Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

CONWAY AND WASHINGTON.

31

There may also be some truth in what Conway said of the treatment he received from Washington; although the commander-in-chief would never have encouraged a cabal among the officers. Washington treated Conway with what he thought to be the courtesy due to his official position, and was ready to support him in the discharge of his duties; but the promotion under any circumstances must cause the greatest discontent. Washington considered Conway a personal enemy and a dishonorable mischief-maker, and it is possible that he made his feelings more manifest than he intended, and that the officers were thereby encouraged in their opposition.

Conway's complaints produced little effect on Congress; and Gates made himself ridiculous by his conduct in a quarrel with his old favorite, Wilkinson. Wilkinson had suggested to Gates that another of his aides, Lieutenant-Colonel Troup, might have innocently mentioned to Hamilton Conway's letter. When Gates discovered that Wilkinson was himself the person through whose indiscretion the letter became known, he spoke with much severity of what Wilkinson had done. Wilkinson challenged his commander, who accepted; but on the morning fixed for the duel Gates sought a private interview, and, if we may believe Wilkinson's account, protested with tears that he would as soon have injured his own child as Wilkinson; and there was a reconciliation. Wilkinson, however, again took offence, and wrote to Congress resigning his position as secretary of the Board of War on account of "acts of treachery and falsehood, in which I have detected Major-General Gates." The letter was returned "as improper to remain on the files of Congress";2 but Wilkinson had been a protégé of Gates, and the breach must have lowered the opinion in which the latter was held by Congress.

1

Public opinion was on Washington's side, and the members of the cabal found that their efforts were more likely to injure them- » selves than Washington. Accordingly they hastened to deny that they had any intentions of driving him out. Gates professed his disbelief in any plot to supersede Washington, and declared that the charge that he was concerned therein was a wicked, 1 Wilkinson, Memoirs, i. 384-389, 409–410. 2 Journals of Congress, iv. 182, March 31, 1778.

false, diabolical calumny of incendiaries.1 Mifflin is reported to have said publicly that he considered Washington "the best friend he ever had in his life,"2 and one of his letters contains a solemn assurance that he neither plotted nor desired the removal of Washington.3 Elbridge Gerry, who was a staunch supporter of Conway, wrote to Knox that Congress was well disposed toward Washington, and that he could discover no evidence of any plan to bring in a new commander-in-chief.4

One would not willingly believe that Gates, Mifflin, and Gerry were all lying, and yet it is impossible to doubt that the opposition to Washington was stronger than their words implied. Perhaps the best explanation is that, although there was great dissatisfaction with Washington, yet few members of Congress had any clearly defined intentions of superseding him. Men may have admired Gates and wished to see him in a position of high authority, without meaning to make him commander-inchief; they may have even desired an inquiry into Washington's conduct, without acknowledging to themselves any other purpose than to learn the true causes of the American defeats in 1776. Gates probably took no active part. A French officer reported to his government in 1779 that "the Eastern party . . . backs Gates, almost in spite of himself." To use a modern term, the general was in the hands of his friends, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say in the hands of his enemies; for Lafayette expresses the opinion in his memoirs that the real wish of the plotters was to put General Lee, then a prisoner in New York, in command of the army.5

The attack on Washington had failed completely. Congress gave Gates and Mifflin a permission, which was equivalent to a command, to join the army. Conway found himself stationed at

1 Letter to a friend, April 4, 1778, Gordon, History of the American War, iii. 58-59.

2 George Lux to Greene, April, 1778, Greene, Greene, ii. 37.

3 Gordon, History of the American War, iii. 59-60.

4 February 7, 1778, Austin, Gerry, i. 241–242.

5 Durand, New Materials, 23; Tower, La Fayette in the American Revolution, i. 258, note.

• Gouverneur Morris says that a resolution was passed directing Gates and Mifflin to join the army, but that members immediately recollected that it was

FAILURE OF THE CABAL.

33

Albany, with no prospect of taking part in the main operations, and unable, as he thought, to protect the country in case of an attack from Canada. He wrote to the president of Congress: "My character must suffer. Therefore, sir, I expect you will make my resignation acceptable to Congress. I am determined not to expose myself to dishonor, to gratify the envy and malice of my enemies, whoever they may be. I have been boxed about in a most indecent manner. . . I did not deserve this burlesque disgrace. . . . It is not becoming to the dignity of Congress to give such usage to an officer of my age and rank." 1

When this impertinent letter was read, Gouverneur Morris promptly expressed his delight at getting rid of Conway, his friends were reduced to apologies, and of nine States present only one, Virginia, voted against accepting the resignation. Among the few dissentients were Elbridge Gerry and Francis Lightfoot Lee. After the vote had passed, Conway's aide explained to members that his chief did not intend to resign. Conway wrote to the same effect, and then came himself to York, where Congress was sitting, but to no purpose. He wrote to Gates: "I never had a sufficient idea of cabals until I reached this place. My reception, you may imagine, was not a warm one. I must except Mr. Samuel Adams, Colonel Richard Henry Lee, and a few others, who are attached to you, but who cannot oppose the torrent. . .

"One Mr. Carroll from Maryland, upon whose friendship I depended, is one of the hottest of the cabal. He told me a few days ago almost literally, that anybody who displeased or did not admire the commander-in-chief, ought not to be kept in the army. Mr. Carroll may be a good papist, but I am sure the sentiments he expresses are neither Roman nor Catholic." 3 not in accordance with etiquette for Congress to issue orders to a subordinate officer, and that therefore a change was made in the phraseology, Gates and Mifflin being permitted to leave the Board on Washington's order. See Morris to Washington, April 18, 1778, Sparks, Gouverneur Morris, i. 164; Journals of Congress, iv. 223, April 18, 1778.

1

1 April 22, 1778, Washington, Writings (Sparks), v. 372, note.

2 Journals of Congress, iv. 245, April 28, 1778.

3
* June 7, 1778, Sparks, Gouverneur Morris, i. 169.

D

In July Conway was challenged by General Cadwallader, on account of his abuse of Washington, and was with "almost poetic justice," shot through the mouth. He recovered and returned to France, but for a while he believed himself mortally wounded, and during this time he wrote a letter to the man he had so often abused, which is perhaps the most striking of the many tributes paid to Washington. "I find myself just able to hold the pen during a few minutes," he said, "and take this opportunity of expressing my sincere grief for having done, written, or said anything disagreeable to your Excellency. My career will soon be over; therefore justice and truth prompt me to declare my last sentiments. You are in my eyes the great and good man. May you long enjoy the love, veneration, and esteem of these States, whose liberties you have asserted by your virtues. I am with the greatest respect, &c." 1

1 Conway to Washington, July 23, 1778, Washington, Writings (Sparks), v. 517.

CHAPTER III.

APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION.

IN the management of the army, few questions were so troublesome as those of appointment and promotion. There were, indeed, some officers who were high-minded enough to find honor in faithful service, not in rank and place. Lieutenant-Colonel Morris, when disappointed in his hopes of advancement, wrote to his father that he should remain in the army nevertheless. "The officer," he said, "who would resign the service because he did not receive promotion agreeable to his expectations, sacrifices to a false sentiment of honor, the debt he owes to himself and country. I embarked in this cause from principle. I wish to serve my country and rank myself among that number who are instrumental in establishing the liberties of the people and I want no other reward, but the approbation of having done my duty."1 Congress made Montgomery, who had held a commission in the British army, a brigadier; but appointed Schuyler, who had been only a provincial officer, major-general. Duane, one of the New York delegates, wrote to Montgomery explaining why he received no higher rank. Montgomery replied: "My acknowledgments are due for the attention shown me by the Congress. I submit with great cheerfulness to any regulation they in their prudence shall judge expedient. Laying aside the punctilio of the soldier, I shall endeavor to discharge my duty to society, considering myself as the citizen, reduced to the melancholy necessity of taking up arms for the public safety."2

1 May, 1778, New York Historical Society, Collections, 1875, p. 455.

2 Lester, Our First Hundred Years, 260.

« ZurückWeiter »