb replied on 6 February.
The postscript to the officer commanding Brig. Gen. John Stark’s brigade reads: “It gives me pleasure to observe that your Brigade has fewer men improperly absent than any other. This circumstance does it great honor & the particular reports of the regiments exhibit fewer defects than most others. Inquiry is to be made what has become of the men of Col. Jacksons Regiment reported on command at Easton—whether they are still there or not.
“It however appears extraordinary that there should be a deficiency of arms in the Brigade, notwithstanding the number of men who have been discharged, whose arms were certainly more than sufficient to replace moderate contingent losses—I shall be glad of an explanation of this point.” After a second inquiry from GW on 11 Feb., Col. Henry Sherburne, then temporarily commanding Stark’s brigade, replied on 12 February.
5. The draft indicates that this N.B. appeared in all the circulars.