Washington's Engineer
Page 30
9. Elizabeth S. Kite, Brigadier-General Louis Lebègue Duportail, Commandant of Engineers in the Continental Army, 1777–1783 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1933), 192.
10. Paul K. Walker, Engineers of Independence: A Documentary History of the Army Engineers in the American Revolution, 1775–1783 (Washington, DC: Historical Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1981), 294–96.
11. Walker, Engineers of Independence, 296.
12. Washington, Writings, 21:433.
13. Washington, Writings, 21:427.
14. Jared Sparks, The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts with a Life of the Author, Notes, and Illustrations (Boston: American Stationers’ Company, John B. Russell, 1834), 8:57.
15. Walker, Engineers of Independence, 296–98.
16. June 23, 1780, in James Thacher, Military Journal of the American Revolution, from the Commencement to the Disbanding of the American Army: Comprising a Detailed Account of the Principal Events and Battles of the Revolution, with Their Exact Dates, and a Biographical Sketch of the Most Prominent Generals (Hartford, CT: Hurlbut, Williams, 1862; New York: New York Times and Arno Press, 1974).
17. Papers of George Washington, general orders, July 6, 1781, in Washington, Writings, 22:232.
18. Sparks, Writings, 8:97–98, shows the addressee of the letter as the president of Congress.
19. Henri Doniol, Histoire de la participation de la France à l’établissement des États-Unis d’Amérique. Correspondance diplomatique et documents (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1886–1892), 5:513.
20. Kite, Brigadier-General Duportail, 197.
21. Doniol, Histoire, 5:514–16; Scott, De Grasse, 149–53.
22. George Washington to Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochambeau, July 25, 1781, in Washington, Writings, 22:416.
23. Senate Documents, 71st Cong., 3rd Sess. (December 1, 1930–March 4, 1931) (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931), 2:159.
24. Senate Documents, 2:159.
25. Landers, Virginia Campaign, 159ss.
26. Washington, Writings, 22:425.
27. Washington, Writings, 22:425. This note was written by Washington on the back of Duportail’s letter. The draft was copied and sent by one of his aides.
28. Walker, Engineers of Independence, 298–99.
29. Walker, Engineers of Independence, 298.
30. Kite, Brigadier-General Duportail, 202.
31. Joseph Plumb Martin, The Adventures of a Revolutionary Soldier (n.p.: Madison and Adams Press, 2019), 161.
32. Martin, Adventures, 161.
33. Washington, Writings, 22:501. When Admiral Graves returned to New York after abandoning the search for Colonel Laurens, he learned that a French fleet of twenty-eight vessels was fitting out at Martinique for North America. Rear Admiral Hood reached Sandy Hook on the twenty-eighth with a large fleet from the British West Indies. That same day, Clinton, Graves, and Hood held a council on Long Island, when they received intelligence that Barras had left Newport with his whole squadron on the twenty-fifth. They decided immediately to combine their forces to pursue both Barras and Grasse. However, Graves had to wait until the thirty-first to get his ships over the bar at Sandy Hook. Grasse arrived in the Chesapeake that same day. See Landers, Virginia Campaign, 159ss.
34. Founders Online, “[Diary Entry: 14 August 1781],” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/01-03-02-0007-0004-0010.
35. George Washington to François-Joseph-Paul, Comte de Grasse-Tilly, August 17, 1781, in Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick), 23:8.
36. William Spohn Baker, ed., Itinerary of General Washington, from August 24, 1777 to June 20, 1778 (East Sussex, UK: Gardners Books, 2007).
37. Washington, Writings, 23:1, 23:79–80.
38. Letter of Grasse in George Washington, Correspondence of General Washington and Comte de Grasse, 1781, August 17–November 4: With Supplementary Documents from the Washington Papers in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress, ed. the Institut Français de Washington (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1931), document 211, 8–11. Scott, De Grasse, 243ss, discusses at length the significance of Grasse’s intended action.
39. The letter is published in full in US Senate, Correspondence, document 211, 12–14.
40. Emil Reich, Foundations of Modern Europe: Twelve Lectures Delivered in the University of London (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1904). See Landers, Virginia Campaign, chap. 15, for a full and authoritative description of this battle, with maps and more. A letter from Benjamin Franklin to his grandson tells of the effect produced by the news when it reached Europe. He writes,
Versailles, Oct. 23, ’81.
My Dear Child
... Inclos’d I send you the last Paper from London by which you will see there has been an Action between the French and English Fleets off Chesapeake. It appears even by their own Account that the English have been drubb’d and oblig’d to leave the French in possession of the Bay, and at Liberty to carry on their Operations against Cornwallis. By other Accounts M. Rochambeau was near joining the Marquis de la Fayette so that if Cornwallis has not made the best of his way into Carolina, he will probably be taken with his whole force. [Benjamin Franklin, The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree and Whitfield J. Bell Jr. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959), http://franklinpapers.org, 35:639].
41. Washington, Writings, 22:101–2.
42. Sparks, Writings, 8:155–56.
43. George Washington to Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, September 10, 1781, in Washington, Writings, 23:10.
44. Founders Online, “To George Washington from Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, 8 September 1781,” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-06933.
45. Founders Online, “To Washington from Lafayette, 8 September 1781.”
46. Founders Online, “To Washington from Lafayette, 8 September 1781.”
47. Letter of October 29, 1781, in Kite, Brigadier-General Duportail, 219; US Continental Congress, Papers, vol 10, no. 152, folio 373.
48. George Washington, Correspondence of General Washington and Comte de Grasse, 1781, August 17–November 4: With Supplementary Documents from the Washington Papers in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress, ed. The Institut Français de Washington (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1931), 35.
49. Elizabeth S. Kite, “General Washington and the French Engineers Duportail and Companions,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 44, no. 2 (June 1933): 149.
50. Washington, Writings, 23:188.
51. Landers, Virginia Campaign, 191.
52. Landers, Virginia Campaign, chap. 17; Washington, Writings, 22:140–41.
53. Great Britain found herself isolated in world politics only once during the last three centuries: when the American colonies were fighting for their independence. French diplomacy influenced Spain and Holland to side with France and America. This eventually led to the formation of the League of Armed Neutrality, which also included Sweden, Prussia, and Russia and, in turn, led to the victory of the colonies. See John J. Meng, The Comte De Vergennes: European Phases of His American Diplomacy (1774–1780) (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1932).
54. Washington, Writings, 22:246.
55. Washington, Writings, 23:268–69.
56. Given in full in US Senate, Correspondence, 146–47.
57. M. le Chevalier,
permettez moy l’honneur de vous presenter un plan des attacques d’York. Je me proposais au commencement de la siège de vous en faire suivre les progrès par mes lettres, mais je me suis trouvé accablé de besogne, et d’ailleurs le colonel armand m’a annoncé que nous aurions le plaisir de vous voir. le jour que l’ennemy a offert des termes je suis tom
bé malade d’une dissentere qui m’a oté l’usage de la plume pour une dizaine de jours. je commencais a m’en remettre.
toutes reflections faites je prends la résolution d’aller en france par la premiere frégate. dans cette circumstance, Monsieur le Chevalier, j’ai recours à vos bontés et je crois que vous pouvez me rendre service. il sera de la plus grande importance pour moy d’emporter le grade de major-general. cela seul peut assurer en France celui de brigadier; or, le general washington, sans peut-etre pouvoir en faire la demande positive au Congres, luy écrira de façon a luy faire probablement [ ] l’idée de me le donner. peut être sans vous compromettre, vous pourriez faire le reste. il me semble qu’après un coup si magnifique, i1 serait extraordinaire que le commandant des ingénieurs n’acquit pas un grade; en europe cela sera monstrueux—mais ici on est attaché a l’ordre du tableau d’une façon très ridicule. mon départ pour la France a une autre circonstance qui devrait rendre la chose encore plus aisée, enfin ma qualité d’étranger et de français (dans ce moment, avec des gens tant soit peu sensibles et reconnaissants ce devrait être un bien beau titre) tout cela devrait rendre la chose bien aisée. je demande pour gouvion la commission de colonel, celle de major pour Rochefontaine, au reste je comte partir pour philadelphi apres demain mais j’irai lentement et je voudrais bien que mon affaire fut faite au moins bien en train. je prends la liberté de vous demander des secours, comptant toujours sur les bontés dont vous m’avez déja donné tant de preuves. Je vous previens, M. le Chevalier qu’il y a un certain [membre au] bureau de guerre qui je crois ne m’aime pas beaucoup sans qui je sache pourquoy—mais j’ai des raisons de le croire ainsi. apres tout un mot de votre part suffira probablement pour leur persuader de faire les choses et de bonne grace sans attendre des sollicitations de ma part, qui m’oteraient le mérite pour eux et que je n’ay pas d’ailleurs le temps de faire—ne pouvant rester plus de cinq ou six jours à philadelphie. le temps me presse un peu et je finis en vous priant de recevoir les assurances etc.
DUPORTAIL
(Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères: Correspondance politique, États-Unis 13, supplement, folio 191)
58. US Continental Congress, Papers, vol. 10, no. 152, folio 373.
59. Washington, Writings, 23:307–8.
60. US Continental Congress, Papers, vol. 10, no. 152, folios 365–66; Washington, Writings, 23:307–9.
61. John Hanson to Louis Le Begue Duportail. See Paul H. Smith, Gerard W. Gawalt, and Ronald M. Gephart, eds., Letters of Delegates to Congress: 1774–1789, vol. 18, September 1, 1781–July 31, 1782 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1991), 202.
62. US Continental Congress, Papers, item 16 folios 123–24; US Continental Congress et al., Journals, 21:1121.
63. US Continental Congress, Papers, item 152, 10:309–73; US Continental Congress et al., Journals, 21:1099; Washington, Writings, 23:294–99, 23:307–8. Also a letter of November 19 from Major General Duportail in no. 164, folio 354.
64. Washington does not seem to have complied with Duportail’s request on this occasion. When the Royal Engineers left America in 1783 after the close of the war, Washington sent a message to the Marquis de Ségur in their favor.
65. Founders Online, “To George Washington from Antoine-Jean-Louis Le Bègue de Presle Duportail, 24 November 1781,” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-07442.
66. This report is in US Continental Congress, Papers, vol. 2, no. 148, folio 475; US Continental Congress et al., Journals, 21:1129. For the resolves announcing the promotions of three French officers in the Corps of Engineers (Louis le Bègue Duportail, Jean-Baptiste de Gouvion, and the Chevalier de Rochefontaine) and commending Washington for the steps he had taken for the “liberation of the southern states from the power of the enemy,” see US Continental Congress et al., Journals, 21:1121, 21:1131.
67. This resolution is in US Continental Congress, Papers, vol. 2, no. 148, folio 478.
68. US Continental Congress, Papers, no. 164, folios 362–63.
69. Francis Wharton, ed., Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1889), 4:868.
70. Elizabeth S. Kite, “General Washington and the French Engineers Duportail and Companions,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 44, no. 3 (September 1933): 273.
71. Doniol, Histoire, 2:401–2, speaks of an engineer named Weibert, undoubtedly the same as here. He says, “the 4 april [1777] M. de Noailles transmitted a petition to Versailles of three officers who had been the first to leave: Laiaut de Boisbertrand, Millin de la Brosse, the engineer Weibert, and that of two seargents, prisoners in England.”
CHAPTER 9
1. Francis Wharton, ed., Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1889), 5:144.
2. US Continental Congress et al., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1904), 216; Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, 5:214.
3. Elizabeth S. Kite, Brigadier-General Louis Lebègue Duportail, Commandant of Engineers in the Continental Army, 1777–1783 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1933), 254.
4. Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene, ed. Richard K. Showman, Margaret Cobb, Robert E. McCarthy, Joyce Boulind, Noel P. Conlon, and Nathaniel N. Shipton (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, for the Rhode Island Historical Society, 1976), 12:335; Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, 5:814.
5. Kite, Brigadier-General Duportail, 255.
6. Founders Online, “To George Washington from Antoine-Jean-Louis Le Bègue de Presle Duportail, 19 February 1783,” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-10672.
7. Kite, Brigadier-General Duportail, 256.
8. Founders Online, “To George Washington from Antoine-Jean-Louis Le Bègue de Presle Duportail, 16 April 1783,” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11074.
9. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745–1799: Prepared under the Direction of the United States George Washington Bicentennial Commission and Published by Authority of Congress, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1931), 26:355.
10. Kite, Brigadier-General Duportail, 258.
11. Washington, Writings, 26:415–16.
12. US Continental Congress, Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, DC: National Archives, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, 1985), vol. 31, no. 149, folio 393.
13. Paul K. Walker, Engineers of Independence: A Documentary History of the Army Engineers in the American Revolution, 1775–1783 (Washington, DC: Historical Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1981), 328.
14. Memoir on Fortifications
Should the United States of America have, within its borders, fortified ports which would require a regular siege either by land or by sea to capture? If they should have them, how many and what principles should be followed in establishing all the other fortifications of this country according to its present state, the nature of its forces and those of America? Eighteen months ago, an officer, my compatriot, proposed, in a memoir, that the United States should not have fortified places, that they should only use field fortifications as necessary. It then appeared to me that many people in the administration had adopted this idea.
Regardless of the situation in which this officer found himself, it was easy to discover his motives in proposing such a system. We have to admit that there is something which could create an illusion in supporting his reasoning. He alleged that if the United States had fortifications and the enemy seized them, they could occupy them with few forces and it would become more difficult to expel them than from places that are totally exposed.
We certainly cannot disagree with that, but, for the same rea
son, we cannot deny that it would also be more difficult for the enemy to first route the Americans from these fortifications to occupy them. The question seems to basically come down to this: is it better to keep one’s house well locked? It is not better to leave the doors open to be able to more easily chase thieves who might take possession of it.
If this were the case, fortifications would not be necessary anywhere, no more in Europe than in America. The particular circumstances in which America finds itself require more fortification according to the same rationale of the memoir’s author.
He says that the fortifications would require garrisons drawn from the regular army or from the militia which are already inadequate for the many sites where we should be prepared to face an enemy who can move rapidly from one end of the continent to the other by means of their vessels. But it is precisely for this reason that it would be good to fortify the most important locations on the coast so that we might resist an enemy with few men and give the troops time to muster to come to their aid before they are destroyed.
But let’s look at the reasoning of those who don’t want the United States to have fortifications to see if they hold any validity. Behold. It’s as if the United States built more fortifications, forts which the present state of their population, the number of their troops, their arsenals of all types could not furnish or supply, in a word, which they cannot defend.