“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.
In our previous article about Mountjoy Bayly adding to the scholarship of the Maryland Extra Regiment, one man was among the regiment’s high ranking officers: Samuel Cock (called Samuel in the rest of this article). He was described as the captain of one of the regiment’s eight companies, the seventh to be exact, a “young man with some property and of a very credible family,” staying so until October, with payment to him indicating this reality.  In terms of scholarship, the return from Samuel’s company is the only complete list of men within the regiment’s companies that is known to exist. This article aims to expand the story of Samuel since it is integral to understanding more of the rich history of the state of Maryland.
Marriage and settling in
By 1783, a 29-year-old Samuel had completed his war service.  There was no more participation in the Frederick Town Battalion of Militia, within in Frederick County, as a first Lieutenant. That year, on December 15, he married an 20-year old woman named Mary Ogle.  Her father, Alexander Ogle, and now Samuel’s father-in-law, who had died nine months prior, on March 21, was a “lifelong miller” who would be paid a total of 66 pounds, eight shillings, and eight pence for supporting the revolutionary cause in his profession.  Had moved to the county many years before, in 1763, with his brothers Benjamin and Joseph. At that time, he purchased 250 acres of land on the Monocracy River’s West Bank, supplying flour to the troops during the revolution. 
The death of Mary’s father, led to a distribution of land. His wife, Martha, received some of his land holdings, but Mary received within her father’s 1783 will  were very specific:
To summarize, Mary inherits 320 acres, an enslaved black woman under certain conditions and land at the waters of the Buffalo River in Ohio County, Virginia which was sold after the Mary and her husband, Samuel made its home within the bounds of Frederick County.
In 1783, Samuel would require more land from a fellow farmer named Ezekial Beatty, described as from Loundon County, Virginia. Paying five shillings specie, he would gain a 600-acre tract named Middle Plantation, which had previously been given to a man named Thomas Beatty (undoubtedly relayed to Ezekial somehow possibly as a relative), who bought it from a man named John Hall; the tract of land was known as Middle Plantation.  The land just mentioned is over a century old, and was known for a long time as “Middle Plantation” and it sits within the village of Mount Pleasant, with its “beautiful horse farms” as one website puts it. The same day as he purchased the 600-acre land, he acquired even more, coming to another agreement with Ezekial. For 400 pounds specie, he bought 1000-acre land tract named Dulany’s Lott, which was previously owned by Ezekial’s father, Edward. 
This land agreement was no accident. Samuel’s father, Henry, was the brother of Susanna Cock, a person who married Edward Beatty. As it turned out, this individual “purchased 1000 acres of “Dulany’s Lot” on July 17, 1732.”  Hence he was buying land from his brother-in-law and the land-buying was, you could say, an inter-family transaction. It was around this time that Samuel, Mary, and the rest of their family may have been planting their roots in a homestead within Frederick County which would later come to be known as the “Capt. Samuel Cock Farmstead.” A map of where it is currently located is below:
It would be that year that the federal-style house, still standing, would be seemingly, built, with a central place in the farmstead. It is, as some sources have indicated, a 130 acre farmstead which sits within Frederick County which is set back from the main road, perched a hilltop on top of Mount Pleasant.
The Dulanys and inter-family connection
In 1765, Walter Dulany and his brother, Daniel, purchased thousands of acres in Frederick County.  The Dulany family had become one of the biggest landowners in the county. They patented 6,731 acres between 1753 and 1765, the majority of which they claimed direct ownership in 1765.  A sampling of some of eight of land holdings are shown below:
By 1783, Walter was dead, but other Dulanys were living, holding onto the land, such as Daniel Dulany, Jr. Four years later, William Beatty, Samuel’s cousin would claim six acres of Dulany’s Lott, a land which would only be mentioned again in an 1811 court case.  In the later 1780s, Samuel’s ownership of land would be tied again to the Dulany family, interestingly.
On May 13, 1789, Samuel would patent a 280-acre tract of land, resurveyed for him, called Neighbours Agreed. It would brings together numerous tracts such as Sandy Bunn, Hoboon Choice, and Chestnut Hill.  It is clear that this land was not where he built his homestead, which was undoubtedly on Dulany’s Lott instead. The proof of this is the fact that in 1790, more than a year later, he would sell the Neighbours Agreed to a man named Walter Funderberg/Funderbergh, who paid him 1,400 pounds for the tract, which was described as having buildings and improvements on it.  At this point, Walter had only a measly 50 acres, and seemed very dedicated to expanding his land holdings. So, it was mutually beneficial, with Mary, Samuel’s wife agrees with sale, possibly because of the money it brought the Cock family or some other reason.
Saying of this, here is a map of Neighbours Agreed which was within the document which proved that Samuel patented the land:
The same year, the State of Maryland would confirm Samuel’s ownership of land, specifically Dulany’s Lott, along with other lands like Chestnut Hill.  This may have reinforced his social standing against others who wanted the land. Not surprisingly, the 50-acre Chestnut Hill and 50-acre Long Spring were patented to Daniel & Walter Dulany in 1765, because of the death of Daniel Dulany not long before. 
Establishing a farmstead and becoming a “successful man”
In 1788, there would be some clue into the possible development of his Frederick County farmstead. He would sell, to a man named John Miller, the following , among some other possessions:
one black mare
one pied or bridled cow and calf
one black and white cow
three stacks of wheat
all the tobacco in his possession
one cutting knife and box
two linnen and woolen spinning wheel
two iron pots
one Dutch Oven
all his “interest in the growing grain on Capt. Liburn William’s place” and John Marck’s place.
In the following decade, the original portion of the farmstead’s house was likely constructed.  In 1790, he was counted in the first federal census as living in Frederick County with his family. Living with him were two other white males over 16, a white male under age 16, and three white females, and seven enslaved blacks, indicating that he was becoming a “successful man.”  These six “free white persons” were likely the five children of Mary and Samuel, along with Mary herself. The same year, he wold sell land again.
He would sell a man named Sam Devilbiss (possibly spelled Devilbys), son of Casper and described as a farmer within the same county, a part of the Chestnut Hill tract, previously owned by Daniel Dulany as noted earlier.  John, at the time, owned only 68 acres outright, with this transaction growing his holdings. Furthermore, it would not be until 1798 he would directly gain 794 acres and 22 years later an additional approximate 27 acres. Hence, while the Devilbiss family were moderate landowners, they were not wheeling and dealing as much as Samuel, indicating that John was more than willing to buy this land.
The fact that Samuel’s wife, Mary, agreed with the transaction, like many others seems normal. However, in this case there was, again, a direct familial connection. Two of Mary’s sisters, or Samuel’s sisters-in-law, Elizabeth and Rebecca, would marry into the Devilbiss family.  The latter lived along Monocacy River and marry John Devilbiss, undoubtedly the same one who bought a part of the Chestnut Hill tract! This means that yet again the land deal was an inter-family transaction.
In 1791, Samuel would sell a piece of land, with Mary’s agreement, known as “The Lost Tomahawk” to Thomas, Roger, Baker, and James Johnson.  This land was owned within the Cock family. In 1770, it was established that Samuel’s father, Henry had 150 acres of “The lost tomahock”/”Lost Tomahawk” tract, most of which had gone to Benedict Calvert, Charles Beatty, and Thomas Johnson. 
Four years later, in 1795, Samuel would buy land from Thomas Beatty, Jr. (whose father of the same name died in 1769), part of a tract known as “Final” which he sells years later; the unnamed wife of Thomas Beatty agreed with the deal.  This would be the second land transaction between between the Beatty and Cock families. No connection between Thomas Beatty and with Edward Beatty who married into the Cock family is known except for the fact that both Edward and Thomas were sons of Susannah Beatty, who had died in 1742. But, charting this information indicates that there is likely some relation between the two families.
As it turns out, the “Final” land tract that was patented for James Beatty and surveyed for Thomas Beatty only five years earlier. It is 264 and 3/4 acres . A map of the said land tract is as follows:
It was around this time that some have said is the “beginning” of the history of Samuel’s farmstead since that year, he bought a parcel of land from Cock’s Orchard in February 1795.  While the domination form for the Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission County Register implied that Samuel had a fruit orchard with the farm’s field patterns with wood lots with crop cultivation, fruit trees, and a meadow, other documents show that he had farm animals of many types. In April 1795 he told the Frederick County Court that he was applying “marks” to his animals:
“The following are the Marks artificine [?] hitherto used still continued, and included to be imposed on my Cattle Hoggs and Sheep to wit – both ears clopt [?] and two slits in each ear” 
Hence, he could have still had an orchard with fruit trees, but he also had a working farm, with a small enslaved population picking the food, tending the animals, so he was an overseer perhaps.
Land transactions and a dearth of records
In the later 1790s, Samuel would continue to buy and sell land. In 1795 he would buy from a county surveyor, Samuel DuVall, a tract of land that is part of Middle Plantation, with the number of acres not specified.  Priscilla Ann, DuVall’s wife, agreed with the transaction. DuVall was, by this point, according to existing records of Frederick County land patents, the owner of 320 acre tract he had patented known as “Give and Take.” By 1798 he would have acquired two new tracts, “Hidden Treasure” and “Rights of Man” bringing his total number of acres directly owned/patented by him would be 822 and 1/2. This means that even when Samuel dealt with him, he was a relatively large landowner in the county.
In 1796, Samuel showed his political affiliation. In the 1796 election he was listed as a “Democratic-Republican” like his (possible) brother, William, while DuVall, with whom he had bought land from as mentioned in the last paragraph, was a Federalist. This could indicate that Samuel didn’t care about political affiliation of the person with whom he was in a transaction with when he bought or sold land. While records show that he never ran as a political candidate, this affiliation is important to note as it puts him in a certain political context.
Four years later, in 1800, Samuel was living in Liberty, Frederick, Maryland. With him was one white male ages 10-15 (likely his son), one white female aged 10-15 (likely his daughter), and one white female aged 26-44 (his wife Mary), along with nine enslaved blacks.  In another interesting development, in May of the same year, he sold land of the resurveyed “Final” land tract to a man named Abraham Eader. With his wife Mary agreeing with the selling of land, he would would selling land he had only bought ten years before.  This indicates a level of wheeling and dealing in land transactions.
From 1800-1810 no records on Samuel or his family can be found. In 1810, he is listed within the US Census as “S Cock” living in Frederick, Frederick County with one white male under age 10, one white male between aged 26-40, one white female under age 10, one white female aged 10-16, and two white females over age 26 as corresponding the slashes with the census categories shows. There are also no other free white persons and seven enslaved individuals. While most of the “free persons” are undoubtedly Samuel and his family, but others are not known. Looking at other census information, it is all together possible that his children were Maria Cock (born in 1807), and Samuel, if some records are right.
In January 1814, Samuel would be a witness to the will of 40-year-old Abraham Haff Jr., who had died in December 1813. This likely meant he was a friend to this man, a person who had “considerable means and property” within the county, owning nine enslaved peoples, had an estate worth $5,000, and 535 acres of land which included, but not limited to, three plantations.  As it turns out, Abraham was also a Democratic-Republican elector in 1796 just like Samuel. So they may have had that connection as well. 
The final decade
In 1820, he was living in Election District 8, Frederick, Maryland, United States. While the exact location is hard to pinpoint even on an 1825 map, it is clear from this rendering and the map of 1830 election districts here, that Libertytown/Liberty was located within the District. Hence, he could easily still be living within the district. While the first glance at the census would seem to indicate two people with the same name, “Saml Cock” and “Samuel Cocke,” the first is him, since the second (the same people as on the first) has a clear cross-out by pencil or pen. In this census, in which he listed along with Thomas W. Johnson it shows him living with one white male under 10, two between ages 16 and 26, two between ages 26-45, and one over age 45 (himself).  It is also indicates there is one white female aged 10-16, one aged 16-26, one over age 45 (his wife Mary), one un-naturalized foreigner (who is among the free white individuals) and varying people of color. Of these 13 enslaved peoples, the following was present in the farmstead:
five are enslaved black males under age 14
two are enslaved black males between the ages of 14 and 26
one is an enslaved black male between the ages of 26 and 45
two are enslaved black females under age 14
one is an enslaved black female between the ages of 14 and 26
two are enslaved black females between the ages of 26 and 45
There are also one “free” black laborers, a male under age 14, who may be related to the above enslaved laborers. With such a number of enslaved laborers, it seems more and more that the farmstead acted like (and was) a plantation, although this has not been said elsewhere.
Six years later, on March 1, 1836, Mary would die at 63 years old, meaning that she was born in either 1763 or 1764. As a person who had been living with Mary for 43 years, most of his adult life, it is likely that Samuel was struck with grief, although we cannot know for sure and can only have a supposition about this. On June 26, four months and 25 days later, Samuel would die for reasons not known. His gravestone stays he died in the “72nd year of his age,” meaning he was born in 1754 or 1755. It is no surprise that he was older than Mary, as that is the custom of some men to marry those who are younger than them, even to this day. Samuel, along with Mary, would be buried at the Cock-Grahame (Beatty) in Ceresville, Frederick County, at his homestead, which sits today “near the corner of modern-day route 26 and 194.”  Reportedly, in his will, he left his farm to his daughter and granddaughter, whose names we do not know. Also, he reportedly stipulated that his enslaved laborers “be emancipated when they turned 25 years of age” although no record of this has currently been found by this researcher though.  This doesn’t mean the record doesn’t exist, but that it hasn’t been found currently.
In 1846, William Patton, a surviving veteran of the Extra Regiment, living in Virginia’s Wythe County wrote his federal veterans pension application. Within it, he mentioned Samuel, saying he had served as the captain of his company but also confirming the general story of the regiment even as his memory was ailing:
…he enlisted in Creagerstown Destrick Frederik County Maryland in the regular Army of the united States under Cap. [illegible] Cock Con’l. Green in one of the Extra regiments of the Maryland some time in the year 1776 77 the precise time I Do not recollect and served untill some time in March 1781 seventeen hundred and eighty one I was enguaged in the battle at Gilford some five or six day at the battle was decided I got my discharge which was signed by Genr’l. Green our march was a (follows) first to Annapolis Seat of government from there to Elk River from there Phillidelphia P.A. After leiving Philidephi for some time a gain returned to the head of Elk River and then back to Annaplis where the remained for some time afterwards marched through the State of Virginia and then on to North carolina and was at the battle of gilford in March 1781 my discharge I got wet wile Dear hunting is the way I got it Destroyed – about the above Name officers I may have been transfered in to Capt. Mountjoy Bailey Company as the all was transfered from [undeciphered word] to there”
This is the only known reference to Samuel Cock within a federal veterans pension application to the knowledge of this researcher.
The same year, Frederick County farmer Chester Coleman, possibly still living at the farmstead, asked for $125 for
…additional labor in securing our harvest, which is always a cash consideration among farmers here. Elaborating on farmhands’ ability to command higher wages and immediate payment during the preceding harvest, Coleman explained that “to obtain a day’s labor I must either pay in advance or as soon as the day is closed” because workers were “very scarce and difficult to obtain and consequently high in price.
Jump forward to 2015. That year, there was a recommendation for the farmstead to be put on the County Register for Historic Preservation. Some residents were not happy as they were concerned about the size of events allowed on the property itself as the Frederick News-Post reported
…At least one nearby resident spoke at a public hearing to consider the historic designation earlier this month. Ian Frank said he was concerned about the size of events allowed on the property — up to 300 people — under a special exception to allow functions on the property after historic designation. The property owner said the events, mostly weddings, would be held on weekends only, with music and other amplified sounds in a barn after 9 p.m.
This confirms what was said in the recommendation which says that the owner of the property (then called Joselene Hills) wants to use the existing farmhouse to host weddings, birthday parties, graduation parties, and other social gatherings with music/amplified sounds allowed indoors after 9 PM, and events no bigger than 300 guests.  While some question as to if the 1980 addition removed the integrity of the 18th century house, but it seems it has not, with the commission voting to put the property on the historic registry.
With little information added, I can’t say much more here. The application for the historic registry for the property did reprint other documents, but most of that information had already been integrated into this article.  There were also a number of sources that had to be rejected. That is because they were clearly not the same person. 
There are other sources I could consult, even using this and this, but that only gets you so far. This is a good starting point and hopefully is an interesting story which can be built on in the future.
 Samuel seemingly resigned his rank on September 1, 1780, which is interesting since he “requested to a captain in the regiment in July” of the same year. Still, this resignation seems to be meaningless (perhaps because he was re-promoted again) as indicated above. On October 24, 1780, the Council paid “Capt. Samuel Cock for stores” and paid him generally the same day as Maryland State Papers indicate. In January 1782, he was paid “three hundred and twenty pounds and nine pence” for his service as a captain in the regiment during which time he had been appointed captain, along with Murdock, Bailey, Gillispie within “in the Regiment Extraordinary” after applying to Colonel Alexander Lawson Smith for recruits raised, then marching them as needed.
 Age of 29 comes from his presumed birthdate in 1754.
 “Public Hearing – County Register designation of Capt. Samuel Cock’s Homestead; CR-15-03,” Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission County Register Nomination Form by Mark Lynch of Walkersville, MD and approved by the property’s owner, May 2015, p. 13-41 of PDF and pages 1-25 of the application form and within this document. The latter document also says she was born on Oct. 30, 1763. It also says she was married to man with the last name of “Cook” although his last name is clearly Cock. Hence, this is a typographical error.
 Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1781-1784, Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 48, 290, 291, 494. The Ogle family were huge landowners in Anne Arundel County, as Papenfuse’s biographies of Benjamin and Samuel Ogle attest. Buthe is not a part of that family or another with the same last name from Pennsylvania. The Alexander Ogle of that family would go on to serve as a U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania, and would die in Pennsylvania’s Somerset County in 1832, many years after our Alexander Ogle died.
 “Public Hearing – County Register designation of Capt. Samuel Cock’s Homestead; CR-15-03,” Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission County Register Nomination Form by Mark Lynch of Walkersville, MD and approved by the property’s owner, May 2015, p. 13-41 of PDF and pages 1-25 of the application form; Grace L. Tracey and John Philip Dern, Pioneers of Old Monocacy: The Early Settlement of Frederick County, Maryland 1721-1743 (Baltimore: Geneaological Publishing Co., 1989, second printing), 331-332, 347.
 Curtis Older, “230. Documentation for Alexander Ogle (May 21, 1730 to Bef Mar 21, 1783) father of Jane Ogle (Sept 23, 1761 to Oct 07, 1836),” “The Documented Genealogy of Curtis Lynn Older,” 2010. Since this the original document can only be found directly at the Maryland State Archives within their stacks, this will suffice for now. In this PDF, a number of sources are cited: (1) Maryland State Papers, Series A, MdHR 6636-23-29/71/7/5 (in this record undoubtedly) which has some of the records showing “Alexander Ogle providing wheat and flour from his mills to the Maryland Militia during the American Revolution; (2) Index to Marriage Licenses, Frederick County, 1778-1810; (3) Wills, Frederick County, Maryland, GM-2-25, signed February 20, 1783, and probated March 21, 1783, with the 25 referring to page 25 within this book either in paper or in microfilm; (4) Paxson Link, The Link Family (Paris, Illinois: [s.l.], 1951), p. 79, 80; (5) Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 62, page 203n and Vol. 60, page 343; (7) Francis Hamilton Hibbard, assisted by Stephen Parks, The English origin of John Ogle, first of the name in Delaware (Pittsburgh: n.p., 1967); (8) Sir Henry Asgill Ogle, Ogle and Bothal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Andrew Reid & Company, 1902); (9) Curtis L. Older, The Braddock Expedition and Fox’s Gap in Maryland (Westminster, Md.: Family Line Publications, 1995), p. 98. It is worth noting that most of these sources, apart from (1)-(3) are genealogical books which should only be used if no other source is available and/or as secondary sources to backup primary sources. Also see this collection of transcribed wills and this page for reference ONLY.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and Ezekial Beatty, June 21, 1783, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 4, p. 111-113 [MSA CE 108-24]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and Ezekial Beatty, June 21, 1783, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 4, p. 113-115 [MSA CE 108-24]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 “Public Hearing – County Register designation of Capt. Samuel Cock’s Homestead; CR-15-03,” Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission County Register Nomination Form by Mark Lynch of Walkersville, MD and approved by the property’s owner, May 2015, p. 13-41 of PDF and pages 1-25 of the application form. The pages of the PDF beyond this (p. 42-54) just have overall pictures and overlays along with documents about approval through the rules process.
 The Maryland State Archives claims, relying on Papenfuse for information, that within that year, they both “patented 1,950 acres in Frederick County in individual tracts of between 50 and 200 acres each” serving as part of “the acreage for which their father had received warrants, but which he had not patented.” However, actual information shows that this estimate is not correct.
 Almost half (3,350) of the acres were patented in 1753, another quarter patented from 1760 to 1764 (1,700), with the majority patented in 1765.
 Part of Dulaneys Lott, William Beatty, 6 Acres; Rail Trap, Unpatented Certificate 185A, Apr. 13, 1787, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Unpatented, FR [MSA S1220-195].
 Deed between Samuel Cock and Walter Funderberg/Funderbergh, Nov. 23, 1790, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 9, p. 532-535 [MSA CE 108-29]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and the State of Maryland (John Rogers on behalf of the state), Sept. 15, 1789, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 8, 629-630 [MSA CE 108-28]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. Confirmed again by the state on pages 620-631 of the same land records. Hence, as J. Thomas Scarf noted in pages 374-377 of History of Western Maryland Volume 1, Samuel was the owner of 51 acre tract known as Chestnut Hill, 56 acre tract known as Long Spring, and 280 acre tract known as Neighbors Agreed, all in 1788 and within Frederick County. Scarf is not always a great researcher so his source is only mentioned as secondary backing.
 Bill of Sale between Samuel Cock and John Miller, Dec. 11, 1788, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 8, p. 294-295 [MSA CE 108-28]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Mr. Horn tells the County Council of Frederick County that the original portion of the house was likely constructed in the 1790s with a significant addition in the 1980s. He goes on to say that three 19th century farm buildings are clustered near the house while the addition is differentiated and distinct. Source is: “Public Hearing – County Register designation of Capt. Samuel Cock’s Homestead; CR-15-03,” Staff Report Concurrence Form from Denis Superczynski to Steven C. Horn, Frederick County, Maryland, December 2015, p. 1-11 of PDF. This mostly concerns the approval process of the property on the historic register throughout the year of 2015, from the Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission to the Frederick County Council.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and John Devilbiss, Nov. 23, 1790, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 9, p. 533-535 [MSA CE 108-29]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Grace L. Tracey and John Philip Dern, Pioneers of Old Monocacy: The Early Settlement of Frederick County, Maryland 1721-1743 (Baltimore: Geneaological Publishing Co., 1989, second printing), 319, 332. The children Alexander Ogle had with his wife included: Elizabeth who married into the Devilbiss family of Frederick County (specifically George Devilbiss), while his other daughter, Rebecca lived along the Monocacy River marrying John Devilbiss, Alexander Ogle, Jr. marrying Mary Beatty, and Mary, who would mary Samuel Cook. This document lists Alexander as marrying Mary Beatty but it notes the connection with the Devilbiss family yet again with the family that Elizabeth and Rebecca married into by 1783.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and Thomas Johnson, Roger Johnson, James Johnson, and Baker Johnson, Feb. 8, 1791, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 9, p. 614 [MSA CE 108-29]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 R. Winder Johnson, The ancestry of Rosalie Morris Johnson: daughter of George Calvert Morris and Elizabeth Kuhn, his wife (Wisconsin: Ferris & Leach, 1905, printed for private circulation only), 27; Provincial Court Land Records, 1765-1770, Volume 725, Page 550 as transcribed on Darrin Lythgoe’s website, “Early Colonial Settlers of Southern Maryland and Virginia’s Northern Neck Counties”; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND WILLS; Liber T No. #1; 1784-1789; Folio 258 BENEDICT CALVERT 12/01/1779 02/18/1788 as transcribed on the Lythgoe’s website as well. Also, there are reports that the land grant, in 1764, for area known as “Lost Tomahawk” was “seized in fee from Henry Cock, now of George Frazier Hawkins,” which means it must have have given to him before 1770.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and Thomas Beatty, Feb. 17, 1795, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 16, p. 222-224 [MSA CE 108-36]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Final, James Beatty, 264 3/4 Acres, Patented Certificate 1369, March 18, 1790, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR [MSA S1197-1432].
 “Public Hearing – County Register designation of Capt. Samuel Cock’s Homestead; CR-15-03,” Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission County Register Nomination Form by Mark Lynch of Walkersville, MD and approved by the property’s owner, May 2015, p. 13-41 of PDF and pages 1-25 of the application form. The pages of the PDF beyond this (p. 42-54) just have overall pictures and overlays along with documents about approval through the rules process.
 Samuel Cock’s hogs, cattle, and sheep, Apr. 6, 1795, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 13, p. 192 [MSA CE 108-33]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and Samuel DuVall, July 30, 1795, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 17, p. 136-137 [MSA CE 108-37]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Second Census of the United States, Liberty, Frederick, Maryland, 1800, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 10, Page 214. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest. He is called “Samuel Cax” in the census but this is undoubtedly him.
 Deed between Samuel Cock and Abraham Eader, May 20, 1800, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 19, p. 519 [MSA CE 108-39]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Frank Allaben, The Ancestry of Leander Howard Crall (New York City: The Grafton Press, 1908), 67-68, 334-335.
 Gaius Marcus Brumbaugh, Maryland Records: Colonial, Revolutionary, County and Church from Original Sources, Vol. 1 (Baltimore: Clearfield Publishing, 1993), 276, 281.
 Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Election District 8, Frederick, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_43, Page 230. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 “Public Hearing – County Register designation of Capt. Samuel Cock’s Homestead; CR-15-03,” Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission County Register Nomination Form by Mark Lynch of Walkersville, MD and approved by the property’s owner, May 2015, p. 13-41 of PDF and pages 1-25 of the application form. The pages of the PDF beyond this (p. 42-54) just have overall pictures and overlays along with documents about approval through the rules process.
 Ibid. Their deaths are also noted in page 218 of The Diary of Jacob Engelbrecht, 1818-1878, assembled by the Historical Society of Frederick County.
 The document reprints a map of the current property, shows a 1790 census with him owning seven enslaved blacks and living in Frederick County, notes that land called Neighbours Agreed (why?) was surveyed for Samuel in 1788, patented in 1789, reprints his will (not great copy), reprints part of his father Henry’s will in 1777 (he died in 1779) saying that he gains two different land tracts (Turky which is part of many other areas at the time and The Lost Tomahawk), reprints genealogical index, and a number of other records.
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.