“All our difficulties in forming the Militia”

In colonial Massachusetts, it was common for wealthy landowners to hold several positions of authority at once.

Gentlemen might represent their towns in the Massachusetts General Court, hold a high rank in the local militia regiment, and receive a royal appointment as a justice of the peace or the like.

After the Revolutionary War began, citizens became concerned about such “plural office-holding.” That was partly a practical concern since men away at the Continental Congress or in the army couldn’t also do vital work in provincial and local government. But the concern also reflected a general reformist mood, spreading out power.

Legislators began to write rules forbidding men to hold multiple positions. At the same time, they wanted to keep their friends and political allies in important roles. The result was a muddle. Sometimes politicians seem to have ignored the new rules against plural office-holding while at other times they seized on those rules as an excuse to block rivals.

On 14 Feb 1776 assembly speaker James Warren wrote to his ally Samuel Adams about how the General Court’s choice of militia major generals was working out:

We have not surmounted all our difficulties in forming the Militia by Compleating the Bill, the House chose Coll. [John] Hancock the first, your Humble Servant the Second and Coll. [Azor] Orne the third Major Generals.

the Board [Council] nonconcurred the second, because they think, as they say, the Choice militates with a Clause in the Act, forgetting it did as much so with the Choice of several of their Honours, as military Officers, Brigadiers, etc.

the Vote by means of the nonconcurrence is again before us. I am unable to say what the House will do with it. Orne refuses. Coll. Hancock is objected to as being unable to attend, etc. it lays for the present and will till next Session. . . .

I am glad to be out of the List, but the Council have done it in a manner as ungracious and Indelicate as [royal governors Francis] Bernard or [Thomas] Hutchinson would have done; for which reason I have serious thoughts of quiting my civil commission…

Warren didn’t step down as speaker of the Massachusetts house or representative from Plymouth. (Nor as Continental Army paymaster general—until the army moved south.)

A lot of quiet wrangling followed. As speaker, Warren had a lot of influence over who the assembly voted to be major generals. If he hadn’t wanted the appointment, he could have told his colleagues not to nominate him. But he didn’t.

The house scheduled its vote for the three major generals multiple times that spring, only to postpone. Meanwhile, the British left, followed by the Continentals. Not until 8 May did the house state its new choice:

• John Hancock
• James Warren
• Benjamin Lincoln

Having reestablished his standing, as least in his own chamber, Warren then declined the appointment. The representatives chose Azor Orne to replace him as second major general.

A new legislative session with a new house began later that May. On 11 June, the Council reported that Hancock and Lincoln had accepted their appointments, the former writing from Philadelphia. Orne once again declined. The next day, the house named its replacement for Orne:

• James Warren

I don’t see an official concurrence with this decision by the Council in the house records. Nonetheless, after that James Warren had the militia rank of general and thus could be called “General Warren” for the rest of his life. (This compounds the ease of confusing him with Dr. Joseph Warren, also named a general just before he died.)

Speaker Warren was offered the chance to command troops sent to support Gen. George Washington at New York in September. He declined on account of his health. Lincoln went instead and eventually became a Continental Army commander.

COMING UP: The question of independency.