(SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI) WILLIAM GORDON
(1730 - 1807) English clergyman and historian who came to Massachusetts in 1770 and remained throughout the American Revolution. Siding with the rebel cause, he became an intimate of Henry Knox, John Adams and Elbridge Gerry among others. Following his return to England in 1786 and published his four volume, History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States (1788). Important content A.L.S. "William Gordon" 4pp. 4to., Jamaica Plain, [Mass.], Mar. 8 & 11, 1784 to Signer of the Declaration of Independence ELBRIDGE GERRY who adds his endorsement in the docket "Boston... Doctr Gordon Mar 8 and Apr[i]l 22 1784"

THE FIRST HISTORIAN OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION DESCRIBES HIS EFFORT TO PREVENT THE SOCIETY OF THE CINCINNATI FROM BECOMING A HEREDITARY ORGANIZATION. Upon its inception, the Society of the Cincinnati was viewed by many, especially New Englanders, as an attempt to create an American aristocracy. William Gordon, who was a personal acquaintance with many of the Society's members, attempted to dissuade them from allowing the society to be hereditary and be seen as a new class of nobility. He reasoned with Gerry, an ardent opponent of the Society, writing "...Private societies we must have, do we mean to keep public liberty alive; but who is to take the lead?... 'Tis the natural influence that will result from the measure & its dangerous consequences, that make the body tremendous. I conjecture, that it will die away by lingering consumption. Numbers will after a while become tradesmen & merchants & will be jealous of their own particular new property, after having disposed of their robes &c. Domestic & social life will eat out the military sprit & manners. Numbers will be like to separate, when they perceive they are become[ing] the object of the peoples jealousy, & are therefore excluded from civil authority. You have heard doubtless that our House & Senate have taken the alarm; & this like an electrical stroke sockt [sic] the resolution of the Duke of Roxbury [John Hancock?] so that he did not meet the Massachusetts line at the day appointed, & thus the third in command is nearly lost to them. Whether the Genl. Court will do any thing I can't say; but hope they will be prudent...". And Gordon was not alone, even members of the Society were concerned: "I told one of the Society the other day, I wisht [sic] they were fully paid & the Society dissolved; & he was heartily ready to agree to the wish. Tis the pay they are assured. I shall try [Henry] Knox upon the following alterations, that it shall not be hereditary but finish in the decease of the present members, that no more honorary members shall be admitted, & that the fund shall end with the society, but regulations settled with that in view. the P. S. may tell you, how the proposal takes.... Should it be resolved to keep it up with spirit & in a high tone, the Friends must be employed & bound it from becoming dangerous in futurity: their meetings in the several states & general meeting in a particular state may operate so as to keep it with the aids of other influence from degenerating into an evil, to which all earthly creations and however good in the beginning. Three thousand swordsmen, with aid de camps, for they will always have friends to attend them, are not a despicable body, should they be an sudden influence a[nd] become delirious quod hic or hoc. Stock holders, Monied [sic] Men &c &c will also be likely to have their eyes upon the doings of a military Congress. How his Excellency the President's pulse beats, as to these matters have not yet [been] heard. You may possibly have felt it, & can let me know...". In his March 11 postscript Gordon notes that "Genls. Knox & Jackson were over, but we were so full of other talk that we did not meddle with the Cincinnati. The night before a gentleman informed me, that one of their society who was a Free Mason could not refrain from communicating the secret to a brother Mason not of the Society, who as it did not belong to Masonry had told it to others - that they had pledged themselves to one another at all events to see that they were paid, & that Genl. Washington had given his honor to do the like -- said the gentlemen You may depend upon it, & that they meant it as a rod over the States. I laught [sic] it off & heard what he said. Told him that I did not trouble myself as its being a rod, but added they must take care how they shake it; neither could I believe that Gen Washington would come under such engagement. The Genl. would certainly go no further than to give assurance that he would use in utmost influence, but would never venture the total destruction of his character by binding himself to see them paid at all events...".

Washington too was concerned. Fanning the flames of suspicion was a pamphlet anonymously published by South Carolina Judge Aedaneus Burke in October 1783, who summarized the general fear surrounding it: "...the Cincinnati creates two distinct orders among the Americans-- 1st., A race of hereditary nobles, founded on the military, together with the powerful familys, and first-rate, leading men in the state, whose view it will ever be, to rule; and 2dly, The people or plebeians, whose only view is not to be oppressed, but whose certain fate it will be to suffer oppression under the institution... ". Indeed Burke found it hypocritical to use the image of Cincinnatus: "Did that virtuous Roman, having subdued the enemies of his country, and returned home to tend his vineyard and plant his cabbages -- did he confer an hereditary order of peerage on himself and fellow-soldiers? I answer no; it was more than he dared to do". Washington himself asked Thomas Jefferson for his opinion on the matter in April 1784 who feared that honorary memberships would be a stepping stone to the Society's path to power, replying "A well directed distribution of them might draw into the order of all the men of talents, of office and wealth, and in this case would probably procure an ingraftment into the government" (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, Apr. 14, 1784). Writing in the third volume of his own history, The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America, Gordon noted that "The alarm is become so universal, that the general society, at their meeting to be held at Philadelphia in May, must agree upon alterations, and remove the most obnoxious parts of the plan, or the state will be likely to set their faces against the Cincinnati, as a dangerous order...General Greene, the late commanding offer of the southern army, has acknowledged to me in conversation, that there is not in the society, as at present constituted, a delicacy with regard to the general body of American citizens; and it may be fairly presumed, that a similar sentiment is espoused by the late commander in chief. It is to be hoped that the several states will unite in determining, that the society shall dissolve with the deaths of the present officers and honorary members, and that it shall not be perpetuated by an accession of new and younger ones. In their late contest with Great-Britain they acted upon the maxim-- obsta principiis. They must apply it afresh for their security against lordly dominion" (386). These criticisms convinced Washington that the scope of the society had to be limited. Writing to Jonathan Trumbull, he noted, "If we cannot convince the people that their fears are ill-founded we should (at least in a degree) yield to them and not suffer that which was intended for the best of purposes to produce a bad one which will be the consequence of divisions proceeding from an opposition to the curr[ent]t. opinion, if the fact is so in the Eastern States as some have reported" (G.W. to Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., Apr. 4, 1784, L.O.C.). At the Society's first meeting in May 1784 Washington pressured the society to drop heredity and honorary memberships. In his written notes to the meeting he asked that the Society "Discontinue the hereditary part in all its connexions, absolutely, without any substitution which can be construed into a concealment, or a charge of ground only; for this would, in my opinion, encrease [sic] rather than allay suspicions" (Washington, Notes on General Society Constitution, May 4, 1784, L.O.C.). The General Society grudgingly accepted his demands, as Washington threatened to walk away from the society if they did not comply. However, most of the state organizations never ratified the changes, and by 1790, the General Society acknowledged that the original hereditary society was still very much alive. And its existence continued to arouse suspicion. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Elbridge Gerry raised the subject in rejecting the notion of popular election of the President noting that the Society could easily manipulate voters into only electing its own candidates. The fears were overblown. By 1787 the Society couldn't muster a quorum of seven states at its General Meeting and the came close to vanishing before its revival in the second half of the nineteenth century (Markus Hünemörder "The Society of the Cincinnati: Conspiracy Theory in the Early American Republic", GHI Bulletin, No. 31, Fall 2002, 71-74).

In the long and wide-ranging letter, Gordon comments on other items of importance including making an early proposal to grant Washington the franking privilege in recognition of his services: "...I propose enclosing a letter for General Washington for you to forward, that He may have no postage to pay, which I do not know that you have exempted him from: but if not, I mean that you should take it up & move Congress that no letters for him or coming from him with the direction in his own hand & his name to it shall be charged with any American Postage. It will be a pretty piece of respect, & in some measure just; for his having acted in so elevated a station must occasion him a greater increase of correspondence, than would have otherwise existed...". Gordon also adds some interesting commentary on shifts in power in the British Parliament in the closing days of the American Revolution: The change in the British ministry, in my opinion augurs good. The last I never relished And Dr. Price put me more out of liking with them by his letter of July the 28th wherein he wrote, 'What must You think of the unprincipled men in this country who, from a lust of power & its emoluments, have grounded upon the peace an opposition which has obliged the makers of it to withdraw. Our ministers Stormont, North Fox &c are unwilling to allow the ships of the U.S. a free intercourse with our West India islands & with Britain. The hint you give with respect to P. Effingham taken from Mr Adams's journal & relative to his coming over Ambass[ado]r is a very proper one. I know him well & think him of the best of our public men. But he dislikes the odious coalition, which has lately forced its [?] into power & which at present governs us; & it is not likely that he would accept of any appointment under it...".

Of course, Gordon's first priority was writing his history. To that end, he notes that "The next Monday... I design going to Newport to examine Genl. Greene's papers, who has very generously opened them to my inspection, but wishes for me to come before he goes to the southward, that he may explain many little anecdotes to me. When I have finished his, shall have examined three of the general officers m o o [?], having inspected Gates's & Lincoln's before. Tomorrow shall have the pleasure of Knox's company at dinner, who by verbal communication means to give me all the assistance in his power. Shall be sorry to have my petition negatived [sic] by Congress, as their countenance will give character to my intended history -- Not but that I shall be able in one way & another, but the aids of discharged Congress - men & of military citizens to obtain such a collection of materials, as will give me a tolerable degree of importance as a historian, whatever the Literati & the sharp-penn'd Critics may pronounce concerning me as a Writer". Gordon would return to England in 1786 and the first volume of his history appeared in 1788. Usual light folds, a few mounting remnants at one margin, obscuring a few words of text, else fine condition.