Edward Rutledge, Declaration Signer — Important 1797 Letter on Charleston’s Military Defenses and $100,000 Appropriation
Remarkable autograph letter signed “Ed: Rutledge” by Edward Rutledge (1749–1800), South Carolina statesman, future governor, and the youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence. Dated December 13, 1797, the approximately three-page letter is addressed on its integral address leaf to Rutledge’s nephew, John Rutledge Jr., South Carolina representative in Congress at Philadelphia.
Writing during the closing days of the South Carolina legislative session, Rutledge reports that a joint committee had unanimously recommended an appropriation of $100,000 for military purposes. He explains that approximately half would be devoted to the purchase of brass field artillery and the balance to fortifying Charleston Harbor. He further notes that the Senate had concurred and discusses the proposed construction of a battery or redoubt. Additional passages concern pending legislation, government contracts, and Rutledge-family news.
The letter provides firsthand evidence of South Carolina’s preparations for coastal defense during the international tensions of the late 1790s. Its political and military content, substantial length, association between two members of the distinguished Rutledge family, and original congressional address panel make it an unusually desirable Declaration-signer letter.
The manuscript exhibits extensive historic water staining, fold wear, fading, localized paper weakness, and abrasion near the signature. Nevertheless, most of the text remains legible, and the characteristic “Ed: Rutledge” signature is identifiable.
John Rutledge Jr. was then representing South Carolina in the Fifth United States Congress at Philadelphia. The family relationship and congressional address strongly support the identification.
Historical content
Rutledge reports on the closing days of a legislative session and describes several measures before the South Carolina House. The most significant passage reads approximately:
“We have agreed unanimously in a joint Committee to recommend to the House the voting 100,000 Dollars for military purposes—about one half towards the purchase of brass field artillery, & the other half for the fortifying the Harbour…”
He adds that the Senate concurred and mentions the planned construction of a battery or redoubt—apparently part of Charleston’s coastal defenses during the worsening international tensions of the late 1790s. He also discusses a bill concerning clothing and family news, ending:
“My love to Sarah, Major & Mrs. Pinckney. God bless you—your very dear nephew…”
The political and military content is substantially more desirable than an ordinary social or routine business letter.
Condition
The letter has serious but stable-looking condition problems:
- Extensive old water staining and tide marks
- Heavy folds with localized weakness and small separations
- Paper loss or abrasion near the signature
- General soiling and discoloration
- Ink fading in portions, although most of the text remains decipherable
- Signature is affected by staining/abrasion but is still identifiable
Remarkable autograph letter signed “Ed: Rutledge” by Edward Rutledge (1749–1800), South Carolina statesman, future governor, and the youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence. Dated December 13, 1797, the approximately three-page letter is addressed on its integral address leaf to Rutledge’s nephew, John Rutledge Jr., South Carolina representative in Congress at Philadelphia.
Writing during the closing days of the South Carolina legislative session, Rutledge reports that a joint committee had unanimously recommended an appropriation of $100,000 for military purposes. He explains that approximately half would be devoted to the purchase of brass field artillery and the balance to fortifying Charleston Harbor. He further notes that the Senate had concurred and discusses the proposed construction of a battery or redoubt. Additional passages concern pending legislation, government contracts, and Rutledge-family news.
The letter provides firsthand evidence of South Carolina’s preparations for coastal defense during the international tensions of the late 1790s. Its political and military content, substantial length, association between two members of the distinguished Rutledge family, and original congressional address panel make it an unusually desirable Declaration-signer letter.
The manuscript exhibits extensive historic water staining, fold wear, fading, localized paper weakness, and abrasion near the signature. Nevertheless, most of the text remains legible, and the characteristic “Ed: Rutledge” signature is identifiable.
John Rutledge Jr. was then representing South Carolina in the Fifth United States Congress at Philadelphia. The family relationship and congressional address strongly support the identification.
Historical content
Rutledge reports on the closing days of a legislative session and describes several measures before the South Carolina House. The most significant passage reads approximately:
“We have agreed unanimously in a joint Committee to recommend to the House the voting 100,000 Dollars for military purposes—about one half towards the purchase of brass field artillery, & the other half for the fortifying the Harbour…”
He adds that the Senate concurred and mentions the planned construction of a battery or redoubt—apparently part of Charleston’s coastal defenses during the worsening international tensions of the late 1790s. He also discusses a bill concerning clothing and family news, ending:
“My love to Sarah, Major & Mrs. Pinckney. God bless you—your very dear nephew…”
The political and military content is substantially more desirable than an ordinary social or routine business letter.
Condition
The letter has serious but stable-looking condition problems:
- Extensive old water staining and tide marks
- Heavy folds with localized weakness and small separations
- Paper loss or abrasion near the signature
- General soiling and discoloration
- Ink fading in portions, although most of the text remains decipherable
- Signature is affected by staining/abrasion but is still identifiable
