Papers of John Adams, volume 5
1776-09-25
This Express carries a new Plan of an Army.1 I hope the General Court without one Moments delay will Send Commissions to whole Corps of their Officers, either by Expresses or Committees to New York and Ticonderoga, that as many Men may be inlisted without delay as possible. It may be best to send a Committee with full Powers to each Place. There is no Time to be lost. I inclose you a sett of Articles as lately amended.2 Discipline I hope will be introduced at last. I am
Well briefed by military correspondents on the inadequacy of congressional bounties and the instability resulting from short enlistments, JA, according to his later account, had taken the responsibility for a new plan, which the congress debated at length and adopted with amendments on 16 Sept. (
Diary and Autobiography
, 3:434;
JCC
, 5:762–763). The monetary bounty was raised from $10 to $20 and land grants ranging from 100 acres for soldiers to 500 acres for colonels were offered for the first time by the congress. To obtain these benefits, men had to enlist for 39the duration of the war. The new plan also provided for quotas of battalions for each state, ranging from 1 or 2 from the smallest states to 12 and 15 from the largest.
On 14 June the congress assigned the task of revising the Articles of War to the Committee on Spies, of which JA was a member. The original report to the congress is not in the hand of any member of the committee, nor in the hand of Timothy Pickering, as Worthington Ford believed, but the hand makes little difference (PCC, No. 27, f. 5–44;
JCC
, 5:807; for the progress of the committee's report through the congress, see vol. 4:19–20). The report was largely copied from the British Articles of War, with such modifications as circumstances required. JA claimed in one instance that he and Jefferson bore the brunt of the work of revision; in another, that the work was all his (
Diary and Autobiography
, 3:409–410, 434). In any case, he knew where to look for guidance. He declared that the committee could do no better than to follow the British example, which was based on Roman rules: “I was therefore for reporting the British Articles of War, totidem verbis” (same, 3:409–410). References to the king were replaced by mention of the congress; references to places in the British empire where the rules would differ were omitted; and provisions on billeting, commandeering of wagons, and behavior in foreign parts (with one exception, noted below) were dropped (Rules and Articles for the Better Government of His Majesty's Horse and Foot Guards and All Other His Majesty's Forces . . ., London, 1771, in Anno Regni Georgii II [III] Regis . . . Undecimo at the Parliament Begun . . . in . . . 1768, London, 1771, p. 139–206).
The revision of the American articles was stimulated by a letter from Joseph Reed of 25 July delivered to the congress by JA's friend William Tudor (Force, Archives
, 5th ser., 1:576). Reed noted that punishments were too mild, that crimes such as drunkenness or sleeping on guard and desertion were capital offenses in all but the American army. For such crimes, 39 lashes were contemptible as a deterrent. For the crime of deserting one unit and joining another to obtain an additional bounty, Reed recommended not less than one hundred lashes. Tudor brought proposals as well, but what they were is unknown; perhaps he reiterated the suggestions he had made nearly a year earlier that were not adopted in the revision of November of 1775, such as the death penalty for several crimes and one hundred lashes for others. He complained in letters to JA of desertion, plundering, seditious speech, and mutiny. Tudor was well aware of the greater severity of British regulations (to JA, 6 and 23 Sept., above).
The revision of the Articles of War adopted by the congress on 20 September 1776 (
JCC
, 5:788–807) repeated, usually verbatim, the 69 articles adopted in June 1775 (same, 2:111–122) and added 33 more, some of them from the revisions of November 1775 (same, 3:331–334). But with few exceptions the articles in all versions drew upon the British. The difference in the 1776 revision was wholesale verbatim borrowing not only of the language of the articles, but also of the entire scheme of arrangement. Americans took over the grouping of the articles under numbered sections, failing only to use the section titles of the British. The copying was so slavish that the committee report neglected to specify in several instances whether a court martial was regimental or not. For example, under Sect. XIII, Arts. 1, 2, 4, and 5 required simply “a court martial,” although the equivalent articles in 1775 (Arts. XVI, XVII, XIX, XX) specified a regimental one; and Art. 6, which now permitted the death penalty, again required “a court martial” instead of the general court martial specified in 1775 (Art. XXI). The omissions were of some consequence because Tudor had earlier sought to have the distinction carefully maintained. Another instance of unreflective copying occurred in Sect. XIII, Art. 17, which referred to American forces “employed in foreign parts,” a scarcely appropriate qualification.
The only significant provisions that the committee did not take from the British were in Arts. 6 and 22 under Sect. XIV. The first called for punishment of those refusing to give evidence in a court martial, and the other, for the publication of the names of officers cashiered for cowardice or fraud and the ostracizing by fellow officers of such miscreants.
The more thorough adoption of the Brit-40ish code brought changes and additions in 1776 that fall into three categories: those providing for increased severity of punishment, greater protection for civilians from plunder and wanton destruction of property, and more careful administrative procedures. Death as a possible penalty was listed in nine additional instances. The limit on lashes was raised from 39 to 100, as critics had suggested. A new punishment, meted out to officers and commissaries for fraud in mustering, was denial of any future office or employment under the United States. The conditions under which the dates of officers' commissions affected their rank and under which militia officers were subordinate to regular officers were clarified, as were those for enlistment and discharge. The holding of courts martial was more carefully regulated, and for the first time mention was made of the duties of the judge advocate.
1776-09-25
Thro' the hurry and confusion of one retreat after another I have omitted to answer your last favor.1 You are pleas'd to desire a list of the Officers from Massachusetts Bay noting such as bid fair to rise superior to the commonality. I have endevor'd to procure the whole list but in vain. The General sometime since order'd a list to be given in of the Officers of evry Regiment in Order to go to the War Office at Philadelphia. This must be more correct than any other that can be procur'd. The Character of Major Brooks is that of a sensible, brave, good officer, a man of reading and who will if God spares his Life be an ornament to his Country. Lt Coll Shepard is brave and clever but his view of things is not so extensive or his education equal to the other. Major Austin's Genius is equal to any science, but I am not so certain that his application is.2 If Austin could by any ways or means have infus'd into him certain principles of inflexible honor and sentiment, and a proportion of Judgement with his Genius, I think he would be one of the first Characters coming on the stage. These in my opinion would be essential of a Lieutenant Colonel Artillery. “If another Battalion of Artillery shall be rais'd who are to be the field Officers?” This sir will be difficult to answer without the Congress or the General know persons suitable for those Offices. I confess I do not, at least not in the army and there are so few inducements, excepting a Love to their Country which seems to go a precious little way thus I know not how we shall get them. There is but one Lieutenant Colonel to the present Battalion and but one Major altho the Congress allow of two of each. The Lt Colo is David Mason, who is but so so, the Major is an exceeding fine Spirited fellow (Crane)3 and were his education equal to his station he must cut 41An excellent figure. He was wounded some time ago in the foot so that impos'd upon me together with the arrangement, and disposal of all the Cannon and Stores and discipline of the regiment has so fully employ'd me that I have scarcely had time to take the common refreshing of nature. This I mean not by way of complaint for I rejoice exceedingly that I have been in the least Assisting my injur'd and insulted Country.
I am sorry to observe the same popular plan for raising a new Army still continuing—which will most assuredly give the continent the same unmeaning puppies for officers with which she has been curs'd. If the Congress do not administer a radical Cure they will in the end repent it. Military Accademies must be Instituted at any expence, We are fighting against a people well acquainted with the Theory and practice of War—brave by discipline and habit furnish'd with every implement of war necessary for any enterprize. What do we oppose to these? We oppose a —— Tho they are brave and furnish'd with all these matters yet from some causes They discover very little of the great or vast in their designs or executions. Otherways this army would have been annihilated. Had they at their head our amiable and worthy General I think poor America would have ere' now have felt the nera most vilely miss'd improving. The ignorance of the Grounds and the not occupying the passes on that Island sufficiently has been the sole and only cause of our subsequent Retreats and —— had General Greene been fit for duty I flatter myself matters would have worn a very different appearance at present. These and other matters may form some very pertinent inquiries in some future day.
The enemy have now suffer'd us quietly to fortify heights which they cannot storm or take. When the Grounds on the other side Kings Bridge and above Morrisania shall be sufficiently fortified I think they will not be able to disposess us of the places where we now are. This will be a negative advantage and I hope some lapse in their Conduct will give some very capital and positive advantages. I am asham'd of this Letter it being written amid the Hurry interruption and Confusion of a tent. I 42am Dear sir Yours with the greatest affection and Respect Your most obt & hbl Servant4
That of 25 Aug. (vol. 4:497).
If Knox approved, JA wanted to nominate Austin as Knox's lieutenant colonel. See JA's reply mentioned in note 4 (below).
John Crane of Massachusetts, promoted to colonel of the 3d Continental Artillery in Jan. 1777 (Heitman, Register Continental Army
, p. 176).
JA's reply of 29 Sept., which included a postscript dated 1 Oct., complained that Washington (not named) found fault only with New England troops. JA also expressed a wish for a military academy. His postscript mentioned that he had moved for a committee to consider a plan and that he was named to the committee (JA, Diary and Autobiography
, 3:441–442, 437).