American Revolution

A fine military-content letter by the Hero of Fort Griswold, William Ledyard, reporting on the exploits of privateers, the gradual British withdrawal from Newport, and most importantly, recruiting artillerymen to staff the fort he would die defending from the traitor Benedict Arnold

William LEDYARD (1738-1781) Connecticut militia officer who commanded Fort Griswold guarding New London, Connecticut. He was tragically killed on 6 September 1781 during Benedict Arnold’s Raid on New London. Although Ledyard ordered his men to lay down their arms when the enemy captured Fort Griswold, the British officer in command killed him with the sword he had offered in surrender—precipitating a massacre of the fort’s eighty defenders.

Fine content War date Autograph Letter Signed, “Wm. Led yard” as Lieutenant Colonel, 2pp., 195 x 155 mm. (7 5/8 x 6 1/4 in.), New London [Connecticut], 2 February 1779, addressed in his hand on the integral transmittal leaf to “Maj General [Jabez] Huntingdon In Norwich“. Docketed on verso by Jabez HUNTINGTON (1719-1786). An informative letter, updating his commander on naval affairs, and British moves around Newport, as well as the critical need to recruit artillerymen to reinforce Fort Griswold.

Ledyard opens his letter reporting on the continued success of American privateers operating against British shipping on Long Island Sound: “Since Writing your Honor yesterday nothing material has turn[e]d up in this Department except the arrival of two Prize Brigs this morning taken by the two privateers Sloops Commanded by Capts Havens & Conklin[g], their Cargoes Consist chiefly of Oats — about 30 Puncheons of Rum –” Nearly 3000 imperial gallons of rum and 12,000 bushels of oats bound for British troops stationed in eastern Long Island was the day’s haul for Connecticut privateer sloops Beaver, commanded by Captain Havens and the sloop Eagle, a six gun vessel, led by Captain E. Conkling. The ships they had seized were part of a much larger relief fleet that had arrived in New York from Cork several weeks before, providing much-need supplies to their headquarters in New York and garrisons in Newport and other outposts. The seizure proved to be the end of a productive week for the two Connecticut privateers who had the previous week had taken the Ranger a 12-gun British privateer that had been terrorizing the Long Island Sound for some time. The Connecticut captains had surprised the Ranger at Sag Harbor, and after delivering the brig to New London, again took to the sound where they were forced to take shelter behind Gardiner’s Island after they spotted a large fleet of 20 sail under escort, entering the Sound bound for New York. The next morning they arrived again at Sag Harbor where they found seven of the ships they saw the previous day anchored at Sag Harbor. The However the Connecticut brig, Middletown, which had accompanied the Beaver and Eagle, became stuck on a shoal and became an easy target for the British armed brig protecting the other vessels. After about 4 or 5 hours, the crew of the Middletown was forced to abandon ship. The other two Connecticut vessels took on them on and left the area only to happen upon the two aforementioned British brigs hauling oats and rum—a worthy consolation prize.¹

Ledyard also chronicles the beginning of the end of the British occupation of Newport—a post that had been under severe stress for want of supplies following the American attempt wrest control of the town the previous year at the Battle of Rhode Island. He reports the observation of “… the Capt. of one of the Brigs in forms that the Fleet that passed this Harbour last Saturday, he saw up near the Narrows Consisting of about 40 Sail I think it probable the Troops made mention of as Embarking at R[h]ode Island was in this Fleet…” A contemporary newspaper account corroborates Ledyard’s suspicions: a man who crossed the British lines from New York around 2 February reported that an entire brigade had arrived in the city from Newport—which would correspond to timing of Ledyard’s report². Only a month before, a British expeditionary force of 3,500, drawn from Sir Henry Clinton’s main army in New York, had taken Savannah, Georgia. Now, seeking to take Charleston, South Carolina as well, he required reinforcements—enough so to make the continued occupation of Newport impracticable. By October 1779, they had abandoned the Rhode Island town for good. Ledyard’s report of the troop embarkation from Newport appears to be the beginning of Clinton’s drawing-down process.

While Ledyard surely welcomed prospect of the end of British control of Newport, that alone would not end British threats to the Connecticut coast. He moves on to the subject of reinforcing Fort Griswold, a critical defense for the town of New London, and the place he would meet his fate in 1781: “… the Officers of the Artillery are now out on the business of Inlisting Men, shall inform your Honor with their Success by every opportunity In the Interum should bee glad of some orders with regard to Garrison the Fortifications here, I shall do all in my power to get Men to engage in the Artillery Companies, I am now engaging a number of Volunteers to enter the Fortifications is case of an alarm, for their Defence which Volunteers I expect will consent to mete & Exercise the Cannon once or twice a week.—”

Although Fort Griswold, situated on the eastern bank of the Thames River opposite New London, commanded a strong position, it’s secrets were betrayed by Benedict Arnold, who, in September 1781, led a raid on New London, burning much of the strategically-important Connecticut seaport. Arnold, having an intimate knowledge of the Fort’s layout and firing angles, managed steer the British fleet clear of its guns. A detachment of 600 redcoats, led by Lieutenant Colonel Eyre, landed on the eastern bank of the Thames and surrounded Fort Griswold, demanding its surrender. Ledyard refused, and the British attacked the Fort, defended by less than 160 poorly-trained militiamen. Despite the odds, Ledyard’s men defended it for at least an hour, mortally wounding Colonel Eyre during the action. Command devolved to Major Montgomery, who was, in turn, killed while mounting the parapet.

Next in command was Major Bromfield, a Loyalist, who managed to breach the entrance and led the troops into the fort’s interior. When he entered the fort, he demanded to know who had been in charge. Ledyard reportedly responded, “I did sir, but you do now,” and offered his sword in surrender. Bromfield took the sword and stabbed Ledyard to death with it, which set off a massacre of about 80 of the fort’s now defenseless defenders.

Benedict Arnold, who was busy setting fire to New London across the river, was not present at the Fort Griswold massacre. That did not prevent him from attempting to cover up the crime in his report to Sir Henry Clinton in New York the following morning: “I have inclosed a return of the killed and wounded, by which your excellency will observe that our loss, though very considerable, is short of the enemy’s, who lost most of their officers, among whom was their commander, Col. Ledyard. Eighty-five men were found dead in Fort Griswold, and sixty wounded, most of them mortally. Their loss on the opposite side (New London) must have been considerable, but cannot be ascertained.”³

A superb military-content letter, by an important officer, tragically killed in action.

Expected mailing folds, minor loss to integral transmittal leaf from seal tear well clear of any text, else quite clean and bright and in very fine condition.

(EXA 6000) SOLD.
_________
¹ Connecticut Journal, New Haven, 10 Feb. 1779, 3.
² Exeter Journal (N.H.), 23 Feb. 1779, 3.
³ “Ledyard, William, “Appleton’s Cyclopædeia of American Biography, 1892 ed.

A month after he provided critical help at the Battle of Monmouth, Philemon Dickinson contends with petty local politics

Philemon DICKINSON (1739-1809) American attorney and politician, served as U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1790 to 1793, and was a major general in command of the New Jersey Militia during the American Revolutionary War. Born in Maryland and raised in Delaware, he represented Delaware at the Continental Congress in 1782 and 1783. In 1784, he served on the commission that selected Washington D.C. as the site of the nation’s capital. He was the younger brother of John Dickinson (1732-1808), a founding father heavily involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

A good content, war-date Autograph Letter Signed “Philemon Dickinson“, 1 page, 285 x 215 mm. (11 1/4 x 8 1/2 in.), Trenton [New Jersey], 29 July 1778, to William C. Houston & James Mott, Jr. of Princeton concerning his supposed handling of public monies, in full: ““I this moment received your favor of the 25th instant. I perfectly remember, the Ordinance of the Convention which you mention, but I absolutely refused having the money paid into my hands, as I never had any Public accounts in my life. I cannot possibly recollect, to which amounts I gave Orders, but those Orders, which lay before you Gentlemen, specify the Sums, & for what purpose— I never recd. a single Shilling of this money, & left the accounts solely to the Treasurer to settle, which must appear by their Books & Vouchers. I have no Public account, of any kind to settle, having intentionally avoided it. My information that is in my Power to give you, respecting the Application to the monies you mention, shall be given with the greatest Pleasures…” He adds in a postscript: “I shall remain here 4, or 5 days longer.”

Less than a month before, George Washington had offered his congratulations to Dickinson for his critical in obtaining a strategic victory at the Battle of Monmouth, observing, “General Dickinson, and the Militia of this State, are also thanked for their nobleness in opposing the enemy in their march from Philadelphia, nd for the aid which they have given in harassing and impeding their motions, so as to allow the conditional troops to come up with them.”*

Usual folds with separation at horizontal centerfold repaired with tape, light toning and foxing, soiling, overall fine very good to fine condition.

(EXA 6037) $1,200

______________
^* George Washington, General Orders, June 29, 1778, Fitzpatrick, ed, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799

Rumors of intrigue by St. Clair after he evacuated Ticonderoga

(Arthur St. CLAIR) Helen BAYARD Autograph Letter Signed, “Helen Bayard“, 1 page, 285 x 192 mm. (11 1/4 x 7 1/2 in.) Boston, 18 July 1777, to her cousin, “Quincy” concerning a variety of family news, including the receipt of a letter from her cousin, General Arthur St. Clair, which she hoped would dispel rumors that he had defected to the British after he evacuated Fort Ticonderoga on July 5, 1777.

Bayard writes, in full [with period spellings retained with minimal comment]: “This By the hand of your Daughter I hope will come safe to hand, and believe me I never was more supprised than when I first saw her. I must tell you with out flat[t]ery I think She is Vastly improved since she Left Boston She has Dined with me but once But Believe me it was not my fa[u]lt I wo[‘]d have Bin Glad to have had more of her Companey Betsey is allmost Affronted with her we had Letter from St Clair to Day so he is not gone to the Enemey As I heared the truth will come out in time Respecting Ticonderoga Beong Left and than we shall se whear the falt Lays But hang pollitics I Long to see you had Betsey not have him with me at present I would have come Mr Bayard Is gone to Carry a vessel to the Eastward there were allways a sumthing How Ever he has promest to Bring me whan he Returns.. I shall Go to Ne[w]bury[?] next week to Carrey Betsey to Mr Druatt to B[o]ard with a Daughter of Mr Baurus, in time she went sumwhear and we have no schools in town I Long to come and stay a week with you I Don’t thing I sho[‘]d be home sick But I fear I shall not have a trial Do Let me hear from you that is next to seeing you I have Companey and so must conclude with my Love to Mr Quncy who I Long to see and am Dear Quincey Your Affectionate Coz—” In a pair of postscripts, she adds, “Unclee Dennie I am told is A Dieing” and “Give Eunice A scolding for me I told her I wood wright you“.

When threatened with encirclement by Burgoyne’s forces, St. Clair wisely abandoned his indefensible position at Fort Ticonderoga, saving a large body of troops for future engagements that would ultimately result in a spectacular victory at Saratoga. For a lack of space in the boats used in the Fort’s evacuation, St. Clair was compelled to abandon several large pieces of cannon and a good deal of other supplies, leading to suspicion that the Scottish-born former British officer had defected to the enemy. Although his appearance at Fort Edward would seem to dispel this rumor, both he and General Philip Schuyler, in command of the Northern Department, were the subject of rumors that they had accepted bribes from the British in exchange for the retreat.

Congress greeted news of Ticonderoga’s fall with anger and dismay, ordering St. Clair be removed from command. John Adams and his allies moved to remove Schuyler as well, replacing him with New Englander Horatio Gates. St. Clair demanded a court-martial, which completely exonerated him of wrongdoing — but the political damage had been done: Ticonderoga would prove to be his final field command of the war.

Helen Bayard was the sister of St. Clair’s wife, Phoebe Bayard, and daughter of Mary Bowdoin Bayard, the sister of the prominent James Bowdoin (1726-1790), who would later serve as the second governor of an independent Massachusetts. St. Clair wed Phoebe in 1760, only three years after his arrival in North America as a British officer serving at the siege of Louisbourg and the capture Quebec under General Wolfe. In the early 1760s, St. Clair resigned his commission and the couple migrated to western Pennsylvania. There, St. Clair established himself as a prominent land owner and pubic official.

Edge wear with chipping to right margin affecting content, even toning, creasing, light soiling, usual folds, overall very good condition.

(EXA 5893) $1,650

An unusual and rare broadside describing a lost relic from the 1778 winter at Valley Forge

(American Revolution) Broadside, “REVOLUTIONARY RELIC.” (Pennsylvania, c. 1860) 351 x 212 mm. (13 7/8 x 8 3/8 in.) A highly unusual broadside telling the story of the loyalist attack on the home of Captain Andrew Knox in 1778 and identifying “This door” as the same that protected Knox from his assailants (with the bullet holes to prove it).

The broadside describes the “Relic” as “This door…from the house formerly occupied by Capt. Andrew Knox, two miles North-East from Norristown, at which he stood alone and with a broad sword defended himself against eight armed Tories sent by the British Army to take him. Their determination to accomplish their object and the desperate manner in which the Capt. defended himself is to be seen from the bullet holes through the door, as well as the impression of the but-end of the musket and marks of the bayonet. In 1777-78 when Gen. Washington with his army lay at Valley Forge, the Gen. commissioned Capt. Knox to cut off the supplies of the British army who then occupied Philadelphia; so wee did the Captain discharge his duty that the enemy offered 14 hundred pounds sterling for his person, thirty armed men were dispatched from the army to take him, and two other offices; eight of the number arrived at his house about midnight, and demanded him to surrender, he refused and meeting them at this door with his broad sword used it so freely on their heads as they attempted to enter as to compel them to retreat after severely wounding him. All of their own number were more or less wounded, two of them so severely cut as to be taken the next day, having been tracked by their blood on the snow and found concealed a short distance from Norristown, and both were hung at Centre Square, four miles North-East of Norristown. Gen. Washington and his officers with Benjamin Franklin visited Capt. Knox after the contest, complimented him for his bravery, and examined and handled this door.” Signed in print by “T[homas].P. Knox” who promises “This door is to be deposited at the old Independence Hall, Philadelphia.”

Thomas P. KNOX (c. 1809-1879) was the son of Andrew Knox, Jr. (1773-1844), the youngest son of Andrew Knox, Sr. Thomas was educated at Rutgers and became a prominent resident who dedicated his life to the improvement of farming methods, and for some time served as a justice of the peace, and an aide to the Governor of Pennsylvania. Inspired by his family’s revolutionary past, Knox took an interest in historical preservation, and in the 1870s led efforts to purchase George Washington’s Valley Forge headquarters.¹

Whether the bullet-ridden door ever arrived at Independence Hall has not been determined.² In 1895, a local antiquarian recalled interviewing the widow of Andrew Knox’s eldest son, Robert (1756-1814), who showed him the famous door and regaled him with stories of the incident in the late 1840s and early 50s.³ The earliest known printed reference to the door comes in 1859 in a local history describing the Knox homestead in Whitpan Township, “where the bullet holes, seven in number, are shown in the door. His grandson, Colonel Thomas P. Knox, late Senator from the county, resides within the present limits of Norristown.”⁴ The next reference to the “Knox Door” comes in 1863 at an exhibition of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Society in Norristown. At that exhibition, Colonel Knox again asserted the door would “be placed in Independence Hall shortly.”⁵ It appears that did not occur before the colonel’s death in 1879. If it did, it may have been displayed temporarily during the 1876 Centennial celebrations in Philadelphia (and two years later it was exhibited for the centennial of Valley Forge in 1778).⁶ In 1884, the Colonel’s daughter, Ellen, exhibited the door at a fair held in honor of the Centennial of Montgomery County at the courthouse in Norristown. This time there was no mention of a donation to Independence Hall.⁷ We have yet to discover any reference to the door in published sources beyond this time.

Like many 19th century accounts of the Revolutionary War, especially when told by family members, this tale is filled with hyperbole and some historical impossibilities. While we may rightly scoff at the notion of Benjamin Franklin taking time off from his diplomatic mission in France to personally congratulate Knox, the core of the story is true and documented.⁸ Andrew Knox (1727-1807) was a prominent resident of Norristown, Pennsylvania — a militia leader who in 1778 was part of an effort to prevent supplies from the countryside from getting to British-occupied Philadelphia, while George Washington’s army starved at Valley Forge only a few miles away. In repayment for his efforts, a party of Loyalists attacked Knox in his home in February 1778, only to be repelled, but not after riddling his door with musket balls. Contemporary sources record a November 1778 trial of Abijah Wright, a Philadelphia laborer, accused of attacking “with force of arms… the dwelling House of Andrew Knox, Esq… feloniously and burglariously … an intent…to kill and murder, &ca., &ca…” Wright, a member of a notorious family of Tories, was found guilty of these crimes and of “treason” and ordered executed.⁹ The trial of Abijah was part of a purge of Loyalists in Pennsylvania following the British evacuation of Philadelphia in the summer of 1778. Pennsylvania Attorney General Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant and his special assistant Joseph Reed prosecuted over forty defendants — thirty-three for treason with eight executed. Interestingly, Abijah Wright’s trial was carried over a month due to questions as to the defendant’s sanity.¹⁰ Before he pronounced the death sentence, the chief justice admonished him for his actions: “You have in the dead of night, with a number of desperate ruffians, broke and entered the mansion house of Colonel¹¹ Andrew Knox… then peaceably in his bed… You broke and entered this house in a hostile manner, with arms in your hands and with an intent to murder the owner, having discharged many loaded muskets at him. It has been alleged, that you might have intended not to murder him, but to carry him away a prisoner to the enemy, then in possession of this city…” The judge also noted that Knox nearly singlehandedly fought off his attackers, with the assistance of his son Robert.¹²

As time went on, and memories faded, the story of Andrew Knox changed. The account that appears in Andrew Knox’s 1808 obituary is strikingly different that what Col. Thomas P. Knox related in his broadside, but is quite detailed and merits quoting at length:

“Andrew Knox.—Died at his house in Whitpain township, the 17th. ult… in the 80th. year of his age…The friends of the American Revolution will be gratified by the recital of an incident in his life, which connects his name with that revolution. His office, a magistrate, procured him the honor of a visit from certain Royalists, when the British army held the city of Philadelphia. About 4 o’clock in the morning of the 14th of February 1778, seven armed refugees approached his house, two stood sentry at the back window, while the other five attempted the door. Finding it bolted, they endeavored to gain admittance by artifice. Squire Knox, partly dressed, came to the door at their call, when a dialogue took place nearly as follows: K. ‘What do you want?’ R. ‘I came to tell you that the enemy are coming, and to warn you to escape for your life.’ K. ‘What enemy 1’ R. ‘The British.’ K. ‘And who are you that speak?’ (A friendly name was given, and on looking out the window the Squire saw their arms in the moonlight.) K. ‘I believe you are the enemy.’ Upon this they burst the door and attempted to force their way in. Mr. Knox seizing the open door with his left hand, with his cutlass in the other, saluted the aggressors in a manner they did not expect, and repeated his strokes. The assailants meanwhile, made repeated thrusts with their bayonets, from which Mr. Knox received two or three slight flesh wounds, and had his jacket pierced in several places, but the door standing ajar, covered his vitals and saved his life. By this time Mr. Knox’s eldest son, then a young stripling, having laid hold of a gun loaded with small shot, came to the scene of action and asked his father if he should shoot. The Squire having just broke his cutlass on one of the enemy’s guns, now apprehended that he must surrender, and thinking it imprudent to exasperate the foe to the utmost, told his son not to shoot, trying his weapon further and finding it capable of service, he continued to defend the pass, and his son wishing to co-operate struck one of the assailants with the barrel of his gun and brought him to his knees (and to his prayers, it is hoped). This gave the besighed [sic] an opportunity to close the door, whereupon the party presented their pieces and fired five balls through the door. Whether it arose from deliberation or from the scattered position of the men, so it was that some of these balls passed through the door directly and others obliquely, so as to hit a person standing by the side: and in fact, Squire Knox, who stood there as a place of safety, received a touch by one of them. Thus foiled in their object and perhaps that the report of their guns would alarm the neighborhood, the men commenced a retreat towards the city. Squire Knox having at the approach of day collected some friends and armed men went in pursuit. They tracked the blood several miles. One of whom had taken refuge in a house was taken, brought back and made an ample confession. This fellow being found to be a deserter from the American army was tried by court martial for the desertion only, condemned and executed near Montgomery Square. Another was apprehended after the British left the city, condemned by a civil court and executed. Of the rest little is known.”¹³

While we see many details repeated, there is no visit from Washington or Franklin. The account is also nuanced enough to note the specific fate of two of the men who were captured, including Abijah Wright, the second person tried and executed “by a civil court.”

Sometime in the 19th century, probably to make the story appear more significant to listeners, George Washington materialized, and then, amazingly, Benjamin Franklin, both of whom apparently examined and handled the door.¹⁴

Minor partial separations at horizontal folds, a few foxed spots with minor edge wear, else very good.

(EXA 5359) $950

¹ Historical Society of Montgomery County, Historical Sketches: a Collection of Papers, Volume 1. (1895), 285.
² The National Park Service is unaware of any donation of a door associated with the event, though collection records dating from before the 1930s are not complete. (The site did not come under the administration of the National Park Service until 1948). Diethorn, Letter to the Author, 23 Jan. 2014, who extends his thanks for their gracious and valuable assistance in sourcing additional references for this story.
³ Rev. Charles Collins “Norriton Presbyterian Church and Collateral Gleanings of the Early Settlers” Historical Society of Montgomery County, ed., Historical Sketches: a Collection of Papers, Volume 1. (1895), 285: “Pursuing my investigations between 1845-’55, I was several times entertained by Mrs. Margaret Knox, widow of Robert Knox, who was the oldest son of Capt. Andrew Knox. The latter was somewhat renowned in his day, from the circumstance that an unexpected assault was made on upon him by some Tories one night (February 14, 1778) during the Revolutionary War. While there appeared to be threatenings on the part of these evil disposed men, they were unsuccessful, and were driven off, Capt. Knox holding the fort. His son Robert, above alluded to… was a witness and present when the affray occurred, and lived for many years after, to recount the hair-breath escape of those dangerous night prowlers. During our interviews, Mrs. Knox would often expatiate with much earnestness in describing the eventful scene, exhibiting to me the front door of the farm house, that had been pierced with a number of bullet holes, and which door, subsequently, was given to Independence Hall, Philadelphia, as a relic of those troublous times.”
⁴ William J. Buck, History of Montgomery County, (1859), 89.
⁵ “Eleventh Exhibition of the Pennsylvania State Agricultural Society” Farmer and Gardner Vol. 5, 1863, 105. In describing the various exhibits the author noted “…a rare revolutionary relic in the shape of a door, behind which, Capt. Andrew Knox, the father of the president of the society, successfully defended himself, against the fierce attack of eight tories, sent by the British to capture him. The door bears numerous evidences of the fierceness of the combat. It is perforated in many places with musket balls, and is scarred all over with the sword-cuts, inflicted by the sword of the courageous captain. Gen. Washington, Lafayette, Franklin and many other distinguished men have handled this door. It is to be placed in Independence Hall shortly.”
⁶ Diethorn, Letter to the Author, 23 Jan. 2014. The curator was aware of numerous objects being displayed temporarily exhibited at Independence Hall; The Times (Philadelphia) 19 June 1878,1.
⁷ Gotwalts Hobson Freeland, William Joseph Buck, Henry Sassaman Dotterer, The Centennial Celebration of Montgomery County: At Norristown, Pa., September 9, 10, 11, 12, 1884: an Official Record of Its Proceedings (1884), 123-124.
⁸ Franklin departed Philadelphia for France in December 1776, he did not return to America until 1785.
⁹ Minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania (30 Nov. 1778), 631-632; Massachusetts Spy, 31 Dec. 1778, 3; See Lieut. Col. Jacob Reed, proceedings at the Dedication of the Monument Erected to his Memory… (1905), 50-52.
¹⁰ Jack D. Marietta, Gail Stuart Rowe, Troubled Experiment: Crime and Justice in Pennsylvania, 1682-1800, (2008), 188.
¹¹ Most contemporary mentions of Andrew Knox refer to him as “Colonel.” 19th century accounts refer to him as “Captain.”
¹² Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia), 19 June 1878,1. The judge continued to berate Wright: “This is so far from being an extenuation of your guilt, that it is an aggravation of it; for you, in such a case, would have been guilty of treason. Because this gentleman had preferred the good of his country and of posterity to his present personal ease and safety, and in compliance with the dictaes of a good conscience had taken up arms to defend himself, his posterity, his liberties, and the just rights of mankind, and had been distinguished by his fellow citizens in being made a Colonel of the militia; you, his countryman, his neighbor, formerly his father’s tenant, and who had partaken of his benevolence, attempted to put him into the power and under the dominion of his inveterate foes, foes to God and man, by whom you were sure he would at least have been confined in a loathsome dungeon, if not assassinated or starved to death. But he, with the assistance of his son, discomfited seven of you, whatever your wicked purposes might have been…”
¹³ Norristown Register, 6 Nov. 1808.
¹⁴ The Times (Philadelphia), 19 June 1878, “Washington, while his army lay at the Forge, commissioned Captain Knox to cut off the supplies of the British…. so well did the Captain discharge his duty that the enemy offered £1,400 his person, and thirty armed men were dispatched from the army to take him and two other officers. Eight of these arrived at his dwelling at midnight and commanded him to surrender. He refused, and, meeting them at the door, he used the sword so freely upon their heads as to compel them to retreat… After the contest General Washington and his officers, with Benjamin Franklin, visited Captain Knox, complimented him for his bravery and examined and handled his door.”

Gilbert Dench on his long appeal for $20,000 in depreciated notes from the Continental Congress.

(Revolutionary War Finance) Gilbert DENCH (1742-1807) Autograph Letter Signed, “G. Dench“, 2pp., 240 x 188 mm. (9 1/2 x 7 3/8 in.), Philadelphia, 31 January 1795, likely to a member of the House of Representatives which had just denied his petition for reimbursement for an army supply contract he fulfilled in 1782 in which he was paid in depreciated paper rather than in specie as the contract specified.

Dench, whose petition had been rejected by the House of Representatives the day before, writes in full: “Please Except of my acknowledgement for your attention to my Case, and bel[i]eve me that Ingratitude has no Place in my mind as to the Term of my Case had in Congress the other day, was as unfor[e]seen and as uncontrived by me, on my, Death Day— the facts, are these, the day I was with ye Com[mitt]ee there was but two or three Papers read, when Dr. Hotlon¹ [sic] to two other Gen[tl]eman told me, those Gentlem[en] was before me, & that I had better le[a]ve all my Papers I handed to Mr. Forster² who had read Sum & left the Chamber, and never have I been with s[ai]d Com[mitt]ee more then five moments Since,— as I had a hint what the report would be, Concluded, it was the only one that would Pass the House, and as I thought most of you Gentlemen was of opinion that this was the only best way for me to obtain Something— Concluded there would be no objection to the acceptance of it, as to it being accepted or not was not for me to Determine nor did I ever Desire any one Gentleman to op[p]ose the Acceptance of it, or have the Papers read, although my Claim was on Congress, as I thought to nowhere else. I don’t say I have not said hard things of some Legeslatins [sic] of Massachusetts, and of the Present one, as to there Ingratitude towards you & me, feeling sore in this Pursuit, having road [sic] more then 40000 miles hope to meet with your Pardon, for any Inadvertence in me, for any Int[e]rest Dictated no such Process— so that on all occasions [sic], I shall, acknowledge your Friendship to me, as well as your Great Concern for The Publick Good, as to your Letters they went before the Com[mitt]ee with my other Papers, without any thought of mine, that such a use would be made of them, as was, nor did I ever think they would be read, nor ever did I mention it to any Person to have them read,— this is my Evidence that if the Should be read it must af[f]ront, those, whose favors I ever wished to Secure.”

In 1781 and 1782, Gilbert Dench transported clothing and other supplies for the Continental Army as a contactor. While Dench’s 1781 contract specified payment in certificates from Congress, his 1782 contract was to be paid in $20,000 of specie. However Jabez Hatch, the quartermaster responsible for paying the contract, did not have hard money available when payment came due. Instead, Hatch obtained a loan from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and paid Dench with certificates. When Robert Morris reimbursed Massachusetts for the loan in specie, those notes rapidly depreciated in value.

Dench began petitioning Congress for redress in 1791 with the support of Elbridge Gerry.³ That petition was rejected, but Dench approached Congress again in 1795 but was again rejected. According to a separately published report issued the same year on Dench’s petition: “The Committee are of opinion, that there is no existing obligation on the United States, to make up depreciation in the present case; more especially, as the United States have paid for the services rendered by the petitioner in specie; and if there exists an obligation on any body of men, to make up to the petitioner his depreciation, it certainly must rest upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”⁴

Undeterred, Dench petitioned the House again in 1797, which prompted a lively debate on the floor that, unlike the deliberations in 1795, were published (together with a formal report). While many of the Representatives, including Henry Dearborn, James Madison, Joseph Varnum, George Thatcher, and William Livingston sympathized with Dench’s plight, they could find no means to assist him. Jeremiah Smith of New Hampshire noted that although “Dench had been badly used… innumerable other cases were much worse. Mr. Dench suffered no more than others who took depreciated paper instead of specie. He was obliged to sell his certificates before they were due; but the citizens of Massachusetts actually paid in real specie the tax of which these certificates were partly in anticipation…the House was every day rejecting claims more equitable than this one.” Robert Williams of North Carolina feared “complying with this demand would open the door to numbers with this principle in their view.” Jonathan Dayton concurred, warning that granting Dench’s petition “would be letting in a flood of claims.”⁵ Still Dench persisted, petitioning Congress again in 1800 with the same response. The report issued by the House of Representatives denying Dench’s claim was worded exactly as the one they issued in 1797.⁶ Undaunted, Dench again approached Congress in 1800 and 1804, and was denied again.⁷

Dench died insolvent in 1807 and his estate was auctioned in 1811.⁸ Thirty years later, Dench’s heirs revived the campaign, submitting petitions to Congress in 1837, 1840, 1843, and 1846. The last time Dench’s heirs petitioned the Committee of Revolutionary Claims, it does not appear to have ever been considered as Congress’ records are silent on the matter after this point. ⁹ It appears that the family finally abandoned their Revolutionary ancestor’s quixotic battle for justice nearly 60 years after the first attempt.

Toning, minor creasing and edge wear, slight water damping at bottom left margin just barely affecting content, usual folds, overall very good condition.

(EXA 3506) $650
__________
¹ Samuel Holten (1738-1818). Massachusetts physician and politician, member of the Third Congress, 1793-1795.
² Dwight Foster (1757-1823) Massachusetts attorney and politician who served in Congress form 1793 to 1800, and in the Senate until 1803.
³ Maryland Journal (Baltimore), 16 Dec. 1791, 2: Elbridge Gerry presented one on Dench’s behalf, “praying compensation for damage and loss by him sustained, in contracts for transporting cloathing [sic] and military stores.”
⁴ Report of the Committee of Claims on the Petition of Gilbert Dench. Made the 29th of January, 1795. ([Washington: United States Congress, [1795]), 3.
⁵ The Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the United States (1849), 1835-1839.
⁶ Report of the Committee of Claims, on the Petition of Gilbert Dench. 4th January 1797 (Evans 32995); Report of the Committee of Claims, on the Petition of Gilbert Dench. 21st March 1800 (Evans 38843).
⁷ United States House of Representatives, Journal, 31 March 1800; Ibid, 21 December 1804.
⁸ “Mansfield-Perkins Ancestry” Rootsweb. (http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jim_stevens&id=I149): Mathew Metcalf Esqr and John Jones, yeoman, both of Hopkinton and John Fisk, gentleman of Framingham were appointed on 14 October 1807 to take inventory of Gilbert Dench’s estate. The real estate included the homestead and 70 acres in Hopkinton, an acre of land with a small house also in Hopkinton, 54 acres in Holliston, one half of 25 acres in Framingham with half of a small house & barn & half of the mills thereon, owned in common with Isaac Dench, and a pew in Hopkinton meeting house, totaling $5,630.00. With the personal estate, the estate was valued at $6,136.18. However, the debts due from the estate were also considerable, totaling $5,280.00, more than half due on mortgages, so that on 10 November 1807, John Fairbanks as executor asked that the estate be declared insolvent. Matthew Metcalf Esqr and Jeremy Stimpson, physician, both of Hopkinton, were then appointed commissioners to examine the claims. The personal estate was sold 30 November 1807, with many of the items purchased by his son Isaac Dench, his daughters’ husbands and by other relatives, including Samuel and Thomas Valentine, John Jones, Dr. Stimpson, and Peletiah Bixby. The real estate was to be auctioned Monday 1 April 1811, however, that day being very stormy, the sale was adjourned to the next Monday. The homeplace was sold to Elijah Haven, the mill to Isaac Dench, the wood lot to Dr. John O. Wilson, and the one acre in Hopkinton to Elijah Pike. The auction raised only $1579.50, so that the court ordered that the creditors be paid 22 cents for each dollar of their claim”.
⁹ House, Journal, 30 January 1837, 29 December 1837; 27 June 1838; 5 February 1840; 8 March 1842; 22 December 1843; Senate, Journal, 7 January 1846.

James Grant 1778 ALS to East Florida Lieutenant Governor John Moultrie

“…things have taken an astonishing turn & we are as much in the dark as you are. A French War was expected. The declaration has been postponed, at least not taken place the 9th of April. Think of a French Alliance and Laurens President of Congress…”

James GRANT (1720-1806) Major general in the British Army during the American Revolutionary War. Fine content war date Autograph Letter Signed “James Grant” 2pp. 224 x 184 mm. (8 7/8 x 7 1/4 in.) Philadelphia, 4 June 1778 to East Florida Lieutenant Governor John Moultrie (1729-1798), the brother of American General William Moultrie. Grant, writing from British-occupied Philadelphia, comments on the recent election of their mutual friend Henry Laurens as President of the Continental Congress. Grant also remarks on the fresh news of the Franco-American alliance that would ultimately force Great Britain to end the conflict and recognize American independence.

“Much obliged for your letter of the 3rd March and quite happy to hear of the flourishing state of Bella Vista & Timonka. I flatter myself you are not likely to be disturbed by your neighbors and if a French war should happen, those gentleman probably would not think of troubling you — the Barrs formerly so much complained of are a security, and you will soon be put upon a respectable footing by a new general and considerable reinforcement of troops. [James] Moncreif who has gained great credit & reputation with this army, goes a passenger with Capt. Elphius Lowe & returns to East Florida to assist his friends and look after his private affairs which seemed to have suffered in his absence. He will give all the news. I wish I had more agreeable to communicate to you but things have taken an astonishing turn & we are as much in the dark as you are. A French War was expected. The declaration has been postponed, at least not taken place the 9th of April. Think of a French Alliance and Laurens President of Congress. Much subject of conversation if we were together. I can say nothing for certainty about myself for the remaining part of the summer but shall always be happy to hear from you & beg of you to assure Mrs. Moultrie & family of my best respects & wishes as I shall ever be with truth and regard…”

Unbeknownst to the general, Great Britain had already declared war on France on 17 March 1778 following Louis XVI’s decision to recognize American independence on 6 February. Word of the treaty with France had only arrived in the Americas at the beginning of May. Coincidentally, on the same day that Grant wrote the present letter, the Lancaster-based Pennsylvania Packet reported that “a gentlemen arrived at Elizabeth town on Saturday last, from New York, who brought an account that war had been declared there that day in form, against France…” Official reports of the British declaration began trickling in several days later.¹ Two weeks after he wrote to Moultire, Grant joined the British Army in evacuating Philadelphia and commanded two brigades at the Battle of Monmouth (28 June). The following year, Lord Germain ordered Grant to the West Indies to supervise the construction of British garrisons in the islands.

Prior to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, Grant, John Moutlrie, and Henry Laurens were close friends business and associates. They became acquainted during the French and Indian War when Grant led a force of 2,600 in South Carolina against the Cherokee in 1761. Following the war, Grant served as the first British governor of East Florida (1764-1771), and John Moultrie became his Lieutenant Governor. Both Grant and Moultrie purchased plantations in Florida. Moultrie’s properties were named “Bella Vista & Timonka” while Grant operated an indigo plantation he named “Villa” as well as another, “Mount Pleasant,” which produced rice. To staff his properties, Grant purchased approximately 70 slaves — most of whom came from Henry Laurens, who also happened to be a prominent Charleston slave trader.²

Grant also discusses the departure of James Montcrief (1741-1793). Montcrief was a military engineer who took part in numerous campaigns during the Revolutionary War. He came to America in 1763 in the employ of Governor Grant of East Florida and drafted a current map of St. Augustine. In 1779 he was appointed Chief Engineer, responsible for the defenses of Savannah and during the following year he would take part in the Siege of Charleston. In 1780, Montcrief took command of the Black Pioneers, a Loyalist force composed of freed slaves.

An excellent historical and association piece that highlights the network of personal and familial relationships in Colonial America wrenched apart by the Revolutionary War.

Expected folds with minor separations repaired in serval places with glassine and period paper, small loss to first page only marginal wear, else very good.

(EXA 5382) SOLD

_________
¹ Pennsylvania Packet, (Lancaster) 6 June 1778, 3; Connecticut Courant (Hartford) 9 June 1778, 3: “…March 17. A Privy Council is summoned to meet this day at St. James after the levee is over said to be on the issuing a proclamation for the declaration of war against France…”

² James Grant Papers, National Archive of Scotland. The archive includes several bills from Laurens invoicing Grant for slaves.

Gideon Welles submits a Revolutionary War claim for the widow of a guard at Connecticut’s infamous New Gate Prison

Gideon WELLES (1802-1878) Autograph Letter, 3pp. 251 x 201 mm. (9 7/8 x 7 7/8 in.), “Comptroller’s Office” Hartford, [Conn.], 10 Nov. 1842, a partial draft with numerous edits and annotations concerning the Revolutionary War service of Perchas Capin on behalf of the veteran’s widow, Theodosia.¹

Welles, then serving as Connecticut Comptroller, provides evidence in support of the “application in behalf of the Widow of Perchas Capin for testimony of his services during the Revolutionary war as one of the Guard at New Gate, or the Prison in Simsbury Ct…” In an attempt to substantiate the claims in Widow Capin’s application, Welles “searched the record of the Council of Safety and the books of the Pay Table remaining in this office.”

In the first paragraph, Welles took time to confirm the prison’s existence at the time, and that that the facility was actually a cave, “an extensive cavern, or caverns, which was and during the revolutionary war for conspiring Tories, suspected persons, and state offenders.” (The prison had been established in 1773 by the State of Connecticut in an abandoned copper mine.)

Welles’ first citation is dated the 15 July 1776 minutes of the Simsbury Council of Safety remarking on the “‘dangerous situation of New Gate Prison, and especially since a number of Tory Prisoners are committed there, and the great uneasiness of the People concerning them, and that the keeper is uneasy with his situation &c &c and requesting liberty of a guard &c…'” The council of safety resolved to provide for two or more “‘faithful men every night … carefully to watch and guard sd Prison…'” Welles continues with several citations from the public records mentioning Capin and the management of New Gate Prison but ended the draft mid-sentence on the third page with, “I would also state that”.

The following day, Welles drafted another version of this letter which was sent to Washington and became part of Theodosia Capin’s application file.² The letter begins in the same manner and contains some of the same content, Welles decided to rework the letter significantly. Although according to another affidavits found in the pension application file, Capin was the chief of the guards for approximately two years at New Gate Prison, Welles was unable to discover any evidence in the state records of Capin’s employment as a guard. He only found references two bills for unspecified goods or services submitted to the State by Capin in connection with the prison.³

Usual folds, a few other minor creases, else very fine condition.

(EXA 5083) $350

_________
¹ Case Files of Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Applications Based on Revolutionary War Service, compiled ca. 1800 – ca. 1912, documenting the period ca. 1775 – ca. 1900. (NARA 300022)

² Ibid. Letter of Gideon Welles, 11 Nov. 1842.

³ Ibid. Affidavit of Timothy Holcomb, 21 Oct. 1842. “…I well recollect that the name of the officer of the Guard was Capin and that he was here as officer of the Guard for the space of two or more years during which time I frequently saw him at the Prison on duty.” This claim is seconded by Heziah Viet’s affidavit, 20 Oct. 1842: “I think he was the principal man of the guard. There were other men as assistant guards…”; Welles: “I do not find the name of Purchas Capin on the Pay Table books, nor any mention of individuals connected with the guards, from the time that the duty of selecting a keeper was delegated to the overseers, until the commissioning of Lieut. Owen in 1780 by the General Assembly.”

Revolutionary War hero William Barton writes to Vermont Senator Bradley 1815 from debtors prison seeking an attorney

(American Revolution) William BARTON (1748-1831) Officer in the Continental Army during the American Revolution who attained the rank of Colonel (and later adjutant general of the Rhode Island militia), fought in the Battle of Bunker Hill, and captured Major General Richard Prescott in a July 1777 raid on British Headquarters in Rhode Island, for which he was rewarded by the Continental Congress. Barton was an original member of the Rhode Island Society of the Cincinnati, joining at the inception of the Society’s first constituent branch in 1783. Upon Rhode Island’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1790, Barton was selected to travel to New York to inform George Washington. In 1789, Barton and 59 other Revolutionary War soldiers received a land grand for an area in northern central Vermont, chartered as the town of Barton. While his namesakes of the town, and Fort Barton in Tiverton, Rhode Island were a testament to his prominence, he was successfully sued for selling the same plot of land to two different investors. Upon Barton’s refusal to pay his debt, he was sentenced to serve 14 years in debtor’s prison in Danville, Vermont, beginning in 1812 when Barton was 64 years old. He was finally released 13 years later when the Marquis de Lafayette agreed to pay off the remainder of Barton’s debt.

Autograph Letter Signed “Wm. Barton” from debtors prison, 1 page, 224 x 195 mm. (8 7/8 x 7 5/8 in.), Danville [Vermont], 6 November 1815, to U.S. Senator from Vermont William Czar Bradley (1782-1867). Barton, a veteran of the American Revolutionary War, was incarcerated for debt in 1812 following a bad land deal in Vermont. Three years later, he humbly (and largely phonetically) seeks an attorney to represent him:

“Will you have the goodness to heare [sic] and [sic] old officer once more, but before I begin with my storey[sic]. I was & am Will return you my warmest thanks for the att[ent]i[o]n you have paid to me in having me placed on the Pension list.— It is now three years three years and 45 Days Sins [sic] I have been confined in this plase [sic], and I am Sorrey [sic] to Say that I must Spend the remainder of my Days in this plase unless I obtain my case W[h]ich is before the Supream [sic] Court … A Co[u]rt of Chancery W[h]ich I hope Will com[e] on at the Next term in this plase. Now my Dear friend I want to Employ you too come here and bleed[?] my case, for one, I Know that there are Sum [sic] gentlemen of the Law, that say that it is Inte[?] indiligent [sic] for a client to ask what what they have to pay till the Wash[?]is don[e], here let me observe that if I had only have Known before hand what I had to pay, I never should have been confined in this prison, and I have Sometime Sins made up my mind so far. hard to Know What I had to pay but if you Dont chus [sic] to Do this and Will com[e] I Will throw my Self at your mersey [sic], pray answer me by the first mail.”

Very minor paper loss at bottom right, slight edge wear, archival repairs to verso along usual folds, else very good.

(EXA 5235) SOLD

The last surviving veteran of the Battle of Lexington, Jonathan Harrington, John Parker’s fifer, signs at age 89

Jonathan HARRINGTON (1758-1854) The last surviving member of John Parker’s company at the Battle of Lexington on 19 April 1775, serving as the fifer beside drummer William Diamond.

Fine content Autograph Note Signed, “Jon Harrington”, 1p. 48 x 196 mm. (1 7/8 x 7 3/4 in.), on an irregularly cut slip of paper, [Lexington], 30 April 1845, writing in full: “I was at the Battle of Lexington the 19th April 1775 a fife in Capt. John Parker’s Company”.

When Benson Lossing interviewed Harrington in 1848, the old soldier humbly explained that he only became one of the company’s musicians because he was the only person in Lexington who knew how to play a fife. Harrington recalled, “My mother… called out to me at three o’clock in the morning, ‘Jonathan, Jonathan! The reg’lars are coming and something must be done.’ I dressed quickly, slung my light gun over my shoulder, took my fife from a chair, and hurried to the parade near the meeting house, where about fifty men had gathered and others were arriving every minute. By four o’clock a hundred men were there. We did not wait long, wondering whether reg’lars were really coming, for a man darted up to Captain Parker and told him that they were close by. The captain immediately ordered … Joe[sic William] to beat the drum and I fifed with all my might. Alarm-guns were instantly fired to call distant minute-men to duty. Lights were now seen moving in all the houses. Daylight came at half-past four o’clock. Just then the reg’lars who had heard the drum beat, rushed toward us, and their leader shouted, ‘Disperse, you rebels!’ We stood still. He repeated the order with an oath, fired his pistol, and ordered his men to shoot. Only a few obeyed. Nobody was hurt, and we supposed their guns were loaded only with powder. We had been ordered not to fire first, and so we stood still. The angry leader of the reg’lars then gave another order for them to fire, when a volley killed or wounded several of our company. Seeing the reg’lars trying to surround us, Captain Parker ordered us to retreat. As we fled some shots were sent back. [William] and I climbed a fence near Parson Clarke’s house and took to the wood near by. Climbing over, [William] fell upon a heap of stones and crushed his drum-head. His hand was bleeding badly, and he found that a bullet had carried off a part of his little finger. Eight of our men had lost their lives.”¹

Groomed for college, Harrington’s aspirations were dashed when the retreating regulars ransacked his home, taking the Latin books he needed to prepare, and burned them in the street. Harrington spent the remainder of his life as a farmer in Lexington. In his advanced age, Harrington’s association with the opening battle of the Revolutionary War gave him celebrity as veterans of the war died off. The curious, traveling from near and and far, made pilgrimages to his East Lexington home to hear his stories. ² When he died in 1854, nearly 10,000 attended his funeral including the governor, both houses of the legislature and 1,000 soldiers.³

Tape repair to upper right corner slightly affecting the “5” in “1775”, light edge wear, overall very good condition.

(EXA 5222) SOLD.

_____________

¹ Benson J. Lossing, Hours with the Living Men and Women of the Revolution, A Pilgrimage (1889), 2-8.

² Mary B. Fuhrer, Research for the Re-Interpretation of the Buckman Tavern, Lexingon Massachusetts: Conceptions of Liberty (Unpublished report, 2012), 68.

³ “Funeral of Jonathan Harrington” Salem Register, (Mass.), 3 Apr. 1854, 2.

Rare Revolutionary War Broadside Ordering the Confiscation of Supplies from those unwilling to sell to the Continental Army

(American Revolution) Broadside, AN ACT AND LAW, Made and passed by the General Court or Assembly of the State of Connecticut, in America; holden at New-Haven, on the second Thursday of October, Anno Domini 1776. An Act to compel the furnishing necessary Supplies, and Assistance to the Quarter-Master-General of the Continental Army. (New London: Printed by T. Green, Printer to the Governor and Company, 1778), 295 x 175 mm. (11 3/4 x 7 in.) with summary printed at right margin, “Persons refusing to sell to the Quarter-Master Gen. any Articles for Use of the Army, the same to be taken by Warrant.”

The law stipulated, that “…if any Person or Persons within this Colony shall upon Request, refuse to sell or supply to the Quartermasters-General of the Continental Army the Articles of timber, Boards, Shingles, Brick or Stone, or to sell or let their Horses, Oxen Carts or Carriages for transporting the same… any one Assistant or Justice of the Peace within this Colony… are hereby ordered… to grant a proper Warrant or Warrants for the impressing from any such Person or Persons so refusing…”

Extremely Rare. Evans 15764. Johnson, H.A., New London, 1078. We are aware of only one extant edition of this broadside which is housed at the Library of Congress. We have never seen a copy appear at auction.

Light toning, minor stitch holes along left margin not affecting text, minor creasing, else very good.

(EXA 4911) $2,500