American Revolution Podcast

Sunday, April 4, 2021

ARP195 Courts Martial of Lee, St. Clair, & Schuyler

When the Second Continental Congress created the Continental army in 1775, it appointed Charles Lee as the number three commander, behind only George Washington and Artemas Ward. General Ward had commanded the New England Army prior. As a lieutenant colonel in the British Regulars, and who had served as a general in other European armies, Lee seemed to be the most experienced officer in the new Continental Army. Many thought he would be a better commander than George Washington. Lee certainly counted himself among that group.

When the British captured General Lee in late 1776, many on both sides thought the war was finished. The Americans had lost their only general with any real experience. The army, however, managed to struggle on. When Lee returned to the army after being exchanged in the spring of 1778, he returned to a much different army. The generals, who had only been militia commanders at the beginning of the war, by 1778 had nearly three years of combat experience. The soldiers had received training under General von Steuben at Valley Forge. They looked and felt much more like a professional army.

Lee’s time in British captivity was perhaps responsible for the fact that he did not appreciate the changes that had taken place. He was unwilling to concede the idea that perhaps he was not head and shoulders above all the other Continental officers.

Lee Bungles Monmouth

As we heard in Episode 188, Lee opposed Washington’s wish to attack the British as they retreated from Philadelphia to New York in June of 1778. Washington, however, not quite as star-struck as he once was by Lee’s military experience, proceeded with the attack anyway. He put General Lafayette in command of the lead force and followed behind himself with the rest of the army.

Not wanting to be left out of the action, Lee requested that he be given command of the advance force that he had refused to take earlier. Washington acceded to this request and General Lee led the army into an attack at Monmouth Courthouse in New Jersey.

On the morning of June 28th, General Lee moved forward with his army to confront the British rearguard. Within hours though, Lee and his army were in full retreat. General Washington was stunned to see his army running away from what had not even really become a battle yet. The usually imperturbable Washington was, well, perturbed. He angrily confronted Lee on the field. A stunned Lee said almost nothing. Washington asserted command of the field and battled the British army for the rest of the day.

Lee Court Martial

When the fighting ended at Monmouth, Lee had to defend his actions. After a loss in battle, or even poor performance in a winning battle, it was not unusual for officers to face court martial or at least some formal inquiry. Major General John Sullivan had recently faced a court martial and been acquitted for his actions at Brandywine. In many cases generals requested, or even demanded, a court martial in order to dispel lingering doubts or derogatory gossip about their performance.

Charles Lee

That said, the consequences of a court martial could be pretty serious. Congress had recently cashiered Major General Adam Stephen for his less than stellar performance at Germantown a few months earlier. Some articles of war called for the death penalty. Although no Continental generals were executed during the war, Admiral John Byng of the British Navy faced a firing squad twenty years prior for failing to do his utmost before the enemy at Minorca. Lee could have faced similar charges that carried the death penalty. Things, however, did not go that far for him.

Lee actually did request court martial, although I think that was in the heat of the moment. He probably regretted doing so shortly thereafter. Rather than work out the matter with the commander, Lee chose to make the dispute into a contest with Washington to decide who was a better military commander.

When the court convened several weeks after the battle of Monmouth, General Alexander, Lord Stirling, served as presiding officer of the court martial. Stirling was also known to be a Washington loyalist. Stirling had been the first officer to alert Washington to the Conway Cabal and had helped him put down that attempt to replace the commander.

Normally, then as now, a court martial would consist of officers who were more senior than the accused. However, since George Washington was the only commander senior to Lee (General Ward had already retired), that was impossible. In fact, several brigadiers and colonels sat on the court martial.

The prosecutor was John Laurence the same man who had ended General Adam Stephen’s career at a court martial a few months earlier. As was the norm, General Lee defended himself, without counsel.

Charges Against Lee

The court considered three charges against Lee: 1. Disobeying orders to attack the enemy, 2. Misbehavior before the enemy, in making an unnecessary, disorderly and shameful retreat, and 3. Disrespect to the commander-in-chief, in two letters written after the battle.

Lee defended himself reasonably well. The first charge, disobeying orders to attack, seemed to come from the idea that Washington had ordered this attack and that Lee was opposed. Nevertheless, Lee took command but then failed to make any serious attack after advancing toward the enemy.

Gen. Lee with dog

As a legal charge against him, however, this did not stand. First, Washington never gave Lee absolute orders to attack. As Washington always did, he left his field commander with discretion to use his best judgment based on the situation that he found on the field. As Lee put it: “to disobey discretionary orders . . . is as absolutely impossible as to kill a dead man.” In other words, discretionary orders permitted him to use his discretion.

The second charge of making an unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat came from the notion that Washington had come across men streaming away from the enemy and no one seemed to know what was happening.

There was a rather disorderly retreat that day, but Lee probably was not responsible for it. General Charles Scott who was in charge of the center of the Continental line seemed to think that Lee was retreating, when in fact Lee was advancing. Scott then ordered his men to retreat and convinced his superior, Gen. William Maxwell to join the retreat. By the time Lee discovered that the center of his line was missing, he had no choice but to retreat himself or have his army captured by a superior force.

The third charge, disrespect to the commander in chief. Was probably the easiest to prove. First, Lee had been rather disrespectful to Washington almost since the beginning. Lee was always disrespectful to all of his superior officers, even when he served in the British regular army. It was common practice for officers to indicate they could do a better job than those above them. That was the path to promotion. But such criticism required a certain amount of subtlety and respect shown to their superiors while they were doing it. Lee had a real problem with subtlety.

Lee argued that the two disrespectful letters that he had sent to Washington after the battle were a response to the unfounded charges against him. He believed that he had a right to be indignant at the accusations and basically asked for some understanding at his temper tantrum.

Lee Found Guilty

The trial took several weeks and had to be adjourned and restarted several times as the army moved. It concluded in mid-August with a finding that Lee was guilty on all three counts. The court martial ordered that Lee be suspended from service for one year. Experts have noted that the one-year suspension is rather light given the charges. General Adam Stephen was cashiered for less, only a few months earlier. Theoretically, the charges against Lee could have carried the death penalty.

Many historians believe that the court found Lee guilty on all three charges, mostly out of loyalty to Washington, but that the punishment was really, just for the third charge, disrespect of the commander. Since Washington was an interested party to the trial, he did not approve the finding himself. Instead, he forwarded the results to the Continental Congress for approval. A few months later, Congress upheld the conviction and the penalty. The matter was of great debate and delegates were divided, many opposed to Lee’s conviction. But in the end, Congress opted to back Washington. Lee returned home to Virginia.

In the end, the punishment seemed to be less about Lee’s performance at Monmouth, and more about his unwillingness to show deference to the commander-in-chief. Washington was still working to solidify his command following the Conway Cabal. He needed to establish his authority over the army. He was still contending with General Horatio Gates. General Conway had only resigned a few months earlier. Washington could not add Lee to his list of opponents among his top commanders.

Lee-Laurens Duel

Following the suspension, Lee did not learn his lesson. He continued to try to justify his actions by bad mouthing Congress and Washington. He published his defenses in the newspapers. These caused great offense to a number of other officers.

John Laurens

Washington’s aide, Colonel John Laurens, challenged Lee to a duel for the attack on the commander in chief. The two men fought a duel on Christmas Eve, 1778, with Colonel Alexander Hamilton serving as Laurens’ second. Laurens wounded Lee on the first shot. Lee said the wound was minor and called for a second round of firing. However, the seconds at the duel managed to calm tensions and ended the duel.

Lee also nearly got into duels with Generals Wilhelm von Steuben and Anthony Wayne. Lee, however, manages to calm tempers with those to men and avoided appearing on the field of honor with either of them.

Lee even challenged a member of the Continental Congress, Charles Drayton of South Carolina, to a duel. The two men had a bad history, and Drayton had repeated the accusations made against Lee at the court martial. Drayton however, demurred and did not accept Lee’s challenge.

Lee Resigns

Despite the duels, Lee continued to write publicly attacking Washington and other leaders during his one-year suspension. A year later, as his suspension was coming to an end, Congress proposed terminating Lee’s services permanently. The motion was close, but failed. Lee, however, heard about the motion and dashed off an angry letter to Congress, including an offer to resign.

A few days later, Lee thought better of his angry letter, and wrote back saying that he had been intemperate and wished not to resign. The letters, however, convinced Congress that Lee had not learned his lesson, and would never show the proper respect for Washington or Congress. The delegates voted to accept Lee’s resignation and terminate his services in the Continental Army.

St. Clair Court Martial

When the army concluded the Lee court martial, it turned its attention to two other major generals who were still facing judgment. The loss of Fort Ticonderoga a year earlier, without a shot fired, had resulted in great indignation, particularly in Congress, for the military commanders in charge at the fort. Arthur St. Clair, who had been in command of the fort and who had ordered the retreat, said at the time that he had to choose between saving his reputation and saving his army. He chose the latter, but then had to deal with the blow to his reputation. Philip Schuyler, who had been in command of the Northern Army at the time, also had to answer for the command decisions that led to the loss of Fort Ticonderoga.

Arthur St. Clair

In August 1778, a court martial took up the matter of St. Clair. The tone of this court martial seemed to be very different than that of General Lee’s. One of the big differences was that St. Clair still had General Washington’s support.

Up until the loss of Fort Ticonderoga in 1777, St. Clair had been an up and coming officer in the Continental army. He had served as a captain in the British regulars during the French and Indian War, and had been an early supporter of the patriot cause in Pennsylvania. St. Clair did not receive a commission in the Continental Army until August of 1776, when Pennsylvania began to send significant numbers of soldiers to the Continental Army, which was by that time in New York.

His leadership in the New York campaign and the Princeton campaign led to his promotion to major general less than a year later. His independent command at Fort Ticonderoga in mid-June, 1777 was a sign of confidence in this up and coming officer. Three weeks later, St. Clair believed his military career was over as his men marched away from the fort, escaping the British attackers under General Burgoyne.

Since that time, St. Clair did not receive another command. He remained with Washington at Valley Forge, advising the commanders and serving as a staff officer. However, he remained under a cloud for his actions at Ticonderoga. Unlike the Lee court martial, which began just a few days after the battle of Monmouth, St. Clair’s fate lingered with Congress for a year. In August 1777, Congress formed a committee to investigate what happened. That committee reported in February, 1778. Then there were a series of other delays so that Congress did not direct that Washington conduct the court martials until June of 1778. By that time, Washington was in the middle of planning his attack on the British who were retreating from Philadelphia. Following the battle of Monmouth, Washington wanted to get the Lee trial done first, before finally giving the court time to begin St. Clair’s trial in August.

General Benjamin Lincoln presided over the court martial, which took place in New York. At the time, the Continentals were besieging British occupied New York City. Lincoln had received his appointment as a major general on the same day as General St. Clair. He had been among the officers who took command of the northern army under General Gates following the loss of Ticonderoga. Four brigadiers and eight colonels also served on the court. John Laurence, the same officer who had prosecuted Lee, also prosecuted St. Clair.

St. Clair faced five charges: neglect of duty, cowardice, treachery, inattention to the progress of the enemy, and “shamefully abandoning” his posts at Ticonderoga and Mount Independence. The court spent several weeks evaluating the evidence and taking testimony from witnesses.

In the end, the court found St. Clair had acted properly. St. Clair had only arrived at Fort Ticonderoga weeks before the British attack. The fort’s defenses were not capable of mounting a defense. Any attempt to do so would have resulted in the destruction or capture of the garrison. St. Clair had acted properly in ordering a retreat, and saving most of the army. Those men would be needed to win the battles at Saratoga a few months later.

The court unanimously acquitted St. Clair on all counts and with the highest honor. Despite the acquittal, St. Clair would never receive another independent command during the war. He would continue to serve as a staff aide to General Washington.

Schuyler Court Martial

Having completed the St. Clair court martial, the army next turned its attention to General Phillip Schuyler. Like St. Clair, Congress had investigated Schuyler for his role in the loss of Fort Ticonderoga, and after extensive investigation, instructed Washington to hold a court martial. On October 1, 1778, the court began its hearing against Schuyler.

Phillip Schuyler

Once again, Benjamin Lincoln presided. The members of the court martial were the same as that which sat for General St. Clair, with the replacement of one colonel. John Laurence, also continued his role as prosecutor.

The court only preferred one charge against Schuyler: neglect of duty for failure to be present at Fort Ticonderoga in the weeks leading up to the surrender.

Schuyler’s defense was a pretty simple one. He was not present at Fort Ticonderoga, not because of a neglect of duty but because he was commander of the entire northern department. He had left Major General St. Clair in charge of Fort Ticonderoga while Schuyler worked in Albany to get reinforcements, find supplies, negotiate to keep local Indian tribes out of the fighting, and a host of other duties.

The trial only lasted three days, after which time the court found Schuyler not guilty, and acquitted him with highest honor. The court sent the findings of both the St. Clair and Schuyler to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Congress confirmed both acquittals.

Unlike St. Clair, Schuyler was not content to remain with the army. With the suspension of Charles Lee, Schuyler became the number two commander in the army, with only Washington his superior.

Schuyler, however, had never really been a military man. Although he had been a colonel in the New York militia and had served in the French and Indian War, his appointment as one of the Continental Army’s first major general was primarily due to the need to have a prominent New York leader represented in the army. Schuyler’s strengths lay in politics and diplomacy, not in military command. In December 1778, after Congress confirmed his acquittal, Schuyler submitted his resignation.

Congress rejected the offer of resignation. Several delegates, as well as General Washington, encouraged Schuyler to remain in the army. Washington offered to return command of the Northern Department to Schuyler, as a show of support for his abilities. But Schuyler was insistent. Finally in April 1779, Congress accepted his resignation.

While charges were still pending against him, New York had voted to send Schuyler back to the Continental Congress, where he had served prior to his military appointment. Following his acquittal, Schuyler accepted his seat and traveled to Philadelphia to serve as a delegate.

Mifflin Resigns

Around this same time, Major General Thomas Mifflin, who had been caught up in the Conway Cabal, also resigned. Mifflin had been quartermaster, then served on the board of war with General Gates in the attempt to usurp command authority from Washington. Mifflin faced accusations of embezzlement from his time as quartermaster. He demanded a formal inquiry, but never got one. Finally, in February 1779, Mifflin also resigned his commission. Like Schuyler, he would continue his career in politics.

Next week, we are going to look at another campaign that leads to the resignation of yet another major general. General John Sullivan leads the Continental effort to retake Rhode Island.

- - -

Next Episode 196 Battle of Rhode Island

Previous Episode 194 Battle of Ushant

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

Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271

Click here to donate

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), Zelle, or popmoney (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)

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 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.

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"

Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Sunday, March 28, 2021

ARP194 Battle of Ushant

After Britain and France went to war in the spring of 1778, America became a sideshow to the main event. Britain and France had been traditional enemies for centuries. Part of it was the whole Catholic-Protestant rift that had divided Europe. Part of it was conflicting claims over each other’s countries. King George III still held the title of King of France, a claim that dated back more than 400 years. Although the British Channel kept the two kingdoms separated, there was a continuing rivalry between the two countries that simply would not end.

Battle of Ushant

In the prior decades most of the fighting had been fought over colonies around the world. Britain and France traded colonies in wars back and forth. North America was only one pawn in that larger game of chess.

In the hundred years prior to this war, Britain and France had faced off in at least five major wars, totaling 39 years of fighting. These were a continuation of centuries more fighting between the two kingdoms.

In the Seven Years War, the British Navy had dominated the French at sea. That was a big reason why France lost North America. In the intervening years, France focused on rebuilding her navy to compete with the British. France, which had three times the population of Britain, thought that Britain could fall if France could crush its navy.

The first major naval engagement took place in the English Channel. The fight took place about 100 miles west of the island of Ushant. That battle still gets its name from the island because calling it a battle out in the middle of the ocean doesn’t have the same ring to it.

The two fleets were pretty evenly divided, each having about 30 ships of the line plus some smaller vessels. The battle was not particularly decisive, but it does give me the opportunity to talk about the two navies and the role they played in Britain and France. To help with that, I want to give a little background on the two flee commanders who fought the battle of Ushant: Admiral Augustus Keppel, and Louis Guillouet, the comte d'Orvilliers.

Admiral Keppel

In 1778, the 53 year old Admiral Keppel was a highly experienced officer with over four decades at sea. His grandfather had immigrated to Britain from the Netherlands as a top aide to William of Orange. When William and Mary took the throne in Britain, Keppel continued his service to the new king and received appointment as the First Earl of Albemarle.

Augustus Keppel

The Second Earl of Albemarle, Admiral Keppel’s father, continued to serve the crown as a British diplomat and was a friend of King George II. The earl commanded British forces at Culloden, putting down the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland. After Culloden, he served as a military commander in Scotland, putting the area under tight military control and effectively destroying the highlander leadership that had ruled Scotland. He also served as governor of Virginia, although he never bothered to visit the colony.

The earl married Lady Anne Lennox who would become Admiral Keppel’s mother. She was the daughter of the First Earl of Richmond, who was in turn the illegitimate son of King Charles II. So despite his family only having arrived in Britain two generations earlier, Keppel was tied to some of the most important families in Britain.

Keppel, however, would not inherit his father’s title. That would go to his older brother George Keppel, who fought in the Seven Years War and eventually became a general. His brother would die relatively young, but not before bearing a son, William, to take the family title.

Augustus Keppel went to sea in 1735, when he was only nine or ten years old. He served on a variety of ships as he grew to adulthood. His early adventures as an ensign included service in the Mediterranean under Commodore George Clinton, the father of future General Sir Henry Clinton. He also participated in a cruise around the world, during which he became an acting lieutenant at age sixteen.

Just over two years later, as the War of Austrian Succession began, Keppel, at age nineteen became captain of his first ship. Keppel continued to do well as a commander. By the end of the war, he was commodore of a small fleet.

In 1754, Keppel, served briefly as Commander-in-Chief of North America and had the responsibility of delivering Major General Edward Braddock and his army to Virginia, where they would press British claims in the Ohio Valley.

Around this same time, Keppel’s father died, moving his brother George to the House of Lords. Captain Keppel took the family’s seat in the House of Commons. But as the Seven Years War began, Keppel returned to the fleet. In his second war, Keppel once again performed with distinction, leading the line of battle against the French along with Captain Richard Howe at the Battle of Quiberon Bay in 1759.

Later he would command the Jamaica station with a fleet of ships, and would oversee the return of Cuba to the Spanish at the end of the war.

Following the end of the war, Keppel returned to London where he received appointments as Lord of the King’s Bedchamber, and as a Lord of the Admiralty. He retained his seat in Parliament, although he did not speak much unless the issue involved naval matters.

Keppel did line up politically, however, with the Whigs, who opposed the administration’s policies in North America. His political views resulted in his losing most of his political appointments, and finding himself without any naval command when the American Revolution began. In January of 1778, with the war with France imminent, the crown, once again, needed his skills as a naval commander. He received appointment as admiral and took command of a fleet at Portsmouth. There, he had to rush to repair ships and assemble a crew to face the new French threat. His fleet put out to sea, in search of French fleets.

Comte d'Orvilliers

The fleet that he would find was commanded by Louis Guillouet, the comte d'Orvilliers. The Comte’s came from a noble French family. His father served as Governor of French Guiana, where he grew up. At the time the South American outpost was tiny, with only a few hundred colonists and a few thousand slaves. It had changed hands several times between the French, the British, and the Dutch.

comte d'Orvilliers

As a young teenager, d’Orvilliers joined the militia. At age eighteen, he opted to join the navy and go to sea. The young officer served with distinction in the War of Austrian Succession and visited various parts of the French Empire, including time in the Antilles and in Canada. By the beginning of the Seven Years War, he had captained several ships and had commanded several small fleets.

Because d’Orvilliers did not have family or other close connections at Versailles, his move up the ranks was rather slow. Even so, he married the daughter of his fleet commander and began to move up in rank. In 1757, his fleet traveled to Louisbourg to help end the British siege there.

Despite the weaknesses of the French Navy in the Seven Years War, d’Orvilliers came out with his reputation intact. He became a Commander in the order of St. Louis and had become a key leader in France’s naval elite. He was, by this time, getting up in years though. In 1778, d’Orvilliers was 68 years old, but commanded a fleet of ships protecting the French coast.

Battle of Ushant

On July 8, 1778 Vice Admiral comte d’Orvilliers left Brest, on the coast of France. His fleet of thirty-two ships of the line and nine frigates had sailed into the Atlantic in hopes of disrupting trade between Britain and its colonies.

At the same time, British Admiral Keppel had been tasked with finding and destroying the French fleet in order to keep Britain’s trade routes open. Keppel originally left Portsmouth in June with a handful of ships in search of the enemy. While at sea, he was able to stop a ship that told him the French had a fleet of thirty two ships of the line at Brest, more than double what Keppel expected. He turned around and went back to Portsmouth for reinforcements.

Britain, at this time, had over-extended its navy. Lord Sandwich had assured Parliament that they had dozens of ships of the line ready to go. Keppel had found only six ready for service when he took command at Portsmouth in May.

Keppel set out again on July 9, the day after d’Orvilliers had set sale. Keppel had collected a fleet of twenty-four ships of the line. A few days later, six more ships joined his fleet, already at sea. After two weeks at sea the two fleets caught sight of each other about 100 miles west of Ushant. The French expected a much smaller fleet. Even though the two fleets were about equal in size, the French began evasive maneuvers.

Two of the French ships managed to sail back to Brest before the British got between the fleet and the French coast. For the next few days, both fleets sailed southwest, with the French trying to keep the British at a distance.

On the morning of July 27, the winds shifted and the fleets were only a few miles apart. British second in command, Admiral John Campbell, ordered a contingent of the fleet under third in command, Admiral Sir Hugh Palliser, to sail toward the French Fleet. Palliser, who was a Lord of the Admiralty, had not been given notice of these orders and took offense when he found out another Admiral had ordered part of his fleet into battle.

British Line at Ushant

Ships on both sides had trouble getting into position. Soon shifting winds and a fog that limited visibility made the lines a complete mess. For those unfamiliar, a ship of the line gets its name from the fact that the traditional naval formation at the time was for ships to form a line which would pass by enemy ships. As they sailed past, gunners would fire broadsides from the side of the ship facing the enemy. The point of sailing in a line was to inflict maximum fire power on the enemy ship as each ship in the line sailed past. The goal was to fire on your enemy while minimizing the exposure to enemy fire. Good formations were critical to success.

So, as I said, the formations for both sides were a mess. But by the time the fog cleared enough to see the enemy, they were practically on top of each other. A firefight raged for about two hours. Palliser’s ships took the brunt of the French fire, while Keppel’s flagship the Victory went after the French flagship.

As the ships jockeyed for position, d’Orvilliers ordered an attack on the five most damaged British ships. The French captains, however, were slow to respond and the British realized what they were trying to do. Keppel repositioned his ships to protect the damaged ships and continue the battle. Later in the battle Keppel individually signaled ships under Palliser’s command and ordered them to join his lines, thus once again cutting Palliser out of the chain of command.

Eventually darkness fell. Keppel spent the night working on repairs, and keeping an eye on the French fleet nearby. At dawn the following day, the British realized that the lights from the French ships came from only three ships. The rest of the French fleet had sailed away that night and were making their way into Brest. Keppel figured he could at least capture the three damaged ships left behind, but then discovered those ships were in relatively good condition. They were three of the fastest French ships and quickly escaped the pursuing British.

Fighting from the previous day resulted in about 400 British dead and 800 wounded. No ships had sunk, but most had to limp back to Portsmouth for repairs. The French reported 126 killed and just over 400 wounded. All of their ships also managed to return to port for repairs. By most accounts, the battle was considered a draw.

Aftermath

Following the return of the French fleet to Brest, d’Orvilliers permitted one of his officers, the duc de Chartres to deliver news of the battle to Paris and Versailles. The duc was a distant cousin of the King. He arrived early in the morning and requested that the King be awoken so that he could announce the victory. Great celebration of the French victory at sea swept across Paris.

duc de Chartres,

Later, once d’Orvilliers’ official reports arrived, French officials not only learned that the battle was, at best, indecisive, but that d’Orvilliers was critical of the duc de Chartres’ failure to obey orders to engage the enemy. While his relation to the king protected him from court martial, the event effectively marked the end of Chartres’ military career.

Two captains from the fleet who had fled back to Brest days before the rest of the fleet fought the battle, faced a court of Inquiry. Captain Rochechouart came from a powerful French family and was cleared of all charges. Captain Trémigon was admonished but continued to serve. He would go on to command a much larger ship and would be killed in battle later in the war.

If the reaction to the battle in France was a confused mess, the reaction to the battle in London became a much larger confused mess. Keppel was unhappy with the performance of Palliser. But since Admiral Palliser was a Lord of the Admiralty and a favorite Lord Sandwich, Keppel decided to be political about the matter and praised Palliser in his reports to the Admiralty. He thought that a critical report would only divide the ranks at a time when everyone should be united in the war effort.

At the same time though, Keppel began badmouthing Palliser’s performance to his Whig friends around London. Keppel and Pallisser were both members of Parliament who sat on opposing political factions, but had been on good terms personally.

In October, Palliser heard the rumors circulating that Keppel was critical of Palliser’s performance. A Whig newspaper had published articles which vaguely accused Palliser of cowardice or intentionally sabotaging the battle for political reasons. Palliser confronted Keppel and demanded he sign a document praising his contact at Ushant. Keppel, of course, refused.

Hugh Palliser

In response, Palliser published his own version of events in Tory newspapers. His account stated that Keppel’s actions in the battle were worthy of censure.

The issue blew up in Parliament, creating greater divisions between the political factions. The Earl of Bristol in the House of Lords called on the Earl of Sandwich to conduct an inquiry into the charges. Sandwich hoped the whole thing would blow over. He argued that Ushant was pretty much a British victory and that leaders should not be squabbling with each other. He also got Keppel to keep his mouth shut, saying no more than that he was content with the course and the result of the battle, although he did say he would not serve with Palliser again.

Palliser would not let the matter go. He said he had nothing to fear from a court of inquiry and that he had obeyed all of Keppel’s commands that day. That was too much for Keppel, who then made clear that Palliser had refused to respond to his flag to join the fleet after it had been flying for five hours.

With that, Palliser got approval from Sandwich to bring charges against Keppel. The charges accused Keppel of failing to marshal his fleet, fighting in an un-officer like manner, making scandalous haste in quitting, making sail away from the enemy, giving them an opportunity to rally, and presenting the appearance of flight disgraceful to the British flag.

These charges were reminiscent of charges brought twenty years earlier against Admiral John Byng. In that instance, Byng had fought a half hearted battle against the French and Minorca before retreating back to Granada. Keppel had sat on the court martial that had found Admiral Byng guilty and sent him to the firing squad. Since Byng had been a Tory and Keppel was a Whig, some saw this as a time for political payback. Now Keppel was literally fighting for his life.

Most Whigs saw the trial a despicable political attack. Some naval officers took leave and refused to fight while the trial proceeded. In January 1779, the navy conducted its inquiry against Admiral Keppel. Most of the ship captains who participated in the battle served as witnesses at trial and mostly backed Keppel. The court exonerated Keppel and generally pointed the finger at Palliser for his failures that day.

Adm. Keppel Pub Sign

The acquittal of Keppel led to celebrations in the streets of Portsmouth. In London the celebrations turned violent as a mob used it to highlight their unhappiness with the ministry. A mob broke the windows at Lord North’s residence. They attacked other Tory homes and specifically broke into Palliser’s house in the Pall Mall neighborhood, removing his furniture to start a bonfire in St. James Square. They also burned Palliser in effigy on Tower Hill and tore down the gates of the Admiralty, All over England, pubs painted portraits of Admiral Keppel on their signs as a symbol of opposition to government policy, and support of the Whigs.

Sandwich persuaded Palliser to resign his government offices and his seat in Parliament. But by this time the Whigs were smelling blood. They condemned the Admiralty for failing to provide Keppel with proper intelligence and support before the battle, then unfairly blaming him for a less than complete victory. The house also narrowly voted down a motion to kick Palliser out of the navy. The King even suggested to Lord North that he consider replacing Sandwich with Admiral Howe, who had returned from America. North demurred and stood by his First Lord of the Admiralty.

In April, 1779 the navy bowed to pressure and court martialed Palliser. Whigs accused the Admiralty of stacking the deck in favor of Palliser by sending out to sea all the officers who were against Pallier and putting only his friends on the court martial. Keppel, though, also wanted the matter to go away. He refused to prosecute the case against Palliser and only appeared as a reluctant witness. The court martial became more of a court of inquiry that, in the end, exonerated Palliser with only a few minor errors in judgment.

The Keppel affair revealed growing political cracks in the British government that only got worse over time. It also created divisions among naval officers that left scars for a generation. For a relatively indeterminate naval battle that did not sink a single ship, the Battle of Ushant would have political ramifications that would last for years.

Next week: we turn to another court martial, this one in America as Charles Lee must answer for his behavior at Monmouth.

- - -

Next Episode 195 Court Martials of Lee, St. Clair, & Schuyler

Previous Episode 193 Silas Deane Hearings

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

Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271

Click here to donate

Click here to see my Patreon Page

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

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"

Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Sunday, March 21, 2021

ARP193 Deane Hearings

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that Silas Deane returned to America with the French fleet that arrived in July 1778. Congress had recalled him, sending a letter in December 1777 to report on the affairs in Europe. Deane had received the letter in March, then took a few weeks to wrap up his affairs and plan his return to Philadelphia.

Deane in France

By the time he returned, Deane had spent about two years in France. Congress requested that he go there to serve as an advocate before the French Court in March, 1776. The inexperienced merchant from Connecticut took up the task without knowing a word of French or even having any personal contacts in France Despite these limitations, Deane had managed to make personal contact with key leaders at Versailles and to begin a partnership with Pierre Beaumarchais to begin sending arms and supplies back to America. He accomplished all this despite being on his own in France for nearly a year.

Silas Deane

At the end of 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin and Arthur Lee to work with Deane in France. Together, the Commissioners had not only sent shiploads of arms and supplies, dozens of French officers, but also managed to finalize two treaties with France and bring their new ally into the war with Britain. Deane’s mission had been a success and any return home should have been in triumph.

That, however, was not the case. Almost since Deane’s arrival in Europe, Arthur Lee waged a campaign to attack Deane’s character and behavior in the hopes of having him recalled. Arthur Lee had been living in London when the war began. He was a member of the powerful Lee family of Virginia, with two brothers sitting in the Continental Congress. His legal practice in London helped to establish him as a colonial agent.

Lee had attempted to work with Pierre Beaumarchais to get French military supplies to America after the war began. But Beaumarchais ended up forming a partnership with Deane to further those ends. That seems to have been the origin of Lee’s hostility toward Deane. Lee began a covert letter-writing campaign to powerful people in America, asserting that Deane was defrauding Congress by demanding payment for aid that the government of France intended to be given free of charge. This was not the case. France did provide several generous loans to get the project started. However, French officials expected the assistance program to become self-sustaining as America paid back those loans with the delivery of tobacco.

All of these deals were secret, of course. Congress only got information on them from Deane. Lee, and Franklin. Since the commissioners were sending back Contradictory reports, Congress wasn't sure who to believe. Congress, always desperate for cash, was receptive to accusations that one of its agents was unjustly enriching himself on these secret agreements.

Deane Loses Allies

Deane also lacked political allies in Congress. Deane had been a member of the Continental Congress before his appointment. At the time of his appointment, the members of the Secret Committee who entrusted him with the mission to France were: Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Johnson, John Jay, and Robert Morris.

Franklin in Paris

Franklin, of course, had left Congress to serve alongside Deane in France. Franklin still supported Deane, but was no longer in Congress to be his advocate there.

John Dickinson famously left Congress shortly after passage of the Declaration of Independence. He took a commission in the army, but his opposition to independence in Congress and his expressed doubts about the war effort had damaged his reputation. By 1778 he was living as a private citizen in Delaware.

Benjamin Harrison had left Congress shortly after passage of the proposed Articles of Confederation. Harrison had opposed equal representation, which left a large state like Virginia greatly under-represented. He had also opposed General Washington over the appointment of Lafayette to a command position. He had engendered the anger of many radicals by supporting the rights of Quakers to avoid compulsory military service. As a result of all this, he had resigned his seat and returned to Virginia.

Thomas Johnson had left Congress and was by this time Governor of Maryland. John Jay had left to become Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court.

The only member of the committee that supported Deane when he departed for France, who was still in Congress, was Robert Morris. Even Morris had been on a leave of absence at the time Congress recalled Deane. However, he had returned in May 1778. But Morris was no ally of Deane.

Morris had secured the appointment of his half-brother Thomas Morris as an American agent in France. Thomas was supposed to deal with prize ships that were captured, and other financial matters. Unfortunately, Thomas did not share his brother’s business acumen or attention to duty. Thomas Morris spent most of his time in France drinking and partying. Deane had reported this behavior to Congress. While Congress was still trying to sort out this mess, Thomas Morris fell ill and died in January 1778 at the age of 26.

Robert Morris took great offense, in part not believing the accusations that Deane levied against his brother, and also that Deane had made the issue public to Congress rather than writing to Morris privately. The result was that Morris was hostile to Deane and Franklin at this time.

Arthur Lee had levied charges against both Deane and Franklin. But Franklin was seen as a success in France and still had many supporters in Congress. Because of this, Deane, rather than Franklin, became the focus of concern. So, after two years abroad, and without any support among the delegates. Congress recalled Deane to answer questions about the accusations against him.

In its letter to Deane, however, Congress did not mention the charges of financial mismanagement and fraud. Instead, Deane simply received a letter saying he was being recalled for consultation about the situation in Europe. Deane was savvy enough to realize this was more than just fact-finding, that Congress would not be recalling him unless they had reason to question his performance. However, he had no idea what the details of those questions would be.

France Supports Deane

Before he left France, Deane consulted with Franklin, with Beaumarchais, and with Vergennes about his recall and let everyone know that he was returning to Philadelphia. Franklin’s letter to Congress gives the best description of what Deane did or didn’t know about the situation. Franklin gave Deane a letter dated March 31, 1778 to the President of Congress.

My colleague, Mr. Deane, being recalled by Congress, and no reasons given that yet appeared here, it is apprehended to be the effect of some misrepresentations from an enemy or two at Paris and at Nantes. I have no doubt that he will be able clearly to justify himself; but having lived intimately with him more than fifteen months, the greatest part of the time in the same house, and a constant witness of his public conduct, I cannot avoid giving this testimony, though unasked, that I esteem him a faithful, active, and able minister, who to my knowledge has done in various ways great and important services to his country, whose interests I wish may always by every one in her employ be as much and as efficiently promoted.

Lafayette, Dekalb & Deane in Paris

At the same time, after discussing the matter with Deane, Beaumarchais wrote a blistering confidential memo for the French foreign ministry critical of Lee’s attacks on Deane.

By character and by ambition Mr. Arthur Lee was first jealous of Mr. Deane. He finished by becoming his enemy, which always happens to small minds, more occupied in supplanting their rivals than in surpassing them in merit.

The connections of Mr. Lee in England, and two brothers whom he has in Congress, have made him recently an important and dangerous man.
His plan has always been to prefer between France and England the power which would most surely bring him to fortune. England has some advantages for him. He has often explained himself on the subject in his libertine suppers. But to succeed, it was necessary to get rid of a colleague so formidable by his patriotism as Mr. Deane. This he has accomplished by causing him to be suspected in several points of view by Congress.

Beaumarchais’ memo went on to outline Lee’s attacks on Deane’s appointment of French officers, and Lee’s accusation that the covert military aid was a gift from France, not a sale. Beaumarchais concludes by noting:

To-day Mr. Deane, loaded with grief, finds himself suddenly and harshly recalled. He is ordered to go to give an account of his conduct and to justify himself from many faults which they do not designate.

Also in support of Deane, Foreign Minister Vergennes sent a letter to Deane in late March attesting to France’s appreciation of his work as a diplomat. In part, it read:

The king, desirous of giving you a personal testimony of his satisfaction with your conduct, has charged me to inform M. the president of Congress of it; this is the object of the letters which M. Gerard will deliver you for Mr. Hancock. He will also deliver you a box with the portrait of the king.

The box, which was a gift to Dean, had a portrait of the King, and was made of gold and encrusted with diamonds. It was a show of gratitude and support for Deane’s service in France. Further, the King of France directed that Deane be a guest aboard the French fleet that would sail to America, along with the new French Minister to America, Conrad Alexandre Gerard.

In the view of France and of Deane’s personal views, he was returning to America in success. He had secured the French alliance, sent many successful officers and had been the source of much needed military aid sent over the previous year.

Arrival in Philadelphia

Upon his arrival in Philadelphia in July, Deane met with President Henry Laurens. Laurens was cordial and congratulated Deane on his many successes. Deane made clear he was eager to make his reports to Congress and return to France and his diplomatic work.

Congress, however, was in no hurry. Deane sat in Philadelphia for over a month, waiting for an audience with Congress. He finally received orders to appear several times in mid-August. Then again, nothing. Finally on September 8, Deane wrote that he was growing impatient and that if Congress did not want to hear from him further, that he would like to return to France. Ten days later, a Congressional committee reported that Arthur Lee and Ralph Izard had accused Deane of financial mismanagement and misappropriation of public money. Congress began calling witnesses, but did not call Deane.

Titus Hosmer

Shortly after that, Connecticut delegate Titus Hosmer, who had been in Congress for only a few months and who was returning home, informed Deane that he had overheard other delegates sought to destroy Deane. Since they had no evidence, they did not want to bring specific charges against him. Instead, they would simply drag out the matter and allow the cloud of accusation to hang over Deane’s head for as long as possible.

Again, Deane wrote to Congress, asking for the charges against him and to see the letters of his accusers so that he could respond. He said that after spending more than three months in Philadelphia, he needed to get back to France to manage his financial affairs there.

Deane never got to see the letters containing accusations against him, but he did learn more generally of some of the charges. Lee had accused Deane of giving offense to everyone he worked with in France. There is no doubt that Deane offended Lee, but Deane argued that his success spoke for itself.

Deane noted that in 1777 he had shipped 30,000 small arms, a similar number of uniforms, over 250 pieces of brass artillery and numerous other supplies that were critical to the cause and which had been vital to opposing the Burgoyne campaign. There were also all those letters of support from Franklin and various French officials which Deane had delivered to Congress.

Lee also made some minor accusations like that Deane had opened and read all of Lee’s correspondence, which Deane simply denied. Lee accused Deane of leaving him out of negotiations, to which Deane responded that Lee was too querulous and that they did not always trust him with confidential matters under negotiation.

The more significant charge was that Congress had spent millions but that almost everything sent to America still had to be paid for. The obvious implication was that Deane had used that money for other purposes and that Congress will still have to repay all of those loans.

Deane could deny those charges generally, but all of his financial records were still in France. He had no idea that he would be called to answer these specific charges and had left the financial records with his associates who were trying to continue these business dealings in France. Instead, Deane had to cool his heels in Philadelphia, living at his own expense, waiting for Congress to continue its investigation.

Arthur Lee

Meanwhile, back in France, Arthur Lee, having successfully removed Deane from Europe, then turned his attention toward Franklin. Lee continued to write to Congress about how Deane was guilty of all sorts of financial crimes, that he had grown rich on embezzling government money and that his calls for a hearing were just a bluff. Lee also wrote that Franklin was similarly guilty of wasting government funds to support a lavish lifestyle.

Congress was still receptive to Lee’s accusations. At one point, they came within one vote of voting to recall Franklin from France as well. Lee wanted to remove both of his fellow commissioners so that he could take control of the American delegation in France.

One of Deane’s greatest defenders was French minister Gerard. Gerard was concerned about openly supporting one political faction against another in America. After all, his job was to maintain good relations between France and America regardless of who was in charge in Philadelphia. But Gerard did speak with delegates when he could, defending the motivations and actions of both Franklin and Deane.

In a letter to Vergennes, Gerard wrote: "The stories of Arthur Lee are but an absurd tissue of falsehoods and sarcasm, which can only compromise those who have the misfortune of being obliged to have anything to do with him."

Dispute Goes Public

Despite all this support, the Deane hearings dragged on. By December, Deane had grown increasingly frustrated with Congress. He had left Europe in a hurry expecting to be gone for only a few months. He had left many matters incomplete in France, and had even left his thirteen year old son there in the care of others. After spending nine months waiting for Congress to decide anything about his case, he wrote a public letter outlining his situation, attacking Arthur Lee and Lee’s political allies, and which was highly generally critical of Congress.

This public revelation of the infighting between the American Commissioners and the internal disputes within Congress set off a political firestorm. Virginia delegate Francis Lightfoot Lee responded in the press to defend his brother Arthur Lee. This led to follow up articles by Deane. Then, a couple of weeks later, Thomas Paine entered the fray.

Thomas Paine

Paine published a series of articles savaging Deane. His first article primarily criticized Deane for making this whole matter public and revealing divisions among the leadership. That, Paine, believed, damaged the war effort and the patriot cause generally. Over the next few weeks and months, Paine published articles attacking Deane for his failure to bring his financial records with him and for what Paine seemed to believe were unsubstantiated attacks on Arthur and William Lee. Paine strongly implied that Deane was corrupt, or at least hopelessly naïve in the way he managed affairs in Europe.

Paine’s attacks largely reflected the views of a faction, possibly a majority of Congress who distrusted Deane and thought that his publicizing this dispute only made things worse.

Over the winter, as the articles raged back and forth, Deane remained in Philadelphia without Congress making any effort to continue its investigation or hold hearings. In April, and again in May of 1779, more than a year after Congress first recalled him, Deane wrote to Congress to say that he planned to depart the city. He wrote to the President of Congress that “it was the design of those who wished to sacrifice me to family interests to wear me out, by delays, and, without any direct charges, to ruin me in the opinion of my countrymen by insincere hints and innuendoes.” Upon receiving the letter, President Laurens’ comment was only that “If Deane goes in defiance of Congress, it will be a confession.”

Finally in August 1779, Congress discharged Deane from further attendance and requested that all the commissioners submit their accounts and vouchers for final settlement. Congress reached no ruling on the charges against Deane or anything else. It simply announced that the investigation had ended.

Congress finally offered to pay for his costs for the more than a year that Deane had remained in Philadelphia, but the amount offered was so small, and to be paid in nearly worthless Continental paper dollars, that a disgusted Deane refused to accept the payment entirely.

Perhaps his one small victory was that Robert Morris once again supported Deane. Morris, upon receiving the full information about his brother Thomas’ failures in Europe, accepted that Deane had only been trying to resolve a problem, not attack him politically. Morris commented that Deane had rendered essential services for his country and that he had been “ill-used” by his enemies. In a letter after everything had ended, Morris wrote, “I consider Deane to be a martyr in the cause of America” and that the attacks on him were “shameful.”

Deane finally did return to France in 1780 where Franklin greeted him as a friend. Deane returned, though, as a private citizen. Having so many enemies in Congress, he would not receive another appointment to anything. French officials also received him warmly in appreciation of his past service.

Deane was also reunited with his son Jesse, by this time a young man of sixteen. Deane was also heartened to learn that just weeks before his arrival in France that Arthur Lee had departed for America, to be called to account for his own activities while abroad.

Even with the matter behind him though, Deane would carry a resentment toward Congress for the rest of his life. His experience also left him with serious doubts that the American cause would succeed when led by the conspiring politicians with whom he had interacted during his time in Philadelphia.

Next week, the French and British fleets have their first major encounters at the battle of Ushant.

- - -

Next Episode 194 Battle of Ushant

Previous Episode 192 Wyoming Valley Massacre

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

Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271

Click here to donate

Click here to see my Patreon Page

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

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"

Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

American Revolution Podcast

Sunday, April 4, 2021

ARP195 Courts Martial of Lee, St. Clair, & Schuyler

Lee Bungles Monmouth

Lee Court Martial

Charges Against Lee

Lee Found Guilty

Lee-Laurens Duel

Lee Resigns

St. Clair Court Martial

Schuyler Court Martial

Mifflin Resigns

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Further Reading

Websites

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

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