Major General William Heath to George Washington, 13 April 1781
From Major General William Heath
West point, April 13. 1781.
Dear General,
The last evening I was honored with yours of the 12th to which in its several parts I shall pay attention.1
After the instructions given by Governor Clinton to Major Paulding, respecting Capt. Simmons, I am not a little surprised that Major Paulding should take him to the lines without ever mentioning the matter to me. Perhaps the opinion I expressed to him, when on his way to the Governor, respecting Simmons, gave him but small grounds to expect I should approve of his being employed on the lines. I shall write him on the subject; and as your Excellency, from the copy of Governor Clinton’s instructions to Major Paulding, has a view of his intentions—I wish your opinion in the case; for I must confess I have no opinion of my own of such sort of people—and that to employ them for any time on the lines, may be attended with very pernicious consequences. I have heard of no desertions from the enemy since Simmons went down; but there have been more from our own troops, than during the whole winter beside. I shall be dictated by your pleasure.2 Have nothing new from below; expect some intelligence to day or to morrow. I have the honor to be With the highest respect, Your Excellency’s Most obedient servant,
W. Heath
P.S. I mentioned in a former letter the insufficiency of the provost at Fishkill—and that a new one was necessary. A block house begun at Fishkill, has been thought well calculated for the purpose—It must be removed from its present situation, being too near the barracks and public buildings. Some are of opinion that on many accounts, Pollypus island will be the most advantageous situation.3 I shall be happy in having your Excellency’s opinion with respect to its being erected on the island.4
W.H.
LS, DLC:GW; ADfS, MHi: Heath Papers. GW’s aide-de-camp David Humphreys docketed the LS: “Not Ansd.”
1. See GW to Heath, 12 April (first letter).
2. Heath wrote Maj. Jonathan Paulding Horton from West Point on 17 April: “Soon after Capt. Simmons was Sent to Governor Clinton, I was informed that he was on the Lines, and as was said by order of the Governor this natur[al]ly led me to mention the matter to His Excellency General Washington, who represented it to Governor Clinton, who in answer, besides Sending a Coppy of your instructions, dated the 13th of March Last at Albany, (which is now before me,) added that he expected whatever was done by Capt. Simmons on the Lines would be under my direction I am at lost for the reason of your takeing Capt. Simmons to the Lines without my knowledge when your Instructions from the Governor pointedly direct, that on your way down, you were to confer with me, and know if I approved the measure, Many Considerations point out the ill policy of Allowing Capt. Simmons to remain on the Lines, He may fall into the hands of the Enemy and be Severely treated, and on the other hand it may and does excite Some Jealousies and Suspicions, for these reasons I have thought fit, to advise that Capt. Simmons remove Immediately from the Lines back to Some interior part of the Country which he may choose, but that he does not return to the Lines, without the express permission of His Excellency Governor Clinton General Washington, or myself I wish you to Communicate this to him, I have instructed Colo. Greene to See that it is not delay’d” (MHi: Heath Papers; see also Heath to GW, 5 April, and n.3 to that document). When Heath wrote his orders to Col. Christopher Greene from West Point on 16 April, he also expressed his belief that sending Capt. Robert Simmons to the lines was “imprudent and impolit⟨ic⟩)” (MHi: Heath Papers).
3. Heath means Pollepel Island in the Hudson River near Newburgh, New York.
Heath had written Lt. Col. Edward Antill in part of his letter from West Point on 20 March: “I am Sensible of the bad State of the provost, and represented it to His Excellency not long Since, the absolute necessity of something being done either by an Exchange removal or better Security of the Prisoners he was pleased to acquaint me that he would Send for the Commissary of Prisoners and take Some measures respecting them If his Excellency, does not Soon give Some directions in the matter I will endeavour to devise Some method myself how is the Block House at Fishkill will it make a proper place of Security, and will it be large enough to Contain the Prisoners[?]” (MHi: Heath Papers; see also Heath to GW, 7 Feb., and GW to Heath, 9 Feb.).
Antill began a letter to Heath from Fishkill, N.Y., on 8 April: “I have conferred with Col. Hughes about the Block House and he seems to think it wont Answer I differ in opinion the reason of his objection amounts to an Unwillingness to employ his Artifficers on that Buisness He says tis impossible to be takien Down that I will undertake. Shall be glad to hear from you on that subject I think the Heighth on the other side the Creek between the town & the Acadamey will be a most Convenient & safe place” (MHi: Heath Papers).
Heath explained his views in part of his reply to Antill from West Point on 9 April: “I think it is essentially necessary that a better provost than that one occupied at present should be provided I am fully of Opinion from report that the Block House will very well answer the purpose and I wish to have it repaired, Colo. Hughes thinks it advisable that it should be removed a Little distance from the place where it now Stands for particular reasons, But it will be best to remove it as short a distance only as will answer the purpose—to prevent needless labour I am not fully acquainted with the Situation you mention, but it ought not to be too far from the Barracks as the Guard may Stand in need of Support, it ought not to be on [a] place difficult of access with Fuel Provisions &c. or difficult to obtain water all these are considerations which deserve attention, and it should be done with as little expence as possible” (MHi: Heath Papers; see also Heath’s first letter to GW, 14 April, n.6, and GW to Heath, 15 April, n.3).
4. See the source note above.