Sunday, June 21, 2026

ARP391 Washington Admin Scandals and Resignations

George Washington had made no secret of the fact that he really didn’t want to be president.  National leaders had to convince and cajole him into doing it, telling him that without his leadership, the Constitution would not survive and, without the Constitution, the United States would fall apart.  Washington served for four years, expecting to get the new nation off to a good start, then finally retire to his plantation in Virginia.  Once again, national leaders begged him to remain for a second term.

I think Washington really regretted his decision to remain for a second term.  Some of his most controversial issues arose in that term, including the Citizen Genet Affair, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Jay Treaty controversies.  Also, by half-way through his second term, his cabinet members all abandoned him.

Postmaster General

Resignations were normal in government.  Postmaster General John Osgood had left during the first term.  The Postmaster General was not a part of the cabinet at the time and really didn’t have any role in policy making aside from running the post office.  Osgood, originally from Massachusetts, had been living in New York, working first under the Confederation Congress then under President Washington.  When the capital moved from New York to Philadelphia in 1791, Osgood did not want to move and resigned instead.

Edmund Randolph
Washington’s second postmaster, Timothy Pickering, deserves a little more background because he will play larger role going forward.  He had been adjutant general and quartermaster general of the Continental Army during the Revolution.   Although Pickering was born and raised in Massachusetts, he moved to the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania after the war.  

There, he got caught up in the Yankee-Pennamite Wars, which I discussed a bit in earlier episodes during the Revolutionary War.  This ongoing fight was between Yankees from Connecticut and Pennsylvanians who both claimed control of the Wyoming Valley. The Pennsylvania State Assembly appointed Pickering as an official in the newly-formed Luzerne County, tasked with mediating conflicting land claims between settlers.

It was in this capacity that some Connecticut settlers kidnapped Pickering in 1788, trying to force him to recognize their land claims.  Pickering refused to negotiate with his kidnappers and was dragged through the forest while Pennsylvania militia were trying to track them down.  After nearly three weeks, his captors released him.  

Pickering spent the next few years taking time away from his farm to help negotiate some of the treaties with Indians regarding control of land in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Territory.  President Washington offered him several jobs, including Quartermaster General of the new army, but Pickering declined.  He finally accepted the role of Postmaster General in 1791. 

Pickering would serve as postmaster for about three and a half years before moving on to become Secretary of War.  We'll get into the reasons reasons for that shortly. Joseph Habersham succeeded him in the role, and continued in that role until the Jefferson Administration.

Habersham was from Georgia. He had served as a colonel in the Continental Army, but resigned after serving as Lachlan McIntosh’s second in the 1777 duel that killed Button Gwinnett, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

After the war, Habersham remained active in Georgia politics where he served as Speaker of the Georgia House.  He was serving as mayor of Savannah when Washington appointed him Postmaster General.  

Secretary of State

The first cabinet member to resign was Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.  When Washington first appointed Jefferson the two men seemed to get along well.  As Washington’s first term came to an end, Jefferson was among those who begged Washington to accept a second term.  Washington, in turn, asked that Jefferson stay on as Secretary of State.

Jefferson and Hamilton regularly found themselves on opposite sides of many issues.  The Bank of the United States was a big one.  But what really divided the two men was foreign policy.  Hamilton wanted a good economic relationship with Britain, while Jefferson wanted closer ties to France.  

Washington’s effort to form consensus on these divergent views was to begin having cabinet meetings where they could all sit around a table together, hash out their differences, and reach an agreeable solution.  Jefferson hated these meetings. He referred to his conflicts with Hamilton there as being “daily pitted in the cabinet like two cocks.”  This was a reference to cock fighting, a popular pastime where gamblers would throw two chickens into an arena, known as a cock pit, where the two animals would try to peck each other to death.

Jefferson came to believe that Hamilton had a growing influence over Washington, who seemed to be siding more and more with policies that favored Britain abroad and rich bankers and investors domestically.  To counter this, Jefferson began subsidizing Philip Freneau, who published the National Gazette, which regularly attacked Washington.  When the paper published a cartoon showing Washington being sent to the guillotine, Washington lost his temper and railed against the paper that Jefferson continued to support.

Finally, at the end of 1793, less than a year into Washington’s second term Jefferson had had enough.  He submitted his resignation.  Washington said he accepted it with regret and felt deserted by Jefferson.  

After returning to private life, Jefferson continued to attack Washington as becoming too senile and becoming the puppet of Hamilton and the Federalists.  In 1796, Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend where he referred to former revolutionary heroes as “apostates” who had been “shorn by the harlot England”.  This letter eventually became public and Washington took personal offense at this, wrote Jefferson a letter bluntly expressing his offense, and the men ceased all communication. They would never reconcile.

Attorney General Edmond Randolph took over as Secretary of State following Jefferson’s departure.  Randolph resigned after about a year and a half, for reasons we’ll get into in a moment.  Timothy Pickering completed the remainder of Washington’s term as Secretary of State. 

Secretary of War

The next secretary to depart was Henry Knox.  During the Revolutionary War, the 25 year old Boston bookseller became one of General Washington’s most reliable general officers.  After the war, Knox moved to a capacity, serving in charge of the army under the Confederation Congress.  Washington happily asked Knox to continue in that role when he became President.

Washington tended to regard most of his cabinet secretaries as advisors.  His relationship with Knox was a little different.  Perhaps it was because Washington felt most knowledgeable personally in military matters, he tended to treat Knox more like a staff assistant than an advisor.  He would give Knox instructions rather than ask his opinion on many matters of military policy.

At the same time though, Knox held Washington’s trust and confidence.  Hamilton once remarked near the beginning of President Washington’s first term that Washington spoke with Knox the way a man does with his wife.  Knox generally aligned himself with Hamilton as a Federalist and seemed to have a solid relationship with the president.

That relationship began to fall apart in 1794. The incident that caused the rift came during the Whiskey Rebellion. 

After the Revolutionary War ended, Knox lived extravagantly.  He rented a downtown mansion in Philadelphia where he lived with Lucy and his children.  Lucy also enjoyed gambling and loved to play cards with Philadelphia's elite.  The salary of a government bureaucrat simply did not support this lifestyle.  So Knox engaged in land speculation to supplement his wealth.

Knox borrowed heavily to make investments in the Ohio Company.  He also partnered with William Duer to purchase two million acres of land in Maine.  During this time, Knox built a 19 room mansion in Thomaston, Maine, which he named Montpelier.

I mentioned Duer back in Episode 379 when his speculation led to the financial panic of 1792 and his bankruptcy.  Knox was hit hard by those events and was struggling on the edge of bankruptcy himself. 

By the summer of 1794 Knox’s financial situation had reached a crisis point.  Knox had to request six week’s leave from his position so that he could travel to Maine and settle some of the financial problems related to his property there.

The timing could not have been worse.  This was at the height of the Whiskey Rebellion and just around the time that Washington issued his call to raise a militia army to crush that rebellion.  This was one of the most critical times for the Secretary of War.  Washington reluctantly approved the leave but he was not happy about it.  When Knox ended up being gone for, not for six weeks but for more than two months, Washington grew even angrier.

Hamilton happily filled in for Knox, accompanying Washington to western Pennsylvania.  But while he was going to war, the president wanted his secretary of war by his side, not the treasury secretary.  When Knox returned to Philadelphia in October, he sent a note to Washington, who was still out in the field with the army, whether he wanted Knox to join him.  Washington sent a curt response, essentially saying it was too late to be useful.  Washington was already on his way back to Philadelphia by this time.

Two months later, at the end of December, Knox submitted his resignation. Knox cited financial reasons for his resignation.  Washington, still annoyed by Knox’s absence during the Whiskey Rebellion, accepted the resignation, in a way which witnesses called frosty and overly formal. Knox returned to Maine, where he sold much of his lands to stay out of debtor’s prison.  He eventually resolved his finances, but his public life was at an end.  Despite Washington's coolness toward Knox at the end of his term, the to men remained close friends and continued to correspond with each other until Washington's passing.

Timothy Pickering replaced Knox as Secretary of War, serving in that role for less than a year before moving on to Secretary of State in 1796. James McHenry replaced Pickering at the War Department.  McHenry was a surgeon from Maryland.  He served as a Continental officer during the Revolution.  After the war, he served in the Maryland Senate and as a delegate to the Continental Congress.  McHenry would remain in that position for the rest of Washington's term and into Adams' term.

Secretary of Treasury

Alexander Hamilton also left for money reasons.  Hamilton had been the youngest member of the cabinet, and arguably the most impactful on the new government.  He had served as an aid to Washington for most of the Revolution. Washington had come to admire and respect his abilities, especially in matters of finance.

During his tenure as Treasury Secretary, Hamilton became the de facto leader of the Federalists and also a lightning rod for abuse from the Democratic Republicans.  The main cause of criticism was that Hamilton was imposing a British style economy, where much of the nation’s wealth went to speculators and financiers who did not really work for a living.  Opponents believed that this would eventually result in a form of aristocracy, similar to the system in Britain, which they hated.

At the beginning of Washington’s second term, William Branch Giles, a Congressman from Virginia introduced a resolution to investigate Hamilton.  Giles was a young man, only 27 years old when first elected to Congress.  Giles was the first Representative to win a special election in 1790, replacing Theodorick Bland, who had died in office.

Giles aligned himself with the Jefferson-Madison faction in Congress. This faction not only opposed many of Hamilton’s economic plans, they also suspected that there was an element of corruption.  Hamilton might be enriching himself or his friends in these transactions, at the expense of the treasury.

At the end of December, 1792, Congress demanded a full accounting of some loans that Hamilton had taken in order to repay other loans that had a higher interest rate.  Hamilton submitted a report to congress a week later, on January 3, 1793, explaining the transactions.  That was not good enough for Giles.  A few weeks later, he introduced a series of resolutions, demanding much more details including the names of people who profited from the transactions.  

These resolutions essentially accused Hamilton of financial misconduct.  Specifically, private investors in the Bank of the United States would benefit from these transactions.  The resolutions censored Hamilton’s behavior and attacked his honesty.

Giles did not come up with this on his own.  Jefferson had worked secretly with Giles in developing the resolutions.  Jefferson was still a member of Washington’s cabinet at this time.  Jefferson was open about his opposition. He spoke with Washington about his concerns that Hamilton was hiding financial problems with the bank with these transactions.  But he kept his cooperation with Giles a secret.

In the end, Congress refused to pass the resolutions.  Their attacks on Hamilton were unfounded.  Jefferson probably knew this from the beginning, but figured that some mud from the discussion would stick to Hamilton, even if he was ultimately exonerated. 

Hamilton would remain as Treasury Secretary for several more years.  But, like Henry Knox, Hamilton’s lifestyle was not possible on his salary as a member of the Cabinet.  

Ironically, the attacks by Giles and the other Democratic Republicans delayed Hamilton’s departure. He would have resigned sooner than he did, but stayed on until he was absolved of all the accusations in the Giles Resolutions.  Had he quit before, many would have taken that as an admission of guilt.

When Hamilton finally resigned on January 31, 1795, he was nearly broke.  He returned to private practice as an attorney in New York in order to rebuild his wealth.

Following Hamilton’s departure, Oliver Wolcott took over at Treasury.  Wolcott was from Connecticut.  He began working with the Treasury Department under Hamilton as soon as it was formed.  He first worked as an auditor, then serving as Comptroller.  When he replaced Hamilton as Secretary, little changed. Wolcott greatly admired Hamilton and even kept up a vigorous correspondence with Hamilton when Hamilton returned to New York.  Hamilton’s critics complained that Hamilton was still running the Treasury Department and influencing President Washington, just using Wolcott as the conduit for his policies and ideas.

Attorney General

Attorney General Edmund Randolph was the last to go.  He had served as the President’s legal advisor for many years, even before he became president.  Unlike other members of the cabinet, he was also able to take on other private legal clients to supplement his government salary. We saw last week when Randolph represented Chisholm in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia that led to the adoption of the 11th Amendment.

After Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State, Randolph moved over to State.  William Bradford took over as the new Attorney General.  Bradford was from Philadelphia.  He had served as attorney general of Pennsylvania and on the state Supreme Court before joining the administration.  Bradford seemed to be a man with a great legal future ahead of him.  He was still in his late 30s while serving as attorney general.  Sadly, he became ill and died during the summer of 1795.

Charles Lee next took over as Attorney General. This is not General Charles Lee from the Revolution.  This Charles Lee was the younger brother of Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee.  He was a capable attorney who had some experience in the Virginia legislature.  I suspect his being a part of the powerful Lee family contributed to Washington’s decision to appoint him.

Fauchet Scandal

Randolph’s final departure as Secretary of State came under a cloud of scandal involving French minister Jean Antoine Fauchet.  Recall that France had sent Fauchet in late 1793 to clean up the mess created by Citizen Genet that destroyed relations between France and the US.

During Fauchet’s first year in America the Whiskey Rebellion took center stage.  That same year, John Jay was in London negotiating a treaty with Britain that French officials worried would destroy the Franco-American alliance.

Fauchet tried to build relationships with top US officials, including Edmund Randolph.  In late October, Fauchet sent a secret dispatch, known as dispatch number 10, to officials in Paris.  His report attacks the Washington administration on a number of issues  It describes the Washington administration as decrepit.  It mentions Randolph as a “confidant” and reports Randolph’s concerns that federalist policies supported by Washington are giving rise to what he calls a “financiering class” that wants to restore monarchy in America and enslave American trade to England.

He also reports that Randolph suggests that for a few thousand dollars, he can influence the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion in a way that would benefit France.  The dispatch is a cynical analysis of American politics that suggests a few bribes could influence government policy and says explicitly that all of these patriots have their price.

Fauchet put the dispatch aboard a ship headed to Paris.  A British warship intercepted it, and sent the letter to London.  Officials there forwarded the dispatch to British Ambassador George Hammond in Philadelphia.  In late July, Hammond shared the document with Treasury Secretary Wolcott, who, in turn, shared it with Secretary of War Pickering.  At the time, Washington was home at Mount Vernon.

Pickering and Wolcott viewed the dispatch as evidence that Randolph has asked the French Ambassador for a bribe, and is also committing treason by undercutting American policy in favor of France.

All of these events are unfolding in the period just after the Senate has ratified the Jay Treaty, the public is just learning about the Treaty’s terms, and President Washington is debating whether to sign it.

Washington returns to Philadelphia to deal with the matter.  After reading the dispatch and discussing it with Wolcott and Pickering, the president determines that Randolph is essentially a French agent.  At the time, Randolph was the only cabinet member opposing the Jay Treaty.  

After Washington returned to Philadelphia in August, he decided to end this dithering and sign the Jay treaty right away, before the scandal over Randolph broke.  He ordered Randolph to inform Minister Hammond and to send a signed copy of the treaty to London.

Once that was done, Washington called Randolph into his office.  There, with Wolcott and Pickering present, Washington showed the dispatch to Randolph and demanded an answer.  Randolph read the document as best he could.  It was in French.  After a short discussion, Randolph was asked to leave the room while Washington discussed the matter with the others.  When Randolph returned, Washington demanded a written explanation of the allegations in the dispatch.  Since these involved some matters that took place more than a year ago, Randolph said he wanted to consult with other records before writing his version of events.

Randolph believed that Washington was convinced that he was guilty of something, maybe treason, maybe just disloyalty, but it was clear that the President did not believe there was an innocent explanation for the allegations made in the dispatch.  Instead of writing an explanation, Randolph returned home and drafted his letter of resignation.

Randolph’s departure marked the last of the men who made up Washington’s original cabinet.

Next Week: A treaty with Spain changes US borders and opens up the Mississippi River to America for the first time.

 - - -

Next Episode 392 The Treaty of San Lorenzo (coming soon)

Previous Episode 390 The Eleventh Amendment

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  https://merch.amrevpodcast.com


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to ad-free episodes, podcast extras, and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

George Washington Cabinet Members: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/cabinet-members

Timothy Pickering Papers: https://www.masshist.org/collection-guides/view/fa0256

Jefferson and Hamilton: Political Rivals in Washington's Cabinet https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/washingtons-presidential-cabinet/jefferson-and-hamilton-political-rivals

Jefferson and the Giles Resolutions https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-25-02-0259-0001

“Introductory Note: Report on the Balance of All Unapplied Revenues at the End of the Year 1792 and on All Unapplied Monies Which May Have Been Obtained by the Several Loans Authorized by Law, [4 February 1793],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-13-02-0299-0001

Giles Resolutions: https://rationalwalk.com/the-giles-resolutions

Sheridan, Eugene R. “Thomas Jefferson and the Giles Resolutions.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 4, 1992, pp. 589–608. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2947173 

Clifford, John Garry. “A Muddy Middle of the Road: The Politics of Edmund Randolph, 1790-1795.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80 (1972): 286-311. JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/4247732 

Bonsteel Tachau, Mary K. “George Washington and the Reputation of Edmund Randolph.” The Journal of American History, vol. 73, no. 1, 1986, pp. 15–34. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1903604

Translation [of a letter from] ... Joseph Fauchet, minister plenipotentiary of the French Republic near the United States, to Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State of the United States https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hxj4gf&seq=1

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Fauchett, Joseph A Translation of Citizen Fauchet's Political Dispatch, No. 10 , Philadelphia: T. Bradford, 179

Conway, Moncure Daniel. Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889. 

Randolph, Edmund A Vindication of Edmund Randolph, Richmond, Charles H. Winne, 1855. 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004. 

Chernow, Ron Washington, A Life, Penguin Press, 2010. 

Chervinsky, Lindsay M. The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution, Belknap Press, 2020. 

Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993 (borrow on archive.org). 

Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency. George Washington, Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. 

Heidler, David S. & Jeanne T. Washington's Circle: The Creation of the President, Random House, 2015. 

Leibiger, Stuart Founding Friendship George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic, Univ. of Virginia Press, 1999. 

Malone, Dumas Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty, Little Brown & Co. 1962 (borrow on archive.org).

Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012

Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation (or Portrait in Paradox), Harper & Brothers, 1959 (borrow on archive.org

Nester, William The Hamiltonian Vision, 1789-1800, Potomac Books, 2012. 

Randall, Willard Sterne Thomas Jefferson: A Life, Henry Holt and Co. 1993.

Reardon, John J. Edmund Randolph: A Biography, Macmillan, 1975 (borrow on archive.org

Unger, Harlow G. "Mr. President": George Washington and the Making of the Nation's Highest Office, Da Capo Press, 2013.

Warren, Jack D. The Presidency of George Washington, Univ. of Va. Press, 1996 (borrow on archive.org).

Winik, Jay  The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800, HarperCollins, 2007. 

 * As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

 

Sunday, June 14, 2026

ARP390 The Eleventh Amendment

Of the first 12 amendments proposed by James Madison, the ten that were ratified mostly had to do with a restatement of the basic rights that all Americans already assumed they had.  The two structural amendments, one involving more specific rules on representation and another involving limits on Congressional pay raises, both failed to receive enough state support to be ratified.

On February 7, 1795, the states ratified an eleventh amendment to the Constitution.  The amendment read: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Basically this is saying that states have sovereign immunity in lawsuits. This week we will take a look at why the young nation thought this amendment was so important.

Founders and Federalism

The Constitution itself was a compromise document.  The founders, even the men who worked on writing it, did not agree on many issues, and interpreted the final document differently.  Most legal scholars at the time accepted the principle of sovereign immunity.  That is that a sovereign could not be sued in court.  

This principle came from the British common law tradition.  In medieval times, kings ruled as they wished.  Over time, kings or other sovereign leaders developed rules for society and could make judgments about how those rules would apply in particular cases.  Since kings could not be bothered to deal with every dispute that subject had, they appointed judges to make rulings in the king’s name.  In other words, judges hearing court cases were doing so in the name of the king, applying the king’s rules to various legal disputes.  In that context, it made sense that the king could never be sued in court since the king would have to be judged by a representative of the king.  Therefore, the king, as sovereign, was above the law and not subject to it.  

When the states became republics, they inherited this idea of sovereign immunity, holding that an individual could not sue the state in a state court.  The state, as sovereign, was immune from suit.  If people had a dispute with something done by the government, the proper step would be to petition the legislature or the governor for relief, not the courts.

With the creation of the US Constitution, this raised an interesting legal question.  States gave up some sovereign authority to the federal government.  Part of the purpose of the new federal court system was to sit in judgment of disputes between states.  But what if a private citizen in one state had a dispute with another state government?   Would federal courts be able to hear such a case? or would state governments still have immunity from suit?

Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist 81, insisted that the Constitution did nothing to impact the sovereignty of state governments against suits by private citizens.  The fact that the constitution discussed states being parties to a case.  Hamilton insisted that language was so states could bring suits, not that they would be subject to defending them. Hamilton noted that sovereign immunity was a pretty fundamental common law doctrine and the Constitution said nothing explicitly to take that traditional immunity from state governments.

If Courts had the power to give away tax money to claimants, then judges would have the power to take over the legislative power of the purse.  They could even drive states into bankruptcy.  Sovereign immunity was a doctrine considered necessary to allow state governments to govern.  

Chisholm v. Georgia

Despite Hamilton’s firm opinions on this matter, others disagreed.  The doctrine of sovereign immunity put state governments above the law.  They were not obliged to repay debts or be subject to any of the other normal rules that they imposed on others. During the Revolutionary War, states had issued a great many promissory notes to finance the war. They also seized a great deal of loyalist property which, under the terms of the Peace Treaty with Britain, they were legally obligated to pay compensation.

The Constitution gave original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for any cases where the state was a party.  Numerous scholars, including Hamilton, Madison, and John Marshall, provided assurances that this only meant cases where a state brought suit.  These leading legal minds assured skeptics that states could not be sued by individuals, even though the Constitution did not explicitly say that.

Inevitably though, lawyers would challenge those assurances.  The first case brought before the court involved Dutch creditors who were suing Maryland for repayments of war debts.  Maryland ended up settling the case before the immunity question was even raised.

Another case that raised the issue began On October 31, 1777. The governor and executive council of Georgia authorized the purchase of cloth and other military supplies from Robert Farquhar, a South Carolina merchant.  The exact amount of the purchase is confusing since sometimes it is listed in Continental dollars, sometimes in British pounds sterling, and sometimes in South Carolina pounds.  As best I can tell, the value was a little over £7500 British pounds sterling.  That is a lot of money when you consider a typical workman would be lucky to earn £50 pounds in a year.

Georgia needed the supplies for the army.  Under the terms of the agreement, Farquhar would deliver the goods by December 1, and would be paid in Continental dollars.  If dollars were unavailable, he would be paid with the value of the debt in indigo.  Farquhar delivered the goods ahead of schedule but got no payment.  

Like most creditors, Farquhar regularly petitioned for repayment of the debt but got nowhere.  Georgia refused to consider the petition.  

In 1784, Farquhar sailed from Charleston to Georgia, possibly to press his claim with the Georgia legislature. While aboard a ship he was sailing, a boom swung wildly, knocking Farquhar into the water, and resulting in his death by drowning.

Farquhar left his estate to his daughter, who was 10 years old at the time. Alexander Chisholm became the executor of Farquhar’s estate.  Chisholm continued to press Farquhar’s claim for the repayment of the debt that Georgia owed to him.  In 1789, the legislature finally came to the conclusion that they already had paid the money to their state agents, who should have given the money to Farquhar.  If he didn’t get it, he needed to sue the agents, not the state.  One of the agents was dead, and the other was apparently insolvent.

Almost immediately after the federal courts were established in 1791, Chisholm sued Georgia for repayment of the debt.  He brought suit in the Southern Circuit in Georgia, and served the Governor and the Attorney General.  Governor Edward Telfair answered the claim by denying that the federal court had any jurisdiction in the matter since Georgia was an independent and sovereign state.

At the time, Supreme Court Justices, riding circuit, heard such cases with the local federal judges.  Supreme Court Justice James Iredell was riding circuit in Georgia.  Iredell was from North Carolina.  He had been a prosecutor during the war.  During debates on the Constitution, Iredell had been a leading advocate for ratification in North Carolina, a state which was one of the most hostile toward ratification.

North Carolina ratified the Constitution after Washington had already appointed all of the Supreme Court Justices.  But one of those justices, Robert Harrison of Maryland, declined the appointment, leaving the first opening on the court. Washington gave the appointment to Iredell to include North Carolina in the new government and as thanks for all of Iredell’s work in getting the Constitution ratified there.

Iredell, along with district judge Nathan Pendleton, dismissed the case, accepting Georgia’s assertion of sovereign immunity.  Chisholm appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, and hired Attorney General Edmund Randolph to represent him.  At the time, the attorney general could take on private cases, as long as they did not involve the federal government.

The case was docketed for the 1792 term, but Georgia never showed up to argue the case.  As a sovereign entity, the state believed it was not obligated to show up and argue its case before a court that had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Randolph requested that the court render judgment, but the court decided to hold over the case until the 1793 term.  Once again, Georgia did not show up to argue its case.  It sent a written protest to the court that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear a case against a sovereign state.

The Court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with its case.  Randolph made the obvious argument that the Constitution granted jurisdiction to “controversies between a state and citizens of another state.” There was no language that restricted this to cases where the state was the plaintiff.  Randolph also noted that the Judiciary Act also gave jurisdiction to the Court in cases “where a state shall be a party.”  Again, there was no limiting language in the statute, just as there was none in the Constitution.  Congress could have very easily said plaintiff, instead of party, if that is what it wanted.  Finally, Randolph noted that public policy required that states be held accountable to the law.  

One concern raised by the justices was how they might be able to force Georgia to comply with a ruling if they ruled in favor of Chisholm.  Randolph simply responded that courts should not be afraid to render a decision they deemed just simply because one party might act in hostility toward that decision.

At the time, there were only five justices on the court.  Justice Thomas Johnson had just resigned his appointment, and Washington had not yet appointed a replacement.  John Jay was still the Chief Justice.  

One might think that part of the debate would be what the original intent of those who wrote the language into the Constitution?  Original intent was not really a thing at this time, but one of the Justices, James Wilson had been at the convention and had played a role in writing the language regarding the court’s jurisdiction.  It’s notable that, in his opinion, Wilson does not even bring up the question of what people at the convention were thinking when they wrote the parts on jurisdiction.  This is true that no Supreme Court Justice then or after that would ever have a better knowledge of what happend there.

The five justices rendered their decisions fairly quickly.  At the time, it was the convention that each justice would write his own opinion.  There were no majority or minority opinions, and justices did not simply join onto other opinions.

Its probably no surprise that Justice Iredell, who ruled in favor of state sovereignty at the Circuit court, did so again at the Supreme Court.  The other four justices, however, ruled against Georgia.  They ruled that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act both made clear that states could be parties to federal cases and therefore had removed any immunity that might exist under common law.

Chief justice Jay’s opinion went further, arguing that the king’s sovereign immunity transferred to the federal government upon ratification of the Constitution.  States were not entitled to any.

Despite making this ruling that Georgia was subject to the court’s jurisdiction, the justices also gave Georgia another opportunity to appear before the court.  It scheduled another hearing for August 1793, then another for February 1794, and then another for February 1795.  

In the meantime, Randolph began taking on more cases involving claimants against various states.  One of them was William Vassall, who had lived in Boston until he fled in 1775.  Vassal was a loyalist and Massachusetts seized his property.  He was seeking compensation based on the Treaty of Paris.

Reaction

Reaction to the decision was swift and hostile.  Georgia continued its refusal to appear before the court.  In November of 1793, the Georgia legislature passed a resolution declaring that anyone who attempted to enforce the court’s judgment would be guilty of a felony and would be hanged without the benefit of clergy.

Massachusetts also took up the fight since it was facing the claim by Vassall before the court.  Governor John Hancock called a special session of the legislature calling the court’s decision “dangerous to the peace, safety, and independence” of the states.  The Massachusetts legislature declared that it would use the same strategy that Georgia had used, and would refuse to appear before the court in the suit that Vassall had brought.

This would be Governor Hancock’s last public appearance.  He would die soon afterward.

Virginia also passed resolutions which called the decision “incompatible with and dangerous to the sovereignty of the individual states.  Legislators claimed this decision was an effort to consolidate the various republics into a single nation, something that they rejected signing up for when they ratified the Constitution.

All the states had concerns over the fact that creditors who they had been blowing off for years, now had a forum where they could collect on those bills.  Taxpayers would be on the hook, and would not be happy about making all these payments.

Proposing an Amendment

Congress wasted no time responding to the criticism.  The Supreme Court issued its decision on February 18, 1793.  On February 19th, Massachusetts Congressman Theodore Sedgwick introduced a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting states from being called as defendants in federal court.  The next day, February 20, Senator Caleb Strong, also from Massachusetts, submitted a similar amendment.

Neither the House nor the Senate acted on these proposals since the term ended in early March, and there simply was not enough time to deal with them.  The Senate debated Strong’s proposed amendment, but it never got to a vote.

The third Congress did not meet until nearly a year later, in January of 1794.  When it did, proponents were ready to act quickly.  The Senate received a proposed amendment, based on Senator Strong’s amendment from the prior year.  The new proposal read:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

The main difference was adding the wording that the judicial power shall not be construed to, rather than simply saying that there was no such judicial power. This seemed to be aimed at the Supreme Court, essentially saying that their interpretation of the Constitution in Chisholm was wrong.

There was some debate on the substance. Senator Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania proposed a change that would have allowed suits that arose to enforce terms of foreign treaties.  The argument for this was that international affairs was a federal power, and states should not have the ability to interfere with federal treaties by ignoring their obligations under them.  Of course, the real world application of this change would have allowed the federal courts to hear cases from loyalists who had their property confiscated during the war, because the Treaty of Paris gave them the right to make these claims. This would have allowed Vassall’s case against Massachusetts to go forward, even though that state was up in arms at the idea of having to do that.  The Senate overwhelmingly rejected Gallatin’s proposed change.

As I mentioned when we covered the Whiskey Rebellion, Gallatin would be kicked out of the Senate less than two months into the session.  This was not related to his unpopular proposal.  It was because the Senate determined that he had not been a US citizen for the required nine years.  But Gallatin was clearly not making friends among his Senators when he made this proposal.

The amendment as originally proposed, passed the Senate by a vote of 23 to 2, less than two weeks after its introduction.

Following passage in the Senate, the proposed Amendment reached the House of Representatives.  The debate there focused on the fact that people with a legitimate claim needed to have some forum to seek compensation.  There was a proposed change that would have restricted the jurisdiction of federal courts only in states where the state had failed to provide for jurisdiction in its own state court system.

Once again though, the overwhelming position of most representatives was that the federal government should not meddle in any way in how states handled their liability to suits.  The proposed change was voted down overwhelmingly, and the House passed the amendment as originally written in the Senate on March 4 by an overwhelming vote of 81-9.

Ratification

Following congressional approval the amendment went to the states for ratification.  There were 15 states at the time, so 12 would be needed for the necessary three-fourths ratification. 

New York and Rhode Island legislatures ratified the amendment in March, the same month that Congress had approved the amendment.  Over the course of the summer, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Massachusetts ratified it.  The delay in other states was primarily the fact that the state legislatures in those states were not in session at the time.  Within a year, twelve states had ratified.  The 12th state to do so was North Carolina in February of 1795.  

There was a delay, however, in making the ratification official.  Several of the states that ratified the amendment failed to give official notice to Congress.  In 1797, two years after ratification was complete, Congress passed a resolution asking President Adams to inquire into the matter and get each state to provide notice.  

By this time, 1797, South Carolina also ratified the amendment, perhaps to make sure the requisite number of votes were there.  By this time Tennessee had joined the Union as the 16th state.  As a result of that, the required number of states for ratification would have risen to thirteen.  South Carolina’s ratification provided that 13th vote.

As it turned out, that vote was not necessary.  The various states reported that they had ratified the amendment before Tennessee joined the Union so the 12 ratifications were sufficient.  In case you were wondering, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were the only two of the 15 not to ratify the amendment at the time.

Case Dismissed

The formal proclamation of the amendment’s ratification did not take place until February of 1798.  The Court kept the Chisholm case on the docket in limbo during the four years it took since it was simply waiting for formal word on the amendment.

In the meantime, parties had brought other cases against states.  One of these was Hollingworth v. Virginia.  The Supreme Court used that case to render its decision that the Eleventh amendment applied retroactively to all cases, and that any case brought against a state must be dismissed.

As a result of the amendment, the court dismissed Chisholm’s case against Georgia.  He would simply have to wait until Georgia felt like paying him back.

Next week, we will cover the first big scandal of the Washington Administration, and the resignation of President Washington’s first cabinet.

 - - -

Next Episode 391 Washington Cabinet Scandal and Resignations 

Previous Episode 389 Battle of Fallen Timbers

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  https://merch.amrevpodcast.com


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to ad-free episodes, podcast extras, and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

Websites

Historical Background on Eleventh Amendment https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt11-2/ALDE_00013676

Federalist No. 81 (Hamilton): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed81.asp

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419

James Iredell: https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/james-iredell-sr-1751-1799

Robert Farquhar (1743-1784): https://www.trezevantfamilyproject.com/generation-3/robert-farquhar-1743-1784elizabeth-fagan-1747-1773

Money refunded to the State of Georgia, 1883: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SERIALSET-02087_00_00-037-0914-0000/pdf/SERIALSET-02087_00_00-037-0914-0000.pdf

Mathis, Doyle. “Chisholm v. Georgia: Background and Settlement.” The Journal of American History, vol. 54, no. 1, 1967, pp. 19–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1900316.

Barnett, Randy E. “The People or the State?: Chisholm V. Georgia and Popular Sovereignty.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 93, no. 7, 2007, pp. 1729–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25050394

Fordham, Jeff B. “IREDELL’S DISSENT IN CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA: ITS POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE.” The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 8, no. 2, 1931, pp. 155–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23516335

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Monaghan, Frank John Jay, Defender of Liberty, New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1935. 

Smith, Donald L. John Jay; Founder of a State and Nation, NY: Teacher’s College Press, 1968 (borrow only). 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

 Benner, David Compact of the Republic, Life & Liberty Publishing Group, 2014. 

Bowling, Kenneth R. (ed) The House and Senate in the 1790s: Petitioning, Lobbying, and Institutional Development, Ohio Univ. Press, 2002. 

Dillon, Mark. C. The First Chief Justice: John Jay and the Struggle of a New Nation, State University of New York Press, 2022. 

Labach, William The Supreme Court Fails Its First Test: Chisholm v. Georgia, VDM Verlag, 2009. 

Stahr, Walter John Jay: Founding Father, Bloomsbury Academic, 2005. 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sunday, June 7, 2026

ARP389 Battle of Fallen Timbers

We last checked in on the Northwest Territory in Episode 376.  When the native Americans defeated an army under the command of Arthur St. Clair that had been sent to quash Indian resistance.  St. Clair’s defeat at the Battle of the Wabash in 1791 came a year after the army led by General Harmar had been defeated in 1790.

The US government was insistent on settling the territory north of the Ohio River.  It needed those lands to keep promises to veterans of the Revolutionary War, and as revenue to pay off its war debts.  The Native tribes who lived there were just as determined to stop the settlements.

Glaize Convention

Following their victory over St. Clair’s army, the Indians hoped to capitalize on their military victory by forming a larger confederation that could unite to keep the Americans at bay.  They sent messengers to contact tribes from New York to what is today Mississippi calling on tribes to send delegates to a Grand Council to organize a defense.

The Battle of Fallen Timbers
The Miamis who were based out of Kekionga, what is today Fort Wayne, Indiana opted to move east into Ohio to the area that is today Defiance, Ohio.  They called it The Glaze, which derived from a French term meaning “place with clay soil.” Their more aggressive position was in part to counter the American move into the region.  It was also closer to British resources, who could provide weapons and material for their ongoing fight.  

The British still occupied Fort Detroit, which was supposed to be abandoned as part of the peace treaty ending the Revolution.  But they did not.  Detroit became a central point for British organization of Indians throughout the Northwest Territory.

In the fall of 1792, delegates from at least 30 tribes met at the Glaize to discuss organization and strategy.  Also present was Alexander McKee, the British Indian agent from Detroit.  The British were there as observers and also to provide provisions, but the strategy discussions were up to the tribal delegates.

Among the delegates were several leaders from the Iroquois Confederation.  The Iroquois had traditionally demanded all negotiating authority with the colonists on behalf of the tribes.  Following the Revolution though, the Iroquois Confederation had been devastated and divided.  It no longer had the power to force its will on other tribes.  Further, it had many deals with the Americans that gave up a great deal of Indian territories in hopes of saving the Iroquois tribal lands in upstate New York.  As a result, many of the other tribes resented the Iroquois delegates and did not trust them.

One Iroquois delegate, a Seneca leader named Red Jacket, brought with him a peace proposal from President Washington.  This proposal confirmed the borders that had been agreed to at the Treaty of Fort Harmar back in 1789.  It gave the Americans control of about two-thirds of the southern and eastern parts of what is today Ohio.

The problem with this treaty is that most of the tribes present had rejected it.  A few chiefs who had agreed to the treaty did not have the authority to do so.  The US, however, considered the treaty borders to be binding, although Washington offered additional financial compensation to any tribes who felt wronged by the treaty.

Most of the delegates rejected the proposal out of hand.  Shawnee representatives also revealed papers, captured at St. Clair’s defeat, showing that the US intended to build forts far beyond the borders set at Fort Harmar and the US goal of forcing all warriors to become farm laborers.

The Shawnee, Miami and Delaware all insisted that the Ohio River must remain the final and permanent boundary.  This denied the Americans access to any land in what is today the State of Ohio.  It would mean towns already built there would have to be removed.  Several delegates from Canada, including Joseph Brandt, suggested maybe there could be some compromise between all the land the Americans demanded and complete control of Ohio, but the hardliners rejected any compromise.

The British advisors present encouraged that the Council take the position that the Ohio River should remain the border, but that further negotiations with the US could take place, with the British acting as mediators.

The Council ended with the agreement that they would fight for the Ohio River as the border, but that they would also agree to a meeting with US officials to discuss the matter the following spring.  In the meantime, they would cease hostile activity against frontier settlements in the disputed territory.  A prerequisite for any discussion with the Americans, however, had to be an agreement that they would accept the Ohio River as the border.

Anthony Wayne’s Legion

As the Indians prepared to contest control of Ohio, so did the US.  As I mentioned back in Episode 377, President Washington appointed General Mad Anthony Wayne to take command of a newly enlarged army, dubbed the Legion on the United States.  Wayne received this appointment in the spring of 1792, shortly after word arrived of St. Claire’s defeat at the Battle of the Wabash.

Legion at Fallen Timbers
Most of Wayne’s battlefield experience came against British regulars and loyalists during the Revolutionary War.  He did, however, lead a pitched battle against Creek warriors in Georgia near the end of the Revolution.  Wayne had also lived on the frontier for most of his life.  He understood Indian warfare.

Wayne spent two years building and training his legion to go to battle in Ohio.  He was not going to go into battle with raw troops.  He wanted soldiers who knew what they were doing.  He arrived at Fort Pitt in the summer of 1792 with only a few dozen recruits.  Wayne began training and holding mock battles.  Over time more recruits arrived from across the country.  By late November he had about 1900 men.  He was authorized to have an army of 5000, but low pay and the difficult and dangerous life of a regular soldier kept enlistments from coming anywhere near this goal.  

At first, he established Fort Fayette, near Pittsburgh, but by November, he moved his army about 22 miles down the Ohio River to an area he dubbed Legionville.  He wanted to get his men away from civilians and the vices of whiskey and women that Pittsburgh offered.  Wayne was not a puritan, he often offered whiskey as a reward for various contests, but the civilian temptations were too much of a distraction.  

The Legion trained for Indian warfare.  This included open order drill to fight in forests and heavy use of the bayonet, which Wayne believed could defeat the tomahawks and rifles that they expected to face.  

In the spring of 1793, after spending the winter at Legionville, the legion moved deep into Ohio territory to Fort Washington, which is modern day Cincinnati. Wayne established a new camp near the fort which he called “Hobson’s Choice” because it was the only good high ground in the area.  The soldiers continued to drill every day, holding mock battles on Sundays.  Training here focused on coordinating infantry, riflemen, dragoons and artillery to work together, also getting the men to respond to drum and bugle signals.

Peace Commission

While the army continued to prepare, President Washington sent a peace commission to meet with the tribes.  The commission consisted of Secretary of War Henry Knox, former Virginia Governor Beverley Randolph, and Timothy Pickering who was, at the time, serving as Postmaster General.  The commission met in upper Canada, with Lieutenant Governor John Grave Simcoe serving as host and ensuring the protection of the commission.

Map of Treaty of Fort Harmar Land Cession 
The Commission arrived in May, 1793.  They had to wait for months while messengers distributed the call to bring Indian representatives to the table. Simcoe deliberately delayed the process, having the Indians meet with British agents to advise them that the Americans were not offering acceptable terms.  

Simcoe was also awaiting word from London. Governor Dorchester was returning to Canada with new instructions.  Simcoe did not want any deal struck before promises of British military support for the Indians might arrive. In the meantime, Simcoe treated the commissioners to every hospitality, even inviting them to a celebration of the king’s birthday.

When word arrived that the US legion had moved to Fort Washington, present day Cincinnati, the Indians took this as an aggression.  Simcoe warned the commission not to use military escorts to supply outposts at Fort Hamilton and Fort Jefferson or that aggression would end the talks before they began.  Knox sent word to Wayne to stay put, but also said the army should be ready to move the moment the talks failed.  Wayne, however, ignored the orders, believing that sending supply trains without protection deep in Indian territory would be inviting disaster.

The Indians met at a village near the commissioners where they tried to develop a unified response before meeting with the commissioners.  Iroquois leader Joseph Brant once again tried to broker a new border, giving up some lands north of the Ohio River, but not as much as the Americans wanted.  The other chiefs, much like they had at the Grand Council the year before, rejected this idea.  They would settle for nothing but the Ohio River as the border.

The Commissioners, tired of waiting, borrowed a small schooner, the Dunmore, hoping to sail across Lake Erie to Detroit.  Thanks to bad winds, they ended up landing on the southern coast of Lake Erie.  They eventually met up with several of the Indian delegations, including Brant.  The Indians were upset that Wayne was setting up massive supplies at the forward outposts.  These supplies were far more than the garrisons would need, so it was clearly preparation for an American invasion.  Once again, Knox wrote to Wayne telling him to back off.  Once again, Wayne refused, writing back to say he had orders to plan for an attack and these preparations were necessary to fulfill those orders.

Perhaps before getting Wayne’s response, the Commissioners assured the Indian delegates that Wayne had orders to pull back and would be doing so soon.  They laid out their proposal, requiring the Indians to give up the two-thirds of Ohio, as agreed at Fort Harmar years earlier.  In order to compensate tribes who had refused to agree to that treaty, the US promised an upfront payment of $50,000 plus another $10,000 per year in ongoing payments.

Talks continued for a few days, but neither side seemed to be giving in on any important issue.  Finally, at the end of July. The Indian delegates asked the commissioners directly whether they were authorized under any circumstances to set the Ohio River boundary under any circumstances.  The Commissioners said no, they had no authorization to do that.  About two weeks later, made clear that they would not abide by any treaties signed since 1783.  From their point of view, they had already given up the entire eastern seaboard to the Americans.  They were drawing the line at the Ohio River and would not permit the Americans to go any further.

Their final response said, “we desire you to consider Brothers that our only demand is the peaceable possession of a small part of our once great Country. Look back and view the lands from whence we have been driven to this spot, we can retreat no further, because the country behind hardly affords food for its present inhabitants. And we have therefore resolved, to leave our bones in this small space, to which we are now confined."

With that, the conference came to an end. On August 23, Knox sent a coded message to Wayne that talks had ended.  This was authorization to begin the military campaign.

The Army Advances

Wayne received Knox’s message in September. He moved the Legion north in October, closer to the Native centers of power.  They built fort Greeneville, named in honor of Nathaniel Greene, about 85 miles south of the Glaize, where the Indians had held their grand council a year earlier.  In addition to building the fort, drills continued all winter.

Anthony Wayne

Nearly two months later, on Christmas Day, 1793 the army moved another 20 miles north to the site of St. Clair’s defeat.  They built Fort Recovery on the site.

Wayne had been authorized to raise a legion of over 5000 soldiers.  But by the end of 1793, his army was only around 2000 men.  To compensate, Congress authorized him to raise a militia auxiliary of up to 1500 Kentuckians.  The communities of Kentucky had been hit hard by Indian attacks.  Leading this auxiliary force was Charles Scott, an experienced major general during the Revolutionary War.  After the war, Scott had settled in Kentucky on over 20,000 acres of land granted to him for his military service.

Like most settlers, Scott had regular run-ins with Indian raiding parties.  He had watched Indians scalp and kill his son while he was standing across the Ohio River.  In the early 1790’s he had helped to raise fighting units to assist the army in the Northwest territory.  Scott had led a force of Kentucky volunteers during the Harmar Campaign in 1790.  Indians killed another of his sons in that campaign.  In 1791, Scott led the Blackberry campaign into Ohio territory, designed to distract Indians away from St. Clair’s expedition.   In 1792, Scot led another campaign across the Ohio River designed to ensure that the Indians understood that St. Clair’s defeat did not mean settlers were unwilling to continue the fight.

Scott began organizing for the next campaign and to coordinate with Wayne’s legion in the summer of 1793.  Over 1000 mounted volunteers reached Fort Hamilton that fall.  When it became clear that not military actions would take place until the following summer, most of the Kentucky volunteers simply went home again.

In July 1794, the Kentuckians mustered again, even while the Peace Commission continued to meet in Detroit.  They reached Fort Greeneville on July 25, and joined up with the Legion by the beginning of August.  The joint forces established Fort Adams, pushing even further into Indian Territory.

With this 2000 strong legion and about 1500 mounted Kentucky volunteers, Wayne had an army of about 3500 men.  On August 3, a tree fell on his tent, nearly killing Wayne. Although badly injured, he continued to lead his army, although he could not mount a horse without help.

A few days later, on August 8, the army reached the Glaize, the site of the Indian’s Grand Council and a major Indian population center. The locals had fled.  The army established Fort Defiance on the ground.  Wayne was essentially daring the Indians to take it back.

Indian Strategy

During this advance into their territory, the tribal leaders were not just sitting around and watching.  In the spring of 1794, they convinced the British to establish Fort Miamis near present day Toledo, Ohio, in order to operate as a forward base of support for the warriors.

Battle of Fallen Timbers
The leadership among the Indians could not agree on a strategy.  The Miami war chief Little Turtle, who had commanded forces at St. Clair’s defeat, wanted to avoid a direct assault.  He suggested continually raiding supply convoys, which would eventually starve out the string of forts and force the Americans to withdraw.  Little Turtle knew that Wayne, who the Indians had dubbed “Black Snake” was an active leader who would be hard to defeat in battle.  He also may have supported suggestions of allowing the Americans to attack Fort Miamis, thus sparking a direct war between Britain and the US.

Many of the warriors, however, wanted a more aggressive plan.  They rallied around the Shawnee Chief Blue Jacket.  There have been stories that Blue Jacket was actually a white man who had been captured and adopted by the tribe as a child.  But this claim seems to be disputed.  He was raised as a Shawnee.

However Blue Jacket did marry two white women.  He had built an estate at the Glaize, where he farmed and owned slaves who helped to manage his plantation.  The source of his wealth was primarily operating as a middleman between Canadian merchants and Indian hunters selling furs.  Ironically, Blue Jacket usually wore a red jacket, a British officers coat.

Blue Jacket accused Little Turtle of cowardice for refusing to attack the Legion.  Little Turtle refused to lead warriors into a losing battle. He turned over command to Blue Jacket.  Little Turtle would fight alongside the warriors, but refused to lead them into what he regarded as a disaster.

Fort Recovery

On June 30, 1794, Blue Jacket led an army of about 1500 warriors against Fort Recovery, built on the site of St. Claire’s defeat.  Unaware of the imminent attack, a supply convoy of nearly 150 soldiers left the fort in the morning, having dropped off supplies.

The Indians ambushed the convoy, killing many of the soldiers, including the commander, Major William McMahon.  Fort commander Captain Alexander Gibson sent a contingent of 20 men from the fort to provide covering fire so the survivors of the convoy could retreat back to the fort.

The Indians tried to pursue the retreating convoy members but were shot down by defenders behind the fort walls.  The Indians withdrew, only to regroup for a night attack on the fort.  Defenders repelled the attack, and also repelled a third attack the following morning.

According to some reports, British soldiers were with the Indians, but did not participate in the actual battle. During the attack, they were searching to dig up buried cannons that St. Claire’s Army had hidden after that army’s defeat.  The garrison suffered about 100 casualties, with an estimated 150 casualties among the Indians.  The main fallout from the battle was that the Shawnee accused other tribes of cowardice in refusing to join the assault on the fort.  As a result, many of those warriors, particularly the Lake Indians from Canada, simply packed up and left.

Battle of Fallen Timbers

A week after the battle, Wayne was still moving forward, establishing Fort Defiance on August 8.  A week after that, the Legion began marching further north toward the British Fort Miamis.  On August 18th, they built Fort Deposit just a few miles from Fort Miamis.  The purpose of Fort Deposit was literally to deposit their supplies and equipment so that the army could go into battle.

Fallen Timbers Battle Map
Two days later, August 20th, the army began marching forward again.  They entered an area where a tornado had recently knocked down most of the trees.  As a battalion of Kentucky scouts entered the area, a line of Indians opened fire from behind the fallen trees. The Indians then rose up and charged the scouts.  The Kentuckians who were not killed fled in retreat.  An advance guard of infantry provided covering fire to slow down the Indian’s pursuit.

Wayne, expecting an attack somewhere, immediately deployed his lines. General James Wilkinson commanded the right wing of the Legion.  Colonel John Hamtrack commanded the left wing.

Wayne had given his commanders stranding orders to meet any Indian attacks with a bayonet charge.  That is what happened. The Indians were used to Americans firing at them from lines, so the bayonet charged unnerved many of them, forcing an Indian retreat.  The legion then brought up artillery to support the infantry, and used the cavalry to run down and kill retreating warriors. 

The entire battle only lasted only 60-80 minutes.  The retreating Indians fled back to Fort Miamis, only to find the gates locked.  The British Commander, Major William Campbell ordered the gates closed.  Britain was neutral in this fight and he would not provide harbor for fleeing combatants.  Campbell knew that doing so would probably result in an American attack on his fort.  The Indians continued their retreat back toward Lake Erie.

Following the battle, General Wayne personally rode up to the walls of Fort Miamis, practically daring the British garrison to fire on him.  The British withheld fire.  The Americans set about burning all of the Indian villages and British storehouses around the fort but did not attack the fort directly.

After destroying whatever they wanted, the Americans withdrew back to Fort Defiance.  Casualties were relatively light, about 150 killed or wounded among the Americans.  Wayne reported finding about 40 Indian corpses, with an unknown number of dead or wounded carried off by their comrades.

The result, however, was that the US Army had defeated the Indians and was in control of the Ohio territory.

Next week, Congress adds an eleventh amendment to the Constitution

 - - -

Next Episode 390 The Eleventh Amendment 

Previous Episode 388 The Age of Reason

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  https://merch.amrevpodcast.com


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to ad-free episodes, podcast extras, and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

The Battle of Fallen Timbers” American Heritage, Vol. 9, Issue 4, June 1958: https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-fallen-timbers

The Battle of Fallen Timbers, 20 August 1794: https://armyhistory.org/the-battle-of-fallen-timbers-20-august-1794

Historical Overview of the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/historical-overview-of-fallen-timbers-battlefield-and-fort-miamis.htm

General Wayne’s Report to War Department about the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Aug. 28, 1794: https://wardepartmentpapers.org/document/47769

VIDEO: The Battle of Fallen Timbers: https://www.c-span.org/clip/interview/the-battle-of-fallen-timbers/4824869

The Battle of the Wabash and the Battle of Fort Recovery: Mapping the Battlefield Landscape: https://www.bsu.edu/-/media/www/departmentalcontent/aal/aalpdfs/abpp%20composite%20map%20document%20final.pdf

Treaty of Greeneville (full text): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/greenvil.asp

Blair, Bryce D. The Battle of Fallen Timbers and the Treaty of Fort Greeneville, Univ. of Toledo [Master’s Thesis] 2005: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=toledo1125440393&disposition=inline

Kent, Charles A., and A. M. “The Treaty of Greenville. August 3, 1795.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1908-1984), vol. 10, no. 4, 1918, pp. 568–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40190685

Nelson, Paul David. “‘Mad’ Anthony Wayne and the Kentuckians of the 1790s.” The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, vol. 84, no. 1, 1986, pp. 1–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23381138

Quaife, M. M. “General James Wilkinson’s Narrative of the Fallen Timbers Campaign.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 16, no. 1, 1929, pp. 81–90. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1898529

Robb, H. L. “‘Mad Anthony’ Wayne’s Campaign Against the Indians in Ohio 1792-1794.” The Military Engineer, vol. 13, no. 72, 1921, pp. 474–77. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44605454

Rusche, Timothy M. “Treachery Within The United States Army.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, vol. 65, no. 4, 1998, pp. 478–91. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27774142

Seelinger, Matthew J. “‘Mad’ Anthony’s Finest Hour: The Battle of Fallen Timbers.” On Point, vol. 8, no. 3, 2002, pp. 11–1. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44610171

Tucker, Patrick M.. “From Fallen Timbers to the British Evacuation of Detroit, 1794-1796: The Roman Catholic Priest Who Was a British Agent.” Michigan Historical Review, vol. 37, no. 1, 2011, pp. 40–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0041

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Little Turtle, Chief of the Miami, Public Library of Fort Wayne and Allen County, 1954. 

Gunckel, John E. Early History of the Maumee Valley, Toledo: Henry M. Schmit: 1913. 

Smith, Dwight L. From Greene Ville to Fallen Timbers: A Journal of the Wayne Campaign, July 28-September 14, 1794, Indianapolis, Indiana Historical Society, 1952. 

Spears, John R. Anthony Wayne, New York: D. Appleton and Co. 1903. 

Young, Calvin M. Little Turtle (Me-she-kin-no-quah): The Great Chief of the Miami Indian Nation, Public Library of Fort Wayne and Allen County, 1917 (1956 reprint). 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Carter, Harvey L. The Life and Times of Little Turtle: First Sagamore of the Wabash, Univ. of Ill. Press, 1986. 

Eckert, Allen W. Blue Jacket: War Chief of the Shawnees, Landfall Press, 1983. 

Gaff, Alan D. Bayonets in the Wilderness: Anthony Wayne’s Legion in the Old Northwest, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 2004. 

Hogeland, William Autumn of the Black Snake: The Creation of the U.S. Army and the Invasion That Opened the West, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017. 

Hurt, R. Douglas The Ohio Frontier: Crucible of the Old Northwest, 1720–1830, Indiana Univ. Press, 1996. (Chapter on fallen Timbers available on JSTOR).

Nelson, Paul D. Anthony Wayne: Soldier of the Early Republic, Indiana Univ. Press, 1985. 

Stockwell, Mary Unlikely General: "Mad" Anthony Wayne and the Battle for America, Yale Univ. Press 2018. 

Sugden, John Blue Jacket: Warrior of the Shawnees, Univ. of Nebraska Press, 2000. 

Sword, Wiley President Washington's Indian War : the struggle for the Old Northwest, 1790-1795, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1985. 

Westrick, Dave, The Battle of Fallen Timbers, The History Press, 2025. 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.