Major General Samuel Holden Parsons to George Washington, 26 June 1781
From Major General Samuel Holden Parsons
Camp Peeks Kill 26th June 1781
Dear General
The Comittee from the Connecticut Line appointed to adjust their Accounts with the State have returned without effecting a settlement, the Lower House of Assembly refuse to pay any part of the Subsistance of the Officers before the first of April last, & from that time no more than Eight pence half penny per Ration; the Resolutions of Congress notwithstanding. In stating the Accounts the Committee of the Assembly charge many Articles supplied the Army, at fifty per Cent above the Price agreed to by the Assembly; which the Legislature refuse to ratefy. These reasons prevented a Settlement, the Gentlemen from the Army not thinking it consistant with their trust to close the Account, with the total Loss of so great a part of their just due: & have reported the facts to me and desiring me to publish the Matter to the line in such manner as I judge most expedient.1
On consulting General Huntington we thought it proper to inform your Excellency of our apprehensions of the fatal Consequences2 we fear on the refusal of the State to close the accounts, and secure the Subsistance, as well as pay of the Line: and to request your Excellency’s advice and Direction.
The Officers have now served from the first of January 1777 and have received very little more than One Years Pay for their Services, and very little prospect appears of a speedy Supply of Money, and no expectation of a Settlement of their past Wages and Subsistance; their own Estates are in a Great measure expended in Subsisting themselves in the Army, and thereby reduced to a State of destress; and the Conduct of Government in this and other instances convince them, that they have no Justice to hope from the State unless their Accounts are Closed and their wages & subsistance secured before the Period arrives in which they have no further Occasion for the services of the Army.
Under these Impressions heightned by their real Wants, I fear they will be driven from Service on knowing the State in which their Demands on Government are left; nor can I hold myself answerable for their conduct. I think it highly probable a very great Proportion of Officers would immediately Resign their Commissions even at this Season: the consequence of which will be little short of disbanding the Line.
I would therefore beg your Excellency’s direction in the Case, and that the Line may once more be aided by your Friendly Interposition with the State to do them Justice, the Governor has always exerted himself to procure that Justice which is due to the Army: a Letter from your Excellency to him on the Subject, would at least quiet the Minds of the Officers, whilst the Matter was in a train of Adjustment; and I believe procure that Justice from the State which nothing else will effect.3 I am with great Respect Your Excellency’s Obedt Servnt
Saml H. Parsons
LS, DLC:GW; copy, enclosed with GW to Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., 28 June, Ct: Trumbull Papers.
1. A committee of the Connecticut line had been appointed to secure arrears of pay and settle accounts with the state legislature. A final settlement faltered over rations. In response to a memorial claiming that officers had “not received any adequate compensation for their retained rations,” the legislature resolved during its May session “that the officers of the Connecticut Line of the army be allowed eight pence halfpenny for each retained ration since the first day of April 1780, and that the same be secured to them in the same manner as the deficienc[i]es of their wages has heretofore been done” (, 3:389; see also , 521–23). The legislation failed to conform to the congressional resolution adopted on 24 Aug. 1780 that required that “subsistance money” given an officer instead of rations be made “equal to the cost of the rations” (, 17:772).
A letter from Col. Samuel Blachley Webb to his brother Joseph Webb written at Peekskill on 27 June illustrated feelings among the aggrieved officers: “The Committee have returned, and was the Assembly’s conduct known, I should dread the consequences—Everything, at present is quiet—The Committee have laid their report before General Parsons, he, before the Commander-in-Chief, and measures are taking by the[m] that the Line may not know the present prospects respecting their pay, &c., until some steps are taken to shew the State the folly they are running into—Heaven smiles on us and holds our Freedom and Peace while our Country is doing (seemingly) everything in its power to bring eternal infamy and disgrace on themselves and us.
“On this you may rely—If the present moment is not taken to do justice to those who are sacrificing their all in the cause of justice, steps will be taken which will be truly alarming—Without aggrevation I do assure you, when the verdict of the Assembly is known, I fear a general mutiny—All is kept secret yet, in hopes General Washington will take the matter up, and get a new Assembly called” (, 2:344–46, quote on 345–46).
2. This word is written as “Conseqences” on the LS.
3. GW replied to Parsons from headquarters at Peekskill on 27 June: “I have received your Favor of Yesterday—and am very sorry to observe its Contents—I can think of no Mode more elegible, than to transmitt the Letter, with some Obse[r]vations on the probable Consequences, to the State of Connecticut. This Mode I shall pursue—and hope that the State, on further Consideration, will do all the Justice to their Line, that they have a Right to expect” (LS, in Jonathan Trumbull, Jr.’s writing, NjP: De Coppet Collection; Df, DLC:GW; Varick transcript, DLC:GW). See GW to Trumbull, Sr., 28 June.