Sunday, October 11, 2026

Philip Schuyler’s Continued Dealings with the Johnsons

By Kayla Whitehouse 

In January 1776, rumors began swirling that Sir John Johnson was building an alliance of Loyalists and Haudenosaunee, particularly the Mohawk people, and making plans to oppose the Continental Army. Major General Philip Schuyler was ordered to put a stop to it. Schuyler marched into Tryon County at the head of a militia, lining up his men and putting on an extravagant show of power and military force. Despite the show of force, once he reached Johnson Hall, Schuyler effectively let Sir Johnson off with little more than a warning. Sir Johnson was never arrested, he was allowed to travel freely on parole, and he was even permitted to keep some of his weapons. Unthreatened by General Schuyler’s ability to gather an army at a moment’s notice, it was not long before Sir Johnson put the lenient terms of their January agreement to the test. By March of 1776, Schuyler was once again receiving reports that Sir Johnson was riling up tensions in Tryon County.

On March 11, 1776, Asa Chadwick gave an affidavit to the Albany Committee of Correspondence that, “[Johnson] had invited the Indians to act hostilely against the friends of [Albany] County.”[i] This broke the conditions of Sir Johnson’s parole, inciting Schuyler to order him to Albany to face these accusations.

The Committee of Correspondence met at the house of the Widow Vernor. Officially the Albany Committee of Safety, Protection, and Correspondence, it was formed of several smaller sub-committees of men, each one representing a different district of Albany. The Committee collected funds and supplies for the army, regulated soldiers, and rooted out Loyalists. The committee acted almost as a court. Schuyler reported that “Sir John Johnson was this Day in Town agreeable to my Request, but his Accusers did not appear,”[ii] implying that they would have accused him directly. Since they did not, Schuyler decided to investigate the original affidavit from Asa Chadwick further, to determine the truth of the matter.

Schuyler wrote to Sir Johnson requesting he attend another meeting the following week, this time with the Committee of Tryon County in Caughnawaga, and that he bring with him any witnesses he felt necessary to exonerate himself. He also wrote to the Committee of Tryon County asking them to please make sure Asa Chadwick attended.[iii]

Sir Johnson wrote back on March 27, 1776:

Sir,

I have just received your letter, & am much surprised at the Style of it, as well as the change of place at which you promised me the enquiry should be made – if my Answers do not Attend, & that too at the place you promised me when I saw you at Albany. I shall not think it worth my while to meet the Committee of Tryon anywhere else, Notwithstanding any inference that may be drawn from my noncompliance by evil disposed persons.”[iv]

By this point, Sir Johnson had been called to Albany several times to be questioned over whether he was giving gifts and bribes to Indigenous people. Sir Johnson was tired of leaving behind his pregnant wife and young children while being repeatedly forced to defend his actions. The Continental Congress was worried that Sir John Johnson was attempting to assert his influence as British Superintendent of Indian Affairs in New York over the Mohawk.[v] And, since the Haudenosaunee had a long-standing allegiance deal with the British, it would have been an easy task for Sir Johnson.

It is unclear whether Sir Johnson actually attended any meeting at this point. Schuyler does not mention any further actions in any of his subsequent letters. However, he did continue to receive more affidavits regarding Sir Johnson’s activities in Tryon County in April. The news was worrying enough that Schuyler decided to take Sir Johnson into custody. There was just one problem: he was still on parole from the January raid on Johnson Hall, and a person on parole can only be arrested if they violate the terms of that parole.

Schuyler decided to be more subtle. He would not march into town with an army of militia. Instead, Schuyler devised a sneaky plan to arrest Sir Johnson. He sent Sir Johnson a letter, informing him that Mr. McDonald, one of the Scottish Highlanders in Tryon County, had asked to be moved with his family out of the area. Schuyler said he was therefore sending troops into the county to help the McDonalds, and other Highlander families, relocate. In reality, the 300 soldiers from the New Jersey regiment, under the command of Col. Elias Dayton, were being sent to capture Sir Johnson.

Brigadier General Elias Dayton. c. 1809.
Attributed to Ellen Sharples. Williams College Museum of Art

On May 14, 1776, Schuyler wrote a letter to Sir Johnson, which he gave to Col. Dayton to deliver:

“After Candidly scanning, cooly Considering & Comparing the Variety of Informations which imputes to You the most hostile Intentions against the Country, I could have wished for the Sake of human Nature to have found them Groundless, unhappily they are too well supported by the Testimony Even of those who were intrusted with the Secret of Your intended Operations, & whose Remorse has induced them to a full Discovery, as not to leave a Doubt on my Mind, that You have acted Contrary to the sacred Engagements You lay under to me & thro’ me to the Public, It is therefore Necessary for the Public Safety of the Inhabitants & the Weal of the Country that I should put It out of Your Power to Embroil It in domestic Confusion, & have therefore ordered You to be made Close Prisoner (hereby discharging You from Your parole) & sent down to Albany, to be thence Conveyed to His Excellency General Washington…”[vi]

reenactment photo1.jpg
Johnson Hall, 2026.

Ideally, Sir Johnson would have agreed to meet Dayton, believing the Continental troops were in Tryon county to help relocate the Highlander families. He would then have been informed of the truth via Schuyler’s letter – that he was being released from parole, and at the same time being arrested. Unfortunately for Schuyler, Sir Johnson heard of his plot and fled before Dayton could meet with him.

Col. Dayton reported that when he arrived in Johnstown on May 19, he was informed by Lady Mary Watts Johnson that Sir Johnson had received Schuyler’s first letter, consulted with the Highlanders, and they had decided to flee together.[vii] He also wrote that Lady Johnson implied that, if followed, the Highlanders were ready to defend themselves.[viii] Not long after that, he saw a number of Mohawk warriors “painted and armed agreeable to their manner when they go to war.”[ix] Concerned, Dayton decided to wait for two of the Indian Commissioners, Volkert Douw and Robert Yates, who informed him that the Mohawks were very upset with the Continental Army marching into Johnstown. He delayed even further, taking the time to hold a conference with the Mohawks to prevent any further escalation of tensions between them. In the meantime, Dayton confirmed, “Sir John with upwards of three hundred persons, several of which are said to be armed attempted on Tuesday morning to make his attempt through the woods to Canada.”[x]

This would mark a new chapter in the interactions between Philip Schuyler and Sir John Johnson. Previously, Schuyler had offered Sir Johnson the leniency and freedom that was expected for someone of his social and financial status. In January, when Schuyler had marched to Johnstown to take the weapons from its inhabitants, he permitted Sir Johnson to keep his heirloom pieces because he was a gentleman. Schuyler had allowed Sir Johnson the benefit of the doubt, despite the numerous reports that he was raising troops loyal to the British Crown. In May 1776, the tenuous truce ended. Philip Schuyler ended Sir Johnson’s freedom of parole and ordered his arrest, and Sir Johnson took his loyal men and fled to officially join the British Army in Canada.

It is important to note that in May, Schuyler was not in Johnstown. He was at Fort George, dealing with other pressing concerns: the imminent retreat from Canada, the ongoing lack of supplies and provisions, and a sudden proliferation of rumors that Schuyler himself was a traitor, secretly loyal to Britain. He was kept apprised of the situation in Tryon County through letters from Col. Dayton, the Secret Committee of Albany, the Indian Commissioners, and by a visit from Reverend Caldwell, the chaplain assigned to Col. Dayton’s regiment.

Schuyler’s first letter was to Col. Wynkoop, on May 22, ordering him to both strengthen Fort George and to station troops between there and Albany, in anticipation of Sir Johnson and his men fleeing Tryon County.[xi] One of his next letters was to Lieutenant Van Vechten, stationed at Saratoga, ordering him to keep an eye on Schuyler’s house there, to make sure Sir Johnson and his men didn’t burn it down. Additionally, Schuyler ordered Van Vechten to put the account books from his store somewhere safe, but secretly, so his tenants didn’t know there was any risk.[xii] Then Schuyler turned to Lady Johnson.

Col. Dayton asked General Schuyler for permission to have Lady Johnson moved to Albany, noting, “the Guards & Sentries round the Hall must increase the pain of the situation,”[xiii] being as she was without her husband, forced to leave her home as a prisoner, and very advanced in her pregnancy. She had friends in Albany and Schenectady, so it was suggested that she be moved to stay with one of them. Lady Johnson did not want to go, and Col. Dayton admits he didn’t know why. William Duer, on the other hand, was not as confused:

“she pleaded strongly to stay at the Hall, on Account of receiving Intelligence from Sir John; This alone appears to me a Sufficient Reason for her being mov’d because by the same Chance that she receives, she may communicate Intelligence : and I can assure she seems to enter into the Spirit of the Cause wh. Sir John has embrac’d.”[xiv] 

Not only was Duer concerned that Lady Johnson would pass intelligence to and from Sir Johnson, he also believed that she destroyed evidence for her husband. For despite the fact that she easily gave up all keys and papers and let the Continental Army go through her house and all of her husband’s belongings, Duer said, “I conceive that the most material Papers are either burnt, secreted, or perhaps lodged with Mr. Stewart the Minister at Fort Hunter – I believe Lady Johnson did not think there was a Single Paper of any Kind of Consequence amongst those which were examined.”[xv]

Philip Schuyler wrote to Duer the next day: “I have ordered Lady Johnson to be moved to Albany, that she may be in a Place of Safety & incapable of Giving Intelligence to her Husband.”[xvi] She was sent to stay with her great-aunt, Frances Nicolls Holland, who lived in Bethlehem, NY.[xvii] Lady Johnson tried to negotiate to be allowed to return to Johnson Hall, or for her transfer to New York City, where she had more friends and relatives. New York City also had a significantly higher Loyalist population and would ultimately be under the control of the British for much of the American Revolutionary War, although at this time it was still under control of the Continental Army. Schuyler did not give her the opportunity of possibly reuniting with her husband, however, and ordered her to remain at Albany.

reenactment photo2.jpg
Johnson Hall, 2026.

If Lady Johnson had been permitted to return to her home, she would not have liked what she found. Major General Schuyler had ordered Col. Dayton to be stationed at Johnson Hall with his regiment in case Sir Johnson returned, and they remained there for several months before it was determined they were needed more elsewhere. In the meantime, the soldiers had ransacked the Hall and stolen a number of Sir Johnson’s possessions. One of those soldiers, Anthony Walton White, ended up taking most of the blame for leading the destruction. He was tried by court martial for “embezzlement,” and accused of taking things such as a saddle, a pair of boots, some gold lace, and a handkerchief full of cash from the Johnsons. Many of the doors to the rooms had been broken open (a witness claimed White broke down at least one door with an axe), and all of the papers had been taken by the army. White was ultimately acquitted for his role in Johnson Hall’s looting.[xviii]

If Schuyler’s plan to detain Lady Johnson in Albany had been to isolate her from her husband, he was successful. Perhaps a little too successful, his daughter might have argued. On July 4, 1776, 20-year-old Angelica Schuyler wrote a letter to her father, noting that there was “a report in town that Sir John Johnson was dead, some person had told Lady Johnson and made her very unhappy.” Not wanting the poor woman to suffer unnecessarily, Angelica sent her an anonymous message that the report was false. “If you approve of this I shall applaud myself for it;” Angelica told her father, “if not my future conduct must be Improved by your example.”[xix]

In September 1776, Schuyler received a letter on Mary Johnson’s behalf asking to have her returned to her home, as she was nearing the end of her pregnancy and it would be “inconvenient for her to lay in here.” Rather than reply, Schuyler referred the matter to the Albany Committee, requesting their opinion.[xx] They denied her request. Hearing that the refusal came from the Committee, Lady Johnson wrote to Schuyler directly, concerned that the Committee seemingly had command over her movements when she had originally been brought to Albany under Schuyler’s orders. Her letter also blamed him for the destruction of her home. Schuyler replied once more, apologizing for the looting of Johnson Hall, noting that it had been strictly against orders. He informed her that the officers responsible were being investigated for their actions, but that he was “bound to conform to [the Committee’s] Opinion.” With that, Schuyler had effectively washed his hands of Lady Johnson, turning his attention to more pressing matters, such as the fleet building on Lake Champlain.

By this point, Sir Johnson had managed to fully evade the Continental Army and reach Canada, establishing himself with the British forces. While he was able to send her periodic letters and messages, one can only assume that Lady Polly Johnson would have much rather been at home, with her husband by her side, when she gave birth to their fourth child on October 7, 1776. She named their son John, in his father’s absence.

[i] Minutes from Albany Committee of Correspondence, March 11, 1776.

[ii] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Continental Congress, March 19, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Houghton Library, Harvard University. https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/worlds-of-change/catalog/149-HOU00303C00133.

[v] Dern, Susan Farnum. Lady Mary Watts Johnson: An American Loyalist. MA thesis, SUNY Oneonta, Cooperstown Graduate Program, 1976.

[vi] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson, March 14, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[vii] Letter, Elias Dayton to John Sullivan, May 19, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[viii] Letter, Elias Dayton to Philip Schuyler, May 22, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Orders, Philip Schuyler to Col. Wynkoop, May 22, 1776, Letterbook of General Orders, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xii] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Lt. V. Vechten, May 23, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xiii] Letter, Elias Dayton to Philip Schuyler, May 24, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xiv] Letter, William Duer to Philip Schuyler, May 24, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Letter, Philip Schuyler to William Duer, May 25, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xvii] Letter, Col. Guy Johnson to Sir John Johnson, August 9, 1776, Claus Papers – 1478, Library and Archives Canada / Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, lac_reel_c1478, https://n2t.net/ark:/69429/m0v97zk5672p.

[xviii] Transcript of the Court Martial Trial of Anthony W. White and others for embezzlement, October 1, 1776, New-York Historical Society, Richard Varick Papers, Military Documents, Digitized by NY Heritage.

[xix] Letter, Angelica Schuyler to Philip Schuyler, July 4, 1776. New York State Library.

[xx] Letter, Philip Schuyler to the Committee of Albany, September 16, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Sunday, October 4, 2026

Continental Soldiers’ Baggage During the Revolutionary War

 By Sarah Lindecke

During the Revolutionary War, Continental soldiers carried with them items needed for daily life. These items could be anything from materials for cooking to personal mementos from home. Just as we travel today with items that make our lives easier, people in the 18th century wanted to do the same. In this blog we’ll look at different items carried by various people who traveled with the Continental Army.

The Average Soldier’s Kit:

              Soldiers’ supplies came from various sources depending on regiment, militia, and region. Some soldiers were able to quickly obtain needed items, while many others went without because their regiments were not able to supply them. Major General Philip Schuyler, commander of the Northern Department of the Continental Army, spent much of 1775-1776 working to supply his troops at forts like Ticonderoga and Crown Point.[i] Distance between the supplies and soldiers hindered the distribution of items, which led to significant shortages of everything from food to armaments. Over time, the Continental Army improved their access to supplies, but soldiers still relied on impressment—the forced seizure of livestock, food, and wagons—to obtain key supplies, or they were forced to go without.

              Though not every soldier had the same supplies, the average enlisted man could have expected to be supplied the following: 

Soldier's Knapsack. 1770. 
Washington's Headquarters Collection.

“A good Fire-Arm, with a Steel or Iron Ram-Rod, and a Spring to retain the same, a Worm, Priming wire and Brush, and a Bayonet fitted to your GUN, a Scabbard and Belt therefor, and a Cutting Sword, or a Tomahawk or Hatchet, a Pouch containing a Cartridge Box, that will hold fifteen Rounds of Cartridges at least, a hundred Buck Shot, a Jack-Knife and Tow for Wadding, six Flints, one pound powder, forty Leaden Balls fitted to your GUN, a Knapsack and Blanket a Canteen or Wooden Bottle sufficient to hold one Quart.”[ii]

              Additionally, men would be supplied with clothing when available.

              Camp followers often accompanied enlisted men. These were often wives or enslaved people who could perform paid or unpaid labor like cooking and laundry for the soldiers. Camp followers were not official members of the military and so they were expected to work for their meager necessities.[iii] In rare cases, however, they were paid in money or supplies. Many officers, like George Washington, took issue with camp followers, despite officers’ wives frequently choosing to travel with their husbands. Washington felt that these camp followers were a burden that should not be “supported through public expense” because this “would be robbing the public and encouraging idleness.”[iv]

              Every Continental soldier’s experience was likely different during the Revolutionary War, but consistent supply issues appear to have been nearly universal for soldiers whose commissaries struggled to provide for them.

Philip Schuyler’s War Chest:

    

Philip Schuyler's War Chest.
Schuyler Mansion Collections.

          In the Schuyler Mansion collection, there is a war chest (SM.1972.31), believed to have been Philip Schuyler’s. It was donated to Schuyler Mansion in the early 20th century by Schuyler’s great-great granddaughter, Kilda C. Malcom Harrell (1893-1977). Family tradition suggests that this chest was originally Major General Schuyler’s “camp chest” during the Revolutionary War. It was later used by great-grandson William S. Malcom Jr. (1857-1930). Conservation reports suggest that the top of the chest where “William S. Malcom Jr.” is painted is a replacement of the original top.

              During the American Revolution, a war chest or “camp chest” would be used to carry personal items, cooking utensils, clothing, bedding, maps, compasses, or anything else that would fit.[v] Officers, the men who most often had a camp chest, had many items they needed on a daily basis and if there were wagons traveling with them, a chest could securely and comfortably be stored there. Otherwise, especially for the average enlisted man, cooking pots, stoves, utensils, extra clothing, etc. were carried by hand or on their back. Over time, this extra weight would add up and, in many cases,—especially during the winter or when ill—this could slow down troop movement.

Wooden Chest Belonging to Capt. Benjamin Ledyard.
1770-1780. Fort Ticonderoga Collections.
              Captain Benjamin Ledyard of the 1st New York Regiment had a war chest that is today preserved by Fort Ticonderoga.[vi] This wooden chest is in relatively good condition for its age. Compared to the war chests of George Washington and Philip Schuyler, the style is far plainer. Ledyard’s chest was made with spruce wood, a soft, medium-weight wood that often does not hold up well in outdoor conditions. However, spruce wood is very common in the northeast, making it likely Ledyard made or purchased the chest in his locality. By contrast, Schuyler’s chest was made from pine. Similar to spruce, pine is a soft wood, but it is stiff, giving the wood durability and strength.  In the 18th century, yellow pine was abundant and much harder than modern species used today. The iron hinges and lock on Schuyler’s chest were also practically designed for a war chest that could be transported many miles throughout its time of use.

              Though Philip Schuyler did not directly lead his troops into battle, he spent much of 1775-1777 moving between the northern forts, like Ticonderoga, and his homes in Albany and Saratoga. When traveling between these locations Schuyler would have needed various items for his personal care and comfort, so the war chest likely moved with him.

George Washington’s Camp Bed:

              Mount Vernon has in its collection a version of a field bedstead that may have been used by George Washington during the Revolutionary War.[vii] As armies traveled frequently, there was not always a consistent place for men to sleep. Officers, like General Washington, expected comfortable accommodation, no matter where they traveled. This often meant that officers would move into abandoned or rentable homes where their army was headquartered—think the luxurious townhouses of Morristown, New Jersey and the country farmhouses at Newburgh, New York, which became Washingtons headquarters centered on the Hasbrouck House.

                At other times, Continental Army officers “roughed it” like the rest of their soldiers. One of the tents Washington used during the Revolutionary War is preserved in the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia. The tent is ~300 square feet and could be divided so the space contained different rooms.[viii] One of the partitions could close off to create a private sleeping space for Washington where a field bed could be installed. One of these items survives in the Mount Vernon collection.

          

Field Bedsted. c. 1775. Mount Vernon Collections.

    Mount Vernon’s field bed has:

“four, identically turned posts, a rectangular headboard (replaced), and rabbeted rails. Head- and footposts are hinged in two places, so that the tapering, uncarved posts with swelled knob tops and the circular, tapered legs on tall, incurved, circular feet fold over the end rails. Side rails with iron hinges at their centers that fold inwards; a hinged, square, tapered leg (replacement) is attached at each joint for support. Iron hooks secure bedstead in open position.”[ix]

              When folded, the bed could be as small as 11x11x36 inches, making it a very portable item to provide the Commander in Chief a comfortable place to rest. Most men in the military would have had a bed roll to sleep upon the ground.

Marquis de Lafayette’s Brazier:

              During the Revolutionary War, soldiers and officers often cooked for themselves, or were cooked for by camp followers, on portable stoves, Dutch ovens, and braziers. These bulky items were key to cooking on the move and far from a kitchen. Dutch, or bake ovens, and braziers had feet and were used by placing them over a bed of hot coals and covered. These all-in-one portable cooking surfaces ensured that food was sufficiently cooked through relying on hot coals underneath and sometimes inside the ovens.

Marquis de Lafayette's Brazier. c. 1770.
Museum of the American Revolution Collections.
              The Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia has a copper and iron brazier believed to have been owned by the Marquis de Lafayette.[x] The copper bowl is cradled by the iron stand and cooking surface. There is a wooden handle which allowed for handling while cooking. Hot coals placed in the copper bowl, meat or other items placed on top of the cooking surface.

              Though it cannot be proven that this brazier was definitively owned by the Marquis de Lafayette, it is a fine example of a brazier used during the American Revolutionary War.

Prince Simbo’s Powder Horn:

              Prince Simbo was a member of the 7th Connecticut Regiment during the Revolutionary War. He was likely a person of African descent and, though it is unclear his status prior to enlisting, he was possibly a free man. Most Black people without notation of an enslaver on the muster rolls enlisted as freemen. In Simbo’s case, his muster roll record lists no commentary, which suggests he enlisted independently. Connecticut had the largest population of enslaved people in New England during the 1770s, however there was also a small but increasing population of free Black men in the region as well. The small population of free Black people often had some degrees of personal agency and could enlist in the Continental Army, especially because the army was frequently in dire need of more soldiers.[xi]

Simbo began to serve as a private in 1777 and continued his enlistment until the end of the war. An item connected to Prince Simbo is a powder horn engraved with his name and place of residence, Glastonbury, Connecticut. Today Prince Simbo’s powder horn is in the collection of the Smithsonian Museum of African American History.

Powder Horn. c. 1777.
Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum
of African American History and Culture. 

Powder horns were containers for gunpowder which was a necessary part of firing guns during the 18th century. Most powder horns were made from cow, ox, or buffalo horns, affixed with a stopper and usually a sling so they could be worn.

Other engravings on the powder horn include a dove carrying a banner reading “LIBERTY,” a sun with a face, a deer, a pine tree, and various other pattern designs.[xii]  These inscriptions on the powder horn suggest that he was literate and had artistic skill. Other powder horns depicted maps of regions where a person came from or where they fought. Jospeh Frye, c. 1756, had a powder horn depicting the Hudson River Valley which was the region he fought in for the British during the French and Indian War.[xiii]

Prince Simbo’s unit fought at the Battles of Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth. While stationed in Morristown, New Jersey, in 1779, Prince Simbo took a thirty-day furlough and was later, in 1780, transferred to the Invalid Corps, which was a unit of wounded soldiers that focused on camp guarding and training.[xiv]

After the war, Prince Simbo returned to Glastonbury, Connecticut. where in the 1790 census lists that he was a head of household with five other free individuals. He died on December 14th, 1810.[xv] Prince Simbo is one of many people of African descent who served during the Revolutionary War for the Continental Army.

Miniature Portraits by Charles Willson Peale

             
During the 18th century and beyond, miniature portraits were popular items desired and purchased by members of the upper echelons of society. Miniatures were usually about 1 to 5 inches and depicted a bust of a person. These items were unobtainable for the vast majority of the population, but for wealthy Loyalists or supporters of the American cause these items were precious mementos. Miniatures were often small enough to be worn as part of jewelry, necklaces or bracelets, which provided incredible portability unobtainable for other portraits that because of size were restricted to being hung on a wall. Many officers carried miniatures of wives, children, or parents as they traveled with the army. However, when the conditions permitted, travelling or enlisted artists would create these works in army camps to be sent home to family.[xvi]

George Washington Miniature. Charles Wilson Peale.
c. 1777. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Collections.

              During the winter at Valley Forge, 1777-1778, many officers of the Continental Army patronized Charles Willson Peale for portrait miniatures. The miniature of General George Washington is the most famous of this grouping. His portrait miniature is watercolor painted on ivory and is 1 ½ in x 1 3/8 in set in a gold bracelet case.[xvii] It is unknown if the item was intended as a gift to Martha Washington or another family member. Martha Washington often joined the Continental Army at their winter encampments to be alongside her husband during the non-fighting periods of the year. During campaign seasons she usually remained at Mount Vernon in Virginia. The miniature of George Washington made at Valley Forge may have been a memento for Martha Washington to take with her after returning home in the spring of 1778.

              Charles Willson Peale’s miniature of George Washington, alongside many other miniatures created throughout Peale’s career were donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) in 1883 by collector William Henry Huntington (c. 1820-1885).  

Alexander Hamilton’s Letters Home

              Only months after meeting in Morristown, New Jersey, Alexander Hamilton and Elizabeth Schuyler parted ways when she set off for home in Albany during the early summer of 1780. The pair’s whirlwind courtship had already culminated in a request to Elizabeth Schuyler’s parents for the approval of their desire to marry.[xviii] However, as the campaign season for 1780 loomed, Schuyler could no longer linger with the Continental Army. She returned home and awaited the time when Hamilton could join her at Albany to have their wedding. During this time apart, the pair exchanged letters, Hamilton sending quite a few more than Schuyler.

              On July 6th, 1780, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

“…it is a maxim of my life to enjoy the present good with the highest relish & to soften the present evil by a hope of future good. I alleviate the pain of absence by looking forward to that delightful period which gives us to each other forever; and my imagination serves up such a feast of pleasure as almost makes me forget the deprivation I now experience.”[xix]

The flirtatious nature of this letter is tempered with the overwhelming reality that Alexander Hamilton, and the other soldiers fighting in the Revolution, were living with an ever-present sense of danger. Letters home assuaged family members to suggest that their loved ones were still alive but could not ensure that a person would continue to have the luck of remaining safe from violence. Hamilton’s love letters to Elizabeth Schuyler were likely vital remembrances of the couples’ feelings for each other during the period of their separation. Those who were not literate often had to wait extended periods to hear about the fates of their families at home or on the battlefield.

Throughout the Revolutionary War, enlisted men and officers carried necessities, and sometimes more sentimental items that created a level of comfort when far from home. Many stories survive about the baggage soldiers carried during the war, which can illustrate the experiences of these diverse peoples. Throughout the war, people sought to bring items with them that allowed them to continue life as soldiers, even when times were tough.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)