The Continental Congress protested in 1774 that “the Authority of the commander-in-chief, and under him, of the brigadiers general, has in time of peace been rendered supreme in all the civil governments in America.”Footnote 1 This remonstration, which prefigured several of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence, referred to more than just the Massachusetts Government Act: it alleged that British reforms made “all” colonies subservient to military power. If historians’ discussions of military reforms in this period often center on related changes such as the expansion of the standing army in North America and attempts to tax the colonies to pay for it, we rarely consider the role of commander in chief as a colonial reform in and of itself. Yet, the advent of a peacetime commander in chief, which was new in 1763, both reflected and reinforced the metropole’s increasing attention on the North American colonies.
Britain established the position of commander in chief of forces in North America in 1754 as violence in the Ohio Country prefigured the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War two years later. By the end of the conflict, Sir Jeffery Amherst’s ruthless successes came to define the role as essential in orchestrating colonial civil governments, the military, and the Crown’s Indigenous allies to act in concert to achieve British imperial ends. Following the February 1763 Treaty of Paris and the eruption of Pontiac’s War in April, coordinated military command in North America remained essential. On Amherst’s return to Britain, the role transitioned to General Thomas Gage in November 1763.Footnote 2 Gage was the only man to serve a meaningful tenure as peacetime commander in chief in North America, during which time he was generally regarded as competent, honest, careful in utilizing his authority, and even surprisingly popular in the colonies until 1774.Footnote 3 Indeed, the commander in chief often treated the imperial army as a potential liability in controlling Britain’s American subjects—what one scholar has referred to as Gage’s “imperial Catch-22.”Footnote 4
Because of Gage’s temperament and style, other reforms of the era often mask the importance of the decision in 1763 to maintain a commander in chief during peacetime. The consequence of the new office might have attracted more attention had the post gone to a differently tempered man, such as the spirited and contemptuous James Murray, who had been under consideration for the position before he was assigned to the governorship of Canada. In contrast with Gage, who carefully observed the civil boundaries, Murray sought to create a martial character in his colony and went so far as to request permission to impress Canadian civilians for military needs even during a “time of profound peace.”Footnote 5 Much of the literature on Gage focuses on the questions of his competence and conduct.Footnote 6 While Gage appears frequently in accounts of the lead-up to the American Revolution, historians rarely consider the new position of the peacetime commander in chief among the imperial reforms of the 1760s and 1770s.Footnote 7 Yet the office anchored several other key transformations, including enforcing the Proclamation Line, regulating Indigenous trade, and policing colonial resistance.
Challenges to the authority of the peacetime commander in chief rested on a long constitutional history. Tensions between ideas of English (later British) liberties and standing armies characterized parliamentary and pamphlet debates since the Petition of Right in 1628. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, English thinkers gradually identified legitimate, non-despotic uses of the military especially in respect to parliamentary control, which theoretically subordinated the military as a politically sterile tool of the state.Footnote 8 As the wars of empire increased through the eighteenth century, the standing army become more necessary. Previously the strains of peacetime garrisons were concentrated in rebellious and conquered territories like the Scottish Highlands and Nova Scotia. But the reforms of 1763 brought the issue home to colonials.Footnote 9 Not only did sizable garrisons seemingly “reduce” the North American colonies to the status of the Gaelic fringes or new conquests, but the meaning of the army became enmeshed with the period’s escalating tensions. Colonials could not share in apolitical ideas of a standing army as they contested parliamentary authority and associated British redcoats with key flashpoints in the emerging crisis.
The peacetime commander in chief functioned as a linchpin for the reforming project that sought to subordinate and systematize colonial government in the east, while sectioning off the problems of the west.Footnote 10 Acting outside the remit of any colonial authority, the office proved essential to coordinating military action across colonial boundaries, compelling compliance with parliamentary reforms such as the American Mutiny Act, and serving as a de facto governor in the west. Men skeptical of this centralized power, as well as many who were merely self-interested, challenged the authority of the commander in chief and, by extension, tested the boundaries of British sovereignty in America. The very existence of this role prompted questions about the line between civil and military authority, particularly in liminal spaces like newly conquered territories. Disputes over the new arrangement of authority under the peacetime commander in chief highlighted the intractable ambiguities in the structure of British North America after 1763.
A Peacetime Commander in Chief
From its inception, officials differed in their interpretations of the proper role of the commander in chief of the British forces in North America. The idea of the commander in chief emerged in 1754 from schemes to unite colonial finance and defense. The Albany Plan of Union proposed a president-general as both a military and civil executive at the head of a Grand Council of colonial appointees, tasked with negotiating contributions to a general treasury, Indigenous trade, settlement, and defense in the West. The Earl of Halifax, then president of the Board of Trade and Plantations, endorsed the Albany proposals through his clients, including Thomas Pownall. Shortly thereafter, the Southern Department devised a similar scheme. Instead of the president-general, it advanced the notion of the commander in chief as viceroy of North America, overseeing both Native affairs and a colonial council. As Andrew Beaumont has argued, Halifax envisioned this office as more akin to a governor general who could coordinate across various departments and colonial governments to cultivate a more unified American system aligned with metropolitan interests. But as Britain readied for the impending war against France, the requirements for an experienced officer to coordinate military preparations overshadowed ideas of reforming the colonial system. The creation of a new Indian Department allowed for the delegation of Native affairs to the superintendents and their agents. A diminished version of a military commander in chief remained: he was instructed to report to London, while preserving “the best Friendship and Harmony possible with the Governors of the Provinces.”Footnote 11
As George III and his cabinet began to plan for peace in America in late 1762 and early 1763, they focused on defending the interior of North America as a pressing strategic problem, rather than reforming governance in the existing colonies. In both prosecuting the war and negotiating the peace, George III worked with the Earl of Bute, his closest advisor and First Lord of the Treasury, and the Earl of Shelburne, newly appointed president of the Board of Trade, to produce a stable “round” geopolitical settlement that addressed the kinds of disputes in the backcountry that had instigated the Seven Years’ War. To that end, the King significantly expanded the military establishment in North America. Their discussions, as well as the parliamentary debates, emphasized the purpose of the American establishment as a peacekeeping force in the backcountry and Caribbean, not as a standing army in the “old” eastern seaboard colonies.Footnote 12
Asserting meaningful British sovereignty over such a vast territory required commanders empowered to address situations as they unfolded. The secretary at war requested Amherst’s expertise in developing a plan to distribute the expanded force. His design included two military commanders in chief, one for the northern colonies and the other for the southern, “who may direct and control the Commanding officers at the several Posts, and be themselves accountable to His Majesty & His Ministers, with whom alone they should correspond.” Amherst’s vision for the commanders in chief encompassed a strictly military role, intended to ease the communication and arrangement “between the Several Parts of this Military System” across the vast continent.Footnote 13 As the secretary of state and Board of Trade engaged in more specific planning, which later coalesced into the Proclamation of 1763, their plans included a singular military commander in chief for North America. Alongside the superintendents of Indian affairs, the commander in chief would provide officials with detailed information to establish the position of forts, distribution of forces, and regulations on Indigenous trade.Footnote 14
As planning advanced through the establishment of new governments in Quebec, West Florida, and East Florida, politicians contested the plan for the interior. The Earl of Egremont suggested extending the governorship of Canada to all the territory remaining outside colonial boundaries to allow for civil jurisdiction over trade and criminal activity. However, the Board of Trade led by the Earl of Shelburne questioned the implications of this expanded civil government on three major grounds. First, in the event of a hypothetical future war against France, the new boundaries might weaken British claims to its older territory. Secondly, it would restrict the accessibility of the fur trade to existing colonies. Finally, the Board of Trade presciently predicted “constant and inextricable Disputes” in regions where civil governments contained significant army garrisons. Instead of a greater Canada, they proposed that the commander in chief be granted a commission similar to gubernatorial commissions in other colonies “for the Government of this [interior] Country … adapted to the Protection of the Indians and the fur Trade of your Majesty’s subjects.”Footnote 15 The commander in chief would have theoretically held both military and civil authority to administer justice throughout the vast new territories outside of other colonial boundaries.
Shelburne’s vision did not come to pass as Egremont’s unexpected death allowed Halifax to achieve a vestige of his former vision. Although a longtime advocate for North American reform, Halifax had grown increasingly disillusioned as disunity within the ministry repeatedly unraveled his projects. Moreover, the outbreak of Pontiac’s War demanded urgency in settling authority in the interior. The Board of Trade suggested the issuance of a royal proclamation, which offered a more expedient resolution but lacked the power of law necessary for fundamentally restructuring the colonial-metropolitan relationship.Footnote 16 Within these confines, Halifax, newly risen to secretary of state for the Southern Department, recommended that the position of commander in chief continue in peacetime to unify military command and Native affairs in the interior. He rebuffed the idea of granting a civil commission, while allowing that it might be reconsidered “upon experience, & future Information.” The King’s Proclamation therefore set narrow boundaries on the government of Canada, while establishing no civil authority for the remaining interior.Footnote 17 Aspirations for a scheme for continental unity had been replaced by a singular office, burdened with executing major reforms but also limited in its powers. Instead of formal mechanisms of viceregal power to ensure colonial cooperation, Gage would need to negotiate, mediate, and cajole submission. Conflicts over the lines of civil and military authority were thus baked into the structure of North American government in the Proclamation of 1763.
Ambiguities in authority also complicated Native affairs in the west. Since 1755, the Indian superintendents had been subordinated to the commander in chief and remained “under his Direction.” Pontiac’s War underscored the necessity of a cohesive diplomatic strategy independent of narrow colonial interests. This approach took shape in the Plan of 1764, a sweeping prescription for Indigenous trade, assimilation, and diplomacy. John Stuart, the southern superintendent for Indian affairs, informed of a “uniform and Extensive” policy of justice and exchange with Native peoples. The plan incorporated his suggestions of oversight of colonial governors and banned them from taking unilateral decisions in public affairs with Natives. As colonial governors contested the commander in chief’s powers, so too did they argue that the Plan of 1764 undermined their commissions, especially the power to declare war or make peace.Footnote 18
Budgetary concerns exacerbated these tensions, as the superintendents relied on Gage to reimburse their diplomatic expenses. From his station in New York, the commander in chief had little insight into the legitimacy of those costs, complaining, “the Indian Departments … occasion me great trouble … The Two Superintendants draw upon Me as their occasions require, I can have nothing to say to their Vouchers, nor very often to the necessity of their Expences.” Gage received endless letters requesting reimbursement, while reformers in London such as George Grenville and Charles Townshend sought to transform the fiscal footing of Britain’s Atlantic empire.Footnote 19 At the same time, Gage learned from his predecessor’s mistakes that gift-giving represented a diplomatic glue essential for peace, an arrangement reinforced by the Plan of 1764 that centralized imperial officials’ control over Indigenous diplomacy and trade. British officers thus had to understand the value of gifts within two distinctive cultural systems, spending as little as possible on gifts as commodities while ensuring their high symbolic value. While all gifts formally represented the Crown, Georgia Carley has demonstrated that Native people in the west also acknowledged the official who presented them with gifts. Imperial officials, including Gage, therefore sought to channel all gifts through the Indian superintendents. By managing the vocabulary of these “gift systems,” the post-1763 structures reinforced Native peoples’ loyalties to imperial authorities, rather than individual colonial governments.Footnote 20
The commander in chief’s responsibility to ensure peace across thousands of miles of the North American interior far surpassed the capacities of the British fiscal-military state. As Gage wrote to the secretary at war, “The difficulties in carrying on the Service in North America increase very fast.”Footnote 21 Moreover, the legal framework for the post-1763 empire was inherently flawed in its assumption that the west would remain a Native domain. The army remained thinly spread across the vast interior where it faced challenges of infrastructure, coordination, and ecology. To address the continuing challenges of billeting and supplying troops across the continent, Gage sent recommendations to Whitehall that resulted in the passage of the Mutiny Act for America. Also known as the Quartering Act, the 1765 law protected colonial domiciles by requiring soldiers to be quartered in barracks as first priority, then public houses, and finally in uninhabited buildings. In return, it required colonial legislatures to provide funding for transportation and supplies, though colonies frequently evaded these responsibilities.Footnote 22 Contrary to earlier metropolitan visions of reform—prioritizing colonial unity in 1754 and western security in 1763—later ministries’ focus turned to the problem of effectively coercing and extracting revenue from the eastern seaboard.Footnote 23
Aside from the difficulties in compelling colonial assemblies to bear their financial burdens, the final law also frustrated British sovereignty in the west. Gage originally proposed permitting quarters in private homes after legal billets had all been assigned, a stipulation intended for places like the Floridas, Quebec, and western outposts. However, public scrutiny killed the notion. Gage moreover tried to use the Mutiny Bill to address the gap in justice in the west by including a provision that allowed trials by military courts for crimes committed outside of colonial boundaries. However, Parliament changed the clause to require that offenders be “conveyed and delivered … to the civil magistrate of the next adjoining province.”Footnote 24 Gage was lucky to get even that much. In the Commons debate on the bill, two members with experience and business interests in North America argued that the military had been given illegitimate legal authority: “In the remote extra-provincial quarters, where lie the inland forts, the officers have by this law a power to seize criminals, and send them with convenient speed for trial to the next province. This it seems was anti-constitutional. It was making officers civil magistrates; it was infringing liberty.”Footnote 25 In these critiques, parliamentarians echoed the concerns that emerged across North America that the commander in chief’s powers transgressed the constitutional boundaries of military authority.
Contesting the Commander in Chief’s Authority in the Colonies
While the story of contested authority in this era often focuses on struggles between royal governors and colonial assemblies, the advent of the peacetime commander in chief brought new conflicts. Across distinctive colonial circumstances, governors repeatedly questioned whether the commander in chief’s powers were truly meant to supersede their own authority. Several of the governors who challenged the office of the peacetime commander in chief had received Halifax’s patronage. Their criticisms underscored the ways the diminished commander in chief functioned in an adversarial relationship with colonial governors. Halifax had understood colonial governors as critical within the imperial hierarchy. He imagined that their role was to exert Britain’s jurisdiction and authority to govern (dominium) in furtherance of Crown sovereignty (imperium) in the colonies. In Halifax’s schemes, this dyad of imperium and dominium promised to break the obstinacy of provincial assemblies and realign divergent colonies with the metropolitan project. Reflected in Halifax’s appointment of Lieutenant-General Edward Cornwallis to the militarized colony of Nova Scotia, the model government concentrated gubernatorial authority across civil and military lines to limit local power struggles. But in the new reality, the commander in chief held responsibility for military command throughout North America.Footnote 26 The uncertainties raised by these changes mirrored the larger question of the era regarding whether the colonies functioned under the British constitution or as miniature copies of it.
As the army reduced its wartime footing in 1763, the South Carolina governor Thomas Boone raised concerns about “the Inconveniences rising from a divided Command in the same Government.”Footnote 27 Governors of South Carolina customarily possessed direct command over the three independent companies, but these disbanded at the peace, replaced by troops from the Royal American Regiment under the commander in chief. Boone, who was among Halifax’s appointees, refused to yield command, invoking the precedent of Jamaica where the governor controlled two regiments. However, command in North America did not parallel the Caribbean, which was outside the commander in chief’s commission. As Gage explained, he held responsibility for unifying command of troops across colonial boundaries on the continent: “if every Governor Commands Independently the Troops which are in his Province; It’s plain that the Commander in Chief can have no Command at all.” In Jamaica particularly, governors tended to have an army background, and troops remained under their civil control to preserve white Britons’ delicate racial supremacy. If Boone eventually desisted on the point of command, the dispute nevertheless soured military–civil cooperation in the colony.Footnote 28
The discrepancy between command in the Caribbean and North America became a common point of reference in these disputes. West Florida’s governor also invoked processes in Jamaica when claiming jurisdiction to review a decision made by a judge advocate’s court under the colony’s interim military government. Governor Henry Moore of New York, who was Jamaican-born and had been appointed under Halifax as acting governor of that colony, assumed a consistency in the structure of Crown colonies. He rationalized, “I could not but suppose that my Commission was superior to all others here, nor did I ever entertain the least doubt of it.”Footnote 29 Even military officers found the differences confusing. As an officer in West Florida, Lieutenant Colonel David Wedderburn initially wrote, “In Antigua, from whence I had come, The Governors powers are perfectly well understood, but, as there is a Commander in Chief over all His Majesty’s Forces in North America, I thought the Governors powers here, in what regarded the Military, by no means, clearly defined.” Later he added an insertion to clarify that he meant “His Majesty’s Forces on the continent of North America.”Footnote 30 Wedderburn’s correction emphasized how uncustomary the new arrangement felt.
In addition to the distinction between the structures of military command in the Caribbean versus North America, the divergent situations of old and new colonies after 1763 also provoked clashes. In the aftermath of the Seven Years’ War, several governors with distinguished military records believed that the needs of defense in the expanded empire warranted their continued command over troops. The military demands of new colonies, which relied on redcoats as escorts, surveyors, and engineers, differed from those of established ones. East Florida’s governor James Grant, who had risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel during the Seven Years’ War, contended that “no Body but a Military Man, can carry on Business as Governor in a New Province.”Footnote 31 Likewise, James Murray, who had reached the rank of brigadier general during the war and was recently appointed governor of Quebec, felt that he should continue command of troops. In defense of his demands, Murray argued that because of the large garrisons and recently conquered status of the colony, Quebec required power to be centralized in a single individual who could command the respect of both citizens and soldiers. He threatened to resign because the “necessity of the Governor of this Province having the Command of the Troops [wa]s so evident” and jockeyed for a commission as major general in America, which would put him in a rank just below Gage’s own.Footnote 32
Governor Murray’s request for dual military and civil control over Canada was not ridiculous, given that Gage intentionally unified command on other occasions in the region. In 1764, Gage gave in to the appeals of Colonel Montagu Wilmot, governor of Nova Scotia, assigning him command of the troops in the colony. Because Wilmot was the province’s highest-ranking officer, the move allowed for a convenient unity in civil and military command, though only on an ad hoc basis as Wilmot’s regiment was disbanded the following year.Footnote 33 When Guy Carleton was nominated as Murray’s successor in Quebec, Gage and the secretary at war arranged to appoint him dually as brigadier general for the Northern District of America. Contrary to Murray’s obstreperous nature, Carleton possessed an even temper and sound judgment. By making the man who was second-in-command of the army simultaneously the highest civil official in the province, officials hoped to eliminate disputes such as those that had taken place under Murray’s tenure. Gage celebrated the decision: “this Union of the first Authority, Military as well as Civil in the same person, especially considering the happy temperament of the person in whom it is vested, will have all the effect hoped for from it, and that tranquility, and Harmony will reign throughout the province.”Footnote 34 The elevation of Carleton to brigadier general reflected an attempt to simplify and unify command in Canada as a part of a wider imperial strategy. At the same time, it revealed the fragility of the imperial project, which depended on significant maneuvering as well as luck to align military and civil appointments in an individual of suitable character.
These kinds of inconsistencies, in which military powers denied to one governor were granted to another, also occurred in the Floridas. Governor Grant received command of the forces garrisoned at St. Augustine.Footnote 35 Grant had substantial military experience in America during wartime and had earned trust as a politically cautious, astute, and affable gentleman. By contrast, the governor of West Florida George Johnstone had a naval background and possessed a notoriously combative personality: he resisted orders, made enemies, and nearly plunged the Southern Department into another war. Despite vociferously railing against his lack of military powers, Johnstone would not receive a parallel command. Johnstone’s convoluted conflicts included disputes over the governor’s rights to returns on regiments and the state of the garrison, arrests of noncompliant officers, two courts martial proceedings based on his accusations, and the issuance of unlawful military orders contradicting Gage’s command. As Gage endeavored to negotiate the personality clashes between his subordinates and Governor Johnstone, he despaired, “It is hard to say what Regiment the Governor is most likely to agree with; He has already had no less than five in His Government”— the 21st, 22nd, 31st, 34th, and 35th Regiments of Foot—“and disagreed with all.”Footnote 36
Johnstone’s critiques of the structure of North American government were the most sweeping. He sought military submission to civil authority within North America, not simply under the British constitution more broadly: “If I have no Direction over the Military, and they are perfectly independent of the Civil Authority, I humbly apprehend the Government in that Case is still Military; for wherever a Military Force exists on that Footing, all Civil Forms are a Farce.” In Johnstone’s model, governors held ultimate command within their colonies. He inveighed, “Imperium in Imperio cannot exist in a Common wealth, much less within the fortifications of a Garrison.”Footnote 37 Johnstone broadened the question beyond the powers of the commander in chief, framing it as part of emerging conflict in British constitutional interpretation of whether colonial governments existed independently, in parallel to Britain’s, or as extensions of the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament.
Given these several disputes across British North America, the secretary of state clarified the “misunderstandings” by reiterating that the commander in chief and his brigadiers general were “supreme” in “all military matters” throughout North America. Governors were entitled to the kinds of reports on the state of troops, fortifications, and munitions that Johnstone had demanded. Only when the brigadiers general and commander in chief were absent and had not left specific orders could civil governors give commands to troops for actions such as escorting or forming detachments.Footnote 38 Meanwhile, Gage “enjoined the Officers in every Province in the Strongest Terms, to pay a litteral and implicit Obedience to the Kings Order, not to dispute about Trifles and Punctilios, and to do everything in their Power to please and oblige the Governors.” Gage sent particular directions to West Florida to try to mediate the disorder in that colony.Footnote 39
Yet the issue remained alive. In East Florida, Governor Grant’s relationship with military authorities soured. As Colonel William Taylor reported to the commander in chief, “It is with great reluctance and concern I write to you that Governor Grant has every Idea of Personal power over the Military Department which possessed Governor Johnstone, he rather exceeded him.” Grant’s notion of “personal command” widely encompassed control of military buildings, including the fort, magazine, and hospital; oversight of provisions, artillery, and other supplies; and authority over staff officers in the absence of the brigadier general. Taylor described an ideal in which the governors and army officers should be “happily serving under one Commander in Chief in one great chain of Connection,” echoing the Tudor and Stuart era application of the Great Chain of Being to military authority. Grant, by contrast, accused officers of not serving the public interest in the colonies. Echoing Halifax’s model, Grant advocated for greater gubernatorial authority to align civil and military affairs in order to strengthen the colony’s position within the British Empire. He proposed orders go from the commander in chief through the governors directly, who “must understand the Interest of the colonies better, and have it more at Heart than a transient Commanding Officer.”Footnote 40
Conflicts also continued between military and civil officials in West Florida. A less obstreperous successor to Johnstone, Governor Peter Chester, wrote to the secretary of state for clarification on whether his obligation to defer to the commander in chief or the brigadier general’s command “in the same place” meant within the same town or in the province of West Florida. Just two days later, he wrote again about a dispute with Brigadier General Frederick Haldimand concerning the construction of a new governor’s residence within the stockade in the center of Pensacola. Although Parliament had authorized funding, Haldimand refused to allow construction in the fort. Chester drew on “the Laws of England,” most notably the 1662 London Militia Act, to argue that the governor, as the most direct representative of the Crown, remained in command of all forts. As he read the laws, the commander in chief’s “supreme” authority “in all military matters” applied only to the troops, not the physical spaces of garrisons or barracks. The secretary of state sought to defuse the quibbles, crediting a point in favor of both Chester and Haldimand. While command over troops “in the same place” ultimately fell within the “discretion” of the Brigadier, command over the fort remained “constitutionally vested in the Governor, under the Authority contained in His Commission.”Footnote 41 Despite repeated clarifications from the metropole, these conflicts persisted because they exemplified the perpetual challenge of sovereignty on the fringes of empire. Particularly in colonies such as East and West Florida, an enormous gulf existed between the theoretical boundaries on the map and the actual dominion over the people and affairs on the ground. Exerting dominium in frontier spaces required a physical military presence to control both the territory and peoples claimed by the Crown. Yet Whitehall acknowledged that authority to command troops was discretionary, signaling the weakness of authority in North America. Without a clear hierarchy in command, the notion of British imperium would remain contested. Governors challenged the use of the military to subordinate and integrate the colonies, instead understanding themselves as the only constitutional locus of power.Footnote 42
Rising popular distrust of the British army in response to the Stamp Act and non-importation crises exacerbated disputes over military authority, particularly in New York where the commander in chief’s headquarters served as a reminder of the new weight of military authority in the colonies. Instead of looking to seventeenth-century principles, as the Floridas had, confusion in New York surrounded a 1760 wartime commission that granted the commander in chief “a Superiority over all the Governors of America upon all occasions,” as Governor Moore described it. Meanwhile his own commission granted Moore command over “all Officers & Ministers Civil & Military.” Moore argued that “the levelling Principles which prevail so much in this Country” required a strengthening and clarifying of royal governors’ positions as extensions of the Crown’s authority. Despite the recurring clashes with civil authorities, Gage dismissed the dispute with Moore as “no more than a trifling Dispute between Women.” By casting the conflict as a personal one, Gage minimized the persistent structural confusion of his position. Wishful thinking aside, the commander in chief relied on his discretionary powers to execute British policy in the colonies. Within the same letter, Gage admitted he would accomplish nothing in America were he “Subjected to fifteen Governors.”Footnote 43
The problem of recalling troops from the west to the eastern seaboard in moments of crisis demonstrated the logistical and political fragility of the post-1763 system. Communication and transportation from the west could be too slow to respond to urgent needs. Therefore, during the Stamp Act crisis, Gage encouraged positioning troops “in the great towns upon the coast … ready for an embarkation, and a support to the civil government.”Footnote 44 Southern secretary of state Henry Seymour Conway had initially praised the commander in chief for reacting quickly to assist governors by providing regulars to enforce the Stamp Act. But following the repeal of the Stamp Act, he quickly expected the army to reverse tack by removing troops from New York City to avoid “jealousy” and “potential difficulties.” However, the following month, two new regiments comprising around 1,000 men arrived in New York City, where tensions led to tavern brawls and skirmishes with inhabitants.Footnote 45 This demonstrated that British officials lacked a shared understanding of the role of the enlarged post-1763 American establishment, particularly in responding to crises on the eastern seaboard. It took nearly another decade of repeated confrontations before officials arrived at a consensus, which manifested in the 1774 Coercive Acts: punitive measures restricting local authority in Boston that unified the Patriot cause toward Revolution.
The decision to move troops east to New York following the Stamp Act crisis exacerbated conflicts with the commander in chief. While many colonies delayed appropriating the provisions required by the Mutiny Act, the New York assembly held out against the measure for two years. The colony’s disobedience prompted Whitehall to escalate pressure by drafting the New York Restraining Act, which functionally dissolved the assembly until they acquiesced.Footnote 46 Although Moore secured votes to bring the colony into compliance, the negotiations raised questions about the generally popular Governor Moore’s position vis-à-vis the commander in chief. Beyond trifling embarrassments, such as Gage snubbing the governor’s invitation to attend ceremonies for the King’s birthday, Moore felt that the threat of the Restraining Act illuminated the weakness of the provincial government and “excite[d] a commotion among [the people] by the Seditious Papers … They were made to believe that this was only the first step towards the total abolition of the Civil Power in order to introduce a Military Government.”Footnote 47
Despite Gage’s attempt to diminish the conflicts, the repeated crises across the continent began to reveal the structural insufficiencies in British governance. If the commander in chief was not “subjected” to colonial governors as Gage had claimed, military power in North America could go unchecked. As Johnstone and other governors understood the constitution, passing from England to Antigua to West Florida did not obviate civil precedence over the military. The army in North America extended too far and too distantly for civilian officials to provide effective oversight and ensure justice. Johnstone connected his own struggles against army officers in West Florida with broader crises of imperial authority on the continent:
The whole of the Convulsions on the North American Empire seem to me to arise from the same cause, That of the power of the Sword in case of resistance to lawful Authority being taken from the chief Executive Magistrate, and left to the Discretion of a second Person Which has generated, almost in every Province one of the strangest situations…That of an unruly Mob…addressing and appealing to the moderation of the standing military Force on such Occasion.Footnote 48
At the same time, Johnstone’s own words reflected another truth: metropolitan reformers after 1763 sought to employ the commander in chief to bring provincial governments into compliance, restructuring the discrete colonies into a unified “North American Empire.”
Negotiating Civil and Military Lines in the West
The limits of the commander in chief’s power remained especially unclear in the west where policing western settlement, regulating trade, and governing new French subjects intertwined civil responsibilities with military command. The Proclamation of 1763 and American Mutiny Act left the Indian superintendents and army officers to ensure peace in the interior without civil authority. Even as officials recognized the limits of the Proclamation Line and negotiated a new boundary in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, Gage emphasized the inadequacies of his power to implement them on the ground: “If means are not fallen upon to protect the Indians in their Persons and Propertys, it matters little where the boundaries are fixed. The frontier People have now transgressed them, have neither been effectually removed or punished for their Encroachments.”Footnote 49
Confusion over the limit of military authority was not merely a question of constitutional theory; disputes emerged about the physical boundaries of jurisdiction in the west. One such incident arose on Redstone Creek, a tributary of the Monongahela River, where a group of squatters had provoked tensions with the local Native people. By 1766, the growing settlement provoked Native complaints, and British officials struggled to enforce the King’s line without exacerbating violence. Gage acknowledged, “If a Skirmish happens, and blood is Shed, you know what a clamor there will be against the Military Acting without Civil Magistrates.”Footnote 50 The secretary of state ordered Gage to censure the settlers and forcibly remove them if needed. However, the governments of Virginia and Pennsylvania simultaneously claimed the territory, despite its location west of the Alleghenies, which was, in Gage’s words, “absolutely and without Dispute beyond the Boundarys of Virginia.” Imperial officials believed that colonial authorities’ sympathies with the settlers weakened their responses. William Johnson, the northern Indian superintendent who was at a loss to appease the area’s Native people, concluded that ultimately the problem was that “the Powers of Government are become really too weak for any material Exertion of authority here.”Footnote 51 Although the reforms of this era attempted to separate frontier problems from those of established provincial governance, this distinction was meaningless in practice.
The Mutiny Act’s stopgap provision of removing criminals to the nearest colony for trial exacerbated the problems of policing settlers. As Johnson explained to London officials, when frontier abuses went without conviction, “neither Presents, fair Speeches, nor Promises of Redress can reconcile the Indians to bear such Encroachments and Insults.” Even after Whitehall reminded governors to collaborate with the commander in chief in enforcing justice, Gage reiterated his complaints of “the Difficulties that attended the bringing those to Justice who were guilty of killing or otherwise ill treating the Indians.” But still on those occasions when British officials successfully brought a criminal to prosecution, the outcome was not visible to the wronged party. The resulting justice therefore came up short of fulfilling its communicative purpose.Footnote 52
Britain’s new French subjects represented another paradox in the division of civil and military authority. While the Proclamation of 1763 excluded settlements in the Illinois Country such as Vincennes and Kaskaskia from the boundaries of new governments, neither were they Native grounds that could be supervised by the Indian superintendents. Responsibilities for policing smuggling, collecting taxes, and transmitting legal disputes to proper courts fell to the commander in chief and his appointees. But rather than employing the familiar solution of removing and resettling conquered peoples to subjugate the fringes of empire, after 1763 British officials increasingly adopted legal pluralism as a strategy of control. For paternalists like Gage and the secretary at war Viscount Barrington, the question was about how, not if, law in the Illinois Country would be suited to the region’s geography, population, and role within the British empire.Footnote 53
Gage advanced a bold vision for military government in Illinois that reflected administrators’ increasing frustration with the failures of managing the west. As a potential model, Gage suggested Gibraltar, where governors functioned both as commander in chief over the garrison and as the highest civilian authority in the absence of a legislature.Footnote 54 Gage proposed “a kind of Military Civil Government, to be carried on by Militia.” On condition of military service, settlers in the scheme would be granted farmland, thereby supplying food for the army. In this way, Gage hoped to render useful the self-interestedness of settlers and merchants in the territory through a vision of imperial grandeur that fostered a martial culture and centralized command and dominion over the rapidly expanding west.Footnote 55 However, the ministry was not ready to give up on the alluring 1763 vision that the problems of the west could simply be sectioned off. The Earl of Hillsborough, the new secretary of state, rejected Gage’s plans, insisting on the increasingly passé vision of the west as space of Native autonomy.Footnote 56
As Hillsborough sought in vain to stanch the flood of settlers and speculators, men in Illinois sought to shape their own futures within the empire. Former French subjects Daniel Blouin and William Clajon spent years pursuing Illinois’s promised civil government. They personally delivered a two-volume annotated report evidencing the failures of governance in Illinois to General Gage, despite the British Empire’s demonstrated capacity to accommodate territories under complex constitutional arrangements elsewhere:
The Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, have they not constantly given proof of their faithfulness though governed during several centuries by laws different from those of Great Britain? … it is easy to remark that all the laws of England are not followed in Canada, and that in favor of the Catholics, the king, by virtue of his authority, modified many acts of Parliament.Footnote 57
Given these precedents, which had been established to accommodate local circumstances, Clajon produced a plan for the governing of Illinois that prioritized the establishment of a justice system.Footnote 58 Gage paid little heed to these demands, regarding Clajon as a “mere republican” instigator. The Earl of Dartmouth, secretary of state for the colonies and First Lord of Trade, promised Blouin: “tho’ I cannot think that a Civil Establishment independent of any other of the King’s Colonies ought to be adopted … the Interests of His Majesty’s new Subjects there will not be neglected.”Footnote 59
For British officials, the question of government in the Illinois Country existed within a broader framework of British policy developments, which evolved in the years following the peace. Given the policy of managing Indigenous trade set out in the Plan of 1764, the army had to staff, supply, and maintain interior outposts. Even at partial implementation, upkeep for forts came at great expense. Gage received almost daily reports from distant outposts that detailed the state of the forts, many of which were in disrepair, and that underscored that the army was overstretched.Footnote 60 Britain simply had too many forts to maintain, and Pontiac’s War demonstrated that small posts were ineffective in “subjugating” Native peoples. Gage quipped, “by the plan which was first adopted, a post seem[s] to have been prepared for every company of the American army, so that one hundred men could not have taken the field on any account, without leaving some place unguarded, in any part, except in Canada.”Footnote 61 Spread thinly across the vast interior, the British army’s own overextension caused more problems than its recently defeated enemies. By early 1768, the Board of Trade observed that the British military establishment in America had become an end unto itself. The logic had become circular: the interior needed an established colony to supply troops, who in turn existed there to defend the settlement. With these realizations, Hillsborough revoked the expensive and only halfheartedly implemented Plan of 1764, returning trade regulation to the individual colonies. He implemented Gage’s suggestion to eliminate smaller posts while maintaining larger garrisons at key positions for defense and the projection of sovereignty.Footnote 62
Illinois lingered as an uneasy conundrum, setting the ideals of guaranteed British liberties for all subjects against the reality of the empire’s limitations in the west. During ongoing planning for the Illinois territory in the autumn of 1773, Gage confessed, “I have had Conversations with Lord Dartmouth, as also with Lord North concerning the settlements of Post Vincennes and the Ilinois [sic], and find all equally embarrassed what to do with them.” With removal an unviable option, they had no choice but “to give them some sort of Government.” Planning got as far as determining salaries for civil officers and a basic outline of the proposed court system.Footnote 63
Seemingly as an afterthought, a late draft of the Quebec Bill in April 1774 expanded the boundaries of the province to incorporate the Illinois territory. This change reflected Dartmouth’s answer to Blouin that Illinois ought to belong within another province’s government, while suiting its distinctive inhabitants. According to Dartmouth, the Cabinet unanimously agreed that the boundary extension was “an essential & very useful part of the Bill … for the establishment of civil government over many numerous settlements of french subjects.” By subsuming the region into the colony of Quebec, the Act recognized that free trade with Indigenous peoples required the protections of British civil and criminal law. Notably, the Quebec Act empowered the commander in chief with key civil responsibilities, including amending criminal law codes, passing ordinances regarding property, and summoning an emergency council in the absence of the governor. While the powers were constrained by the advice and consent of the council except in emergencies, the Quebec Act treated the commander in chief’s authority as akin to that of the lieutenant-governor.Footnote 64 This new distinctive form of colonial government represented the abandonment of old aspirations of neatly bifurcating the militarized west from a unified colonial system in the east.
The Escalating Imperial Crisis
Aside from the role’s significance to any particular project, the peacetime commander in chief intrinsically represented a mechanism for the British state to adopt a more coordinated and regularized approach in imperial state-building. Guided by principles of centralizing and standardizing colonial governance, ministers looked to the only official in America whose authority spanned the breadth of British claims on the continent. Shelburne, who had risen to secretary of state for the Southern Department, reflected on this growing significance of the commander in chief to the project of colonial reforms:
The Importance of North America, and its Commerce; the discontented State of the Provinces; the particular Interest of each; the general Interest of the whole; the Subordination to the Mother Country, the Variety and Extent of the Service, and the Management of Indian Affairs, are Points of such mighty Importance … And as an extensive and confidential Knowledge of the Intentions of Government cannot be so properly entrusted to any of His Majesty’s Servants in America as to the Commander in Chief of His Forces, who by the nature of his Commission and his Trust holds by equal Ties to all the Provinces, and watches equally over the safety of the whole. Footnote 65
Although Shelburne had not secured a civil commission for the commander in chief in 1763, he persisted in his view of the role as supra-military in executing political and fiscal reforms. The significance of the peacetime commander in chief became more visible through each successive crisis of the 1760s and 1770s. In time, the suspicions of military governance articulated by men like Moore and Johnstone became a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thomas Pownall, former client of Halifax and governor of Massachusetts, spent years publicly questioning the constitutionality of the commander in chief’s position. Far from the original cooperative vision he helped devise in the Albany Plan of Union, the actual implementation of the commander in chief positioned a new power outside the structures of civil government. In his oft revised and reprinted treatise The Administration of the Colonies, Pownall noted that the governors’ powers had been relocated to the commander in chief. He asserted,
the dictatorial power and command of a military commander in chief, superior to the provincial governors (however necessity, in time of war, might justify it, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat) is not agreeable and conformable to law, and to the constitution either of Great Britain or of the colonies in time of peace.
While war might temporarily justify increased power, the advent of a permanent commander in chief undermined colonial liberties in a way unique within the British Empire. Pownall specifically invoked Ireland as a model of an appropriately constrained army. While the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland possessed considerably more authority to exert violence against civilians, Pownall’s polemical comparison tapped into colonial fears of being treated as an occupied colony like Ireland rather than as an extension of Britain. Pownall couched his criticisms in Britain’s vision of itself as a new Roman Republic by referencing the senatus consultum ultimum, the final decree of the senate to magisterial use of extra-legal authority in a crisis. As a part of Pownall’s arguments, its salience was as a temporary measure outside normal law when exigency required dictatorial power beyond the senate’s legal ability to authorize. Moreover, it carried negative connotations of the final tumultuous days of the Roman Republic when the measure was increasingly employed. Pownall indeed cautioned that if the colonies did unite in rebellion, the commander in chief would lead the insurrection and establish an American Empire.Footnote 66 This perceived threat of an internal coup echoed the understanding of the commander in chief as imperium in imperio.
Seizing on “the late unhappy catastrophe at Boston” of March 1770, during which British troops had fired on a crowd and killed five colonists in an event quickly labeled a “massacre,” Pownall elevated these critiques into parliamentary debate.Footnote 67 He argued that the colonies’ constitutional arrangement had deviated from England’s model, and that “by separating the power of the supreme military command, from that of the supreme civil magistrate … the civil constitution of those provinces is palsied to annihilation; and the military is the only government that acts and executes.” Despite his overstatement of the constitutional powers of the peacetime commander in chief, Pownall received vocal support, including from Johnstone, who had also become a parliamentarian after his recall from West Florida. In keeping with his earlier tirades, Johnstone framed the “despotism” of supreme military power as a contravention of British liberties. Parliament warmly received their arguments, which resonated both with patriotic ideas about the perils of standing armies as well as the recent difficulties emphasizing the impotence of colonial governors.Footnote 68 The debate surpassed the particular circumstances of the Boston Massacre, instead more fundamentally questioning the commander in chief’s authority to command troops “independent of the Civil Governor.” In response to these charges of the illegality of Gage’s commission, Barrington requested that the attorney and solicitor general examine the issue. They opined that “the Governors Commission, tho’ posterior in Time does not superside the Command given to the Commander in Chief of the King’s Troops.” Gage noted that he had “always avoided the bringing Precedency to a decisive Point” so as not to escalate the disputes but privately felt “great Satisfaction” in their confirmation of his authority.Footnote 69
But legal niceties no longer mattered to colonials, who by 1773 increasingly understood and feared the commander in chief’s role in the larger project of British reform. On hearing of the appointment of the Earl of Dartmouth as the new secretary of state for the colonies, the Massachusetts House of Representatives seized the opportunity to present their grievances to a new audience. They framed the petition around the allegation that recent reforms infringed their charter rights, anticipating by some fourteen months the actual parliamentary revocation of key charter provisions. Among their oft-repeated grievances regarding customs enforcement and revenue collection without consent, they articulated their “strongest apprehensions” on the question of “whether the Establishment of the Office and Power of a Military Commander in Chief … uncountrouled by and in some Instances Superceeding the power and Authoritys already granted to the Governors … extending over the whole Continent of America, is not repugnant to law & to the principles of Prudence.” In particular, they protested the September 1770 transfer of Castle William from provincial to royal authority, a transition Gage had helped to orchestrate. Despite Gage’s careful discretion to the limits of military power, the assembly characterized the event as “very Alarming to all who have any regard for the Liberties of the Constitution either of great Britain or of the Colonies.”Footnote 70
Later the same year, Benjamin Franklin wrote a satire summarizing recent reforms, framed as a series of “rules” offered to the British ministry “by which a great empire may be reduced to a small one.” Franklin’s culminating “rule” recognized the role of the commander in chief as a significant departure in metropolitan governance and the enforcer of the other reforms in the litany: “Invest the General of your Army in the Provinces with great and unconstitutional Powers, and free him from the Controul of even your own Civil Governors. Let him have Troops enow under his Command, with all the Fortresses in his Possession.” Adopting the Roman parallel Pownall had used, Franklin suggested that the commander in chief possessed such power and confidence that “like some provincial Generals in the Roman Empire, and encouraged by the universal Discontent … he may take it into his Head to set up for himself” at which point colonials would secede under Gage’s authority.Footnote 71 While the satire anticipated the Coercive Acts in several regards, it also reflected how colonial Americans continued to support Gage personally at the same time that they felt discomfort regarding the commander in chief’s powers to enforce unpopular reforms.
Patriot suspicions of the commander in chief assuming civil power came to fruition in 1774 when Gage received a commission as Massachusetts’ governor. Gage himself had been suggesting something akin to the Massachusetts Government Act since at least 1770 as colonial resistance produced a pattern of metropolitan concessions. He hoped to see Boston “called to a strict account,” because as he wrote, “no Peace will ever be established in that Province, till the King Nominates his Council, and Appoints the Magistrates; And that all Town Meetings are absolutely Abolished; whilst those Meetings exist, the People will be kept in a perpetual Head.” After the destruction of the tea, Gage directly advised George III and Lord Frederick North on their response, urging resolve and requested four regiments be sent to Boston.Footnote 72 Gage’s ultimate instructions as governor reflected the decision to explicitly combine civil and military authority in a single person in the way critics of the commander in chief had long feared: “your Authority as the first Magistrate, combined with your Command over the King’s Troops, will, it is hoped, enable you to meet every opposition, and fully to preserve the public peace, by employing those Troops with Effect.”Footnote 73 The Massachusetts Government Act’s suspension of the colony’s 1691 charter and increase in gubernatorial power inflamed concerns about Gage’s authority “bound by no law.”Footnote 74 More than a gradual erosion of the post-1763 imperial vision, this moment signaled that Massachusetts—and by extension any colony—could be reduced to the status of Gibraltar or Quebec.Footnote 75
Conclusion
The peacetime commander in chief of the forces in North America represented a critical reform to the post-1763 British Empire. The position functioned as a kind of hinge between the two halves of American empire, linking together civil government in the east, with all its intended reforms of cost-saving, standardization, and compliance, and the project of establishing control in the west as a zone of profitable and peaceful Native trade. Existing outside the authority of any colonial assembly or governor, the commander in chief served to advance the metropolitan project of standardizing American governance and checking the pretensions of colonial officials. Contrary to the early ideas of a viceroy combining civil and military authority, the commander in chief’s powers remained too constrained. Ultimately, responsibility fell to a single man rather than a full-fledged structure to implement continent-wide reforms. Inevitably governance continued to work through compromises based on deference and discretion. The Plan of 1764 proved too ambitious and expensive even before it had been fully implemented, dashing hopes for a more centralized approach to Indigenous trade and diplomacy. The tensions between reality and aspiration emerged most clearly in the years officials spent at a frustrating impasse on government for Illinois.
For Britons schooled in the dangers of military despotism, the mere existence of a peacetime commander in chief became a grievance because of its potential to undermine colonial power. Metropolitan officials indeed had intended the commander in chief to function as a mechanism to bypass colonial governors and assemblies as a part of the larger project of asserting parliamentary supremacy in North America. For austerity-minded British administrations with few tools at their disposal, the commander in chief became Maslow’s hammer as they treated each new problem as one of military authority: enforcing the Proclamation Line, policing illegal trade in the west, coercing colonial compliance with the American Mutiny Act, and punishing unruly Bostonians. The commander in chief’s role throughout these crises heightened the sense of military hostility against the American colonies. Repeated criticisms of the commander in chief’s powers emerged from disparate interests across the empire, ranging from Parliament to the colonial governments of South Carolina, New York, Quebec, East and West Florida, as well as the Illinois Country and trans-Appalachian West. As these conflicts all demonstrated, the commander in chief lacked clear subordination to civil authority, contravening the ideals of the British constitution. Instead of a clear and hierarchical imperium and dominium with at least the pretense of colonial assent, a “despotick Viceroy” had yoked the colonies under imperium in imperio.Footnote 76
Rachel Banke teaches at the University of Illinois Laboratory High School. Her research interests include political reforms, violence, and print culture in the making of the imperial crisis. She holds a PhD from the University of Notre Dame. The initial version of this article benefited from the collegiality of conference attendees, especially Frank Coglinao and Tanner Ogle, at “Empire and its Discontent, 1763–1773,” hosted by the David Center for the American Revolution at the American Philosophical Society and the Massachusetts Historical Society. Garrett Fontenot and Brian Lauthen also provided helpful insights. Finally, the author wishes to thank this journal’s anonymous reviewers and editors for their perceptive suggestions. Please address any correspondence to banke@illinois.edu.
Open access
