The true character of Conway, so early discovered by Washington, became at length well understood by Congress. He had perceived the increasing manifestation of dislike among the officers of the army, and their open deprecation of his conduct in relation to Washington, and in an impertinent and complaining letter to the president of Congress, he intimated a wish to resign. A motion to accept his resignation was immediately carried. Conway was astonished, and proceeded to York to ask to be restored. He said it was not his intention to resign, and attempted explanations, but the current of opinion was turned strongly against him, and his request was denied. He went to Philadelphia, and was there when the British evacuated it. His abusive language and offensive manners, heightened by irritation, involved him in difficulties with the American officers, and on the 4th of July he fought a duel with General Cadwallader. He received a wound which it was believed would prove fatal. After lying in an uncertain state for more than a fortnight, and believing his end near, Conway wrote an apologetic letter to Washington, as a reparation for the personal injuries he had inflicted. ** But he recovered from his wound and lived
* Dr. Gordon says (ii., 308), "When General Gates's letters were examined by me at his seat in Virginia, the latter end of 1781, there was not a single paragraph to be met with that contained any intimation of his being concerned in any such plan" [the removal of Washington]. Of course, a judicious man would not preserve any such tangible evidence of his guilt for more than three years after the matter had been exposed. General Gates, in a letter to a friend, dated at York, April 4th, 1778, said, "For my part, I solemnly declare I never was engaged in any plan or plot for the removal of General Washington, nor do I believe any such plot ever existed." Mifflin also wrote, about that time, "I never desired to have any person whomsoever take the command of the American army from him [Washington], nor have I said or done any thing of or respecting him which the public service did not require," &c. Botta, after weighing the evidence against the designated leaders of the intrigue, draws therefrom the inevitable conclusion of their guilt, and says, "The leaders of this combination, very little concerned for the public good, were immoderately so for their own, and that the aim of all their efforts was to advance themselves and their friends at the expense of others."--Otis's Botta, ii., 64. It may be well to remember that Gordon and Gates were intimate friends. I find among Gates's papers, in the New York Historical Society, several letters from Dr. Gordon to the general, some of which are commenced with the familiar terms, "Dear Horatio." I do not discredit the assertion of Dr. Gordon, but mention the fact of his intimacy with Gates as a reason why he was unwilling to believe his friend guilty of such dishonorable conduct.