#lewis tousard

[nordleuchten]

Major Tousard's letter to Georges de La Fayette

The following letter was written by Major Lewis (Louis) Tousard and is addressed to Georges de La Fayette. Tousard had served under La Fayette during the American Revolution and had returned to America in 1795 during the French Revolution. He obtained an American military commissioned and helped set up the precursor of the West Point Military Academy as well as designing Forts Adams and Hamilton. Tousard later returned to France and died in Paris in 1817:

West Point June the 14th 1796

Sir

I hope that Mr. la colombe will not have neglected to present to you my regrets of not having had the honour of seeing you before my departure, and to thank you of that which you have done to me, in calling upon me the day before my setting off for Washington. Immediately afterwards, my duty called me at West Point; and Keeps me there in a moment where an urging interest would dictate to me to go to Philadelphia, in order to claim the justice and the indulgence of the President of the United States in favour of my brother in law, a young man twenty two years old, at the moment of falling under the efforts of some enemys whom too guard a vivacity and some indiscret words have armed against him.

favoured with repeated marks of friendship and protection by your unfortunate father, and full of gratitude, I address myself with confidence to his son, well convinced that the sentiments which have always distinguished the father, cannot fail to be unimpressed in his son’s heart, and that he will do anything in his power towards the great Man who in this moment is a father to him, to prevent the ruin of a young man quiet tampered and indiscreet but full of honour and courage; that he will employ all the attachments with which he is honoured by his second father, to obtain justice or the forgiveness of offences which it would have been very easy for me to reduce to their right value, if, as requested lieutenant Simon Goddes, he had obtained the delay necessary for me to arrive and if [illegible] his Sire judges there had not been three who were evidences against him, and whom he had [illegible]

in any other circumstance I would not take the liberty of writing you to make any use of the President’s friendship for you; but his sentiments of indulgence and humanity are Known: he will never be displeased of you having procured him an opportunity of preserving the honor and profession of a young man who has devoted himself to the Service of his country, and of saving the live of a respectable mother, who would not survive the infamy with which her son should be stained: finally (if my feelings can but any way regarded) of saving to me after thirty two years of actual Service the pain of being involved in the dishonour of the family, whither to blameless, to which I have connected myself.

I take the honour to be with respect, Sir, your most humble and obedient of Servant

(signed) Lewis Tousard

My direction is: major Lewis tousard

Commandant at West Point.

Peeks Kill.

George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence: Lewis Tousard to George Washington Motier Lafayette. 1796. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/mgw440089/> on 04/19/2023.

[nordleuchten]

Hey there! :) Curious if you can share some information about the dishonor that Major Tousard speaks about in his letter to Georges de La Fayette / the situation surrounding that particular letter.

Dear @ouiouixmonami,

I happily will do that. You have to apologize that my answer is somewhat delayed – your question got, in the truest sense of the word, lost in translation. I translated the term “brother-in-law” wrong in my head while pounding your question and that in turn let me to search for a person that never existed – but now I am back on track. :-)

For everybody who does not know the context, the question was asked in relation to this letter from a Major Lewis/Louis de Tousard to Georges de La Fayette.

Major Lewis/Louis de Tousard had married Anna Maria in 1795. Geddes had a brother, Simon Geddes. Geddes (died 1807) entered the military and on July 31, 1794, George Washington wrote in a letter to the Senate of the United States:

I nominate the following persons as Company Officers and Surgeon and Surgeons Mates in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers.

“From George Washington to the United States Senate, 31 May 1794,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-16-02-0138. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 16, 1 May–30 September 1794, ed. David R. Hoth and Carol S. Ebel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011, pp. 165–166.] (05/10/2023)

Simon Geddes of Delaware was one of the names on the list and he was thus made a lieutenant in June of 1794. Geddes next appears in the records in February of 1795 when he confirms Captain Bruff’s representation of the character of William B. Smith. They all served in the same corps.

Simon Geddes was found guilty and was dismissed from service during a court-martial held on May 12, 1796 (the sentence was not pronounced until the 16th of May). The records are sadly lost so we do not what his misconducts were. Regardless of that, Geddes applied to James McHenry, then Secretary of War, on June 8, 1796 for a re-trial based on a procedural error. James McHenry explained the matter in a letter to George Washington on June 14, 1796:

It is declared, in the articles of war, vz. Art. 1. for the administration of justice, that, “General courts-martial may consist of any number of commissioned officers from five to thirteen, inclusively; but they shall not consist of less than thirteen where that number can be convened without manifest injury to the service.”

This article discovers great solicitude that general courts-martial should consist of the highest number of members it prescribes; and implies very strongly, that every number inclusively between five and thirteen, is to be sought for, and prefered to that of five. It does more. It expresly precludes five members from being considered as a constitutional general court-martial, whenever thirteen can be convened, without manifest injury to the service.

A general court martial therefore, which should consist of five members only, could not be held to be legal, unless it should be evident that more members could not have been added, so as to approach it to thirteen without manifest injury to the service.

Viewing the question in this aspect, it might be proper, that the fact should be ascertained, whether the situation of the garrison or corps at West-Point, (at the time when the court tried Lt Geddis) was such, as to render a limitation of its members to five an indispensible measure. (…) I would submit therefore the propriety of returning the proceedings to the commandant of the corps at West Point, with instructions to make the necessary investigation, and grant a new trial, if it should appear to him, that a greater number of members than five might have been convened at that time, “without manifest injury to the service.

“To George Washington from James McHenry, 14 June 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0199. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 287–289.] (05/10/2023)

In short, Geddes, who had been found guilty by a committee of only five men, argued that the situation at West-Point at the time was such, that more man could have taken part in his court-martial.

Washington replied to McHenry on June 22 and agreed with his assessment, the matter was to be returned to the commandant as West Point – but it only got more complicated from here on. On July 26, McHenry received a letter from the officers at West Point, requesting that Geddes was to be released and pardoned. James McHenry faithfully brought the matter before Washington on the same day and stated his opinion whether Washington was at all able to revoke the sentence passed by the court-martial since a new law had recently been passed:

I have also received this morning the inclosed letter, and representation from the officers at West-point, praying that Lt Geddis may be released from his arrest.

On this subject I would observe, That the act passed last session of Congress fixing the military establishment of the U.S. contains the following section.

Sect. 18. “And be it further enacted that the sentences of general courts-martial, in time of peace, extending to the loss of life, the dismission of a commissioned officer; or which shall, either in time of peace or war, respect a general officer, shall with the whole of the proceedings in such cases, respectively, be laid before the President of the U.S.; who is hereby authorised to direct the same to be carried into execution or otherwise as he shall judge proper.”

This clause was incorporated into the act in order to remove some doubts heretofore started respecting the power of the President to pardon certain military offences in time of peace.

For my own part, I have no doubt, that independent of this act, the President possesses the power to remit sentences of courts martial extending to the loss of life or dismission of a commissioned officer I consider that part of the act therefore as surplusage.

If however it was to serve as authority it would not apply to the present case; inasmuch as it has had no retroactive effect given to it. The sentence on Geddis was pronounced on the 16th of May; and the act in question passed on the 30th.

I look to a higher authority for the power of the President to remit sentences of courts-martial.

The constitution art. II. sect. 2. constitutes the President [“]commander in chief of the army and navy of the U.S.” and vests him with “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment.”

Congress cannot pass any regulations for the government of the land and naval forces which may intrench upon, invalidate or nullify this power to pardon offences against the United States.

If this is a true exposition of the constitution, the President may if he should think proper comply with the request in favour of Lt Geddis.

“To George Washington from James McHenry, 26 July 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0319. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 497–500.] (05/10/2023)

In his letter from August 1, Washington was in favour of both McHenry’s reasoning and Gedde’s acquittal. But even he was not completely sure how to best go about it and wanted to confer with the Attorney General. He wrote:

I have no objection to the releasement of Lieutt Geddis from his present arrest, at the request of those Officers who have asked it; But as the Attorney General will be at Philadelphia, I would have his opinion taken on the power of granting a pardon for the Offence of which he has been found guilty, and Cashiered; and the mode by which it may, with propriety, be accomplished: for it may be questioned, whether a remital of the Sentence of the Court, ought not to be preceeded by an act of approval, or rejection, as the foundation. At any rate some attention to the form (which I request may be given) will be necessary.

“From George Washington to James McHenry, 1 August 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0334. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 546–547.] (05/10/2023)

Charles Lee wrote on August 4 to James McHenry that:

The Attorney General is of opinion that the President of the United States has power to Pardon Lieutenant Geddes for the offence of which he has been found guilty, though the sentence of the court martial has neither been rejected or approved. The enclosed form may be used.

Notes of “To George Washington from James McHenry, 8 August 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0349. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 565–567.] (05/10/2023)

James McHenry transferred the Attorney General’s opinion and the filled-out form to Washington on August 8 and Geddes was pardoned on August 12, 1796 by Washington’s signature, based on the following:

in consideration of the youth and inexperience of Lieutenant Geddes and for divers other good causes

Notes of “To George Washington from James McHenry, 8 August 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0349. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 20, 1 April–21 September 1796, ed. David R. Hoth and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019, pp. 565–567.] (05/10/2023)

Geddes was ordered to return to his command. One should think that the story ends here and that Geddes, lucky to have escaped without any serious consequences, would stay clear of any trouble – well, no.

Journal of the United States Artillery, Vol. 29, Artillery School Press, Virginia, 1908, p. 85.

After Geddes ultimate dismissal, Washington nominated a man named Robert Parkinson to replace Geddes and Parkinson did so on December 19, 1796.

With all that being said, I apologize for writing such a long post without really answering your question since I have no information on the original “dishounor” Tousard mentioned in his letter. But at least we know now that Simon Geddes managed to get himself in a whole lot of trouble.

I hope you have/had a beautiful day!