A week later, September 21, Clay gave another account, even less assuring, of the manner in which the popular energy was exhausting itself:—
“The capitulation of Detroit has produced no despair; it has, on the contrary, awakened new energies and aroused the whole people of this State. Kentucky has at this moment from eight to ten thousand men in the field; it is not practicable to ascertain the precise number. Except our quota of the hundred thousand militia the residue is chiefly of a miscellaneous character, who have turned out without pay or supplies of any kind, carrying with them their own arms and their own subsistence. Parties are daily passing to the theatre of action; last night seventy lay on my farm; and they go on, from a solitary individual, to companies of ten, fifty, one hundred, etc. The only fear I have is that the savages will, as their custom is, elude them, and upon their return fall upon our frontiers. They have already shocked us with some of the most horrid murders. Within twenty-four miles of Louisville, on the headwaters of Silver Creek, twenty-two were massacred a few days ago.”
The adventures of these volunteers made part of the next campaign. Enthusiastic as Kentucky was, few or none of the eight or ten thousand men under arms offered to serve for twelve months. Excessively expensive, wasteful, insubordinate, and unsteady, no general dared to depend on them. No one could be more conscious of the evils of the system than the Government; but the Government was helpless to invent a remedy.
“Proofs multiply daily,” wrote Madison to Monroe, September 21,[343] “of the difficulty of obtaining regulars, and of the fluctuating resource in the militia. High bounties and short enlistments, however objectionable, will alone fill the ranks, and then too in a moderate number.”
To dislike of prolonged service even the most ardent Western supporters of the war added distrust of the Executive. The war Republicans of the West and South were hardly less vigorous than the Federalists of Massachusetts and Connecticut in their criticisms of the Government at Washington. John Graham, chief clerk of the State Department, who went to Kentucky in September, wrote to Monroe[344] that “great as is the popularity of the President, it is barely able to resist the torrent of public opinion against the Secretary of War, who, so far as I can judge, is universally considered by the people of this country as incompetent to his present situation.” Clay’s opinion has already been shown; but the angriest of all the war leaders on hearing of Hull’s surrender was Senator Crawford of Georgia.
“Such is my want of confidence in the leaders of our forces,” he wrote to Monroe,[345] “and their directors, Eustis and Hamilton in the Cabinet, that I am fearful a continuance of the war, unless it should be for several years, will only add to the number of our defeats. The only difficulty I had in declaring war arose from the incompetency of the men to whom the principal management of it was to be confided. A Secretary of War who, instead of forming general and comprehensive arrangements for the organization of his troops and for the successful prosecution of the campaign, consumes his time in reading advertisements of petty retailing merchants to find where he may purchase one hundred shoes or two hundred hats; and a Secretary of the Navy who, in instructing his naval officers, should make the supply of the heads of departments with pineapples and other tropical fruits through the exertions of these officers,—cannot fail to bring disgrace upon themselves, their immediate employers, and the nation. If Mr. Madison finds it impossible to bring his feelings to consent to the dismission of unfaithful or incompetent officers, he must be content with defeat and disgrace in all his efforts during the war. So far as he may suffer from this course he deserves no commiseration, but his accountability to the nation will be great indeed!”
Harsh as these comments, were, the Secretary of State found no difficulty in listening to them; indeed, no member of the party was more severe than Monroe. He visited Jefferson, and apparently Jefferson agreed with his criticisms:[346]—
“We conferred on the then state of the Departments of War and Navy, and agreed that whatever might be the merit of the gentlemen in them, which was admitted in certain respects, a change in both was indispensable.”
Indeed, Monroe did what no northern Democrat liked to do,—he found fault with Dearborn.
“Our military operations,” he told Jefferson, “had been unsuccessful. One army had been surrendered under circumstances which impeached the integrity of the commander; and to the north, in the whole extent of the country, so important and delicately circumstanced as it was, the management had been most wretched. The command at the important post of Niagara had been suffered to fall into State hands, and to be perverted to local and selfish purposes. Van Rensselaer, a weak and incompetent man with high pretensions, took it. It was late in the year before General Dearborn left Boston and repaired to Albany, and had given no impulse to the recruiting business in the Eastern States by passing through them and making appeals to the patriotism of the people; and when he took the command at Albany it was in a manner to discourage all hope of active operations during the favorable season. The commander ought to lead every important movement. If intended to attack Montreal, that being the grand attack, his station was there. If a smaller blow only could be given, the feint against Montreal should have been committed to another, while he commanded in person where real service was to be performed. It was soon seen that nothing would be done against Lower Canada; General Dearborn doubtless saw it on his first arrival at Albany, if he did not anticipate it before he left Boston. Niagara was the object next in importance, and had he taken the command there he might and probably would, by superseding little people and conducting our military operations, have prevented the riotous and contentious scenes exhibited there, saved the country and the Government from the disgraceful defeat of Van Rensselaer, and the more disgraceful and gasconading discomfiture of Smyth. The experience of the campaign had excited a doubt with many, if not with all, whether our military operations would prosper under General Dearborn; ... he was advanced in years, infirm, and had given no proof of activity or military talent during the year.”