COLONEL NICOLA’S APPEAL TO WASHINGTON, PAGES 52-55 (QUOTED IN APPENDIX B, PAGES 262-270)
Colonel Lewis Nicola, the author of the appeal to Washington cited by Josiah, was born in Ireland, served twenty years in the British army, and then migrated to Philadelphia, where he established a dry-goods store, founded a library, and was a curator with the American Philosophical Society. At age sixty, he volunteered for the American army. An able recruiter and administrator, Nicola conceived the idea, which Congress approved, of recruiting thousands of wounded veterans, unable to serve in combat, into an invalid corps performing light duties such as guarding supply depots and hospitals and protecting local property. The heart of Nicola’s letter to Washington lays out the thesis that a republic (he cites Holland as an example) would not remain independently strong over centuries, let alone fulfill the promises to its military that Congress made, and that a monarchy, albeit with some improvements over the English form, offered the best chance for America surviving and the army receiving justice. He contrasts the weak performance of the American Congress with the “noble” performance of the army under Washington and draws the conclusion as to who should lead the future American government.
This war must have shown to all, but to military men in particular the weakness of republics, and the exertions the army has been able to make by being under a proper head, therefore . . . in this case it will, I believe, be uncontroverted that the same abilities which have led, through difficulties insurmountable by human power, to victory and glory, those qualities that have merited and obtained universal esteem and veneration of an army, would be most likely to conduct and direct us in the smoother paths of peace. (See Thomas Fleming, The Perils of Peace, 196, 197; Barry Schwartz, Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 134; Ron Chernow, Washington, 428.)
Nicola suggests that Washington’s title, at least temporarily, should be a more “moderate” one than king. His letter to Washington is a lengthy one, too long to quote here in full, because in addition to laying out the case for a monarchy over a republic, he lays out the woes of the army, elaborates a lengthy scheme for paying veterans involving western lands, and warns (similarly to the anonymous letter) that the army should not lay down its arms if it wants justice for itself.
WASHINGTON’S REPLY TO NICOLA, PAGE 54
Washington’s reply rejecting Nicola’s proposal is as brief as Nicola’s is verbose. (See The Writings of George Washington, 468, 469.)
Washington expresses surprise at Nicola’s proposal, says he is pained by and disagrees with the proposal, and pledges to keep Nicola’s letter secret. He goes on to state his support for the justice of the army’s grievances and urges Nicola to forget his proposal:
Sir: With a mixture of great surprise and astonishment I have read with attention the sentiments you have submitted to my perusal. Be assured Sir, no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, and I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severity. For the present, the communication of them will rest in my own bosom, unless some further agitation of the matter, shall make a disclosure necessary.
I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or anyone else, a sentiment of the like nature. With esteem I am . . . (See The Writings of George Washington, 468.)
While the sentiments ring true, it is doubtful, given previous entreaties, that Washington was truly surprised by Nicola’s letter. Feelings similar to Nicola’s sentiments of May 1782 were to reach Washington with more regularity as the week in Newburgh in March 1783 approached.
THE OLD FOX, PAGE 55
“The old fox” and “the old gray fox” were phrases Josiah rightly ascribes to the British during the war to describe Washington. Over the years, it became a term of respect as “bagging the old fox” became the all-consuming goal of British military strategy. The British increasingly became convinced that capturing cities and destroying armies, while helpful, was not as decisive a step toward victory as capturing the American commanding general. They may have underestimated the staying power of American forces in seeking shortcuts to victory, but the focus on Washington reflected their own, as well as Americans’ opinion of Washington’s central role in the conflict.
CHAPTER THREE: DAY THREE, WEDNESDAY—THE THIRD ANONYMOUS LETTER
JOSIAH DISCOVERS GATES’S AIDE, MAJOR JOHN ARMSTRONG JR., AS THE ANONYMOUS LETTER WRITER, PAGES 58-59, 61
Although there was some uncertainly early on, there is not much controversy today among historians on who wrote the anonymous letters. While they may disagree on other issues concerning the Newburgh affair, such as General Horatio Gates’s and others’ roles, all seem to agree with Josiah that Major John Armstrong Jr., an aide to Gates, was the writer of all the anonymous letters. (For more on Armstrong’s role, see Thomas Fleming, The Perils of Peace, 268, 269; Richard H. Kohn, The Inside History of the Newburgh Conspiracy; The William and Mary Quarterly, April 1970, 206.) Armstrong, twenty-four years old, was already known to be ambitious and an eloquent writer. After the Revolutionary War, his authorship then less well known and the Newburgh affair having receded into the background, Armstrong had a distinguished career, rising to become President Madison’s secretary of war during the War of 1812.
THE THIRD ANONYMOUS LETTER, PAGES 60-61 (QUOTED IN FULL IN APPENDIX B, PAGES 278-280)
Fearing that the officers would take General Washington’s order for a Saturday meeting as a rejection of the anonymous letter writer’s purpose, Major Armstrong cleverly argued that General Washington fully supported the mutineers’ goals espoused in Armstrong’s second letter or he would not have called a meeting at all.