Wl\
|
_in |
|
|
392 |
|
|
61 0753C |
ico
Oi^lVfl
nhkAkV
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H |
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H |
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H |
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^1 |
|
|
i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l |
|
|
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1 |
|
|
3 • i -i 2 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H |
|
^^^^^^^H |
|
|
:i ■; |
^^^H |
|
'J -• 11' |
^^H |
iHjSDii^(} iil6x jLC 1 3 VjI^
rv
•'^ ,
5!^
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from
University of Toronto
http://www.archive.org/details/lettersofmembers02burn
n
/
3(bA(i>U
er-/,
■/
Letters of Members of the Continental Congress
EDITED BY
EDMUND C. BURNETT
VOLUME II July S, 1776, to December 31, t777
WASHINGTON, D. C. Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington
1923
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON PUBLICATION NO. 299
Papers of the Department of Historical Research J. Franklin Jameson, Editor
BALTIUOKE, UD., C. B. i.
T <«
PREFACE.
The first volume of these Letters of Members of the Continental Congress extended from the beginnings of the sessions of that Congress to July 4, 1776, the periDd to which the maximum of attention has been directed and which has been most largely illustrated already by the publi- cation of letters. After that date, and especially after the close of the year 1776, when Force's Archives comes to an end, letters not heretofore printed increase in number and importance as compared with those which have been printed. For the year 1777 there are still certain collections of materials in which large numbers of letters of members are found, such as the Journals of the New York Provincial Congress, the Archives of Maryland, the North Carolina State Records, and Staples's Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, as well as collections of the correspondence of some of the most assiduous writers among the delegates, such as Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, and Samuel Adams ; but these printed collections pertain to only a few states or a few individuals. Upon the whole the material is found to be widely scattered and more meagerly printed. In the present volume, for instance, about one-third of the materials of the period from July 5 to December 31, 1776, has not been found in print, while for the year 1777 the quantum of materials not hitherto printed is considerably greater than the printed. Taking the volume as a whole, fully half the materials found in it appears now, it is believed, for the first time.
For the most part these new materials are pretty evenly distributed over the whole period. There are, however, a few items that call for special notice. One of the most important of these is the series of letters to Joseph Trumbull, who had been commissary-general of stores and provisions since July, 1775, and was chosen commissary-general of pur- chases in June, 1777. There are some fifty of these, some of them pos- sessed by the Connecticut Historical Society, others by the Connecticut State Library, and they were written mainly by three members of Con- gress, William Williams (Trumbull's brother-in-law), Eliphalet Dyer (his father-in-law), and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. These letters are particularly enlightening upon certain phases of the problem of sup- plying the army, and are also not without value for the light which they cast upon other matters, such as the personalities of those chiefly con- cerned. Closely related to this group, indeed sometimes concerned with the same subject, are some letters to Joseph Trumbull's brother, Jonathan Trumbull, jr., paymaster-general of the northern army, and about a dozen
• • •
111
iv Preface
letters, chiefly from William Williams and Roger Sherman, to the elder TruDihuU. governor of Connecticut.
One particularly valuable record of the proceedings of Congress during a few days came to light about the time these materials were going into page-proof. This was the Notes of Debates kept by Secretary Thomson for July 24-29. 1777 (nos. 559A, 559B, 560A, 562A). The discovery of these notes naturally gives rise to the query whether Thomson habitually kept such a record of proceedings, and whether this small bit and the more extended journal for two months in the summer of 1782 (July 22 to September 2) happen to be the only fragments that have survived, or wiiether these two items represent the whole of Thomson's industry in the way of private note-taking.
Upon the first of the debates recorded by Thomson, that concerning the proposed plan for an expedition in 1777 against West Florida, the journals proper furnish but little information. Thomson's notes, cryptic as thev are, throw a flood of light upon the manner in which such matters were dealt with in Congress, as well as upon the views of individual members. Additional light is thrown upon the discussion by Henry Laurens in two letters — one to General Mcintosh. August 11. and more particularly one to President Rutledge of South Carolina, August 12. According to Laurens, all that was necessary to cast the whole project into the discard was a breath of cold logic. This Laurens applied, and the air-castle tumbled to the ground. The whole episode was indeed a minor one, but if the project had actually been undertaken, perhaps it would not have remained minor in character. Other bubbles were blown in Con- gress first and last, many of them more pretentious and of more radiant hues, and not a few^ of them required time and the hard blows of experi- ence for their bursting. The story of this bubble and its speedy collapse arouses the wish that many another dark spot in the journals might have been lighted up by similar revelations.
Thomson's notes and Lauren's account give the impression that the plan for an attack upon the British in West Florida had been killed and buried. In a form so ambitious it did not indeed rise again; yet a lesser project, which must have taken its rise from the same source, was pres- ently attempted, although, it would appear, without the knowledge of Congress as a body. Some facts concerning the expedition of Captain James Willing to New Orleans in 1778 have been well known, particu- larlv that the outcome of the affair did not redound to the honor either of Willing or of Congress, but the origin of the expedition has remained in obscurity. The letter of the commercial committee to General Edward Hand, November 21, 1777 (no. 749a), which came to light only as these materials w^ere going through the press, together with other facts which may be gathered from the correspondence between the commercial com- mittee and Oliver Pollock, agent of the United States at New Orleans, helps to clear up this obscurity.
Preface v
The second of the debates recorded by Thomson, that upon the motion to appoint Gates to the command of the northern army in place of Schuyler, is one of which the journals give no intimation whatever. Letters of Duane and Duer, June 19, 1777, neither of which has before been printed, relate that Gates had, a day or so before, obtained admis- sion to the floor of Congress with a view to having himself reinstated, as he expressed it, in command in the north, while Thomson's notes show that some five weeks later an acrimonious debate once more arose over the relative merits of Schuyler and Gates and continued for at least three days. These notes appear to end abruptly, but some letters and the journals show the sequel to have been the decision of Congress to institute an inquiry into the conduct of Schuyler and St. Clair.
Noteworthy among the new materials to be found here are also the Diary, or Notes, kept by Benjamin Rush of a number of important de- bates during the month of February, 1777, and the " Abstracts " of debates left by Thomas Burke, most of the latter being of the same month and to some extent of the same debates. Sections of Burke's Abstracts have been printed in the North Carolina State Records, but other considerable sections are printed now for the first time. These notes and abstracts furnish our principal source of information of the proceedings of Con- gress upon several matters, notably those upon the conference of the New England states relative to the regulation of prices, those upon the question of raising the interest on loan-office certificates, those pertaining to the proposed conference with General Lee, and the question of adjourn- ment from Baltimore to Philadelphia. One of Burke's extended ab- stracts, not hitherto printed, is of a debate, February 25, upon the mea- sures proper to be taken relative to desertion, a debate in which Burke took a principal part, and in which he gives utterance to some of his characteristic views. Still another important unprinted manuscript of Burke is his comments on the Articles of Confederation, found under November 15, 1777.
For the last half of the year 1777 we have also the letters of Henry Laurens, for which we are indebted to the kindness of the South Carolina Historical Society, and very few of which, beyond some of his official letters written as President of Congress, have hitherto been printed, except that some extracts appear in the recent life of Laurens by Professor Wallace. During the next two years the correspondence of Laurens furnishes by far the greatest single source of information of the proceed- ings of Congress, outside of the journals themselves.
Among the other sources from which new materials have been drawn should be mentioned the letter-book of President Hancock, in the posses- sion of the Massachusetts Historical Society, as well as numerous other letters from the same repository; and there are a number of important letters from the Gates Papers, in possession of the New York Historical
vi / 're face
Society ; from the Schuyler Papers, in possession of the New York Pubhc Library; from the Hartlett CorresiKindence in the Dartmoutli Colleg-e Library; from the Force Transcripts in tlie Library of Cong^ress, and lesser bodies from several other sources. The editor desires aj^ain to record his sense of oblij^ation, as well as that of the Department of Historical Research, to Mr. Stan. V. llenkels of Philadelphia, throug^h whose kindness .some twenty-five letters found in this volume have been obtained. In addition to acknowledj^nnents made in the fir.st volume for courtesies extended in connection with this work, it is desired to express cordial aj)preciation of the kindness of Mr. John.ston L. Redmond and Mrs. \V. A. Read, both of New York City, and of Mr. Charles E. Good- speed of Boston, in respect to letters found in this volume.
With the passage of the Declaration of Independence Congress became, to borrow a phrase of John Adams, " high-charged " with a new purpose. Whether the struggle would be shortened or prolonged in consequence of the Declaration no man could foretell; but the end and purpose of the contest were now beyond question. Redress of grievances might mean one thing and it might mean many things ; independence was a goal clear-cut and unmistakable. There could henceforth be no middle ground ; there was no longer a place for the lukewarm and hesitant. The Declara- tion was a trumpet call to the continent : Choose you this day whom ye will serve ; henceforth he that is not with us is against us. Men like John Adams might shout with joy over the event, but there was much anxious searching of the heart nevertheless. Some indeed who had come thus far on the journey turned back their footsteps and walked no more with the party called patriot. Many no doubt felt as did Abraham Clark, who, although one of the stoutest advocates of independence, nevertheless keenly appreciated the risk. " A few weeks ", he wrote, " will determine our fate — perfect freedom, or Absolute Slavery — to some of us freedom or a halter." There were also those who, like Robert Morris, remained long unconvinced that the Declaration was not premature, but threw their whole might nevertheless into the contest. The general voice was probably, however, that expressed by John Adams : the river is passed and the bridge cut away.
Accordingly, in the early months after the Declaration. Congress was stirred with new energies, animated w'ith high enthusiasm, buoyant with hopes of a speedy victory. These hopes were, how^ever, doomed to dis- appointment. Instead of victory, the period of a year and a half which this volume embraces was one of almost unbroken failure and defeat; defeat on the field of battle and failure for the most part in the lesser fields of organization and administration. Twice during this period Congress had found it necessary to flee from Philadelphia to save itself from cap- ture. While it chafed in its banishment to Baltimore, it was indeed cheered, just as the year 1776 was drawing to a close, by Washington's
Preface vii
brilliant stroke at Trenton, and likewise in the autumn of 1777, during it.s anxious exile in York, it was made happy by the victory over Burgoyne ; but the outlook at the end of the year 1777 was exceedingly dark. No doubt others than Abraham Clark in this gloomy period had visions of the halter. Nevertheless, Congress continued to drudge doggedly at its task, not quite despairing, but earnestly seeking a specific for the ailments of its cause. The period was in fact one in which Congress learned many of its most necessary lessons; it was, so to speak, the period in which Congress was finding itself.
Naturally one of the most important lessons which Congress learned, although slowly and only after severe experiences, was that battles could not be won without a well-organized and well-disciplined army. Rather early in the contest doubts had arisen as to the wisdom of relying upon militia or short-term enlistments, but the fear of the military power, the bogey of a standing army, for a long time loomed large in the minds of most of the members. The continuing influence of these fears may be seen in the defeat, in January, 1776, of a motion to enlist troops for three years or the duration of the war (vol. I., no. 454), and of a similar proposition of Washington a month later (ibid., nos. 515, 516). As might be expected, however. Congress from its higher outlook learned the lesson sooner than the provincial statesmen on whom the success of its measures so largely depended. Early in the summer of 1776 Congress appears to have become convinced that success could be achieved only with an army organized on a more enduring basis (see, for instance, the report on the miscarriages in Canada, July 30), and on September 16 it resolved to raise eighty-eight battalions to serve during the war, unless sooner discharged by Congress. To encourage enlistments bounties of money and lands were offered.
This seemed a fair beginning toward a formidable army. But obstacles at once arose in the states. Massachusetts found difficulty in prevailing upon troops to engage for the period of the war and endeavored to over- come the reluctance by offering larger inducements than Congress had provided ; and Massachusetts was followed in this course by some of the other New England states. Congress agreed by way of compromise to allow an alternative enlistment period of three years; but the action of Massachusetts created such difficulties for the whole measure that even some of the New England delegates complained that Congress was much embarrassed by the action of that state, William Whipple, in particu- lar, asserting that " this affair has caus'd more perplexity and uneasiness than any thing that has happened in my time ", while William Hooper was even more bitter in his denunciations of the course which Massachu- setts had pursued. Maryland also discovered difficulties, chiefly with regard to the matter of land bounties, and there must needs be much nego- tiating and some controversy before the problem was adjusted.
viii Preface
These were some of the serious initial (HtTicuhies in raising the new army, but they were not all. The privilege retained by the states of appointing the otVicers, and the insistence upon having their full quotas of them, added greatly to the complications. Recruiting encountered many obstacles in the states and went on at less than the proverbial snail's pace. In December the existing army was all but dissolved. In February Washington declared that he had scarcely sufficient troops to mount the common guard (see no. 369). Meanwhile, through the winter, the spring, the sunmier. the autumn, Washington continued to beseech Con- gress, Congress to urge the states, and delegates to implore their princi- pals to hasten the measures of recruiting. Finally, on the last day of the year 1777 Congress reached the decision that the whole problem of the army required a thorough overhauling.
Congress has often been condemned for its failure to establish a regular and efficient army early in the struggle ; and no doubt a goodly portion of the blame is properly attributable to that body. But a larger measure of responsibility must be ascribed to the several states, where the fear of the military power clung tenaciously to the provincial mind and concern for provincial interests continued to exercise dominance over thought and action. The strength of sentiment in Congress for an efficient army is abundantly attested by the circular letter sent out by President Hancock (September 24. J 776), and still more by the numerous expressions of individual members. These letters, many of the most significant of which are now printed for the first time, point clearly to the dilatoriness of the states, to their obstruction of the measure, to their persistent seeking after local advantage regardless of the general weal.
Congress was never indeed quite able to banish the dread of a military dictator, yet in December, 1776, so imminent was the collapse of the whole cause and such was the confidence in General Washington, that Congress conferred upon him for the period of six months practically dictatorial powers and authorized him to raise and officer on his own responsibility sixteen additional regiments; but while men like Samuel Adams, whose fears of dictatorship had always been large, acquiesced in the measure as necessary, there were grumblings and forebodings, and there were presently vociferous denials that the pow-ers bestowed upon Washington were dictatorial at all. These or similar powers were later renewed, always for a limited time, but toward the end of 1777 the grumblings, joined with criticisms of Washington's conduct of military operations, increased in volume and intensity. Some who in the first instance had been the strongest advocates of the bestowal of extraordinary powers became Washington's bitterest critics. A letter of Henry Laurens to his son John, October 16, gives intimations of these mutterings, even of an ominous growl; while some letters of James Lovell to General Gates (November 17, 2^) show" that the snipers and the sappers and miners
Preface ix
had already begun the campaign against Washington which has come to be known as the Conway Cabal.
The problem of supplying the army was, if possible, a more serious one than that of creating the army itself. The commissary and quarter- master's departments were constantly breaking down and had to be mended and now and again to be thoroughly reorganized. The problem, in a form more or less acute, was before Congress almost continuously throughout the year 1777. The year closed with those departments in almost a complete state of collapse, with Congress desperately struggling, in its customary fashion, to remedy the evil through the agency of a committee of its own body. On scarcely any other subject is so much new light thrown by the materials gathered in this volume. The numerous letters to Joseph Trumbull, to which reference has already been made, are particularly illuminating upon many aspects of the problem, but from several other sources are drawn many letters that cast much light upon the failures, their causes, and the efforts to find a remedy.
One of the most important lessons which Congress was beginning to learn toward the close of 1776, but had only partially acquired at the end of the year 1777, and did not thoroughly master to its dying day, was the fact that it could not efficiently exercise both the legislative and the executive functions. Early in its career Congress adopted the practice of appointing standing committees to supervise and conduct those of its activities which were relatively continuous, creating new committees or differentiating functions from time to time as occasion demanded. The most important of these committees were the secret committee (after- wards the committee of commerce or the commercial committee) , the com- mittee of secret correspondence (later the committee of foreign affairs), the marine committee,* the treasury committee or board of treasury, and the board of war and ordnance. These committees developed into distinct departments, with gradually increasing powers of self-direction; but for the most part they exercised their extensive functions not only under the direct control but under the immediate supervision of Congress. Indeed how persistently Congress kept its hand on even the minute details of Continental business, how closely it watched over the doings of its com- mittees, whether they were standing committees or committees appointed for some specific purpose, may be learned from a glance at the journals of the first two or three years. Not content to decide upon military policy or the larger aspects of military plans, and to leave the execution of them to its generals, Congress long persisted in giving its own orders for even lesser military movements and activities. Not until driven to it by threat- ening disaster did Congress grant even to the commander-in-chief those powers without which any general's hands must be securely tied or injuri- ously hampered.
Throughout this time members groan over the burden of long hours in Congress during the day and long hours in committee meetings at night ;
X Preface
and yet it is lon^ before one of them even so much as sugjjests that the burden mij^^ht be lessened and the business better done by handing the actual administration over to capable men outside of Congress. It must nevertheless be recognized that i)robably no body of representatives ever worked harder at their tasks or more earnestly than did Congress, and when the multitude as well as the magnitude of the things which they did is considered it is remarkable that they accomplished so much as they did and so well.
Richard Smith records that, on March IQ. 1776. " Johnson threw out for Consideration the Propriety of establishing a Board of Treasury, a War Office, a Board of Public Accounts and other Boards to consist of Gent'n not Members of Congress ". What opposition was made to em- ploying men out of Congress for these purposes we are not told; but it was not done.
Congress first consented to delegate power, even to one of its own committees, when it was compelled to take flight from Philadelphia in December, 1776, and found such a measure absolutely necessary to prevent some of its important affairs from going to ruin. It might not then have done so had not Robert Morris, who had remained behind in Philadelphia, pressed it upon them. Indeed Morris had found things in such confusion that upon his own resix)nsibility he applied himself to the task of endeavor- ing to bring some order out of the chaos, for " I conceive it better ", he said, " to take some Liberty's and assume some powers than to let the general interest suffer ''. To this suggestion Congress readily assented.
The committee of Philadelphia, accordingly, during the whole time that Congress was at Baltimore conducted much of the important executive business of Congress with but little let or hindrance, and it proved there- fore one of the most forceful object lessons to Congress of the value of delegating its executive business. The correspondence of this committee or of Robert Morris, its principal member, and the rather free correspon- dence of members of Congress with Morris afford interesting light upon a little known episode in the history of Congress.
At the same time that Morris was urging the appointment of an executive committee at Philadelphia he was insisting, as he had done before, upon the adoption of the plan of placing the executive business generally in the hands of others than members of Congress (see his letter to the committee of secret correspondence, December 16). Reiter- ating his ideas to the commissioners in Paris a few days later, he asserted that " this has been urged many and many a time, by myself and others, but some of them do not like to part with power, or to pay others for doing what they cannot do themselves ".
The idea nevertheless appears now to have taken firm hold of Congress, and on December 26 a committee was appointed to devise " a plan for the better conducting the executive business of Congress, by boards com-
Preface • xi
posed of persons, not members of Congress." The confident expressions of a number of the delegates would lead us to believe that there was a firm and unalterable determination in Congress to carry out this great measure of reform at once. The programme was a thorough one, for it included boards of war, ordnance, navy, treasury, and a chamber of commerce. But the first measure actually accomplished, the establishment (March 22) of a department of the office of the secretary of Congress, does not seem to have been on the original programme at all. Probably the committee made this its first offering because it was so easy to do. There was no especial need for a reorganization of the secretary's office, and the con- duct of it thereafter was scarcely different from what it had been before.
The committee next offered, April 8, a plan for the reorganization of the department of war and ordnance. Upon this measure agreement was not so easily attained, and it was not until October 17 that a plan was adopted, somewhat modified November 24, and then the question of per- sonnel seemed to give no end of trouble, so that the board was not fully established on the new basis until the beginning of 1778. Upon the later phases of the question much light is thrown by the letters here printed.
The need for executive experts in the conduct of marine matters im- pressed itself on Congress rather earlier than was the case in other depart- ments. Elbridge Gerry wrote to Samuel Adams October 4, 1776: " It is high Time to adopt a Plan for a Board of Admiralty that can be obliged to attend to the business." A month later (November 6) a partial step was taken toward the organization of such a board in a resolve " that three persons well skilled in maritime affairs, be immediately appointed to execute the business of the navy, under the direction of the marine com- mittee ". When, therefore, the question came up again a few months later, the ideas of Congress seem to have settled at once upon a similar plan for the New England waters. This plan appears to have been so satisfactory to the New England delegates that on April 19 it was adopted (see nos. 427, 449, 457, 459, 485, 521, 540).
Despite the noble programme which, in the early days of its sojourn in Baltimore, Congress laid down for placing its principal executive business in hands other than its own, the reorganization of the w^ar department was its only large accomplishment prior to the end of 1777. This appears to have exhausted its energies, if not also its zeal. The reconstitution of the treasury department, although regarded as one of the most essential items in the programme, was not even attempted until April, 1778. The chamber of commerce, the last item in the programme, appears to have vanished altogether, Congress having satisfied itself with the substitution, July 5, 1777, of a committee of commerce for the former secret com- mittee, which was nothing more than a change of name. Similarly, although not on the programme at this time at all, the old committee of
xii Preface
secret correspondence gave place to a committee of forei|?n affairs (April 17, 1777), likewise only a chanj^^c of name. In fact, the effectual organi- zation of none of the great departments was accomplished until the war was practically at an end. Nevertheless, during the year 1777, much was done toward putting the various subordinate branches of both the military and civil services upon a better basis.
A great, a never-ending problem with Congress was of course the financial one. In the beginning this problem had been solved by the simple and easy method of issuing bills of credit. When the first supply of these bills was exhausted more were issued, and when they gave out there was another issue, and so on. If any were so unpatriotic as to refuse to accept Congress money as legal tender, they were officially denounced as enemies of their country; they might even be haled to prison. Unofficially they might be given the tar and feather treatment to induce them, if not to a more patriotic state of mind, at all events to a course of action more con- formable to patriotic purposes. There w^re not wanting at the outset those who realized that there was a limit to which even a firmly established government might successfully put forth its promises to pay, and that at best therefore the war could not long be supported by the mere operation of a printing-press ; nevertheless for a time " all went merry as a marriage bell ", and members concerned themselves chiefly with obtaining the larg- est possible blocks of this currency for their states.
By the end of 1776, however, there was general alarm throughout the country over the sinking state of the currency, and Congress began to recognize that something more than resolutions, proclamations, or even jails, would be required to sustain it. The impairment to the credit of the Continental currency was, howeyer, still largely ascribed to " the perni- ' cious artifices of the enemies of American liberty ". Even such a man as Roger Sherman, while upon the whole his ideas of the proper remedy were sound enough, declared as late as November, 1777, that the low credit of the paper currency was occasioned " partly by inimical persons and partly by aviritious ones ".
The obverse of depreciation was of course a rise in prices, and it was from this angle that the problem was first attacked. A conference of the New England states in December, 1776, had recommended rigid regula- tion of prices. When these proceedings were laid before Congress in January, 1777, they gave rise to long and animated debates, in which nearly all phases of the financial problem were brought under discussion. While many members still pinned their faith to price-fixing measures, others were convinced that all efforts of the sort would not only be futile but would merely aggravate the evils which they were designed to remedy. In the end Congress recommended the middle and southern states to pursue a course similar to that adopted in New England. Benjamin Rush and Thomas Burke have both left notes on some of the principal of these
Preface xiii
debates, which, together with the letters written by members upon the subject, reveal how desperately Congress was struggling to discover a remedy for the financial evils which threatened to overwhelm it.
Another phase of the financial problem which came under discussion during the same period and upon which the materials here, particularly the notes of Rush and Burke, shed new light, was the question of a domestic loan. In October, 1776, Congress had resolved to borrow five million dollars at four per cent., issuing therefor what were termed loan- ofiice certificates. It now (February, 1777) became a question whether it would not be necessary, in order to make the loan a success, to raise the interest to six per cent. These debates and the expressions of mem- bers of Congress in their letters accentuate in particular certain sectional interests and views, as they also bring out more strongly than ever the feeling, which had for a time been somewhat suppressed, of the impropriety of the method of voting in Congress ; for when the question came to a vote, of ten states represented five of the smaller states carried the decision, though they had but about one-third of the population of the whole and their delegates constituted only a little more than one-third of the mem- bers then present in Congress (see especially nos. 349, 352, 375). These debates also emphasize the increasing strength of opinion in favor of two other measures : that Congress must borrow gold and silver from abroad, and that the states must adopt extensive taxation. Taxation was in fact so growing in favor that before many months it became a watchword in Congress ; and the idea of borrowing from abroad so seized upon the minds of Congress a few months later that it proceeded to borrow without waiting to learn whether the lender would lend. Finally, as the various phases of the financial problem were mulled over, as Congress turned in this direction and that for a solution of its difficulties, the more far- seeing of its members became more and more impressed that the first great essential toward a solution was to be found in such a measure of co-operation and union as only a proper confederation could offer. Ac- cordingly, when the confederation is again brought under consideration the discussion does not proceed far before the key-note to the argument for it is relief to the sinking currency.
Partly in desperation, but partly also, it appears, because many members believed it such a simple and easy thing to do. Congress seized upon the project of drawing bills of exchange upon its ministers in France, ex- pecting, at least hoping, that they would be accepted. An elaborate proposition to this end was submitted to Congress by the committee of the treasury as early as June 11, 1777. This report is found in the Library of Congress edition of the Journals, but the journals proper contain no inkling of this project until it is adopted, September 9 and 10. There are, however, extensive discussions of the question by Henry Laurens (Sep- tember 5 to 10), briefer ones by James Lovell (August 18, 21), and some
xiv Preface
accounts of the matter by Eliphalet Dyer and others (see nos. 594-597. 607, 627, 631, 636, 659), practically all of which now appear for the first time. Laurens in particular, careful, systematic man of business that he was, had been thorouj^hly disgusted, upon his coming to Congress, with the methods of doing business which were in vogue there, and toward this measure his impatience knew no bounds. In the sequel the project proved almost to be a boomerang.
Next to the conduct of tiie war the outstanding achievement in Congress tluring the i^eriod with which this volume is concerned was the framing and adoption of the Articles of Confederation. The volume covers, indeed, almost the precise time which Congress occupied, albeit by fits and starts, in putting that instrument of union into form. For, although at the moment when Congress began to weigh the question of declaring the colonies indei^endent it also set strenuously about the endeavor speedily to consummate their union as a necessary concomitant of their inde- pendence, the task of confederating proved to be far more difficult than that of declaring independence ; accordingly the undertaking lagged and halted through many months, and it was not until near the end of the year 1777 that it was at last put into grudging and reluctant form and sent to the states for their approval. There were too many local prejudices that could be worn away only by a period of co-operation ; too many sectional jealousies that could be assuaged only by the softening process of time; too many colonial fears of one another that must needs be overcome by fears more potent. The struggle to make good their Declaration of Inde- pendence must become more desperate; the iron must be brought to a whiter heat before the welding could begin.
The idea of an organic union of the colonies had in some form long existed. To go no further back than the first meeting of the Continental Congress, Joseph Galloway had in September, 1774, offered a plan of union, designed to bind Great Britain and the colonies closer together and having for its primary- object the forestalling of revolution and the preservation of the British empire. The plan was, however, summarily rejected. Then, in July, 1775, Franklin had brought forward a tentative plan as a basis for discussion ; but the time was not yet ripe, and that plan also was laid aside, with not so much as a record of its presentation appear- ing upon the minutes of Congress. In the winter of 1776, efforts to have it brought under consideration failed, but events were nevertheless rapidly giving strength to the conviction that some sort of union was necessary, a union more precise in form, more definite in its implications, more substantial in its foundations, than a mere assembly of colonial ambas- sadors, such as Congress was generally deemed to be. In fact, as the great turning-point in the struggle with Great Britain drew near, the sentiment for the confederation outran that for independence, winning many adher- ents who revolted at the idea of separation from the mother country, or
Preface xv
else stood hesitant and aloof. A factor that contrihiited greatly to the strength of this sentiment was the belief that, whatever the ultimate aim of the contest, assistance from foreign powers, from France in particular, would be necessary, and it was the conviction of many members of Congress that such assistance could most successfully be obtained through a firm union of the colonies.
When therefore Richard Henry Lee, on the 7th of June, 1776, presented his resolution for independence, he coupled with it resolutions looking to a foreign alliance and also to a confederation. In Lee's mind at that time the idea of a foreign alliance appears to have had precedence over that of a confederation, although in the view of John Adams and some others the programme of measures should have had a different order. Com- mittees for both these purposes were appointed on the 12th of June, and while the report on the confederation was earlier presented, the plan for a foreign alliance, or a " plan of treaties ", as the resolution of Congress had worded it, was sooner brought to maturity. The latter may accord- ingly be appropriately first dealt with here. Indeed, except in connection with the confederation, members of Congress indulge in but little com- ment upon it during this earlier period.
On the i8th of July the committee reported a " Plan of Treaties" to be proposed to France, which, after some amendments, was adopted on the 17th of September. On the 24th instructions to the commissioners who should propose the treaty were adopted, to which some additions were made October 16, and meanwhile, on the 26th of September, Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Thomas Jefferson were appointed commis- sioners to the court of France. Deane was already in France as the agent of the secret committee, Jefferson presently declined, and Arthur Lee, who was also already abroad, was chosen in his place; and at the end of October Franklin departed on his mission. On the same day that these commissioners were appointed, steps were taken with a view to entering into treaties with other courts, although it was not until the following May that this measure came to maturity. To what a fiasco, or series of fiascoes, this venture toward other European courts was a pre- liminary it is not needful now to speak. There were not wanting, how- ever, even then, those who looked upon the venture as no more than a ridiculous, even if a somewhat frantic, gesture (see, for instance, the letter of William Hooper to Robert Morris, December 28).
Such were the preliminary preparations for negotiations with foreign powers. During the period under consideration the states drew indeed some aid from France, but they also drew a problem that vexed the souls of Congress to distraction, a horde of French officers, clamorous for commissions and perquisites. It was not until the beginning of 1778, after the victory over Burgoyne, that France saw fit to enter into an alliance with the United States and that an opportunity arose for making
xvi Preface
use of the plan of a treaty which had been prepared with so much care. The plan nevertheless had an interesting- subsequent history ; for it became the core and centre of nearly all the treaties entered into by the United States prior to the adoption of the Constitution.
The committee to prepare and digest the form of a confederation set earnestly about its task, entrusting the work of drafting the instrument to John Dickinson. We are not given many glimpses into the committee room, but we are told that there were " warm disputes " over some ques- tions, and Edward Rutledge. in particular, manifested great alarm over what was proposed. Rutledge soon became nevertheless one of the stout- est champions of a confederation. The committee laid its draft of the articles before Congress on the 12th of July, and a few days later Congress, in committee of the whole, took it into consideration. Of the principal debates upon it at this time (July 25 to August 2) both John Adams and Jefferson have left notes, and these notes constitute the basis of the most that has been known or said by historians concerning the Articles of Con- federation during the process of their formation. There are, however, many letters of the members which throw much additional light upon individual views and the attitudes of their respective states upon the questions involved. It is clear enough, from all sources, that there were three points around which practically all the discussions and controversies revolved. These were : first, whether in the Congress of the Confedera- tion each state should have a single vote, as in the existing Congress, or whether the votes should be in proportion to population or to wealth or to contributions to the general treasury ; second, by what criterion should these quotas of contribution to the general expense be determined, whether on the basis of population, land values, or general property values ; and, third, w hether Congress should have authority to limit the dimensions of those states which possessed claims extending to the South Sea.
The first of these points involved the question whether, on the one hand, a few of the most populous states might dominate the confederation, or whether, on the other hand, a group of the smaller states might have it in their power to ride rough-shod over the interests of the larger. The question involved in the third point was similar, whether those states pos- sessing large unoccupied territories might not so expand in population and resources as to smother out the states which had no such territory, meanwhile meeting their obligations by the sale of vacant lands. The second point involved less of controversy, although there inhered in it, as also in the first, the question whether in counting population slaves should be included. The question of the claims extending to the South Sea was early injected into the discussion by Samuel Chase of Maryland, and it was this point that was to remain longest the stumbling-block to the acceptance of the Confederation.
Preface xvii
In spite of these strongly antagonistic views on the important questions involved, it seems to have been generally believed that in some way or other the obstacles to union would be overcome. Bartlett, for example, thought (July 29) that it " may possibly take a week or ten days' time ". A confederation was an absolute essential to success, therefore there must be, there will be, a confederation. If we do not confederate, said Samuel Chase (July 30), " we shall remain weak, distracted, and divided in our councils. . . . What contract will a foreign State make with us, when we cannot agree among ourselves? " There were nevertheless those who had but small hope of success. Joseph Hewes. for instance, wrote July 28: " I think it probable that we may Split on these great points, if so our mighty Colossus falls to pieces." Abraham Clark spoke (August i) of the difficulties as " alarming ", and William Williams declared (August 7) that " every Inch of Ground is disputed, and very jarring Claims and Interests are to be adjusted among us "; while Chase confessed (August 9) that he was afraid " the Day is far distant ". A few days later it appears that Chase took pains to shake ofif the dust of his shoes as a testi- mony against the confederation as it then stood, declaring, according to William Williams, that his state had no further concern with it. Some delegates, who had lingered in Congress with the hope that the instrument might soon be completed, gave up hope and early in August took their departure. Among these were William Whipple and Samuel Adams.
Some remarks of Edward Rutledge at this stage of the matter are of especial interest; for, while he declared concerning the confederation (August 19), " it is of little consequence if we never see it again; for we have made such a Devil of it already that the Colonies can never agree to it ", he goes on to indicate what he regards as the proper mode of procedure, namely, the appointment of " a special Congress to be composed of new Members for this purpose ". What Rutledge was proposing, that a constitution should be framed by a convention chosen for that purpose and that only, came presently to be the accepted mode of constitution- making; but at the time he was writing the idea was only beginning to seep into the minds of statesmen.
On the 20th of August, after a lull of nearly two weeks, the discussion of the confederation was renewed in the committee of the whole, the pre- liminary revision completed, and the results laid before the whole Con- gress, which would of course again thresh over the entire subject. It appears to have been the view of members that this consideration would shortly be begun and as quickly as possible pushed to a conclusion. There now intervened, however, in the early days of September, the conference with Lord Howe. That conference at an end, and even the hesitant among the members convinced that they could not hope for a reconciliation on terms which were acceptable, the thought of Congress once more turned to the confederation as an essential means for carrying on the contest.
xviii Preface
It is probably sij^iiificaiit that Edward Riitlcdge, one of the committee to confer with Lord IIowc. now became one of the most eapfcr to press forward to completion the Articles of Confederation. On the ist of October, with a view to resuminj^ the consideration of the confederation, Riitlcd^'e moved to have absent members of Congress recalled (see his letter of October 2 to Robert R. Livingston). How deficient the atten- dance had become is strikingly shown by the fact that the President's nrgent call for fuller representation was sent to no fewer than eleven of the thirteen states (see no. 154, note i). The dearth of representation was probably, however, not the sole cause of the neglect of the Confedera- tion. Many members doubtless hesitated to renew a discussion which would bring out once more and perhaps in a more accentuated form the dis- cordant views which had so pointedly manifested themselves in the debates before the same body of delegates sitting as a committee of the whole. For antagonisms had not been reconciled ; they had only temporarily been smothered. At all events, for a period of more than six months a profound silence falls upon the whole business of the Confederation. In December Congress was compelled to decamp from Philadelphia, and the atmosphere of Baltimore, whither it had betaken itself, appears to have been anything but conducive to the calm consideration of constitutional principles and practices, let alone the adjustment of sharp sectional differences. More- over, if it had before been difificult to keep up a prof)er representation, the task was greatly augmented now^ By the end of the Baltimore period, however, there had come about a great change in the membership of Congress (see, for instance, John Adams's remarks in his letter to Warren, February 17), and this change of personnel may have offered hope for the Confederation.
At all events, as soon as Congress once more became settled in Phila- delphia it resolved to devote two days of each week to the Confederation until the instrument should be finished. This was the 8th of April. It was actually the 21st before Congress set about the task, but it then kept diligently at it for three or four weeks. Of the discussions at this time but little record has been left. The most significant account is found in a letter of Thomas Burke, April 29, w'herein he relates that he had secured an amendment designed to save state sovereignty. It was about this time also that Burke offered his curious general amendment to the Confedera- tion, providing for a sort of bicameral body (the amendment is found in the Library of Congress edition of the Journals under May 5).
John Adams expressed his confidence May 3 that the confederation would soon be passed, but on the 26th he confessed that it " draggs heavily on ", although he did not despair of it, while Roger Sherman insisted (May 13, 14) that not much progress had been made. It was now, how- ever, thrust aside for a while, first by the Schuyler controversy, and then, after two or three more days devoted to it, by the Vermont affair.- " A
Preface xix
kind of fatality ", Samuel Adams lamented (June 26), " strll prevents our proceeding a Step in the important affair of the Confederation." On the 30th, however, he wrote more hopefully. There were but two or three things, he thought, which would be the subject of further debate, and upon them most of the members, he believed, had already made up their minds. The question of voting, he was inclined to believe, would be determined the next day. The next day did not, however, produce the expected decision. or even a consideration of the subject. On the second of July a motion prevailed to take the confederation into consideration "tomorrow"; yet many morrows came and went before the subject is even so much as mentioned again in the journals. On August 16 a day was assigned for it, but the appointment was not kept. On September 2 an effort was made to have the confederation made a part of each day's business; but the motion was negatived.
Numerous letters in the meantime, during July, August, and September, show that the confederation was not absent from the minds of members and even that some attention had been bestowed upon it in Congress beyond what the journals record. Williams mentions, for instance, July 5, that a strenuous struggle was going on between the smaller and the larger states over the method of voting. From Lovell and Samuel Adams it is learned (letters of July 21 and 22, respectively) that an effort had been made to bring on the subject, but that it had been postponed because of Virginia's lack of representation. When Richard Henry Lee arrived (August 12) he found Virginia's charter bounds being strongly contested and the confederation otherwise obstructed " by the immensity of business created by the war " (letter of August 25) . Charles Carroll of Carrollton declared (August 12) that almost every member of Congress was anxious for a confederacy, but he was inclined to despair of it unless " little and partial interests " could be laid aside; but to the usual reason that a confederacy formed on a rational plan would add weight and consequence to the United States collectively and give great security to each indi- vidually, he adds what had now become one of the principal arguments for it, that it would give " a credit to our paper money ". " With the main Army at our Elbow ", wrote Lovell (September 7) . . . " we shall never want ten thousand interruptions to the Settlement of the Articles of Con- federation and the Establishment of our Currency." " Confederation and financies ", wrote Eliphalet Dyer the same day, " are now the great objects ", and he thought Congress in a pretty good temper to do busi- ness, " if this plaguy fellow of an How does not disturb us ".
It was not long before Howe did disturb them. In the afternoon of September 18, while Laurens was writing to Gervais concerning the con- templated removal of Congress, a member came in and reported, " in a burst of Laugh ", that Congress would tomorrow " enter upon the weighty business of the Confederation ". " Fright ", remarks Laurens, " some-
XX Preface
times works Lunacy." Before tlic break of another day Congress was in iVi^ht. (^11 tlie 27th a quorum of the members j^athered at Lancaster, the appointed rendezvous, held one session, then lun-ried across the Susque- hanna to York: for. as Laurens expressed it (October 20), " hearts were still tUitterinfj in some bosoms ". '* Mere ", wrote James Duane (October 3). ** we are sufficiently retired and can deliberate without inter- ruption."
Members had scarcely alip^hted from their horses before they were writing: that Confederation, taxation, and. if possible, the retrieving of the sinking currency would at once be undertaken. Accordingly, on the 2d of October one more resolution to take the confederation into con- sideration " tomorrow " is found duly recorded in the journals. It was not, however, taken up on the 3d, or the 4th, or the 5th ; but on the 6th not only was the consideration set for tomorrow, but the resolution pre- scribed the precise hour, and also the precise article to be considered. For once Congress obeyed its own injunction to the letter; and from that day to the 15th of November, when the finished Articles were recorded in the journals. Congress held energetically to the task, with but little interruption. On the 7th it was decided that each state should have one vote; on the 14th, after five days of debate upon the various proposals, it was resolved that the proportion of the public expense to be paid by each state should be ascertained by the land values in each state, together with their improvements; on the 15th the third of the three " capital points " so often spoken of by members in their letters, the question of the claims extending to the South Sea. was taken into consideration. Two signifi- cant motions were made, one that Congress should have sole and exclusive right and power to ascertain and fix the western boundaries of states thus claiiuing and to dispose of the land beyond those boundaries for the benefit of the United States, the other that Congress should lay out such land into separate and independent states. Both motions were negatived, the latter obtaining only the solid vote of Maryland and a single vote from New Jersey. Congress was accordingly denied the power to limit the western boundaries of the states, but not until those states had voluntarily ceded those territories to the United States could Maryland, the chief proponent of the measure, be prevailed upon to ratify the Confederation.
The three great questions having been determined many members began to take their departure (see, for instance, Laurens's letter of October 16). Whether this exodus was for the better or for the worse, Congress plunged with nervous energy into the remaining articles, revis- ing, striking out, substituting, but pushing rapidly toward the completion of the instrument ; pausing now and then, nevertheless, to give attention to other important problems, such as the reorganization of the commis- sary department, the establishment of the new board of war, and even to give ear to the clamorous Frenchmen ; and rejoiced in the midst of their labors by the news of the victory over Burgoyne.
Preface xxi
During this time there is abundant expression by members of their personal and sectional views upon the three pivotal questions; but it is significant that scarcely an intimation had hitherto been let fall by any member touching any other provision of the Confederation as it lay before them. Not, perhaps, because they were indifferent to other questions ; they were only less contentious. The record of proceedings in the journals carries the same implications ; for upon but few such questions was there a call for the yeas and nays. When they came to the council of state, if there was serious debate upon it, it is not mentioned, except that Lovell remarked (November 3) that he supposed it would be " thrown out and a Committee of Congress be left in recess to transact prudentials ". This was accordingly done (November 7), by striking out the whole article con- cerning the council of state and substituting therefor the simple provision that there should be a committee of Congress, to be called the committee of the states, which should have only such powers, in the recess of Con- gress, as Congress by the consent of nine states might vest in them.
This completed the work upon the Articles as they then stood, but on the 1 2th and 13th certain additions were made, then the whole was arranged and spread upon the journals (November 15). There were no shouts of rejoicing, but there were many expressions of relief that at last the great task had been accomplished. As there was an earnest desire that the Confederation should speedily be ratified by the states, members appeared, upon the whole, to be confident that this would be done, although there were some misgivings as to the outcome. The reactions of members during this period of waiting, as recorded in their letters, are of especial interest. On the one side is the attitude of Thomas Burke. He had left Congress about the middle of October, and on November 4 he wrote to Governor Caswell : " As I consider the plan now in embryo as what can never be suited to the States, I think nothing decided on it is of conse- quence." He thought " a time of peace and tranquillity the proper time for agitating so important a concern " ; and a little later he set forth at some length, for the benefit of his state's assembly, his views of the whole instrument. Another view, and it was that of many New England dele- gates, was expressed by Nathaniel Folsom. He was particularly dis- pleased with the method decided upon for determining the respective quotas of taxation for general purposes, for he could see no justice in the rule. While many were anxious to hasten ratification, he made no doubt that the states would take as much time to deliberate upon the matter as they thought just and necessary (letters of October 27 and November 21 ). Probably more characteristic of Congress as a whole is the attitude of Richard Henry Lee. To President Meshech Weare of New Hampshire he wrote (November 24) : " In this great business dear Sir we must yield a little to each other, and not rigidly insist on having everything cor- respondent to the partial views of ^ every State. On such terms we can
xxii Preface
never confederate." A fittinj^ cDnclusion to the whole matter is the ad- mirable presentation of the case for the Confederation in the circular letter, doubtless from the pen of Richard Henry Lee, which accompanied it to the several states. (The letter is found in the Library of Congress edition of the Journals, under November 17.)
It has been endeavored here, by the lii^ht of such expressions as have been left to us by the chief participants, flickering and spasmodic though such light may be. to follow the progress of the Articles of Confederation through their manifold vicissitudes on the floor of Congress, to their comi)letion there, and their despatch to the several states for acceptance or rejection. Such a story of the Confederation is not of course the whole story ; it is only such a view of the contest on the fighting front as these letters afford. The " home front ", the seethe and surge of ideas and their expression among the people, it has not of course been sought to envisage. Nor is this the place to follow the Articles through the next chapter of their career, their appearance before the several states, those thirteen courts of appeal which were to sit in judgment upon them. It is permissible, however, to give a moment's consideration to the instrument which had cost so much thought and labor, and whose mission among the states was so potent for good or evil.
To what extent the Confederation would be effective for the purpose for which it was designed ; whether it would stand the strain of antago- nistic views and interests ; whether it would endure even for the period of the war; these events were in the laps of the gods. Most members of Congress evidently believed, and the majority of the people presently came to believe, that it would at least make for unity and efficiency in the ac- complishment of what was all-important, the prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion and the achieving of independence. Few of them ventured to push predictions farther than that, although there were those among them who lifted their eyes and looked for the goal far beyond the conclusion of the war. In one of the earliest discussions of the confed- eration Franklin had declared : " If they have an equal vote without bearing equal burthens, a confederation upon such iniquitous principles will never last long." And it is related of John Adams that, about the time when the instrument w^as being completed, he assumed the role of prophet and predicted that '' before ten years this confederation, like a rope of sand, will be found inadequate to the purpose, and its dissolution will take place ". In such a group of men, endeavoring to settle problems the solution of w-hich they believed carried consequences so momentous, it would be remarkable if there had not been prophecies even more dire.
Because the Articles of Confederation, on account of certain inherent weaknesses, proved inadequate and had in the end to be cast aside for an entirely new-forged constitution, it has been much the practice to pile criticisms upon them and even to treat them with a measure of scorn.
Preface xxiii
Whatever the faults of the Articles, they constitute nevertheless an im- portant, a necessary, stage in the development of an efficient constitution, even as the confederation effected under them was an important, a neces- sary, step in the progress toward a more perfect union. There has been too little appreciation of the difficulties encountered in the formation of the Articles, too small an appraisement of the obstacles which stood in the way of even this tentative union. The generations that have lived under the noble instrument of government that has proved so adequate to our needs have beheld the period of the Confederation in the concentrated light of subsequent history and have been all too prone to impatience with the men of that time — and for what? For their short-sightedness, it is called ; but actually because their foresight was not as broad and as deep and as far-reaching as our hindsight. A closer view of the conditions of that period, a warmer contact with the men of those times, a more sympa- thetic consorting with their thoughts and feelings, will not only give us a fuller comprehension of the materials with which they worked, but will surely lead us to a better understanding of what they wrought.
Upon a full view of all the facts, it is rather to be wondered at that these men had at length persuaded themselves to yield so much that to them had very great and very definite value for their individual centres of political life, had consented to give up these things in return for that quite vague and ill-defined, that altogether problematical thing, the " benefit of the whole ". It is, when all things are considered, remarkable that they went as far as they did toward merging their own states, which hitherto had encompassed their lives and to them were very real, into a union whose figure was not only dim and whose value was uncertain, but which might in the end destroy its creators. So much had their vision enlarged in the two and a half years since Franklin had laid before them his tentative plan of union, so widely had their political horizons expanded. And yet, before even this imperfect union of the states could become an accomplished fact, there must be more yielding one to another ; there must be other surrenders of partial views and separate interests ; there must be a still further en- largement of vision, a still greater expansion of horizons.
Edmund C. Burnett.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. ^^^^
Preface >•>
1776.
1. John Hancock to the New Jersey Convention, July 5 i
2. Elbridge Gerry to James Warren, July 5 i
3. John Hancock to William Cooper, July 6 i
4. John Hancock to George Washington, July 6 2
5. Thomas Jefferson to Richard Flenry Lee, July 8 2
6. John Hancock to Horatio Gates, July 8 3
7. Joseph Hewes to Samuel Johnston, July 8 4
8. William Whipple to John Langdon, July 8 5
9. New Hampshire Delegates to the President of New Hampshire, July 9 5
10. South Carolina Delegates to John Rutledge, July 9 6
11. Abraham Clark to Samuel Tucker. July 9 7
12. John Adams to Samuel Chase, July 9 7
13. John Hancock to George Washington, July 10 8
14. John Hancock to George Washington, July 11 9
15. Thomas Stone to the Maryland Council of Safety, July 12 9
16. John Hancock to George Washington, July 13 9
17. Abraham Clark to Elias Dayton, July 14 10
18. Samuel Adams to Richard Henrj^ Lee, July 15 u
19. Josiah Bartlett to John Langdon, July 15 12
20. Robert Treat Paine to Henry Knox, July 16 12
21. John Alsop to the New York Convention, July 16 12
22. John Hancock to the Massachusetts Assembly, July 16 13
23. Thomas Jefferson to Patrick Henry, July 16 14
24. John Hancock to the New Jersey Convention, July 19 15
25. John Hancock to the New Jersey Convention, July 19 I5
26. Samuel Chase to Philip Schuyler, July 19 16
27. Edward Rutledge to Robert R. Livingston, July 20 17
28. William Ellery to Ezra Stiles, July 20 I7
29. James Wilson to the Commissioners for Indian Affairs, July 20 18
30. Robert Morris to Joseph Reed, July 21 18
31. Elbridge Gerry to Samuel Adams and John Adams, July 21 20
32. Benjamin Franklin to George Washington, July 22 20
33. Josiah Bartlett to John Langdon, July 22 20
34. William Whipple to John Langdon, July 22 21
35. Joseph Hewes to Samuel Purviance, July 23 22
36. Thomas Jefferson to Francis Eppes, July 23 22
37. Benjamin Rush ( ?) to Charles Lee, July 23 22
38. John Hancock to John Rutledge, July 24 23
39. South Carolina Delegates to John Rutledge, July 25 24
39A. John Hancock to John Bradford, July 25 25
40. John Hancock to George Washington, July 26 26
41. Maryland Delegates to the Maryland Council of Safety, July 27 27
42. John Hancock to Joseph Trumbull, July 27 27
43. Joseph Hewes to Samuel Johnston, July 28 28
44. Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, July 29 28
45. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, July 29 28
46. John Hancock to George Washington, July 29 29
47. Josiah Bartlett to John Langdon, July 29 29
48. North Carolina Delegates to the North Carolina Council of Safety, July 29. 30
XXV
xxvi Tdblc of Contents
PACK
49. Thomas Jefferson to John Page, July 30 3'
50. Samuel Chase to Richard Henry Lee, July 30 32
51. John Hancock to GeorRC Washington, July 31 32
52. Ahraham Clark to James Caldwell, Aug. i 32
53. Abraham Clark to James Caldwell. Aug. 2 34
54. John Hancock to George Washington, Aug. 2 34
55. North Carolina Delegates to the North Carolina Council of Safety, Aug. 2. . 35
56. Samuel Adanw to Joseph Trumbull, Aug. 3 35
57. John 1 lancock to John Haslet, Aug. 3 37
58. Caesar Rodney to Thomas Rodney, Aug. 3 37
59. John Adams to William 1 leath, Aug. 3 38
60. Thomas Jefferson to John Page, Aug. 5 38
61. Josiah Rartlett to John Langdon. Aug. 5 39
62. Board of War to the Maryland Convention or Committee of Safety, Aug. 6. 39
63. William Hooper to Jonathan Trumbull, jr., Aug. 6 40
64. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Aug. 7 40
65. Secret Committee to Silas Deane, Aug. 7 42
66. North Carolina Delegates to the North Carolina Council of Safety, Aug. 7. . 42
67. John Hancock to George Washington, Aug. 8 43
68. Samuel Chase to Philip Schuyler, Aug. 9 44
69. North Carolina Delegates to the North Carolina Council of Safety, Aug. 10. 44
70. James Wilson to Jasper Yeates and John Montgomery, Aug. 10 45
71. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Aug. 10 45
72. Josiah Bartlett to John Langdon, Aug. 1 1 47
73. William Williams to Oliver Wolcott, Aug. 12 47
74. Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton, Aug. 13 48
75. Francis Lewis to Mrs. Gates ( ?), Aug. 13 48
76. Secret Committee to George Washington, Aug. 14 49
77. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Aug. 14 49
78. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Aug. 15 50
79. Philip Livingston to the New York Convention, Aug. 16 51
80. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, jr., Aug. 16 5^
81. Rhode Island Delegates to Nicholas Cooke, Aug. 17 52
82. John Hancock to George Washington, Aug. 17 52
83. Josiah Bartlett to William Whipple, Aug. 18 53
84. John Adams to Samuel Adams, Aug. 18 53
85. Edward Rutledge to Robert R. Livingston, Aug. 19 54
86. John Adams to Samuel Holden Parsons, Aug. 19 57
87. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Aug. 20 57
88. Benjamin Franklin to Lord Howe, Aug. 20 58
89. John Adams to James W^arren, Aug. 21 58
90. Benjamin Franklin to Thomas McKean, Aug. 24 59
91. John Hancock to George Washington, Aug. 24 60
92. John Adams to Henry Knox, Aug. 25 61
93. John Hancock to Artemus Ward, Aug. 26 61
94. Josiah Bartlett to William Whipple, Aug. 27 62
95. John Hancock to George Weedon, Aug. 28 62
96. Benjamin Franklin to Horatio Gates, Aug. 28 63
97. William Hooper to Jonathan Trumbull, jr., Aug. 28 63
98. Francis Lewis to Jonathan Trumbull, jr., Aug. 29 64
99. John Hancock to George W^eedon, Aug. 30 64
100. Philip Livingston to Abraham Yates, jr., Aug. 30 64
loi. Benjamin Franklin to Philip Mazzei, [Aug. ?] 65
102. Josiah Bartlett to Nathaniel Folsom, Sept. 2 65
103. Josiah Bartlett to William Whipple, Sept. 3 66
104. John Hancock to the Mar>-land Convention, Sept. 3 67
105. Caesar Rodney to George Read, Sept. 4 68
106. Thomas He>-Avard, jr., to John Morgan, Sept. 4 69
107. John Adams to James Warren, Sept. 4 69
Table of Contents xxvii
PARE
io8. John Witherspoon's Speech on the Message from Lord Howe, Sept. 5 ( ?) . . 70
109. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Sept. 6 74
1 10. Elbridge Gerry to John Wendell, Sept. 6 75
111. Samuel Huntington to Matthew Griswold, Eliphalet Dyer, and William
Pitkin, Sept. 7 76
1 12. Caesar Rodney to George Read, Sept. 7 77
113. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 7 77
114. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Sept. 7 78
115. Samuel Chase to Horatio Gates, Sept. 8 79
116. Benjamin Franklin to George Washington, Sept. 8 80
117. John Adams to James Warren, Sept. 8 80
1 18. Lewis Morris to John Jay, Sept. 8 81
119. John Hancock to George Washington, Sept. 8 81
120. John Hancock to George Washington, Sept. 10 82
121. Josiah Bartlett to William Whipple, Sept. 10 82
122. Edward Rutledge to George Washington, Sept. li 83
123. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 12 84
124. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 13 84
125. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 13 85
126. Caesar Rodney to George Read, Sept. 13 87
127. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Sept. 14 87
128. Josiah Bartlett to William Whipple, Sept. 14 88
129. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Sept. 14 89
130. Francis Lightfoot Lee to Landon Carter, Sept. 15 89
131. John Penn to the North Carolina Council of Safety, Sept. 16 90
132. John Adams to Samuel Adams, Sept. 17 91
133. Robert Treat Paine to Peter Grubb, Sept. 18 94
134. Thomas Nelson, jr., to John Page, Sept. 17 (?) 95
135. North Carolina Delegates to the North Carolina Council of Safety, Sept. 18. 95
136. Committee of Secret Correspondence to William Bingham, Sept. 21 96
137. Marine Committee to Thomas Gushing, Sept. 21 97
138. Edward Rutledge to Robert R. Livingston, Sept. 23 97
139. John Hancock to the New Hampshire Assembly, Sept. 24 98
140. Benjamin Rush to Anthony Wayne, Sept. 24 100
141. Lewis Morris to Abraham Yates, jr., Sept. 24 100
141A. Robert Treat Paine to S. P. Eve ( ?), Sept. 25 loi
142. John Adams to James Warren, Sept. 25 102
143. Edward Rutledge to John Rutledge, Sept. 25 102
143A. William Hooper to Robert R. Livingston, Sept. 25 103
144. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 26 103
145. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 26 103
146. Richard Henry Lee to Thomas Jefferson, Sept. 27 105
147. Elbridge Gerry to Horatio Gates, Sept. 27 105
148. John Hancock to Philip Schuyler, Sept. 27 106
149. Philip Livingston to Abraham Yates, jr., Sept. 28 107
150. Benjamin Rush to Anthony Wayne, Sept. 29 108
151. John Adams to Henry Knox, Sept. 30 ( ?) 108
152. Secret Committee to the Maryland Council of Safety, Oct. i 109
153- Comm.ittee of Secret Correspondence, Statement, Oct. i no
153A. John Hancock, Certificate, Oct. i in
154. John Hancock to the New Jersey Assembly, Oct. 2 1 12
155. Edward Rutledge to Robert R. Livingston, Oct. 2 113
156. Caesar Rodney to Thomas Rodney, Oct. 2 114
157- John Hancock to George Washington, Oct. 4 1 14
158. Elbridge Gerry to Samuel Adams, Oct. 4 115
159. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Oct. 5 115
160. Caesar Rodney to John Haslet, Oct. 6 116
161. Josiah Bartlett to John Langdon, Oct. 7 117
162. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Oct. 7 117
xxviii Tabic of Contents
PAtiB
163. New York ndffratos to the Nt-w York Convention, Oct. 7 119
164. Elbridne (ierry to Joseph Trinnl)iill, Oct. 8 120
165. Elbridgc Cierry to I loratio Gates, Oct. 9 121
166. William Williams to Joseph Tnimhull, Oct. 10 I2I
167. John .Xdanis to .Mrs. .Xdams. Oct. 11 123
168. Benjamin Rush to Thomas Wharton, jr., Oct. 11 123
l6<). Richard 1 leinv l.ee to I^anuiel Tnrviance, jr., Oct. 1 1 124
170. John 1 lancock to tlie Convention of .Maryland, Oct. 12 124
171. Josiah Hartlctt to John Lanpdoti, Oct. 15 125
172. KlhridKc derry to Joseph Trninliull, Oct. 17 12.')
173. I'.dward Rutledne to Robert R. Livingston, Oct. 19 126
174. Josiah Hartlctt to John Langdon, Oct. 19 126
175. l-'lhridge Gerry to Joseph Trumhnll, Oct. 22 T27
176. l't)ard of War to Nathanael (irecne, Oct. 22 128
177. Henjamin Rush to Thomas Morris (?), Oct. 22 128
178. Committee of Secret Correspondence to Silas Deane, Oct. 23 129
179. Committee of Secret Correspondence to Silas Deane, Oct. 24 129
180. Committee of Secret Correspondence to the Commissioners in Paris,
Oct. 24 131
iSi. Board of War to George Washington, Oct. 24 132
182. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Oct. 26 133
183. New York Delegates to the New York Convention, Oct. 26 134
184. Abraham Clark to Elias Dayton, Oct. 26 134
185. Robert Morris to Horatio Gates, Oct. 27 135
186. John Hancock to George Washington, Oct. 28 136
187. William Hooper to the President of the North Carolina Convention,
Oct. 29 137
188. John Witherspoon to Horatio Gates, Oct. 30 138
189. Benjamin Rush to Thomas Wharton, jr., Nov. i 138
190. William Hooper to the North Carolina Provincial Congress, Nov. i 139
191. John Hancock to George Washington, Nov. 5 139
192. Robert Morris to George Read. Nov. 6 141
193. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, jr., Nov. 6 142
194. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Nov. 6 143
195. Edward Rutledge to Philip Schuyler, Nov. 6 144
196. William Whipple to John Langdon, Nov. 7 I44
197. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Nov. 8 I45
198. Board of War to the Maryland Council of Safety, Nov. 8 146
199. William Hooper to Joseph Hewes, Nov. 8 (?) 146
200. Board of War to George Washington, Nov. 8 I47
201. John Hancock to George Washington, Nov. 9 148
202. Francis Lightfoot Lee to Landon Carter, Nov. 9 149
203. Elbridge Gerry to John Wendell, Nov. 11 149
204. George Wythe to Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 11 150
205. John Hancock to the Commissioners from Maryland, Nov. 13 150
206. John Hancock to George Washington, Nov. 14 151
207. John Witherspoon to William Livingston, Nov. 14 152
208. John Hancock to the North Carolina Convention Nov. 15 153
209. John Hancock to George Washington, Nov. 16 153
210. William Hooper to Richard Caswell, Nov. 16 154
211. William Hooper to Joseph Hewes, Nov. 16 155
212. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Nov. 16 156
213. William W^hipple to Josiah Bartlett, Nov. 16 157
214. William Whipple to John Langdon, Nov. 16 158
215. Oliver Wolcott to Matthew Griswold, Nov. 18 158
216. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Nov. 19 159
217. John Hancock to the Virginia Assembly, Nov. 20 160
218. Board of War to the Pennsylvania Council of Safety, Nov. 21 160
219. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Nov. 21 161
Tdble of Contents xxix
PAGE
220. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Nov. 23 162
221. Benjamin Rumsey to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Nov. 24 162
222. Oliver Wolcott to Mrs. Wolcott, Nov. 24 163
223. Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Purviance, jr., Nov. 24 164
224. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull ( ?) , Nov. 26 164
225. John Hancock to George Washington, Nov. 26 165
226. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Nov. 26 165
227. Oliver Wolcott to Timothy Edwards, Nov. 29 166
228. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Nov. 30 168
229. John Hancock to George Washington, Dec. i 168
230. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, Dec. 3 169
231. John Hancock to George Washington, Dec. 4 169
232. New York Delegates to the New York Convention, Dec. 4 169
233. Secret Committee to the Massachusetts Assembly, Dec. 4 170
234. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Dec. 5 (?) 170
235. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Dec. 6 171
236. George Read to Mrs. Read, Dec. 6 171
237. Charles Carroll to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Dec. 7 172
238. William Paca to the Maryland Council of Safety, Dec. 7 172
239. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Dec. 7 I73
240. Georgia Delegates to John Hancock, Dec. 10 173
241. Samuel Chase to James Nicholson, Dec. 11 174
242. Charles Thomson to George Washington, Dec. 11 174
243. Samuel Adams et at. to George Washington, Dec. 12 175
244. Oliver Wolcott to Mrs. Wolcott, Dec. 13 176
245. Robert Morris to John Hancock, Dec. 16 176
246. Robert Morris to the Committee of Secret Correspondence, Dec. 16 178
247. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, Dec. 18 178
248. Benjamin Rumsey to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer ( ?), Dec. 19 179
249. Samuel Adams to Mrs. Adams, Dec. 19 179
250. John Hancock to the Maryland Convention, Dec. 20 (?) 180
251. Charles Carroll to the Maryland Council of Safety, Dec. 21 181
252. Committee of Secret Correspondence to the Commissioners at Paris, Dec. 21 181
253. Robert Morris to the Commissioners at Paris, Dec. 21 183
254. John Hancock to George Washington, Dec. 2;^ 184
255. John Hancock to Robert Morris, Dec. 23 185
256. Robert Morris to George Washington, Dec. 23 185
257. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Dec. 23 186
258. Samuel Chase to John Sullivan, Dec. 24 186
259. William Whipple to John Langdon, Dec. 24 187
260. Oliver Wolcott to Mrs. Wolcott, Dec. 25 187
261. Matthew Thornton to Meshech Weare, Dec. 25 188
262. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Dec. 25 188
263. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Dec. 25 189
264. Francis Lewis to Robert Morris, Dec. 26 190
265. Robert Morris to George Washington, Dec. 26 191
266. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Dec. 26 191
267. John Hancock to Joseph Trumbull, Dec. 27 192
268. Francis Lewis to the New York Committee of Safety, Dec. 27 192
269. John Hancock to Robert Morris, Dec. 27 193
270. Committee in Philadelphia to George Washington, Dec. 28 193
271. Committee in Philadelphia to John Hancock, Dec. 28 194
272. WiUiam Hooper to Robert Morris, Dec. 28 195
273. Benjamin Harrison to Robert Morris, Dec. 29 196
274. Committee of Secret Correspondence to the Commissioners at Paris,
Dec. 30 197
275. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Dec. 31 198
276. Committee in Philadelphia to George Washington, Dec. 31 198
277. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Dec. 31 I99
XXX Table of Contents
PAGE
2/8. William Hooper to Robert Morris, Dec. 31 I99
279. Thomas Nelson, jr., to Horatio Gates, Dec. 31 199
1777-
280. Richard Henry Lee to William Shippen, Jan. i 200
281. Hlhridgc Gerry to Joseph Hawk-y. Jan. i 200
282. William Hooper to Joseph I lewes, Jan. i 200
283. John Hancock to George Washington, Jan. 1 201
284. Samnd Adams to James Warren, Jan. i 202
285. Committee in Philadelphia to John Hancock, Jan. 2 202
286. Committee in Philadelphia to William Palfrey, Jan. 2 203
287. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph TrnmbuU, Jan. 2 203
288. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Jan. 3 204
289. Committee in Philadelphia to George Washington, Jan. 5 205
290. John Hancock to the Committee in Philadelphia, Jan. 6 205
2QI. John Hancock to George Washington, Jan. 6 205
292. Francis Lewis to the New York Committee of Safety, Jan. 7 207
293. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Jan. 7 207
294. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Jan. 8 208
295. Benjamin Harrison to Robert Morris, Jan. 8 208
296. John Hancock to Archibald Bulloch, Jan. 8 208
297. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Jan. 8 209
298. Samuel Adams to John Adams, Jan. 9 209
299. Committee in Philadelphia to George Washington, Jan. 9 212
300. Committee in Philadelphia to James Wilson, Jan. 9 213
301. John Hancock to the Massachusetts Assembly, Jan. 10 213
302. Robert Morris to John Jay, Jan. 12 214
303. Robert Morris to John Langdon, Jan. 12 214
304. John Hancock to Robert Morris, Jan. 14 214
305. James Wilson to Robert Morris, Jan. 14 215
306. Francis Lightfoot Lee to Landon Carter, Jan. 14 217
307. John Hancock to the Maryland Assembly, Jan. 14 217
308. John Hancock to the Committee in Philadelphia, Jan. 14 218
309. Secret Committee to the Commissioners in Paris, Jan. 14 218
310. Francis Lewis to Robert Morris, Jan. 15 219
311. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Jan. 16 219
312. Francis Lewis to Abraham Ten Broeck, Jan. 16 220
313. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, Jan. 17 221
314. Committee in Philadelphia to Richard Dallam, Jan. 18 222
315. John Hancock to George Washington, Tan. 18 222
316. John Hancock to the Committee in Philadelphia, Jan. 18 223
317. John Hancock to Andrew Lewis, Jan. 18 223
317A. Secret Committee to Robert Morris, Jan. 18 224
318. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Jan. 19 (?) 224
319. Samuel Chase to William Livingston, Jan. 23 225
320. Thomas Nelson, jr., to Robert Morris, Jan. 25 225
321. John Hancock to George Washington, Jan. 29 226
322. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Jan. 29 266
323. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Jan. 30 226
324. John Hancock to Joseph Trumbull, Jan. 30 227
325. John Hancock to the Maryland Assembly, Jan. 31 228
326. Massachusetts Delegates to James Bowdoin, Jan. 31 228
327. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Jan. 31 229
328. Robert Morris to George Washington, Jan. 31 230
329. Francis Lewis to Abraham Ten Broeck, Jan. 31 230
330. Francis Lewis to John McKesson, Jan. 31 230
331. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Jan. 31 231
332. William Hooper to Robert Morris, Feb. i 232
333. Committee of Secret Correspondence to William Bingham, Feb. i 232
Table of Contents xxxi
PACE
334. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Feb. i 233
335. John Hancock to the Maryland Assembly, Feb. i 233
336. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Feb. 4 234
337. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Feb. 4 235
338. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Feb. 6 236
339. John Hancock to George Washington, Feb. 6 236
340. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Feb. 7 237
341. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Feb. 7 237
342. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Feb. 7 238
343. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 7 238
344. Benjamin Rush to Robert Morris, Feb. 8 239
345. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 8 240
346. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 8 241
347. Abraham Clark to John Hart, Feb. 8 242
348. John Hancock to the Massachusetts Assembly, Feb. 8 244
349. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Feb. 10 244
350. Benjamin Rush to Robert Morris, Feb. 11 245
351. John Hancock to the Maryland Council of Safety, Feb. 11 246
352. John Adams to James Warren, Feb. 12 246
353. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 12 249
354. Medical Committee to George Washington, Feb. 13 249
355. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Feb. 14 250
356. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 15 253
357. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Feb. 15 254
358. William Hooper to Joseph Hewes, Feb. 15 256
359. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell. Feb. 16 (?) 257
360. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Feb. 16 259
360A. Robert Morris to William Bingham, Feb. 16 259
361. John Adams to James Warren, Feb. 17 260
362. John Hancock to Robert Morris, Feb. 18 260
363. Francis Lewis to Abraham Ten Broeck, Feb. 18 261
364. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 12-19 261
365. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Feb. 19 262
366. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Feb. 20 263
367. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 20 265
368. John Hancock to the Maryland Assembly, Feb. 20 266
369. Samuel Chase to the Maryland Council of Safety, Feb. 20 267
370. John Adams to Joseph Palmer, Feb. 20 268
371. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 21 268
372. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Feb. 21 269
373. Board of War to George Washington, Feb. 21 269
374. John Adams, Diary, Feb. 21 * 270
375. Benjamin Rush to Robert Morris, Feb. 22 270
376. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Feb. 22 271
377. Committee in Philadelphia to George Washington, Feb. 22 272
378. John Hancock to George Washington, Feb. 23 273
379. John Hancock to Horatio Gates, Feb. 23 273
380. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 24 274
381. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 25 275
382. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 25 275
383. John Hancock to Robert Morris, Feb. 26 281
384. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 26 282
385. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Feb. 26 284
386. Committee in Philadelphia to George Washington, Feb. 26 284
387. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Feb. 27 285
388. John Hancock to Robert Morris, Feb. 27 286
389. James Wilson to Robert Morris, Feb. 28 286
390. Francis Lightfoot Lee to Landon Carter, Feb. 28 286
391. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Mar. 2 287
xxxii Table of Contents
PAGI
392. Roger Sherman to Jonatlian 'I'niinbiill, Mar. 4 287
393. Mann PaRe, jr., to George Wcedon, Mar. S 288
394. William Ivlirry to Nicholas Cooke, Mar. 6 289
395. Robert Morris to George Wasliiiigton, Mar. 6 290
396. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Mar. 7 291
397. .\l>rahani Clark to l-'.lias Dayton, Mar. 7 291
398. Abraham Clark to Janus Calilwcll, Mar. 7 293
399. John Hancock to Mrs. Hancock, Mar. 10 293
400. Thomas Rurke to Richard Caswell, Mar. 11 294
401. John Hancock to the New York Delegates, Mar. 11 296
402. I'rancis Lewis to the New York Convention, Mar. 12 297
403. Thomas lUirke, Abstract of Debates, Mar. 14 (?) 298
404. John .Adams to Nathanacl Greene, Mar 299
405. William Ellcry to Nicholas Cooke, Mar. 15 301
406. Lewis Morris to .Xbraham Ten Broeck, Mar. 16 301
407. John Hancock to George Washington, Mar. 17 302
408. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Mar. 17 303
409. John Adams to James Warren. Mar. 18 303
410. John Hancock to Philip Schuyler, Mar. 18 304
411. Samuel Adams to Miss Mercy Scollay, Mar. 18 305
412. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, jr.. Mar. 20 305
413. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, Mar. 21 307
414. Daniel Robcrdcau to Thomas Johnson, jr.. Mar. 22 307
415. James Lovell to John Trumbull, Mar. 22 308
416. William Whipple to John Langdon, Mar. 24 310
417. John Adams to James Warren, Mar. 24 310
418. Committee of Secret Correspondence to the Commissioners in Paris, Mar. 25. 310
419. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Mar. 26 3H
420. William EUery to Nicholas Cooke, Mar. 30 312
421. John Adams to James Warren, Mar. 31 313
422. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, jr., Apr. i 314
423. Roger Sherman to Joseph Trumbull, Apr. 2 314
424. John Hancock to Thomas Johnson, jr., Apr. 2 316
425. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, Apr. 6 316
426. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Apr. 6 317
427. John Adams to James Warren, Apr. 6 318
428. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Apr. 7 319
429. Benjamin Rush, Diary, Apr. 8 319
430. Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, Apr. 18 320
431. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, Apr. 9 320
432. Committee of Congress to George Washington, Apr. 10 322
433. Richard Henry Lee to George Washington, Apr. 10 322
434. James Sykes to George Read, Apr. 10 3^3
435- John Adams to , Apr. 13 324
436. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Apr. 15 324
437. Massachusetts Delegates to the Speaker of the House of Representatives ( ?),
Apr. 16 (?) 326
438. John Adams to James Bowdoin, Apr. 16 327
439. John Adams to James Warren, Apr. 16 327
440. Richard Henry Lee to George Washington, Apr. 16 328
441. Francis Lewis to Abraham Ten Broeck, Apr. 17 328
442. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, Apr. 17 329
443. Benjamin Rumsey to Thomas Johnson, jr., Apr. 17 330
444. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Apr. 17 330
445. William Duer to Abraham Ten Broeck, Apr. 17 331
446. George Walton to Lachlan Mcintosh, Apr. 18 333
447. John Hancock to Horatio Gates, Apr. 18 333
448. Secret Committee to Samuel and Robert Purviance, Apr. 19 334
449. William Whipple to John Langdon, Apr. 19 334
Table of Contents xxxiii
PAGE
450. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Apr. 19 334
451. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Apr. 19 335
452. Richard Henry Lee to Arthur Lee, Apr. 20 335
453. New York Delegates to Abraham Ten Broeck, Apr. 21 336
454. Qiarles Thomson to George Washington, Apr. 22 338
455. Mann Page, jr., to George Weedon, Apr. 22 338
456. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, Apr. 22 339
457. Samuel Adams to Samuel Cooper, Apr. 23 339
458. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, Apr. 23 340
459. Oliver Wolcott to Joshua Huntington, Apr. 24 341
460. John Hancock to George Washington, Apr. 25 341
461. Philip Schuyler to Richard Varick, Apr. 26 341
462. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett, Apr. 27 342
463. Maryland Delegates to Thomas Johnson, jr., Apr. 28 343
464. New York Delegates to Abraham Ten Broeck, Apr. 29 344
465. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Apr. 29 345
466. John Hancock to Horatio Gates, Apr. 29 346
467. Philip Schuyler to George Washington, Apr. 30 347
468. Maryland Delegates to Thomas Johnson, jr., May i 348
469. Robert Morris to Thomas Johnson, jr.. May i 349
470. Benj amin Rumsey to Thomas Johnson, j r.. May i 350
471. Daniel Roberdeau to Benjamin Franklin, May i 351
472. James Lovell to Horatio Gates, May i 351
473. Committee of Foreign Affairs to the Commissioners at Paris, May 2 352
474. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, May 2 353
475- John Adams to James Warren, May 3 354
476. John Hancock to George Washington, May 3 355
477. William Whipple to John Langdon, May 3 355
478. John Hancock to the Thirteen States, May 5 355
479. John Adams to Joseph Palmer, May 6 356
480. John Adams to James Warren, May 6 356
481. William Whipple to Josiah Bartlett ( ?), May 7 357
482. WiUiam Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, May 8 357
483. New York Delegates to the New York Convention, May 9 357
484. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, May 10 359
485. William Whipple to John Langdon, May 10 359
486. John Hancock to George Washington, May 10 359
487. Board of War to George Washington, May 11 360
488. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, May 11 360
489. James Lovell to George Washington, May 12 361
490. Roger Sherman to Oliver Wolcott, May 13 361
491. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, May 14 361
492. Roger Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, May 16 362
493. Thomas Nelson, jr., to George Wjiihe, May 16 2'^^
494. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, May 17 363
495. Philip Schuyler to George Washington, May 18 364
496. John Hancock to George Washington, May 20 365
497. Richard Henry Lee to Thomas Jefferson, May 20 365
498. Virginia Delegates to George Wythe, May 20 365
499. Roger Sherman to Oliver Wolcott, May 21 366
500. Massachusetts Delegates to James Warren, May 21 366
501. Richard Henry Lee to George Washington, May 22 368
502. James Lovell to Horatio Gates, May 22 370
503. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, May 23 370
504. New York Delegates to the New York Council of Safety, May 23 371
505. William Paca to the Governor and Council of Maryland, May 24 371
506. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, May 26 373
507. John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, May 26 374
508. James Lovell to George Washington, May 26 375
3
xxxiv Tabic of Contents
PAGE
509. Daniel Rolicrdeaii to (leornc Washinnton. May 26 376
510. Jolin 1 lancock to CieorRC Wasliinntoii, May 27 376
511. William Ducr to Rolit-rt R. LiviiiKstoii, May 28 376
512. John Adams to John Sullivan, June .3 378
513. Hoard of War to Horatio (iates. Juik- 4 378
514. James Lovcll to Joseph 'rnimbull, June 6 379
315. James Ixtvell to Oliver Wolcott. June 7 379
516. Secret Committee to Oliver Tollock, June 12 380
517. New York Delegates to the New York Council of Safety, June 19 380
518. James Duane to Robert R. Livinpston, June 19 381
519. James Duane to Philip Schuyler, June 19 382
520. William Ducr to Philip Schuyler, June 19 384
521. John Adaius to James Warren. June 19 386
522. James Duane to Robert R. Livingston, June 24 387
523. John Hancock to John McKinley, June 25 388
524. James Duane to Robert R. LivinRston, June 26 388
525. Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee, June 26 388
526. James Duane to Robert R. Livingston, June 28 389
527. Robert ^To^ris to Silas Deane, June 29 390
528. Samuel Adams to James Warren, June 30 391
529. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, June 392
530. James Lovell to Joseph Trumbull, June 30 394
531. James Lovell to William Whipple, June 30 394
532. James Duane to Robert R. Livingston, July i 395
533- New York Delegates to the New York Council of Safety, July 2 396
534. James Duane to Robert R. Livingston, July 2 397
535. James Lovell to Benjamin Franklin, July 4 398
536. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, July 5 398
537- William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, July 5 399
538. Henry Marchant to the Governor and Company of Rhode Island, July 5- • ■ • 40i
539- James Lovell to William W' hippie, July 7 402
540. John Adams to James Warren, July 7 404
541. John Adams to Nathanael Greene. July 7 404
542. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, July 7 405
543. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, July 8 407
544. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, July 8 408
545. John Hancock to Joseph Trumbull, July 8 408
546. New York Delegates to the New York Council of Safety, July 8 409
547. William Duer to Robert R. Livingston, July 9 410
548. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, July 9 410
549. John Hancock to the Massachusetts Assembly, July 10 411
550. James Lovell to Joseph Trumbull, July 11 41 1
551. John Hancock to Benedict Arnold, July 12 412
552. John Hancock to the Massachusetts Assembly, July 14 413
553. Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee, July 15 413
554. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, July 15 414
555. John Hancock to Philip Schuyler, July 18 415
556. James Lovell to William Whipple, July 21 415
557. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, July 22 416
558. Samuel Adams to Richard Henrj' Lee, July 22 417
559. James Lovell to George Washington, July 24 417
559A. Charles Thomson, Notes of Debates, July 24 421
559B. Charles Thomson, Notes of Debates, July 25 422
560. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, July 25 423
560A. Charles Thomson, Notes of Debates, July 26 424
561. Nathaniel Folsom to Meshech Weare, July 26 426
562. Samuel Adams to Paul Revere, July 28 427
562A. Charles Thomson, Notes, of Debates, July 28 427
563. William Duer to Philip Schuyler, July 29 428
Tdhle of Contents xxxv
PAGE
564. New York Delegates to the New York Council of Safety, July 29 429
565. James Lovell to William Whipple, July 29 430
566. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, July 30 43i
567. John Hancock to the Maryland Assembly, July 31 43-2
568. Samuel Adams to James Warren, July 31 433
569. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Aug. i 434
570. James Lovell to William Whipple, Aug i 435
571. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, Aug. 2 435
572. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, Aug. 2 436
573. John Hancock to William Heath, Aug. 2 436
574. James Lovell to William Whipple, Aug. 4 437
575. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Aug. 5 437
576. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Aug. 5 438
577. George Walton to George Washington, Aug. 5 439
578. Nathaniel Folson to Josiah Bartlett, Aug. 5 440
579. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, Aug. 6 440
580. John Hancock to the New York Assembly, Aug. 6 44i
581. James Lovell to William Whipple, Aug. 7 442
582. James Lovell to William Whipple, Aug. 8 442
583. Henry Laurens to Robert Howe, Aug. 7 442
584. Henry Laurens to Lachlan Mcintosh, Aug. 11 443
585. James Lovell to William Whipple, Aug. 11 445
586. Henry Laurens to John Rutledge, Aug. 12 445
587. Nathaniel Folsom to Josiah Bartlett, Aug. 12 449
588. Charles Carroll of Carrollton to Benjamin Franklin, Aug. 12 450
589. John Hancock to Horatio Gates, Aug. 14 452
590. Henry Laurens to William Thomson, Aug. 17 452
591. Henry Laurens to John Rutledge, Aug. 17 452
592. Henry Marchant to Nicholas Cooke, Aug. 17 453
593. John Hancock to George Washington, Aug. 17 453
594. James Lovell to WilHam Whipple, Aug. 18 454
595. John Adams to James Warren, Aug. 18 454
596. Henry Laurens to John Rutledge, Aug. 19 455
597. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Aug. 19 455
598. George Frost to Josiah Bartlett, Aug. 19 456
599. George Frost to Josiah Bartlett, Aug. 19 456
600. William Paca to Thomas Johnson, jr., Aug. 19 457
601. Henry Laurens to Joseph Clay, Aug. 20 458
602. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Aug. 20 458
603. Benjamin Harrison to George Washington, Aug. 20 458
604. Roger Sherman to Horatio Gates, Aug. 20 459
605. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Aug. 21 460
606. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Aug. 21 460
607. James Lovell to Oliver Wolcott, Aug. 21 460
608. John Hancock to George Washington, Aug. 21 463
609. New Hampshire Delegates to Meshech Weare, Aug. 22 463
610. John Hancock to George Washington, Aug. 22 464
61 1. James Duane to Philip Schuyler, Aug. 23 465
612. Cornelius Harnett to Richard Caswell, Aug. 23 466
613. John Hancock to the Pennsylvania Council, Aug. 23 466
614. Henry Marchant to Nicholas Cooke, Aug. 24 467
615. John Hancock to the New Hampshire Assembly, Aug. 25 467
616. Richard Henry Lee to Thomas Jefiferson, Aug. 25 468
617. Henry Laurens, Heads of Inquiry as to the State of the Army, Aug. 27 469
618. Henry Laurens to Lachlan Mcintosh, Sept. i 47i
619. New Hampshire Delegates to Meshech Weare, Sept. 2 47i
620. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Sept. 2 472
621. Committee of Intelligence to George Washington, Sept. 2 473
622. James Duane to Robert R. Livingston, Sept. 3 (?) 473
xxxvi Tabic of Contents
PAGE
623. John Hancock to Israel riitiiani, Sti)t. 3 474
624. Robert Morris to William \Vliipi)le, Sei)t. 4 474
625. Committee of CoiiRress to Josei)h Trumhull. Sept. 5 475
6j6. Joliii Hancock to William Livingston, Sept. 5 475
627. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Sept. 5 476
628. Committee of Congress to Georpe Washington, Sept. 6 483
629. John Hancock to George Washington, Sept. 0 4^3
630. James Lo\ ell to Joseph Triimhull. Sept. 7 484
631. Kliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 7 485
632. James I^vcll to Vicomte dv Mauroy, Sept. 8 486
633. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, Sept. 8 486
634. John .\dams to Mrs. Adams. Sept. 8 487
635. John 1 lancock to George Washington, Sept. 9 487
636. Henry Laurens to John Rutledge, Sept. 10 488
637. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 12 492
638. John 1 lancock to George Washington, Sept. 12 492
639. John Hancock to William Livingston, Sept. 12 493
640. John Hancock to George Washington. Sept. 13 493
641. Samuel Chase to Thomas Johnson, jr., Sept. 13 493
642. John Adams to Mrs. Adams. Sept. 14 494
643. Henry Laurens to George Galphin, Sept. 16 494
644. Henry Marchant to the Rhode Island Assembly, Sept. 17 495
645. James Lovell to William Whipple, Sept. 17 495
646. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, Sept. 17 406
647. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell. Sept. 17 496
648. John Adams, Diary, Sept. 18 497
649. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Sept. 18 497
650. John Adams, Diary, Sept. 19 498
651. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Sept. 20 498
652. Charles Carroll of Carrollton to George Washington, Sept. 22 499
653. James Lovell to Joseph Trumbull, Sept 23 500
654. I^Ibridge Gerry to George Washington, Sept. 24 500
655. Elbridge Gerry to George Washington, Sept. 25 501
656. Cornelius Harnett to William Wilkinson, Sept. 25 501
657. Jolin Hancock to George Washington, Sept. 26 502
658. Cornelius Harnett to Richard Caswell, Sept. 27 502
659. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Sept. 28 502
660. John Hancock to George Washington, Sept. 30 503
661. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Sept. 30 504
662. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, Sept. 30 504
663. Daniel Roberdeau to Thomas Wharton, jr., Oct. i 505
664. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Oct. 2 505
665. John Hancock to the Massachusetts Council, Oct. 3 506
666. James Duane to George Qinton, Oct. 3 506
667. John Penn to Richard Caswell, Oct. 5 507
668. John Hancock to Robert Morris, Oct. 5 507
669. James Duane to Philip Schuyler, Oct. 5 507
670. James Duane to Jonathan Trumbull, j r., Oct. 5 508
671. James Lovell to Horatio Gates, Oct. 5 508
672. Committee of Foreign Affairs to the Commissioners in Paris, Oct. 6 509
^73- John Hancock to John Nixon. Oct. 6 5"
674. Richard Henr>- Lee to Patrick Henry, Oct. 8 5"
675. John Hancock to the Massachusetts Council, Oct. 8 512
676. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Oct. 8 512
677. James Duane to Philip Schuyler, Oct. 9 512
678. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Oct. 9 5^3
679. Samuel Chase to Thomas Johnson, jr., Oct. 10 5^3
680. Cornelius Harnett to Richard Caswell, Oct. 10 5^4
681. Henry Laurens to John Laurens, Oct. 10 5i4
Table of Contents xxxvii
pact:
682. Daniel Roberdeau to Thomas Wharton, jr., Oct. 10 516
683. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, Oct. 11 .Si?
684. Eliphalet Dyer to John Sullivan, Oct. 11 5i7
685. John Hancock to George Washington, Oct. 12 518
686. Thomas Burke to John Sullivan, Oct. 12 5I9
687. Daniel Roberdeau to Thomas Wharton, jr., Oct. 14 52i
688. John Hancock to George Washington, Oct. 14 52i
689. Henry Laurens to John Laurens, Oct. 16 521
690. Henry Laurens to John Rutledge, Oct. 16 522
691. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Oct. 16 522
692. Richard Henry Lee to Hall and Sellers, Oct. 17 523
693. John Hancock to George Washington, Oct. 17 523
694. John Harvie to Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 17 524
69s. John Hancock to Mrs. Hancock, Oct. 18 524
696. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Oct. 18 524
697. Henry Laurens to John Rutledge, Oct. 19 525
698. Henry Laurens to Robert Howe, Oct. 20 525
699. North Carolina Delegates to Richard Caswell, Oct. 20 526
700. Richard Henry Lee to George Washington, Oct. 20 527
701. William Williams to Jabez Huntington, Oct. 22 529
702. Eliphalet Dyer to John Sullivan, Oct. 23 530
703. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Oct. 24 530
704. Henry Marchant to Nicholas Cooke, Oct. 24 53i
705. Committee of Congress to Jasper Yeates, Oct. 24 53i
706. Committee of Congress to Edward Hand, Oct. 24 532
707. Committee of Congress to , Oct. 24 533
708. John Adams to Mrs. Adams, Oct. 25 533
709. John Hancock to George Washington, Oct. 25 534
710. John Hancock to Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 25 534
711. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, Oct. 25 535
712. Nathaniel Folsom to Meshech Weare, Oct. 27 535
713. John Adams to Mrs Adams, Oct. 28 535
714. Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, Oct. 28 536
715. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Oct. 29 536
716. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Oct. 30 537
717. Daniel Roberdeau to Edward Hand, Oct. 30 537
718. Nathaniel Folsom to Josiah Bartlett, Oct. 30 538
719. Daniel Roberdeau to Timothy Matlack, Nov. i 538
720. Richard Henry Lee to Thomas Mifflin, Nov. 2 539
721. Board of War to Horatio Gates, Nov. 2 539
722. James Lovell to William Whipple, Nov. 3 540
723. Roger Sherman to Richard Henry Lee, Nov. 3 540
724. Samuel Adams to James Warren, Nov. 4 54i
725. Thomas Burke to Richard Caswell, Nov. 4 542
726. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Nov. 4 542
727. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Nov. 4 544
728. Henry Laurens to Horatio Gates, Nov. 5 545
729. Eliphalet Dyer to Horatio Gates, Nov. 5 546
730. James Lovell to Horatio Gates, Nov. 5 546
731. William Duer to George Clinton, Nov. 9 546
732. Daniel Roberdeau to Thomas Wharton, jr., Nov. 10 547
7ZZ- Cornelius Harnett to Thomas Burke, Nov. 13 547
734. Henry Laurens to George Washington, Nov. 13 548
735. Pennsylvania Delegates to Thomas Wharton, jr., Nov. 13 550
72>^. Henry Laurens to Israel Putnam, Nov. 14 55i
727- Henry Laurens to Horatio Gates, Nov. 14 551
738. Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Adams, Nov. 15 552
739. Thomas Burke, Notes on the Articles of Confederation, Nov. 15 552
740. Thomas Burke, Remarks concerning the Confederation, Nov. 15 556
xxxviii Table of Contents
PACK
741. Henry I-aurens to Jolm Lewis ncrvais, Nov. 18 558
742. Jonathan Ehncr to William Maxwell, Nov. 18 558
743. James Duane to Philip Schuyler, Nov. IQ 559
744. Henry Laurens tn (icorne WashinRton, Nov. IQ 559
745. John Penn to William Woodford, Nov. ly 560
746. Daniel Robcrdeau to Thomas Wharton, jr., Nov. 19 560
747. Cornelius I lamett to Thomas Hurke, Nov. 20 562
748. Richard Henry Lee to GeorRe Washington, Nov. 20 563
741). Nathaniel Folsom to Meshech Weare, Nov. 21 564
749.'\. Commercial Conmiittec to Kdward Hand, Nov. 21 565
750. James Duane to the New York Council of Safety. Nov. 21 566
751. I lenry Laurens to GeorRC Washington, Nov. 22 567
752. Henry Laurens to Horatio Gates, Nov. 23 5^8
753. Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Adams, Nov. 23 568
754. Richard I lenry Lee to Meshech Weare, Nov. 24 569
755. Henrj' Laurens to Richard Caswell, Nov. 25 570
756. James Lovell to Horatio Gates, Nov. 27 570
757. Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Trumbull, Nov. 27 571
758. Henry I-aurens to Horatio Gates, Nov. 28 572
759. William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, Nov. 28 573
760. William Williams to Jonathan Trumbull, Nov. 28 574
761. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Nov. 28 575
762. Henry Laurens to Horatio Gates, Nov. 29 576
763. Henry Laurens to John Laurens, Nov. 30 577
764. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke. Nov. 30 577
765. Cornelius Harnett to W^illiam Wilkinson, Nov. 30 578
766. Henry Laurens to John Rutledge, Dec. i 578
767. Henry Laurens to Robert Treat Paine, Dec. 3 580
768. James Lovell to Richard Henry Lee, Dec. 8 581
769. James Lovell to John .'Kdams, Dec. 8 582
770. James Lovell to Samuel Adams, Dec. 8 5^3
771. Cornelius Harnett to Thomas Burke, Dec. 8 583
772. Cornelius Harnett to William Wilkinson, Dec. 8 583
773. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Dec. 8 584
774. Committee of Congress to George Washington, Dec. 10 585
774A. Henry Laurens to the Continental Congress, Dec. 12 586
775. William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke. Dec. 14 587
776. Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, Dec. 15 587
777. James Duane to Horatio Gates, Dec 16 590
778. James Duane to Philip Schuyler, Dec. 16 590
779. Jonathan Bayard Smith to George Bryan, Dec. 19 591
780. Jonathan Bayard Smith to George Bryan, Dec. 19 592
781. Henry Laurens to Philip Schuyler, Dec. 20 592
782. James Lovell to Samuel Adams, Dec. 20 593
783. Abraham Clark to Lord Stirling. Dec. 20 594
784. E[bridge Gerrj- to Robert Morris, Dec. 21 594
785. Jonathan Bayard Smith to Thomas Wharton, jr., Dec. 22 595
786. Henry Laurens to William Heath, Dec. 23 595
787. William Ellery to William Whipple, Dec 596
788. Daniel Roberdeau to Thomas Wharton, jr., Dec. 24 596
789. Henry Laurens to James Duane, Dec. 24 597
790. Daniel Roberdeau to Thomas Wharton, jr., Dec. 26 597
791. Henry Laurens to William Heath, Dec. 27 S98
792. Daniel Roberdeau to George Bryan, Dec. 29 600
793. Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, Dec. 30 601
794. Francis Lightfoot Lee to Thomas W^harton, jr., Dec. 30 603
795. Francis Lightfoot Lee to Thomas Johnson, jr., Dec. 31 . 604
Index 605
LIST OF MEMBERS.
CONNECTICUT. Andrew Adams.
Elected: Oct. ii, 1777- Did not attend in 1777.
Eliplialet Dyer. , .., , , ^r • ^a
Elected: (See vol. I.); Oct. 10, 1776 ("for the Year ensuing: and untill new be chosen") ; Oct. 11, I777 (" for the year ensuing, and until new be chosen and arrive in Congress, if sitting ").' Attended: June 25 to Dec. 31, 1777. j
Oliver Ellsworth.
Elected: Oct. 11, 1777- Did not attend in 1777. Titus H osftier
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Oct. 12, 1775; Oct. 11, i777- Did not attend in 1776 or 1777. Samuel Huntington. ^ ^ .
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Oct. 12, 1775 I Oct. io» ^77^' Oct. n, i777 (see
under Dyer). Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Oct. (near the end), 1776.
Huntington received committee appointments Oct. 17, but had gone home before Nov. 6 (see nos. 193. 215). He was in Connecticut Nov. 13 (Force Am Arch., fifth ser., III. 665), and although expected in early December he did not return (see nos. 222, n. 2, 244, 260, 459, n. 3). Richard Law.
Elected: Oct. 10, 1776.
Attended: June 25 to Dec. 3, i777- , . . ^ .i. . u . u u-
Law obtained leave of absence Dec. 3. and it is presumed that he took his
departure that day (see note under Williams).
A few days after Law's appearance in Congress he gave his adherence to the
resolution of secrecy, which had been adopted Nov 9, I775, and signed by
members from time to time (see vol. I., no. 363, note 2). The document signed
bv Law was not, however, the original copy to which previous signatures had
been appended, but a new copy which Secretary Thomson had made (June 2»,
1777) including the names of all previous signers, the last being George
Frost who had signed the resolution some time in the month of June. Law s
signature was doubtless the first to be placed on the new copy, that ot
Nathaniel Folsom being on the same line with it. and followed by the date
July 21, 1777. For an account of this document see J. C. Fitzpatnck, in Am.
Hist. Rev., XXVII. 489.
Roger Sherman. ^ ^ ^ ,, ,^^_
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Oct. 12, 1775: Oct. 10, 1776; Oct. 11. i777-
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Oct. 8. 1776; Jan. 2 to July 2, 1777-
Sherman was appointed Sept. 20 on a committee, with Gerry and Lewis, to go
to headquarters, and was absent Sept. 21-30. The committee mention in their
report {Journajs, Oct. 3) that they left Philadelphia Sept. 21, and as both
Sherman and Gerry were appointed on another committee Oct. i, it is presumed
thev had returned Sept. 30. (See also the Journals, Oct. 25, where the expense
account mentions " ten days ".) Wolcott writes Oct. 8 :. " Mr. Sherman goes
home for a short visit" (no. 222, n. 2). Sherman himself says, Man 20
1777 (no 412) : "The day before I went home Congress agreed to augment
the Pay of the Regimental Officers" (see the Journals, Oct.,7). In the sa^e
letter he says, "I arrived at Baltimore the 2d of January . The Journals
1 The terms of election apply to all members elected at the same time, unless otherwise stated.
XXXIX
xl List of Members
record his attendance Jan. 3, 1777. lie obtained leave of absence June 30, and took l)is dcpartiirr July 2 (no. 537; cf. no. 533). Althouf.,'!) bis return shortly was cxpi-cted (see no. 537), he does not ai)i)ear to have attended a^ain in 1777. The " .Mution from Connecticut ". in the writing; of Sherman, reconUd in the Journals under Nov. 15 (p. 927), was doubtless pre|)ared at an earlier date. The passase in the report presented Nov. 19, stated (p. 941) to be in Sherman's writintf, is, instead, in the writing of Eliphalet Dyer. ll'Uliam ll'illiaiiis.
l-'lected: (See vol. I.) : (^ct. u, 1775: Oct. 10, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.); July 30 (?) to Nov. 12, 1776; June 25 to Dec. 3, 1777. Williams says in his letter of .-Xur. 12 (no. 7^) tliat he reached Philadelphia "near the last of July". He siRncd the resolution of secrecy July 30 (sec vol. I., no. 3O3, n. 2). Wolcott says in a letter to his wife, Nov. 12, "This goes by Col Williams who is returning home" (Conn. Hist. Soc, Oliver Wolcott Papers, II. 24) ; and in his letter to Griswold Nov. 18 (no. 215) he says: "Col Williams returned the 13th int." Williams rendered an account for attendance in Congress from July 22 to Nov. 21, 1776, 123 days. These are the dates of his departure from his home and his return (sec Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, second sen, III. 375). He was in Lebanon July 18 (letter copied from the original in possession of Mr. Stan. V. Hcnkels), and in Hartford July 22, for he on that day answered a letter of Titus Hosmer dated June 27 (sec no. 491, n. 4). His return to Congress June 25, 1777, is recorded in the Journals. He obtained leave of absence Dec. 3 {cf. no. 759)- Oliver Wolcott.
Elected: (See vol. I.); Oct. 12, 1775; Oct. 10, 1776; Oct. 11, 1777.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; Oct. i, 1776, to May 2, 1777.
Wolcott's first appearance in the Journals is Nov. 8, but a letter to his wife Oct. I says : " This morning I arrived safe in this City " {Memorial of Henry Wolcott, p. 165 ; see also no. 222). He appears to have attended consecutively until May 2, 1777, when he obtained leave of absence (see the Journals). He rendered an account for attendance from Jan. 4 to July 4, 1776 (see vol. I.), and from Sept. 24, 1776, to May 12, 1777 (see Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, second sen. III. 374). May 12 was the date of his arrival at his home in Connecticut (see his letter of May 13, to William Ellery, Emmet Coll., no. 2435).
DELAWARE. John Dickinson.
Elected: Nov. 8, 1776 (superseded Feb. 22, 1777).
Attended: (See vol. I., under Pennsylvania). He did not attend as a delegate from Delaware either in 1776 or 1777. Prior to July 4, 1776, Dickinson had served as a delegate from Pennsylvania, and he was not superseded in that delegation until July 20 (see under Penn- sylvania). Jan. 20. 1777, Dickinson wrote to George Read that ill health and other reasons had prevented him from taking his seat in Congress, and asked to be relieved {Life of Read, p. 253). Feb. 22 Nicholas Van Dyke and James Sykes w^ere chosen in the places of Dickinson and John Evans, who had also asked to be relieved. John Evans.
Elected: Nov. 8, 1776 (superseded Feb. 22, 1777).
Did not attend.
Evans wrote to George Read, Jan. 6. 1777, that his health would not permit him to attend Congress and asked to be relieved {Ufe of Read, p. 251 ; see also ibid., p. 222). Feb. 22 both Evans and Dickinson were reheved and Nicholas Van Dyke and James Sykes were chosen in their stead. Thomas McKcan.
Elected: (See vol. 1.) ; Oct. 21. 1775; Dec. 17, 1777.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5-11 (?), 1776; Sept. 25 to Oct. 13 (or
later), 1776.
It is very uncertain whether McKean attended Congress after July 4 until Sept.
25. The Journals contain no definite record of his presence during that
period ; and he himself stated in his letter to Caesar A. Rodney in September,
List of Members xli
1813 : " I WBS not in Congress after the 4th for some months, having marched with my regiment of associators of this city, as Colonel" (see vol. I., p. 535). He was, however, in Philadelphia July 5 and served as chairman of a conference with the Pennsylvania committee of safety, etc., authorized by Congress July 4, and a report of this conference, prepared by him. was presented to Congress July 5. Another report prepared by him was brought in July 11; yet this report (the committee, Read and McKean, was appointed June 4) may have been drawn up prior to July 5 and have been presented by his associate on the committee. McKean was in Philadelphia from Sunday night, Aug. 25, to Tuesday morning, Aug. 27, but there is no evidence that he attended Congress. In the letter to A. J. Dallas, Sept. 26, 1796, McKean says that he returned to Congress in October (see vol. I., p. 533) ; although in the letter to Caesar A. Rodney, already referred to, he is somewhat less definite. In fact, he must have returned immediately after the adjournment of the Delaware convention; for he was given a committee appointment Sept. 25, and another Sept. 27. He must have remained at least until Oct. 13, for his name is appended to a letter of the secret committee of that date (Continental Congress, Miscellaneous). One might infer from Rodneys letter of Oct. 2 (see under Read) that he was at that time alone in the delegation ; but in earlier letters Rodney had spoken of the requirement that two delegates be present in Congress to give the state representation. In a letter to Thomas Rodney, Sept. 12, he says : " When Mr. Read went to New. castle he prevailed on me to stay in Congress, and that he would get the Convention to give a power to one Member to Act, so that our Government might be Represented by me alone, till the Convention should Rise. I mentioned this to Mr. McKean who directly declared they should make no appointments of Delegates, nor even alter the powers Given them, least they (meaning the Convention) should plead this as a precedent for giving into some other appointments, which they were not Authorized to do by their Choice (Henkels, Catalogue, no. 1236, item 87). In his letter of Aug. 28, in which he makes a similar statement, he mentions that the conversation occurred \ during McKean's hurried visit to Philadelphia Aug. 25-27, and adds : He
says, for his part, he is tired of attending the Congress; but is determined they the Deleware convention shall turn him nor no one else out; that if they are determined to do those things by the strength of their majority, he will try the strength of the country with them, even at the risk of the Court- House" (Force, Atn. Arch., fifth ser., I. 1192). In the election which shortly took place (by the council, Nov. 8, concurred in by the assembly Nov. 9) representation by one delegate was authorized; but both McKean and Rodney were left out Whether McKean remained for any length of time after Oct. 13 is uncertain. A statement of Hooper, Nov. 8 (no. 199), that Delaware had " for some time past " been unrepresented, is understood to mean that no delegates from Delaware had been present for some time {cf. no 215). On the other hand, from a letter of Caesar Rodney to Col. Samuel Patterson, Nov. 18 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser.. III. 745), wherein Rodney mentions that he had sent some articles " to the care of Thomas McKean, Esq., in Philadelphia ", it is possible to infer that McKean had quite recently been in attendance at Congress. At all events, the election of Nov. 8, 1776, brought his attendance to a close {cf. his letters to George Read, Sept. 26, Dec. 6, 1777, in Life of Read, pp. 278, 287) until the new election, Dec. 17, I777, when he was again chosen a delegate. (He took his seat in Congress Jan. 30, I77».) The statement that he " served in Congress from its opening till the peace (see Appleton, Cyclo. of Am. Biog.) is therefore incorrect. George Read.
Elected : (See vol. I.) ; Oct. 21, 1775 ; Nov. 8, 1776.
Attended : (See vol. I.) ; July 5 (?) to Aug. 24 ( ?), 1776 ; Dec. 2-12 ( ?),
1776 ; Mar. 12 to Apr. 4 (?) I Apr. 25 (or earlier) to May ( ?) ;
Sept. 9 (or earlier)-i8, 1777. Besides two committee appointments, July 15, the Journals contain no record of Read's attendance in 1776 after July 4- There are other evidences, however, that he was in attendance most if not all the time until about Aug. 24. His name is appended to a letter of the marine committee, Aug. 6 (Force, Am. Arch fifth ser., I. 784), and Rodney's letter of Aug. 8 indicates that he was in Congress at that time (see no. 58, note 6). Rodney's letter of Aug. 21 (no. 90, note 2)' states that Read was going to the convention, and the letter of
xlii List of Members
Autj. -8 indicates tliat lie had already ^onc {ibid.; see the letters in Am. Arch.). Read was nuide president of the Delaware cunventiDii, which met at New Castle Aug. 27-Sept. 21. lie was evidently expected to return to ConRress w^on the adjuurnineiit of the convention, for (Taesar Rodney wrote to Tlioinas Rodney, Oct. _• : " Mr. Read is not yet come up. However, I shall set out for Kent on Saturday or Sunday at farthest, whether he comes or not" (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., II. 840). lie does not ai)i)ear however to have returned until Dec. 2, when he presented his credentials of Nov. 8 (Journals). Numerous letters to him as late as Nov. 2$ indicate that he was diiriiiK this period either at New Castle or WilminKton (l-ife, pp. 195-216; cf. nos. ny), -'15). A letter from Read to Robert Morris, Nov. 5, is dated at New Castle, and a letter from u committee of Congress, Nov. 25, is addressed to him there. On the other hand, a letter from Col. Samuel Patterson (who kept in close communiaition with Read), written from Brunswick, Nov. 30, is addressed to him "at Congress" (ibid., p. 216; cf. ibid., pp. 217, 218, 220; sec also no. 236). lie remained, presumably, until Congress adjourned from Philadelphia; but he did not follow it to Baltimore (see Life, p. 223). His next appearance in the Journal.^ is Mar. 12, upon the return of Congress to Philadelphia (cf. nos. 304, ^^27, ^^2, 401 ; also Life, pp. 251-250). He may have remained until James Sykes took his scat, Apr. 4, but certainly not longer (see ibid., pp. 259-262; also no. 434). He was evidently absent Mar. 17 and 18 (see the Journals). He appears to have responded to the appeal of Sykes (Apr. 10, no. 434), for he was appointed on a committee Apr. 25 (to confer with the president and council of Delaware at Wilmington), which made a report Apr. 29. Read doubtless returned to Philadelphia with the other members of the committee (see nos. 462, 465) ; but he was not in attendance May 13 (see no. 490). He resumed his seat in Congress at some time between Aug. 27 and Sept. 9 (there is no record of yeas and nays between these dates), for he is recorded as voting Sept. 9, 10, 11, and 16, and James Lovell records his presence Sept. 17 (no. 645). Upon the adjournment of Congress to Lan- caster, Sept. 18, Read remained in Philadelphia until Sept. 26, when he made his way to Delaware (see liis Life, pp. 275, 279). Caesar Rodney.
Elected : (See vol. I) ; Oct. 21, 1775 ; Dec. 17, 1777.
Attended : (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Oct. 6, 1776.
The Journals and Rodney's letters show that he attended Congress consecutively during the period indicated. (In addition to the items in these volumes see Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 169, 740, 944, II. 510; also a letter to Col. John Haslet, Sept. 12, in Henkels, Catalogue, no. 1236, item 87.) In the letter of Oct. 6 (no. 160) he says : " I Set out this day for Kent, and don't intend to return to Congress soon again, at least not in the present Reign. . . . P. S. Don't suppose from what I said They have left me out of Congress. They have not" (cf. a letter of Nov. 3 to John Capley, Emmet Coll., no. 1613). Nevertheless he was not included in the election of Nov. 8. James Sykes.
Elected: Feb. 22, 1777.
Attended: Apr. 4-18 (or later ?), 1777.
The Journals record that Sykes took his seat Apr. 4, hut his letter of Apr. 10 (no. 434) and a committee appointment Apr. 18 are the only other indications of his attendance. Indeed he may not have tarried until Apr. 18, for in his letter of Apr. 10 he declared that he would not remain alone, and the com- mittee of Apr. 18 consisted of a member from each state. He wa.s not in attendance May 13 (see no. 490). In a letter to George Read, Dec. 6, 1777, McKean expresses the hope that Sykes would attend (Life of Read, p. 287), but there is no evidence that he did so. Nicholas Van Dyke.
Elected: Feb. 22, 1777; Dec. 17, 1777.
Attended: June 2 to Aug. 15 (or later), 1777-
In a letter to George Read. Apr. 7, 1777 (Life of Read, p. 260), Van Dyke indi- cated that he might attend Congress " the first of the week after next " ; but it was not until June 2 that he took his seat (Journals). He signed the pledge of secrecy probably June 5, for his name follows next after that of William Duer, to which that date is appended (see vol. I., no. 363, note 2). He was present and voting as late as Aug. 14, and Delaware is not recorded
List of Members xliii
among the absentees Aug. 15 (see the record of absentee states in the (Jourtials). As the next record of the yeas and nays, Aug. 22, does not inchide the name of Van Dyke, he must have taken his departure at some time between Aug. 15 and 22.
GEORGIA. Nathan Broiimson.
Elected: Oct. 9, 1776 (for the year ensuing) ; June 7, 1777.
Attended: Jan. 3 (or earlier) to May i, 1777; Aug. 23 to Oct. 9, 1777. The first positive record of Brownson's presence in Congress is of a committee appointment Jan. 3, 1777 ; but it is probable that it was he who brought the Georgia credentials presented in Congress Dec. 20, 1776. The Journals record that the delegates from Georgia (without naming them) presented the credentials of their reappointment (see under Hall and Walton), and nowhere mention the first attendance of Brownson. In addition to the evidences of the Journals it is to be noted that Brownson signed the resolution of secrecy (see vol. I., no. 363, n. 2) Feb. 4, 1777, and a letter of the marine committee Feb. 5 (Library of Congress, Accession no. 2605) ; also that John Adams mentions him as one of a supper party Feb. 16 (Diary, Works, II, 434). He obtained leave of absence May i, and was the bearer of a letter from John Adams to James Warren May 2 (see IV arren- Adams Letters, I. 321). His name next appears in the Journals (in the yeas and nays) Aug. 23, and that was probably the day when he resumed his seat ; for he was evidently absent Aug. 11 (see nos. 584, 585, where it is indicated that only Walton of the Georgia delegates was present), and he is not recorded as voting Aug. 14 or 22. From that time until Oct. 9 he appears to have been in constant attendance. He was one of the party of delegates who, on the journey to Lancaster, signed a document at Bethlehem, Sept. 22 (see no. 652, n. 2). At the expiration of the delegation year (Oct. 9) he probably had not learned that he had been re-elected June 7, 1777, for it was not until Nov. 17 that the new credentials were produced in Congress (see under Langworthy and Wood). The remarks of Thomas Burke in nos. 380, 384, and 503 concerning a Georgia delegate evidently appertain to Brownson, as Hall had left Congress in February, and Burke himself, in the last of the letters referred to, eliminates Walton, who is mentioned as having been absent on the occasions to which he had referred. Furthermore, he remarks that the delegate to whom he alluded was " by birth a Connecticut man ", a characterization which could apply only to Brownson and Hall. (C. C. Jones, jr., remarks, in Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Conti- nental Congress, p. 11: "We are not informed of what colony he was a native " ; but see Dexter, Yale Biographies, II. 690 ; also Adams's letter of May 2, mentioned above.) Archibald Bulloch.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Feb. 2, 1776 (for the term of nine months).
Did not attend in 1776. Button Gwinnett.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Feb. 2, 1776 (for the term of nine months) ; Oct. 9, 1776 (for the year ensuing).
Attended : (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Aug. 2 ( ?), 1776.
Gwinnett is recorded by John Adams as taking part in the debates July 26 (see the Journals, VI. 1077), but the Journals mention his absence Aug. 2. Inas- much as he signed the Declaration of Independence and could not have signec it earlier than Aug. 2, he must have taken his departure that day. _ He was at all events in North Carolina about Aug. 17 on his way to Georgia (McRee, Life of Iredell, I. 331), and was in Georgia at the end of the month (C. C. Jones, jr., Biographical Sketches, p. 51). Lyman Hall.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Feb. 2, 1776 (for the term of nine months) ; Oct. 9, 1776 (for the ensuing year) ; June 7, 1777.
Attended : (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Nov. 2, 1776 : Dec. 20. 1776, to Feb. 11 (or later), 1777.
xliv List of Members
The nine months' term of the Georgia delegates (Hall and Walton) having expired Nov. 2, they retired from Congress, but waited in Philadelphia for new credentials (see nos. I<>Q, J15). Nevertheless ILtM coiitiiuicd to act with the committee of Sept. 25, for he signed a letter of the committee Nov. 4 (Library of Congress, Papers Cont. Cong., no. 58, f. 409, the same committee from whom emanated the letter of Oct. 7, in Force, Ant. Arch., fifth ser., II. Q25, III. 248). Information of their re-election had reached them Dec. 10 (see no. 240). and on the strength of this Walton attended Dec. 12 (the day of adjournment from Philadelphia to Baltimore). Dec. 20 (the day Congress met at Baltimore) the new credentials were i)roduccd, and it is presumed that both Mall and Walton (and probably also Nathan Brownson) were in attendance. At all events. Hall was in attendance Dec. 25, for Oliver Wolcott wrote to his wife on that day: " I am conveniently Situated in this Place and I^dge with a couple of Friends. Dr. Hall formerly of Connecticut and Mr. Fllery of R Island " (Conn. Hist. Soc. Oliver Wolcott Papers, II. 29). In the Journals for 1777 Hall's name appears but three times, and in these three instances (com- nnttee appointments Jan. 20, Feb. 4, 5) " Mr. Hall " is interpreted by the editor of the Journals as l)cing John Hall of Maryland. John Hall was not a member of Congress in 1777. From Nov. 12, 1776, to Feb. 4. 1777, he was in the Mary- land Council of Safety (see Arch, of Md., XII. 438, 440, XVI. 82, 85, 92, 100, 184). The remark of Harrison (no. 295), " My compliments to Walton ... I have a wish that his country was represented, but alas it is not ", is probably to be understood as indicating the absence of Lyman Hall at the time (Jan. 8). Certainly Brownson was present (he received committee appointments Jan. 3 and 0) : and both Brownson and Hall must have been present about Jan. 19, for Samuel Chase speaks (no. 318) of the "delegates". In any case, Harri- son appears to have been in error in stating that Georgia was not represented, inasmuch as one delegate had the power to represent the state (see the credentials of Feb. 2, 1776, in the Journals, May 20, 1776). The last mention of Hall in the Journals is the committee appointment of Feb. 5, but a letter from Hall and Brownson to Samuel Stirk, Feb. 11 (Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, Declaration of Independence, vol. 11."), shows that he was yet in attendance. (John Adams mentions in his Diary, IVorks. II. 433, that " Mr. Hall " was one of a supper party Feb. 7, and again Feb. 8, but as Adams usually speaks of the Georgia delegate as " Dr. Hall ", this may not have been Lyman Hall.) Hall probably left Congress shortly after Feb. 11, for the remarks of Thomas Burke (see nos. 380, 384, 503) indicate that he had withdrawn before Feb. 24. He was at all events in Georgia early in May fol- lowing; for he was present in the Georgia assembly when the quarrel between Gwinnett and Lachlan Mcintosh culminated in the challenge, May 15, I777_, and he wrote a letter to Roger Sherman May 16, with a continuation June i, giving an account of the duel (Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, Declaration of Inde- pendence, II. ; see also Jones, Biographical Sketches, pp. 63, 99). John Houstoun.
Elected: (See vol. I.) : Feb. 2, 1776; Oct. 9, 1776.
Did not attend in 1776 or 1777. Edward Langivorthy.
Elected: June 7, 1777.
Attended: Xov. 17 to Dec. 31, 1777.
Langworthy's name follows that of his colleague, Joseph Wood, on the resolution of secrecy (see under Richard Law) and was probably appended on the day of his first attendance. George Walton.
Elected: (See vol. 1.) : Feb. 2, 1776 (for the term of nine months) ; Oct. 9, 1776 (for the year ensuing) ; June 7, 1777.
Attended: (See vol. I.) : July 5 (?) to Nov. 2, 1776: Dec. 12, 1776; Apr. 18 (or earlier) to Oct. 9, 1777. Although the first mention of Walton in the Journals is July 17, there are evi- dences pointing to his attendance as early as June 29 (see vol. I.). The Journals, together with letters of the marine committee signed by him (see Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 784, 1106, II. 11 13, III. 671), indicate consecu- tive attendance until Nov. 2. Concerning the interval from Nov. 2 to Dec. 12, see under Lyman Hall. When Congress adjourned to Baltimore, Dec 12, Walton remained in Philadelphia, and Dec. 21 was appointed on a committee
List of Members xlv
(Morris, Clymer, and Walton) to execute continental business in Philadelphia. Jan. 24 he was directed to repair (with George Taylor) to Easton, Pennsyl- vania, on a mission to the Indians (see the Journals, Jan. 24, Feb. 8, 18, 24, 27). He had returned to Philadelphia by Feb. 20 (his letter of Feb. 20, read in Congress Feb. 24, was written in Philadelphia; see also no. 377). He does not appear however to have resumed his seat in Congress until about the middle of April (see no. 446), that is, until a month or more after the latter's return to Philadelphia. He is not, indeed, mentioned in the Journals until May 8. Burke remarks in his letter of May 23 (no. 553). that Walton's attendance had been interrupted by illness, and seems to suggest that he had only recently resumed his seat. This must however have taken place before the departure of Brownson, which was on May i or 2. As Walton is not recorded as voting between Aug. 23 and Sept. 16 (that is, his name is not among the yeas and nays Aug. 25, 27, Sept. 9, 10, 11), he was probably absent during most of this period. Both Walton and Brownson are last recorded among the yeas and nays Aug. 25, 27, Sept. 9, 10, 11), he was probably absent and Walton at least left Philadelphia the next day (see Harnett to Wilkinson, Oct. ID, A^. C. State Recs., XI. 781). Joseph Wood.
Elected: June 7, 1777.
Attended: Nov. 17 to Dec. 31, 1777.
Wood probably signed the resolution of secrecy (see under Richard Law) on the day of his first attendance, or shortly thereafter. His name follows that of Clingan and precedes that of his colleague, Edward Langworthy. Wood's name does not appear among the yeas and nays Nov. 28 and Dec. 8 ; there- fore he may have been absent for ten days or more at this time. He appears to have been present Dec. 11 (see the Journals).
MARYLAND. Robert Alexander.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; May 21, 1776; July 4, 1776 (see under Chase).
Attended: (See vol. I.) It does not appear that Alexander attended Congress under either of these elections. Charles Carroll {" Barrister ").
Elected: Nov. 10, 1776.
Attended: Dec. 7 (or earlier), 1776, to Jan. 19 (or later), 1777.
The Journals nowhere, either in 1776 or 1777, mention Charles Carroll (Barris- terj, except in quoting the Maryland credentials of Nov. 10, 1776 (and that item is indexed under Charles Carroll of CarroUton). That he was in Congress as early as Dec. 7, 1776, is shown by his letter of that date (no. 237), and it is possible that he was one of the two delegates recorded in the Journals as attending Nov. 19. In view, however, of Chase's statement Nov. 21 (no. 219) this does not seem probable (see the note under Rumsey). Letters from the Maryland council to Stone and Johnson, Dec. 12 (see no. 237. n. 3), show that he was in attendance just before the adjournment from Philadelphia, but Rumsey's statement in his letter of Dec. 19 (no. 248) indi- cates that both Carroll and Tilghman had taken their departure before the adjournment. The inference from Carroll's letter of Dec. 21 (no. 251), written from his home near Baltimore, is, however, that he had joined Congress upon its assembling in Baltimore, That he was in attendance about the end of December is shown by a letter of the Maryland council, Jan. i, 1777: "Mr. Carroll from Congress writes", etc. (Arch, of Md., XVI. 4), and (phase's letter of Jan. 3 (no. 268) mentions Carroll as in attendance at that time, as does also a letter of Capt. George Cook, Jan 19 (see no. 318, notes 2 and 3). Carroll probably left shortly after Jan. 19, for Chase, in his letter of Jan. 31 (no. 327), as also in a letter of Jan. 26 (see no. 327, note 3), pressed earnestly for a representation {cf. no. 332). This would mean the absence of Carroll, even if Paca were present, which is uncertain. Carroll's signature to the resolution of secrecy (see vol. I., no. 363, n. 2) follows that of George Clymer and precedes that of Jonathan Elmer. Cly- mer's signature was doubtless appended within the period of about three weeks before Congress adjourned from Philadelphia to Baltimore, and Car-
xlvi List of Members
roll's was prol>ably appended at tlic same time ; hut as Rimer's sinnaturc may have been appended at any time between Jan. 3 and I'Vb. 4, no definite infer- ence can be drawn from this signature relative to Carroll's attendance. Charles Carroll of Carrolltou.
Elected: July 4, i;;^); Feb. 15, 1777.
Attended:' July 17 to Aug. 10 (?), 1776; May 5 to July 21 (?), 1777; Sept. 27 to Oct. 16 (or later), 1777. Carroll came to Philadelphia July 17 (see no. 26, note 4) and doubtless attended the same day. The only other evidences in the Journals of his attendance (lurinjr 1770 are two committee appointments July 18. He siRned a delcRation letter with Chase July 27 (no. 41), and letters from the Maryland council Au(f. 2 and 9 {Arch, of Md.. XII. 161, 190, dated "July" in each instance), the latter in particular, lead to the inference that Carroll was then in Congress (see the note under Johnson). That he was one of those who left Congress about .\uR. 10 to attend the Maryland convention (see no. 73) seems also evident. He took his seat in the Maryland convention Aug. 17 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser.. III. 89; Rowland, Life of Carroll. I. 186). where he con- tinued until its adjournment, Nov. Ii. In Rowland, Life of Carroll, I. 197, it is said that Carroll was doubtless in attendance when Congress met at Baltimore, but as he was not re-elected Nov. 10 he was not again entitled to a seat in Congress until after the election of Feb. 15, 1777. The credentials were presented I-Vb. 18. and there is no evidence that Carroll took his seat between that date and the removal from Baltimore, Feb. 27. Besides, he was during this period (until Apr. 20) in the Maryland assembly (see Life of Carroll, I. 197, 199; cf. Arch, of Md.. XVI. 107. 189. 192, 193)- A letter of his, dated at Annapolis, Feb. i, is in the Emmet Collection (no. 5774). He appears to have taken his seat in Congress May 5 (see Life of Carroll, 1. 203). The Journals show his attendance from May 7 to July 15, or there- abouts, and it is presumed that he left upon the arrival of Cliase, July 21. He had, at all events, departed before Aug. 12 (see no. 588). Sept. 7 he wrote that he would go to Congress if Mr. Smith should leave (Life. I. 215), but Sept. 14, writing from General Smallwood's headquarters, he indicated that he might return home. Sept. 22 he was however on his way to attend Congress (no. 652; also Life of Carroll, I. 217), and Sept. 27 he was in attendance at Lancaster (no. 652, note 3). The Journals show his attendance until Oct. 16, but he had taken his departure before Oct. 22 (see Life, I. 217, 221, 232; he is not recorded among the yeas and nays Oct. 23). SamticI Chase.
Elected: (See vol. T.) ; May 21, 1776 ("until the end of the next session of Convention ": see Force, Am-. Arch., fourth ser.. V. 1589, VI. 462) ; July 4, 1776 ("untill the next Convention shall make farther order therein") : Nov. 10, 1776 ("until the first Day of March next, or until the General Assembly shall make further order therein") : Feb. 15. 1777 (limit not specified).
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 17 to Aug. 10 (?), 1776; Sept. 16 (?)- 28, 1776; Nov. 19 to Dec. 12, 1776; Jan. 2 (or earlier) to Feb. 27, 1777; July 21 to Oct. 16 (or later), 1777. Although the Maryland credentials were not laid before Congress until July 18, Chase was placed on a committee July 17, and he himself says in a letter to General Gates, July 18 : " On yesterday, I came to Congress with Mr. Carroll " (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 410). In the same letter he says: "I am compelled to return to Maryland on the 8th of August." He was however in Congress Aug. 9 (see no. 68; also Force. Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 864; cf. no. 115), and he probably remained until Aug. 10 {cf. no. 71, note 2), taking his departure Sunday, Aug. 11. At all events, on Monday Aug. 12 only Stone among the Maryland delegates remained (see no. J'i), Chase and Paca, and doubtless also Charles Carroll of Carrollton, having gone to attend the Maryland convention, Aug. 14 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., III. 83). Sept. II the delegates, "or any three of them ", were ordered to repair to Congress and join Thomas Stone (ibid., p. 109) ; accordingly. Chase, Paca, and Johnson left Annapolis Sept. 12 or 13 (they are recorded as absent from the conven- tion Sept. 13; see ibid., p. 110"), and were doubtless in attendance at Congress bv Monday Sept. 16. "These three, together with Stone, signed a letter to the council Sept. 20 (Arch, of Md., XII. 292; Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., II.
List of Members xlvii
407), and Chase wrote to Gates Sept. 21: "I came from Annapolis ten days ago" (ibid., p. 429). Chase and Paca again left Philadelphia Sunday Sept. 29 (letter of Stone, Sept. 30, Arch of Md., XII. 311 ; Force, Am. Arch., fifth sen, II. 601), and resumed their seats in the convention Oct. 2 {xbid., III. 114). Chase was one of those who attended Nov. 19, with the credentials of Nov. ID. He had arrived in Philadelphia on the afternoon of Nov. 18 (see no. 216). Chase doubtless remained in Philadelphia until the adjourn- ment of Congress to Baltimore, Dec. 12 (see no. 241), but he had evidently departed before Saturday, Dec. 14 (see a letter from Amos Taylor, written from Philadelphia on that day, addressed to Chase and Paca, Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., III. 1214). He was in Annapolis Dec. 24 (no. 258; see also a letter written from " Strawberry Mount," Dec. 24, in Arch, of Md., XII. 552), but was again in Congress Jan. 2 (see the Jourtials; also no. 288), possibly earlier. The Journah, his letters, etc., show that he attended consecutively until Congress adjourned from Baltimore, Feb. 27 (a letter of that date to the Maryland council is in Arch, of Md., XVI. 153)- He did not attend Congress again until July 21 (see the Journals), but appears to have attended constantly from that time until Oct. 16, and probably a few days later. He is recorded as voting that day, but does not appear in the next record of yeas and nays, Oct. 23. He took his seat in the Maryland house of delegates Oct. 31 Uf- no. 679) . Thomas Johnson, jr.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; May 21, 1776; July 4, 1776; Nov. 10, 1776. Attended: (See vol. I.) ; Sept. 16 (?) to Oct. 4 (?), 1776.
Johnson does not appear to have taken his seat in Congress under the election of July 4 until instructed by the Maryland convention (Sept. 11) to repair thither (see under Chase). Letters from the Maryland council to the delegates Aug. 2 and 9 (cited under Carroll of Carrollton), the latter in particular, suggest that Johnson was then in Congress, but the inference may be wrong, for no other evidence of his attendance in Congress during August has been found. He was, at all events, in Frederick July 22 and 23 (Arch, of Md., XII. 92, 109, 113; Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 490, 522, 57o), and he had'taken his seat in the Maryland convention Aug. 30 {ibid.. III. 97). Inas- much as Stone mentions only the departure of Chase and Paca Sept. 29 (letter of Sept. 30 cited under Chase), it is presumed that Johnson (appointed on a committee Sept. 24 which made its report Sept. 27) did not depart for the convention until a few days later. He took his seat in that body Oct. 7 (ibid., p. 117) and remained until Nov. 8 {ibid., p. 175) • Although urged to resume his seat in Congress (see no. 237, note 3) he did not do so (see Arch, of Md., XII. 524, 533, 540, 543, 55o, 557; Force Am. Arch., fifth ser., III. 1239, 1289, 1307, 1395, 1457). William Paca.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; May 21, 1776; July 4, 1776; Nov. 10, 1776;
Feb. 15, 1777. Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5 to Aug. 10 (?), 1776; Sept. 16. (?)- 28, 1776; Nov. 21 to Dec. 12 (?), 1776; Jan. 16 (?) to Feb. 27 (?), 1777; May 5 (?) to June 28, 1777; Aug. 13 (or earlier)-22, 1777. Although there are but few positive records of Paca's presence in Congress during the summer of 1776, these few indicate that he was probably in con- stant attendance until he left, about Aug. 10 (see under Chase), to attend the Maryland convention. Stone says in a postscript to his letter of July 12 (no. 15) : " Our Province is now unrepresented tho matters of the last conse- quence are coming on. I pray one of the Delegates may be desired to attend. Mr. Paca is out which occasions me alone to address you." (The representa- tion of the state was effected by the attendance of Chase July I7-) Paca was appointed on a committee July 17, and, in conjunction with Stone, signed a delegation letter July 22 {Arch, of Md., XII. 93). July 30 Stone wrote: " My brothers are engaged in other business and the Post is going, so that their signatures must be dispensed with" {ibid., XII. 147). The "brothers" were of course Paca and Chase. The council letters of Aug 2 and 9 (cited under Carroll of Carrollton and Johnson) indicate that Paca was in Congress when those letters were written. His departure for the convention, return
xlviii List of Members
to Congress, and ck'i)artiirc for the convention again (in August and Sep- tenibcrj appear to have bciii, in each instance, in company with Chase, liis return to Congress after the adjournment of tlie convention was Nov. 21 (see no. 219). Nov. 22 he was appointed on a committee ( Paca, Witherspoon, and Ross) to confer witli Ceneral Washington, and the committee departed for camp on the morning of Nov. 25 (see no. 226, and Hancock to Washing- ton, Nov. 24. l-'orce, .hn. .Irch.. tiftli ser., III. 825; also the note under Wither- spoon). It is uncertain just wlien the committee returned (</. the Journals, Nov. 27; also tlie committee's e.xpcnsc account, ibid., Jan. iH, 1777), for the army moved from Newark Nov. 28. Paca was, at all events, in Congress Dec. 7' (see nos. 237, 238), if not Dec. 6 (see no. 236). I'rom this time until May, 1777, Paca's record, whether in Congress or elsewhere, is exceed- ingly meagre. It does not appear that he went at once to Baltimore when Congress adjourned thither (see nos. 248, 251), and the statements of Chase. Jan. 3 and 8 (nos. 288, 294), and Hancock, Jan. 14 (no. 304), that Maryland was still without a representation, show clearly that Paca had not yet reap- peared in Congress; for besides Chase, Charles Carroll (Barrister) was in attendance. However, Paca had presumai)ly taken his seat by Jan. 16, as he was given a committee appointment that day (see, however, the Journals, p. 40 n., where it is stated that tlie "corrected journal" gives Paine as the appointee ; Paca is probably correct, for Paine was certainly not then in (^onjjress). Chase's statements, Jan. 26 and 31 (see no. 327 and note 3). as also Hooper's remarks, Feb. i (no. 332), give the decided impression that Chase was then alone in the delegation. The reasonable inference from John Adams's mention of Paca among the few delegates remaining over from the first Congress (see no. 361) is that Paca was then (Feb. 17) in attendance; yet, when the new credentials are presented, Feb. 18, it is (Thase who is recorded as attending and presenting them (although he was already in attendance), while Paca is not mentioned (cf. the notes under Rumsey and Smith). Maryland evidently had a representation in Congress Feb. 26 and 27 (see nos. 384, 385, 387), but ui^der the credentials of Feb. 15 (in the Journals, Feb. 18) two delegates constituted a representation, and Rush's note (no. 385) would indicate that only two were present, as he records that the Maryland vote was divided. The other delegate besides Chase was prob- ably William Smith. Paca probably resumed his seat in Congress May 5 ; for Rumsey, having written to the Maryland council, May 3 : " I only wait for the Arrival of Mr. Paca to decamp, he is not yet arrived " (Arch, of Md., XVI. 239), obtained leave of absence May 5. At all events, Maryland must have had its representation May 13 (see no. 490), the delegates in attendance being Paca and (Tharles Carroll of CarroUton. The first positive record of his presence is, however, his letter of May 24 (no. 505 ; see also Arch, of Md., XVI. 263, 266). He was doubtless in attendance until June 28 (see no. 520 and the Journals, June 13, 28), but was evidently absent June 30 (Maryland is set down as absent that day), and he does not again appear in the Journals until Aug. 13 (yeas and nays ; he is not in the record of yeas and nays Aug. 8). He left Congress Aug. 22, evidently during the session, for he wrote to the council, evidently from Chester Town, Sunday Aug. 24 (dated erron- eously, "Sunday, 25 Aug. 1777"): "I came here last Friday Evening to take up my family to Philadelphia" {Arch of Md., XVI. 334; see also ibid., PP- 352, 358, 364, 410, and nos. 609, n. 3, 610, n. 3). He had not, however, returned to Congress Sept. 26, for on that day he wrote to (jovernor Johnson : " Having done all I could for our State under the Circumstances I shall now prepare for Congress" (Maryland Historical Society, Red Book, IV. 96). It is doubtful, however, whether he returned to Congress as planned, for the Journals do not record his attendance again until the end of 1778- In the Journals, under Oct. 17 (p. 815 n.), it is stated that parts of a report then presented are in Paca's writing ; but this is incorrect ; the writing is that of Samuel Chase. John Rogers.
Elected: (See vol. I.) : May 21, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) : July 5 (?)^ , 1776.
Although Rogers appears to have been in attendance July 4, no record of later attendance has been found. He was not included in the election of July 4, and therefore must have withdrawn as soon as the result of that election became known to him. He had evidently withdrawn before July 12, for Stone, in his letter of that date (see under Paca), speaks of Paca as the only delegate present besides himself.
List of Members xlix
Benjamin Rmnsey.
Elected: Nov. lo, 1776; Feb. 15, 1777- ^ ^ ,
Attended: Nov. 19 (?), 1776; Dec. 12, 1776; Feb. 17 to (?), 17771 Apr. 8 (or earlier) to May 5, I777; Nov. 5 (or earlier) to Dec.
24 (?), 1777. Rumsey states in his letter of Dec. 19 (no. 248) that he did not take his seat in Congress until Dec. 12 (that is, the day Congress adjourned from Philadel- phia) ; nevertheless it seems quite probable that he was one of the two dele- gates mentioned in the Journals as attending Nov. 19. This seems to be the only reasonable interpretation of Chase's statement at the close of his letter of Nov. 21 (no. 219). Chase himself was of course one of the two, and the other would have to be Paca, Tilghman, Charles Carroll (Barrister), or Rumsey. It was not Paca, because he did not arrive until Nov 21 (see Chase's letter). So far as anything appears to the contrary, other than Chase's statement, it might have been either Tilghman or Carroll, bgth ot whom were in their seats early in December, although it is not known just when either of them attended. If either of them had, however been in attendance Nov. 21, Chase would most probably have mentioned the fact He mentions only Rumsey, and he speaks of him as if he were in attendance. Rumsey had, in fact, been in Philadelphia since October (that is, some time prior to his election; see no. 191, n. 3, and no. 221), and, although serving on a special mission on behalf of his state, was nevertheless regarded by Chase as one of the state's delegation. Even though he may not have appeared on the floor of Congress, nevertheless he was in such intimate conference with the members that it is quite possible that the secretary regarded him as a delegate in attendance, and wrote accordingly "two of them attending , when the credentials were produced. Rumsey did not follow Congress to Baltimore (see Arch, of Md., XII. 549. 559^ until his re-election Feb. 15, 1777- He was given a committee appointment Feb. 17, although the credentials of the new appointment were not produced in Congress until the next day. He may have departed again immediately because of the news just received (see the Journals, Feb. 17) that the enemy meditated a descent upon the Eastern Shore. At all events no trace of him is found in the Journals until Apr 13, when he is appointed on a committee, but his presence as early as Apr 8 is shown by a letter of that date from Smith and Rumsey to Gov. Livingston (N. J. Rev. Corr., p. 50). From that time until he obtained leave of absence. May 5, his attendance is well attested both by the Journals and and by his letters (see nos. 443, 463, 468, 470 ; also the letter of May 3, in Arch of Md., XVI. 239: "I only wait for the arrival of Mr Paca to decamp"). He was for some time thereafter in the field (see i&id., pp. 279, 342 370) Chase says in his letter of Oct. 10 (no. 679) that Rumsey had agreed to relieve him, and Chase took his departure between Oct. 16 and 23. Rumsey is recorded in the Journals as voting Nov. 5 ; but as no yeas and nays are recorded between Oct. 31 and Nov. 5 he may have taken his seat as early as Nov. I. He seems pretty certainly to have been in attendance until Dec. 24 (see the Journals). No Maryland delegates appear in the record of yeas and nays Dec. 27, and as Rumsey was left out in the election of Dec. 22 (the credentials are in the Journals of Jan. 17, i778) he probably withdrew as soon as he learned the results of that election (see also under William Smith). William Smith.
Elected: Feb. 15. 1777.
Attended: Feb. 18 (?)-27 (?•), 1777: Apr. 2 (?) to May 5 (?), 1777 ; July 5 (or earlier) to Sept. 18, 1777; Oct. 4 (or earlier) to Dec.
19 Vor later), 1777. . . ^ ■ ■ a
The appointment of "Mr. Smith" on a committee Jan. 16, 1777, is assigned by the editor of the Journals to William Smith, whereas it was James Smith of Pennsylvania. William Smith of Maryland had not as yet been elected a delegate to Congress. The Journals do not record his attendance until Feb. 20 (a committee appointment), but he probably attended Feb. 18, when the new credentials were presented (cf. the note under Rumsey). He received another committee appointment Feb. 22, and is not mentioned again m the Journals until Apr. 18. It is presumed that he remained in attendance until the adjournment of Congress from Baltimore, for, although it appears that no Maryland delegate was present Feb. 24 (see no. 380, and the note under
1 List of Members
Paca), the state was represented IVb. 26 and 27 (sec nos. 38^, 385, 387; also the Journals, Keb. 26), and the proliabilitics favor the attendance of Smith rather than that of I'aca (in aildition to Chase). Although the Journals do not again record tlie prosonce of Smitli luitil Apr. iS (a committee appoint- ment), it seems probable that he was in attendance Apr. 2, for Roger .Sherman mentitins him in connection with a wmmittee assignment, atid, although the committee had been appointed I'eb. 20. the committee (Sherman, Gerry, and Smitli ) must have been in consultation at that time (see no. 423)- That he was present A|)r. 8 is shown by a letter from Smith and Rumsey to Gov. Livings- ton (.V. J. Rcz'. Corr., p. 50). Moreover, John .\dams mentions .Apr. 8 (no. 431. n. 5) and Sherman .Apr. () (no. 431) that every state was then repre- sented (see also under Rumsey). Smith also received committee appoint- ments .'\pr. IQ and 2<), and he probably took his departure about May 5, when T'aca and Carroll of Carrollton took their seats. His presence is not again recorded until July 5, when he was appointed on the commercial committee. His signature to a copy of a letter of that committee June 12 probably came about in the same manner as that of Laurens (see no. 516, n. 3). The Journals show his attendance until Aug. 27 (yeas and nays), and letters of Giarles Carroll of Carrollton, Sept. 7 and 8 {Life of Carroll. L 215, 216), indicate that Smith had remained in attendance until about that time. His name is not however among the yeas and nays Sept. 9 (the next recorded after Aug. 27), but appears again Sept. 16. When Congress adjourned to I^ncaster, Sept. 18, he evidently went home (see Carroll's letter of Sept. 27, Life, \. 219) but was again in Congress (at Yorktown) Oct. 4 (Journals), and the Journals show his attendance until (probably) Dec. 19. It should be noted here that it was William Smith, not Jonathan Bayard, who was added to the board of war Nov. 17 ; therefore those reports of the board of war presented Nov. 25, Dec. 6, 13, 19 (pp. 966, 1006, 1008, 1026, 1037), credited in the foot-notes and in the index to Jonathan Bayard Smith, probably appertain to William Smith. For the explanation see the note under Jonathan Bayard Smith. William Smith was not present at a meeting of the board of war Dec. 20 (see the Journals), and no Maryland delegate is recorded as voting Dec. 27. He may have withdrawn about Dec. 24, upon learning that he had been left out of the delegation chosen Dec. 22. William Smith signed the resolution of secrecy (see vol. L, no. 363, n. 2) next after Thomas Burke, which indicates that he probabh' appended his signature during his attendance in February, although he may not have signed until April. Tho}nas Stone.
Elected: (See vol. I.); ]\Iay 21, 1776; July 4, 1776; Nov. 10, 1776;
Feb. 15, 1777. Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Oct. 22 (?), 1776.
Stone's attendance in Congress until Oct. 10, or later, is well attested by the Journals, his letters, etc Besides the letter of July 12 (no. 15; see also under Paca), and nos. 85, 109, note 3, and 223, see Arch, of Md., XH. 93, 105, no, 146, 199, 258, 291, 311 (<-/. the notes under Chase, Paca, and Johnson). In a letter of Aug. 13 he says : " I intend to leave this city this Day week, till which I shall be ready to execute your Orders (Arch, of Md., XIL 199). Evidently he did not leave as he had planned for he received a committee appointment Aug. 23, and again Sept. 7 and 9 (see also Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., HL 94, where a letter of Aug. 21 is mentioned; also ibid., IL 156, and Arch, of Md., XH. 258). Again, Sept. 30, he writes: "Messrs. Chase and Paca left this on Sunday and I shall sett out Thursday if my state of Bod}- will permit, tho' this I much doubt being at present much indisposed " {Arch, of Md., XH. 311). It is to be presumed that he did not leave Philadel- phia, for he was given two committee appointments Oct. 10. How much longer he remained is uncertain, but he was evidently supposed to be in Philadelphia when the council's letter of Oct. 22 {Arch, of Md., XII. 393) was written, for he is asked to attend to certain business in Philadelphia. That is to say, the man " Sheat " there mentioned, the " Mr. Sheats " to whom the council wrote the same day {ibid., XII. 394), was no other than Henry Shitz of Philadelphia {cf. the Journals, Apr. 23, May 15, 1777). Stone must, however, have departed before Oct. 24, for Rumse}''s letter of that date {Arch, of Md., XII. 397) mentions him in such a manner as to indicate that he was not then in Philadelphia. By Oct. 27 Stone, as well as all other Maryland delegates,
List of Members li
had departed (see nos. 185, 199, 215). Nov. 29 the council wrote to the delegates that Stone could not attend at present because of Mrs. Stone's illness (Arch, of Md., XII. 491). and although, at the request of Carroll, Barrister, they wrote him Dec. 12, asking him to attend (ibid., p. 524; see also no. 2^7), it does not appear that he ai^ain took his seat in Congress. Feb. 22, 1777, he wrote to the governor declining re-election (Hist. Soc. of Pa., Etting Collection, Signers). Matthezv Tilghman.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; May 21, 1776; July 4, 1776; Nov. 10, 1776. Attended: (See vol. I.) ; Dec. 2 (or earlier)-ii (?), 1776.
The Journals contain no record of Tilghman's attendance either in 1776 or 1777. In July and early August, 1776, he was at Talbott (see Arch, of Md., XII. 94, 95, 115, 188), and he attended the Maryland convention, of which he was made president, from Aug. 12 to Nov. 11 (see Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., III. 83-182). Just when he first attended Congress is not known. It is possible, although it does not seem probable, that he was the delegate in addition to Chase who attended Nov. 18, else he would have been mentioned in Chase's letter of Nov. 21 (no. 219; cf. the notes under Rumsey and Carroll, Bar- rister). A letter of Tilghman, dated at Philadelphia, Dec. 3 (Arch, of Md., XII. 503), shows that he was then in attendance and had been the preceding day, if not earlier. Rumsey's letter of Dec. 19 (no. 248) also shows that Tilghman had been in attendance and had taken his departure, probably before the adjournment from Philadelphia. No evidence has been discovered pointing to his attendance in 1777.
MASSACHUSETTS. John Adams.
Elected: (See vol. I.); Jan. 18, 1776 (for the period ending Jan. i,
1777) ; Dec. 10, 1776 (until Jan. i, 1778). Attended : (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Oct. 12, 1776; Feb. 4 to Nov. 10, 1777. Adams was appointed, Sept. 6, one of a committee, with Franklin and Edward Rutledge, to confer with Lord Howe, and was absent on this mission Sept. 9 to 13 (morning; see nos. 116, 117, 129, 132). He left Philadelphia Sunday, Oct. 13 (see no. 167, note 2). Returning to Congress he arrived in Baltimore Feb. I, 1777 (see no. 340, note 2), but appears not to have taken his seat until Feb. 4 (see the Journals). He obtained leave of absence Nov. 7 and took his departure Nov. 11. ("November 11. Tuesday. Set off from Yorktown." Diary, Works, II. 440.) See note under Samuel Adams. Samuel Adanus.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Jan. 18, 1776; Dec. 10, 1776. Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Aug. 12, 1776; Oct. 25, 1776, to Nov. 10, 1777. John Adams wrote to his wife, Aug. 12: " Mr. A. and Colonel Whipple are at length gone. . . . They went away about three o'clock this afternoon " (Familiar Letters, p. 209, second letter of the date ; see also no. 72, n. 3, and Force, Am. Arch, fifth ser., I. 1172). Samuel Adams himself records that he returned the evening of Oct. 24 (see no. 158, n. 8). He and John Adams obtained leave of absence Nov. 7, 1777, and took their departure from York- town Nov. II (see under John Adams). In the Writings of Samuel Adams (ed. Cushing), III. 416, is a letter, dated Dec. 8. 1777, given there as if addressed to John Adams in Congress, whereas John Adams had accompanied Samuel Adams to Boston. The letter was actually written to James Lovell, then at Yorktown. Lovell's reply, dated Jan. I, 1778, is in N. Y. Pub. Lib., Samuel Adams Papers. Francis Dana.
Elected : Dec. 10, 1776. Attended: Nov. 17 to Dec. 31, 1777.
Dana must have signed the resolution of secrecy (see under Richard Law) on the day of his first attendance, or soon thereafter. His name follows that of John Harvie (dated Oct. 23, 1777) and precedes that of William Clingan,
Hi List of Members
nil) ridge Gerry.
Elected: C^ee vol. I.) ; Jan. iR, lyjf^; Dec. lo, i77^>.
Attended: (Sec vol. I.) ; July 5-16. 1776; Sept. 2, 1776, to Dec. 31, 1777. John Adams wrote to his wife, July 15. I77'>: "Mr. Cierry sets off to-morrow for Boston" (Fiwiiliar Letters, p. 202; see also Warren- Adams Letters, I. 2fHi) ; and Samuel .Vdams wrote to James Warren, July 16, " hy my very worthy Friend and CoIk-aKue" {W'rititujs. ed. CushiiiR, 111. 299; foot-note in the volume says: "John Adams"; hut this is an error; it was Gerry), (icrry was in New York July U) (horce, Am. Arch., fifth ser., 1. 452), and at Kingshridse July 21 (seeno.31). Aur. 24 he wrote from Hartford : "lam here on my journey to riiiladelphia, from which I have heen ahsent about a month for health" (l-'orce. Am. .Irch., fifth ser., I. 1146). John Adams wrote to James Warren, Sept. 4: "Mr. Gfcrry] got in the day before yesterdjiy" (no. 107; see also Warren-Adams Letters. I. 267). Gerry was absent on a mission to headciuarters (with Sherman and Lewis) Sept. 21-30 (see note under Sherman). A statement in the letter of Samuel Adams, Ian. 16. 1777 (no. 311), might be taken to indicate that Gerry was then "absent in Boston ; but Adams probably means that Gerry was employed in business of the public at his place of residence in Baltimore. He mentions that three of the Massachusetts delegates were present, and these must have been himself. Gerry, and Hancock. Gerry was, at all events, present Jan. 3 (no. 287) and 17 {Journals). He was appointed, July 11, on a committee (Philip Livingston, Gerry, and Clymer) to visit headquarters, and was absent on this mission until the end of July or first of August. Clymer had returned by July 29, but Gerry's presence is not mentioned until Aug. 4 (a committee appointment), and the committee did not give in its report until Aug. 5 (see no. 554. n. 3, 4, and no. 556). Gerry was appointed, Nov. 28, one of a committee (with Robert Morris and Joseph Jones) to confer with General Washington. The committee was absent on this mission probably from Nov. 29 to Dec. 15 (they reported Dec. 16; see no. 774; also the Journals, Jan. 14, 1778). John Hancock.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Jan. 18, 1776; Dec. 10, 1776.
Attended : (See vol. I.) ; July 5. 1776. to Oct. 29, 1777. James Lovell.
Elected: Dec. 10, 1776.
Attended: Feb. 4 to Dec. 31, 1777. Robert Treat Paine.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Jan. 18, 1776; Dec. 10, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Dec. 12, 1776.
For the date of Paine's departure see no. 243, note 2. He did not return to Congress in 1777.
NEW HAMPSHIRE. Josiali Bartlett.
Elected : (See vol. I.) ; Jan. 23, 1776 (for the term of one year) ; Dec. 24, 1776 (for one year from Jan. 23, 1777).
Attended: (See vol. i) ; July 5 to Oct. 26, 1776.
In a letter of Sept. 30 Bartlett wrote : " I have not been able to attend either the Marine or Secret Committee for some time past, and Congress but little. . . . By the advice of my friends and physicians, I design to leave this city in a few days, and try to move homeward" (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., II. 602). In his letter of Oct. 19 (no. 174) he stated that he would leave Congress as soon as Whipple arrived. Whipple arrived Oct. 24, and Bartlett doubtless left on the 26th. for he was the bearer of Whipple's letter of that date (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., IT. 1248; see also his letter of Nov. 7, ibid., III. 554)- He arrived at Kingston, New Hampshire, Nov. 9 (ibid., III. 850). He did not return to Congress in 1777 (see nos. 428, 718).
List of Members liii
Nathaniel Folsom.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Apr. i, 1777 (for one year next ensuing).
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 21 to Dec. 31, 1777.
P'olsom arrived July 20 (see no. 561) and took his scat July 21 (Journals), sign- ing the resolution of secrecy the same day (see under Richard Law). Nov. 29 he was granted leave of absence " for a few days, for the recovery of his health " ; but as he was appointed on a committee Dec. 2, and was certainly in his seat on Dec. 8 (the first record of yeas and nays in December), his absence must have been of but short duration. George Frost.
Elected: Apr. i, 1777 (see under Folsom).
Attended: May 16 to Sept. 17, 1777; Dec. 20 (or earlier)-3i, 1777. Frost was granted leave of absence Sept. 17, " for the recovery of his health ". Just when he returned to Congress is not known ; but he was appointed on a committee Dec. 20, and is recorded as voting Dec. 27. Frost's signature is the last found on the original pledge of secrecy and was evidently appended not earlier than June 5, for it follows those of Duer, Van Dyke, and Marchant, and Duer's signature bears the date of June 5 (see the note under Richard Law of Connecticut). John Lang don.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Jan. 23, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; did not again attend in 1776 or 1777. Matthew Thornton.
Elected: Sept. 12, 1776 (for one year next ensuing); Dec. 24, 1776 (see under Bartlett).
Attended: Nov. 4, 1776, to May 2, 1777.
Thornton wrote to President Weare, Nov. 12 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser.. III.
652) : " The 3d instant we arrived safe in this city I have attended the
Congress_ every day yet" (see also no. 197). His continued attendance through the period indicated above is fairly well attested by the Journals. Whipple remarks in a letter to Bartlett Jan. 13, 1777 : " My Colleague is well and desires his compliments to you. we agree very well in sentiment, but, Inter nos, N. H. is oftener divided then she used to be " (Dartmouth College. Bartlett Corr.). He obtained leave of absence May i and took his departure May 3 (no. 481 ; see also no. 462). Thornton did not sign the resolution of secrecy until Feb. 4, 1777 (or later), for his signature follows next after that of Brownson, which bears that date. William Whipple.
Elected: Jan. 23, 1776; Dec. 24, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Aug. 12, 1776; Oct. 24, 1776, to June • 18, 1777. Whipple's departure in the afternoon of Aug. 12 is chronicled by Bartlett in a postscript (Aug. 13) to a letter to John Langdon, Aug. 11 (no. 72). The date of his return to Congress is mentioned in a letter to Langdon Oct. 26: "I arrived here the 24th" (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., H. 1248). The Journals contain very meagre record of Whipple's attendance in 1777, but there are numerous letters from him which supply this deficiency. He wrote to Bart- lett Jan. 13, 1777: " I shall set out for home in about a fortnight unless I am re-elected in that case I shall have no objection to continuing here till the season will admit of travelling with more comfort then at present" (Dart- mouth College, Bartlett Correspondence). The certificate of his re-election was produced in Congress Jan. 30. In a letter to Bartlett Apr. 23 (ibid.) he says : " Col. Thornton intends to leave this place in about ten days and I wish to follow him before the weather is too warm." In his letter of May 7 (no. 481) he indicates that it is his purpose to leave "very soon after Mr. Frost arrives ". Frost took his seat May 16, but Whipple does not appear to have taken his departure until June 18. He was at all events the bearer of a letter of that date from Samuel Adams to James Warren (Warren-Adams Letters, I. 331).
liv List of Members
NEW JERSEY. Elias Bondinot.
l''leotod : Nov. 20, 1777.
Did not atteiul in 1777. Abraham Clark.
Elected: June 22, 1776 (for one year, unless a new appointment be made before tbat time) ; Nov. 30. 1776 (for one year, unless a new appointment sball be made before tbe expiration of that time) ; Nov. 20, 1777 (imtil Dec. i, 177!^. unless a new ai)pointment shall sooner take ])lace).
Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5-11, 1776; July 29 (or earlier) to .Aug. 17 (or later), 1770; Oct. 28 (?) to Nov. 9 (?), 1776; Dec. 3, 1776, to Apr. 14, 1777; May 29 (or earlier) to Sept. 18 ( ?), 1777; Dec. 1 1 -31, 1777. Clark states in liis letter of July 14 (no. 17) : "I continued at Phila. till thursday last when I returned homeward." He was appointed on a committee July 29 (he may have returned to Congress earlier), and he took part in the dehates July 30 (John Adams's Notes of Dehates, the Journals, VI. 1079). He prob- ahly remained in Congress until the latter part of August, for he indicates in his letter to Dayton Oct. 26 (no. 184) that he was present at the time of the resolution concerning Wooster, Aug. 17. In the same letter he says (passage not included in no. 184) : " It is long since I received a letter from you. . . . The last I received was by Mr. Caldwell. I had just then returned from Philadelphia much indisposed, and was elected into the assembly; which, though very infirm, I attended for about ten days, and returned home sick, where I have remained ever since." If he carried out the programme indi- cated in the beginning of the extract given at no. 184, he attended from Oct. 28 to Nov. 9, but the Journals do not record his presence during this period. According to the Journals he attended Dec. 3 with the new credentials. It is of course possible that he had been in attendance for some days prior thereto under the previous credentials, and his letter of Mar. 7, 1777 (no. 397), suggests that this was the case ; for he says : " I have not seen any of my family since Novr." In the same letter he says : " . . . shall leave tomorrow, If I can leave Delegates to represent our State in my Absence, otherwise stay till I can, as I am not sure there is any but myself in town." If he took his depart- ure at the time indicated his absence was brief, for he was given a committee appointment Mar. 14, and frequently thereafter until Apr. 11. (His presence Mar. 31 is attested by a letter to Gov. Livingston, signed by both Clark and Sergeant; extract copied from the original, then in possession of Mr. Stan. V. Henkels). Apr. 14 he obtained leave of absence "to visit his family". He was still absent May 22 (see no. 511) but had doubtless returned by May 29, as he was given a committee appointment that day. The Journals occasionally record his presence until July 2, when there is a gap until Aug. 23. He is recorded as voting as late as Sept. 11 (he evidently did not imme- diately follow Congress to Lancaster and York Town) but shortly took his seat in the New Jersey assembly. He again appeared in Congress Dec. 11, with the new credentials of appointment. Jonathan Elmer.
Elected: Nov. 30, 1776; Nov. 20, 1777.
Attended: Jan. 3 (or earlier) to Feb. 14, 1777; Apr. 7 ( ? or earlier) to Sept. 18 (?), 1777; Oct. 14 (or earlier) to Nov. 21, 1777. There is no mention in the Journals of Elmer's attendance prior to Jan. 3, 1777, when he was appointed on a committee. Some time during the month of January he signed the resolution of secrecy (see vol. I., no. 363, n. 2), for his name follows that of Charles Carroll (Barrister) and precedes that of Mann Page, who did not attend until Jan. 30. Elmer obtained leave of absence Feb. 14, and from that time until Aug. 8 there are only scattering evidences of his attendance. Apr. 7 the medical committee, of which he was a member, was authorized to appoint any of its members to inspect the medi- cal departments, and he may have been present at that time. More definitely suggesting his presence is an order, Apr. 11, for payment of a bill. Apr. 18 he was appointed on a committee consisting of one from each state, indicating at least the probability of his presence. That he was in attendance in May
List of Members Iv
and June when the Schuyler and Vermont affairs were under discussion is evidenced by nos. 511 and 539. During the summer he was evidently occupied for some time, as a member of the medical committee, in visiting the hos- pitals, the expense bill for which was paid Aug. 13 (see the Journals). His name is in the first record of yeas and nays, Aug. 8, and those of Aug. 13, 22, 25, 27, and Sept. 16, but is missing from those of Sept. 9, 10, 11. This may mean that he was absent from Aug. 28 to Sept. 15, inclusive. His name is likewise missing from the votes of Oct. 3, 7, and 9. but appears in that of Oct. 14. This would indicate that he did not follow Congress immediately to Lancaster and York Town, but resumed his seat between Oct. 9 and 14. In a letter to Governor Livingston, Nov. 20 (A''. /. Rev. Corr., p. 109) he says: " My expenses for the 7 weeks I have attended Congress in this place, for supporting myself and one horse, amounts to £63." If the " 7 weeks " be taken strictly, it would include practically the whole time since the removal to York Town. The date of his retirement (cf. no. 742) is fixed by the letter of Nov. 20, referred to above : " As my term of delegation expires in a few days and business of importance requires my attendance elsewhere, I propose leaving Congress tomorrow. The state of New Jersey will then be unrepre- sented." John Hart.
Elected: June 22, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July — to Aug, — , 1776; Oct. 25 (or earlier) to Nov. 5 (or later), 1776. Hart's attendance is recorded only twice in the Journals, namely, Oct. 25 and Nov. 5 (committee appointments). That he attended in July is, however, attested by his signature to the resolution of secrecy (see vol. I., no. 363, n. 3) ; for it immediately precedes that of Benjamin Rush, who appended to his signature the date July 22, 1777. Immediately preceding the signature of Hart are those of Clark and Walton, which must have been appended early in July, and probably July i. That he was in Congress Aug. 6 is learned from a letter of Abraham Gark of that date, wherein Clark says : " Dr. Wither- spoon, Mr. Hart, and myself quarter together" (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 785; Hazleton, Declaration of Independence, p. 226). Hewas shortly afterward chosen speaker of the New Jersey assembly. In the index to the Journals (Library of Congress edition) there is a confusion between John Hart and John De Hart, the few entries properly appertaining to the former being assigned to the latter. Francis Hopkinson.
Elected: June 22, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Nov. 18 (?), 1776.
The Journals do not record the attendance of Hopkinson between July 17 and Sept. 2y, but John Adams notes a motion by him July 25 (Notes of Debates, the Journals, VI. 1077), and there is a letter from him, dated at Philadelphia, July 23, in which he asks for a copy of the minutes prescribing what number of delegates shall represent the province in Congress. " I am told you have made one Delegate sufficient for this Purpose ; but as I have no good Authority for this Opinion and was the other Day the only Member from Jersey attend- ing in Congress, I was in great Doubt as to the Propriety of giving my Vote " {New Eng. Hist, and Geneal. Reg., XXX. 314). Also there are letters of the marine committee in August signed by him (see, for instance, letters of Aug. 6 and 16, Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 784, 977), and a report presented to Congress Aug. 16 bears a notation by him (see the Journals, p. 662). He was in Congress as late as Nov. 5 and 6, and possibly as late as Nov. 18, when he was made naval agent. Nathaniel Scudder.
Elected: Nov. 20, 1777.
Did not attend in 1777. Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant.
Elected: (See vol. L) ; Nov. 30, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; Dec. 20 (?), 1776, to Feb. 25, 1777; Mar. 19 (or earlier) to Apr. 2, 1777; Apr. 12 (?) to May 8 (or later), 1777; June 12 (or earlier) -14 (or later), 1777; July i (or earlier) to Sept. 2 (or later), 1777.
Ivi List of Members
With the exception of two dates, Feb. 25 and Apr. 2, when he was granted leave of ahscncc, the chruiiulony of Scrgeatil's attendance is left in considerable uncertainty. He states in a letter addressed to John Hart as speaker of the asseml)ly, Feb. 6, 1777: " Fnrsnant to the appointninit of tlie Legislature of New Jersey, 1 have attended the Congress, as one of the Delegates, from their first sitting at Haltiniore to this time " {N. J. Rev. Corr., p. 25). The Journals do not however record his i)resence earlier than Jan. 2. In the same letter he asks that another \w api)oiiited in his i)lace, that he may attend to the management of his i)rivate concerns, hut adds: "I shall however attend till a person can be appointed to succeed me." He appears to have contented himself with an absence from Feb. 25 to about the middle of March. The Journals record his presence Mar. 19, he signed a letter Mar. .11 (see under Clark), but obtained leave of ab.sence Apr. 2 "to visit his family". A committee of which he was a member made a report .Apr. 12, but it does not follow that he was present. He was given committee appointments Apr. 25 and May 8, and the Journals also show that he was in attendance June 12 to 14; but that he was absent the latter part of May and the latter part of June seems clear from the statements of Duer (no. 511) and Lovell (no. 539). The Journals again record his presence July i and 2, but do not mention him again until Aug. 8, when he appears among the yeas and nays. Until Sept. 2 (see no. 621) his attendance was consecutive. He does not appear among the yeas and nays Sept. 9. Richard Stock' ton.
Elected: June 22, 1776; Nov. 30, 1776.
Attended : (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Sept. 28, 1776; Nov. 23 ( ?), 1776. As a member of the committee on the flying camp, appointed July 15, Stockton was in New Jersey for a few days, engaged in the service for which the committee was appointed. This is shown by a letter from him to Jefferson, w-ritten from Trenton, July 19 (Library of Congress, Jefferson Papers). The matter was brought before the New Jersey convention July 17 (doubtless by Stockton; see Force, Am. Arch., fourth ser., VL 1647-1650). Stockton probably returned to Congress when the business of his mission had been accomplished. He must have been present Aug. 6, for he despatched resolu- tions of that day to the New Jersey convention (see ibid., p. 1659), and he was appointed on a committee Aug. 9. Sept. 26 Stockton and Clymer were appointed to go to Ticonderoga, and took their departure Monday Sept. 30 (see Hancock to Gates, Sept. 27, ibid., fifth ser., H. 562; cf. no. 148: "tomorrow or next day", 1. e., Saturday or Sunday). The committee returned between Nov. 18 and 2;^ (see the Journals for those dates; in Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., HL 784, is a letter from the committee to the President of Congress, with the date Nov. 20, but evidently the letter of Nov. 10 men- tioned in the Journals, Nov. 18; cf. Calendar of the Emmet Collection, no. 1581). About Nov. 20 Stockton was in New Jersey on his way to Congress f see, for instance, a letter from Witherspoon to him, written from Princeton, Nov. 21, Force, Am. Arch., fifth sen, HL 788). Both Stockton and Qymer were appointed on a committee Nov. 23, and all the members of this com- mittee except Stockton signed a document dated Nov. 24 (see the Journals under Nov. 23, p. 975 n.). Stockton appears to have returned at once to New Jersey, and was shortly afterward (Nov. 30) taken prisoner by the British (see Sanderson, Signers, HL loi ; also nos. 291, 347). John Witherspoon.
Elected: June 22, 1776; Nov. 30, 1776; Nov. 20, 1777.
Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5 to Nov. 18 (?), 1776; Dec. 9 (or earlier), 1776, to Feb. 26, 1777; Mar. 14 (?) to May 15 (or later), 1777; Aug. 5 (or earlier) to Oct. 30, 1777; Dec. 18-31, 1777. Although Witherspoon's attendance in Congress July, August, and September (frequently, if not consecutively), is well attested, strangely enough the Journ-als make no record of his presence until Oct. 2 (a committee appoint- ment). The evidences of his presence in Congress when the votes on inde- pendence were taken are mentioned in vol. L His presence in Philadelphia July 12 is evidenced by a note to Benjamin Harrison of that date (Force, Am. Arch., fifth sen, L 172; see also Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee, July 15, ibid., p. 347) ; and John Adams records remarks made by him in debates July 26, 30, and Aug. i {Journals, VI. 1078, 1079, 1082). Clark's
List of Members Ivii
letter of Aug. i (no. 52) also mentions Witherspoon's presence, and his letter of Aug. 6 (cited under Hart) says: "Dr. Witherspoon, Mr. Hart, and myself quarter together ". An absence in early August is however indicated by a letter of Francis Lewis to Mrs. Gates Aug. 13 : "I expect the doctor m town this day" (Am. Arch., f^fth ser., I. 945)- In a letter to Mrs. Gates Aug. 27 (ibid., p. 1 180) he indicates that Witherspoon was then m Prmceton. His presence in early September is presumably evidenced by his speech Sep- tember 5, or thereabouts (no. 108). He may have been occasionally absent during this period. From Oct. 2, 1776, to Feb. 26, 1777. his attendance, with only brief absences, is fairly well attested by the Journals and letters of him- self or of a committee of which he was a member. His letter of Oct. 30 (no. 188), for instance, although written from Princeton, definitely suggests that he was in Congress Oct. 23, for in an omitted passage he speaks of General Maxwell as "just appointed a Brigadier-General". That he was in Congress again before Nov. 8, but was then leaving for Princeton, is indicated by a resolution of that date (Journals). He must also have been in attendance Nov. 18, for the memorial of Ebenezer Hazard, read in Congress that day, was presented through him (see Am. Arch., fifth ser., HI. 681). Moreover, his letter to Stockton, written from Princeton Nov. 21 (ibid., p. 788) indicates that he had just come from Philadelphia and would probably return thither within a few days : " I have left some little affairs to finish in Philadelphia, for which I may perhaps be in a day or two next week, but cannot be certain." His appointment Nov. 22 on a committee (Paca, Witherspoon, and Ross) to confer with General Washington must therefore have been in his absence. As the committee is said to have left Philadelphia Monday Nov. 25 (see under Paca), Witherspoon probably joined the other members of the committee somewhere in New Jersey. Congress received a letter from the committee Nov. 27, but its mission was probably brought to a speedy conclusion by the movement of the "army (see the order for payment of expenses, in the Journals, Jan. 18, 1777), although the date of their return is uncertain (see under Paca). Witherspoon's presence is not again recorded until Dec. 9, and he was in attendance at Baltimore at least as early as Dec. 23. He obtained leave of absence Feb. 25. i777, but was in Congress Feb. 26 (see no. 384). He rejoined Congress in Philadelphia about Mar. 14 (see nos. 403, and 347, n. 6), and appears to have remained at least until after May IS (Benja- min Rumsey mentions his presence May i. Arch, of Md., XVI. 236; and he received a committee appointment May 15). No record of his attendance is found thereafter until Aug. 5, when he was appointed on a committee. He probably attended consecutively from that time to Oct. 30. He is recorded as voting on that day, but not on Oct. 31. Moreover, Elmer's letter of Nov. 18 (no. 742) shows that Witherspoon had left before Nov. 7. His next appear- ance in the Journals is Dec. 18.
NEW YORK.
John Also p.
Elected: (See vol. I.); Apr. 22, 1775 (without expressed limitation
of term). *
Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5-15 (or later), 1776.
There is no record in the Journals of Alsop's attendance after July 4; but. his letter of resignation July 16 (no. 21) shows that he was in attendance the preceding day. Indeed, the statement of Philip Livingston (no. 79) gives the impression that Alsop had attended even some time subsequent to that date.
George Clinton.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Apr. 22, 1775. Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5- (?), 1776.
ainton appears unquestionably to have been in Congress July 4, and it is pre- sumed that he must have remained for at least a day or two thereafter. However, it is evident that he could not have tarried many days, for on the I2th Washington addresses a letter to him at New Windsor (Writings, IV. 242; Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 227) ; and on the 15th Chnton himself writes from Fort Montgomery (ibid., p. 354)-
Iviii List of Members
James Dunne.
Klectcd: (See vol. I.) ; Apr. 22, 1775; May 13, 1777; Oct. 3, 1777.
Attended: (See vol. I.); Ajjr. 16 to Dec. 4 (later ?), 1777.
None of the New York credentials place any limitation upon the term of elec- tion. AccordinRly the delegates might hold their seats until superseded. For the election of Oct. X see the Journals under Nov. 14. The first record of Duane's attendance f(jun(l in the Journals is a committee appointment .Apr. 19, hut his arrival Apr. 16 is mentioned hy Duer (no. 445)- Uec. 3 he was K'ven leave of ahsence, yet was placed on a committee Dec. 4. He liad evidently taken his departure hefore Dec. 8 (sec no. 76<)). He was in fact sent on a >ecret nussion to (iencral Starke (see nos. 777, 778, 7^)- William Ducr.
Elected: Mar. 29, 1777: May 13, 1777; Oct. 3, 1777.
Attended: Apr. 7 to Sept. 8. 1777; Sept. 17 to Nov. y, 1777; Nov. 19 to Dec. 31, 1777. Duer's signature to the resolution of secrecy (see vol. I., no. 363, n. 2) is acconi- l)anied hy the date June 5, 1777. He was doubtless absent for a brief period beginning Sept. 9, as his name does not appear among the yeas and nays Sept. 9, 10, II, 16. He was probably present Sept. 17 and 18 (see the Journals, p. 751 n.), that is, the last days before the adjournment to Lancaster; and he is again recorded as voting Oct. 3. He was also absent for about a week from Nov. 10, for his name does not appear in the Journals between Nov. 9 and 19, and Duane mentions, about Nov. 22 (no. 750), that Duer had been absent a few days "for the benefit of health". In his letter of Nov. 9 (no. 731) Duer indicated a purpose of taking leave about Nov. 25 ; but the Journals show that he was in attendance until the end of the year. William Floyd.
Elected: (See vol. T.) : Apr. 22, 1775.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Oct. 7 (or later), 1776; Nov. 18 (?) to Dec. 12, 1776. There is no mention of Floyd in the Journals between July 6 and Sept. 25, but there is sufficient evidence that he remained in attendance throughout this period. For instance, letters of Aug. 10 and Sept. 24 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 884, HI. 208) bear his signature. Moreover, in a letter written from Harlem, Oct. 15, he says : " I am now going to try to get off some of my effects from the island if it is possible, and shall be absent from Congress for a few days. I beg you would excuse me, as it is the first time I have absented myself, but it happens at a time when no important matter was like to come before us " {ibid., II. 1066). He had left Philadelphia about Oct. 8, for he was in Congress Oct. 7 (see no. 163), and he wrote the New York committee cf safety from Harlem Oct. 11 (see Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser.. III. 244). His absence appears to have been in part on behalf of the committee on c'othing, of which he was a member (see the committee's letter of Oct. 7, ibid., II. 925, III. 248, and the citations given above). He evidently had not returned to Congress Nov. 4, for he did not sign a letter of that date from the clothing committee (Library of Congress, Papers Cont. Cong., no. 58, f. 409). He is next mentioned in the Journals Nov. 29, but it is probable that he was the delegate expected Nov. 18 (see no. 215). Lewis mentions, Dec. 27 (no. 268), that both Floyd and Philip Livingston " departed for the Northward " upon the adjournment of Congress from Philadelphia. Floyd does not appear to have attended at any time in 1777 (cf. no. 441, n. 2). John Jay.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Apr. 22, 1775.
Attended: (See vol. I.) : did not attend again until 1778. Francis Lewis.
Elected: Apr. 22, 1775; Oct. 3, 1777.
Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5 to Sept. 2 (?), 1776; Sept. 20 (or earlier), 1776, to Apr. 17, 1777; Dec. 5-31, 1777. The Journals contain but few evidences of Lewis's attendance prior to Sept. 20, when he was appointed on a committee, but a letter from William Palfrey to him. July 31 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., I. 696), presumes his presence in Congress, and letters of the marine committee, Aug. 6, 16, and 22 {ibid.,
List of Members lix
I. 784, 977. 1106), bear his signature (see also nos. 75 and 98) Lewis Morris mentions Sept. 8 that Lewis "has taken flight" toward New York (see under Morris) but he had probably returned before Sept. 20. At all events he was on that day made one of a committee (Sherman, Gerry, and Lewis) to go to headquarters. The committee returned Sept. 30. His attendance during October^is shown by nos. 163, 183, the Journals, Oct. 24 and letters of Oct^ 18 and 21 in Force, Am. Arch., fifth sen, IL 11 13, n49- He was doubtless m attendance also through November, although the record is meagre A letter dated Nov J; is ibid. 111. 347 (see also the Journals, Nov. 2), and thereafter, until Apr 1I. 1777 his record of attendance is fairly clear iromth. J ournals ana hf letters (see no. 441). He was in Baltimore May 13 (letter to Robert Purviance, copied from the original, then in possession of Mr Stan. V Henkels) As he was not included in the election of May 13, i777. he does not appear again in Congress until after the election of Oct. 3 (see the Journals, Nov. 14). He took his seat Dec. 5- Philip Livingston.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Apr. 22, 1775; May 13, i777> Oct. 3, i777. Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Dec. 12. 1776; Apr. 16 to July 8 (or later), 1777; July 24 to Aug. 8 (or later), 1777. The Journals contain no mention of Livingston's presence in Congress between Tulv 1=; and Oct. 17, but the letters in this volume show that there was at least no important gap in his attendance prior to Dec. 12. when Congress adjourned to Baltimir? (see no. 268). The New York cornmittee of safety had only the preceding day passed a resolve ordering Lewis Morns to take Livingston's place in Congress in order that the latter might be enabled o visit his family (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser.. III. 370) • He re umed « Congress Apr. 16, i777 (see no. 441), and remained in attendance at least until July 8 (see no. 546). July n he was appointed (with Gerry and Clymer) on a mission to headquarters, but he had already gone northward (see no 554). Livingston returned July 24 (see the Journals) and was m attendance at least uitiT Aug 8 (his name is among the yeas and nays of that date, but is absent from the next record, Aug. 13). Robert R. Livingston.
Elected: Apr. 22, 1775.
Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5- (?), 1776. ^. .
Evidence was presented in vol. L which shows that Livingston was in Congress July 4, and probably also July 5, inasmuch as a committee of which he was a principal member made its report that day. Nothing has been discovered to show when he left Philadelphia, but he took his seat in the New York con- vention July 15 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., L 1401) and on the i/th was made a member of a secret committee of the convention, in the business of which he was for some time engaged (see ibid., pp. 225, 392, 423. »70, 1409)- Gouverneur Morris.
Elected: May 13, i777; Oct. 3, i777- Did not attend in 1777. Lewis Morris.
Elected: Apr. 22, 1775. / , . n r^^f^-
Attended: (See vol. I.); Sept. 8 (or earlier) -24 (or later), 1776, Mar. 13 (or earlier) to Apr. 18 (or later), 1777. As a deoutv to the New York convention Morris took his seat m that body at its opening session, July 9 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser., L 1385), although he gravitated between the convention and the army. Aug. 26 the journal ot the convention contains the following: " General Morris suggested sundry reasons to the Convention for his attendance at Philadelphia. Ordered I hat General Morris attend at Congress at Philadelphia, and return with all pos- sible despatch" {ibid., p. 1541).^ His letters of Sept. 8 ^"d 24 (nos^ 118, 141) show that he was in attendance during the greater part of the month. In the letter of Sept. 8 he says: "I should have gone off this day but Mr Lewis has taken his flight toward that Place in quest of his family, that we^e on Long Island, and there remain only three of "s '' (passage omit ed from no 118). Sept. 16 the convention peremptorily ordered Morris to return immedStely and resume command of his brigade (Force, Am. Arch., fifth ser..
Ix List of Members
II. 693), and Oct. 8, after tlie nci-ipt of his letter of .Sept. 24, the injunction was repeated (sec ihid.. II. y4<;. IH- 2.11. 232). Ik-fore that time, however, Morris had evidently taken liis (lei)arture. l-rom that time until Dec. 9, when Ik- tiH.k his seat in' the New York committee of safety, Morris ai)pears to have been with the army. Dec. 1 1 the connnittee of safety ordered him to take his scat in Congress in order to relieve IMiilip Livingston (ibid., 111. .^70). Nevertheless he remained during the next two days at least in the committee of safety (the proceedings after Dec. 13 are missing), but Dec. 21 he was charged with a letter from the convention to Congress (ibid., p. 13.'^"; the same letter, but without date, is at ]). 1404; '/• t'l^' ^^^^^'^ o*^ ^^^^- ~^' *'^'<^•• p. 1466). It has not been discovered when, if at all, Morris delivered the letter of Dec. 21 (that of Dec. 28 was read in Congress Jan. 14. 1777)- Lewis states in his letter of Dec. 27 (no. 268), and again in his letter of Jan. 7 (no. 292). that he was alone in Congress. Indeed no trace of Morris is found until Mar. 13, when he is appointed on a committee. His last committee appointment was Apr. 18, and his letter of .\pr. 19 (see no. 441. n. 2) indicates a pur[>ose to take his departure very shortly. Philip Schuyler.
Elected': (See vol. I.) ; Apr. 22, 1776; May 13, 1777. Attended: (See vol. I.) ; Apr. 7 to May 22, 1777.
It is presumed that Schuyler did not attend Congress after the order of May 22 to proceed to the army and take command (for instance, he addressed a letter to Congress May 26). He did not, however, leave Philadelphia until May 28 (see no. 504, n. 3, and no. 568. n. 5). In an account which he rendered. May 4, 1786, for his several periods of service in Congress from May 15, 1775, the item for 1777 is: "To my services as a Delegate in Congress from 2ist March 1777 to 27 May Inclusive, Including 6 days for going and 6 days returning to Albany, is 68 days, at 34/, £115. 12" (copied from the original, then in possession of Mr. Stan. V. Henkels). Henry IVisner.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Apr. 22. 1775.
Attended: (See vol. I.); July 5-16 (or later), 1776.
Wisner was commissioned by Congress July 4 to make an investigation relative to flint stones, and wrote a letter on that subject, July 5, to Joseph Barton of New Jersey, to which Barton replied July 9 (Force, Am. Arch., fifth sen, I. 139). A further commission on the same subject, recorded in the Journals July 16, seems to indicate his presence on that date ; and an order, July 25, for payment of expenses would normally carry the same suggestion, except for the fact that in the proceedings of the New York convention it is recorded that he took his seat in that body July 23 (see Force, Am. Arch, fifth sen, L I435)-
NORTH CAROLINA. Thomus Burke.
Elected : Dec. 20, 1776 (" until such time as the General Assembly shall direct otherwise") ; May 4, 1777 (same proviso). Attended: Feb. 4 to Oct. 14, 1777.
Hooper says, in his letter of Feb. 15 (no. 358) : " Burke came to my relief on Saturday the first day of February." He did not, however, present his credentials until Tuesday, Feb. 4, and probably did not take his seat until that day. Burke wrote to Gov. Caswell Aug. 21 : "I have been in daily expectation of setting off for the Southward", but was induced to defer his journey " until something material shall happen between the two grand armies " (AT. C. States Recs., XI. 592). In his letter of Nov. 4 (no. 725) he says: " I left York town ... on the 13th ulto." ; but this must be an error, for he is recorded as voting Oct. 14. Burke probably si^ed the resolution of secrecy on the first day of his attendance. Brownson's signature bears that date, and is immediately followed by those of Thornton, Lovell, and Burke. Cornelius Harnett.
Elected: May 4. 1777.
Attended: July 22 to Dec. 31, 1777,
Harnett wrote to William Wilkinson July 20 (iV. C. State Recs., XL 741) : " I arrived here the i8th ", but that, having taken the inoculation (at Port Tobacco, Maryland, where he had been detained three weeks; ibid., p. 569), he had not been able to attend Congress. He presented his credentials July 22.
List of Members Ixi
The following day he signed the resolution of secrecy (see the note under Richard Law). Joseph Hewes.
Elected: (See vol. I.) ; Sept. 2, 1775 (for the term of one year; see N. C. Col. Recs., X. 190) ; Dec. 20, 1776.
Attended: (See vol. I.) ; July 5 to Sept. 26, 1776.
In a letter of Sept. 23 (A'^. C. Col. Recs., X. 806) the delegates say: "We . . . shall write you very fully by Mr. Hewes in a few days" (see also no. 135). A letter begun Sept. 18 and closed Sept. 26, signed by Hooper and Penn, says : " This will be handed to you by our worthy Colleague Mr. Hewes " {N. C. Col. Recs., X. 810). It is possible that he may have been the bearer of a letter from Penn to Samuel Johnston, Sept.