To George Washington from Henry Babcock, 20 November 1779
From Henry Babcock
20th Novr 1779
Stonington [Conn.]
May it please your Excellency
The great Regard I have for Justice, & the well grounded Esteem, I have for an extreamly injured Character (in the Person of Capn Saltonstall)1 will I hope be a sufficient Apology for my giving your Excellency the Trouble of this Letter.
When I saw his Orders signed by Warren, & Verno[n] viz. in the usual Form. “You are to proceed to Penobscot, burn sink & destroy &c.[”] They go on to say in a distinct Paragraph “Whereas your Command is very extensive, and of great Consequence, You are upon all Occasions; to take the Advice of the Caps. of the Navy, and their Opinion is to be your Rule of Conduct.”2
Simillar to the above are their Orders & yet when the Navy Board were asked by the Court Martial, for a Copy of their Orders, the above Paragraph was suppressed, hoping that the original Orders perished in the Conflagration of the Ship. Capn Saltonstall tho’ he sufferd the Loss of all his Baggage, to the Amount of very considerable Value, Yet like an able Officer, & a sensible Man he took particular Care to preserve his Orders, & fortunately for him he did. Because in strict Conformity to his Orders, tho very contrary to his own private Judgment, He with an Inflexible rigid Scrupulosity adher’d. Unless the Works at Penobscott, could be carried by a Coup de main, it was idle to attempt it, for Reasons very obvious; instead of furnishing Genl Lovel with 1500 Men as they promised him, Upon a Genl Review of his Troops before they sailed upon the Expedition they did not amount to but little more than 800 Rank & File; & by his Qr Master Genl perhaps the most of a military Man upon the Expedition he advised Genl Lovel (upon having his Opinion asked) to return to Boston.3
Had the Council of the State asked for the Continental Troops then at Providence under the Command of Genl Gates—He undoubtedly for the good of the public Service, would have ordered a sufficient No. under the Direction of Genl Starks or some other able Officer. But those Wise Acres of the Massachusetts were determined to have all the Merit of the Expedition, & were above asking Assistance from the Continental Troops, & You may be assured from what I learn, none deserved the Name of Soldiers upon the Expedition but the Marines. I say when I saw his Orders I was astonished that he was not acquited with Honor—My eldest Son was on board the Warren with the Commodore,4 who together with others assure Me that Capn Saltonstall did every Thing that an active brave Officer could in his Situation possibly do—But that he was by no Means seconded by Gen. Lovel who I am told (& firmly is the Truth) is a mere old Woman.
Three Times, Capn Saltonstall loosed his Topsails, to attack the Shipping beyond the Fort, but could not prevail upon Lovel to attack the Fortress at the same time by Land—Ten Caps. of the Navy at a Council of War held on Board the Warren voted, that it was improper for our Ships to attack the Enemys Ships, unless the Army at the same time attacked by Land, Two Caps. voted for an Attack.5 Genl Lovel after some Experiment found as he says, that his Troops were not firm enough, to advance against the Works; At a Council of War the Comg Officers of Regts voted three love that these Nos. were not sufficient to attack the fort Capn Saltonstall being noticed of it was for raising the Siege, but over ruled by his (to say no less of it[)] over zealous Officers. Yet the Councils of War held by Order of the Commanding Officer of the Navy; strictly enjoyned so to do, by Order of the Navy Board, were not admitted as exculpatory Evidence, upon his Trial by the Court Martial. The Council of the Massachusetts to take the Odium of the Publick from off themselves, have thrown their whole Weight into the Scale to sacrifize Saltonstall, & by an unheard of Species of Sophistry, have amused the Court that Capn Saltonstalls Command, whilst at Penobscot, tho very important, & very extensive, was unlimited, & uncontrol’d, & therfore he is solely responsible for what happened.6 Yet after the Expedition was over & by his Orders supposed to be crowned with Success, He was not after that to be trusted with a much smaller Command; but he was to be guided by the Major Voice of his Caps. Is it not shameful that such a flimsy Subterfuge should be made Use of to the Destruction of a brave good Officer? and reflects the highest Indignity upon the Court Martial & is a complete full Proof, that they were either Void of Common Sense or Dupes to the Council of the State. But what will not Malevolence, Ill Nature, & Disappointment do? We flatter ourselves that Congress will do him Justice, which is all we Ask, and which he has an undoubted Right to—If Your Excellency upon a fair candid hearing is of the same Opinion with Me, I am certain it must give you great Pleasure honorably to acquit him—It must necessarily afford to every generous humane Breast a most sensible pleasing Satisfaction, to reinstate an Officer thus cruelly & most injureously treated.7 I have the Honor to be with greatest Esteem Yr Excellencys most obedient & most humble Servant
H. Babcock
LB, PWacD: Henry Babcock Letter Book. No variant of this letter or other evidence has been found that definitively identifies its recipient. The editors have deemed GW as the recipient because of Babcock’s prior service in the Continental army and his subsequent letter to GW on 25 Feb. 1784 (see 1:156–57).
1. Dudley Saltonstall (1738–1796), related to a founder of the Massachusetts Bay Company and a member of a prominent Connecticut family, married Babcock’s sister in 1765. Saltonstall served on a privateer during the French and Indian War and, through the influence of his brother-in-law Silas Deane, received a captain’s commission in the Continental navy in November 1775. The Continental Congress sent Saltonstall aboard the frigate Warren to assist a Massachusetts force organized to prevent the British from establishing a post at the mouth of the Penobscot River at what is now Castine, Maine (for an overview of this operation, known as the Penobscot expedition, see GW to the Massachusetts Council, 3 Aug. 1779, n.3). Saltonstall commanded the ships on the expedition and lost them all following a disastrous attack against the reinforced British on 13 Aug. 1779. After an overland trek to Boston, Saltsonstall was court-martialed, controversially found responsible for the defeat, and subsequently dismissed (see George E. Buker, The Penobscot Expedition: Commodore Saltonstall and the Massachusetts Conspiracy of 1779 [Annapolis, 2002], 150–62). He engaged in privateering during the war’s latter stages. For more on Saltonstall, see 64–86.
2. James Warren and William Vernon, who oversaw New England waters as members of the navy board for the eastern department, had issued Saltonstall’s orders on 13 July (see Chester B. Kevitt, General Solomon Lovell and the Penobscot Expedition, 1779 [Weymouth, Mass., 1976], 72–73).
3. John Steel Tyler, formerly major in an Additional Continental Regiment and a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts militia, served as quartermaster general for the Penobscot expedition.
4. Benjamin Franklin Babcock (1765–1781), Saltonstall’s nephew, had his death noticed in The Connecticut Gazette; and the Universal Intelligencer (New London) for 3 Aug. 1781. The item relates that he died from “a putrid fever, occasioned by his being c[o]nfined on board of a p[r]ison ship in the harbour of New York.” Babcock was the eldest of four brothers (see 217).
5. Babcock apparently is referring to a “Council of War” that Saltonstall convened on 6 Aug. (DNA:PCC, item 65). A record of that council marked “No. 4” indicates that nine captains disapproved Brig. Gen. Solomon Lovell’s request for the ships to attack alone, while three captains favored such a course (see also Kevitt, Solomon Lovell, 90–92, and Buker, Penobscot Expedition, 56–58).
6. Babcock almost certainly is referring to “Proceedings of a Committee of the General Assembly, respecting the Failure of the Penobscot expedition, dated October 7, 1779” (The Proceedings of the General Assembly, and of the Council, of the State of Massachusetts-Bay, Relating to the Penobscot Expedition: and the Orders of the Continental Navy-Board to the Commander of the Naval Forces. … [Boston, 1780], 27–29). The committee proceedings posed and answered a series of questions, including “2d Question. What appears to be the principal reason of the failure?
“Answer, unanimously,—Want of proper spirit and energy on the part of the Commodore. …”
“4th Question. What, in the opinion of this Committee, was the occasion of the total destruction of our fleet?
“Answer. Principally the Commodore’s not exerting himself at all at the time of the retreat, in opposing the enemy’s foremost ships in pursuit.
“5th Question. Does it appear that General Lovell, throughout the expedition and the retreat, acted with proper courage and spirit?
“Answer, unanimously—Yes; and it is the opinion of the Committee, had he been furnished with all the men ordered for the service, or been properly supported by the Commodore, he would probably have reduced the enemy.”
7. No reply from GW has been found.