"I cannot answer your inquiry about Captain Anderson. I knew several officers of that name, but can recal nothing particular concerning any of them. I once received a letter from a person some where in the State of Delaware, calling himself Henry Anderson, inquiring about his uncle Captain Anderson, of the Revolutionary army, but I have not retained, or mislaid the letter, and cannot call to mind his more particular address. But even this defective information may serve to put you on the scent."Your son will tell you much for me that I would otherwise write. My rheumatism has prevented my showing him as much of the civilities of our town as I would have liked, but you will excuse me."Most truly and sincerely,"your old friend,"SAMUEL SMITH.
"I cannot answer your inquiry about Captain Anderson. I knew several officers of that name, but can recal nothing particular concerning any of them. I once received a letter from a person some where in the State of Delaware, calling himself Henry Anderson, inquiring about his uncle Captain Anderson, of the Revolutionary army, but I have not retained, or mislaid the letter, and cannot call to mind his more particular address. But even this defective information may serve to put you on the scent.
"Your son will tell you much for me that I would otherwise write. My rheumatism has prevented my showing him as much of the civilities of our town as I would have liked, but you will excuse me.
"Most truly and sincerely,"your old friend,
"SAMUEL SMITH.
From among the accompaniments of this letter transmitted by Col. Smith, I select, for incorporation in the present article, the following correspondence between General Anthony Wayne and General Joseph Reed. The "Numbers" with which they are prefixed appear to be of General Wayne's own addition.
No. 1.Gen. A. Wayne,My Dear General—Only the day before yesterday I heard of your being here, and then but by accident, or I should have addressed you upon the subject of this communication. For several months there has been a rumor industriously circulated in this city, that during the last summer, you stated while in "South Carolina," in the presence of General Greene and other officers, that my conduct at the battles of Brandywine and Monmouth had subjected me to the imputation of timidity. It is added that you referred disparagingly to circumstances which occurred atValley Forge, and revived the exploded calumny, for the truth of which you personally vouched, that I had signified my acceptance of the terms then offered me by the Commissioners, which you know that I spurned with scorn.Of course you will understand me to be satisfied that you never did use any language of the kind, but, as these remarks have been propogated by persons who, I have every reason to believe, are no less your enemies than mine. I am anxious to afford you an opportunity for their contradiction, and this I have to request you will promptly give me.I should be sorry that malicious and designing persons should have it in their power to disturb the harmony of the relations which I have so long enjoyed with one upon whose friendship I set so high a value, and for whom I entertain a peculiar esteem.With great respect and cordiality,I am my Dear General, yours, &c.,JOS. REEDDec'r 26th, 1783.No. 2.Philadelphia, December 27th, 1783.Sir—The cool effrontery of your note yesterday surprised me. By what right you presume to refer to any harmony of relations between us, and to speak of the value of my "friendship" I am at a loss to comprehend. That harmony was first disturbed by the pecuniary difficulties in which you so dishonestly involved me, and from which I am only now beginning to extricate myself, apart from which I could entertain no feelings of "friendship" for an officer for whom I have such abundance of reasons for entertaining sentiments of a very different description. I have no doubt that my remarks to General Greene and others have been correctly reported to you, not only in South Carolina and Georgia, but years ago in Pennsylvania,and within the immediate reach of your personal demand. I have never hesitated, on all proper occasions to express myself in similar terms. I never merely intimated that your conduct at the battles of Brandywine and Monmouth had subjected you "to the imputations of timidity," but I have always said that your behaviour at those battles, particularly that of Chad's Ford, should have secured your dismissal from the army.What you refer to as "the exploded calumny" of your negotiations with the enemy at Valley Forge, I in common with every officer in the army, with whom I have ever conversed upon the subject, including the Commander-in-chief, believe to be strictly well-founded.I am Sir, yours,ANTHONY WAYNE.To Joseph Reed.
No. 1.
Gen. A. Wayne,
My Dear General—
Only the day before yesterday I heard of your being here, and then but by accident, or I should have addressed you upon the subject of this communication. For several months there has been a rumor industriously circulated in this city, that during the last summer, you stated while in "South Carolina," in the presence of General Greene and other officers, that my conduct at the battles of Brandywine and Monmouth had subjected me to the imputation of timidity. It is added that you referred disparagingly to circumstances which occurred atValley Forge, and revived the exploded calumny, for the truth of which you personally vouched, that I had signified my acceptance of the terms then offered me by the Commissioners, which you know that I spurned with scorn.
Of course you will understand me to be satisfied that you never did use any language of the kind, but, as these remarks have been propogated by persons who, I have every reason to believe, are no less your enemies than mine. I am anxious to afford you an opportunity for their contradiction, and this I have to request you will promptly give me.
I should be sorry that malicious and designing persons should have it in their power to disturb the harmony of the relations which I have so long enjoyed with one upon whose friendship I set so high a value, and for whom I entertain a peculiar esteem.
With great respect and cordiality,I am my Dear General, yours, &c.,
JOS. REED
Dec'r 26th, 1783.
No. 2.
Philadelphia, December 27th, 1783.
Sir—The cool effrontery of your note yesterday surprised me. By what right you presume to refer to any harmony of relations between us, and to speak of the value of my "friendship" I am at a loss to comprehend. That harmony was first disturbed by the pecuniary difficulties in which you so dishonestly involved me, and from which I am only now beginning to extricate myself, apart from which I could entertain no feelings of "friendship" for an officer for whom I have such abundance of reasons for entertaining sentiments of a very different description. I have no doubt that my remarks to General Greene and others have been correctly reported to you, not only in South Carolina and Georgia, but years ago in Pennsylvania,and within the immediate reach of your personal demand. I have never hesitated, on all proper occasions to express myself in similar terms. I never merely intimated that your conduct at the battles of Brandywine and Monmouth had subjected you "to the imputations of timidity," but I have always said that your behaviour at those battles, particularly that of Chad's Ford, should have secured your dismissal from the army.
What you refer to as "the exploded calumny" of your negotiations with the enemy at Valley Forge, I in common with every officer in the army, with whom I have ever conversed upon the subject, including the Commander-in-chief, believe to be strictly well-founded.
I am Sir, yours,
ANTHONY WAYNE.
To Joseph Reed.
VALLEY FORGE.
We take the following communication of Mr. Smith, from the North American of this morning.
"In compliance with this arrangement, I came to this city this evening, accompanied by three of my friends conversant with my father's handwriting, viz; Hon. Louis McLane, Robert Gilmore, and Robert Purviance, Esqrs., and was met at the place and hour of appointment by William B. Reed and Henry Reed, Esqrs., and waited there until half-past eight o'clock, without the appearance of the author of "Valley Forge," or any of his friends.JNO. SPEAR SMITH.Washington House, Parlor No. 3,Monday, October 24th, 1842.
"In compliance with this arrangement, I came to this city this evening, accompanied by three of my friends conversant with my father's handwriting, viz; Hon. Louis McLane, Robert Gilmore, and Robert Purviance, Esqrs., and was met at the place and hour of appointment by William B. Reed and Henry Reed, Esqrs., and waited there until half-past eight o'clock, without the appearance of the author of "Valley Forge," or any of his friends.
JNO. SPEAR SMITH.
Washington House, Parlor No. 3,
Monday, October 24th, 1842.
In relation to this matter, we received through the Post-Office this morning, the following explanation from Valley Forge.
"Mr.Whitney:—I am unable to express my mortification at the unhappy and unexpected accident which has prevented my meeting the Messrs. Reed and Mr. John Spear Smith this evening, at the time and place appointed by them, for the purpose of having tested the authenticity of General Samuel Smith's letters to Colonel ——, Col. —— is my near relative, and though in his ninety-third year, has till last Thursday, enjoyed the most excellent health for one of so advanced an age. As he will not permit the originals to be taken out his sight, I intended of course that he should accompany me as one of my three friends. His sudden and severe illness has rendered this impossible; he refuses to part with the documents even for a temporary purpose, and I have thus been compelled to submit for the present to this most mortifying piece of ill-fortune.No doubt the exultation of the Messrs. Reed will be violent, but let me say to them, it will be but short-lived. But a brief time will pass, and all the papers which I have published, and many more which are yet to come, will be fully proved and laid before the public. When Colonel ——'s health is restored, I do not doubt that I shall prevail upon him to place them in my hands, when I shall see Mr. John Spear Smith with them at Baltimore and have the Messrs. Reed see them here.VALLEY FORGE.October 24th, 1842."
"Mr.Whitney:—I am unable to express my mortification at the unhappy and unexpected accident which has prevented my meeting the Messrs. Reed and Mr. John Spear Smith this evening, at the time and place appointed by them, for the purpose of having tested the authenticity of General Samuel Smith's letters to Colonel ——, Col. —— is my near relative, and though in his ninety-third year, has till last Thursday, enjoyed the most excellent health for one of so advanced an age. As he will not permit the originals to be taken out his sight, I intended of course that he should accompany me as one of my three friends. His sudden and severe illness has rendered this impossible; he refuses to part with the documents even for a temporary purpose, and I have thus been compelled to submit for the present to this most mortifying piece of ill-fortune.
No doubt the exultation of the Messrs. Reed will be violent, but let me say to them, it will be but short-lived. But a brief time will pass, and all the papers which I have published, and many more which are yet to come, will be fully proved and laid before the public. When Colonel ——'s health is restored, I do not doubt that I shall prevail upon him to place them in my hands, when I shall see Mr. John Spear Smith with them at Baltimore and have the Messrs. Reed see them here.
VALLEY FORGE.
October 24th, 1842."
We do not approve of this course of procedure on the part of Valley Forge, nor do we think it a proper one. We think he ought to have met Mr. Smith and the Messrs. Reed at the place and time appointed, and made the explanation in person. Under any circumstances, we think it was due to them as well as to ourselves. The proposition which was made by Valley Forge having been accepted by the above-named gentlemen, what reason can there be for longer preserving his incognito? Indeed he expressed his willingness, in one of his notes, which we publish below, to unveil himself as soon as the proposition he made was accepted.
We had, from the first, as we have now, the fullest confidence that the letters purporting to be from the late General S. Smith were genuine, as well as that the intentions of Valley Forge, so far as concerned ourselves, were fair, and that he would establish the authenticity of those letters, and the other documents contained in his communications.
Our belief in the genuineness of the letters of General Smith, was strengthened by the perusal of a letter which we now have before us, addressed to General Joseph Reed, by General John Cadwalader, in 1783, which corroborates what those letters contain. In that letter the latter gentleman says, "Having fully stated the temper of men's minds at this alarming period, and the situation of public affairs, I shall now recite the conversation and circumstances relating thereto, which I have avowed in my letter to you of the 10th September, as having passed between us at Bristol.
"I had occasion to speak with you, a few days before the intended attack on the 20th December, 1776, and requested you to retire with me to a private room at my quarters; the business related to intelligence—a general conversation, however, soon took place concerning the state of public affairs, and after running over a number of topics, in an agony of mind, and despair strongly expressed on your countenance, and tone of voice, you spoke your apprehensions concerning the event of the contest; that our affairs looked very desperate, andwe were only making a sacrifice of ourselves; that the time Gen. Howe's offering pardon and protection to persons who should come in before the 1st January, 1777, was nearly expired; and that Galloway, the Allens, and others, had gone over and availed themselves of that pardon and protection offered by said proclamation; that you had a family, and ought to take care of them, and that you did not understand following the wretched remains (or remnants) of a broken army; that your brother (then Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel of the militia—but you say of the five month's men, which is not material) was then at Burlington with his family, and that you had ordered him to remain there, and if the enemy took possession of the town, to take a protection and swear allegiance—and in so doing he would be perfectly justifiable.
"This was the substance, and I think nearly the very words; but that, "you did not understand following the wretched remains (or remnants) of a broken army! I perfectly remember to be thevery words!"
The letter of General Cadwalader contains the letters of P. Dickinson, John Nixon, Benjamin Rush, David Lenox[TN], A. Hamilton, and a numbers of other persons, confirming what we have quoted.
The subjoined notes from Valley Forge gave us confidence in the fairness of his intentions.
R. M. Whitney, Esq: Dear Sir—I observe an invitation in yesterday's Journal, for me to call at, or send to, your office, for some information which you have to impart. For reasons which I shall have the pleasure of expressing to you hereafter in person, I am anxious to preserve myincognito, for the present, even with my nearest friends; and this consideration will prevent mycalling. I am also at a loss to know how tosend; but if you will drop me a few lines in the letter box of the Post-office, I shall not fail to receive them.Very truly, &c.,VALLEY FORGE.September 23d, 1842.Please direct to "Ambrose Anderson, Philadelphia."R. M. Whitney, Esq., Dear Sir,—I am favored with your note, refering me to General Cadwalader's pamphlet, which you inform me has been abstracted from the Philadelphia Library. I have access tomaterial, far beyond any thing in importance and value which could possibly be obtained by General Cadwalader; nevertheless theabstractionof his pamphlet is a circumstance which I will not fail to turn to good account. The gentleman to which I so often refer, in my communicationsas the revolutionary soldier who has furnished me with information, is a near relative of mine, who knew Gen. Joseph Reed thoroughly. I shall continue my communications from time to time; and you may rely upon my giving you nothing, which does not admit of literal substantiation. Among other letters which I have, are several from "George Clymer," (whom you mention in your note,) which hit the nail on the head.Will you permit me the liberty of suggesting a continuance of your vigorous editorials upon Stephen Girard? The word "finessed" in my last, your compositor has transformed intofinified.Respectfully &c.,VALLEY FORGE.Sept. 25, 1842.Reuben M. Whitney, Esq., Dear Sir,—I am afraid that, in copying Sergt. Kemp's first letter, I have made an error of date, on which account I am glad my communication has not appeared to-day, as it gives me an opportunity of correction. I am anxious to avoid even the slightest mistake in my communications. The letter is dated "June 23rd, 1778." I am not certain that I did not so transcribe it; but if I did not, be good enough to make the correction. I particularly wish you woulditalicisemy interrogatory to Reed relative to his grandfather's correspondence with General Wayne. There is apointin it whichhewill fully understand, and which will give him more uneasiness than all else. I intend reserving my extracts from that correspondence for the very last.Respectfully &c.,VALLEY FORGE.Sept. 27, 1842.R. M. Whitney, Esq.,—Dear Sir—I am provoked to find that, upon comparing my copy of Col. Smith's letter to Col. ——, with the original, that I have made another error! I hope this will reach you in time for its correction. Speaking of his visit to Gen. Washington at Mount Vernon andWashington, it should be, andPhiladelphia.Respectfully &c.,VALLEY FORGE.Sept. 28, 1842.R. M. Whitney,—Dear Sir—I have been absent for a day or two from the city, and did not receive your note until to-day. I enclose a note for publication—oblige me by letting it appear to-morrow. Icannot imagine how so stupid an error could have occured as the erroneous date of Kemp's discharge by Gen. Washington. But the error almost corrects itself—as Kemp's letter of July 2d, speaks of the battle of Monmouth on the 28th. I do not know whether the blunder is that of your workman, or mine in the haste of transcribing. One or two other errors, which are mine, I made the subject of two notes, which I addressed you through the Post-office. My absence from town, and my intended absence to-morrow, prevent my preparing another article for Saturday. Possibly, I will have it ready for Monday, and certainly for Tuesday. Acknowledge its receipt, and that it will appear on Monday or Tuesday. I have not yet come to thereal gemsof my budget. Reed shall have a surfeit.Respectfully &c.,VALLEY FORGE.Sept. 30, 1842.R. M. Whitney, Esq: Dear Sir—Nothing could have afforded me more pleasure than the publication which has been made by the Reeds. It has given me the opportunity, which I have from the first been seeking, of bringing the question of General Reed's revolutionary exploits to acrisis. I pledge myself to you, that I will overwhelm them with confusion and shame.I have not called for your letter at the Post-office, becauseI know that I am watched; and I do not desire to be known till the adoption of my proposition to the Reeds, of which I speak in the accompanying communication, and which I will furnish for publication in Monday's Journal. They have fallen completely into the snare.Yours, &c., very truly,VALLEY FORGE.October 14, 1842.
R. M. Whitney, Esq: Dear Sir—I observe an invitation in yesterday's Journal, for me to call at, or send to, your office, for some information which you have to impart. For reasons which I shall have the pleasure of expressing to you hereafter in person, I am anxious to preserve myincognito, for the present, even with my nearest friends; and this consideration will prevent mycalling. I am also at a loss to know how tosend; but if you will drop me a few lines in the letter box of the Post-office, I shall not fail to receive them.
Very truly, &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
September 23d, 1842.
Please direct to "Ambrose Anderson, Philadelphia."
R. M. Whitney, Esq., Dear Sir,—I am favored with your note, refering me to General Cadwalader's pamphlet, which you inform me has been abstracted from the Philadelphia Library. I have access tomaterial, far beyond any thing in importance and value which could possibly be obtained by General Cadwalader; nevertheless theabstractionof his pamphlet is a circumstance which I will not fail to turn to good account. The gentleman to which I so often refer, in my communicationsas the revolutionary soldier who has furnished me with information, is a near relative of mine, who knew Gen. Joseph Reed thoroughly. I shall continue my communications from time to time; and you may rely upon my giving you nothing, which does not admit of literal substantiation. Among other letters which I have, are several from "George Clymer," (whom you mention in your note,) which hit the nail on the head.
Will you permit me the liberty of suggesting a continuance of your vigorous editorials upon Stephen Girard? The word "finessed" in my last, your compositor has transformed intofinified.
Respectfully &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
Sept. 25, 1842.
Reuben M. Whitney, Esq., Dear Sir,—I am afraid that, in copying Sergt. Kemp's first letter, I have made an error of date, on which account I am glad my communication has not appeared to-day, as it gives me an opportunity of correction. I am anxious to avoid even the slightest mistake in my communications. The letter is dated "June 23rd, 1778." I am not certain that I did not so transcribe it; but if I did not, be good enough to make the correction. I particularly wish you woulditalicisemy interrogatory to Reed relative to his grandfather's correspondence with General Wayne. There is apointin it whichhewill fully understand, and which will give him more uneasiness than all else. I intend reserving my extracts from that correspondence for the very last.
Respectfully &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
Sept. 27, 1842.
R. M. Whitney, Esq.,—Dear Sir—I am provoked to find that, upon comparing my copy of Col. Smith's letter to Col. ——, with the original, that I have made another error! I hope this will reach you in time for its correction. Speaking of his visit to Gen. Washington at Mount Vernon andWashington, it should be, andPhiladelphia.
Respectfully &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
Sept. 28, 1842.
R. M. Whitney,—Dear Sir—I have been absent for a day or two from the city, and did not receive your note until to-day. I enclose a note for publication—oblige me by letting it appear to-morrow. Icannot imagine how so stupid an error could have occured as the erroneous date of Kemp's discharge by Gen. Washington. But the error almost corrects itself—as Kemp's letter of July 2d, speaks of the battle of Monmouth on the 28th. I do not know whether the blunder is that of your workman, or mine in the haste of transcribing. One or two other errors, which are mine, I made the subject of two notes, which I addressed you through the Post-office. My absence from town, and my intended absence to-morrow, prevent my preparing another article for Saturday. Possibly, I will have it ready for Monday, and certainly for Tuesday. Acknowledge its receipt, and that it will appear on Monday or Tuesday. I have not yet come to thereal gemsof my budget. Reed shall have a surfeit.
Respectfully &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
Sept. 30, 1842.
R. M. Whitney, Esq: Dear Sir—Nothing could have afforded me more pleasure than the publication which has been made by the Reeds. It has given me the opportunity, which I have from the first been seeking, of bringing the question of General Reed's revolutionary exploits to acrisis. I pledge myself to you, that I will overwhelm them with confusion and shame.
I have not called for your letter at the Post-office, becauseI know that I am watched; and I do not desire to be known till the adoption of my proposition to the Reeds, of which I speak in the accompanying communication, and which I will furnish for publication in Monday's Journal. They have fallen completely into the snare.
Yours, &c., very truly,
VALLEY FORGE.
October 14, 1842.
In his explanatory communication of yesterday's date, Valley Forge speaks of many more papers "which are yet to come:" we suppose he means yet to be published. If so, we feel constrained to say now, that we cannot publish any thing more relating to the matter until he announces to us, at least, his real name.
From the Evening Journal.
R. M. Whitney, Esq: Dear Sir,—I am pained beyond measure, at the situation in which I have been so unfortunately instrumental in placing you. But for circumstanceswhich I cannot possibly control,I would promptly communicate to you my name and residence. A pledge, rigidly exacted by my venerable relative, Col. ——, and solemnly given by me at the time he consented that I should communicate to you the letters of the late General Smith, and the other papers with which he furnished me, that I should not make either him or myself known without his consent, binds me as with links of iron. Col. —— is slowly recovering from the paralytic affection with which he was seized on the 20th of this month; and let me assure you, most sacredly and solemnly, that as soon as his health is sufficiently restored to allow a conversation of any length to be had with him, I will not fail to convince him of the propriety—of thenecessity—of permitting me to call upon you, or invite you to his residence, where, preliminary to my taking the proper steps to convince the public of their authenticity, I may exhibit to you all the writings which have been so exultingly prounounced[TN]to be "audacious forgeries."You do me but justice, when you say, that "a careful perusal of the letters of Valley Forge, confirms the belief, that he is neither an impostor nor a forger of letters." Why should I be? What motive could induce any rational being to originate afabricationso sure to be detected? You will find, ere very long, that I have given you nothing but the truth. Onlyoneliberty did I venture to take with any of the correspondence—that was from considerations of delicacy, which I now believe to have beenfastidious, and to which, at the time, I reluctantly yielded. In Gen. Smith's letter to Col. ——, dated Oct. 2d, 1832, I substituted ablankfor the name ofMrs. Ferguson," which Gen. Smith gives as that of the lady from whom was taken the letter of Governor Jonstone to Gen. Reed. This, theonlyalteration I ever made, you must allow, was a pardonable error."Truth is mighty and must prevail;" and in this case, to the joy of your friends, and the consternation of your enemies, it shall be signally exemplified.For the present, let me entreat you to rest satisfied with my assurances; assurances which will soon be most thoroughly redeemed; and that you will desist from your endeavor to discover who I am—efforts which can give you but vain trouble, whichmustprove fruitless; for the precautions which I have adopted for the preservation of myincognito, it is impossible to overcome.Very truly, &c.,VALLEY FORGE.October 29th, 1842.
R. M. Whitney, Esq: Dear Sir,—I am pained beyond measure, at the situation in which I have been so unfortunately instrumental in placing you. But for circumstanceswhich I cannot possibly control,I would promptly communicate to you my name and residence. A pledge, rigidly exacted by my venerable relative, Col. ——, and solemnly given by me at the time he consented that I should communicate to you the letters of the late General Smith, and the other papers with which he furnished me, that I should not make either him or myself known without his consent, binds me as with links of iron. Col. —— is slowly recovering from the paralytic affection with which he was seized on the 20th of this month; and let me assure you, most sacredly and solemnly, that as soon as his health is sufficiently restored to allow a conversation of any length to be had with him, I will not fail to convince him of the propriety—of thenecessity—of permitting me to call upon you, or invite you to his residence, where, preliminary to my taking the proper steps to convince the public of their authenticity, I may exhibit to you all the writings which have been so exultingly prounounced[TN]to be "audacious forgeries."
You do me but justice, when you say, that "a careful perusal of the letters of Valley Forge, confirms the belief, that he is neither an impostor nor a forger of letters." Why should I be? What motive could induce any rational being to originate afabricationso sure to be detected? You will find, ere very long, that I have given you nothing but the truth. Onlyoneliberty did I venture to take with any of the correspondence—that was from considerations of delicacy, which I now believe to have beenfastidious, and to which, at the time, I reluctantly yielded. In Gen. Smith's letter to Col. ——, dated Oct. 2d, 1832, I substituted ablankfor the name ofMrs. Ferguson," which Gen. Smith gives as that of the lady from whom was taken the letter of Governor Jonstone to Gen. Reed. This, theonlyalteration I ever made, you must allow, was a pardonable error.
"Truth is mighty and must prevail;" and in this case, to the joy of your friends, and the consternation of your enemies, it shall be signally exemplified.For the present, let me entreat you to rest satisfied with my assurances; assurances which will soon be most thoroughly redeemed; and that you will desist from your endeavor to discover who I am—efforts which can give you but vain trouble, whichmustprove fruitless; for the precautions which I have adopted for the preservation of myincognito, it is impossible to overcome.
Very truly, &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
October 29th, 1842.
From the Evening Journal, October 31st.
"Valley Forge" and General Joseph Reed—Is there a Sepulchral Sanctuary for Public Men?—The success of the American Revolution—Justice and Truth essential Elements of History—"Forgery"—The Editor, &c.
Whatever motives may have actuated "Valley Forge" to the publication of documents affecting the revolutionary services and fame of General Joseph Reed, and we pretend not either to scan them, or doubt their honorable complexion—for truth, when on the side of country and patriotism, admits not of suspicion or mistrust—whatever motive, we say, may have impelled him to the revelation of these important historical documents, there can exist no doubt as it respects the principle which sustains the ransacking of the grave, for the sake oftruth. Begin at any period of history, however early, and it will be found thatpublic menhave always been considered as public property—their characters, their conduct and their opinions, belonging to the world, with no privilege of sanctuary, either in life or in thetomb. It was so with the Hebrews, it was so with Persians, the Babylonians, the Grecians, the Romans, the French, the English, and even the Chinese. Indeed, so obvious is the principle, as almost to dispense with argument. It bears on its very face, the irresistible force of a first principle; for if the grave cannot cover up thegooddeeds of men, it never can be made to conceal their evil ones. The lessons of history, like the lessons of life, are derived more from the wicked than the good. The striking contrast of example, comes from the man who has perpetuated deeds that curdle the blood with fear, or crimson the cheeks with shame. Virtue is negative, quiet, undismayed—but vice rides aloft on the back of desecrated principles and violated laws, accompanied by the tumultuous rush of a moral whirlwind, overturning the fruits, blossoms and harvest of life; bearing blasts upon its brow, and leaving havoc in its train. And so do the laws of all well governed countries dispose of the remains of notorious felons, who, instead of being suffered to repose in the grave, are denied all interment; their bodies being delivered over to the surgeons for the benefit of science, or exposed on a gibbet, till the crows, eagles and vultures, devour their flesh, and then, even their bones are left to blacken in the winter's blast, as a warning to man, to shun the deeds that led them to their doom.
Where is the sepulchral sanctuary for Buonaparte? or for Nero? or for Marius, Sylla, Otho, Galba, Charles of Burgundy, or Ferdinand of Spain? How many patriots are commemorated in the Lives of Plutarch? Expunge from the History of England the great scoundrels who disgraced their diadems, on the plea of sepulchral sanctuary, andhow many kings will remain to grace their pages with the splendor of their virtues? The same question may be asked in reference to all histories, and the same answers given; there would be no history, if the grave silenced the tongue to speak of the vices and crimes of the dead who disgraced their nature.
To return to the principle of success, as a standard of virtue, in great revolutionary movements. The intrinsic merit of a civil movement, or commotion, to produce a change of government by force of arms, or social intimidation without bloodshed, is not sufficient to glorify its actors. Success is essential to give renown which confers fame and glory on its authors. This was fully understood during the American Revolution. A host of calculating spirits stood mute, inactive, or luke-warm, watching the changes of the contest, and fearful of embarking in a cause that might miscarry. In such a crisis, the wavering, the doubtful and the timid, were more dangerous to their country's cause than the open traitor in arms against freedom. The generous, the brave, the frank, the self-devoted patriot, rushed headlong into the contest, putting in peril, life, honor, property, fame, family, friends, children—all that is dear to life, and all that life endears. The calculating and timid palsied their daring counsels by weak irresolution of wicked duplicity. Among these time-servers, it seems General Joseph Reed stood prominent. Careful of his person, he shunned danger. Calculating the probable miscarriage of the Revolution, he occupied the prudent ground of a tory royalist, seeming to battle for liberty, but ready, at any moment; to assume the scarlet uniform, and shout "God save King George!" A traitor in his heart to the cause of Independence, lest that cause, by failing, should make him a traitor to his king, for whom he felt a warmer affection than for the rebels—he stood always on the alert, to join the British, or to appear their greatest foe; practising the meanest arts to seem brave, yet always held in open contempt for his timidity and cowardice. If the Revolution succeeded, he calculated to pass for a patriot. If the royal arms triumphed, he stood prepared to claim the rewards of his fidelity to theking, more valuable than an open adherent because a secret spy, who betrayed the cause of the rebels, while pretending to fight under its colors, in the uniform of an American Officer of the army of George Washington!
Such appears to have been the character of General Joseph Reed, from documents decidedly authentic—so authentic as to have led to their partial destruction, by his vain and silly descendants, who imagined thattruthcould be extinguished, while vanity was kindling a spurious flame to consummate an imaginery[TN]apotheosis, for one whose actual deeds consigned him to the keeping of the furies and his country's execration.
If such men are to be allowed an enrolment on the page of fame, as revolutionary patriots, who achieved our independence, there is no merits in those who stood side by side with Washington, in the darkest hour of the Revolution, when dismay sat on the bravest brow—spurning the temptation of British bribes—bidding defiance to British battalions, and enduring the pangs of hunger, thirst, and howling blasts—naked amidst winter's snow, with earth for a pillow, and the canopy of heaven for a covering—treason thundering in their ears—rewards offered for their heads, and nothing but liberty and independence, with the secret assurance of heaven's succour from a just God, to cheer and console them—bleeding, dying, desolate. Shall thetime-servingtraitor take his position by the side of such men? Shall all merit be levelled into one common mass of calculating selfishness? For such must be the effect, if General Joseph Reed is to occupy a niche of glory in the same temple with George Washington. But there is no moral crucible to melt down such deeds into a general and indiscriminate mass. Truth revolts from such profanation. Justice spurns the contamination. Nature herself rises up in arms against the thought, as doing violence to all her holiest sympathies; her purest heart-throbs, her noblest aspirations. God himself denounces the impiety.
Having demonstrated the importance of the revelations of "Valley Forge" to the truth and accuracy of history—of that history, in which we are all so intensely interested—as belonging to the fame of the fathers, and as destined for an inheritance to our children, to the end of time—it remains to consider how the editor of the Evening Journal, in giving publicity to corroborative materials for history, has merited that torrent of scurrility, that has been vomited upon him from the sympathisers in the royal cause of George the Third—who, even up to this day, still retain in their veins, the poison of tory blood! "Valley Forge" makes nofreshcharge against the tories of 1776. He but deals in specifications of treasonable designs, common to every history of our Revolution, and to be found in every life of George Washington. If he has ventured on the daring task of committing fabrications of letters from General Smith to Colonel ----, he has perpetratedsupererogatorycrime, for no sensible purpose—for all that General Smith's letters told us, we knew before, as notorious facts of history. For this reason, we do not believe he has committed "forgery"—from the mere love of crime, or any other motive. If, then, the sympathisers in the Royal cause, are so offended by these letters, as to pour forth the phials of their wrath upon the editor of this paper, it must be from some other motive than virtuous sensibility or wounded patriotism. But this is not all. What was the character—what the tendency of the letters of "Valley Forge" whohas unquestionably committed a deep injury, in maintaining his anonymous character, and failing to redeem "his gage," thrown down with so much defiance to Mr. Spear Smith—what, we say, was the tendency of his letters? It was laudable, noble, exemplary. It was to vindicate Washington, and his co-patriots, from all suspicion of being associated with General Joseph Reed, the secret royalist—the wavering tory—all which he is known to be, on the authority of Cadwalader, as well as Washington himself—from all suspicion of being associated, we say, with Reed asa friend—a bosom, and confidental[TN]friend. Their direct tendency is, to exalt the patriots of the Revolution, and to depress those English spies in the American uniform, who correspond in cypher, with the royal commissioners, and sought to sell the liberties of their country, for a price, at the very crisis of her fate. And what reply is made to "Valley Forge?" Do the parties criminated, defend their ancestor? No.—Do they question the truth of history? No.—But they charge "Valley Forge," with fabrication. Yet, if he be guilty, does it make Reed innocent? No.—Then why not defend themselves?
VALLEY FORGE.
October, 31st,
We give another communication to-day, from the writer of the articles under this signature. We are satisfied that Valley Forge is what he represents himself to be—that he is sincere, honest, and will, as soon as circumstances will permit, establish the authenticity of every document he has furnished for publication. We shall refrain from pushing our searches any further, for the purpose of discovering the person of Valley Forge, for the good reason that we are satisfied that we know him already. On comparing the note of the 14th inst., to us, written evidently by Valley Forge himself, but in a disguised hand, with a letter of a recent date, in the natural handwriting of the person who we believe assumes that name, there are innumerable evidences that most clearly establish his identity, satisfactorily to us.
A word to our enemies now. Let them go on and pour forth their malice, give full vent to their venom, and pile obloquy, mountain high; we regard it as the idle wind, that passeth by and harmeth not. We have long been accustomed to be traduced and slandered. For making the exposition of the mal-appropriation of the money of the Bank of the United States, by Mr. Biddle, the first that was ever made, we brought down on our head the whole weight of the power of that institution and its legions of friends and supporters. We were charged with having perjured ourselves in that matter.And what has become of that charge now? No one believes it. We have triumphed over all the allegations made against us in the matter, and thousands of individuals are left to weep now, because they did not believe, and act on our testimony at the time it was given.
So in the present case, we are charged with publishing forged letters, and even with forging them ourselves. But on what authority? Why, on the assertion of Mr. John Spear Smith, of Baltimore, made, we do not doubt, in all sincerity, but evidently hastily, and without giving a single reason for his coming to that conclusion.
We do not entertain a single apprehenson[TN]but that in this case, every thing will very soon come out right, and that we shall triumph over our enemies and their slanders, as we did in the affair of the Bank of the United States.Nous Verrons.
FOOTNOTES:[A]Reed always said that this reply was the joint protection of Benj. Rush, Dr Wm. Smith and Gen. John Cadwalader.[B]See Gov. Johnstone's speech in the House of Commons, March, 9th, 1779, to be found in the Philadelphia Library in a volume of the Pennsylvania Packet, February 20th, 1779, No. 384.[C]Mrs. Ferguson's letter will be found in the same volume in the Numbers for February 20th, and March 9th.[D]Here the following anecdote will afford an occasion of recriminating. When Mr. Reed was proposed as a Brigadier in the army, Mr. John Adams, now our minister in Holland, openly objected, in Congress, to his appointment, saying he was of a factious spirit, and had been notoriously instrumental in fomenting discords between the troops of the different States.[E]When Mr. Ingersoll waited on me with General Reed's first letter, 9th of September last, I mentioned to him the situation of my family, and the necessity of my leaving the city. This has been candidly related by Mr. Ingersoll to Mr. Reed, as appears by the following extract from his letter, in answer to mine on the 17th of March, on this subject.Extract from Mr. Ingersoll's letter, dated Philadelphia, 8th March, 1783."The conversation that passed, I reported with candour, and I believe with precision, but still supposed, that the reply from General Reed would be founded entirely upon your answer. Your declaration, with respect to your intention of leaving town, I think I can repeat in nearly the words in which you expressed yourself."After discoursing upon the subject of the letter I had put into your hands, you mentioned to me that your furniture was packed up to go to Maryland; that you had been waiting for rain to lay the dust, and that if anything was to come of this business, it must bespeedily."Iendeavourto give thewordsused,—I certainly do not deviate from thepurportof what was said."This is not the least of the manymisrepresentationsin which Mr. Reed is convicted in the course of my reply.[F]Being called upon by General Cadwalader to recollect the conversation we had at the Coffee-House, in the fall of the year seventy-eight, when he related what had passed between him and Mr. Reed at Bristol, I remember the subject corroborates with those queries I have since seen published in Mr. Oswald's paper, of the 7th of September, 1782. I likewise remember giving him a hint, that some of Mr. Reed's friends were present, on which he repeated what he had related before, and then addressed himself to the gentlemen, and informed them, if any of Mr. Reed's friends were present, they were at liberty to make what use they pleased of it.THOMAS PRYOR.Philadelphia, March 8, 1783.[G]See Gen. Reed's Address to the Public, pages 24, 25.[H]As a proof of my having made this declaration, and the occasion of it, I offer the following letter:Dear Sir:—I have, at your request, charged my recollection with what fell from you, in the hearing of myself and several others, at the trial of Mr. William Hamilton, on the subject of Mr. Reed, who assisted the prosecution; it was in terms to this effect; that it indicated the extremity of baseness in him, to attempt to destroy another for taking the very step he had once lifted his own foot to take. This, at the instant, made a deeper impression me, as having never till then, though living in the closest intimacy, heard you drop the most distant hint of any intended defection of Mr. Reed, of which I myself had no suspicion.Your humble servant,GEORGE CLYMER.March 2d, 1783.General Cadwalader.[I]If the countryman was sent, as he insinuated, for intelligence, and not for a protection for Mr. Reed and his friend, is it not very extraordinary, in a case of this nature, after the man had so narrowly escaped with his life, that no circumstance relating to so delicate an affair, (transacted in so private a manner) should ever have come to my knowledge, till I heard this testimony from Major Lennox?I will venture to say that no officer of the army, at that critical period, would have risked his reputation, though he had afforded no cause to suspect his firmness, by instructing a spy to apply for a protection for him, with a view of gaining intelligence, without mentioning it to his commanding officer before the transaction. But in the instance before us, it is worthy notice, that in so critical a situation of public affairs, Mr. Reed, knowing how dangerous such a plea as the messenger had used might prove to his reputation, in the hands of the enemy, should not have endeavoured to obviate such a tale, by mentioning the circumstance to the commanding officer at Bristol, who might have vouched for his innocence, in case Donop should attempt to injure him afterwards.[J]I have ample proofs of Mr. Ellis's attachment to the enemy, which may be produced, if necessary.[K]M'Kenney's Ferry, 25th December, 1776, 6 o'clock, P. M.Dear Sir,—Notwithstanding the discouraging accounts I have received from Col. Reed, of what might be expected from the operations below, I am determined, as the night is favourable, to cross the river, and make the attack on Trenton in the morning. If you can do nothing real, at least create as great a diversion as possible.I am, sir, your most obedient servant,GEO. WASHINGTON.[L]The following extracts from General Reed's letter to his Excellency the President and the Honorable the Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania, dated Philadelphia, 22d July, 1777, assigning his reasons for not accepting the office of Chief Justice, may serve to prove his opinions of the constitution at that time. "If there is any radical weakness of authority proceeding from the Constitution; if in any respects it opposes the genius, temper or habits of the governed,I fear, unless a remedy can be provided, in less than seven years, government will sink in a spiritless langour, or expire in a suddenconvulsion. It would be foreign to my present purpose to suggest any of thosealterations, which, in myapprehension are necessaryto enable the constitution to support itself withdignityandefficiency, and its friends withsecurity.That some are necessary I cannot entertain the least doubt.With this sentiment, I feel aninsuperable difficultyto enter into an engagement of themost solemn nature, leading to thesupportandconfirmationof an entire system of government, which I cannot whollyapprove." Again, "the dispensation from this engagement,[M]first allowed to several members of the Assembly, and afterwards to the militia officers, has added to mydifficulties, as I cannot reconcile it to my ideas of propriety, the members of the same state being under different obligations to support and enforce its authority." But he adds, "If the sense of the people who have the right of decision, leads to some alterations, I firmly believe it will conduce to our happiness and security; if otherwise, I shall esteem it my duty, not only to acquiesce, but to support as far as lays in my power, a form of government confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." Here, then, he says, "he feels aninsuperable difficultyto enter into an engagement of the most solemn nature, leading to the support and confirmation of an entire system of government, which he cannot whollyapprove; but he shall think it his duty to acquiesce, and support the government,—if confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." How inconsistent, then, must his conduct appear, when it is notorious, that he took a decided part in support of government, accepted of his seat in Council, and afterwards the Presidency, long before the sense of the people was expressd[TN]by thefabricated instructionsto the members of Assembly, requiring them to rescind the resolution for calling a convention for the purpose of revising the constitution. And yet he says, in the 27th page of his pamphlet, he "so effectually vindicated every part of his conduct, that every gentleman present, (myself excepted,) acknowledged his mistake."These were the ostensible reasons for not accepting the Chief Justiceship, and taking the oath of office; but an oath of another kind, no doubt, induced him to decline this appointment. He had not taken the oath of allegiance which the law, (passed the 13th June, 1777,) required of every male white inhabitant; nor did he take it, as appears by the publication signed Sidney, in the Pennsylvania Journal, No. 1565, 12th February, 1783,) till the 9th of October, 1778, which was the very day he was elected a Councillor for the County of Philadelphia. And though disfranchised of all the rights of citizenship, and incapable of being elected into, or serving in any office, place, or trust, in this commonwealth, Mr. Reed dared to disregard the voice of the people, and violate the law, by accepting the Presidency, and exercising the powers of government annexed to that office. If he had taken the oath of allegiance, agreeable to law, why did he take itagain, on the day he was elected a councillor? as the mere oath of office only, upon that occasion, would have been required of him.As Mr. Reed has not touched this point in his pamphlet, or furnished his friends with a single argument to defend him, against a charge supported by authentic proofs from public records, the public have very justly pronounced him guilty. If certificates can be produced of his oaths of abjuration and allegiance, agreeable to law, why have they not been published? If he is not defranchised[TN]of the rights of citizenship, why was his vote refused at the last election? or is this one of the subjects reserved for "legal examination?" and if so, why does he not suspend the public opinion by such information?[M]By the "dispensation from this engagement," above mentioned, is meant, that the oath prescribed by the constitution was dispensed with, and many members of Assembly were permitted to take another oath, in which they were not bound to support the constitution.[N]That this opinion was not entertained by Congress, may reasonably be inferred from the following letter:"Philadelphia, 12th September, 1778."Sir,—His excellency, General Washington, having recommended to Congress the appointment of a General of horse, the House took that subject under consideration the 10th instant, when you were unanimously elected Brigadier and commander of the cavalry in the service of the United States."From the general view above mentioned, you will perceive, sir, the earnest desire of the house, that you will accept a commission, and enter as early as your convenience will admit of, upon the duties of the office; and I flatter myself with hopes of congratulating you in a few days upon this occasion."I have the honour to be, with particular regard and esteem, sir, your most humble servant,HENRY LAURENS,"The Hon. Brigadier-General Cadwalader. "President of Congress,"But not wishing to have it suggested, that I entered into the service at so late a period of the war for the sake of rank, as the French treaty had taken place, and I had conceived all offensive operations at an end, I declined the appointment in these terms.Maryland, 19th September, 1778.Sir,—I have the highest sense of the honour conferred upon me by Congress, in appointing me a Brigadier in the Continental service, with the command of the cavalry, more particularly as the voice of Congress was unanimous.I cannot consent to enter into the service at this time, as the war appears to me to be near the close. But should any misfortune give an unhappy turn to our affairs, I shall immediately apply to Congress for a command in the army.I have the honour to be, with the greatest regard and esteem, your excellency's most obedient humble servant,JOHN CADWALADER.His Excellency Henry Laurens, Esq., President of Congress.
[A]Reed always said that this reply was the joint protection of Benj. Rush, Dr Wm. Smith and Gen. John Cadwalader.
[A]Reed always said that this reply was the joint protection of Benj. Rush, Dr Wm. Smith and Gen. John Cadwalader.
[B]See Gov. Johnstone's speech in the House of Commons, March, 9th, 1779, to be found in the Philadelphia Library in a volume of the Pennsylvania Packet, February 20th, 1779, No. 384.
[B]See Gov. Johnstone's speech in the House of Commons, March, 9th, 1779, to be found in the Philadelphia Library in a volume of the Pennsylvania Packet, February 20th, 1779, No. 384.
[C]Mrs. Ferguson's letter will be found in the same volume in the Numbers for February 20th, and March 9th.
[C]Mrs. Ferguson's letter will be found in the same volume in the Numbers for February 20th, and March 9th.
[D]Here the following anecdote will afford an occasion of recriminating. When Mr. Reed was proposed as a Brigadier in the army, Mr. John Adams, now our minister in Holland, openly objected, in Congress, to his appointment, saying he was of a factious spirit, and had been notoriously instrumental in fomenting discords between the troops of the different States.
[D]Here the following anecdote will afford an occasion of recriminating. When Mr. Reed was proposed as a Brigadier in the army, Mr. John Adams, now our minister in Holland, openly objected, in Congress, to his appointment, saying he was of a factious spirit, and had been notoriously instrumental in fomenting discords between the troops of the different States.
[E]When Mr. Ingersoll waited on me with General Reed's first letter, 9th of September last, I mentioned to him the situation of my family, and the necessity of my leaving the city. This has been candidly related by Mr. Ingersoll to Mr. Reed, as appears by the following extract from his letter, in answer to mine on the 17th of March, on this subject.Extract from Mr. Ingersoll's letter, dated Philadelphia, 8th March, 1783."The conversation that passed, I reported with candour, and I believe with precision, but still supposed, that the reply from General Reed would be founded entirely upon your answer. Your declaration, with respect to your intention of leaving town, I think I can repeat in nearly the words in which you expressed yourself."After discoursing upon the subject of the letter I had put into your hands, you mentioned to me that your furniture was packed up to go to Maryland; that you had been waiting for rain to lay the dust, and that if anything was to come of this business, it must bespeedily."Iendeavourto give thewordsused,—I certainly do not deviate from thepurportof what was said."This is not the least of the manymisrepresentationsin which Mr. Reed is convicted in the course of my reply.
[E]When Mr. Ingersoll waited on me with General Reed's first letter, 9th of September last, I mentioned to him the situation of my family, and the necessity of my leaving the city. This has been candidly related by Mr. Ingersoll to Mr. Reed, as appears by the following extract from his letter, in answer to mine on the 17th of March, on this subject.
Extract from Mr. Ingersoll's letter, dated Philadelphia, 8th March, 1783.
"The conversation that passed, I reported with candour, and I believe with precision, but still supposed, that the reply from General Reed would be founded entirely upon your answer. Your declaration, with respect to your intention of leaving town, I think I can repeat in nearly the words in which you expressed yourself."After discoursing upon the subject of the letter I had put into your hands, you mentioned to me that your furniture was packed up to go to Maryland; that you had been waiting for rain to lay the dust, and that if anything was to come of this business, it must bespeedily."Iendeavourto give thewordsused,—I certainly do not deviate from thepurportof what was said."This is not the least of the manymisrepresentationsin which Mr. Reed is convicted in the course of my reply.
"The conversation that passed, I reported with candour, and I believe with precision, but still supposed, that the reply from General Reed would be founded entirely upon your answer. Your declaration, with respect to your intention of leaving town, I think I can repeat in nearly the words in which you expressed yourself.
"After discoursing upon the subject of the letter I had put into your hands, you mentioned to me that your furniture was packed up to go to Maryland; that you had been waiting for rain to lay the dust, and that if anything was to come of this business, it must bespeedily.
"Iendeavourto give thewordsused,—I certainly do not deviate from thepurportof what was said."
This is not the least of the manymisrepresentationsin which Mr. Reed is convicted in the course of my reply.
[F]Being called upon by General Cadwalader to recollect the conversation we had at the Coffee-House, in the fall of the year seventy-eight, when he related what had passed between him and Mr. Reed at Bristol, I remember the subject corroborates with those queries I have since seen published in Mr. Oswald's paper, of the 7th of September, 1782. I likewise remember giving him a hint, that some of Mr. Reed's friends were present, on which he repeated what he had related before, and then addressed himself to the gentlemen, and informed them, if any of Mr. Reed's friends were present, they were at liberty to make what use they pleased of it.THOMAS PRYOR.Philadelphia, March 8, 1783.
[F]Being called upon by General Cadwalader to recollect the conversation we had at the Coffee-House, in the fall of the year seventy-eight, when he related what had passed between him and Mr. Reed at Bristol, I remember the subject corroborates with those queries I have since seen published in Mr. Oswald's paper, of the 7th of September, 1782. I likewise remember giving him a hint, that some of Mr. Reed's friends were present, on which he repeated what he had related before, and then addressed himself to the gentlemen, and informed them, if any of Mr. Reed's friends were present, they were at liberty to make what use they pleased of it.
THOMAS PRYOR.
Philadelphia, March 8, 1783.
[G]See Gen. Reed's Address to the Public, pages 24, 25.
[G]See Gen. Reed's Address to the Public, pages 24, 25.
[H]As a proof of my having made this declaration, and the occasion of it, I offer the following letter:Dear Sir:—I have, at your request, charged my recollection with what fell from you, in the hearing of myself and several others, at the trial of Mr. William Hamilton, on the subject of Mr. Reed, who assisted the prosecution; it was in terms to this effect; that it indicated the extremity of baseness in him, to attempt to destroy another for taking the very step he had once lifted his own foot to take. This, at the instant, made a deeper impression me, as having never till then, though living in the closest intimacy, heard you drop the most distant hint of any intended defection of Mr. Reed, of which I myself had no suspicion.Your humble servant,GEORGE CLYMER.March 2d, 1783.General Cadwalader.
[H]As a proof of my having made this declaration, and the occasion of it, I offer the following letter:
Dear Sir:—I have, at your request, charged my recollection with what fell from you, in the hearing of myself and several others, at the trial of Mr. William Hamilton, on the subject of Mr. Reed, who assisted the prosecution; it was in terms to this effect; that it indicated the extremity of baseness in him, to attempt to destroy another for taking the very step he had once lifted his own foot to take. This, at the instant, made a deeper impression me, as having never till then, though living in the closest intimacy, heard you drop the most distant hint of any intended defection of Mr. Reed, of which I myself had no suspicion.
Your humble servant,
GEORGE CLYMER.
March 2d, 1783.General Cadwalader.
[I]If the countryman was sent, as he insinuated, for intelligence, and not for a protection for Mr. Reed and his friend, is it not very extraordinary, in a case of this nature, after the man had so narrowly escaped with his life, that no circumstance relating to so delicate an affair, (transacted in so private a manner) should ever have come to my knowledge, till I heard this testimony from Major Lennox?I will venture to say that no officer of the army, at that critical period, would have risked his reputation, though he had afforded no cause to suspect his firmness, by instructing a spy to apply for a protection for him, with a view of gaining intelligence, without mentioning it to his commanding officer before the transaction. But in the instance before us, it is worthy notice, that in so critical a situation of public affairs, Mr. Reed, knowing how dangerous such a plea as the messenger had used might prove to his reputation, in the hands of the enemy, should not have endeavoured to obviate such a tale, by mentioning the circumstance to the commanding officer at Bristol, who might have vouched for his innocence, in case Donop should attempt to injure him afterwards.
[I]If the countryman was sent, as he insinuated, for intelligence, and not for a protection for Mr. Reed and his friend, is it not very extraordinary, in a case of this nature, after the man had so narrowly escaped with his life, that no circumstance relating to so delicate an affair, (transacted in so private a manner) should ever have come to my knowledge, till I heard this testimony from Major Lennox?
I will venture to say that no officer of the army, at that critical period, would have risked his reputation, though he had afforded no cause to suspect his firmness, by instructing a spy to apply for a protection for him, with a view of gaining intelligence, without mentioning it to his commanding officer before the transaction. But in the instance before us, it is worthy notice, that in so critical a situation of public affairs, Mr. Reed, knowing how dangerous such a plea as the messenger had used might prove to his reputation, in the hands of the enemy, should not have endeavoured to obviate such a tale, by mentioning the circumstance to the commanding officer at Bristol, who might have vouched for his innocence, in case Donop should attempt to injure him afterwards.
[J]I have ample proofs of Mr. Ellis's attachment to the enemy, which may be produced, if necessary.
[J]I have ample proofs of Mr. Ellis's attachment to the enemy, which may be produced, if necessary.
[K]M'Kenney's Ferry, 25th December, 1776, 6 o'clock, P. M.Dear Sir,—Notwithstanding the discouraging accounts I have received from Col. Reed, of what might be expected from the operations below, I am determined, as the night is favourable, to cross the river, and make the attack on Trenton in the morning. If you can do nothing real, at least create as great a diversion as possible.I am, sir, your most obedient servant,GEO. WASHINGTON.
[K]
M'Kenney's Ferry, 25th December, 1776, 6 o'clock, P. M.
Dear Sir,—Notwithstanding the discouraging accounts I have received from Col. Reed, of what might be expected from the operations below, I am determined, as the night is favourable, to cross the river, and make the attack on Trenton in the morning. If you can do nothing real, at least create as great a diversion as possible.
I am, sir, your most obedient servant,
GEO. WASHINGTON.
[L]The following extracts from General Reed's letter to his Excellency the President and the Honorable the Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania, dated Philadelphia, 22d July, 1777, assigning his reasons for not accepting the office of Chief Justice, may serve to prove his opinions of the constitution at that time. "If there is any radical weakness of authority proceeding from the Constitution; if in any respects it opposes the genius, temper or habits of the governed,I fear, unless a remedy can be provided, in less than seven years, government will sink in a spiritless langour, or expire in a suddenconvulsion. It would be foreign to my present purpose to suggest any of thosealterations, which, in myapprehension are necessaryto enable the constitution to support itself withdignityandefficiency, and its friends withsecurity.That some are necessary I cannot entertain the least doubt.With this sentiment, I feel aninsuperable difficultyto enter into an engagement of themost solemn nature, leading to thesupportandconfirmationof an entire system of government, which I cannot whollyapprove." Again, "the dispensation from this engagement,[M]first allowed to several members of the Assembly, and afterwards to the militia officers, has added to mydifficulties, as I cannot reconcile it to my ideas of propriety, the members of the same state being under different obligations to support and enforce its authority." But he adds, "If the sense of the people who have the right of decision, leads to some alterations, I firmly believe it will conduce to our happiness and security; if otherwise, I shall esteem it my duty, not only to acquiesce, but to support as far as lays in my power, a form of government confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." Here, then, he says, "he feels aninsuperable difficultyto enter into an engagement of the most solemn nature, leading to the support and confirmation of an entire system of government, which he cannot whollyapprove; but he shall think it his duty to acquiesce, and support the government,—if confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." How inconsistent, then, must his conduct appear, when it is notorious, that he took a decided part in support of government, accepted of his seat in Council, and afterwards the Presidency, long before the sense of the people was expressd[TN]by thefabricated instructionsto the members of Assembly, requiring them to rescind the resolution for calling a convention for the purpose of revising the constitution. And yet he says, in the 27th page of his pamphlet, he "so effectually vindicated every part of his conduct, that every gentleman present, (myself excepted,) acknowledged his mistake."These were the ostensible reasons for not accepting the Chief Justiceship, and taking the oath of office; but an oath of another kind, no doubt, induced him to decline this appointment. He had not taken the oath of allegiance which the law, (passed the 13th June, 1777,) required of every male white inhabitant; nor did he take it, as appears by the publication signed Sidney, in the Pennsylvania Journal, No. 1565, 12th February, 1783,) till the 9th of October, 1778, which was the very day he was elected a Councillor for the County of Philadelphia. And though disfranchised of all the rights of citizenship, and incapable of being elected into, or serving in any office, place, or trust, in this commonwealth, Mr. Reed dared to disregard the voice of the people, and violate the law, by accepting the Presidency, and exercising the powers of government annexed to that office. If he had taken the oath of allegiance, agreeable to law, why did he take itagain, on the day he was elected a councillor? as the mere oath of office only, upon that occasion, would have been required of him.As Mr. Reed has not touched this point in his pamphlet, or furnished his friends with a single argument to defend him, against a charge supported by authentic proofs from public records, the public have very justly pronounced him guilty. If certificates can be produced of his oaths of abjuration and allegiance, agreeable to law, why have they not been published? If he is not defranchised[TN]of the rights of citizenship, why was his vote refused at the last election? or is this one of the subjects reserved for "legal examination?" and if so, why does he not suspend the public opinion by such information?
[L]The following extracts from General Reed's letter to his Excellency the President and the Honorable the Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania, dated Philadelphia, 22d July, 1777, assigning his reasons for not accepting the office of Chief Justice, may serve to prove his opinions of the constitution at that time. "If there is any radical weakness of authority proceeding from the Constitution; if in any respects it opposes the genius, temper or habits of the governed,I fear, unless a remedy can be provided, in less than seven years, government will sink in a spiritless langour, or expire in a suddenconvulsion. It would be foreign to my present purpose to suggest any of thosealterations, which, in myapprehension are necessaryto enable the constitution to support itself withdignityandefficiency, and its friends withsecurity.That some are necessary I cannot entertain the least doubt.With this sentiment, I feel aninsuperable difficultyto enter into an engagement of themost solemn nature, leading to thesupportandconfirmationof an entire system of government, which I cannot whollyapprove." Again, "the dispensation from this engagement,[M]first allowed to several members of the Assembly, and afterwards to the militia officers, has added to mydifficulties, as I cannot reconcile it to my ideas of propriety, the members of the same state being under different obligations to support and enforce its authority." But he adds, "If the sense of the people who have the right of decision, leads to some alterations, I firmly believe it will conduce to our happiness and security; if otherwise, I shall esteem it my duty, not only to acquiesce, but to support as far as lays in my power, a form of government confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." Here, then, he says, "he feels aninsuperable difficultyto enter into an engagement of the most solemn nature, leading to the support and confirmation of an entire system of government, which he cannot whollyapprove; but he shall think it his duty to acquiesce, and support the government,—if confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." How inconsistent, then, must his conduct appear, when it is notorious, that he took a decided part in support of government, accepted of his seat in Council, and afterwards the Presidency, long before the sense of the people was expressd[TN]by thefabricated instructionsto the members of Assembly, requiring them to rescind the resolution for calling a convention for the purpose of revising the constitution. And yet he says, in the 27th page of his pamphlet, he "so effectually vindicated every part of his conduct, that every gentleman present, (myself excepted,) acknowledged his mistake."
These were the ostensible reasons for not accepting the Chief Justiceship, and taking the oath of office; but an oath of another kind, no doubt, induced him to decline this appointment. He had not taken the oath of allegiance which the law, (passed the 13th June, 1777,) required of every male white inhabitant; nor did he take it, as appears by the publication signed Sidney, in the Pennsylvania Journal, No. 1565, 12th February, 1783,) till the 9th of October, 1778, which was the very day he was elected a Councillor for the County of Philadelphia. And though disfranchised of all the rights of citizenship, and incapable of being elected into, or serving in any office, place, or trust, in this commonwealth, Mr. Reed dared to disregard the voice of the people, and violate the law, by accepting the Presidency, and exercising the powers of government annexed to that office. If he had taken the oath of allegiance, agreeable to law, why did he take itagain, on the day he was elected a councillor? as the mere oath of office only, upon that occasion, would have been required of him.
As Mr. Reed has not touched this point in his pamphlet, or furnished his friends with a single argument to defend him, against a charge supported by authentic proofs from public records, the public have very justly pronounced him guilty. If certificates can be produced of his oaths of abjuration and allegiance, agreeable to law, why have they not been published? If he is not defranchised[TN]of the rights of citizenship, why was his vote refused at the last election? or is this one of the subjects reserved for "legal examination?" and if so, why does he not suspend the public opinion by such information?
[M]By the "dispensation from this engagement," above mentioned, is meant, that the oath prescribed by the constitution was dispensed with, and many members of Assembly were permitted to take another oath, in which they were not bound to support the constitution.
[M]By the "dispensation from this engagement," above mentioned, is meant, that the oath prescribed by the constitution was dispensed with, and many members of Assembly were permitted to take another oath, in which they were not bound to support the constitution.
[N]That this opinion was not entertained by Congress, may reasonably be inferred from the following letter:"Philadelphia, 12th September, 1778."Sir,—His excellency, General Washington, having recommended to Congress the appointment of a General of horse, the House took that subject under consideration the 10th instant, when you were unanimously elected Brigadier and commander of the cavalry in the service of the United States."From the general view above mentioned, you will perceive, sir, the earnest desire of the house, that you will accept a commission, and enter as early as your convenience will admit of, upon the duties of the office; and I flatter myself with hopes of congratulating you in a few days upon this occasion."I have the honour to be, with particular regard and esteem, sir, your most humble servant,HENRY LAURENS,"The Hon. Brigadier-General Cadwalader. "President of Congress,"But not wishing to have it suggested, that I entered into the service at so late a period of the war for the sake of rank, as the French treaty had taken place, and I had conceived all offensive operations at an end, I declined the appointment in these terms.Maryland, 19th September, 1778.Sir,—I have the highest sense of the honour conferred upon me by Congress, in appointing me a Brigadier in the Continental service, with the command of the cavalry, more particularly as the voice of Congress was unanimous.I cannot consent to enter into the service at this time, as the war appears to me to be near the close. But should any misfortune give an unhappy turn to our affairs, I shall immediately apply to Congress for a command in the army.I have the honour to be, with the greatest regard and esteem, your excellency's most obedient humble servant,JOHN CADWALADER.His Excellency Henry Laurens, Esq., President of Congress.
[N]That this opinion was not entertained by Congress, may reasonably be inferred from the following letter:
"Philadelphia, 12th September, 1778.
"Sir,—His excellency, General Washington, having recommended to Congress the appointment of a General of horse, the House took that subject under consideration the 10th instant, when you were unanimously elected Brigadier and commander of the cavalry in the service of the United States."From the general view above mentioned, you will perceive, sir, the earnest desire of the house, that you will accept a commission, and enter as early as your convenience will admit of, upon the duties of the office; and I flatter myself with hopes of congratulating you in a few days upon this occasion."I have the honour to be, with particular regard and esteem, sir, your most humble servant,HENRY LAURENS,"The Hon. Brigadier-General Cadwalader. "President of Congress,"
"Sir,—His excellency, General Washington, having recommended to Congress the appointment of a General of horse, the House took that subject under consideration the 10th instant, when you were unanimously elected Brigadier and commander of the cavalry in the service of the United States.
"From the general view above mentioned, you will perceive, sir, the earnest desire of the house, that you will accept a commission, and enter as early as your convenience will admit of, upon the duties of the office; and I flatter myself with hopes of congratulating you in a few days upon this occasion.
"I have the honour to be, with particular regard and esteem, sir, your most humble servant,
HENRY LAURENS,
"The Hon. Brigadier-General Cadwalader. "President of Congress,"
But not wishing to have it suggested, that I entered into the service at so late a period of the war for the sake of rank, as the French treaty had taken place, and I had conceived all offensive operations at an end, I declined the appointment in these terms.
Maryland, 19th September, 1778.Sir,—I have the highest sense of the honour conferred upon me by Congress, in appointing me a Brigadier in the Continental service, with the command of the cavalry, more particularly as the voice of Congress was unanimous.I cannot consent to enter into the service at this time, as the war appears to me to be near the close. But should any misfortune give an unhappy turn to our affairs, I shall immediately apply to Congress for a command in the army.I have the honour to be, with the greatest regard and esteem, your excellency's most obedient humble servant,JOHN CADWALADER.His Excellency Henry Laurens, Esq., President of Congress.
Maryland, 19th September, 1778.
Sir,—I have the highest sense of the honour conferred upon me by Congress, in appointing me a Brigadier in the Continental service, with the command of the cavalry, more particularly as the voice of Congress was unanimous.
I cannot consent to enter into the service at this time, as the war appears to me to be near the close. But should any misfortune give an unhappy turn to our affairs, I shall immediately apply to Congress for a command in the army.
I have the honour to be, with the greatest regard and esteem, your excellency's most obedient humble servant,
JOHN CADWALADER.
His Excellency Henry Laurens, Esq., President of Congress.
Transcriber's note:Many instances of misspelled words and inconsistent punctuation occur in this e-book. They have been retained as printed in the original. The most obvious instances have been marked [TN].