Full download textbook at textbookfull.

com

British Humanitarian Activity in Russia, 1890–1923

1st Edition Luke Kelly (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/british-humanitarian-
activity-in-russia-1890-1923-1st-edition-luke-kelly-auth/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download more textbookfull from https://textbookfull.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Russia in revolution : an Empire in crisis, 1890 to

1928 1st Edition Smith

https://textbookfull.com/product/russia-in-revolution-an-empire-
in-crisis-1890-to-1928-1st-edition-smith/

Cultural Identity in British Musical Theatre, 1890–1939

Ben Macpherson

https://textbookfull.com/product/cultural-identity-in-british-
musical-theatre-1890-1939-ben-macpherson/

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Computer Science Theory and Applications 15th

International Computer Science Symposium in Russia CSR
2020 Yekaterinburg Russia June 29 July 3 2020
Proceedings Henning Fernau
https://textbookfull.com/product/computer-science-theory-and-
applications-15th-international-computer-science-symposium-in-
russia-csr-2020-yekaterinburg-russia-
Developments in Language Theory 18th International
Conference DLT 2014 Ekaterinburg Russia August 26 29
2014 Proceedings 1st Edition Arseny M. Shur

https://textbookfull.com/product/developments-in-language-
theory-18th-international-conference-dlt-2014-ekaterinburg-
russia-august-26-29-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-arseny-m-shur/

Children as Rhetorical Advocates in Social Movements

1st Edition Luke Winslow

https://textbookfull.com/product/children-as-rhetorical-
advocates-in-social-movements-1st-edition-luke-winslow/

The conceit of humanitarian intervention 1st Edition

Menon

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-conceit-of-humanitarian-
intervention-1st-edition-menon/

Nocturne Night in American Art 1890 1917 Helene Valance

https://textbookfull.com/product/nocturne-night-in-american-
art-1890-1917-helene-valance/

Activity coefficients in electrolyte solutions Second

Edition Pitzer

https://textbookfull.com/product/activity-coefficients-in-
electrolyte-solutions-second-edition-pitzer/
 LUKE KELLY

British
Humanitarian

Activity in
Russia,
1890–1923
British Humanitarian Activity in Russia, 1890–1923
 Luke Kelly

British Humanitarian
Activity in Russia,
1890–1923
Luke Kelly
University of Manchester
Manchester, UK

ISBN 978-3-319-65189-7 ISBN 978-3-319-65190-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65190-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017953009

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover image: © Mary Evans Picture Library/Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

British Humanitarian Activity and Russia, c. 1890–1923 1

Humanitarian Traditions and Russia’s Problems 25

Britain and the Russian Famine, 1891–1892 53

Speaking Up for Religious Freedom in Russia: Jewish

and Christian Humanitarianism 85

Humanitarian Sympathy and National Liberation 113

Britain and the Russian Famine, 1921–1923 159

Conclusion 213

Index 217

v
 Abbreviations

ABA All-British Appeal

AFSC American Friends’ Service Committee
ARA American Relief Administration
BFBS British and Foreign Bible Society
CIS Council for International Service
COS Charity Organisation Society
FEWVRC or FWVRC Friends’ Emergency and War Victims’ Relief
Committee
FHL Friends’ House Library (London)
FSU Friends’ Service Union
FWVRC See FEWVRC
ICRR International Committee for Russian Relief
IWRF Imperial War Relief Fund
JDC (Jewish) Joint Distribution Committee
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
RFRF Russian Famine Relief Fund
SCF Save the Children Fund
SFRF Society of Friends of Russian Freedom (or “Friends of
Russia”)

vii
 List of Figures

Humanitarian Sympathy and National Liberation

Fig. 1 Posters for Russian events from the Unwin Archive, Bristol
University library. Pamphlets, DM 851, Cobden-Unwin file,
Bristol University Library the SFRF tried to mobilise broad
support by displaying Russian arts and also sought support
from labour movements 140
Britain and the Russian Famine, 1921–1923
Fig. 1 FWVRC expenditure, overall and on Russian field,
1915–1924 (£) 164
Fig. 2 (a) FWVRC: Goods sent to Russia, 1 April 1921–30
November 1923 (£), by year and provenance.
(b) FWVRC: Goods sent to Russia, 1 April 1921–30
November 1923 (£) 188
Fig. 3 (a) FWVRC: Goods sent to Russia, 1 April 1921–30
November 1923 (tons), by year and provenance.
(b) FWVRC: Goods sent to Russia, 1 April 1921–30
November 1923 (tons) 189
Fig. 4 The Famine Area and Great Britain on the same scale
(The Russian Famine: Sir Benjamin Robertson’s Report,
1922) 190
Fig. 5 (a) and (b) Food for Russian Children (Save the Children,
1921) (‘1921: The Russian Famine,’ blog, Save the Children
website, http://blogs.savethechildren.org.uk/2012/08/
goldmoment-raceagainsthunger4/, accessed 19 July 2013) 192

ix
x    List of Figures

Fig. 6 (a) Contributions for the Russian field, excluding gifts in kind,
by week, 26 November 1921–6 October 1923 (£).
(b) Income for the Russian field, excluding gifts in kind,
by month, 26 November 1921–6 October 1923 (£) 196
Fig. 7 FWVRC: Contributions by source, September 1921–March
1924 (£) 199
Fig. 8 FWVRC: Contributions by source, September 1921–March
1924 200
 British Humanitarian Activity
and Russia, c. 1890–1923

[The famine has the effect of] illustrating in a very striking way the rotten-
ness of the whole system of government… Everywhere extravagance meets
the eye, the forests have been cut down wantonly, the rivers are neglected,
the climate is ruined, the peasant, who pays on the average taxes to the
tune of four pounds per head, is simply regarded as a revenue-producing
unit.1
Manchester Guardian (on the 1891 famine)

Russian autocracy succeeded to nothing; it had no historical past, and it

cannot hope for a historical future… By no industry of investigation, by
no fantastic stretch of benevolence, can it be presented as a phase of devel-
opment through which a Society, a State, must pass on its way to the full
consciousness of its destiny.2
Joseph Conrad

In 1891 news reached Britain that the crops had failed in the Volga
region of Russia. Soon after, appeals were printed in British newspa-
pers, avowing that ‘every £1 given will probably save a life’, and a fund
of about £37,262 15s 2d (or £49,640,000 in 2015 money) was sent to

1 ‘Through Famine-Stricken Russia: A Commissioner’s Story How the Famine Came

to be Recognised; Sufferings of the Tartar Population General Conclusions,’ Manchester

Guardian, 18 April 1892, p. 8.
2 Joseph Conrad, ‘Autocracy and War [From the Fortnightly Review, 1905]’, in Collected

Edition, Notes on Life and Letters (London: Dent, 1949), p. 97.

© The Author(s) 2018 1

L. Kelly, British Humanitarian Activity in Russia, 1890–1923,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65190-3_1
2 L. Kelly

the famine region.3 This relatively familiar (both then and now) occur-
rence is the starting point of the analysis presented in this book. Familiar
because famines in British India at the same time attracted donations
equivalent to hundreds of millions of pounds in today’s money, and fam-
ines elsewhere would continue to attract the interest of British donors
throughout the twentieth century. By the 1890s, giving aid for distant
strangers had become an established part of British life. Russia, now
more visible in the British imagination, became the object of interven-
tions as British churches, journalists and politicians, among others, pre-
sented an assortment of humanitarian prescriptions to a country seen to
be struggling. The Society of Friends (Quakers) offered famine relief in
1891–1892, 1907 famine and 1921–1923, war relief from 1916, as well
as providing support to the persecuted Doukhobor sect after 1897. The
Society of Friends of Russian Freedom (SFRF) was a pressure group set
up in 1890 by Russian exiles and British liberals specifically to reform
Russia’s government by generating public outrage through its jour-
nal Free Russia. Russia’s persecution of Jews prompted condemnation
throughout the period. Many groups, including the newly formed Save
the Children Fund, sent money and workers to help in the 1921–1923
famine as part of an internationalised effort.
In one sense, the interest in Russia clearly echoed earlier and later
humanitarian campaigns in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Similar
networks of liberals and Christians had been involved in the main
humanitarian causes earlier in the century: abolition, aborigines’ protec-
tion, Jewish relief.4 Many of the actors supported the institutionalisation
of humanitarianism, through their presence at peace conferences, inter-
est in international institutions, and standardisation of relief practices.5
But apart from these broad tendencies, the aims of these actors varied, as
did their methods. Russia was just one country among many, itself mani-
festing multiple problems, only some of which were addressed: political
oppression and censorship, religious oppression, anti-Jewish pogroms

3 Calculated as the economic cost of a project. Measuring Worth (https://www.measur-

ingworth.com/ukcompare/relativevalue.php, accessed 12 August 2016).

4 Abigail Green, ‘The British Empire and the Jews: An Imperialism of Human Rights?’,

Past & Present, 199.1 (2008), pp. 175–205.

5 Keith David Watenpaugh, Bread from Stones: The Middle East and the Making of Modern

Humanitarianism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015), p. 2.

 BRITISH HUMANITARIAN ACTIVITY AND RUSSIA, C. 1890–1923 3

and an impoverished peasantry. Quakers offered aid to the Doukhobors

(a small Christian sect) but not Jews, for instance. Liberals were divided
on whether, and how, to offer help to nihilist exiles in the 1880s and
1890s and later on whether to give famine relief for communist Russia in
1921. Beneath the seeming ubiquity of the humanitarian gesture, then,
lay a variety of motives for, and forms of, humanitarian activity. It is the
argument of this book that the humanitarian attention given to Russia
between about 1890 and 1923 was the result of a specific conjuncture
of ideas and actors, rather than the simple application of a humanitar-
ian ideal. The interest shown to Russia, it is argued, was partially distinct
from other humanitarian causes before and after, being generated by the
interests, perspectives and techniques of the actors concerned as much as
by the fact of suffering.
Taking this variety of interests as a starting point, this book seeks to
explain the humanitarian discourse that grew up around Russia. It is
contended that these humanitarian campaigns were not simply testing
grounds for existing ideals or practices, but were produced dynamically.
They were often products of the very specific transnational connec-
tions through which, for example, the Russian peasant commune (mir)
became a subject of interest in Britain, Russian exiles such as Sergey
Stepniak made friends with British liberals and leftists, the novelist
and moralist Lev Tolstoy won British disciples, Quakers saw Russian
dissenters as an aspect of their religious mission, or pacifists saw fam-
ine relief in Russia as ways to enact their ideals. The book looks at the
relations between religious and political ideals and various ad hoc cam-
paigns, to ask how new forms of humanitarianism are generated. That
is to say, ‘humanitarianism’ should not first and foremost be taken as
an abstract ideal that can be applied more or less successfully anywhere.
Rather, by looking at specific forms of intervention, arising from social
history, news cycles and micro-practices as much as universalist ideals,
we can better understand change and continuity in the humanitarian
field in general. Instead of tracing the big turning points of ‘humani-
tarianism’ as a whole—after 1945 or 1990, say—we should look at the
convergences and divergences of these various, smaller currents. In this
respect, the book follows anthropological work such as Redfield’s, which
argues for a ‘move away from treating humanitarianism as an absolute
value by approaching it as an array of particular embodied, situated prac-
tices emanating from the humanitarian desire to alleviate the suffering
4 L. Kelly

of others.’6 It is a social and cultural, rather than political or intellectual,

understanding of the phenomenon, and therefore derives as much from the
practices of churches, political parties and the press as from law or ideas.

Historiography
Humanitarianism, broadly understood as ranging from Enlightenment
schemes for the improvement of prisons, schools and public health, to
warzone interventions by non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
like Médecins sans frontières,7 has generated a great deal of scholarship
in recent years. First, cultural histories of humanitarian sentiments, par-
ticularly in the eighteenth century, have formed an important strand of
the historiography.8 This approach has led to a great deal of work on
responses to, and representations of, humanitarian suffering.9 Secondly,
humanitarian practices, or practices like medicine that can be turned to
humanitarian ends, are also important aspects of humanitarian action.
Analysis of missionaries’ work to convert, as well as to clothe, educate and
heal, non-Christian subjects of European empires, is clearly an important
component of humanitarian history, as is later medical work. Historians
and anthropologists have shown how paternalism, professional norms,
and state and economic power have combined to produce outcomes more
ambiguous and varied than simply the relief of suffering.10 Thirdly, the

6 Peter Redfield, ‘Doctors, Borders and Life in Crisis,’ Cultural Anthropology, 20:3

(2005), pp. 328–361.

7 Craig Calhoun, ‘The Imperative to Reduce Suffering: Charity, Progress, and

Emergencies in the Field of Humanitarian Action’, in Humanitarianism in Question:

Politics, Power, Ethics, ed. by Thomas G. Weiss and Michael Barnett (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 2008), pp. 73–97.
8 Thomas Laqueur, ‘Bodies, Details, and the Humanitarian Narrative’, in The New

Cultural History, ed. by Lynn Hunt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), pp.
176–204; Lynn Hunt, Inventing Human Rights: A History, 1st edn (New York: W.W.
Norton & Co., 2007); Karen Halttunen, ‘Humanitarianism and the Pornography of Pain
in Anglo-American Culture’, American Historical Review, 100.2 (2005), pp. 303–334.
9 Richard Wilson and Richard D. Brown, Humanitarianism and Suffering: The

Mobilization of Empathy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

10 Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman, The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the

Condition of Victimhood (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); John L.

Comaroff and Jean Comaroff, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination (Oxford:
Westview, 1992); Rebecca Gill, Calculating Compassion: Humanity and Relief in War,
Britain 1870–1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013).
 BRITISH HUMANITARIAN ACTIVITY AND RUSSIA, C. 1890–1923 5

function of humanitarian campaigns and organisations in society and pol-

itics more broadly—whether as a tool of imperialism, class domination,
or a genuinely autonomous and disinterested sphere—is also addressed,
especially with respect to the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century aboli-
tion of slavery campaign.11 Finally, the differing varieties of the humani-
tarian ideal can be isolated and analysed. Such approaches can analyse the
type of problems deemed worthy of response, the nature of the ties said
to create a common humanity, whether aid is conceptualised as an entitle-
ment or a gift, solidarity or compassion, and so on. While humanitarian
sympathy is sometimes presented as natural and universal, the prescrip-
tions arising from this sympathy vary considerably: from paternalistic char-
ity, emergency aid, development, to rights-based advocacy, and so on.
Despite this multiplicity of humanitarian practices, too many analyses
see humanitarianism as a relative constant that has been applied to specific
situations. Michael Barnett classifies humanitarianism as a ‘compassion-
ate sphere’ and delineates three ‘ages’ of humanitarianism.12 This has the
advantage of giving a clear conceptual and temporal structure, but it can
obscure the fact that fields like international law, humanitarian techniques
and organisations often have separate chronologies. It also, by virtue of
its breadth, glosses over some of the local sources of humanitarianism,
and assumes that some form of humanitarian response will exist at any
one time. It posits conceptual autonomy and clarity, at least at a distance,
that would not necessarily be evident to, say, missionaries carrying out
humanitarian work at the time. Indeed, as Wilson and Brown assert:

[h]umanitarianism, as an ethic, cuts across political orientations and can be

associated with religious and political projects as diverse as Quaker pacifism,
Protestant evangelicalism, Great Power imperialism, Catholic social democ-
racy, and grassroots democratic socialism…from food aid to refugee reset-
tlement from immigration reform laws to full-scale military intervention.13

11 Thomas L. Haskell, ‘Capitalism and the Origins of the Humanitarian Sensibility, Part

1’, American Historical Review, 90.2 (1985), p. 339; Thomas L. Haskell, ‘Capitalism and
the Origins of the Humanitarian Sensibility, Part 2’, American Historical Review, 90.3
(1985), p. 547; Michael N. Barnett, Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011); Antonio Donini, ‘The Far Side: The
Meta Functions of Humanitarianism in a Globalised World’, Disasters, 34.S2 (2010),
S220–S237.
12 Barnett, p. 30.

13 Wilson and Brown, p. 4.

6 L. Kelly

Discerning this ethic is only one part of the equation. By contrast, Didier
Fassin’s Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present uses eth-
nography to produce very precise and nuanced analyses of ‘humani-
tarian reason’ in bureaucratic processes, medical work, disaster relief,
and other such situations. This has the advantage of greater preci-
sion and provides some of the most interesting case studies in the field.
Nevertheless, such ethnographies, however illuminating in the present,
can seem disconnected from longer timelines and deeper structures of
power. Humanitarianism emerges as an extremely malleable, yet perva-
sive, force.14 The problem of linking ‘humanitarianism’ with its diverse
manifestations remains. One solution is Laqua’s ‘metaphor of a “human-
itarian cloud”. Similar to a cloud, the contours of humanitarianism are
often unclear: at times, it is difficult to delineate humanitarian concerns
from Christian charity, or from political expressions of solidarity’, which
can obscure differing motivations and effects. But the cloud also contains
‘pooled resources…be they rhetorical tropes, specific types of informa-
tion or campaigning techniques.’15 Such a perspective allows us to show
the divergences between the actors involved in humanitarian acts but
also the common thread of relief or campaigning techniques and at least
some underlying ideals.
Perhaps the narrative of the longest duration and greatest analytic
coherence is that of humanitarian principles in international rela-
tions. This historiography shows to what degree humanitarian norms,
broadly understood, have been able to override state sovereignty and
national aims.16 For example, interventions in the Ottoman Empire,

14 Didier Fassin and Rachel Gomme, Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the

Present Times (London: University of California Press, 2012), p. 2. Humanitarianism is

seen ‘as connoting both dimensions encompassed by the definition of humanity: on the
one hand the generality of human beings who share a similar condition (mankind), and on
the other an affective movement drawing humans towards their fellows (humaneness).’
15 Daniel Laqua, ‘Inside the Humanitarian Cloud: Causes and Motivations to Help Friends

and Strangers’, Journal of Modern European History, 12.2 (2014), pp. 175–185 (p. 184).
16 Brendan Simms and D.J.B. Trim, ‘Humanitarian Intervention: A History’

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Alex J. Bellamy, Massacres and Morality:
Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012);
Fabian Klose, The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas and Practice from the
Nineteenth Century to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
 BRITISH HUMANITARIAN ACTIVITY AND RUSSIA, C. 1890–1923 7

Romania and other new East European states have been looked at.17
Humanitarian responses to Russia have received comparatively little
attention, mainly because the country, one of the strongest in Europe,
was not nearly as susceptible to intervention as its southern neighbours.
Indeed, historiography on foreign responses to Russia focus on inter-
national relations, from the Great Game to the alliance system lead-
ing up to the First World War, and then responses to communism.18
Various sub-national connections in the fields of labour history, art and
culture, scholarship, and so on, have also been considered, but gener-
ally within distinct disciplinary boundaries.19 Humanitarianism was
indeed only a minor strand of the Anglo-Russian relationship (although
it took on greater prominence during certain flashpoints like the 1921
famine). Keith Neilson’s history of the Anglo-Russian relationship
under Nicholas II argues that although there were significant efforts to
democratise British foreign policy and to colour it with cultural, eco-
nomic and moral concerns, diplomacy was certainly the most important
strand.20 Michael Hughes puts more emphasis on the competition that
diplomats faced in attempting to determine foreign policy, but confirms
its limited effect.21
But while national policy may have been, as Neilson shows, relatively
unmoved by considerations of humanity, these humanitarian views of
Russia had the potential, at least, to undermine this primacy. The book
does not reject Neilson’s view, but rather focuses on an understanding
of the humanitarian strands as shaped in relation to historically specific
political relations and transnational connections. In this way it does

17 Carole Fink, Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, and

International Minority Protection, 1878–1938 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2004); Davide Rodogno, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman
Empire, 1815–1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).
18 Peter Hopkirk, The Great Game: On Secret Service in High Asia, 1st edn (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1991).

19 Anthony Cross, ‘A People Passing Rude’: British Responses to Russian Culture (Open

Book Publishers, 2012).

20 Keith Neilson, Britain and the Last Tsar: British Policy and Russia, 1894–1917

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

21 Michael Hughes, Diplomacy Before the Russian Revolution: Britain, Russia, and the

Old Diplomacy, 1894–1917 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), Hughes notes criticism
of the ‘old diplomacy’ by liberals and others.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 In that decision Madison was doubtless right. Whatever were
Armstrong’s faults, he was the strongest Secretary of War the
government had yet seen. Hampered by an inheritance of mistakes
not easily corrected, and by a chief whose methods were unmilitary
in the extreme, Armstrong still introduced into the army an energy
wholly new. Before he had been a year in office he swept away the
old generals with whom Madison and Eustis had encumbered the
service, and in their place substituted new men. While Major-
Generals Dearborn, Pinckney, and Morgan Lewis were set over
military districts where active service was unnecessary, and while
Major-General Wilkinson was summoned to the last of his many
courts of inquiry, the President sent to the Senate, January 21 and
February 21, the names of two new major-generals and six
brigadiers of a totally different character from the earlier
appointments.
The first major-general was George Izard of South Carolina, born
at Paris in 1777, his father Ralph Izard being then American
commissioner with Franklin and Deane. Returning to America only
for a few years after the peace, George Izard at the age of fifteen
was sent abroad to receive a military education in England,
Germany, and France in the great school of the French Revolution.
As far as education could make generals, Izard was the most
promising officer in the United States service. Appointed in March,
1812, colonel of the Second Artillery, promoted to brigadier in March,
1813, he served with credit under Hampton at Chateaugay, and
received his promotion over the heads of Chandler, Boyd, and one or
two other brigadiers his seniors. He was intended to succeed
Hampton on Lake Champlain.
The second new major-general was Jacob Brown, who after
receiving the appointment of brigadier, July 19, 1813, was suddenly
promoted to major-general at the same time with Izard. The
selection was the more remarkable because Brown had no military
education, and was taken directly from the militia. Born in
Pennsylvania in 1775 of Quaker parentage, Brown began life as a
schoolmaster. At the instance of the Society of Friends, he taught
 497
their public school in New York city for several years with credit.
He then bought a large tract of land near Sackett’s Harbor, and in
1799 undertook to found a town of Brownville. He soon became a
leading citizen in that part of New York, and in 1809 was appointed
to the command of a militia regiment. In 1811 he was made a
brigadier of militia, and at the beginning of the war distinguished
himself by activity and success at Ogdensburg. His defence of
Sackett’s Harbor in 1813 won him a brigade in the regular service,
and his share in Wilkinson’s descent of the St. Lawrence led to his
further promotion.
Wilkinson, who regarded Brown as one of his enemies, declared
that he knew not enough of military duty to post the guards of his
498
camp, and that he compelled his battery to form in a hollow for
the advantage of elevating the pieces to fire at the opposite
499
heights. Winfield Scott, who was one of Brown’s warmest friends,
described him as full of zeal and vigor, but not a technical soldier,
and but little acquainted with organization, tactics, police, and camp-
500
duties in general. The promotion of an officer so inexperienced
to the most important command on the frontier, gave a measure of
Armstrong’s boldness and judgment.
The six new brigadiers were also well chosen. They were
Alexander Macomb, T. A. Smith, Daniel Bissell, Edmund P. Gaines,
Winfield Scott, and Eleazer W. Ripley, all colonels of the regular
army, selected for their merits. Armstrong supplied Brown’s defects
of education by giving him the aid of Winfield Scott and Ripley, who
were sent to organize brigades at Niagara.
The energy thus infused by Armstrong into the regular army
lasted for half a century; but perhaps his abrupt methods were
better shown in another instance, which brought upon him the
displeasure of the President. Against Harrison, Armstrong from the
first entertained a prejudice. Believing him to be weak and
pretentious, the Secretary of War showed the opinion by leaving him
in nominal command in the northwest, but sending all his troops in
different directions, without consulting him even in regard to
movements within his own military department. Harrison, taking just
offence, sent his resignation as major-general, May 11, 1814, but at
the same time wrote to Governor Shelby of Kentucky a letter which
caused the governor to address to the President a remonstrance
501
against accepting the resignation.
At that moment Armstrong and Madison were discussing the
means of promoting Andrew Jackson in the regular service for his
success in the Creek campaigns. No commission higher than that of
brigadier was then at their disposal, and a commission as brigadier
was accordingly prepared for Jackson May 22, with a brevet of
502
major-general. Harrison’s resignation had been received by
Armstrong two days before issuing Jackson’s brevet, and had been
503
notified to the President, who was then at Montpelier. The
President replied May 25, suggesting that in view of Harrison’s
resignation, the better way would be to send a commission as
major-general directly to Jackson: “I suspend a final decision,
however, till I see you, which will be in two or three days after the
504
arrival of this.” No sooner did Armstrong receive the letter, than
without waiting for the President’s return he wrote to Jackson, May
28: “Since the date of my letter of the 24th Major-General Harrison
has resigned his commission in the army, and thus is created a
505
vacancy in that grade, which I hasten to fill with your name.”
Armstrong’s course was irregular, and his account to Jackson of
the circumstances was incorrect; for Harrison’s resignation had been
received before, not after, Armstrong’s letter of the 24th. Madison
believed that Armstrong wished to appear as the source of favor to
the army. Armstrong attributed Madison’s hesitation to the wish of
Madison and Monroe that Harrison, rather than Jackson, should take
506
command of Mobile and New Orleans. Both suspicions might be
wrong or right; but Armstrong’s conduct, while betraying the first
motive, suggested the fear that the President might change his
mind; and Harrison believed that the President would have done so,
had not Armstrong’s abrupt action made it impossible. “The
507
President expressed his great regret,” said Harrison’s biographer,
“that the letter of Governor Shelby had not been received earlier, as
in that case the valuable services of General Harrison would have
been preserved to the nation in the ensuing campaign.”
Little as the President liked his Secretary of War, his antipathy
was mild when compared with that of Monroe. The failure of the
Canada campaign gave a serious blow to Armstrong; but he had still
recovered Detroit, and was about to finish the Creek war. His hold
upon the army was becoming strong. His enemies charged him with
ambition; they said he was systematically engaged in strengthening
his influence by seducing the young officers of talents into his
personal support, teaching them to look for appreciation not to the
President but to himself, and appointing to office only his own tools,
or the sons of influential men. He was believed to favor a
conscription, and to aim at the position of lieutenant-general. These
stories were constantly brought to Monroe, and drove him to a
condition of mind only to be described as rabid. He took the unusual
508
step of communicating them to the President, with confidential
comments that, if known to Armstrong, could hardly have failed to
break up the Cabinet.

“It is painful to me to make this communication to you,”

509
wrote the Secretary of State Dec. 27, 1813; “nor should I do
it if I did not most conscientiously believe that this man, if
continued in office, will ruin not you and the Administration only,
but the whole Republican party and cause. He has already gone
far to do it, and it is my opinion, if he is not promptly removed,
he will soon accomplish it. Without repeating other objections to
him, if the above facts are true, ... he wants a head fit for his
station. Indolent except to improper purposes, he is incapable of
that combination and activity which the times require. My advice
to you, therefore, is to remove him at once. The near prospect
 of a conscription, adopted and acted on without your
approbation or knowledge, is a sufficient reason. The burning of
Newark, if done by his orders, is another. The failure to place
troops at Fort George is another. In short there are abundant
reasons for it. His removal for either of the three would revive
the hopes of our party now desponding, and give a stimulus to
measures. I do not however wish you to act on my advice,—
consult any in whom you have confidence. Mr. A. has, as you
may see, few friends, and some of them cling to him rather as I
suspect from improper motives, or on a presumption that you
support him.”

Armstrong’s faults were beyond dispute, but his abilities were

very considerable; and the President justly thought that nothing
would be gained by dismissing him, even to restore Monroe to the
War Department. Armstrong, struggling with the load of incapable
officers and insufficient means, for which Madison and Congress
were responsible, required the firm support of his chief and his
colleagues, as well as of the army and of Congress, to carry the
burden of the war; but he had not a friend to depend upon.
Secretary Jones was as hostile as Monroe. Pennsylvania and Virginia
equally distrusted him, and the fate of any public man distrusted by
Pennsylvania and Virginia was commonly fixed in advance.
Armstrong was allowed to continue his preparations for the next
campaign, but Monroe remained actively hostile. In a private letter
to Crawford, written probably about the month of May, 1814, and
preserved with a memorandum that it was not sent, Monroe
510
said: —

“There is now no officer free to command to whom the

public looks with any sort of confidence or even hope. Izard
stands next, but he is as you see otherwise engaged [on a court
of inquiry on Wilkinson]. Thus the door is left open for some
new pretender, and Mr. Armstrong is that pretender. This has
 been his object from the beginning.... The whole affair is beyond
my control.”

Thus the elements of confusion surrounding Armstrong were

many. A suspicious and hesitating President; a powerful and jealous
Secretary of State; a South Carolinian major-general, educated in
the French engineers, commanding on Lake Champlain; a
Pennsylvania schoolmaster, of Quaker parentage, without military
knowledge, commanding at Sackett’s Harbor and Niagara; a few
young brigadiers eager to distinguish themselves, and an army of
some thirty thousand men,—these were the elements with which
Armstrong was to face the whole military power of England; for Paris
capitulated March 31, and the war in Europe was ended.
In one respect, Armstrong’s conduct seemed inconsistent with
the idea of selfishness or intrigue. The duty of organizing a court
martial for the trial of William Hull fell necessarily upon him. Hull’s
defence must inevitably impeach Hull’s superiors; his acquittal was
possible only on the ground that the Government had been
criminally negligent in supporting him. As far as Armstrong was
interested in the result, he was concerned in proving the incapacity
of his predecessor Eustis, and of the President, in their management
of the war. He could have had no personal object to gain in
procuring the conviction of Hull, but he might defend his own course
by proving the imbecility of Dearborn.
The President ordered a court martial on Hull before Armstrong
entered the War Department. A. J. Dallas drew up the specifications,
and inserted, contrary to his own judgment, a charge of treason
made by the Department. The other charges were cowardice,
neglect of duty, and unofficer-like conduct. Monroe, while
temporarily at the head of the Department, organized the first court
to meet at Philadelphia Feb. 25, 1813. Major-General Wade Hampton
was to preside.
Before the trial could be held, Armstrong came into office, and
was obliged to order the members of the court to active service.
Hampton was sent to Lake Champlain, and when his campaign
ended in November, 1813, he returned under charges resembling
511
those against Hull. Finding that neither Wilkinson nor Armstrong
cared to press them, and satisfied that no inquiry could be impartial,
Hampton determined to settle the question by once more sending in
512
his resignation, which he did in March, 1814, when it was
accepted. Armstrong in effect acquitted Hampton by accepting his
resignation, and never publicly affirmed any charge against him until
after Hampton’s death, when he attributed to the major-general
513
“much professional error and great moral depravity.” Hampton’s
opinion of Armstrong could be gathered only from his conduct and
his letters to the Secretary of War, but was not materially different
from Armstrong’s opinion of Hampton.
Meanwhile Hull waited for trial. During the summer of 1813 he
saw nearly all his possible judges disgraced and demanding courts
martial like himself. Hampton was one; Wilkinson another; Dearborn
a third. Dearborn had been removed from command of his army in
face of the enemy, and loudly called for a court of inquiry. Instead of
granting the request, the President again assigned him to duty in
command of Military District No. 3, comprising the city of New York,
and also made him President of the court martial upon General Hull.
The impropriety of such a selection could not be denied. Of all
men in the United States, Dearborn was most deeply interested in
the result of Hull’s trial, and the President, next to Dearborn, would
be most deeply injured by Hull’s acquittal. The judgment of
Dearborn, or of any court over which Dearborn presided, in a matter
which affected both court and government so closely could not
command respect. That Armstrong lent himself to such a measure
was a new trait of character never explained; but that Madison
either ordered or permitted it showed that he must have been
unconscious either of Dearborn’s responsibility for Hull’s disaster, or
of his own.
 Hull offered no objection to his court, and the trial began at
Albany, Jan. 3, 1814, Dearborn presiding, and Martin Van Buren
acting as special judge-advocate. March 26 the court sentenced Hull
to be shot to death for cowardice, neglect of duty, and unofficer-like
conduct. April 25 President Madison approved the sentence, but
remitted the execution, and Hull’s name was ordered to be struck
from the army roll.
That some one should be punished for the loss of Detroit was
evident, and few persons were likely to complain because Hull was a
selected victim; but many thought that if Hull deserved to be shot,
other men, much higher than he in office and responsibility, merited
punishment; and the character of the court-martial added no credit
to the Government, which in effect it acquitted of blame.

end of vol. i.
 FOOTNOTES
1
Madison to Wheaton, Feb. 26, 1827; Works, iii. 553.
2
Castlereagh to Russell, Aug. 29, 1812; State Papers, iii. 589.
3
Russell to Monroe, Sept. 17, 1812; State Papers, iii. 593.
4
Castlereagh to Russell, Sept. 18, 1812; State Papers, iii. 592.
5
Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 463; Feb. 18, 1813.
6
James, App. No. 77.
7
Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 34; Nov. 30, 1812.
8
Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 47, 48; Nov. 30. 1812.
9
Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 72; Nov. 30, 1812.
10
The Times, Jan. 2, 1813.
11
Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 625; Feb. 13, 1813.
12
Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 582.
13
Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 586.
14
Diary of J. Q. Adams, Sept. 21, 1812; ii. 401.
15
Vetus, in the “Times,” Oct. 26, 1812.
16
Diary of J. Q. Adams, Oct. 21, 1812; ii. 414.
17
Diary of J. Q. Adams, ii. 433. Adams to Monroe, Dec. 11,
1812; State Papers, iii. 626.
18
Diary of J. Q. Adams, Feb. 1, 1813; ii. 440.
19
State Papers, iii. 608.
20
Foster to Monroe, July 2, 1811; State Papers, iii. 542.
21
Adams’s Gallatin, p. 488.
22
Serurier to Bassano, Jan. 13, 1813; Archives des Aff. Étr. MSS.
23
Monroe to Jefferson, June 7, 1813; Jefferson MSS.
24
Monroe to Madison, Feb. 25, 1813; Monroe MSS. State
Department Archives; Gilman’s Monroe, p. 108.
25
Armstrong’s Notices of the War, i. 113–116.
26
Adams’s Gallatin, p. 408.
27
Gallatin to Nicholson, May 5, 1813; Adams’s Gallatin, p. 482.
28
State Papers, iii. 624.
29
Monroe to Jefferson, June 7, 1813; Jefferson MSS.
30
Adams’s Gallatin, p. 483.
31
Gallatin’s Writings, i. 535.
32
Monroe to the Plenipotentiaries, April 15, 1813; State Papers,
iii. 695.
33
Niles, iv. 168.
34
Gallatin to William Few, May 9, 1813; Gallatin MSS.
35
Pickering to Lowell, Nov. 7, 1814; New England Federalism, p.
404.
36
Ingersoll’s History, i. 120.
37
Serurier to Bassano, July 21, 1813; Archives des Aff. Étr. MSS.
38
National Intelligencer, July 17, 20, 22, 1813.
39
Madison to Gallatin, Aug. 2, 1813; Works, ii. 566.
40
Executive Journal, ii. 388.
41
Monroe to Jefferson, June 28, 1813; Adams’s Gallatin, p. 484.
42
Monroe to Jefferson, June 28, 1813; Adams’s Gallatin, p. 484.
Cf. Madison to the Senate, July 6, 1813; Executive Journal, ii.
381.
43
Hanson to Pickering, Oct. 16, 1813; Pickering MSS.
44
Harrison to Eustis, Aug. 10, 1812; Dawson, p. 273.
45
Harrison to Eustis, Aug. 28, 1812; Dawson, p. 283.
46
Harrison to Eustis, Aug. 28, 1812; Dawson, p. 283.
47
Dawson, p. 296.
48
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Sept. 16, 1816.
49
Eustis to Harrison, Sept. 17, 1812; Dawson, p. 299. Eustis to
Governor Shelby, Sept. 17, 1812. McAffee, p. 117.
50
Dawson, p. 312.
51
McAffee, p. 184.
52
Armstrong to Harrison, April 4, 1813; Armstrong’s Notices, i.
245.
53
Harrison to Secretary of War, Jan. 4, 1813; Dawson, p. 337.
54
Dawson, p. 333. Armstrong’s Notices, i. 63, 86.
55
Dawson, p. 454.
56
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Jan. 4, 1813; Dawson, p.
339.
57
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Jan. 4, 1813; Dawson, p.
339.
58
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Jan. 4, 1813; Dawson, p.
339.
59
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Jan. 8, 1813; Dawson, p.
339.
60
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Sept. 16, 1817;
Major Eves’s Statement; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 203. Cf.
Dawson, p. 443.
61
Winchester’s Statement; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 197.
62
McAffee, p. 230.
63
McAffee, p. 237.
64
Winchester’s Statement; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 199.
65
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Dec. 13, 1817.
66
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Dec. 13, 1817.
67
James, i. 185; Richardson, p. 74.
68
Richardson, p. 75.
69
Winchester’s Statement; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 198.
70
Winchester to the “National Intelligencer,” Dec. 17, 1817.
71
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Jan. 26, 1813; Official
Letters, p. 125.
72
Harrison to Governor Meigs, Jan. 19, 1813; “National
Intelligencer,” Feb. 11, 1813.
73
McAffee, p. 210; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 200.
74
Harrison to the Secretary of War, Feb. [Jan.] 20, 1813; MSS.
War Department Archives.
75
McAffee, p. 233.
76
Dawson, p. 364.
77
Life of Sir George Prevost; App. xxv. p 74. Christie, ii. 115.
78
Return of the whole of the troops engaged at Frenchtown,
Jan. 22, 1813; MSS. Canadian Archives, c. 678, p. 18.
79
Christie, ii. 69; James, i. 186; Richardson, p. 75.
80
Proctor’s Report of Jan. 25, 1813; James, i. 418.
81
James, i. 185, 186.
82
Return, etc.; MSS. Canadian Archives, c. 648, p. 18.
83
Richardson, p. 76.
84
Statement of Madison, March 13, 1813; Niles, iv. 83.
85
Richardson’s War of 1812, p. 79.
86
Dawson, p. 362.
87
Dawson, p. 356.
88
Armstrong’s Notices, i. 85.
89
Dawson, p. 370.
90
McAffee, p. 240.
91
Dawson, p. 375.
92
Dawson, p. 373.
93
Armstrong’s Notices, i. 242.
94
Dawson, p. 337.
95
Proctor’s Report of May 4, 1813; Richardson, p. 94; James, i.
196, 429.
96
Lossing, p. 486, note.
97
Richardson, p. 86; James, i. 198.
98
Harrison to Armstrong, May 13, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
99
Richardson, pp. 87, 88. Harrison to Armstrong, May 9, 1813;
MSS. War Department Archives.
100
Richardson, p. 88.
101
Harrison to Armstrong, May 13, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
102
Proctor’s Report of May 14, 1813; James, i. 428; Richardson,
pp. 93, 94.
103
Prevost to Proctor, July 11, 1813; Armstrong’s Notices i. 228.
104
Richardson, p. 111.
105
James, i. 264, 265; Richardson, p. 104; Christie, p. 117.
106
Dawson, p. 408.
107
McAffee, p. 322.
108
McAffee, p. 323.
109
Governor Duncan’s Report, 1834; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 230.
110
Dawson, p. 408.
111
Richardson, p. 105.
112
Proctor to Prevost, Aug. 9, 1813; MSS. Canadian Archives.
113
Life of Prevost, p. 106, note.
114
Governor Duncan’s Report, 1834; Armstrong’s Notices, i. 230.
115
Richardson, p. 104.
116
James, ii. 264.
117
Dawson, p. 407; McAffee, p. 302.
118
Armstrong’s Notices, i. 166, note.
119
Harrison to Armstrong, March 17, 1813; Notices, i. 242.
120
Richardson, p. 110; James, Naval Occurrences, p. 285.
121
Barclay’s Report of Sept. 12, 1813; James, Naval Occurrences.
Appendix, no. 54.
122
McAffee, p. 334.
123
Harrison to Meigs, Oct. 11, 1813; Official Letters, p. 239.
124
Armstrong, i. 171, note; McAffee, p. 286.
125
R. M. Johnson to Armstrong, Dec. 22, 1834; Armstrong, i. 232.
126
Perry to Secretary Jones, Sept. 24, 1813; Official Letters, p.
215.
127
James, i. 269.
128
Richardson, p. 119.
129
Harrison to Meigs, Oct. 11, 1813; Official Letters, p. 239.
130
Richardson, pp. 126, 133, 134.
131
Perry to Secretary Jones, Sept. 27, 1813; Official Letters, p.
220.
132
Harrison to Armstrong, Sept. 27, 1813; Dawson, p. 421.
133
Harrison to Armstrong, Oct. 9, 1813; Official Letters, p. 233.
134
Report of Oct. 23, 1813; MSS. British Archives. Lower Canada,
vol. cxxiii.
135
Richardson, pp. 133, 134.
136
Harrison’s Report, Oct. 9, 1813; Official Letters, p. 234.
137
Narrative of Lieutenant Bullock, Dec. 6, 1813; Richardson, p.
137.
138
Proctor’s Report of Oct. 23, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
139
Richardson, pp. 122, 139.
140
Richardson, p. 136.
141
James, i. 278.
142
Report of Lieutenant Bullock, Dec. 6, 1813; Richardson, p.
140.
143
Harrison’s Report of Oct. 9, 1813; Official Letters, p. 233.
144
R. M. Johnson to Armstrong, Dec. 22, 1834; Armstrong’s
Notices, i. 232.
145
Report of Lieutenant Bullock, Dec. 6, 1813; Richardson, p.
140.
146
Richardson, p. 136.
147
R. M. Johnson to Armstrong, Nov. 21, 1813; MSS. War
Department Archives.
148
Richardson, p. 125. Lewis Cass to Armstrong, Oct. 28, 1813;
MSS. War Department Archives.
149
Return of Right Division, Richardson, p. 129.
150
Prevost to Bathurst, Feb. 14, 1815; MSS. British Archives.
151
W. H. Robinson to Prevost, Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. British
Archives.
152
Prevost to Bathurst, Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. British Archives,
Lower Canada, vol. cxxviii. no. 190.
153
James, i. 140.
154
Report of Major Macdonnell, Feb. 23, 1813; James, i. Appendix
no. 16.
155
State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 608.
156
Armstrong to Dearborn, Feb. 10, 1813; Armstrong’s Notices, i.
221.
157
Note presented to Cabinet, Feb. 8, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. Appendix xxvi.; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 439.
158
State Papers; Military Affairs, i. 440.
159
Distribution of Forces in Canada; Canadian Archives, Freer
Papers, 1812–1813, p. 47.
160
Dearborn to Armstrong, March 9, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 441.
161
Dearborn to Armstrong, March 9, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 442.
162
State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 442.
163
Armstrong to Dearborn, April 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 442.
164
State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 442.
165
James, i. 143, 149.
166
Letter of Dearborn, Oct. 17, 1814; Niles, viii. 36.
167
Niles, iv. 238.
168
Table of Land Battles; Niles, x. 154.
169
Dearborn to Armstrong, April 28, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 443.
170
Dearborn to Armstrong, May 13, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 444.
171
James, i. p. 151.
172
Vincent to Sir George Prevost, May 28, 1813; James, i. 407;
Appendix no. 21.
173
Return of killed, etc.; James, i. 410.
174
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, July 5, 1813; MSS. War
Department Archives.
175
James, i. 203.
176
Armstrong to Dearborn, June 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 449.
177
Table of land battles; Niles, x. 154.
178
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, June 14, 1813; Official Letters, p.
165. Chandler to Dearborn, June 18, 1813; Official Letters, p.
169.
179
Vincent to Prevost, June 6, 1813; James, i. p. 431.
180
Chandler’s Report of June 18, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. p. 448.
181
Report of Colonel Harvey, June 6, 1813; Canadiana, April,
1889. Report of General Vincent, June 6, 1813; James, i. p.
431.
182
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, June 14 (8?), 1813; Official
Letters, p. 165.
183
State Papers; Military Affairs, i. 445.
184
State Papers; Military Affairs, i. 447.
185
State Papers; Military Affairs, i. 448.
186
State Papers; Military Affairs, i. 446.
187
State Papers; Military Affairs, i. 449.
188
Morgan Lewis to Armstrong, July 5, 1813; MSS. War
Department Archives.
189
Memoir of Dearborn, etc., compiled by Charles Coffin, p. 139.
190
Court of Inquiry on Colonel Boerstler, Feb. 17, 1815; Niles x.
19.
191
James, i. 216.
192
Dearborn to Armstrong, June 25, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs; i. 449.
193
James, i. 165; Colonel Baynes to Prevost, May 30, 1813;
James, i. 413.
194
Report of Sir George Prevost, June 1, 1813; MSS. British
Archives.
195
Prevost to Bathurst, June 1, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
Prevost’s Life, p. 82, 83.
196
James, i. 165, 166. Brenton to Freer, May 30, 1813; MSS.
Canadian Archives, Freer Papers, 1812–1813, p. 183.
197
Report of Colonel Baynes, May 30, 1813; James, i. 413.
198
Brown to Dearborn, July 25, 1813; Dearborn MSS.
199
Prevost’s Report of June 1, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
200
James, i. 175.
201
Report of Colonel Baynes, May 30, 1813; James, i. 413.
202
Brenton to Freer, May 30, 1813; MSS. Canadian Archives. Freer
Papers, 1812–1813.
203
Quarterly Review, xxvii. 419; Christie, ii. 81; James, i. 177.
204
Brown’s Report of June 1, 1813; Niles, iv. 260.
205
Brown to Dearborn, July 25, 1813; Dearborn MSS.
206
James, i. 165.
207
Return, etc.; James, i. 417.
208
Baynes’s Report of May 30, 1813; James, i. 413.
209
Strictures on General Wilkinson’s Defence; from the Albany
“Argus.” Niles, ix. 425.
210
Armstrong to Wilkinson, March 10, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 341.
211
Armstrong to Wilkinson, March 12, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 342.
212
Autobiography, p. 94, note.
213
Strictures; Niles, ix. 425.
214
Wilkinson, to Armstrong, May 23, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 341.
215
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 23.
216
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 23.
217
Scott’s Autobiography, p. 50.
218
Scott’s Autobiography, p. 36.
219
Hampton to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. Appendix xxxvi.
220
Memorandum by Armstrong, July 23, 1813; Wilkinson to
Armstrong, Aug. 6, 1813; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 463;
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 31.
221
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Aug. 8, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 464.
222
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 32.
223
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxxv.
224
Hampton to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; Memoirs, iii. Appendix
xxxvi.
225
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 358.
226
Hampton to Armstrong, Aug. 31, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives. Armstrong to Wilkinson, Sept. 6, 1813; Wilkinson’s
Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxxvii.
227
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 33; Memorandum of July 23, 1813;
State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 463.
228
Minutes, etc.; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix no. 1.
229
Wilkinson to Swartwout, Aug. 25, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 51.
230
Cf. Wilkinson to Armstrong, Oct. 19, 1813; State Papers,
Military Affairs, i. 472.
231
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Sept. 6, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. Appendix xxxvii.
232
Testimony of Brigadier-General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
80.
233
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 354.
234
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 357.
235
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 353.
236
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 190; Paper A, note.
237
Armstrong to Hampton, Oct. 16, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
361.
238
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Oct. 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 472.
239
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Oct. 19, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 472.
240
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 63.
241
Armstrong to Swartwout, Oct. 16, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 70.
242
Council of War, Nov. 8, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
Appendix xxiv. Report of Adjutant-General, Dec. 1, 1813,
Appendix vii.
243
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Oct. 28, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
244
General Order of Encampment; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 126;
Order of October 9, Appendix iii.
245
Minutes etc.; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxiv.
246
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Oct. 27, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. Appendix xli.
247
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Oct. 30, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 474.
248
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Nov. 12, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 474.
249
Journal etc.; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 477.
250
Evidence of General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 84;
Evidence of Doctor Bull; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 214.
251
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 364.
252
Autobiography, pp. 93, 94.
253
Wilkinson’s Defence, Memoirs, iii. 451; Ripley’s Evidence,
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 139.
254
Evidence of General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 85.
255
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Nov. 18, 1813; Niles, v. 235.
256
Evidence of Colonel Walbach; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 151.
257
James, i. 323–325, 467.
258
Return, etc., State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 476.
259
Morrison’s Report of Nov. 12, 1813; James, i. 451.
260
Journal, Nov. 11, 1813; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 478.
261
Evidence of Colonel Walbach; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 145;
Evidence of Colonel Pinkney, iii. 311.
262
Evidence of Brigadier-General Boyd; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii.
91.
263
James, i. 242; Christie, ii. 94.
264
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Aug. 30, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 466.
265
Armstrong to Hampton, Sept. 28, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 460. Cf. Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 25.
266
State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 461.
267
Prevost to Bathurst, Oct. 8, 1813; MSS. British Archives.
268
Weekly General Return, Sept. 15, 1813; MSS. Canadian
Archives, Freer Papers, 1813, p. 35.
269
Cf. Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix xxiv.; Council of War,
Nov. 8, 1813; Wilkinson’s Defence, Memoirs, iii. 449.
270
Hampton to Armstrong, Oct. 12, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 460.
271
James, i. 307.
272
Hampton to Armstrong, Nov. 1, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 461.
273
Prevost to Bathurst, Oct. 30, 1813; James, i. 462.
274
Hampton to Armstrong, Nov. 1, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 461.
275
Hampton to Armstrong, Nov. 1, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs iii.
Appendix lxix.
276
Wilkinson to Hampton, Nov. 6, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 462.
277
Hampton to Wilkinson, Nov. 8, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, 462.
278
Wilkinson to Hampton; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. Appendix v.
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Nov. 24, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 480.
279
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Nov. 17, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 478.
280
Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 43.
281
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 362, note.
282
McClure to Armstrong, Dec. 10, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 486.
283
Armstrong to McClure, Oct. 4, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 484.
284
Wilkinson to Armstrong, Sept. 16, 1813; Sept. 20, 1813; State
Papers, Military Affairs, i. 467, 469.
285
Armstrong to McClure, Nov. 25, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 485.
286
McClure to Armstrong, Dec. 10 and 13, 1813; State Papers,
Military Affairs, i. 486.
287
James, ii. 77.
288
McClure to Armstrong, Dec. 22, 1813; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 487.
289
Christie, ii. 140.
290
James, ii. 20, 21.
291
James, ii. 23.
292
Christie, ii. 143; Niles, v. 382.
293
Parton’s Jackson, i. 372.
294
Monroe to Pinckney, Jan. 13, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
295
Monroe to Wilkinson, Jan. 30, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
296
Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 124.
297
Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 127.
298
Act of Feb. 12, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, iii. 339.
299
Parton’s Jackson, i. 377.
300
Armstrong to Jackson, March 22, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
301
Armstrong to Pinckney, Feb. 15, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
302
Armstrong to Pinckney, March 7, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
303
Gallatin’s Works, i. 539, note.
304
Gallatin to Monroe, May 2, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 539.
305
Monroe to Gallatin, May 5, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 540.
306
Monroe to Gallatin, May 6, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, 1. 542.
307
Gallatin to Monroe, May 8, 1813; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 544.
308
Armstrong to Wilkinson, Feb. 16, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
iii. 339.
309
Minutes of a Council of War, Aug. 4, 1813; Wilkinson’s
Memoirs, i. 498–503.
310
Eustis to Wilkinson, April 15, 1812; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i.
495.
311
Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i. 507–522.
312
Armstrong to Wilkinson, May 22, 1813; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i.
521.
313
Armstrong to Wilkinson, May 27, 1813; MSS. War Department
Records.
314
Hawkins’s Sketch, p. 24.
315
U. S. Commissioners to Governor Irwin, July 1, 1796; State
Papers, Indian Affairs, i. 611.
316
Talk of the Creek Indians, June 24, 1796; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 604.
317
Life of Sam Dale, p. 59.
318
Hawkins to the Creek Chiefs, June 16, 1814; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 845.
319
Report of Alexander Cornells, June 22, 1813; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 845, 846.
320
Hawkins to General Pinckney, July 9, 1813; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 848.
321
Hawkins to the Creek Chiefs, March 29, 1813; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 839.
322
Hawkins to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i 851.
323
Report of Alexander Cornells, June 23, 1813; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 846.
324
Letter from Kaskaskias, Feb. 27, 1813; Niles, iv. 135.
325
Hawkins to the Creek Chiefs, March 29, 1813; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 839.
326
Hawkins to Armstrong, March 25, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 840.
327
Report of the Big Warrior, April 26, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 843.
328
Report of Nimrod Doyell, May 3, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 843.
329
Report of Alexander Cornells, June 22, 1813; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 845.
330
Talosee Fixico to Hawkins, July 5, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 847.
331
Hawkins to Armstrong, July 20, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 849.
332
Hawkins to Armstrong, Aug. 23, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 851.
333
Carson to Claiborne, July 29, 1813; Life of Dale, p. 78.
334
Hawkins to Floyd, Sept. 30, 1813; State Papers, Indian Affairs,
i. 854.
335
Pickett’s Alabama, ii. 264.
336
Life of Dale, 106.
337
Hawkins to Armstrong, July 20, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 849.
338
Hawkins to Floyd, Sept. 30, 1813; State Papers, Indian Affairs,
i. 854.
339
Big Warrior to Hawkins, Aug. 4, 1813; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 851.
340
Report of General Coffee, Nov. 4, 1813; Niles, v. 218.
341
Jackson to Blount, Nov. 11, 1813; Niles, v. 267.
342
Parton’s Jackson, i. 445.
343
Blount to Jackson, Dec. 22, 1813; Parton’s Jackson, i. 479,
480–484.
344
Hawkins’s Sketch, pp. 43, 44.
345
Cocke to the Secretary of War, Nov. 28, 1813; Niles, v. 282,
283.
346
Cocke to White; Parton’s Jackson, i. 451.
347
Floyd to Pinckney, Dec. 4, 1813; Niles, v. 283.
348
Pinckney to Armstrong, Dec. 28, 1813; MSS. War Department
Archives.
349
Pinckney to Jackson, Jan. 19, 1814; MSS. War Department
Archives.
350
Parton, i. 864.
351
Hawkins’s Sketch, p. 45.
352
Jackson to Pinckney, Jan. 29, 1814; Niles, v. 427.
353
Jackson to Pinckney, Jan. 29, 1814; Niles, v. 427.
354
Jackson to Pinckney, Jan. 29, 1814; Niles, v. 427.
355
Pickett’s Alabama, ii. 336.
356
Jackson to Pinckney, Jan. 29, 1814; Niles v. 427.
357
Letter from Milledgeville, March 16, 1814; “The War,” April 5,
1814.
358
Floyd to Pinckney, Jan. 27, 1814; Niles, v. 411.
359
Floyd to Pinckney, Feb. 2, 1814; Military and Naval Letters, p.
306. Hawkins to Armstrong, June 7, 1814; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, i. 858.
360
Pinckney to the Governor of Georgia, Feb. 20, 1814; Niles, vi.
132.
361
Pinckney to Colonel Williams, Dec. 23, 1813; MSS. War
Department Archives.
362
Parton’s Jackson, i. 503.
363
Parton’s Jackson, i. 454.
364
Cocke’s Defence; “National Intelligencer,” October, 1852.
Parton’s Jackson, i. 455. Eaton’s Jackson, p. 155.
365
Parton’s Jackson, i. 511.
366
Col. Gideon Morgan to Governor Blount, April 1, 1814; Niles,
vi. 148.
367
Eaton’s Jackson, p. 156.
368
Jackson to Pinckney, March 28, 1814; Military and Naval
Letters, p. 319.
369
Coffee to Jackson, April 1, 1814; Niles, vi. 148.
370
Colonel Morgan to Governor Blount, April 1, 1814; Niles, vi.
148.
371
Jackson to Governor Blount, March 31, 1814; Niles, vi. 147.