On Friday morning, September 29, 1775,* after interrogating Mary Wenwood for a number of hours on the night of 28-29 September, 1775 and securing the identification of Dr Church as the author of the cyphered letter, George Washington sent a message to Watertown, where the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was sitting, to James Warren, the President of the Congress and Major Joseph Hawley, a delegate from Northampton in Western Massachusetts, to come to his Headquarters in Cambridge without delay. Washington's message requesting the assistance of James Warren is certainly understandable. But why ask for Joseph Hawley? Hawley's military rank was awarded because he served as a Chaplain in a Massachusetts regiment in King George's War and was, in fact, a member of the expedition that captured the fortress of Louisburg on Cape Breton Island. A Yale graduate, Hawley was a long time ardent Whig who was first elected to the Massachusetts
 |
James Warren-1763
John Singleton Copley
|
House of Representatives in 1751. A very religious man who was a cousin of Jonathan Edwards and who played a major role in getting Edwards removed from his church in 1751, Hawley was well known in Massachusetts and was a close collaborator of James Otis and the Adams cousins. Other than acceptance of his election as a delegate to the Provincial Congress, Hawley refused any other appointments since he felt that acceptance would demonstrate a weakness of character. Hawley suffered from depression, had what appears to be a nervous breakdown in early 1776 and never served in any office again; yet he continued to be a man of influence. But at this juncture in his life he was a very prominent Whig with an unmatched reputation for piety and integrity. Therefore, it does seem reasonable that the Virginian George Washington, newly arrived in a New England that was almost a foreign country to him, chose to turn to Hawley for counsel and advice. Both Warren and Hawley advised Washington that Church should be immediately arrested and his papers seized.
Washington then did, in my mind, a very curious thing. He ordered a Captain and a company of 40 men to arrest Church and place him under house arrest in the Henry Vassall House where Church resided as the Director General of the Hospitals. Precisely just where Church was when he was taken into custody is unknown. By one account it took a few hours to locate Church and arrest him. Church could very well have been in one of the other Hospitals under his control. In any event, why would Washington order a company of 40 men to arrest one middle aged physician? He certainly couldn't seriously contemplate that Church would resist. A company of 40 men marching through camp would certainly draw attention and invite speculation. That was no way to keep something confidential and
 |
| Henry Vassall House today |
secret. Had Washington had the experience he would later obtain in espionage he certainly would not have handled it this way. If, indeed, Church was in communication with the British, the last thing you would want to do, at this stage, is alert the British that you had discovered this relationship. In addition, Dr Church had few, if any, peers in the Whig cause and Washington was certainly aware of that. Not to mention that as Director of Hospitals, Church held a position directly under the control of the Continental Congress. Why then humiliate Church when all he had was a letter as yet to be decrypted? I just find Washington's initial treatment of the whole affair curious.
But one must remember that Washington's appointment as Commander of the Continental Army was a political one, engineered by the Adams cousins in order to secure unity amongst the somewhat fractious thirteen colonies. It certainly wasn't because of Washington's military prowess. In fact, one could argue that his record was rather less than impressive and that Washington was a rank amateur who had never commanded regular forces or artillery or cavalry or handled the logistics of an army in the field. Indeed, he had never commanded anything more than a militia regiment. It was the seven years of the Revolutionary War that brought out the character and steel of "the indispensable man." At this point Washington was a Commander who had to purchase a number of books on military matters in Philadelphia after becoming named Commander so he could give himself a military education.
But Washington soon showed a talent for organization, espionage and disinformation. There was an acute shortage of gunpowder after Bunker Hill. Washington was startled when informed that the Continental Army he commanded besieging Boston only had 36 barrels of gunpowder on hand; enough to provide only nine rounds per man in case of a British offensive. Exhausting every means to obtain gunpowder, Washington embarked on a campaign of disinformation. He leaked word to British Headquarters that he was almost embarrassed to find that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had supplied him with 1,800 barrels of powder and his supply officers were having a problem finding storage space for them. Surprisingly, the British believed this although, given the Pyrrhic victory of Bunker Hill, they were disinclined to attack the rebels anyway.
Upon entering the Vassall House, the contingent of soldiers searched the room occupied by Church and found nothing. Church's papers were seized and subsequently examined by Joseph Reed, Washington's secretary and aide-de camp, a very successful Philadelphia lawyer who
Washington had met and befriended in Philadelphia when he was a delegate to the Continental Congress. In a September 29th, 1775 letter to his brother-in-law, Charles Petit, Reed disclosed the results of his examination:
Dr Church, a man highly in the confidence of the people here, a member of their Assembly, &; has been arrested for carrying on a criminal correspondence with the enemy; his papers were all seized. I have perused the most intimate and confidential letters wrote to him, and am authorized to declare from them that there is no intention of going further than their late charter. This is the sentiment that runs through every one of them, nor have I seen a syllable to the contrary.
But then, what did Washington expect to find? Would Church be so careless as to leave incriminating evidence in his room in the Vassall House? And what would be incriminating evidence? Loyalists had considered Church one of their vilest enemies for over a decade. Which Loyalist would trust him? More cyphered letters? Letters to General Gage? Obviously a search of Dr Church's papers would be in order; but what did they think they would find?
Yet, in his 5 October 1775 letter to John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, reporting his arrest of Church, Washington stated " but it appeared on Inquiry that a Confidant had been among the Papers before my Messenger arrived." I have been unable to uncover anything that would explain just how and why Washington came to that conclusion. But let us examine the circumstances of Church's arrest and determine if it is plausible that a Church accomplice, assuming he had one in Washington's HQs, could have found out about the imminent arrest and risked his own safety to destroy any evidence incriminating Dr Church. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that Church had an accomplice in Washington's HQs. Nor would one assume that Church would be foolish enough to trust anyone in the HQs. Church was the highest ranking source that General Gage had in the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and Church was still a member of that body and member of the Committee of Safety. Church was too valuable to be exposed to risk in that manner. Any communication Church would make with Gage would be outside of Cambridge.
 |
| Cambridge -1776 |
Washington had assigned a sergeant's guard consisting of a sergeant, a corporal, and nine soldiers to the Vassall House/Hospital and the sergeant was instructed to take orders from Church. One would assume that a messenger from Washington's HQs to that guard would have immediately secured Church's papers. How would any accomplice first find out that Church was about to be arrested and then risk his own security to go through the papers before they were seized? How would he know what to look for? Yet the belief lingers to this day that there were incriminating letters/documents in Church's office in the Vassal House that would have proved his guilt. There is even a belief that there was a secret panel in the House where Church hid his papers. First of all, how would Church, who
 |
| Interior of Vassall House from 1907 guide |
had only been in the Vassall House a few weeks, even know that there was a "secret panel" next to the fireplace that opened a door revealing a secret room that someone could stand in as had been alleged?
The origin of the "secret panel" is from a publication titled "The Cambridge of 1776" which included the "Diary of Dorothy Dudley", written to commemorate the Centennial of the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Everyone involved at the time knew that the book was a fictional creation designed to evoke living in Cambridge one hundred years prior. There are no historical sources substantiating the book. Dorothy Dudley is an entirely fictitious character; yet, to this day that diary is quoted as if it were written contemporaneously. Historians have relied on it as a source totally oblivious to the fact that it was written one hundred years after the events, had no footnoted sources, and was intended as a somewhat "cheeky" account of Cambridge in 1776.
Historians have even identified the person they think was responsible for "sanitizing" Church's papers but that will be the subject of a future post.
In a 1 October 1775 letter to John Adams, James Warren reported the arrest of Dr Church as follows:
Dr Church has been detected in a correspondence with the Enemy...
He owns the writing and sending the letter, says it was for Flemming (sic) in answer to one he wrote to him, and is calculated by magnifying the numbers of the army, their regularity their provisions, and ammunition, etc, to do great service to us. There are, however, many circumstances, new and old, which time won't permit me to mention, that are much against him. The letter, I suppose, is now deciphering and when done will either condemn, or in some measure, excuse him.
Warren's statement that there are "many circumstances, new and old...that are much against him" indicates that Warren must have communicated those "circumstances" to Washington. Just what those "circumstances" were have never been documented and they, I would assume, would have influenced Washington in his handling of the situation. The precise relationship between Church and Warren is not that well known but it doesn't appear that they were the closest of friends or, indeed, colleagues.
Establishing a precise timeline from the letters written several days after the Dr Church's arrest is difficult, especially since Washington's own report of the arrest is written five days later and, undoubtedly, conflates the timeline. But it appears that after Church's arrest, he was asked directly by Washington about the letter. That, as best I can determine, was on the 29th of September. Church responded in the words relayed by James Warren in the letter quoted above. Church then, apparently, refused a direct request from Washington to decipher the letter. This is something inferred from the available documentation. Church, presumably, was then confined under arrest in the Vassall House while Washington considered his next step and how to go about getting the letter deciphered. I have always found it interesting that Church refused to decipher the letter. There was nothing, as he would repeatedly argue, incriminating in that letter and, indeed, exaggerated the rather sorry state of the rebel forces. The cypher used in the letter appears to be unique to the correspondence between him and his brother-in-law and so its compromise would not be that damaging. Perhaps the shock of his arrest propelled Church to take a defensive posture until he could see how things would progress. It must be remembered that Church had pleaded ill health only roughly nine days before his arrest when his request to resign from his position as Director General of the Hospital was refused.
Washington determined that the letter had to be deciphered and he undertook measures to have that done. It wasn't until October 3rd that Washington called a council of war to discuss the Dr Church arrest. On Saturday, September 30, 1775 Washington issued a general order that the ongoing inquiry into Dr Church's leadership of the hospitals, specifically Brigadier Joseph Spencer's brigade, was postponed due to Church's ill health. I don't think that "ill health' was just as much a convenient excuse as it really reflected Church's condition.
Before I proceed with the narrative I would like to conclude this post by mentioning one other letter written about Church's arrest. It as written by Ebenezer Huntington, a Yale graduate and a Lieutenant in a Connecticut regiment during the siege of Boston. Huntington would go on to become a Lt
 |
Ebenezer Huntington -1806
John Trumbull
|
Colonel, and was present at Yorktown when Cornwallis surrendered. Th letter was to his half-brother, is dated 3 October, 1775 and was written from a camp in Roxbury.
...You will be much Surprised to hear that our famous Doct'r Church that great pretended Patriot is now under a Special Guard of a Capt'n & 40 men for Corresponding with Gage and others of his Hellish Gang the Plot was discovered by his Miss who is now with child by him and he owns himself the father (for he has now dismissed his Wife)…
Huntington had absolutely no acquittance with or interaction with Dr Church and is, undoubtedly, passing on camp rumors. Was Church's mistress pregnant and had he left his wife? This is the only reference I could find that Church's mistress was pregnant and that he had left his wife. Church's relationship with his wife was undoubtedly very strained but there is no reason to believe that he had actually left her. In fact, information indicates that Church's wife and daughters were, at the time of his arrest, in Southeastern Massachusetts and he had visited them on his trip to Philadelphia a couple of months previous. But this letter is indicative of the problems encountered trying to unravel the precise details of Church's arrest.
* Church maintains that he was arrested on Wednesday, 27 September, 1775 but he is clearly in error.
