A website from the Massachusetts Historical Society; founded 1791.
close
-
The Adams Papers Digital Edition is undergoing active maintenance while we work on improvements to the system. You may experience slow performance or the inability to access content. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We will endeavor to return to full capabilities as soon as possible.

Browsing: Papers of John Adams, Volume 9


This foot note contained in document ADMS-06-09-02-0209
1. Dated 30 Jan. at Savannah and labeled “Private, No. 15.,” this letter was a forgery. JA 's enthusiasm is understandable, for the letter painted a dismal picture of British prospects. It emphasized the inadequacy of the British forces ranged against a rebel army that was growing in strength and determination, making the continued occupation of New York difficult and an assault on Charleston a doubtful undertaking at best. Even the Continental currency's collapse was deemed of little significance, since the rebels could be expected to continue the war despite it. The letter first appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet of 8 April, probably the Philadelphia paper from which it reportedly was copied and sent to Benjamin Franklin by Samuel Wharton, likely as an enclosure in his letter of 15 May from Lorient (to William Lee, 20 July, below; Cal. Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , 2:249). Dumas had the letter serially published in the Gazette de Leyde of 30 May, 2 June, and 6 June, but expressed doubts about the letter's authenticity in his reply of [ante 30 May] (below). Not until early July would JA admit that the letter was a fraud, indicating then that he had been told that the letter was the work of a “General Howe,” probably Maj. Gen. Robert Howe of North Carolina (to Edmund Jenings, 4 July, and note 1, below).
Dumas was not alone in receiving a copy of the letter from JA . He sent one to Edmund Jenings, William Lee, and Alice De Lancey Izard at Brussels—as “an article of Entertainment” (note of 22 May, Adams Papers, enclosure not found); and enclosed another, for publication in the British newspapers, in a letter of 30 May to Edmund Jenings ( RC and enclosure, Adams Papers). The publication of the forged dispatch in London, however, was probably not the work of Jenings for it appeared in, among others, the London Courant of 31 May and the London Chronicle of 30 May – 1 June. While the London Courant printed the letter without comment, the London Chronicle placed a disclaimer at the end stating that “there is little doubt that this Letter has been fabricated by the Congress,” because for the dispatch to be number fifteen, it “must have been written above two years ago.” The most recent of Clinton's dispatches published in the London papers, and about which there could be no doubt, was No. 84, dated 9 March (London Chronicle, 29 April – 2 May). For additional comments on the forged dispatch, see JA 's correspondence with Dumas, Jenings, Arthur Lee, and William Lee (below).