“It is timely during our celebration of our nation’s independence, that SJGD member Sue Gaither Vanzant alerted us to an updated and expanded biography of Revolutionary War Captain, Colonel Henry Chew Gaither. The biography and an excellent account of Colonel Gaither’s life written by Burkely Herman[n] is located on the Maryland State Archives site dedicated to the Maryland 400. Mr. Herman[n] is a 2016 Maryland Society of the Sons of American Revolution Research Fellow. The blog and biography provide valuable insight into the times in which Colonel Gaither lived and his service to our country…Society member, Sue Vanzant, through her own research, played an important role in expanding the biography of Colonel Gaither [which I wrote].
As we wrote about about last week on this blog, the pension for Anna Maria Tilghman, the widow of Tench Tilghman, is stock-filled with information. This post aims to dig into that information even more. Tench’s military career is evident without a doubt, and was part of the focus of my poster board in 2007 for the History Day competition titled “Tench Tilghman Pays a Price for Being a Patriot,” for which I only got to the state level with their theme of “Triumph & Tragedy in History.” That is part of the reason I’m writing these posts to be honest, to rekindle my interest in the subject I explored all those years ago, even though I did go to the Maryland State Archives, Maryland Historical Society (MHS), Historical Society of Talbot County, and the Library of Congress.  Back then I wrote about how I took notes from copies of original letters and documents at the MHS, a photograph of Tench Tilghman’s uniform, and that Tench came from a privileged family with sympathies toward the British crown, eventually making “sacrifices for Patriotism, facing estrangement from his family and disease contracted in battle,” leading to his early death at the age of 41.
Tench during the Revolutionary War and after
As far back as May 1769, George Washington was on good terms with the Tilghman family. He wrote James Tilghman, Tench’s father (who was once written about by the Maryland State Archives), that year, asking for advice in getting “Entrys of Land for me, near the Settlement of Redstone, in the Provence of Pensylvania” since he was, at the time, “anxious of obtaining some little possession in a Country that I have experienced many toils and hardships in.” Then in September 1774, Washington “dined at Mr. [James] Tilghman’s” house in Talbot County, Maryland. By 1776, Tench was translating letters in French for Washington as indicated here and here. By August, he had brought a deserter to George Washington himself! In all, within Founders Online, are 78 letters from Tilghman to other individuals, sometimes Washington. As the National Park Service puts it, “at Valley Forge, almost 30% of the correspondence that came out of Washington’s headquarters was written by Tilghman.” That’s an amazing feat!
On March 19, 1784, Tench wrote from Baltimore, saying that there are not any bricklayers but only carpenters, to Washington’s Mt. Vernon as noted in other letters. So, he is basically a caretaker of Mt. Vernon? In a letter a few months later he added that Irish servants arrived, saying the following:
I shall attend to your direction of substituting a Stone Mason in the room of a Bricklayer, should circumstances require it—I will also make enquiry for a Stucco Worker…he must be perfect, otherwise, like a bad Painter, he will deface what he ought to decorate. I beg leave to take this opportunity of acknowledging the rect of your Excellency’s letter of the 19th of May from Philada accompanied by a Badge of the Order of the Cincinnati, of which Society I have the honor of being a Member…I therefore take pleasure in informing you that Mrs Tilghman presented me with a Daughter [Margaret] a fortnight ago [May 25], and that she and her little Charge are both perfectly well
The next letter, the following month, is in the same vein, adding that in Baltimore there is a “demand for Carpenters and Masons, that the Master Builders in those Branches who are settled here, in order to intice the new comers to give them a preference,” notes about Irish coming to Baltimore to work, whom would take not take “less than the high daily Wages given to such Tradesmen here.” Again, these are about those who are coming to work at Mr. Vernon, with Tench meeting with the workers themselves. He adds in another letter about Mt. Vernon’s specifications: “The Door of the House to be as large as you can conveniently make it—otherwise when the Trees come to any size, the limbs are broken and the Fruit torn off in moving in and out.”
By March 1785, Tench is clearly not the caretaker of Mt. Vernon anymore. Instead he writes about the daughter of “the late Capt. William Anderson of London” who is in a bad way, worries about the “the health of Mrs Washington and yourself” and adds that “Mrs Tilghman is upon a visit to her Friends upon the Eastern shore” whom he will soon join. By May, he gives even more of a story, adding that he is currently tied down by business in Baltimore:
How much you flatter me, my dear General (for by that name I must ever be allowd to call you) by your kind invitation to visit you [in Mt. Vernon]. My circumstances require a close attention to Business, and I am, on that account, cheifly confined to the limits of this Town. I often wish for a good pretence to go as far as Alexandria or George Town. Once there I should not fail to pay my Respects at Mount Vernon. If I ever find time to make a jaunt of pleasure—Mrs Tilghman will assuredly be of the party. She joins in sincerest Compliments to Mrs Washington and yourself
By August, he is talking about those on a ship called the Pallas, owned by a Mr. John O’Donnell, an Irish-born man, with the crew on the ship mostly “from the Coasts of Malabar and Coromandel, and are much of the Countenance and Complexion of your old Groom Wormely.” As always, he (and his wife) wishes George and his wife Martha well. Later he recommends a man named John Rawlins to work at Mt. Vernon, describing him as a “masterly Workman” while also saying that he only has one regret, that he cannot make a visit, saying that “my Business ties me down to the Circle of Baltimore.”
By October, he describes his sickness as getting to him, even as he claims he is getting better:
You will wonder at my long silence; but you will excuse me when I inform you, that your letter of the 14th of Sept. found me confined to my Bed by a most Severe nervous Fever, which kept me there near four Weeks. I am now far from being recovered, but as I can mount my Horse, I take daily Exercise, and find my Health and Strength returning by slow degrees.
His next letter is a couple months later in December, in which he writes about meeting a man named “Count Castiglioni…who, in pursuit of Botanical Knowledge, has thought it worth his while to visit this, hitherto, almost unexplored Continent” whom he recommends Washington meet. The same month he writes Washington again talking about gentlemen he has recommended to Washington, and seems to be a sort of caretaker of Mt. Vernon again, writing that “the Work to be began at Mount Vernon by the 1st or middle of April next—at farthest.” In other letters he writes about sickness of some of these workers, and about his “Brother James [who] lives at Talbot Court House, the Central spot of the Eastern Shore Counties, and convenient to the State of Delaware also.”
In 1786, there are four letters written by Tench to Washington. The first is on January 16, for which he talks about setting Rawlins to work on fixing up Mt. Vernon, again writing about this in March. On March 16 he again writes about his sickness:
I have been confined upwards of a Fortnight in great measure, to my bed, by the return of a Complaint in my side with which I was troubled some time ago. I recover but very slowly, but I hope that as soon as I am able to enjoy the favorable Season which is approaching I shall soon get recruited.
On March 23 he writes his last letter to Washington, in which he says that
I am still unable to leave my Chamber, tho I think I am rather better than when I wrote to you last.
On April 22, Thomas Ringgold Tilghman, Tench’s brother, tells Washington about Tench’s death only a few days before:
I have the most melancholy Task to perform, that was ever yet imposed upon me; that of making you acquainted with the Death of my poor Brother Tench. Painful however as it is, I thought a duty not to be dispensed with towards one for whom he had so high a Reverence & so warm an Attachment as for yourself. Not above three days before his death every symptom bade fair for a speedy Recovery, when an unexpected Change took place, which in a short time destroyed every hope. He retained his senses perfectly till within a few hours of the time that he expired, which was in the Evening of the 18th, when he went off without the least pain & even without a struggle: As it is our Wish to settle his Affairs as speedily as possible, I enclose your account, the Bale of which £54.10.4 you will be pleased to pay into the hands of Messrs Josiah Watson & Co. of Alexanda which mode of settling it, is agreable to his Intentions.
As there were few men for whom I had a warmer friendship, or greater regard than for your Brother—Colonel Tilghman—when living; so, with much truth I can assure you, that, there a⟨re⟩ none whose death I could more sincerely have regretted. and I pray you, & his numerous friends to permit me to mingle my sorrows with theirs on this unexpected & melancholy occasion—and that they would accept my compliments of condolence on it.
…[his children were] Anna Margaretta, born May 24, 1784 [who married]…her cousin Tench Tilghman, son of Peregrine Tilghman of “Hope”…[and] Elizabeth Tench, born October 11, 1786 [who married] Col. Nicholas Goldsborough…In 1784 formed a partnership with Robert Morris in Baltimore called Tench Tilghman & Co. Lived on Lombard Street…[died] April 18, 1786 in Baltimore [and was] buried [in] St. Paul’s Church.
Within their sources is a chancery court case in which Samuel Stringer Cole sued James Carey, Margaret Tilghman, and Elizabeth Tilghman, a Baltimore Sun article, Papenfuse’s “Remarks to Board of Public Works, February 4, 1998,” other remarks, and a program. Most interesting is the 18-pages of a scanned inventory, showing that he had the many possessions when noted in May 1786. Instead of reprinting each (as that stretches for 7 pages), I picked the ones I thought were representative:
1 small sword
1 gold watch
10 coats with gold epaulets for a coat
1 saddle cloth
1 pair of pistols
1 riding stick and 1 pair of spurs
2 military books
1 sword belt
22 silver table spoons
24 silver desert spoons
24 silver desert spoons and sugar tongs
12 Mahogany chairs
12 pewter dishes
100 lb good brown sugar
This showed his class position in society without a doubt, especially that he rode on a horse but did not own a plantation with enslaved blacks like his contemporaries (i.e. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington). The letter by Thomas to George Washington is not a surprise because he was the administrator of Tench’s estate. Today, the MHS has papers specifically on the Tilghman family, as does the Library of Australia. Some even wrote a poem about him, with Washington placing “Tilghman among the prominent of the Revolution” as one writer put it.
Tench’s wife, Anna Maria TilghmanBefore getting to Tench and Anna Maria’s children, it is worth talking about Anna Maria. Buried on Talbot County MD, her former home was Plimhimmon, with her parents as Matthew Tilghman, an important figure in Maryland politics during the Revolutionary War, and Anna Lloyd, from the Lloyd family which was deeply rooted in Talbot County and also involved in local politics in the state (then a colony) of Maryland. Matthew’s brother was James, who was the father of Tench, who had three other siblings (Richard, Anna Maria, and William). Anna Maria was, as the story goes, born at the “Hermitage,” the family’s plantation not to be confused with Andrew Jackson’s home of the same name.Later, the “Hope House,” established in 1800 would be the “Home of Tench Tilghman and his wife, Margaret Tilghman” with this Margaret Tilghman the “niece of Margaret Tilghman Carroll of Mount Clare – the daughter of Margaret’s sister Anna Maria and her husband, Colonel Tench Tilghman.” Apparently in the Talbot County Historical Society hangs a copy of a “167-year-old portrait of Anna Maria…where she looks down through her old-fashioned glasses at the goings-on of the 21st century world,” with the original in ” the Shreve home.”
Tench and Anna Maria’s first daughter, Ann Margaretta
Ann Margaretta, or called Margaret for short, was born in 1755 as I noted in the previous post.As the letters above note, Margaret was born sometime in March 1784. Before her untimely death on March 18, 1812, she married a man named Tench Tilghman, the son of Peregrine Tilghman (whose father was Richard Tilghman who was the brother of Tench’s father, James) and Deborah Lloyd. With this Tench she had three children. One of them, with the same name as his father, Tench, was mentioned in the pension documents in the previous article, while the other two children, an infant and William Ward, were not since they did not live very long (the infant died at less than a year old and William at age 4). Family history sites don’t say much about her, except that her son Tench would be the future founder of the Maryland & Delaware railroad.
Nothing else can be currently determined.
Tench and Anna Maria’s second daughter, Elizabeth
From our previous post it was clear that Elizabeth was born after Tench’s death. Her gravestone only says she was 65 years old when she died on May 5, 1852, meaning she she can be the child of Tench and Anna Maria even though simple subtraction pegs her birth date in 1787 (when it was likely late 1786 but her birth date had not come up when she died). We also know that she married a man named C.T. Goldsborough and seemingly had a child named M. Tilghman Goldsborough and that she lived until at least 1843. Her gravestone shows that her husband was not “C.T. Goldsborough” but a man named Nicholas Goldsborough, and that she had six children with him:
Due to the fact that she died in 1852, this is great for discovering more of her history, since she has to be in the 1850 census, the first that names all of those in the household, not just the head of the household.
Looking up Nicholas’s name we find a record of his birth, but also the 1850 census for “Talbot county, part of, Talbot, Maryland, United States.” Rather than just linking the census it is worth reprint the image of the census itself, showing a household of 12 individuals!
Nicholas is called a Colonel, from what I can see, and is a farmer, with the Symthe family also living with them.
Before this, the 1820 census shows a Nicholas Goldsborough in “Trappe, Talbot, Maryland, United States,” the 1830 census show a man of the same name in “Talbot, Maryland, United States” while the 1840 census shows a man by the same name in “District 3, Talbot, Maryland, United States.” One can say these men are the same and that they are undoubtedly Elizabeth’s husband of the same name. Additionally, it is likely that Elizabeth was living with him. Other records, within the 1850 “slave schedules” show that her husband is clearly a slaveowner, of at least three individuals. Hence, the Tilghman family could not escape slavery and was part of it without a doubt.
It is hard to say when Elizabeth married Nicholas. I say that because the 1800, 1810, 1820, and 1840, censuses show a woman named “Elizabeth Tilghman” in Talbot County, alone. Likely the “Mariah E Tilghman” in the 1840 census is Tench (the 1st)’s wife.
The story of Henrietta Maria Francis
As I noted in my post last week, a woman named Henrietta Maria Francis was first “acquainted” with Tench (in 1780), when she was age 25, and married the uncle of Tench, in 1783, with Tench visiting them after their marriage. She said in her deposition in the pension that:
…she intermarried with Philip Francis, the uncle of the said Tench Tilghman in the year seventeen hundred and eighty and was in the year seventeen hundred and eighty three was living near Eden Park, near the town of Wilmington, in Delaware, and that the said Col Tench Tilghman, before his marriage, and in the month of March of March seventeen hundred and eighty three made a visit to the despondents husband, at [Eden Park]
One history of Tench seems to mention this Philip fellow, saying that he is the brother of Anna Francis, the wife of James Tilghman, Tench’s father, while another individual, “Tench Francis” is mentioned as Tench’s uncle. Find A Grave is no help in this regard, only finding three individuals with the name of “Tench Francis.” Other searches note a man named “Sir Philip Francis” but it not known of this is the same as Henrietta Maria’s husband. The Wikipedia page for Tench Francis Sr gives the biggest clue:
Tench Francis (born probably in Ireland; died 16 August 1758) was a prominent lawyer and jurist in colonial Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania…In 1724 he married Elizabeth Turbutt. Together, they had [a number of children including] Philip Francis, who married Henrietta Maria Goldsborough, who were the grandparents of Philip Francis Thomas…[and] Ann Francis, who married James Tilghman, who were the parents of Tench Tilghman…Tench Francis died in Philadelphia in 1758.
So, Henrietta Maria’s maiden name was Goldsborough and her husband, Philip Francis, had the same father as Tench’s mother, Ann Francis. Searching for “Henrietta Maria Goldsborough” turns up varied results on Find A Grave so it is not known which, if any, are the same as Philip’s wife. The same can be said for the results on Family Search. Tech does seem to call him “Phil Francis” in 1776 so perhaps Henrietta did know Tench well.
The Tilghman family is a gift that keeps giving for research, one that can continue to be mined for research. For now there won’t be a follow-up article, but if anything else comes up in the future, an article adding to previous documents may be released. As always, I look forward to your comments.
 Looking back at a binder titled “Tench Tilghman,” it is clear that I looked at newspaper articles, a letter to George Washington by Tench on August 14, 1784, Tench’s Yorktown Journal at the MHS, a few random websites online, mainly to provide visuals, photocopies of Tench’s journals, Samuel Alexander Harrison’s book titled Memorial of Lieutenant Colonel Tench Tilghman: Secretary and Aid to Washington, Ray Raphael’s Founding Myths: Stories that Hide out Patriotic Past, L.G. Shreve’s Tench Tilghman: The Life and Tomes of Washington’s Aide-de-Camp, and Oswald Tilghman’s History of Talbot County, MD, 1681-1861. I also had correspondence with a man named Richard Tilghman who lives in the Wye House (where Tench lived), who is “related to Colonel Tench Tilghman, but not directly.”
 Specifically letters on pages 485, 486, 487, and 547 relate to Tench.
Fifty-one years after Tench Tilghman’s death, his wife (who was a cousin), Anna Marie Tilghman, got a widows pension. Tilghman was, as the Maryland State Archives argues, “one of Maryland’s great patriots” due to his public service as part of a “commission established to form treaties with the Six Nations of Indian tribes,” a captain in “the Pennsylvania Battalion of the Flying Camp.,” and serving as an unpaid aide-de-camp to George Washington from August 1776 to May 1781 when Washington got him “a regular commission in the Continental Army.” His final task was “he honor of carrying the Articles of Capitulation to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.” Other than that, the Maryland State Archives writes that Tench was
born on December 25, 1744 in Talbot County on his father’s plantation. He was educated privately until the age of 14, when he went to Philadelphia to live with his grandfather, Tench Francis. In 1761, he graduated from the College and Academy of Philadelphia, which later became the University of Pennsylvania, and then went into business with his uncle Tench Francis, Jr. until just before the Revolutionary War. After the War, Tilghman returned to Maryland where he resumed his career in business in Baltimore and married his cousin, Anna Marie Tilghman. They had two daughters, Anna Margaretta and Elizabeth Tench. Tilghman died on April 18, 1786 at the age of 41.
His gravestone was placed in Talbot County’s Oxford Cemetery long after his death. That’s because he died at St. Paul’s Church in Baltimore, with the remains brought from there to Talbot County in 1971 but the original gravestone, without the plaque, does tell something about him.
The widows pension by Anna Maria Tilghman tells an interesting story.  The first page shows that not only is it a penson for Anna Maria but that Tench also received a land grant, with “B.L.W.T.” noting an “application for a warrant for bounty land” promised to him since he “served to the end of the war”:
The next page notes that Tench died on April 18, 1786 in Talbot County, MD and was a Lieutenant Colonel serving in the army commanded by General George Washington, specifically in the Pennsylvania line, for two years. This is despite the fact he served for longer than two years as noted earlier in this article. For all of this, she would receive almost $4,000.00 a year, a sizable sum at the time when she was filing (May 1843):
The next page doesn’t say much else other than that her claim would be processed in Maryland under the 1836 Pension Act covering veterans of the war with Britain from 1812-1815 and the Revolutionary War
The page following is a personal appeal by her on February 24, 1837 in which she, before the Talbot County Orphans Court notes that she is the widow of Tench who serves as an Aide to Camp to George Washington and Lt. Colonel in the PA line, serving in total from January 1, 1777 to November 3, 1783. She also notes that she married Tench on June 9, 1783, and that he died on April 18, 1786:
The next page is a judge on the Orphans Court in Talbot County, James Price, certifying her declaration is correct, nothing more, nothing less:
Then on March 11, 1837 a 82-year-old woman named Henrietta Maria Francis appeared before the Talbot County Orphans Court. She said she was “well acquainted with Col Tench Tilghman of Baltimore City,” noting that she first met him in 1780, noting that through the years it was recounts how he was an aide-de-camp of George Washington. She was also, of course, familiar with Anna Maria Tilghman, saying that she was the daughter of one Matthew Tilghman, noting also that they were both married in June 1783. Clearly she was related on a familial level to Tench: her husband, Philip Francis, was Tench’s uncle, whom Tench visited in March 1783 after their marriage.
She adds that Tench died three years after she married Philip Francis, with Anna Maria (called she after this section) having one daughter before Tench’s death, and another after Tench died (she must have been in labor when Tench died), and has since stayed as a widow. Others writing below her attest to the veracity of this statement:
By October 1858 it is asserted that Anna Maria died in 1843, with another Tilghman (M. Tilghman Goldborough) filing a continuing claim as they inherited her estate interestingly:
From there, Elizabeth Goldborough, likely the mother of the above listed M. Tilghman Goldsborough, turns out to be the daughter of Anna Maria and Tench! It is also noted that her sister is named Margaret who died, leaving her the only heir. This document, issued by a Talbot County Justice of the Peace in December 1825, shows that Margaret and Elizabeth were children of Anna Maria and Tench Tilghman without a doubt:
The pension goes on to say that Elizabeth is an heir of Tench Tilghman, and quickly notes Tench’s military service:
The next page makes it clear that all of those previous pages specifically related to a bounty land warrant claim, which is wrapped up within the pages of Tench’s pension papers, making it possible for Tench’s wife Anna Maria to apply for a widows pension in 1837 and Elizabeth to apply for the bounty land warrant in 1825, for her son to come back in the 1850s saying that now want to apply for the pension. This page makes it clear that Elizabeth’s request was granted in January of 1826:
In May 1929, the War Department tried to sort all of this out. As they summarized, it was clear that Tench served from January 1, 1777 to November 3, 1783 as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Continental Army and an aide-de-camp to General Washington, dying on April 18, 1783. They also summarized how Tench married Anna Maria on June 8, 1783, allowed a pension on February 13, 1837but died on January 18, 1843. They also wrote that they had two children, Elizabeth and Margaret with the former child marrying a man named Goldsborough of Talbot County, Maryland, while the latter had a son named Tench Tilghman, marrying a man whose name is not yet known.
The final page says that a “grandson” named M. Tilghman Goldsborough is referred to in 1858 but no other family data is known.
The next page just notes Anna Maria’s widows pension claim:
In May 1843, a man named Tench Tilghman said that he obtained a pension claim for a Mrs. Anna Maria Tilghman, widow of Tench in 1837, noting that Anna Maria died January 13, 1843 at age 88, if I read that right. He further notes that the youngest daughter of Anna Maria and Tench, Elizabeth (“Mrs. C.T. Goldsborough”), who was noted earlier, is an heir, while he is the son of the the older daughter, Margaret. As such, he asks the pension commissioner to whom the pension now belongs:
Then there is an earlier letter from J.L. Edwards, the pension commissioner in March 1837, saying that the papers in the case of the pension are returned as the evidence is “not being sufficient to establish the claim” because of new regulations on pensions. Perhaps this is what prompted the second Tench’s letter in 1843, for which a response is not known:
A further letter from J.L. Edwards, in March 1837, confirms that Tench did serve from January 1, 1777 to November 3, 1783:
Then there is a letter from a later descendant in 1894 to the pension office about Tench’s pension papers:
After that there is a 1928 letter by another descendant, Grace Cottingham Tilghman Bowen (who married a man named Charles Hay Bowen), leading to the response from the War Department as noted earlier in this post:
Second page of the pension specifically focuses on Tench:
There is much to be learned from this pension. For one, that Tench served as a Lt. Colonel and Aide-De-Camp from 1777 to 1783, and that he married Anna Maria Tilghman, his cousin, in June 1783 when she was 28 years old (born in 1755). Furthermore, it is also clear that he had two children with her, Margaret (older) and Elizabeth (younger), with the latter child born after the “demise of her husband” Tench. From there, Margaret later had a child named Tench Tilghman, meaning that she married a person with the surname of Tilghman, while Elizabeth married a man named C.T. Goldsborough and seemingly had a child named M. Tilghman Goldsborough. It is not known when Margaret or Elizabeth died, but only that Margaret was dead sometime before 1825 (when Elizabeth filed her claim for the bounty land), while Elizabeth lived until at least 1843. Furthermore, it is also noted that Tench lived in Baltimore where he met a woman named Henrietta Maria Francis, who was 25 when she was first “acquainted” with Tench, and she married a man named Philip Francis,the uncle of Tench, whom Tench visited in March 1783 after the marriage of Henrietta and Philip. All of this calls for another post to dig into this more, which will be coming to you from this wonderful blog next week!
 Pension of Tench Tilghman, 1837, B.L.Wt 1158-450, Widow’s Pension Application File, W.9522, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, Record Group 15. Courtesy of
Ancestry.com and Heritage Quest.
In March 1783, Major Walter Dulany, in the Maryland Loyalist Regiment, wrote to Sir Guy Charlton, saying that while he still saw “miseries” of American independence, and “acted with the great zeal, against my rebellious countrymen,” he never “forgot that I was an American.” A such, he said that if the war still continued after independence was granted he would resign, as he could not ” act either directly or indirectly against America.” Some have called this “an excellent declaration of principles and demonstrates just exactly what Loyalists had to put themselves through to serve the British. Not only a material risk, but one which troubled many a conscience.”  It is this spirit which informs a discussion about the sympathizers of the British Crown (often given the moniker of “loyalist” which obscures their role in this historical context) that joined the “Maryland Loyalist Regiment,” people who groups, like the Daughters of the American Revolution (and undoubtedly the Sons of the American Revolution), automatically dismiss as being “patriots,” treating them as noting better than “traitors.” As such, it is worth telling their story.
In come the Marylanders
While the Maryland Loyalist Regiment (also called the Col. Chalmer’s Corps, the First Battalion of Maryland Loyalists or the Maryland Loyalist Corps) is one of the 38 “loyalist” regiments which lasted from 1777 to 1783, very little information is available on those that served in their ranks.  However, we do know that the regiment was headed by a man named James Chalmers, who became the lieutenant colonel and had drafted a pamphlet called Plain Truth which was opposed to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the previous year.
Chalmers advocated for the creation of the regiment, which was granted in October 1777, arguing that control of the Delmarva Peninsula was important for success in the war, which turned to be correct in historical terms.  One of the other major generals in the regiment was man by the name of Philip Barton Key, who was Francis Scott Key’s uncle. According to his account, in December 1777 he met Chalmers in British-occupied Philadelphia where he commissioned him a Lieutenant while William Howe “permitted the enthusiastic Key to raise his own company, which proceeded to make dangerous forays into the countryside to recruit more loyalists.”  Due to his success as a “natural leader, [who was] brilliant and brave,” on March 1, 1778, he was promoted to the rank of captain.
The story of Barnet Turner, who I wrote about while working at the Maryland State Archives, gives a good general context of the regiment:
…The unit was created by British general William Howe after the British capture of Philadelphia in the autumn of 1777. Recruiting started around the captured American capital and later expanded to the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The unit was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel James Chalmers, a Kent County planter. After training from November 1777 until spring 1778, the soldiers marched up to Long Island. The unit stayed there until the end of 1778. It later saw action in West Florida until its surrender after the Spanish siege of Pensacola in 1781. They were later sent back to New York.
Other officers would be Philadelphia native Walter Dulany, the commissary general for Maryland, whose son Grafton served with the regiment in Florida, “where he died in 1778” and William Augustus Bowles (1763-1805), a Frederick County, MD “adventurer who had first lived among the Creeks after he was cashiered from the Maryland Loyalist Corps that had been sent to Pensacola in December 1778.” Bowles, also known as Estajoca, organized “Native American attempts to create their own state outside of Euro-American control” and convinced the Creeks to “support the British garrison of Pensacola against the Spaniards, but the garrison fell when its ship was hit by artillery fire from the Spanish ships” while Bowles, after the battle in Pensacola “was reinstated in the British Army, and went to the Bahamas.” Beyond that, he would establish “a trading post along the Chattahoochee River,” have two wives which he used “as the basis for his claim to exert political influence among the Creeks,” and later received and seen as a powerful leader “for Creek and Cherokee Nations.” I’ve written before about him, and his connections with the British.
Another officer was a man named Daniel Dulany Addison, a captain for the regiment in 1782, and a major in the corps in 1783. Beyond that, John Stewart and William Stirling were ensigns, John Stirling and Levin Townsend were lieutenants.  Also among them was a paymaster named Anthony Stewart who held that position in January and March 1783 at least. Other commissioned officers included Captains Patrick Kennedy, Grafton Dulany, Alexander Middleton (for a short time), Walter Dulany, Caleb Jones (former sheriff of Somerset County), Isaac Costin, James Frisby, and Major John McDonald. Eventually, captains of the regiment were eventually divided between the Eastern and Western shores of the Chesapeake Bay (I’m taking some of this text from my biography on Barnet Turner which I’ll talk about later).
In following years, the regiment would fight in Pensacola for the British (in 1778 and 1779), joined by other British “loyalist” regiments, all part of the British army as a whole.  The regiment was, when it marched “out of Philadelphia along with the rest of the British Army in June 1778,” consisted of “370 officers and men,” making it second in size “only to the Queen’s Rangers amongst the Loyalist units leaving the city.” In December 1778, in Pensacola, the Marylanders were joined by their “brothers” to the north: “183 Pennsylvania Loyalists commanded by Lt. Colonel William Allen.”  Unfortunately for the Marylanders, the British never fully trusted them, with Chalmers’ soldiers shipped to the war’s periphery, fighting “gallantly” in Pensacola, with captured survivors paroled, waiting out the rest of their lives in New York City. This included men such as John Noble, a corporal, who “was held as a prisoner of war in Havana and eventually repatriated to New York City.” By the end of 1779, the Maryland and Pennsylvania “loyalist” groups merged temporarily, later breaking apart due to the battle at Pensacola.  Their “motley” group, fought for years to come in this part of West Florida for the British Crown. By February 1781 the united MD and PA soldiers “contained only 300 rank-and-file members” likely because Marylanders were some of those who took the offensive against the Spanish in previous months but were repulsed.  By May the number had shrunk even more: the “combined strength of both the Maryland and Pennsylvania Loyalists” was only 160 men.
By 1782, Chalmers, the gentleman in “his neighborhood,”did not have a full roster of recruits since the regiment was “very deficient in numbers.”  While officers paid for rations, by April there were only 137 in the Maryland unit, and 68 in the corresponding one from Pennsylvania. Even so, abstracts of pay show that depending on the number of officers 591-623 pounds were paid out, the equivalent to approximately $86,800 to $91,400 today.  That is a sizable amount to say the least. This proves what one historian writes about the regiment: that it was one of the only pro-Crown regiments that was “regularly organized, officered, and paid.”  Even so, over the years, the soldiers in the regiment, dressed in “tatters and rags instead of uniforms” (in the summer of 1779), with many killed by smallpox in Pensacola, and the unit suffered a huge problem with desertion.
What the Library and Archives Canada can tell us
While there are varying resources, such as this page by the Loyalist Institute or the Orderly Book of the regiment from June to October 1778, the original records, specifically muster rolls, tell more of the story.  Unfortunately they basically begin in mid-1782 as attested on a spreadsheet I put together using microfilm from here and here, within this collection, on enlisted men and their officers in the Maryland “Loyalist” regiment. I can’t thank enough the Josée Belisle of the Registration and Reprography Unit at the Library and Archive Canada, telling me, after I requested copies that
The material you have requested above is already digitized and available online. There is no charge for material available on our website. Please note that you have to do your own research within the microfilm link to find the appropriate document. To make sure your reference matches the document, you have to rely on the page number on the document itself, not on the pagination provided from the microfilm link. Please note that any material provided online by LAC is restricted to research purposes or private study only. Users wishing to use the copies for any other purpose should inform themselves of Copyright regulations.
I would say this article falls under the “research purposes” and “private study” restrictions without a doubt.
By April 1782, Patrick Kennedy’s company, of which James Chalmers and Walter Dulany were part of, consisted of a small number of individuals, seemingly only numbering 29 individuals, three of which were prisoners of the Spanish. These three people were: Frederick Beehan, James Cummins, and John Ratcliff, while other documents listed William Wells, Thomas Clay, and Patrick Hervey as prisoners (who were in different companies). Otherwise, the rest of the company was intact.
Daniel D. Addison — 1 sergeant, 2 corporals, 1 drummer, 6 soldiers (privates)
The Vacant Company — 1 sergeant, 2 corporals, 1 drummer, 14 soldiers (privates)
Additionally, apart from Chalmers as the Lieutenant Colonel, Walter Dulany was the major, Levin Townsend and John Sterling as Lieutenants, William Sterling, John Henley, William Bowles, and John Stewart as Ensigns while John Patomon was chaplain, James Henby was adjutant, Thomas Welch was quartermaster, and William Stafford was Surgeons Mate.
By October 1782 the muster rolls for all the companies, all of which were clearly not at full capacity, likely from fighting the Spanish and because they were at the “edge” of the British empire meaning that it was hard to get new recruits. They could keep getting pay for the Officers and Private Men but that wouldn’t change much about the loss within their ranks.
Starting with Patrick Kennedy’s company, none deserted that month, but those who had been prisoners with the Spanish rejoined the company. One man, John Patterson (same as John Patomon listed earlier), the Chaplain, was in Newton, while soldier James Orchard was in the hospital and soldier John Urguhart was sent to serve in James Frisby’s company. A reprint of that muster roll showed no differences among the enlisted men from the original.
Then we move onto Caleb Jones’s company. The original muster roll, and the reprint later on, showed just about everyone staying in the regiment, with one individual considered to be promoted (corporal Robert Harris) but it never happened. More significant were the five individuals who deserted in October: James Start, Darby Riggan, Thomas Pittut, Nathaniel Luign, and Joshua Townsend. Interestingly, two of them deserted on October 9 (Start and Riggan) and three on October 15 (Pittut, Luign, and Townsend), making it seem that there was a plan to desert, not just a singular instance. Perhaps they were deserting and giving information to the enemy (the Spanish) or were tired of fighting on the “edge” of the British empire. We will never know their true reasons. It is clear however that this desertion likely would not qualify them to be “patriots” under the existing DAR standards since they would have to either assist the cause of independence in some other way possibly by enlisting in the Continental line.
From there, we move onto Dulany Addison’s company. Again, the original muster roll and the reprint, don’t show much out of the ordinary. In the month of October one man, Ephraim Tilghman, likely a member of the Tilghman family of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, deserted, while James Coland died on August 11, 1782, ensign John Stewart was on leave in New York, and Lieutenant John Sterling moved to Frisby’s company.
The same month, those in James Frisby’s company were also recorded. The original muster roll and reprint tells an interesting story. Apart from the five soldiers who deserted during the month (James Lowe, Daniel Jones, James Murray, James Tindell, and Barnard Foster), and the two “on guard” (John Cauh and John Cayton), the captain, Frisby, seemed to be in some trouble. He was under arrest! It is clear that Frisby had testified to a court-martial before, but now he was taken away in hand cuffs. Already, according to M. Christopher News’s Maryland Loyalists in the American Revolution, other captains such as Sterling would be vying for his company, so he may have been under some pressure. He had been a captain of his company since 1777 and was a native to Kent County, Maryland. While varied sources mention him, most often only as one of the many “loyalists,” nothing more about his case is known.
Philip B. Key’s company had a different story even with its dwindling number of soldiers as attested by the original muster roll and reprint. During the month of October perhaps the soldiers were more disciplined as there no desertions. However, Captain Philip B. Key was sick, George Fettiplace was reduced in rank from serjeant, private Matthew Bennett was sick in camp, John Ink and John Henderson were on guard with Colonel James Chalmers, John Stephens was working with Captain Key, and Christian Smith was on guard. If you subtract the five privates who had other duties, there were only 11 privates in the company, undoubtedly short of their full capacity.
Finally there is the “vacant company” which was given that name due to the death or absence of a captain. The original muster roll and reprint, recorded in either October or November, showed the company without a captain or ensign but effectively commanded by lieutenant Levin Townsend. Like Key’s regiment, there were no desertions but two soldiers (George Wilkerson and Joseph Tallant) were on guard while James McGuire and John Synder were prisoners “with the Spaniards.” That left only 14 soldiers within the company, which again is a number lower than the full capacity of a company.
To end this section it is worth looking at the pay rolls for October 1782. These documents listed Ephraim Cunningham as injured, and listed all of the deserters:
Ephraim Tillman, Darby Riggan, James Start, James Lowe — October 9, 1782
Barnard Foster — October 10, 1782
Nathaniel Ledger, Thomas Pettit, Joshua Townsend, James Murray, James Tindell, and Daniel Jones — October 15, 1782
That’s a total of 11 deserters in October! The pay accounts also delineated the six companies and amount that was paid to those in each rank.
That brings us to the ranks from August to October 1782 document showing that the Lieutenant Colonel is paid the best and so on, with 591 pounds distributed among the men and their officers. Other documents made it clear that there was only 85 soldiers in the regiment, well short of the number to make a full and complete regiment.
In December, the muster rolls of two companies were recorded: the “vacant company” and the other led by Caleb Jones. While the dates on both say “25 December 1783” it is clear these muster rolls really mean to say December 1782, with an error by the person writing it. For the “vacant company” little is said other than that Levin Townsend is going to England and that Daniel Fisher is in the hospital. The same goes for Caleb Jones’s company noting the enlistment of a new person as a soldier: Thomas Steeples on November 1, 1782 (further proving this muster roll is really in December 1782).
Interestingly neither muster roll shows desertion from the ranks of the respective companies. Perhaps this is due to some level of discipline within the ranks of the companies or that people had more dedication to the British crown in these companies than elsewhere.
Lets start with Caleb Jones’s company. By February 24, 1783, nothing had changed among his ranks. But with other companies the story was different. For the “vacant company,” Daniel Fukes, a soldier, was in the general hospital while Levin Townsend, the captain, was in England.
For Dulany D. Addison, his company was very small. It only had eight individuals in all, half of which were soldiers. One man, Lewis Barrens? deserted on November 24, 1782. This likely hurt the morale in the existing company. Then there’s James Frisby’s company. Within his company, Ephraim Cunningham was promoted from serjeant to corporal, a step up in rank and pay. While no one deserted, John Coah died on February 13, 1783.
Then we get to Patrick Kennedy’s company, which had all sorts of problems. For one, Jacob Rogers and William Kelley were in the general hospital while James Orchard and James Cummins died on November 15, 1782. Additionally, Thomas Gray and Mark McNair deserted on November 24, 1782. So, his company was facing some hard times to be frank.
Finally there is Philip B. Key’s company, showing that Philip Key was still in England while George Fettiplace, then a soldier, was sick in New York. Also John Ink was apparently not working with Col. James Chalmers anymore and two individuals deserted:
James Henderson — November 3, 1782
Christian Smith — November 24, 1782
In April there was a broad collection of muster rolls for varying companies in this regiment. Let’s start with Caleb Jones’s company. While Robert Laws and Joseph Newbourne were “on duty,” Robert Harris was promoted to serjeant, likely from his rank of private. Nothing else seems to have changed about Jones’s company by April.
As always, there is the “vacant company.” Again there were no desertions. However, Levin Townsend was in England while Ambrose Miles and Lawrence Messit were in the “general hospital.” Then there is Patrick Kennedy’s company. Apart from showing Nicholas Branch from the New Jersey volunteers (as was shown in February), Jacob Rodgers and William Kelley were in the “general hospital” while there was at least one desertion, the name(s) of which aren’t known because the paper is cut off at that point.
From here we move to muster rolls which both end in April. One covers a series of months and ends on April 24.
The first of these worth examining is for Dulany D. Addison‘s company. It again shows Lewis Barrens’s desertion and is a bit similar to the one from February, with little change. However, the second muster roll shows Jacob Ramson on duty, with no other changes.
The second of these is the muster roll of James Frisby’s company. While James Frisby was sick and Ephraim Cunningham was promoted, John Coah is noted as dying on February 13, 1783. No other changes from the previous muster roll is noted here. However, the second muster roll issued later that month notes that James Frisby resigned in March as a captain. As the previous search for Frisby turned up almost nothing, so it unlikely there are any writings, available online, about his resignation.
Finally there is Philip B. Key’s company. Again, little has changed from the previous muster roll as Philip B. Key is still in England and George Fettiplace is sick in New York. However, John Ink is again working with Col. James Chalmers but “present on parade.” The muster roll later that month is slightly different. It shows William Wells and Samuel Woodward “on guard” while John Ink is still with Col. James Chalmers, and George Fettiplace is restored to being a serjeant (by order of Col. Chalmers) even as he is still sick in New York. Nothing else seems to be changed as Philip B. Key is still in England.
There is only one muster roll that falls into this category is for Patrick Kennedy’s company. It shows Lt. Col James Chalmers and Chaplain John Patterson in New York while William Kelley is in the “general hospital.” No other changes from the previous muster roll can be found.
Those pesky Continentals
From my research, mainly relying on articles by other scholars, there are (at least) five individuals (all soldiers) who seems to have deserted from their regiments in the Continental Army and joined the Maryland “Loyalist” Regiment.
On November 6, 1777, two men from the 8th Pennsylvania Regiment joined the MD regiment (Jacob Ringler and John Kelley), along with another man likely on that date from the same PA regiment: John Sullivan. Interestingly John Ringler deserted on February 27, 1778 from the MD Regiment and rejoined his old regiment the following month, from which he deserted in May 1778. A wild story if you tell me.
Then there’s Daniel Gill who deserted from his original regiment, and sailed with the MD regiment for Pensacola, West Florida. However, once in Jamaica, he deserted on December 16, 1778. While he did not rejoin his original regiment, he joined battalion of New Jersey Volunteers attached to provincial light infantry and proceeded to desert again on January 27, 1781.
Last but not least is Barnet Turner, whose bio I quoted earlier, talking about his possible service in the regiment:
Barnet Turner was born in 1749, in Ireland. In early 1776, at age 27, Turner enlisted as a private in Edward Veazey’s Seventh Independent Company. He was five feet, five and half inches tall…Turner served with his company at the Battle of Brooklyn in late August 1776…Turner’s fate at the Battle of Brooklyn is not known. On December 25, 1777, a man with the same name as Turner joined the Maryland Loyalists Regiment…If Turner had served in this regiment, he was there for only a short time, deserting on August 6, 1778, when it was en route to the eastern part of Long Island. Ultimately, further facts about Turner’s life cannot be ascertained.
After the war
With the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Maryland “Loyalist” Regiment was disbanded. Many of the members of the regiment embarked for Nova Scotia (specifically New Brunswick) from New York on a ship called the HMS Martha. However, the ship wrecked in the Bay of Fundy after the captain refused to lower lifeboats until he could row away on his own, with over a hundred killed, with only 72 of the 137 Marylanders surviving.  As the survivors came to Nova Scotia with nothing left but promises of land and the clothes they were wearing, “cold, wet, hungry, and exhausted” while some historian declared years later: that this is “the price that came with being on the wrong side of history.” Todd W. Braisted wrote about this shipwreck specifically in the Journal of the American Revolution, telling more of the story:
…Five years later [in 1783], after campaigns primarily against the Spanish forces invading West Florida, the corps mustered less then ninety enlisted men. With preliminary articles of peace in the spring of 1783, their days as soldiers were coming to an end. And if they desired to remain living under His Majesty’s government, then they would need new homes…Those not wishing to leave received their discharges the first week of September, including sixteen of the Maryland Loyalists…Among them were 122 men, women and children from the Maryland Loyalists on the transport Martha, John Willis master…Besides the Maryland Loyalists, the Martha carried part of another Provincial regiment, DeLancey’s Brigade..,It would appear that the officers and men of the Maryland Loyalists and DeLancey’s were not the first survivors of the Martha to make it ashore…The troops from DeLancey’s would settle amongst the parishes of Northampton and Southampton, while the Maryland Loyalists drew lots on both sides of the mouth of the River Nashwaak, a tributary of the Saint John.
With this, the survivors settled in New Brunswick, specifically on the “east side of St John” and another grand near “the present town of Marysville.”  These who survived included Captain Caleb Jones, Philip Barton Key, “whose nephew was Francis Scott Key,” Captain Jonathan (John) Stirling who lived until age 76, dying in “St. Mary’s, York County, New Brunswick” just like his wife.
At the same time, Walter Dulany “returned to Maryland from England with his new wife, Elizabeth Brice Dulany,” in 1785, a woman who was the “widow of his uncle, Lloyd Dulany.” His wife even visited George Washington’s Mount Vernon that year, with Washington describing one of his guests as “Mrs. Dulany wife to Waltr. Dulany, lately from England came to Dinner, & stayed all Night.” I guess the fact they were on different sides during the war didn’t matter to Washington in 1785. As for James Chalmers, he was no longer welcome in the US, so he fled into exile, returning to England just like Dulaney Addison, a captain in the regiment.  There he rejoined the military, served as inspector general in the West Indies, did some writing and died in London in 1806, with Addison dying in the same place in 1808.
James Frisby likely went to Nova Scotia too. But he may have returned to Kent County by 1808 as a Richard Frisby, in Kent County, bought “seven negro men from James Frisby for five shillings” in 1802. In a note worth mentioning, Philip Barton Key returned to the United States and his seat in the Tenth Congress was contested since he was an “officer in the Maryland Loyalist Regiment” but he defended himself in a manner which might show a “changed viewpoint” :
He said that his constituents knew the very circumstances of the follies of his early life, and his enemies had represented to them that, having been over twenty years ago in the British army, he was not a proper person to represent them. The people scouted the idea; they knew me from my infancy; but I had returned to my country, like the prodigal son to his father; had felt as an American should feel; was received, forgiven, of which the most convincing proof is my election to this house.
There are many other sources I could have used in this article including page 149 of Washington’s Immortals, page 49 of “Loyalists and Redcoats: A Study in British Revolutionary Policy,” and page 57 of Cliff Sloan and David McKean’s The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court (New York: PublicAffairs, 2010), among many others.  Clearly the Wikipedia pages for the “Maryland Loyalists Battalion” and James Chalmers are utterly worthless. The Maryland Historical Society has a number of records relating to Maryland sympathizers of the British Crown, as noted here, to name some of the important ones:
This is just a start on the Maryland Loyalist Regiment but it is something that definitely needs to be written. I look forward to your comments as always.
Searching about the Maryland “Loyalist” Regiment once again, I found another individual who has switched from a continental regiment to this regiment: John Jasper, a Marylander. He was said, as noted by research fellow Natalie Rose Miller, that he deserted from the First Maryland Regiment in early 1778 and enlisted in this regiment in May 1778, meaning that he undoubtedly fought with the regiment at Monmouth ad later at Pensacola. Apart from this, I also found one site noting the general history of the regiment:
Garrisoned Philadelphia and New York; 26 August 1776, Battle of Valley Grove Long Island; 1779-1781, Garrisoned Pensacola; 9 March-8 May 1781, Besieged at Pensacola Defeated and Surrendered to Spanish General Bernardo de Gálvez
Finally, I found a blog which chronicles the “Genealogy of United Empire Loyalists in New Brunswick, Canada” which has pages on the following members of this regiment:
 David W. Guth, Bridging the Chesapeake: A ‘Fool Idea’ That Unified Maryland (Blomington, IN: Archway Publishing, 2017), 64.
 Sina Dubovoy, The Lost World of Francis Scott Key (Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 53; <Sabine, The American Loyalists, 410.
 Sabine, The American Loyalists, 633-634, 650; Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 336, 423, 428.
 The latter link cites James Moody, Lieut. James Moody’s Narrative of his Exertions and Sufferings in the Cause of Government, since the Year 1776, Richardson and Urquhart (London, 1783), 8-9.
 Siebert, Wilbur H. “The Loyalists in West Florida and the Natchez District.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 2, no. 4, 1916, pp. 473;Guth, Bridging the Chesapeake, 64-65.
 René Chartrand, American Loyalist Troops 1775–84 (US: Osprey Publishing, 2008), 8, 14, 16; Siebert, “The Loyalists in West Florida and the Natchez District,” 474. Seibert talks about PA Loyalists at entrance to harbor
 Siebert, “The Loyalists in West Florida and the Natchez District,” 476.
 Sabine, The American Loyalists, 204; William Odber Raymond, The United Empire Loyalists, 36; Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Vol. III (Hereford: Anthony Brothers Limited, 1907), 87, 107, 280; Siebert, “The Loyalists in West Florida and the Natchez District,” 481.
 Lorenzo Sabine, The American Loyalists: Or, Biographical Sketches of Adherents to the British Crown in the War of the Revolution; Alphabetically Arranged; with a Preliminary Historical Essay (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1847), 60-61; Robert S. Allen, Loyalist Literature: An Annotated Bibliographic Guide to the Writings on the Loyalists of the American Revolution (Toronto: Dundurn Press Limited, 1982), 44. Other units created at the same time included the Roman Catholic Volunteers unit and the First Pennsylvania Loyalist Battalion/Regiment.
 For more see Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. Orderly Book of the “Maryland Loyalists Regiment” . . . 1778. Brooklyn: Historical Printing Club, 1891. The book is also mentioned here, here (full book), and here.
 Siebert, “The Loyalists in West Florida and the Natchez District,” 482; Guth, Bridging the Chesapeake, 65; William Odber Raymond, The United Empire Loyalists (St. Stephen, N.B.: Saint Croix Printing and Publishing Co., 1893), 38. The Provencal Archives of New Brunswick, Canada adds that “one unfortunate ship, the Martha, having on board detachments of the Maryland loyalists and of de Lancey’s third battalion, was wrecked on a ledge of rocks near Yarmouth, and out of 174 souls about 100 were lost. The other vessels arrived safely after a voyage of from ten to twelve days.”
 Sabine, The American Loyalists, 62, 634; Theodore Corbett, Revolutionary Chestertown: Loyalists and Rebels on Maryland’s Eastern Shore (Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2014), 120; William Odber Raymond, The United Empire Loyalists, 43.
 Maryland in Prose and Poetry: Recitations and Readings Pertaining to the State, pp 222-223.
 Other sources include: Kathleen DuVal, Independence Lost: Lives on the Edge of the American Revolution (New York: Random House, 2016, paperback), 113-114, 155, 165, 182, 204, 215; issue 68 in 1973, article in Maryland Historical Magazine by Mayer and Bachmann titled “The First Battalion of Maryland Loyalists”); Murtie Jane Clark, Loyalists in the Southern Campaign of the Revolutionary War (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1981), 16-17; Mary K. Meyer and Virginia B. Bachman, “Genealogica Marylandia: The First Battalion of Maryland Loyalists,” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 68, No. 2, summer 1973, 199, 209; M. Christopher New, Maryland Loyalists in the American Revolution (Centreville, Maryland: Tidewater Publishers, 1996), xi, xii, 20, 45-46, 49-51, 57-58, 63, 65, 82-83, 89-95, 100, 151, 148; Albert W. Haarmann, “The Siege of Pensacola: An Order of Battle,” The Florida Historical Quarterly 44, no. 3 (1966): 193-199; Timothy James Wilson, “”Old Offenders:” Loyalists in the Lower Delmarva Peninsula, 1775-1800″ (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1998), 116, 179-180, 182-183; Richard Arthur Overfield, “Loyalists of Maryland During the American Revolution” (PhD diss., University of Maryland College Park, 1968), 207, 214-215, 234, 237-238, 243; Robert Mann, Wartime Dissent in America: A History and Anthology (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2010), 15-17; David H. White, “The Spaniards and William Augustus Bowles in Florida, 1799-1803,” The Florida Historical Quarterly 54, no. 2 (1975): 145-155; Major Walter Dulany, Maryland Loyalists to General Carleton, New York 13 April 1783, PRO 30/55/10078; nd Major Walter Dulany, Maryland Loyalists to General Carleton, New York 13 April 1783, PRO 30/55/10078. Sadly I can’t access this, this or this.
Recently at my job as a genealogist, I found a Revolutionary War soldier who listed himself as a “fusilier” in his pension. One of the former military men at the place I work said something like (and I’m paraphrasing), “oh, that’s just a rifleman” and as a result, I didn’t add it to the description of the service performed by this soldier, who had served in the Continental Army. But it is more than something to be dismissed just like that. From looking at this site and that (dictionary sites mostly), I came up with a rough definition of a fusilier:
A soldier or infantryman with a light flintlock musket (fusil). European in origin, especially British, something just a private or British soldier of low rank. Can also refer to a rifleman or light infantry.
Some have written that for the 30,000 “Hessian” soldiers fighting on the side of the British crown, “infantry troops and elite fusilier units participated in almost every campaign of the war.” But what about the continental line? The Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Army only notes that in the 1700s, a “basic infantryman replaced the four varieties of infantrymen that existed previously: pikeman, musketeer, fusilier, and grenadier” but says nothing about the Continental Army. Letters on Founders Online seem to only mention the term “fusilier” in reference to the British line (also see here) or Hessian line. Only one reported letter, other than a passing reference to a “Fusilier” company in 1775, from French Colonel Armand, called Charles Armand Tuffin, marquis de la Rouërie, to George Washington, which had a plan for “…two fusilier companies” among others as part of an organizational plan for a military corps. One website seems to hint at more involvement of fusiliers in the war against the British, saying that “German colonists in Charleston, South Carolina formed a fusilier company in 1775.” No other details are provided. Another website, reviewing a book about British fusiliers, interestingly notes that fusiliers were used by the British as shock troops, almost, against the rebelling colonists during the Revolutionary War:
Many Fusiliers — a unit name derived from fusil, a type of early flintlock musket — were trained to perfect these shock tactics that combined quick movement with a volley followed by a bayonet charge overwhelming the enemy before they could reload their muskets…the Fusiliers and other Redcoats could outfight the Rebels…Romances with American women helped take away more Fusiliers from the ranks than battles with the Continental Army…It took the influence of a former Fusilier officer, Henry Calvert, an aging Cornwallis and other British officers to reintroduce light infantry tactics.
Two pensions of soldiers who fought within the continental line name the participants as “fusiliers.” Sometimes it was even spelled “Fuzileers.”
The first is a man names James Starr living in Baltimore County, Maryland, noting that he would a fusilier in the French line. His pension says that he was a corporal “in the fusiliers in the First Partisan Legion, under my [C armand M’qis dela Rouerie] Command” and later a witness testified that he was a “Corporal in the Company Called Fusiliers stationd at York during the winter previous to the disbandment of the Revolutionary Army” commanded by a French officer. The second is for a man named John Matthews, saying he was also a part of the “company of fusiliers.”
Other records, even for the word “fusil” don’t seem to turn up relevant results, just sales of “fusils,” here, there, and everywhere. There is also other mentions of it as well. The term fusil became fusel or fuzee in English, coming from the French word of fusil as one site reports.The reality actually seems that “fusil, fuzil, and fusee are corruptions of the Italian word fucile, meaning flint.” Using the alternative spellings, it is clear that a fusil was carried by Captain John Mott when crossing the Delaware River in 1776:
It seems that at least within the Continental line those who were officers carried fusils, meaning that to call oneself a “fusilier” seemed to indicate a level of rank, specifically those who were non-commissioned officers or “noncom,” as some abbreviate it for short. Even major general John Sullivan was quoted as saying that “fusees for the Officers would be proper” but none were available at the time. They were prized enough that there is even a time when supporters of the British crown stole the “fusee” of a Continental Army general, Gold Sellick Sillman. George Washington even ordered, reportedly, the seizure of counterfeit “fusees” from France as some Continentals (and even militia) seemed to use those of Spanish manufacture.
While some describe fusils as something that was captured, the Society of Cincinnati succinctly describes them as a “smoothbore shoulder arm that was lighter and shot a smaller caliber ball than muskets in use by many British and American troops during the Revolutionary War” with officers buying fusils from France specifically.
Without going any further, it seems clear that within the Continental line there was no unit of “fusileers”/”fuzileers” but officers carried fusils (fusels, fusees and fuzees). That is what the next section is about.
Fusees in the Continental Army
Fusees were mentioned in varying revolutionary-era documents, apart from their mentions in lines other than among the continentals. David Hackett Fischer even mentions fusees, writing in Washington’s Crossing that “American troops were not properly intimidated by this weapon [Lochaber axe], and it was replaced by carbines or fusees in the New World,” with the Maryland State Archives noting that Scottish-born Maryland soldier William McMillian may have fought against his kinsmen in such regiments.
That Said Battalions, shall be armed in the following Manner, vizt. a light Fusee, fitted for Slinging, a large Hatchet with a long Handle, and a Spear, with thirty two Rounds per Man of Ammunition.
The following year, in 1776, fusees would be among the ordinances wanted for the Continental Army. In the same document, it would declare that “if the above port-fires, tubes, and fusees can be procured ready fitted, then the articles of saltpetre, antimony, and brimstone, mentioned above, might be omitted.”An orderly book the same year would talk about the “proper Quantity of fusees.” Also, in an account of Alexander Graydon, who observed the building of Fort Washington, in 1776, said that when opposing the attack of a ruffian, that he, “clubbing his fusee, and drawing it back as if to give the blow, I fully expected it, but he contented himself with the threat.” In evacuating Fort Washington, Continental officers even dropped their fusees and cartridge boxes as they fled.
By 1777, an orderly book for the Pennsylvania State Regiment described how “the Captains and subalterns [would be] standing with their Fusees over their left arms, are to bring them to an order and take off their hats.” The same year, the new Pennsylvania government looked to disarm supporters of the British crown, with weapons including “Musquetts, Carbines, fusees, rifles, & other fire arms, & for swords & Bayonetts.”
Alexander Dow, a soldier in the Continental line, recalled his use of a fusee while fighting alongside Colonel Aaron Burr in 1777:
Our whine the moon was down, and by full consent of Officers maid seekret and sudant atack / Emagining them to be one hundred strong Coll Burr proportenad our difrent atacks in platuns, he pitched [mine?] to Enter first without aney alarm and Chalange the whole to serender which I dide that moment finding them both Brave and Obestinat, as they flew to ther arms I droped three of them with my Baynet on the musel of my fusee by this time one stout felow atackted me in the same manor But I parried him off and in his Indevering to disarm me he Bit sevral holes in the Baral of my fusee, whilst my worthey [Serjt.?] Williams Cam[e] to my releff and stabed him Dead, I then turned on another full armed who beged for mercy I bid him serender his arms to me which he did into my hand, by this time the rest of our partey had dun ther part and taken one moar prisner, with which we finding no moar Live men we Cam[e] of[f] living sixten on the Ground which had a still moar Grand Efect for by ten Oclock in the morning the whole of the Enemy were Gon [?] in Great fright / thiss was on the 13th Day of Septr 1777
Ethen Allen of the Green Mountain Boys also recalled encountering a person with a fusee, writing that “I found a sentry posted, who instantly snapped his fusee [trigger] at me; I ran immediately toward him, and he retreated through the covered way.” Israel Putnam also reportedly used a fusee as well. One account of New Jersey regiments notes that “two other officers rushed in with fusees” and another talks about Continental soldiers facing up against British who had fusees in 1775. Apparently some of Benedict Arnold’s men were also armed with fusees. George Washington even mentioned mentions “fusees” in a letter from Middlebrook, New Jersey in May 1779. Two years later, officers, who were prisoners, had to give up their “fuzees.”
Recounting the travels of Dr. Paleg Longfellow, reportedly grandfather of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, James Thacher wrote about the use of fusees:
The party rushed suddenly on the sentinel, who gave the alarm, and one of his comrades instantly opened the door of the kitchen, and the enemy were so near as to enter with the sentinel…General Wadsworth was provided with a pair of pistols, a blunderbuss and a fusee, which he employed with great dexterity, being determined to defend himself to the last moment. With his pistols, which he discharged several times, he defended the windows of his room, and a door which opened into the kitchen. His blunderbuss he snapped several times, but unfortunately it miss-fired. He then seized his fusee, which he discharged on some who were breaking through one of the windows, and obliged them to flee. He next defended himself with his bayonet, till he received a ball through his left arm, when he surrendered, which terminated the contest.
One magazine, Postscripts, gives a broad overview of the use of armaments by the Continentals during the Revolutionary War. It is noted that
..the Continental soldier had a motley assortment of weapons: muskets, musketoons, rifles, carbines, fusils, pistols, wall guns and artillery, with a wide variety in each type…During the 17th century a light flintlock musket or fusil had been developed for artillery guards and for the light infantry (called “fusiliers”). These were similar to their bigger counterparts in every respect except size. Infantry officers–more often in the British Army–sometimes carried such guns, however. George Washington thought that guns diverted an officer’s attention and made him less able to capitalize on the swiftly changing fluid situations that developed during a battle…In the years before the American Revolution infantry officers of every army carried the spontoon until it was supplanted by the fusil
Apparently a number of those within the Continental line, specifically among Washington’s officers, carried espontoons rather than fusils. They were even mentioned in article 27 of a proposed treaty with France in 1778 as “fuzees.”
Fusees would later be used in the war with Britain between 1812 and 1815, weirdly called the “war of 1812,” as one soldier, John Roads, recounted.
In the end, the story of the fusil and fusilier says something about the Continental Army and the Revolutionary War. It is an evolving story.
Edward Giles was a gentleman that was different from the other officers of the Extra Regiment, who marched Southward just like him. After all, Edward had ancestors who were immigrants to Massachusetts in the 1630s and some of the “earliest settlers of Baltimore County,” specifically to “Old Baltimore.” His short life is worth noting, with its twists and turns, as it tells a story which has never been fully told in print.
In the final years of military service: 1780-1782
Edward was a major in the Extra Regiment as noted by fellow officer Theodore Middleton and a soldier named Giles Thomas. Remaining records of the Maryland Line would also show his military service within the regiment.  He held many other military positions. He was reportedly a captain in Hazen’s (2nd Canadian) regiment from 1778-1779, a major and aide-to-camp of General Morgan from 1779 to 1781, as he would note in a January 1781 letter. He was even made Brevet Major in Continental Army in March 1781 in honor of his role in the Battle of Cowpens, which he seems to have reported to Thomas Jefferson in a glowing account.  Until the close of the war, he served as an aide-to-camp of General Smallwood until the close of the war. Reportedly he also commanded Virginia militia in December 1780.  He was, undoubtedly, a “prolific correspondent” on the Extra Regiment.
I wish the [Black] regiment would be raised. I am of the opinion that the Blacks will make excellent soldiers—indeed experience proves it…As to the danger of training them to Arms—tis the Child of a distempered Imagination. There are some people who are forever frightening themselves with Bugbears of their own Creation. 
The following year, Edward would be elected to the Continental Congress. However, he would not attend that year possibly related to his military service, but the true reason is not known.  The same year he would defend Samuel Chase, who then represented Maryland in the Continental Congress, from charges that he had used “secret congressional information to corner the market on flour,” knowing that the French fleet would be arriving in Maryland. Specifically he wrote to James McHenry saying that the evidence before the Maryland General Assembly had shown Chase innocent and urged the author of the “Publius” essays to retract their charges. As a letter from Alexander Hamilton to McHenry revealed (also implied in McHenry’s letter to Hamilton earlier that year), he was Publius, which comes as no surprise. Interestingly, Hamilton was angry that Edward had become a champion of Chase:
…You know that I can have no personal enmity to him, and that considerations of public good alonedictated my attack upon his conduct and character, influenced by a persuasion produced by the strongest authorities, that he was acting a part inconsistent with patriotism, or honor… I could not refuse it to my own feelings, to make him the most explicit and complete retribution…As to the discovery of my name demanded with such preposterous vehemence, by a volunteer in the dispute, I conceive myself under no obligation to make it…I have esteemed Major [Giles] character; and am sorry for his sake that he has so indelicately entered the lists; and made himself, not only the champion of Mr. Ch——e’s innocence in the present case, but of his virtues in general, certainly at best equivocal in spite of the Major’s panygerics. He should have recollected, that by an alliance with his family, he did not ally himself with his principles; and that he degrades Mr. Ch——e, as well as commits himself by unnecessarily taking up the glove for him…an apprehension of his, or any man’s resentment is a motive incapable of operating upon me or having the least share either in the concealment of my name or in the moderate return I make to his invectives.
In sum, Hamilton is saying that Edward is using formal speech (panegyrics) to defend Chase but that by doing so, he has made himself a champion of the latter’s values. He also suggests that he is degrading Chase by doing so and standing by his side, allying with the Chase family. Hamilton then worried about people guessing his motives so he decides to keep his name hidden.
The next year, 1783, the county assessment for Harford County would note Edward’s large landholdings, living in the same county as the former commanding officer of the Extra Regiment, Alexander Lawson Smith. He would own a total of 1,401 acres in Harford Lower Hundred. These acres were parceled out into seven land tracts:
90 acre tract called Mats Island
a 50 acre tract called Hog Neck
a 147 acre tract called Shepherds Choice
a 770 acre tract called Rumney Marsh
a 28 acre tract called Shepherds Adventure
a two acre tract called Minorca
314 acre tract called Atkinsons Purchase.
Soon this would all change.
The last hurrah: A trip to Bermuda
On January 30, 1783, Governor William Paca and the Council of Maryland would write to Admiral Robert Digby of the Royal Navy. Guided by the “Motives of Humanity” he would describe Edward’s condition:
…Mr Edward Giles, a Gentleman of Maryland, is reduced to such a State, by a Disorder in the Breast, that his Physicians advise a Change of Climate as the only probable Means of his Recovery. As he is too Weak to undertake a long Voyage, his Friends are extremely desirous that he should try the Salutary Air of Bermuda, and it is at their earnest Solicitations that we have the Honor to request the Favor of your Excellency’s Passport for a Vessel to carry him thither, with a Companion and two Slaves to attend him; and Provisions for the Use of the Crew and his Family. Candor requires that you should be informed, that Mr Giles has been an Officer in the American Army, and that he is, at this Time, a Delegate to Congress. We know not whether it is in your Excellency’s Department to grant Mr Giles Permission to reside in Bermuda until his Health be restored, but if it is not, we persuade ourselves, from your acknowledg’d Attention to the Rights of Humanity, that you will be so obliging as to recommend him, for this Purpose, to the Governor of the Island [William Browne].
With the above letter showing his wealth, with two enslaved Blacks and a companion (his wife?), it is partially revealing. The following day, Edward would write a letter to Washington mentioning the above letter, noting that he felt “highly obliged” and hoped he could use the latter’s influence to “obtain the Passport and Permission as soon as possible.” As he described it,
“…With your Letter please to have that of the Governor and Council transmitted. I hope the Admirals not being furnished with the name and tonnage of the Vessel and number of hands will not impede the Business. It is impossible to give him this Information accurately as the Vessell is yet to be obtained. Thus far however he may be assured, she will be chosen for her good Cabbin Accomadations and her hands will not exceed eight. I am sensible that was Admiral Digby (tho’ an Enemy) acquainted with my Situation, he would blush to throw any obstructions in my Way. Your Excellency’s Veneration for humanity fills me with undoubting hopes that you will leave no means unessayed to accomplish this interesting Business. It is the opinion of my Physicians, that the month of March and April in this Climate might so confirm my Disorder as to make it an [ ] for Life. My Fate hangs on every passing hour, a small Delay may prove fatal to my Existence. Excuse the Anxiety of an Invalid, and believe Me to be with Sentiments of real Regard”-
This desperate plea would not go unanswered by Washington. Twelve days later on February 12, Washington would remark that he had received the letter, noting that the application should have “gone thro Mr Morris as Agent of Marine” and not himself, but since a “delay in the transaction of this business might have been fatal to you.” As a result, he sent the Admiral a letter immediately, noting that any answer he receives shall be forwarded to him.
Sadly, he would not make it another month. On March 13, the Maryland Gazettewould announce his death in a detailed obituary. They would describe him as a man with a “liberal education” and imbued “patriotism,” calling him a “virtuous citizen” and an “excellent young man”:
Using the first line of the obituary, one can easily calculate that he died on March 10, 1783, with others coming to the same conclusion. 
Over 148 years later, on December 1, 1931, Samuel K. Dennis, J. Hall Pleasants, and J. M. Vincents, would write to the “gentlemen” of the Maryland Historical Society about whole episode. They would write about how the council requested that Admiral Digby, commanding the British fleet, issue a “passport to Edward Giles” who seems to have had “tuberculosis of the lungs” and noted “Giles died a week or two later before the request could be acted upon” with subsequent developments thereafter in “humane amenities…between the belligerents” when the main hostilities seemed to cease.
Beyond this, little information is known other than the fact that his death would be reported in British newspapers by June, and a possible federal veterans pension in later years. Due to his death in 1783, this means he would not be in any of the federal censuses and would have no direct federal pension records associated with him. Regardless, he would live on, in some way, shape, and form through his ancestors and scattered records in varied pensions of others.
 Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1779-1780, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 43, 234, 248, 306, 314, 341, 530; Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1780-1781, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 45, 45, 46, 100, 211, 334, 514, 541, 617; Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1781-1784, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 48, 98.
 Francis Bernard Heitman, Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army During the War of the Revolution, April, 1775, to December, 1783 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1982), 248; John Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland from the Earliest Period Until the Present Day, Vol. II (Baltimore: John. B. Piet, 1879), 407-409.
 John Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland, 401.
 The Finding the Maryland 400 Project cites a letter from Major Edward Giles to Otho Holland Williams, 1 Jun 1781 within the Williams Papers, Maryland Historical Society which is quoted in Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1961), 56-57.
This post continues the series on Maryland’s Extra Regiment, focusing on the postwar lives of certain members of the unit whom information is plentiful about to explain wide-ranging trends. Mountjoy/Montjoy Bayly, whose last name can be spelled Bayley, Baley, Bailey, and Baillie, was not like unit commander Alexander Lawson Smith, who settled in Harford County until his death in 1802. Likely of Scottish origin, Mountjoy mmigrated from Virginia, living in Frederick Town, within Frederick County. 
By the end of the war, in 1783, he had, for the time being, ended his varied military career. He served as an adjutant, and later a captain, in the 7th Maryland Regiment, from December 1776 to September 1778, when he resigned, sending George Washington a letter acknowledging this reality.  Within his duties as a captain, he fought at the Battle of Brandywine. On the day of the battle, on September 11, 1777, he led a patrol of Maryland soldiers wearing red coats, with a Quaker and “well-to-do farmer,” named Joel Baily, thinking that they were the British and welcomed them heartily as a result.  However, Mountjoy soon would be out of commission for many years.
Within the sweltering weather and rough battle of Monmouth, in New Jersey, on June 18, 1778, he “broke a blood vessel” which rendered him “unfit for duty.” He remained unable to “do duty until the Spring of 1780,” sitting in a Pennsylvania hospital, as he said years later in his federal veterans pension application.  While he sat in the hospital, in an “unfortunate disposition,” his regiment was ordered south, as he recalls. Even though he was later considered an “invalid,” meaning that he had been injured in battle, he was still chosen as a captain in the Extra Regiment, which barely had a mention in his pension, only referenced in passing as the “additional regiment” of the Maryland Line. In later years, after serving in the Extra Regiment, he served as a recruiting officer in Frederick County and as “local city major and commandant of prisoners” in the town of Frederick as captured Hessian private Johann Conrad Döhla described him.  He placed people under arrest and oversaw Hessian prisoners, from 1781 to the end of the war. He even held a court-martial, in December 1781, in the town of Frederick since the officers commanding the militia in the county did not have, in his words, “the least Idea of discipline or indeed even distinction.”
Mountjoy’s life after the war
One year before the conclusion of the war, his father, William, died. However, Mountjoy still had many siblings and his mother, Mary, surviving him. He had six brothers (Pierce, William, Samuel, Joseph, Tarpley, and Robert), and three sisters (Sarah, Nancy, and Betty).  As a result of his father’s death he may have inherited his father’s land in Virginia, which likely included hundreds upon hundreds of acres. This is buttressed by the fact that Mountjoy was buying deeds to property in Fairfax County, Virginia in 1783 and 1784, along with part of a land agreement in 1782 with his father before his death. While Edward Papenfuse says he was entitled to 200 acres in Allegheny County for his service during the Revolutionary War, no record of his land plot in that county can currently be found.  However, Papenfuse may have a valid point in saying that he expanded his land holdings in Frederick County, including 47 acres of confiscated British property, and selling 192 acres between 1785 and 1805.
In 1784, Mountjoy cemented his ties with the Edelin/Edelen (Edelin is used in this article) family, prominent and wealthy within Frederick County, especially manifested in Christopher Edelin, a merchant who had become part of the local government in the county during the Revolutionary War.  As it turned out, Mountjoy married Elizabeth Edelin, the daughter of Christopher, with the connections between the two families continuing for years to come. He would have four children with Elizabeth, called by her first name in the rest of this article, named Benjamin, Richard, Eleanor, and Elizabeth.  Two land transactions the same year seems to indicate when Mountjoy was married. In September 1784, he paid a Baltimore merchant, Hugh Young, to buy a 450-acre tract known as “Victory” and later sold that same tract to Joseph Smith, who might be the son of the person it was originally surveyed for in 1773: Leonard Smith, when the tract consisted of 468 acres.  Since Elizabeth is not included on the first transaction, but is included on the second, this indicates she was possibly married to Mountjoy sometime between September 4 and 25.
Later in the 1780s, as Mountjoy continued to buy and sell land, Elizabeth would become more involved in these transactions, especially when it came to selling land. In December 1785, he bought the land on which his father-in-law, Christpher, previously mentioned, lived, which included a stone house and sat on a street in Frederick Town (present-day Frederick).  Not long after, he began his slave ownership, as much as we know. He bought an 19-year-old enslaved Black woman named “Pack” and an unnamed two-year-old enslaved Black female from Christopher.  These transactions were not surprising since Christopher would die the following year, 1786.
It would not be until 1787 that Elizabeth would agree with one of her husband’s sales. He would sell land to numerous individuals, such as Joseph Young and George Scott, while buying land from Benjamin Dulany, mortgaging land to George Schuertzell and Peter Mantz, a former major of the Maryland Flying Camp, as the Bayly family lived comfortably in Frederick Town.  This included one piece of land called Salsbury/Salisbury Plains which was originally surveyed for Christopher in 1774, and consisted of 131 acres. By 1789, there was another change: Mountjoy re-entered the US military in 1789 as a major, the first of his forays back into the armed services. 
Mountjoy, the Maryland House of Delegates, the “Whiskey Rebellion,” and French prisoners
As a story goes, on June 13, 1791, George Washington ascended a hill in Frederick County and looked over the “beautiful Monocacy Valley.” On that day, he was met by a “Cavalcade of Horsemen from Frederick” which included Mountjoy, and Colonel John McPherson, among others.  By this point, he had the political bug. While he had served as an auctioneer years earlier in Frederick County, it would not be until the mid-1780s and early 1790s he would serve as a delegate for Frederick County within the Maryland House of Delegates.  While serving as a legislator, he voted against creating a college on Maryland’s Western shore, supported the prohibition of taxes to help “ministers of the gospel of any denomination,” and helped prepare and bring in reports on inhabitants of Frederick Town and County. One year after his last legislative term, he rejoined the military as a brigadier general, serving in part of the Maryland Militia’s Ninth Brigade, based in the upper part of Frederick County. 
While Mountjoy only served in the armed forces, for the fourth time, from 1794 to 1795, he was involved in a strong assertion of federal power. From 1791 to 1794, angry farmers, which some call “protesters,” who declared themselves “Whiskey Boys,” attacked tax collectors in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. They did so because of the whiskey tax introduced by Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, calling, in part, for a more progressive tax code that didn’t benefit the well-to-do.  Thomas Sim Lee, then the Governor of Maryland, organized state militia and “took an active part in the suppression of the Whisky Insurrection in western Pennsylvania and Maryland.” Governor Lee ordered Mountjoy to rally local militia in the area, arm them, place a guard at the arsenal, and instruct another Maryland general, Smith, to raise a force of 800 men to “restore order.”  By September 21, the rebelling farmers were dispersed, with most of them rounded up and turned over to the civil court system, as Governor Lee triumphantly told Hamilton. Mountjoy also met with Colonel Thomas Sprigg about guarding the “the magazine at Frederick.” He wrote two letters about this. The first to Governor Lee, on September 10, with part of this letter describing the political environment in Western Maryland, specifically Washington and Allegheny counties where a “Spirit of disorder” existed, with “actual riots and disturbances”:
I have thought it necessary to Send with the Arms &c Ordered to Allegany County a Strong Escort Consisting of one Complete Company. This I conceive will not be thought over cautious when your Excellency takes into View the existing Circumstances, these Arms &c will have to pass through Washington County Where the people are generally unfriendly to the present Views of the Government. Under this Idea of things I conceive it would be imprudent to risque the Supplies which you have Ordered.
In obedience to those orders, honoring me with the direction of the troops which your Excellency had commanded to rendezvouz at Frederick Town for the purpose of repressing that turbulent spirit which had violated peace & order and seemed to threaten Government itself in the Counties of Frederick Washington and Allegany…For that purpose I marched about 300 Infantry together with 70 horse through Harmans Gap which opens into the County of Washington near the Pennsylvania line, a rout which led me through the midst of those people whose turbulency it was your object to punish and repress. This was done with an intention to apprehend the characters who had been most active in their opposition to Governmt and whose names had been previously furnished to me for that purpose. It was supposed too that the appearance of an Armiment would have a very good effect, and convince those who had lost sight of their duty that Government could send forward a force at any time when necessity required it sufficient to inforce obedience to the Laws. On my arrival into Washington [County] I proceeded to carry into effect my arrangements by despatching the cavalry in quest of the Ringleaders. But upon the first display of the Horse, I found a party from Hagarstown [Hagerstown] had superceded the necessity of any exertion on my part, by having previously brought in those disorderly people to Justice. About the number of twenty [disorderly individuals] have been apprehended, all of which have been admitted to Bail except eight, these have not yet undergone their examination but most of them perhaps all of them will be committed to close Jail, without bail, however this is but opinion. Martin Bear and John Thompson had been examined before my arrival, and although both of them had been considered as notorious offenders they were admitted to Bail and to my great surprize Cols. [Thomas] Sprigg & [Rezin] Davis were their Securities. It is however but proper to add that upon the examination of these two men their was no evidence of their guilt save the general report as I am informed by those who were present 
Five years later, in September 1799, a captain in the First Regiment of Artillerists and Engineers, named Staats Morris (not the same as the British general of the same name) wrote to Hamilton about fifty French prisoners held by Mountjoy in Frederick Town. He says that
I have the honor to inform you that Lieut. Dyson returned from Frederick Town last night, having delivered the French prisoners (fifty in number) to Genl. Baily, as will appear by the enclosed receipt. By his report Lieut Newnan’s command is thought necessary as a guard over them. There have been several new cases of the fever at the fort since the date of my last letter; but from the report of the Surgeon and from the change in the weather, I am led to hope none will prove fatal. In my last letter I had the painful task of communicating to you the death of my young Kinsman, Lieut Lawrence Your letter received since containing orders for him (which I took the liberty of opening) has therefore been destroyed…[bottom:] enclosing Mountjoy Bayly’s receipt for fifty French prisoners
The same year, Mountjoy, a literate Presbyterian, planter, and “gentleman,” would become a charter member of the Society of Cincinnati, a group of former revolutionary war officers.  Specifically, he would be one of the original members of the Society’s branch in Maryland.
Mountjoy, slavery, and land transactions in the 1790s
In 1790, the Bayly family still lived in Frederick, Maryland. While living there, with the honorary title of Major still attached to his name, he owned ten enslaved Blacks, and had fourteen other “free white persons,” six of which were his family, including himself and his wife, but eight others are not known.  The same year, he further cemented his tie with the slave trade and southern slavery in the United States. He signed an agreement which sold a 17-year-old woman, named “Jenny,” to him but also agreed to manumit her at age 31, in 1807, when she would be “free” from the chains of human bondage.  It is worth noting that manumission was not a progressive action but was part of the framework of slavery itself, part of the slave system, and hence it was nothing novel as some slave traders would easily disregard manumissions while “free” Black people could still face harsh discrimination.
In later years, Mountjoy would continue his buying and selling of land, with just about each transaction ok’d by his wife, possibly indicating they worked together on business decisions, which would make sense considering she was part of the large landowning Edelin family. He would sell land to Peter Mantz, William Campbell, both of whom were revolutionary war veterans, and Henry Elser.  He would also be involved in a lawsuit about purchasing Venus and Badgen Hole, within Frederick county, and be involved in agreements about land in Virginia. The land he would sell would include a “century-old tract of land,” consisting of 120 acres, known for a long time as “Middle Plantation” which sits in the village of Mount Pleasant, with its “beautiful horse farms” as one website claims. He would also sell a part of a tract sitting on Flat Run called “Alexander’s Prospect” which was originally surveyed in 1766, consisting of 310 acres, which he bought (at a time when the acreage of the lot had decreased) along with 255 acres of a tract called Douthet’s Chance (originally 280 acres), and 68 acres of “The Resurvey on All Marys Mistake” tract.  When he bought this land it was from a man named “Alexander Hamilton” who was living in Prince George’s County. There is no confirmation this is the same as the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of the same name.
Mountjoy also made a number of land purchases.  He bought 184 acres of differing tracts, some within Emmitsburg, Frederick County, from John Payder of York County, Pennsylvania, whom he had sold certain lands before. Also, he was part of agreements between the Edelin and Bayly families, among others, over the division of the estate of his father–in-law, Christopher, and dividing up the estate of Charles M. Turner, a related party.  In later years, he would be a witness to the marriage of Susanna Ringer and Abraham Krumm (listed as “Mount Joy Bailey”) and would be involved in a case against William Sprigg Bowie and John S. Brookes of Frederick County within the state’s court system.
Mountjoy, the slave trade, Republicanism, and land deals
By 1800, the Bayly family was still living in Frederick County, but this time specifically in the town of Liberty, likely referring to Libertytown, Maryland, a small town which is currently has only 950 people. While living there, the household consisted of 26 individuals, 14 who were enslaved Black laborers, twelve of whom were White, six of which included Mountjoy and and his family, the other six not currently known.  In later years, he would show that he was directly involved in proceedings about enslaved Blacks. In 1801, he would request that certificate of the sale of two enslaved Black women, Rachel and Nell to Lindsey Delashmutt, and two years later, in 1803, he would attend a proceeding determining if two enslaved Blacks were delivered to their appropriate “master” for said enslaved Blacks. 
In the early 1800s, other than watching French prisoners (still) in Frederick Town, he would seem to show his political affiliation. In 1803 he would write Thomas Jefferson, the sitting president a letter, about a “sulphur spring,” noting that this letter was written from Georgetown, indicating that he had moved within the boundary of the District of Columbia. The following year, he would again write from Georgetown about a land dispute where he is living and the selling of sulpur, which could benefit the United States. To this letter, Jefferson replied and said that he agreed with Mountjoy. No other letters are known. However, this could indicate that the political affiliation of Mountjoy was Democratic-Republican, or Republican for short, since many of those in this category were farmers, slaveowners (like himself), and others, who wanted less government intrusion into their lives.
In this first decade of the 19th century, Mountjoy would sell and buy land like never before, which his wife, Elizabeth, continued to agree with. He would sell 154 acres to William Emmit, land which was part of Monocacy Manor to John Ringer, and sells three different tracts all consisting of more than 48 acres to a man named Patrick Reed.  Monocacy Manor, within Frederick County, included “26 dwellings with a stone base chimney” and sat on the Monocacy River, bordered by a dwelling known as Woods Mill Farm. In 1801, Mountjoy gave a man named Michael Dutro part of his estate and interest in a lot which consisted of Monococy Manor. 
The Dutro (also spelled Dutrow, Dotterer, Detro, Duderoe, Tuttero, Dudderar) family was owned hundreds of acres and an estate/farm in within the county, since it was an “old Frederick County family” as one writer put it.  As for Michael, he was described as a Federalist in 1796, living in the same county as another officer of the Maryland Extra Regiment, Samuel Cock who is described on the next page as a Democratic-Republican or Republican for short. Michael may have been born in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania. He was living in Westminster, Maryland, with three other family members, one of whom is his wife, and likely his two children.  This means that Mountjoy was selling his land to a relative local but also a person likely of the same social class as him.
There are some strange land purchases by Mountjoy which are not all together clear. I’m not talking about the exchange of lands between Jacob Jumper (gained 25 acres) and Mountjoy (gained 35 acres) in 1803.  Rather, I’m referring to the selling of his estate, right, and title to John Cockey, Jr. (likely related to this person) of Baltimore County in 1801 and the buying of John Ringer’s Estate, Title, and interest to (and part of) a lot which consists Monococy Manor, only six days later. These purchases indicate the move-ability of the Bayly family, but could also mean it is moving to a new jurisdiction. 
Did Mountjoy live in Washington County, Maryland?
Existing records show a “Mountjoy Bayly” of Washington County, described as released and no longer and insolent debtor, giving Samuel Bayly, Trustee to benefit the creditors, all the property, real and personal and mixed.  It further says that this individuals took all his bedding with him, and makes clear this transaction refers to Washington County in Western Maryland, not the short-lived Washington County within the District of Columbia where Maryland jurisdiction still applied at the time. It is worth noting that in 1774, Mountjoy was an overseer for his older brother named Samuel Bayly who was living in Colchester, Virginia.  Hence, one could make the argument that this Bayly is the same as Mountjoy we were talking about.
Further records, show this “Bayly” as living in Washington County, is an insolent debtors and a “petition from Mountjoy Bayly, of Washington county, praying an act of insolvency, was preferred, read, and referred to the committee appointed on petitions of a similar nature” in 1805. It also worth noting there is a Chancery Court case involving Washington County, specifically the “Insolvent estate of Bayly” at Clift Springs, a land tract seemingly within the county, which is apparently mentioned in this book. There is one entry for a “Clift Spring” owned Philip Barton Key in the 1790s, but it not known if this is the same property. 
In the agreement between this “Mountjoy Bayly” and Samuel Bayly, the following signature is given:
In Mountjoy’s letters to Jefferson, the following signatures are given:
In the land agreements by Mountjoy from 1800 to 1803, the following signatures are given :
From this, I conclude that the “Bayly” of Washington County, Maryland is a different person. In every single one of these signatures, except one, the letter M has a down curl. While he did write his name as “M Bayly” on several occasions, none of the signatures looked like that in the 1808 letter, which seems much neater. The fact that he did not live in this county is also reaffirmed by the letters he sent to Jefferson in 1803 and 1804 which were sent from “Georgetown,” a town within the District of Columbia. Also, the idea of him becoming an insolent debtor and giving up all of his property to creditors seems unlikely since no land records before this time indicate any sort of financial troubles. Still, some could see indicators it is Mountjoy. Ultimately, the only way to solve this dilemma once and for all would be to look at the Chancery Court case mentioned earlier, which is a case relating to the 1808 letter. However, this cannot be done currently as I do not have access to such resources. But, hopefully other researchers and interested persons can fill in this gap in the future.
Mr. Mountjoy goes to Washington
By the second decade of the 19th century, Mountjoy and his family was establishing itself in Washington. One year after his petition to Maryland General Assembly was accepted and he was paid five years full pay as a captain, he would be appointed sergeant-at-arms and doorkeeper of the US Senate. He would replace the existing sergeant-of-arms, James Mathers, who died on September 2, 1811, chosen as his successor on November 6th.  His time as a sergeant-at-arms would last 22 years, ending only on December 9, 1833. He only received $1,500 a year as sergeant-at-arms, more than the Assistant Doorkeeper but many times less than the Secretary of the Senate, even as people depended on him to keep order. While in this position, he placed his vouchers and certificates from his military service in the capitol’s senate chamber in 1812 but they were destroyed when the British burned the capital in 1814, just like many other records, such as the 1810 census of the city. 
Since there is no census, that limits the available historical information. Existing remarks on pensions of revolutionary war soldiers, and other documents, shows that he was definitively in the city in 1818 (also see here) and 1819. There is also information indicating that he observed the manumission of enslaved Blacks in 1817, 1819, 1820, 1822, and 1823. There there is his federal veterans pension, for which he applied for in 1818 while living in the District, with certain records finalized in 1828, but he remained on the federal pension roll until March 1836 as existing records indicate. 
A site, “Early Washington, D.C. Law and Family,” created by William G. Thomas and the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has bountiful information about Mountjoy. In 1814, he was one of 12 members on a jury that ruled in favor of two enslaved Blacks (John and Serena) and against a preacher/slaveowner named Henry Moscross. The same occurred in a case between three enslaved Black females (a mother named Rachel and her two children Eliza and Jane) and Henry Jarvis. The same year, he was part of a jury that ruled against an enslaved Black man named Emanuel Gasbury of Northumberland County, Virginia, and in favor a slaveowner named Henry W. Ball. However, by 1816, Mountjoy was a witness to a seeming marriage bond between Richard Love, Car Withers, and Thomas Langston. Nothing else, even looking at the existing page for Mountjoy on the subject, is currently known.
Mountjoy and the Fourth Washington Ward
In 1820, the year that the city’s charter was changed, the Bayly family reappears on the census, living Washington Ward 4, Washington City, part of the District of Columbia. One enslaved Black female, aged 26-44, one free Black man, over age 45, and six “free white persons” are listed as part of the household.  The six White peoples are his son Benjamin (age 16-18), his son Richard (age 16-25), himself (over age 45), his daughter Eleanor (age 16-25), his daughter Elizabeth (age 26-44), and his wife Elizabeth (over age 45). While it is not known how many enslaved Blacks he owned between 1810 and 1820, the fact remains that he did own 14 enslaved Black laborers in 1800, as noted before, so having only two laborers (one enslaved and the other “free” with the genders possibly indicating they were a couple/in a relationship) is a drop dramatically.
The Bayly family, living in the Fourth Ward of Washington City, was joined by 276 other households.  Furthermore, there is total of 256 enslaved Blacks (163 female, 133 male), 225 “free” Black people (113 male, 112 female), and 120 enslaved Blacks being manumitted. By contract, there are 1019 “free whites” living in this ward (534 female, 485 male). This comes to a total of 1,620 inhabitants, but only within this ward of course. The breakdown of this data shows a mostly White population within the ward:
Ray Gurganus of the DCGenWeb project, citing 1816 Washington Acts, 1820 Washington Laws, numerous issues of the National Intelligencer in 1816, 1819, 1821, and 1822, writes that in 1820 the city rearranged itself, making six wards. The second and third wards were the wealthiest, along with the area above SE E Street and to the Capitol and Treasury buildings drawing in the most well-to-do individuals, while wards in the northwest and along the river front was fraught by poverty, meaning that they didn’t attract the same individuals. Drawing from this, it means that the Bayly family lived in a district of households that were relatively well off.
It was during this time frame that Mountjoy built the Bayly House, with its picture at the beginning of this post. As the Stewart Mott Foundation describes it, he built the house sometime between 1817 and 1822, later selling the property, like the land transactions previously mentioned, to a lawyer with the name of William McCormick, in 1828.  Mr. McCormick would hold the land in a trust for a woman with the name of Alethia Van Horne. Hence, this land transaction in 1834 is likely related.
In 1822, the directory of Washington City residents described Mr. Bayly not only as the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms but also as “fronting the capitol square,” confirming, basically, that he was living in the house at the time.  Further confirming his presence is a letter that Mountjoy writes on Nov. 16, 1822, that is within the federal veterans pension application of Moore Wilson, a former soldier of the 7th Maryland Regiment:
Beyond this, very little is known. There is a record that Mountjoy was involved in an 1826 case relating to unpaid amounts by insolent debtors, where he was described as a “person of good understanding and correct demeanor” as even the defendant admitted.  Then there is a Senate resolution proposed by Thomas Hart Benton, a strong-willed Missouri Democrat, in 1830, which went to a second reading, titled “A Bill For the relief of Mountjoy Bayly.” The main text of the bill is worth reprinting here:
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the Secretary of War be directed to pay Mountjoy Bayly his commutation of five years full pay as a Captain in the Maryland line, in the war of the Revolution: Provided, He shall satisfy the Said Secretary that he was entitled to such commutation and never received it from the United States.
The last six years of Mountjoy
Like the 1820 census, the 1830 census is full of information. Still living in the Fourth Ward, the household of “Genl M Bayly” as the census shows it, indicates that he is living with his family,, including his son Richard, his daughter Eleanor, his daughter Elizabeth, and his wife Elizabeth, along with two enslaved Blacks, one which is a female under age 10, another which is a female aged 36-54.  The same year a “Mary Bailey” was living in Georgetown, just like in 1820 when two “free” Black persons were living with her). Likely, this was his mother.  If it was, then this would add an interesting familial dynamic to the story. However, more research would be needed to see if this is the case. After all, many people with the last name of “Bailey” are listed as living in this ward in 1820 and 1830 but it is not known if they are related to Mountjoy. 
This same census showed 341 household, a “Benjamin Bayly” as the marshal in the city, and many colonels and military officers living within the ward. Furthermore, using all of the pages within the census of this Washington city region, it is clear that there are 1,860 inhabitants in the ward. Of these inhabitants, 535 are White males, 591 are White females, 117 are enslaved Black men, 134 are enslaved Black women, 212 are free Black men, and 271 are free Black women.This means this means there has been an increase in the number of households by about 23%. since there were 277 households in 1820.
In terms of the number of inhabitants, there were 200 more in 1830 that were not there in 1820, an increase of more than 12%. In terms of the distribution of those living in the ward, about 28.5% are White men, about 31.7% are White women, about 6.3% are enslaved Black men, about 7.2% are enslaved Black women, about 14.5% are free Black women, leaving 11.8% to be free Black men. That means that 60.2% of the town was White, with the rest as Black inhabitants, only 26.3% of which were “free,” and 13.5% enslaved.
Coming back to Bayly, in 1832, Elizabeth would die from a form of cancer, if I remember his federal veterans pension application correctly, which misstates who she is, no surprise in terms of pensions.  After her death, he would marry another woman. While her last name is not currently known, thanks to Edward Papenfuse, we know her first name was Rebecca.  The same year (and the year following) he would, from Washington City, attest to the fact that Benjamin Murdoch and Theodore Middleton were part of the Extra Regiment.
In the final years of his life, little is known. However, there are indications that he was “praying to be compensated for extra services” as noted in the journal of the U.S. Senate for Jun 27, 1834. Also, in the Federal Pension Roll of 1835 it noted that he lived within Washington County, a county within DC, not Maryland, still receiving a Federal pension of $4,320 since the pension started in July 1828, and an annual allowance of $480.00.
On March 22, 1836, within his 82 years of age, Mountjoy died and was buried in Washington D.C.’s Congressional Cemetery. As he still owned hundreds of acres in Frederick County , one newspaper would write a short death notice:
On the 22nd instant, GENERAL Mountjoy Bayly, an officer of the Revolution, in the 82nd year of his age. His friends are requested to attend his funeral from his late dwelling on Capitol Hill this evening at 4 o’clock.
This funeral’s location is not known. It likely was not at the Bayly House, but rather was at lot 13, square 637 within the District, a property sold to Benjamin S. Bayly in 1831. It could also be at lot 10, within square 637, also owned by Mr. Bayly sometime before 1832. Using the information on an 1835 map of DC shows that that square 637 is south of the Capitol, and near a canal, which means that he stayed in the Capitol Hill region, only slightly moving around. This is undoubtedly the current location of The Spirit of Justice Park, and he could have been living in what was later called George Washington Inn, which was demolished to make way for a parking garage for the House of Representatives.
The only way to find this out would be to, perhaps, would be to contact the DC Archives. I don’t feel it is my place to do this since I would be intruding on genealogy research by the family itself, but it is open for any other researchers.
The years after Mountjoy and reflection
Since the last name of Mountjoy’s second wife, Rebecca is not currently known to this researcher, further family linkages cannot be determined. However, a number of aspects are clear. In 1838, Theodore Middleton, previously mentioned, would petition the US House of Representatives, saying that he served as a lieutenant in the Extra Regiment, wanting five years pay, citing Mountjoy as support. He would receive it, possibly indicating Mountjoy’s staying power.
Years later, in 1934, one ancestor of Mountjoy, McKendrec Bayly, would write the Washington Post a correction, showing that his spirit remained strong :
In one New York Times obit from 1910 it cites a person named Richard Mountjoy Bailey Phillips as dying. It is not known if he is related to Mountjoy. However, one Baltimore Sun article about Mrs. Sumner A. Parker has this line, which concerns an estate they owned, “the Cloisters” which was the Green Spring Valley estate of Mr. and Mrs. Sumner A. Parker.  The relevant part is as follows:
…Mrs. Parker asserted in her will that she and her late husband…built the Cloisters…[which had within it] furniture handed down by her great-great-great grandfather, Gen, Monjoy Bailey, from his home in Frederick. The testator said that her ancestor had been sent to Frederick by Gen. George Washington and place in charge of the troops housed on the outskirts of the city.
This is partially right as noted earlier in this article. However, it is wrong to say that George Washington sent Mountjoy to Frederick. Instead, he was sent on Governor Lee’s orders and was in charge of troops within Frederick County, not anywhere else, like this implies. Other stories I found noted how Mountjoy was a better and gambler and how Sterling silver knives, which were made in England in 1790, owned by Mountjoy, were stolen in 1972. 
In later years, in July 2012, the 1st Vice President J. Patrick Warner of the Maryland Society of the Sons of the American Revolution would represent the Maryland Society in a “ceremony commemorating Mountjoy Bayly.” That means that to this day, people commemorate him.
There are many resources I could have used here.  Some sources said that the pension file of George Heeter is related to Mountjoy, but no evidence seems to indicate this at all. A related book and page by Fairfax SAR chapter, give helpful hints, the latter used for some of the sources in this article, but they do not provide all of the information. Possible other sources are out there, like the entries in “U.S. War Bounty Land Warrants, 1789-1858” for Mountjoy (called Mountjoy Bailey in the record), or “New Orleans, Louisiana, Slave Manifests, 1807-1860″ of about 1831 which involves Mountjoy shipping a enslaved Black man southward (if I read that right), all of which are records of Mr. Bayly all on Ancestry which can’t be currently accessed by this researcher. Other than that, there are probably online resources that I have not found. More likely the records I don’t have here are paper records within certain archives and databases across the East Coast.
I hope that this article contributed not only to an understanding of the story of Mountjoy, but also how the story of slavery is tied into US history deeply, along with Washington, D.C. from 1820 to 1836, at least. If this article did anything to improve people’s historical knowledge and encouraged further research, then then this research did right. As always, I look forward to your comments as I continue to write on the stories of certain members of the Extra Regiment after the Revolutionary War.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119. He is listed as “Monjoy Baley” living in Frederick County’s Lower Potomac Hundred in 1776 here. The original paper record of this is in Box 2, f. 8, p. 1 of the 1776 Maryland Census. Bayly at some points preferred his last name to be spelled “Bayly” and at other points “Bailey” and “Bayley.”
 Ibid; Journal and Correspondence of the Maryland Council of Safety, July 7: December 31, 1776, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 12, 113, 179, 180; Journal and Correspondence of the Maryland Council of Safety, August 29, 1775 to July 6, 1776, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 11, 522, 523; Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 18, 189, 326, 621.
 Thomas J. McGuire, The Philadelphia Campaign, Vol. 1: Brandywine and the fall of Philadelphia (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2006), 185, 186, 368-369.
 Pension of Mountjoy Bayly, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, S-12094, BLWt 685-300. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Ibid; Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1780-1781, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 45, 356, 357, 358, 369, 658, 659, 660; Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1781-1784, Archives of Maryland Online, 16, 23, 33, 34, 72, 73, 95, 102, 103, 121, 140, 165, 204, 265, 477; Johann Conrad Döhla, A Hessian Diary of the American Revolution (edited and translated by Bruce E. Burgoyne, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), 200, 205-209; Pension of Erasmus Erp, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, Rejected Pension Application File, National Archives, NARA M804, R, 3.364. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; “Applicants for Pensions in 1841: Letter from the Secretary of War” within House Documents, Otherwise Publ. as Executive Documents: 13th Congress, 2d Session-49th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1869), 4. Some records attest that Bayly was part of the Maryland Militia after 1781, although this cannot be confirmed.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119. Walter H. Buck, in a letter titled “Bayley (Bailey)” within Notes and Queries section of Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 61, September 1946, page 256, asked if Mr. Bayly was related to Pierce Bayley of Loundon County, Virginia. It seems he was related.
 Harry Wright Newman, Charles County Gentry (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2002 reprint), 123, 140-141, 195-198. The Edelen house in Prince George’s County, Maryland may be related to this family.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Victory, Leonard Smith, 468 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, April 29, 1755, Patented Certificate 4960 [MSA S1197-5387]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Deed between Mountjoy Bayley and Joseph Smith, Dec. 31, 1784, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 5, p. 273-275 [MSA CE 108-25]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayley and Hugh Young, Sept. 25, 1784, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 4, p. 413- [MSA CE 108-24]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. Also referred to on page 5 of Liber 5.
 Deed Between Mountjoy Bailey and Christopher Edelen, Dec. 11, 1785, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 6, p. 230-232 [MSA CE 108-26]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Purchase of enslaved Blacks by Mountjoy Bailey from Christopher Edelen, Dec. 30, 1785, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 6, p. 250 [MSA CE 108-26]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Mountjoy Baily and Benjamin Dulany, Mar. 4, 1786, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 6, p. 344-345 [MSA CE 108-26]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly, Joseph Young, and George Scott, Apr. 7, 1787, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 7, p. 220-221 [MSA CE 108-27]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Mortgage by Mountjoy Bayly with George Schuertzell and Peter Mantz, Jan. 31, 1788, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 7, p. 674-676 [MSA CE 108-27]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Salsbury Plains Helpt, Christopher Edelin, 131 Acres, May 23, 1774, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, Patented Certificate 4198 [MSA S1197-4619]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly, his wife, and Johnson Baker, Jan. 6, 1789, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 8, p. 460-461 [MSA CE 108-28]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119. Specifically he would serve in the Maryland General Assembly in 1785, 1786, 1786-1787, 1789, 1790, and 1793.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789–1878 (DIANE Publishing, 1996), 67. I get this part about the “progressive tax code” from what William Hogeland writes in Founding Finance. I haven’t read his book titled The Whiskey Rebellion yet, but it is still worth mentioning here.
 Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1879 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1988), 49. He cites letters of Bayley to Lee and vice versa within vol. 18 of Red Book, item 138 and the Council Letterbook. Specifically see the following within Red Books: 1794, Sep. 12. BAILEY, MOUNTJOY (Frederick Town) to GOV. Militia preparations for the Whiskey Rebellion. MSA S 989-2908, MdHR 4583-137 1 /6 /4 /15.
 Founders Online cites “ALS, Hall of Records of Maryland, Annapolis” as a source, referring to the Maryland State Archives of course. It also says that “a similar account of these events is in The Maryland Journal, and the Baltimore Advertiser, September 22, 1794.”
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 First Census of the United States, 1790, Frederick, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M637, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 3, Page 165. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Manumission of an enslaved Black woman named Jenny, Jan. 12, 1790, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 9, p. 14-15 [MSA CE 108-29]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. This also means she was born in 1773.
 Transaction between Mountjoy Bayly and Peter Mantz, July 30, 1790, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 9, p. 331-333 [MSA CE 108-29]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly and Henry Elser, Oct. 22, 1793, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 12, p. 226-228 [MSA CE 108-32]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bailey and William Campbell, Jan. 23, 1798, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 16, p. 165-166 [MSA CE 108-36]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly and John Payder, Sept. 18, 1799, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 19, p. 41-42 [MSA CE 108-39]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. Campbell was reportedly a veteran who had served as a captain in the Maryland Line.
 Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and Alexander Hamilton, April 28, 1799, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 18, p. 241-243 [MSA CE 108-38]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Resurvey On All Marys Mistake, Alexander Masheen, 73 1/4 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, Oct. 23, 1755, Patented Certificate 3281 [MSA S1197-3699]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Alexanders Prospect, Alexander McKeen, 310 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, May 25, 1768, Patented Certificate 269 [MSA S1197-333]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Douthets Chance, Alexander McKeen, 280 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, Oct. 30, 1752, Patented Certificate 1177 [MSA S1197-1241]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/. When the Resurvey tract was originally surveyed in 1765, it consisted of 67 3/4 acres and when Alexander’s Prospect was originally surveyed in 1766, 167 acres were vacant and only 143 acres occupied. As for Douthet’s Chance, this tract was originally surveyed in 1750 and was 280 acres.
 Bond between Mountjoy Bayly and John Payder, Oct. 5, 1797, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 15, p. 659-660 [MSA CE 108-35]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Mountjoy Bayly, Elizabeth Bayly, Rebecca Edelin, John Lynn, Eleanor Lynn, John Hodge Bayard, Rebecca Bayard, Thomas Crabbs, Dec. 2, 1797, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 16, p. 96-98 [MSA CE 108-36]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Arrangement between Mountjoy Bayley, others, and Charles M. Turner, May 31, 1798, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 17, p. 28-30 [MSA CE 108-37]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. In the first deed listed, the executors of Christopher Edelin’s estate (the father of Bayly’s wife, Elizabeth) have recovered some of the estate, including the house, after it was under a mortgage, and furthmore, Mountjoy Bayly, Elizabeth Bayly, Rebecca Edelin, John Lynn, Eleanor Lynn, John Hodge Bayard, and Rebecca Bayard are paid 200 pounds and now have control of the whole estate. For the second one, there is an arrangement between the Bayly and Edelin families involved in dividing up the estate of Charles M. Turner, removing certain claims on his estate.
 Second Census of the United States, 1800, Liberty, Frederick, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 10, Page 221. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 At the request of Genl. Mountjoy Bayly, April 25, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 19, p. 307 [MSA CE 108-39]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Notice by Mountjoy Bayley, July 20, 1803, Frederick County County, Land Records, Liber WR 24, p. 557-558 [MSA CE 108-44]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Mountjoy Bailey and William Emmit, Sept. 9, 1800, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 20, p. 157-159 [MSA CE 108-40]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and John Ringer, Oct. 2, 1800, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 20, p. 213-215 [MSA CE 108-40]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and Patrick Reed, Nov. 26, 1800, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 20, p. 314-315 [MSA CE 108-40]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and Michael Dutro, April 18, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 21, p. 100-101 [MSA CE 108-41]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Millard Milburn Rice, New Facts and Old Families: From the Records of Frederick County, Maryland (Baltimore: Geneaological Publishing Inc., 2002, reprint), vi, 128, 132-134; Thomas John Chew Williams and Folger McKinsey, History of Frederick County, Maryland, Vol. 1 (Frederick, MD: L.R. Titsworth & Co. 1910, 2003 reprint), 781, 860, 982-983, 200, 1282, 1364, 1654-1655, 1657, 1716; John Clagett Proctor, Johannes Heintz and His Descendants (Greenville, PA, 1918), 80; Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 18, 681.
 Henry Sassaman Dotterer, The Dotterer Family (Philadelphia: Henry Sassman Dotterer, 1903), 74-76, 78; Second Census of the United States, 1800, Westminster, Frederick, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 10, Page 193. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest. Other sources, like History of Carrollton Manor, Frederick County, Md, show the long-standing roots of his family in the county.
 Account between Mountjoy Baley and Jacob Jumper, June 2, 1803, Frederick County County, Land Records, Liber WR 24, p. 557-558 [MSA CE 108-44]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and John Cockey, Jr., April 20, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 21, p. 118-120 [MSA CE 108-41]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayley and John Ringer, April 26, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 21, p. 121-122 [MSA CE 108-41]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. In the latter record, John Ringer’s wife is described to be Ann.
 Deed of Mountjoy Bayly to Samuel Bayly, 1808,Washington County Court, Land Records, Original, Liber S, p. 1020-1021 [MSA CE 67-17]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Margaret Lail Hopkins, Index to the Tithables of Loudoun County, Virginia, and to Slaveholders and Slaves, 1758-1786. Baltimore, MD, USA: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1991), 731. This record, apart from access on Ancestry, can also be found here.
 Further searches show that this property was purchased by William Claggett after 1806.
 Top signature comes from page 158 of 1800 “deed between Mountjoy Bailey and William Emmit.” The second and third signatures come from page 214 of 1800 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and John Ringer.” The fourth and fith signature comes from page 315 of 1800 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and Patrick Reed.” The sixth and seventh signatures comes from page 101 of the 1801 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and Michael Dutro.” The eighth and ninth signatures come from page 120 of the 1801 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and John Cockey, Jr.”
 Thomas J. McGuire, The Philadelphia Campaign, Vol. 1: Brandywine and the fall of Philadelphia (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2006), 368-369. McGuire notes that he served for years as “doorkeeper of the Senate and sergeant-at-arms,” and he spelled his last name Bayly. The People of the Founding Era database shows, that Bayly served in the army, was a Sergeant-at-Arms, Doorkeeper, and Officer.
 Pension of Mountjoy Bayly, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, S-12094, BLWt 685-300. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Washington Ward 4, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_5, Page 104. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Thomas J. Carrier, Washington D.C.: A Historical Walking Tour (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2005 reprint), 18; Washington on Foot, Fifth Edition (ed. John J. Protopappas and Alvin R. Mcneal, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 2012), 31. Carrier writes that this house, built in 1822, served as Bayly’s residence as doorkeeper and sergeant-at-arms of the US Senate. It does not mention the selling of the house in 1828.
 Judah Dulano, The Washington Directory: Showing the Name, Occupation, and Residence, of Each Head of a Family and Person in Business : the Names of the Members of Congress, and where They Board : Together with Other Useful Information (Washington: William Duncan, 1822), 15.
 William Cranch, “Patons and Butcher v. E.J. Lee,” April Term, 1826 within Reports of Cases Civil and Criminal in the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, from 1801 to 1841, Vol. 2 (Washington: William M. Morrison and Company, 1852), 649-650.
 Fifth Census of the United States, 1830,Washington Ward 4, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M19, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 14, Page 2. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Fifth Census of the United States, 1830, Georgetown, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M19, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 14, Page 142. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Georgetown, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_5, Page 51. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 In 1820, George Bailey, John Bailey (two of the same name), Lucy Bailey, Winder Bailey, and Winney Bailey are listed as living in DC. In 1830, a William Bailey, Lanor Baily, Thomas Baily, and Margaret Bayley are listed as living in DC. Even in 1800, Jesse Bailey (two of the same name), Robert Bailey (likely his brother), William Bailey, Daniel Bayly, and John Bealeyare listed as living in DC.
 Pension of Mountjoy Bayly, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, S-12094, BLWt 685-300. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Ibid. This disproves, once again, the idea he lived in Maryland’s Washington County.
 BAYLY, McKENDREC. Washington, July 5. “Gen. Mountjoy Bayly.” The Washington Post (1923-1954): 8. Jul 10 1934. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017.
 Hiltner, George J. “The Cloisters Willed as Art Museum.” The Sun (1837-1991): 2. Oct 20 1972. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017. An ancestry search of city directories reveals a man named “George MountjoyBayley,” a Sergeant, living in New York in 1830. It is not known if he is related to Mr. Bayly.
 “GAMBLING IN WASHINGTON.” New York Times (1857-1922): 2. Dec 01 1872. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017; “$16,800 Collection Stolen Downtown.” The Sun (1837-1991): 1. Oct 29 1972. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017.
 For instance, I found Mr. Bayly mentioned in this soldier’s pension, and numerous books within the collections of the Virginia Historical Society on the geneaology of the Bayly family apparently, with the call number of “F 104 N6 A6 v.86 no.3-4 General Collection” Reportedly p. 235, 236, 239-241, 244, 245, 247, 249, 250 of A Hessian Officer’s Diary of the American Revolution talks about Baily. He is also listed in letters I don’t have access to within the War Department Papers. Records within Maryland State Papers Series A of Bailey: “Receipt of money for enlistment purposes” (1776), “Receipt of funds for recruitment” (1777), “Order to pay and receipt by Capt. Mountjoy Bailey for militia pay” (1778), “Order to pay and receipt by Capt. Mountjoy Bailey” (1778), “Account of provisions” (1780), “Order to pay Capt. Mountjoy Bailey” (1780), “Order to pay Capt. Mountjoy Bailey” (1780), “Account for provisions” (1781), “Account for hay and corn” (1781), “Account for beef and flour” (1781), “Appointment as auctioneer and commander of the guard” (1781), “Court-martial of Col. Winchester’s Select Militia Comp.; need for wood” (1781), “Order to pay Maj. Mountjoy Bailey” (1781), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1781), “Sales account of confiscated property” (1782), “Insufficient number of guards for prisoners” (1782), “Request for funds for military expenses” (1782), “Order prohibiting liquor within the prison camp” (1782), “Appointment as sutler” (1782), “Defense of actions as commanding officer” (1782), “Defense of his actions; need for additional guards for prisoners” (1782), “Replacement of prisoner guards” (1782), “Lack of prisoner guards” (1782), “Deposition of Mr. Thomas concerning actions of Dr. Fisher” (1782), “Court of Equity proceedings; request for new prisoners guards; indenture of German prisoners” (1782), “Order to pay and receipt by Mountjoy Bailey” (1782), “Order to pay and receipt by Maj. Mountjoy Bayly” (1782), “Notification of debtors leaving the state” (1783), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1783?), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1783?), “Order to give his pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Request to give his pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay and gratuity to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay and gratuity to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1785), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1785), “Account and receipt for sale of confiscated property in FR” (1785), “Certification of Maj. Mountjoy Bailey’s services” (1785), “Statement of Mountjoy Bailey’s service in stopping pillage of timber from confiscated property” (1785), “Order to pay and receipt by Maj. Mountjoy Bailey” (1785), “Pertaining to Col. Wood’s request for a reappointment as magistrate” (1785), “Recommendation of Nicholas White as armorer” (1786), “Requests return of a letter” (1786), and “Refusal of Maj. Mountjoy Bailey to settle the account of Christopher Edelin” (1787). There are likely more records, so this is just a a sampling.