John Jay Papers

The Problems of the Northern Command Editorial Note

The Problems of the Northern Command

Yankee–Yorker antagonisms were a constant source of congressional friction during 1777–78. As one of New York’s leaders, John Jay continually found himself involved in these struggles, perhaps best epitomized in the Gates–Schuyler contest for control of the Northern Department. Although this appeared to be primarily a military affair, it also reflected the ongoing conflict between New York and New England, with New England favoring Horatio Gates and New York championing the cause of Philip Schuyler, Washington’s choice. The New Englanders’ antipathy toward Schuyler was no doubt fueled by Schuyler’s participation in speculation in the disputed Vermont lands.

Jay gave Schuyler his personal support and whatever political influence he could in order to aid Schuyler in this factional dispute. He solicited testimonial letters from St. Clair and published them in New York, Philadelphia, and New England. He advised the general on strategy during the long months he pressed Congress for a court-martial in an effort to clear his name. Jay encouraged Schuyler to maintain his useful contacts with the Indians, assured him that time would vindicate him, and urged him not to let personal feelings prevent him from serving his country. The matter was complicated by the way in which sectional tensions were tied up in the politics of honor. Personal honor and reputation, so important in colonial culture, could be served just as well through service to the revolutionary causes.1

In the wake of criticism resulting from the failure of the Canadian campaign in the summer of 1776, Schuyler repeatedly demanded inquiries into his conduct. In response to rumors that Schuyler had held back specie from the service and used the money for himself, Congress ordered an audit of the accounts of the Northern Department on 16 July 1776. In September 1776, Schuyler announced his intention to resign his command; Congress rejected this gesture promising that a full inquiry would be made. On 18 April 1777, Schuyler requested, and Congress approved, an inquiry to be conducted into his conduct as a general in the army. On 3 May 1777, the committee of the Treasury issued a report stating that Schuyler had used his own money and funds raised on his credit before receiving any specie from Congress. On 7 May 1777, Schuyler sent Congress a memorial in which he answered the charges against him, stating that he had ignored Congress’s instructions. On 8 May 1777, Congress accepted his explanations; on 13 May 1777, the committee of the Treasury cleared Schuyler of any financial wrongdoing. The reports of the Treasury, together with Schuyler’s orders to take command of the Northern Department, were presented by Schuyler to the Council of Safety on 2 June.2

The sectional jealousies led to seesaw conditions in the Northern Department during the early part of 1777, with Gates replacing Schuyler at Ticonderoga on 25 March and then seeing Schuyler reinstated in May. The problem of shifts in command, compounded by supply shortages, the unwillingness of many New England soldiers to serve under Schuyler, which deprived New York of much-needed militia support, and the exposed location of the fort, rendered Ticonderoga vulnerable to Burgoyne’s massive offensive.3

When Arthur St. Clair,4 whom Schuyler had appointed to command the post in 5 June 1777,5 awoke on the morning of 5 July to discover that the British had mounted and fortified Sugar Loaf Mountain (Mount Defiance), he considered his position untenable and gave the order to evacuate the fort, thereby hoping to save his troops for later battle.

When Ticonderoga fell to the British without a single shot being fired, Schuyler’s enemies were provided with ammunition to reopen their attack on the New York general. Central to their charge was that Schuyler was absent from the fort, and as commander of the Northern Department, he was therefore guilty of dereliction of duty. Schuyler countered that he had done everything possible to fortify the area and was in fact doing his duty to strengthen the surrounding area. Facts flavored with malicious rumors served to discredit Schuyler. New York’s delegates in the Continental Congress wrote on 29 July to the New York Council of Safety that “the Eastern [New England] States openly affirm that their Troops have no Confidence in General Schuyler and assign this as the Reason that they have not marched to his Assistance.” On 1 August, Congress removed Schuyler from the command of the Northern Department and ordered him to return to headquarters. A committee was appointed to investigate the matter. A wary Washington declined to choose the new commander, and Congress directed Gates to the command of the Northern Department on 4 August.6

Despite the acrimony against Schuyler, once he had been removed from the command, Congress appeared reluctant to pursue the matter. Schuyler’s skill in dealing with the Indians was called upon. Schuyler, however, was adamant that his name and honor be cleared, and he pressed for a full court-martial.7 Finally, on 18 March 1778, Congress moved that a court of inquiry be conducted. However, proceedings still dragged, and it was not until 12 June 1778 that the committee reported on its findings and recommended that Schuyler be charged “With neglect of duty in not being present at Ticonderoga to discharge the functions of his command from the middle of June, 1777.”8

The court-martial was held on 1 October 1778. The presiding major generals represented Massachusetts (Benjamin Lincoln, John Nixon), New York (James Clinton), and perhaps as a mediating element, Pennsylvania (Anthony Wayne, John Peter Gabriel Muhlenburgh). Other officers in attendance similarly represented these regions. John Laurance (1750–1810) of New York served as judge advocate. Schuyler was cleared of all charges. On 3 December 1778, Congress recognized his acquittal and resolved “That the sentence of the general court martial acquitting Major General Schuyler, with the highest honor, of the charges exhibited against him, be, and is hereby, confirmed.” The proceedings of the trial were ordered to be published. On 27 December 1778, Schuyler submitted his resignation from his command; Congress rejected it. After repeated requests for reconsideration, Congress agreed to his resignation on 19 April 1779. On 18 October 1779, Schuyler was once again elected as a delegate to Congress from New York, and he served in that capacity through 1780.9

2JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 6: 565, 841; 7: 279, 335, 351; JPC description begins Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the State of New-York (2 vols.; Albany, N.Y., 1842) description ends , 1: 951.

3JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 7: 202; JPC description begins Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the State of New-York (2 vols.; Albany, N.Y., 1842) description ends , 1: 941.

4Arthur St. Clair (1737–1818) came to the American colonies with the 60th or Royal American Regiment of Foot, serving at Louisbourg (1757) and Quebec (1758). He resigned his commission after his marriage to Phoebe Bayard of Boston, invested in land in Pennsylvania, and served in a variety of colonial offices. At the beginning of hostilities with Britain, he raised a regiment and served at Trenton (1776) and Princeton (1777), rising to the rank of major general.

5Proceedings of a General Court Martial, Held at Major General Lincoln’s Quarters, Near Quaker-Hill, In the State of New-York, By Order of His Excellency General Washington, Commander in Chief of the Army of the United States of America, for the Trial of Major General Schuyler, October 1, 1778. Major General Lincoln, President. (Philadelphia: Hall and Sellers, 1778; Early Am. Imprints description begins Early American Imprints, series 1: Evans, 1639–1800 [microform; digital collection], edited by American Antiquarian Society, published by Readex, a division of Newsbank, Inc. Accessed: Columbia University, New York, N.Y., 2006–8, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/ description ends , no. 16142), 28.

6LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 7: 243–45; JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 8: 596, 603–4.

7See, for example, Philip Schuyler to Congress, 12 Dec. 1777, JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 10: 74.

8JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 10: 66, 292; 11: 593–603.

9Schuyler had previously been elected to Congress, on 13 May 1777, but never served, in part because of his military duties and in part because of the fear of possible trouble with the New England delegates. JPC description begins Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the State of New-York (2 vols.; Albany, N.Y., 1842) description ends , 1: 931; JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 12: 1186–87; 13: 473; LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 14: xxi.

Index Entries