and of the relative merits of the latter and other officers of the Revolution, but I am content to leave the matter to the judgment of those who shall carefully read the correspondence of these two volumes. CHICAGO, August 14th. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH [By way of brief rejoinder to Mr. Smith's comprehensive defence of his positions, we invite attention first to the fact that the "Memoir" of General St. Clair, which his biographer accepts without reserve as the authority for his claims, is to be regarded less as an impartial historical record than the plea or justification of an ag grieved individual who wished to set himself right before others. It was written late in life, when he was smarting under the recollection of political injuries and the ingratitude of Congress. Not that it is not a document of high value-that we ac knowledge-but in the determination of nice points, especially where the claims of contemporaries are concerned, we encounter a natural exaggeration which may work prejudice. St. Clair certainly estimated his services unduly. The reader is made to believe that but for his timely suggestions on various critical occasions, an army or two would have gone to the bad, a State overrun or a battle lost. In our previous review it was pointed out that his suggestions in some instances were not original with himself alone, that others conceived of similar plans; and we hold that in the case of Princeton, his words "I had the good fortune to suggest the idea of turning the left of the enemy in the night" are to be weighed with all his other expressions of like character and interpreted in connection with the actual situation. Are we to understand that this move had not occurred to Washington or any one else? It is little probable that St. Clair would have proposed it had he not known that the enemy had few, if any, troops at Princeton. But this was a fact which Washington alone could communicate, and if so, the suggestion to take advantage of it could not have failed to occur to him as well. Why, then, call a council? it is asked. Washington called councils frequently, in accordance with the wishes of Congress, and several times, it would seem, simply as a formality to confirm his own opinion. His council on Long Island in the previous August was called after he had decided to retreat and after preparations were quietly set on foot for the purpose. To his generals there he put the question whether "it was not eligible to retreat," which was agreed to unanimously. Now may not he have stated the possibility of a move to Princeton in such terms that St. Clair at once seized the idea, as he says Mercer did immediately after him, and was the first to advocate it? We say that under the circumstances conjectures like this are legitimate in explanation of St. Clair's claim. Otherwise Washington is open to the charge of having shown stupidity in his plans and suddenly changed his wonted concern for the safety of his army into a strange desperation. If ever a general was called upon to exert himself to the utmost and devise the best possible movements for his cause, it was Washington on the afternoon of January 2, 1777. To assume that he did not see that loophole through Princeton before he called his council of officers is unwarrantable. The camp rumor Mr. Smith refers to, comes too indirectly to be regarded as testimony. Why was not Gordon corrected after the publication of his history making Washington the originator of the move, if it was so well known in the army that St. Clair proposed it? It is, likewise, not obvious what that officer means by the statement that he was at once ordered to execute the flank movement. We are left to inquire what his superiors in rank-Greene, Sullivan, and Mercer-were permitted to do. Sullivan says, under a pressure similar to that which St. Clair lay under, that it was he who was "selected to attack Princeton." So claims conflict, From General Stryker we hope to hear again upon these points. As to General Schuyler, his conduct in the Ticonderoga matter, to which Mr. Smith takes exception, appears not to have disturbed St. Clair, whom it personally concerned. What Schuyler may have approved in council on June 20th has little to do with the existing situation fifteen days later. The council proceeded upon the assumption that if the enemy appeared at all, which was as yet uncertain, they would appear in force; hence precautionary measures were incumbent and adopted. Between June 20th and July 5th the uncertainty continued, and the interval was employed by Schuyler in collecting reinforcements and provisions for St. Clair, who had not once informed his superior that assistance would be unavailing since he must retreat. During the last four days, indeed, his letters were reassuring. June 30th he wrote: "My people are in the best disposition possible, and I have no doubt about giving a good account of the enemy should they think proper to attack us." The next day he thought them not strong, and the day following he was still of opinion that they had "no great force" with them, while on July 3d he wrote for the New Hampshire Militia to march at once to his post. Add to all this that St. Clair had not yet abandoned the Ticonderoga side, as voted in council that he should in case of pressing danger, and we find good grounds for Schuyler's momentary surprise when he heard of the evacuation. His own aid, Major Lansing, states that the immediate emergency was not obvious at headquarters, and this clearly was all that Schuyler had reference to when he stated that he was ignorant of the "principles" on which the post was evacuated. But the matter is set at rest by St. Clair himself, who wrote to John Jay as follows: "I proposed to General Schuyler, on my arrival at Fort Edward, to have sent a note to the printer to assure the people he had no part in abandoning what they considered their strongholds. He thought it was not so proper at that time, but it is no more than what I owe to truth and to him to declare that he was totally unacquainted with the matter." If this was not the truth, then St. Clair stultified himself to avoid a rupture with Schuyler. As to the figures in question, I beg leave to refer Mr. Smith to the same return of June 28th quoted by himself, which, on the addition of all its columns with the artillery and the 900 militia, foots up a total according strictly with Schuyler's report of 5,000 as the strength of the garrison when it abandoned the post.-H. P. J.] ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS A HARTFORD CONVENTION IN 1780 Communicated by the Hon. George Bancroft [There was no more trying year in the Revolution than 1780. The unexpected continuance of the war had produced a certain degree of lethargy in all quarters. Recruits for the army were alarmingly slow in coming in; repeated calls and exertions met with no response, and supplies were not to be had. The trouble was mainly with the public credit and the lack of a strong and accepted central authority. Patriotic men everywhere recognized the difficulties and sought remedies. What one of their efforts was appears from the document printed below. Mr. Bancroft refers to it in the first volume of his recently published History of the Constitution as one of the "movements" leading to the Convention of 1789-a movement of no secondary importance, though little known of. It will be seen from the circular letter transmitted to the governors of the States represented in Convention and that to General Washington, both of which are of special interest, that we have here some quite early emphatic and authoritative utterances in favor of "a more perfect union." An original copy of the document is to be found in the archives of the Continental Congress preserved in the Department of State at Washington.] PROCEEDINGS. At a Convention of the Commissioners from the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut and New York, holden at Hartford in the State of Con necticut on the second Wednesday of November, being the eighth day of said month A. Dom. 1780. Commissioners from all the States above mentioned not appearing the convention adjourned from Day to Day until Saturday the eleventh day of November, when the following gentlemen appeared and produced their respective credentials, viz. From New Hampshire. JOHN TAYLOR GILMAN Esq. From Massachusetts. From Rhode Island. The Honerable WILLIAM BRADFORD Esq. From Connecticut. The Honerable ELEPHALET DYER Esq. The Honerable WILLIAM WILLIAMS Esq. From New York. The Honerable JOHN SLOSS HOBART Esq. EGBERT BENSON Esq. The Honerable WILLIAM BRADFORD Esq. chosen President. HEZ WYLLYS Esq. Secretary. State of New Hampshire In the House of Representatives October 28th 1780. Voted that Mr John Taylor Gilman be and hereby is appointed and authorized a Commissioner in behalf of this State to meet the Commissioners from several other States at Hartford in Connecticut on the second Wednesday in Novemb', next for the purpose of advising and consulting upon measures for furnishing the neces Whereas, You being named and ap pointed by the General Assembly of this Commonwealth Commissioners from this state forthwith to repair to Hartford in the State of Connecticut, and in behalf of this State to confer with such Commissioners as the states of Connecticut Rhode Island and providence Plantations and New Hampshire or any other of the United States have or might appoint to consult and advise on all such Business, and affairs as shall be brought under consideration upon the subject matters of several Resolutions and recommendations of the committees from several states convened at Boston the third day of August 1780, reposing special Trust and Confidence in your Wisdom prudence, skill and Fidelity, I do hereby authorize and Impower you to repair to Hartford in the State of Connecticut, and in behalf of this State to Confer with such commissioners as the States of Connecticut Rhode Island and providence plantations and New Hampshire or any other of the United States of America have appointed upon the subject matter aforesaid and upon all other matters that may conduce for the more speedy and effectual filling up the army and supplying them with provisions etc. Given at the Council Chamber in Boston the fourth Day of Novbr, in the year of Our Lord 1780, and in the fifth year of the Independence of the United States of America, The seal of the said State being hereunto affixed. JOHN HANCOCK By His Excellnys command, JOHN AVERY Secrty. State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations. In General Assembly October Session 1780. It is voted and resolved that the Honble William Bradford Esq. be and he is hereby appointed a Commissioner in behalf of this State to meet at Hartford in the State of Connecticut on the second Wednesday in Novbr, next such commissioners as may be appointed by the other States to advise and consult upon measures for filling up their Quotas of the men and provisions for the army, and that his Excellency the Governor be requested to inform His Excellency the Governor of Massachusetts Bay of this Resolve. A true Copy Witness HENRY WARD Secty. Andrew Adams are appointed a Committee to meet with such Committees or Commissioners as are or may be appoint ed by the States of New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island and New York or any of them to meet in Convention at Hartford in this State on the second Wednesday in November next to consult and advise on means and measures necessary proper and expedient to be adopted by said states for raising, filling up and compleating their several Quotas of the Continental Army for furnishing and supplying them and of such matters of common defence and safety as may properly come under their consideration according to instructions which may be given them by this Assembly, and of their result and doings to make report as soon as may be to said Assembly. Test. GEORGE WYLLYS Secrty. State of New York In Senate Sept. 23d 1780. Resolved, That three Commissioners be appointed on the part of this State to meet Commissioners from other States in a convention proposed to be held at Hartford on the second Wednesday in Novbr, next with powers to the said Commissioners or any two of them to represent this State in the said Convention to deliberate and vote upon all matters which shall be proposed, and to propose and agree to in the said Convention all such measures as shall appear calculated to give a vigour to the gov erning powers equal to the present Crisis. Provided that nothing to which they may agree shall be binding upon this State unless the same shall be approved and confirmed by the Legislate. Resolved, That the said Commissioners do with all convenient speed Report their proceedings to the person administring the government of this State for the time being in order that the same may be laid before the Legislature. In Assembly Sept. 23d 1780. Resolved, That this House do concur in the aforegoing Resolutions. September 26th 1780. Resolved, That pursuant to the Concurrent Resolutions of both Houses on the twenty-third instant, The Honble Philip Schuyler and John Sloss Hobart Esquires and Egbert Benson Esq. be Commissioners on the part of this State to meet Commissioners from other States in a Convention proposed to be held at Hartford on the second Wednesday of November next. In Senate, Sept. 26th 1780. PIERRE VAN CORTLANDT, The convention met from Day to Day and after having discussed several mat ters which were deemed proper subjects of Deliberation came to the following Resolves: No. 1. Resolved, That it be recommended to the States of New Hamp shire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to raise as soon as possible the number of Troops required of them by Congress to serve |