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.
The story of Black Confederates is one that needs to be told accurately and correctly. I first heard of it when I visited Richard Stewart’s Pocahontas Island Black History Museum some years ago. I come back to it again after writing about Blacks who supported the British Crown in last week’s post.
Images like this one of Marlboro Jones would be twisted by the distorters of history to support the claim that Blacks fought as soldiers in the Confederate lines, although he was a “manservant of Confederate captain Randal F. Jones of the 7th Georgia Cavalry,” only dressed in a Confederate uniform for that role. Hence, he was not free in any sense of the word.
The Civil War Trust makes it abundantly clear: there were no Black Confederate soldiers, considering that “Vast columns of escaped slaves followed almost every major Union army at one point or another” while Confederate armies captured and enslaved “free black people during their brief occupations of Northern territories.” They add that while “black soldiers made up 10% of the Union Army and had suffered more than 10,000 combat casualties” some Blacks aided the Confederacy, many who were “forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines” since they were prohibited from serving “combat soldiers in the Confederate Army.” Hence, they were “cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers” with no documentation for Black Confederate units of any type during the Civil War. While some black men may have fired at Union soldiers, such soldiers never encountered “an all-black line of battle or anything close to it.” In contrast, the Union Army had the United States Colored Troops, among other units, which fought as part of the said army.
The Civil War Trust adds that not only did no Confederate ever reference “black soldiers under his command or in his unit,” but did reference Black laborers, with the rejection of black combat units until March 13, 1865 when the Confederate Congress allowed Black men to serve in combat roles. However, this came with a caveat: “black soldiers would still be slaves.” With the end of the war three weeks after this law was passed, no evidence seems to indicate that “any black units were accepted into the Confederate Army as a result of the law.” No other primary source of Confederates “mentions serving with black soldiers.”  The Civil War Trust ends by saying that the “notion of widespread black combat service has only arisen within the past 25 years or so,” with the baseless claims that as many as ” 80,000 black soldiers” fought for the Confederacy.
The Civil War Trust is not the only one that has said this. When one author made a shotty claim that “thousands” of Blacks fought for the Confederacy they were derided when the sources for their book were web links all tied back to the pro-Confederate Sons of Confederate Veterans, and it was shown they didn’t know what they were talking about. Later they removed the badly sourced material. This is part of the general distortion of the topic. Claims by respected historians, whether their words or associated photographs with their work, are twisted to claim that Blacks fought for the Confederacy in large numbers. 
Separating myth from reality
The Root is a good place to continue this discussion. They note that most Civil War historians repudiate “the idea of thousands of blacks fighting for the South.” Adding to this, it seems evident that a “few blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy” and while The Root author estimates that “between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers,” nothing seems to support that estimation if you use the sources cited by the Civil War Trust, as noted earlier.  However, it seems more evident, and more supported by evidence, that “another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters…[doing] the Confederacy’s dirty work.” Adding to this, the article notes how Frederick Douglass said that at the Battle of Manassas “among rebels were black troops, no doubt pressed into service by their tyrant masters,” although this account is highly disputed with Douglass’s sources on this subject likely faulty. It claims there are sources “proving” that Blacks fought for the confederacy at the battle, however, this seems to be suspect since no existing sources prove such claims as real. After all, it seems evident that “Confederates impressed slaves as laborers and at times forced them to fight,” putting guns in their hands, forcing them to fire on Union soldiers.
There was the Louisiana Native Guards. They were a black unit “accepted as part of the Louisiana militia in May 1862” but they “never saw combat while in Confederate service,” and were just for “public display” with the unit surrendering to Union troops in April 1862, later serving in the Union Army. So, that again, cannot be used to support a claim of Blacks fighting for the Confederacy. For those who were part of the Native Guards, they said that “By serving the Confederates, [they hoped] to advance a little nearer to equality with whites,” seeing that they would gain more rights. While later in the war, in 1863, “masters increasingly refused to allow slaves to be impressed by the Confederacy” and Northern papers continued to print rumors of Blacks serving as soldiers.
There was another factor to keep in mind. There were “some partial companies of slaves training as soldiers discovered by Union forces after the fall of Richmond” but they never fought in a combat capacity since, until the end of the war, “the Confederate Congress expressly forbade arming enslaved African Americans,” for fears of a slave uprising. Still, it is accounts like this that are used to support the claim of Black soldiers on the side of the Confederacy by people such as John J. Dwyer. This is despite the fact that it was not “until March 1865—after a contentious debate that took place throughout the Confederacy—that the Confederate Congress passed legislation authorizing the enlistment of slaves who were first freed by their masters,” with such individuals re-enslaved after their service ended.
There are a number of other articles on this subject. A Civil War Era blog, Dead Confederates confronts this issue head on. In one post they write about how claims that Stonewall Jackson had a “regiment of negroes” to be faulty, a letter by a White Southerner saying that Blacks may “may be made an efficient body in this war of self-defence” while led by White officers, and claims that cannot be corroborated anywhere else. Then there are the false claims that Robert Small was a “Black Confederate,” a mess-up by the engravers that called a Black Union soldier a member of the Confederate Army, and disproving the claim that Crock Davis was a “Black Confederate.” This is only a small sampling of the posts he has written on the subject, which accompany those assembled in a post by historian Kevin Levin on Civil War Memory. 
Even some more sympathetic to the Black Confederate Soldiers idea note that “first-hand evidence abundantly demonstrates that black men were present in great numbers with Confederate armies at all times.” It is added that “a great deal of the cooking, wagon driving, tending wounded, and camp work was done by these men.” While they push the idea of Black Confederate Soldiers, which is dubious, they have to admit that the Blacks within Confederate ranks were basically laborers, with others noted earlier in this post. As Hari Jones, assistant director/curator of the African American Civil War Museum in Washington, DC., argued “calling slaves soldiers is propaganda, not history. The labor force of the Confederacy was a majority of African American enslaved persons. In order for [the Confederates] to fight the war, they had to use enslaved labor. The Confederate Army could not have moved one-tenth of its equipment without enslaved labor.”
There is more to the story. The National Archives points out that “on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army” and only “two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States.”Adding to this is that
Recruitment was slow until black leaders such as Frederick Douglass…encouraged black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship…Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of black soldiers. By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war—30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts…Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken’s Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN…. In June 1864 Congress granted equal pay to the U.S. Colored Troops and made the action retroactive. Black soldiers received the same rations and supplies. In addition, they received comparable medical care…Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864.
The fact that Confederates treated Blacks within the Union Army as people to be abused, killed, or tortured, further punctures the idea of the Confederacy as “progressive” for letting (actually forcing) Blacks to serve in their ranks.
To this day, debate continues on this issue, between those historians who want to revive the racist, pro-slavery Confederacy as “glorious” and the majority of Civil War historians who indicate that the Confederacy and slavery were wrong, telling the reality of the war. Even some, who are in the second group, seem to accept the idea of Black Confederate soldiers, saying historians like Levin are using “21st century standards” to determine what happened in the 19th century (if he is even doing this, which is debatable). It is silly to say this because historians in the present should not be required to use the standards of that time to make their historical interpretations, as that would limit them, and new standards allow them to avoid mistakes which were made in the past.
Such debates obscure the fact that Neo-Confederates today use the Black Confederate narrative to their advantage. While the black Confederate narrative may threaten assertions by such individuals “that the “southern nation” consists solely of “anglo-celtic” Christians,” it also seems to apologize for action by the Confederacy. While Blacks provided “physical and material support to the CSA throughout its existence by performing tasks normally associated with chattel slavery in that period, and in scattered instances toward the close of the war” they took up arms, the core truth is that “black Confederates were operating in a system of coercion and oppression where the penalty for non-compliance was corporal punishment or death.” So, to hold this up as an example is to mean that one has become an apologist for slavery. Hence, the idea of Black Confederates fighting as soldiers is clearly a myth. Adding to this is the fact stated by the Mariner’s Museum in a post on the subject:
There were of course no integrated units in the South…there may have actually been a few units of black troops that organized for the Confederates. Professor John Stauffer of Harvard has recently done research on just this subject, and estimates that there may have been a bit over 3,000 black soldiers formed on the Confederate side…many of these black soldiers were not accepted by the Confederate government and were not issued firearms: still more of these soldiers were coerced into joining the military, and others joined to escape miserable poverty….The greatest single example of black Confederate soldiers – the Louisiana Native Guards, composed of black and mixed-race men from the New Orleans area – was not accepted by the Confederate military despite their wish to fight for the south when the war broke out…As a result, when the Union took New Orleans in spring of 1862, the Louisiana Native Guards joined the Union when General Butler called for reinforcements. On a side note, over 4,000 black and mixed-race men joined the Union army in New Orleans that spring, which outnumbers those that may have joined the Confederacy over the course of the entire war.
Again, let us restate that Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army, “they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers. There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war.” Other sources confirm this reality.
For now, it seems this case is closed. It is better to focus on those Blacks who fought for the British Crown during the Revolutionary War, those who fought for the Union during the Civil War, or those who fought for the British during the War of 1812.
 The Civil War Trust says “whatever black combat service might have occurred during the war, it was not sanctioned by the Confederate government.” But, based on their own article, this sentence has no basis in reality.
 The Root author seems to accept the idea of Black Confederate soldiers (why), saying that “the total number of black Confederate soldiers is statistically insignificant: They made up less than 1 percent of the 800,000 black men of military age (17-50) living in the Confederate states, based on 1860 U.S. census figures, and less than 1 percent of at least 750,000 Confederate soldiers.” But again, this is not supported by evidence.
 The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV)even has a whole page on their website titled “Black Confederates,” claiming that “over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks,” citing books such as Charles Kelly Barrow’s Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology About Black Southerners, Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.’s Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia, Richard Rollins’s Black Southerners in Gray, accounts of Frederick Douglass, and Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, although the latter two cannot be independently verified, along with an “excellent educational video.” They claim that there were varying Black units (“Richmond Howitzers” (partially), a “non-commissioned officer” named James Washington, “skilled black workers”, “Black and white militiamen…at the Battle of Griswoldsville”, “Jackson Battalion” (partially), “Confederate States Colored Troops” (unknown number), “confederate supply train was exclusively manned and guarded by black Infantry”, “black seamen served in the Confederate Navy”, “180,000 Black Southerners, from Virginia alone, provided logistical support for the Confederate military”). Of these claims, these claims are undoubtedly. distortions of history but are using the numbers of those Blacks who served as laborers and claiming they are soldiers, which is not the case. They also seem to assume that when someone talks about Blacks joining the “ranks” of the Confederates it was down willingly and that they were soldiers rather than laborers. Similar claims are made by Walter E. Williams in “Black Confederates” (Jan. 21, 2000).
At age 14, a man named John (or Jon) McCay/McKay enlisted in George Town, within Maryland’s Kent County, in the Extra Regiment. Many years later, one of Baltimore City’s Associate Justices,James Richardson, would note that John enlisted in July of that year, the beginning of his three year term of service.  He was sent to Chestertown, Maryland that same month where a man named William Simmons, likely older than him, would enlist, joining his same company. In later years, Simmons would call John “a faithful Soldier.”
After leaving Chestertown, John went to Annapolis where he joined “Sheppard’s Company” as he termed it. This is an interesting description because the person this refers to is undoubtedly Francis Shepard/Sheppard, a man who was a lieutenant within the Extra Regiment but not a captain. Perhaps he took on the position of generally leading the company, so this could be why he called it this, and noted that Alexander Lawson Smith led the company.
William, John, and 18 others went to Philadelphia to “carry Horses” and supplies. They remained there and left with about 200 others who likely were marched up to Philadelphia from other recruiting areas. They then marched to Elkton, MD, then went by ship to Annapolis. It was there he joined his company, taking his clothing and marching with the regiment to Alexandria, then to Fredericksburg, Richmond and Petersburg. From there, they went to Hillsborough, joining a part of Nathanael Greene’s army, after “Gate’s defeat” or the Battle of Camden, and joined the main Continental Army at “Sharraw” or Cheraw Hills in January 1781 .John goes on to say in his pension that the Extra Regiment ”
detatched to Haleys Ferry on Pedee River [Pee Dee River], as a look out guard, from thence marched and joined the main army near Guilford Court House, crossed Dan river to near Prince Edwards Court House”
In early 1781, sometime before the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, as the regiment was broken apart, ordinary soldiers transferred to other units and the original officers were sent home. He says he served under Lieut/Capt. Lane, who refers to Samuel McLane, a man who was a captain in the fall of 1781 but had been promoted to Captain by the following year. William was likely among his fellow soldiers, and if he was, he would have returned to Annapolis, joining troops under the command of William Smallwood. John at that point, received a furlough to go home possibly to Harford County. Later that year, he joined Francis Reveley‘s company, which was within Colonel Peter Adams‘ regiment, which was also called the First Maryland Regiment.
John marched south again in the fall of 1781. After moving to Williamsburg, where the unit joined the main Continental Army, he, with the rest of his unit, proceeded to “the seige of York after the surrender of Cornwallis” in October 1781. William was also at that same battle, possibly meaning that they would have been fighting shoulder-to-shoulder. He marched further southward within a company of what he said was the 4th Maryland Regiment, but could have easily been another unit, like the 1st. In this position, his unit guarded “artillery and ammunition to supply General Green’s army at “Pond Pond” or Ponpon in South Carolina. Later on, they marched to “Bacons bridge” which was near Old Dorchester and then crossed over to James’ Island for wintering until “Charleston was illuminated for the ratification of peace.”
William had a bit of a different story. He said he was at a battle at “Blueford river.” This undoubtedly referred to Beaufort River, and could refer to this or this skirmish, or something else entirely.
As the war came to a close, in June 1783, John was aboard a vessel which. returned to Annapolis. He then received an undated furlough which was “left with a certain John Browning” but was then lost. It is possible he was scammed just like the soldier noted in the next section, Philip Huston.
The wild story of Philip Huston
Apart from William Simmons and John McCay, a young man named Philip Huston also enlisted in Kent County. In the summer of 1780, he enlisted in Captain Archibald Golder‘s company as a drummer. Just like James Murphey and Richard Goldin in the First Maryland Regiment, Philip likely played snare, side, or bass drums, and was a non-commissioned officer that received the same pay as corporals. Since music regulated the lives of soldiers in the Continental Army, and such musicians, including fifers, helped maintain discipline and efficiency within the Continental Army, he was vital. Such peoples sounded signals of the day and served the same purpose of the bugle in the 19th century but many duties focused on signaling. Additionally, drummers sometimes administered discipline, at times performing the unpopular duty of lashing or flogging of soldiers. Even so, the training of drummers like Philip likely caused disruption, leading to confusion and annoyance among the rank-and-file. Since fifes and drums worked in unison with standard musical units in the continental army consisting of group of at least one fifer and one drummer, and playing popular tunes during camps or long marches, he worked with the company’s fifer, whose name is not currently known, but could be discovered.
It is possible that the Extra Regiment was understaffed in this area, but documents cannot disprove or prove this assertion since they are relatively limited on this regiment. Philip was lucky in a sense since there was a high turnover of drummers and fifers in the Continental Army. Like the rest of the unit, he marched from Annapolis to Carolina and joined the Continental Army. However, as he describes it, the regiment was broken up to “fill up vacancies” with officers returning as “supernumerary.” He was one of those people, coming back with Captain Golder and Lieutenant John Plant to Annapolis. Once there, he joined Peter Adams’ regiment, the First Maryland and attacked to Francis Reveley’s company. From there, he again marched South, this time to Yorktown and fought at the battle there. Afterwards, he went further south, joining Nathaniel Greene until they stayed at Ashley Hills on the Ashley River. After that point, the unit was ordered to return to Maryland, and from then on, he went from Annapolis to Frederick Town. He ended up doing “garrison duty over the Hessians” until piece was declared. Interestingly, this means he may have rubbed shoulders with Mountjoy Bayly, who was the commanding officer in Frederick Town at the time, a former commander of the Extra Regiment!
In August 1783, Philip gained an honorable discharge. He was advised to send his charge to Annapolis to try and get money from it, by selling or exchanging it. As he tells it, he sent it to…
one James McDonald who received about thirty dollars upon it from a merchant by the name of James Williams or Williamson, which was to be repaid to him when the certificate of soldiers pay should be given out. This man Williamson received the whole of my final settlement and retained my discharge in his possession. I called afterwards upon him but he refused to give me anything more than the thirty dollars I had already received; he however made me a present of a black silk handkerchief, and made me sign a receipt in full.
As a result, he noted that he was unable to send his “discharge agreeably to the requisition of the department of war.” Basically Philip got swindled by these scammers who wouldn’t give him back something which was rightfully his.
William Elkins, non-existent discharge papers
In July 1780, as William Simmons and John McCay were enlisting in Kent County, a young man named William Elkins enlisted at Frederick Town, now called Frederick, within Frederick County. He first joined the company of William Beatty, who was then in John Gunby’s regiment. Later on that summer, perhaps even later that month, he joined the Extra Regiment. According to his recollection, the regiment marched from Frederick to Annapolis, then to Elkton Maryland, then on to “Christein” (likely Christiana) and to Philadelphia. From there, his company went back to Annapolis and after sometime went South. Again, this list of events follows Johns’s pension saying that the regiment went to Alexandria, Virginia, then Pee Dee River, and joined Nathanael Greene. But, there is a difference between the stories.
William Elkins, unlike William and John mentioned earlier, fought in other major battles in the Southern Campaign. He fought at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, possibly in the Second Maryland Regiment, at the short engagement at Hobkirk’s Hill, at the Siege of Ninety Six, and at Eutaw Springs. After this, he marched to James Island near South Carolina’s Charleston from where troops went by ship back to Annapolis. It was there he received a furlough, in 1784, after serving a term of three years and one month, but since he was absent from the regiment when peace was declared, he “neglected to obtain a certificate of his discharge” at the time.
William Patton was another man who enlisted in Frederick County at age 26. He claims he enlisted in 1776 in the regular army when he resided in “Creagerstown Destrict Frederick County” which refers to Creagerstown, Maryland, and also enlisted there as well. He claims that he served with Captain Samuel Cock (one transcript of the pension says he enlisted with “James L. Cock” but this is incorrect) from 1776 until 1781, leaving the company three of four days before the “battle at gilford.” He goes on to say that General Greene then gave him his full discharge. But before all that, he relates how the regiment marched to Annapolis, then to Elk River, then to Baltimore Town (not mentioned by others), then to Philadelphia and to the Potomac River, and then southward. This is a bit jumbled, but he was recalling this when he was in his nineties! Anyway, he argues that he served over four years in the military service, which could invalidate his previous claims.
He even says that he did receive a discharge from his military service. However, his discharge wet while deer hunting and as a result, it got destroyed. He also says he may have served in a company of Capt. Mountjoy Bayly. Other records show that he was given payments for his service, $13.30 in fact, at the time.
John Shanks and William Groves of Anne Arundel County
On August 1st, a 21-year-old man named John Shanks enlisted, as a substitute for Wilfred Neale, in Anne Arundel County. He joined the company of a middle-aged Captain named Charles Smith, a Maryland 400 veteran. But, once it reached headquarters in the Southern theater of the war, he joined the 2nd Maryland Regiment, then commanded by John Eager Howard, with Captain John Smith taking command of his company until the battle of Eutaw Springs when he was “badly wounded.” As he recalls, “he lost the fore finger of his right hand, and got the thick part of his thumb shivered and broken.” After that time he was put in a company with other wounded soldiers (called “invalids” at the time) which was commanded by Captain Nicholas Rickets and served until November 15, 1783.
William Groves was a bit different. A 25-year-old man, William enlisted under Samuel McLane, in Annapolis. He marched with the army to rendezvous in Montgomery County, then went to Philadelphia and then southward to the Continental Army commanded by General Nathanael Greene, where it was, “near the Cheraw hills.” He makes it seem that not long after this arrival the soldiers of the regiment were divided, and “the new officers were all sent home.” In later years, he was attached to the company of Mark McPherson of the Second Maryland Regiment, fighting at the battles of Hobkirk Hill, Eutaw Springs, Guilford Courthouse, and “continued in the army untill the end of the war, against the common enemy.” His wife, Mary, years later, claims that he was
wounded at the Battle of Guilford by a cutlass in the head, and was also wounded at the Battle of Eutaw in the left leg by a Ball…[and] did not leave the service of the United States till after close of the war of the Revolution, at which time he was honourably Discharged from the Service of the United States
She also claims he was at Cowpens although he never made that claim and that he drew a federal pension up to his death, with his pension certificate then “sent to the Agent for paying pensions in the City of Baltimore.” He may have also, later become an ensign, although this is unlikely.
Jesse Boswell of Port Tobacco and Giles Thomas of Charles County
In July 1780, a 25-year-old man named Jesse Boswell enlisted in Francis Shepherd’s company in Port Tobacco, Charles County, for a three year term. However, when he “marched to the Southward” and jointed “Greens army” and the regiment split apart, his company came to be commanded by Captain James Bruff and Col. Benjamin Ford, and stayed in this regiment until was discharged in Annapolis. Before that time, he fought at the battles of Guilford Courthouse, Hobkirk’s Hill, Eutaw Springs, and the Siege of Ninety Six, but his discharge papers were lost in the process.
There was another man who enlisted in the Charles County. In 1780, this man, Giles Thomas, was reportedly 16 years old. He enlisted in the same company as John Shanks, and noted that Edward Giles was a major in the company. He also noted that he had three years of service from July 26, 1780 to Jul 26, 1783. He recalled that a few days before the battle of Guilford Courthouse,
the whole of the aforesaid regiment to which he belonged, was transfered to the Maryland continental line and the officers of the former regiment sent home
Giles adds that he later fought at the battles of Hobkirk’s Hill, Guilford Courthouse, at the siege of ninety-six, and part of James Bruff’s company, Mordecai Gist as the Brigadier General. Looking at the biography of Gist, it is surprising that Giles didn’t mention William Smallwood since the two high-ranking military men served together.
Thomas Gadd of Queen Anne’s County
In July 1780, Thomas, a 20-year-old man enlisted in Queen Anne’s County, likely in Wye Hundred where he was living in 1778. His company mustered in Chestertown, and he was, like, Jesse Boswell, William Simmons, and John McCay, part of “Captain Sheppard’s Company” which again is strange since records seem to indicate he was a lieutenant. Perhaps he was a Captain-Lieutenant. I’m not sure. Anyway, he notes, like many of the others, about the trip of a section of the regiment from Annapolis to Philadelphia, then back to Annapolis, and then marching southward. He seems to say that the regiment arrived at Cheraw Hills meeting General Nathaniel Green’s Army in South Carolina, but that by March the regiment has “broken up.” He goes on to say that he served in the company of James Bruff. But, he was “severely wounded in the head by a musket ball at the battle of Guilford Court House” and sent to Virginia’s Perkins Hospital. From there he still joined the regiment at the siege of ninety-six, but the deponent was transported to water to Annapolis in December 1782 and received ” and unlimited furlough, on or about the Month of July 1783″ which was proclaimed by George Washington himself.
There are numerous documents making it clear that he did receive a pension for a wound “received in the Revolutionary war; entitling him to half pay” and that he served in the Maryland Line. Furthermore, it is clear that there was a claim for his injury and he was placed on the pension listed in April 1815.Then there is the report of two doctors in April 1815:
… we hereby certify that we have examined on oath Thomas Gadd a Soldier in the revolutionary war, who was wounded by a musket in the memorable battle of Guilford Court House on the 15th of March 1781, the citatrix [sic] 1 of which would now evidently appear on the upper part of the left parietal bone & from which wound he declares exfoliation of bone took place before it cured up. He further declares that ever since he received the wound he has been afflicted with pain and giddiness in the head from stooping down & from severe exercise, which symptoms frequently caused him to desist from his labor. He is now old, & further declares that he feels these symptoms increase with his years. We are of opinion that being in the situation he describes himself to be, he certainly must be considerably incapacitated from gaining a maintenance for himself & family by manual labor.
Other documents go on to say that James Bruff himself tells them that he received a “wound on his head while under his command and in the line of his duty and this deponent further saith that the said Thomas Gadd to the best of his knowledge served as a good and faithful soldier.” Then there is the deposition of Joseph Nabb of the same county who says he “was a Fifer in the second line of the Maryland Regiment in the revolutionary war in the service of the United States and that he hath been acquainted with Thomas Gadd of said County from a boy to the present time” and that he had complained about the wound for as many years as he can remember. It was further pointed out that Nabb was a soldier in Captain Perry Benson’s company within the Second Maryland Regiment, and that Gadd was “sometimes absent from the Army,” but he was still a “good and faithful soldier.” Adding to this, one judge noted that that wound Thomas received “brought his life into imminent danger” and that it prevents “him from exerting that manual labor so necessary for the support of himself and young family.” As a result of this, Thomas was pensioned at the rate of $8 per month commencing April 14th, 1818, for service.
There is an open question whether Joseph Nabb was part of the Extra Regiment since he said he knew Thomas since childhood, but this is not currently known.
The story of John Newton
In 1780, John Newton enlisted in “Archibald Golder’s Company” after previous service. He had served with a Captain William Beatty (seemingly) in 1780, attached to Smallwood’s Regiment (1st Maryland), and then in another company. He notes, in his pension that once he reached North Carolina, he was attached to William Winchester’s Company, fighting in the South until the end of the war. He notes that he fought at the battle of Hobkirk’s Hill where he received three wounds in his right leg so he was taken to a hospital. He also says that he joined Thomas Price’s Company, and implies he was at the battle of Yorktown, recallin “Cornwallis…surrendered to Gen’l Washington after being besieged several weeks.” He adds that he served several months afterward, by which time he was discharged. Furthermore, further records attest he was on the payroll from Aug. 1780 to Nov. 1783.
There are some other facts which are partially puzzling. He says he was born in 1760, making him 20, which seems reasonable. But it is his enlistment date in June which is off. The Extra Regiment was not formed until later that year, so he couldn’t have enlisted in that regiment in June, unless he was transferred from somewhere else, which it seems had happened. He goes on to say he fought in numerous battles such as Guilford Courthouse, High Hills of Lantee, Camden, Cowpens, and the “siege of York” (Yorktown). From then, it is noted that he served in the 3rd Regiment of the Maryland Line, with dates unknown.
The post-war years, 1790-1800
Records after 1783 are hazy. In 1790, in the first federal census, a number of soldiers are listed. Two men named “William Simmons” lived in Anne Arundel County, while in 1800, one man named “William Simmons” lived in Anne Arundel County, and another man of the same name living in Delaware Lower Hundred of Baltimore in 1810. It is not known if any of these men are the same as William Simmons who submitted the federal veterans pension. The same is the case as John Newton. A person with his name was living in “Unknown Township, St Marys, Maryland” and two were living within Montgomery, Maryland. It is known if any of these men are the same as John Newton.
However, there are concrete records for Philip Huston and Thomas Gadd. Philip, called Phillip Huston in the census, was living in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania’s Hopewell Township with one son over age 16, and his wife, Mary, and no others.  The exact jurisdiction he lived in was called “Hopewell, Newton, Tyborn, and Westpensboro, Cumberland, Pennsylvania” on the census itself. By contrast, Thomas Gadd was living in Queen Anne’s County. He had a daughter and a wife but no enslaved Blacks.  Nothing else is known.
In 1800, few soldiers appear on the census. For instance, there is a John Newton living in “Anne Arundel, Maryland.” It is not known if this man is the same as John Newton. One “William Alkins” in 1800 Census is listed as living in Newtown, Washington, Territory Northwest of the River Ohio, it is not known if this is him. Giles Thomas was different than this. He was noted on the 1800 census as still living with his wife, along with a son under age 10, a son aged 10-15, a son aged 16-25, two daughters aged 10-15, and one daughter aged 16-25.  He also had five enslaved blacks living on his plantation.
Into the 1810s
Numerous soldiers were on the 1810 Census. Giles Thomas, was, at the time,s living in Christiansburg, Montgomery, Virginia, with six enslaved Blacks and eight free Whites. These Whites were one boy under age 10 (his son), three young men aged 10-15 (his sons), one young man aged 16-25 (his son), and one man over age 45, himself. There was also one young woman aged 16-25 (his daughter) and one woman over age 45 (his wife).  From this, one can see that Giles Thomas and his wife, whose name is not known, had six children. The maximum age of the children implies they were married in 1785 or sometime in the later 1780s, if they had children, as was the custom, after marriage.
Philip Huston was living in the same community! Within the household were two sons under age 10, Mr. Phillip Huston (aged 26-44), two daughters under age 10, and his wife, Mary (aged 26-44).  The fact they lived in the same community and were members of the same regiment suggests they could have been friends since they fought together on the battlefield.
The same year, William Patton was living hundreds of miles away in Wythe County, Virginia. The census, which incorrectly spells his last name as “Pallon,” marks him as over age 45 in the census.It shows he is part of a 12-member household including his son under age 10, his son aged 10-15, his sons aged 16-25, two daughters under age 10, one daughter aged 10-15, three daughters aged 16-25, and his wife (aged 26-44).  No enslaved people are part of the household.
In December 1811, Thomas Gadd was given money by the Treasurer of the Eastern Shore, seeming to indicate he was still living in the state, specifically in Baltimore. The resolution in his favor is as follows:
Resolved, That the Treasurer of the Western Shore be, and he is hereby authorised and directed to pay to Thomas Gadd, or his order, late a private soldier in the revolutionary war, a sum of money in quarterly payments, equal to the half-pay of a private.
Years later, Philip, who later lived in Washington County, Pennsylvania, felt a “a tolerably stout man” and wanted to again serve his county. On June 22, 1812, he enlisted in the 22nd Regiment of U.S. infantry commanded by Col. Hugh Brady. He served until February 1, 1816 when he was discharged “at Sackets harbour in consequence of old age and rheumatish.” On his return home, with the icy weather, his “feet were frostbitten” as as a result, he lost his a large toe and smaller toe on his left foot, leaving him disabled for years to come.
The year of 1818
Many of the soldiers whom we know of, were in “reduced circumstances.” John McCay was living in Baltimore County, 54 years old, showing he was born in 1764 and wad described as “very poor.” All the way across the county, in Mount Pleasant, within Ohio’s Jefferson County, William Elkins felt similar pressures. He described himself as 85 years of age, which means he would have been born in 1733 or 47 years old in 1780. More likely he is 63 or 65 years old. In 1818, a person named Marren DuVall, living within Warren Township in Jefferson County, Ohio,  said that in 1784 she
resided in Frederick county Maryland, – that the aforenamed William Elkins, in that year came to the house of my father, William Duvall, a captain of the [Frederick County] militia, who had served two tours of duty in the service of the United States, and that from the frequent conversations, between the said Elkins and my father and other revolutionary soldiers, I sincerely beleive that the said Elkins served more than one year in the United States service – I further testify that I have heard my father and many other Revolutionary soldiers, positively say, that they had known the said Elkins while in the service of his country
Furthermore, his pension noted that he was paid $78.40 for “pay from the First August 1780 to the 1st Jan’y 1782” and $80.00 of pay from Jan. 1, 1782 to Jan. 1, 1783, along with another $43.30 from Jan. 1, 1783 until Nov. 1, 1783 when his military service came to a close.
Furthermore, William Groves, living in Allegheny County that year, was 63 years old, meaning he was born in 1755. He said he was in “reduced circumstances” and that he was in “need of the assistance of his country for support.” The same was the case for Jesse Boswell. That year he as living in York, South Carolina and asked the “assistance of his country for support.” A few years later, he applied for a new pension certificate since the old one was destroyed when his home burned in November 1820.
In 1818, Philip Huston was an “old man.” He described himself as “unable to work for my living and besides in extreme poverty so that I need the assistance of my country for support.” The same year, the land office of Maryland noted that he was a drummer in the Maryland Line and hence was entitled to “the Lands Westward of Fort Cumberland to Lot No. 402 Containing 50 acres.” He never claimed this land as records attest. There were similar circumstances for Thomas Gadd. He argued he was in “reduced circumstances” and needed the “assistance of his country for support” while living in Baltimore. While it is clear that Mr. Thomas Gadd lived in Anne Arundel County in 1810, and moved to Baltimore sometime before 1818, there are two Thomas Gadds within Queen Anne’s, Maryland and hence, it is hard to know which one is him.
The Marylanders: John McCay, William Simmons, William Groves, and John Newton in 1820
John McCay was in horrible circumstances. At age 56 in 1820, he was living in Baltimore without any family, was propertyless, and of ill health since he had to quit his occupation as a sailor, only obtaining “a bare subsistence by labouring about the country.” His pension further added that he was entered into a Maryland hospital and became “utterly incapable of labour” and needs to assistance of “his country or from private or public charity” due to his circumstances. Since his name is so common, it is not possible to use Federal census records in this instance. Despite that, there are people with his name consistently living in Baltimore from 1790 to 1820, and he is likely among them.
Fellow soldier William Simmons who had been at John McCay’s side, was living in Harford County in 1820. At 61 years of age, he only owned $47 dollars with of property. These included one Cow, one young Cow, four pigs, rush bottomed chairs, one pine table, two iron pots, and some trifle of “Crockery ware,” among little much more. He also purchased a horse for $20 and horse cart for $10 but neither is paid for and rented about 10 acres of land for $50 per year. His pension further explained that he was married to a thirty-year old woman named Elizabeth (born in 1790), and had three children with her: Joseph (born in 1810), James (born in 1813), and John (born in 1818). He argued that without the state pension he could not support himself since he was “greatly afflicted by Rheumatic pains.” Six years later, he had moved to Stark County, Ohio to “improve his situation.” Further records of Simmons are unclear.
Then there is William Groves. In 1820, he owned one old Spay Horse, one Cow, one Colt, and one Pot, even less than William Simmons or William Elkins. Living in Allegheny County at 50 years of age, he was a farmer but was “infirm and unable to do more than half work.” He lived with his 50-year-old wife, Mary, a son that was 14 years old, and another under age five. Following the census information, it is possible that William lived in Charles County after the war, as the 1790 and 1800 censuses indicate, specifically in Durham Parish, with his family.  Furthermore, records indicate he lived in District 4 of Allegheny, Maryland, specifically in Cumberland, Maryland. He was described as an 83-year-old veteran in 1840, meaning this says he was born in 1757, only two years off what he said in 1820, which shows that he was sharp even in his later life, which is impressive.  Other parts of his pension indicate that he lived in Allegheny County from 1812 to 1849, with his wife Mary was living there in 1853.
In 1820, the Maryland General Assembly passed a law to pay him for his military service in the Maryland Line. He was to be paid the half pay of a private in “quarterly payments” as the law indicated.  He also received land in Western Maryland for his military service. He specifically received lot 1744, which was, at most, 12.7 miles miles away from the Northern branch of the Potomac River, in the middle of Garrett County:
Hence, he likely did not live on this land as looking at that approximate location shows no evidence of human habitation. There is only the vast expanse of forest and some new, modern houses.
In 1820, John Newton, age 60, was living in Prince George’s County. He was a laborer who would be paid $40 per year for his pension. In his reduced circumstancs, . John Newton: writing he is “reduced circumstances” while writing in Prince George’s County in 1818. The census records are no help in this case, as he is not listed.  However, there is strong evidence he was living in Maryland that year. This is indicated by the pension list and legislation, although there are other records that must be weeded out.  He specifically received pay in 1818 from the state of Maryland for his revolutionary war service. The law which granted him this pay  was as follows:
Resolved, That the treasurer of the western shore be and he is hereby authorised, to pay to John Newton, an old soldier, or his order, during his life, a sum of money annually, in half yearly payments, equal to the half pay of a private, for his services during the revolution.
This petition was nothing new. He had petitioned the House of Delegates in 1805 and 1806 on the same issue.  In those, he stated he had been wounded in battle, serving from the year 1780 until the end of the war, saying that he was with his wounds,
together with the infirmities of approaching old age, he is rendered incapable of obtaining a maintenance for himself and family
Hence, he received payment at the time, but perhaps he felt it was necessary to apply again because it did not pass the Maryland Senate. It is also worth mentioning that he married Eleanor Callean in May 27, 1781 within Prince George’s County. 
The Ohioans: William Elkins in 1820
In 1820, William Elkins lived in Ohio’s Jefferson County but has previously lived in Frederick County, Maryland in 1780s. He was a pauper there supported by Mount Pleasant township within Ohio. Apart from his later descendants , he was living in Ohio, on the pension roll.  Hence, he was not the “first pioneer” who built a “log cabin and cleared land in what became Johnson Township” within present-day Indiana since he was living in Ohio.
Even though he was a 87-year-old pauper, William still had some possessions. He owned One Silver Watch (ten Dollars), One pot (one Dollar), One Skillet (one Dollar), One Axe (two Dollars), Two flour Barrels (25 cents), One chest (50 cents), One looking glass (two Dollars), One Shot Gun (three Dollars), which comes to a total of $19.75. Using the historic standard of living value of his income, it would be worth $412 dollars (in 2016 US dollars) which would put him squarely within the ranks of the poor. That year, he told the federal government, in his pension application, that he was a farmer but that the township supported him for the past four years (1816-1820), only cooking food given to him, and was indebted to individuals for a sum of $20, more than his total property was worth.
The Virginians: Giles Thomas and William Patton in 1820
In 1820, the family of Giles Thomas was living in Newburn, Montgomery, Virginia. Within the household were five enslaved blacks, and four other household members: his unnamed son aged 16-25, Mr. Giles Thomas (over age 45), his unnamed daughter aged 16-25, and his unnamed wife (over age 45).  Also the enslaved blacks are divided as follows: two males under age 14, one male (aged 26-44), one female under age 14, and one female, aged 26-44, three of whom are “engaged in agriculture.”
The same year, William Patton was living in a county in a different part of the state: Wythe County. He was over age 45 and lived in a household with no enslaved laborers but had one son aged 10-15, one daughter under age 10, one daughter aged 10-15, two daughters aged 16-25, and his wife, over age 45.  In this household, only two were engaged in agriculture. One family researcher argues that William Patton was in the 1782 tax list of the county in which he lived until his death in 1846. He further says hat he served 4 years in the Regular Army, that he had at least eight children (John, William, Henry, Isaac, Sally, Catherine, Polly, and Betsey), with a possible ninth named Peggy, all of which were born between 1785 and 1804 as existing records show. He also was reportedly part of the Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church, with a man named William Betten/Batton the same as William Patton. Yet no records show his wife’s name, although some assume it was Maria Catherine Shupe, but this could not be confirmed. This researcher also says that he gave all his land to his son, Isaac, in his will. To an extent, his observations are confirmed by the following, showing a James Patton and William Patton living in Wythe County:
There are also two possible daughters of him in 1818 and 1821:
He could be the third section of this 1793 tax list, it is not online currently. There are those with the last name of Patton buried within the cemetery of the Zion Lutheran Church but he is not among them. He is also not mentioned within the Montgomery County, Virginia tax list, making it possible he was still living in Maryland. There are available deeds showing a “William Patton” living in Kentucky in the late 1790s but this is not him, and he is not related to this man profiled in the Washington Post. 
The Pennsylvanians: Philip Huston/Houston in 1820
In July 1820, Philip Huston, age 53 (an age which seems questionable), and resident of Buffalo Township, Pennsylvania, which is a town within Washington County, made another pension request. He had a wide array of property as his scheduled showed in 1820: 1 Cow, 1 chest, 1 table, 1 Cupboard, 4 chairs, 1 Spinning wheel & reel, 1 Pot, 1 Oven, 1 Tea Kettle, 1 looking glass, 1 Set cups and saucers, 1 Set plates, 1 Set knives & forks, 1 Tin bucket, One axe, 1 Old Tub & churn, 1 Bureau, 1 Taylors Iron & Shears, 1 Set knives & forks, 1 Tin Bucket. He also noted that he had “Revolutionary land warrant for 100 acres, now of little value” and that people owned him 16 dollars while he was “indebted to sundry persons ninety eight Dollars.”
His family was wide-ranging. He was living with “unhealthy” wife named Mary, age 45 (born in 1775), a “healthy” daughter named Ann (born in 1804), an “unhealthy” son named John (born in 1806), a “healthy” daughter named Elizabeth (born in 1808), and a “healthy” son named William (born in 1810). He further added that he was, “a taylor” (tailor) by profession but could not follow it well because of “age and rheumatism” and recounter how h could not “walk without great pain” because he had lost two toes when he was discharged from Sacketts harbor. As a result, he, as he notes,
…lay consequence four months after my arrival at home under the Doctor’s hands, and became very much involid and would have suffered had it not been for the kindness of our neighbors who releived us in our distress.”
While some records are not clear, it is evident he was still living in 1820, as he was clearly on the pension list.  There are also related records. These records show numerous members of the Huston family living in Pennsylvania within the late 18th and early 19th centuries.  On November 8, 1829, Philip was gone. He had died, as recorded on the pension roll. 
Continuing the story of Jesse Boswell
Where we last left off, Jesse Boswell was living in York, South Carolina and asked the “assistance of his country for support.” In 1821, aged 66 years, Jesse was still a resident of York. In this reapplication of his pension, he noted that he has some positions of value: metal pot ($4.00), household furniture ($11.75), corn, cotton, and Fodder ($13.00), coming to a total of $28.75. All of this factored into his description to the federal government of his current lifestyle:
I am a farmer and not able to pursue it on account of old age and infirmities my family consists of myself my wife aged about 42 years & 3 children. 1 daughter aged about 10 years another about 7, & another about 5, & we are not able to support ourselves
Census information on Jesse is unclear. In the 1790 census there is a Robert Boswell in 1790 census in South Carolina, not sure what relation, if any. In the 1820 census there is a man named “Josse Boswell” (undoubtedly Jesse) living in a household with three members, including himself (White male over 45), a young White girl under age 10, and his wife, aged 26-44.  Some sites claim that he married two times, first to Elizabeth Carrington and later to Mary Kelough, the latter once he was living in South Carolina. He was said to have a son named John and daughter named Sarah. This information cannot be confirmed.
Through some digging, one can find numerous records of Jesse living in Charles County Maryland in the 1790s before he went to South Carolina. Specifically, he moved sometime before 1809and had three daughters, Nancy, Elizabeth, and Margaret. These records also show that he was the brother-in-law of Zachariah Low, a Charles County planter, and executor of his estate. 
On November 23, 1828, at age 73, Jesse died in South Carolina. This ended the ten years he had been on the federal pension roll. He had received $967.42 and no more, no less. By 1829, Polly Boswell would be administering his estate since he had died intrastate (without a will):
There is only one page within this his probate and it is an administrative bond between Polly Boswell and Benjamin Chambers, showing her to be the administrator of the estate:
Many years later, in 1853, Mary Boswell applied for a pension for Jesse. She said that she married Jesse on Dec. 24, 1809, and that he died on Nov. 23. She also applied for bounty land with her maiden name was Kelough or Keler. By August 1865, the only children and heirs of hers, Nancy Garvin, Elizabeth Boswell, and Margaret Boswell, stated that she had died on November 12, 1863, and that they wished to collect a pension suspended during the civil war.
John Shanks, Kentucky man
In September 1836, John Shanks, a 67-year-old resident of Mead County, Kentucky, applied for his pension. He explained his military service and how he was originally “enrolled on the invalid pension list” but that he didn’t apply for this pension before because his children, who he was living with, had an “objection to his drawing from the Government any larger pension so long as he was able to live without it.” His property schedule was limited. He owned two horses ($40), three cows ($15), five young cattle ($20), seven sheep ($7), and household/kitchen furniture ($10). He also explains how in 1818 he leased a small piece of land and was dependent on labor of his children, with the property used to support his family. He further adds that he was “almost entirely dependent on his children for his support” and that his family consists of himself and his sixty-year-old wife, Ann, and that he is “unable to labour hard” with his support “derived principally from their children who have families.” Hence, he concludes the total worth of his property is $92. Using Measuring Worth, this be a relative value of $2,270 dollars (2016 US dollars).
The story is even more detailed than what has already been stated. He had moved to Kentucky by September 1826, because he was “dependent on his children for a support, and they removed to Kentucky & advised him to remove with them” and in 1827 he applied for “a new copy of his invalid pension certificate from Maryland in which he referred to “Dr. R. Pindell [Richard Pindell] in Lexington Kentucky, who was Sergeant of the Regiment at the time said Shanks received his wound at the Battle of the Eutaw Springs.” Census information is not altogether clear. There are two men named John Shanks in Kentucky as of 1810 census, and three in the 1820 census, and even the 1830 census has a man living in Brandenburg, Kentucky, a city within Meade/Mead County, but it is not him. He was also a witness to a will in 1805 and engaged in land transactions in Kentucky in the early 19th century. 
There was even a patent within Tellico Survey “to John Shanks for 300 acres on the West side of Fishing Creek, above Jarvis’s improvement, and was issued Nov. 9, 1803.” Existing land records also show a man named John Shanks granted 100 acres in Lincoln County, Kentucky in 1807, with the same for a piece of land within Pulaski County in 1801. It is not known if either of these men is John Shanks. In 1803 there was also a marriage between Henrietta Flower and John Shanks in August 1803 in Bourbon, Kentucky. It is not known if this was him. The same goes for a John Shanks living in Grayson County, Kentucky in 1810. Nothing else is known.
McCay in Ohio and Thomas in Virginia in 1830
In 1830, John McCay was living in Warwick, Tuscarawas, Ohio, a township within Stark County, confirming what he said in his pension. He owned no enslaved Blacks and there were four people in his household including two free White men, ages 20-29, one free White man, between ages 70-79 (him), and one White female ages 60-69 (his wife Elizabeth).  This was a change from 1820 when he was age 56 and living in Baltimore.
The same year, the Thomas family was living in Christiansburg, Montgomery, Virginia. There were two “free white persons”: Giles Thomas (between ages 60-69] and his unnamed wife (between ages 60-69). The rest, six people, were enslaved laborers.  These laborers are divided as follows: 1 male aged 10-23, one male aged 24-35, two females under age 10, one female age 10-23, and one female aged 24-35. Nothing else is known.
Giles Thomas, a Virginian, and Thomas Gadd, Marylander
In August 1832, Giles Thomas appeared before justices of the court saying that he he was 68 years old, having no evidence of his service “except a certificate for a lot of bounty land of Fifty acres” and that his name “is not on the pension roll of the agency of any State.” He would be dead by 1850, as he is in censuses from 1810 to 1840. Living in Montgomery County, Virginia, he would die by 1842, with reports that he enlisted at the age of 16. Even a paperback book by W. Conway Price and Anne Price Yates titled Some Descendants of Giles Thomas, Revolutionary Soldier claims to go over his life story, and is available through the Virginia Tech University Libraries.
By 1840, Giles, age 76, was still living in Montgomery County as a census of pensioners made clear. Originally from Charles County, Maryland, he had at least one child with his wife Nancy: a daughter named Elenor/Eleanor who had married into the Barnett family, living from about 1791 to 1853. Some within the DAR (Daughters of American Revolution) have clearly done research on him since he is represented by one member in a New York chapter. Then we get to his Find A Grave entry which says his spouse was Nancy Ann Wheeler (1762-1845) and that they had two children named William Jenkins (1796-1863), and Elias (1801-1877) and describes him as a person born on November 30, 1763 in Baltimore County, Maryland and married Nancy on June 04, 1786 in Blacksburg, Montgomery County, Virginia. On March 21, 1842, he died, with his gravestone describing him s a private within the Maryland line:
Then we get to Thomas Gadd, who was born January 1760 in Baltimore and reportedly died in Rockcastle, Kentucky. Some say he died in 1832 (probably based on pages out of this book), but this is incorrect. His entry on Find A Grave says he died in 1834 and was put in an unmarked grave. In 1833, he was put on Kentucky Pension Rolls, and was age 74, living in Rockcastle County.  Other genealogical researchers seem to indicate that he had at least five children, including William. This cannot be further confirmed. 
However, a number of realities are clear. He seems to have been living in the county as early as 1810. Additionally,he was was alive as late as May 23, 1833 when he made the following deposition in Jesse Williams’s pension:
I Thomas Gadd state, that I was in the Revolutionary War, and served in the same Batalion mentioned by the above applicant [Jesse Williams] in his original declartion but under diferent Captains. but I was well acquainted with the officers named by said applicant. I was not personally acquainted with the applicant in the service, but from a long acquaintance with him since and from conversations with him years ago and having served the same kind of service myself I have no doubt but he has stated the truth in his declaration & that he served as he states. Given under my hand this 23d day of May 1833
Hence, he could have died in 1834 after all.
The 1830s and 1840s: William Elkins, Giles Thomas, and William Patton
In 1835, William Elkins was on the pension roll and was living in Jefferson County, Ohio.  Sometime later on, he was buried somewhere in Jefferson County, although the location is not altogether clear.
Five years later, Giles Thomas is still alive and breathing in Montgomery, Virginia. A census that year describes Giles as a revolutionary pensioner who is 76 years old, basically saying he was born in 1764, putting his age 16 when joining the extra regiment. 
Jump forward another five years. William Patton appeared before magistrates in Wythe County, Virginia, aged 90 years, 8 months, and six days, putting his birthday sometime in September 28, 1754 by my calculations. The following year he says he was age 91, meaning he was born in 1755, differing from what he said the previous year. Hence, his age is not fully clear.
The year of 1853: William Groves’s wife, Mary, and Allegheny County
On May 25, 1853, Mary groves appeared before a judge of the orphans court of Allegheny County, living in the Westernport District, and said to be 77 years old, which is slightly different. She described Groves’s military service, said that she married by Reverend Mayers in Prince William County, Virginia on November 20, 1796, with John Huff, Enoch Huff, Hannah Huff and & Rebecca McCune present at the marriage. It is possible that these Huffs are related to those with the same last name in the Extra Regiment. She also said that she had four children with William: John (Dec. 1797-Sep. 1815), Rebecca (July 1800-June 1808), Jesse (b. June 17, 1803), and Dennis (b. Dec. 14, 1805). She also noted that William Groves died on Jan. 4, 1849, with the marriage taking place previous to Jan. 2, 180, and that she was a widow by 1783.
Other documents clarified the marriage date. On February 4, 1792, William Groves and John Hoff made a bond showing the marriage of William to Mary Spencer. In 1854 she said that her pension application she had misstated the time of the marriage since she knew that they were “married about two years or their about, before they “them ‘Whiskey Boys’ marched,” and from that she said that they were married in 1796 but she found out later that they marched in 1794. Hence, saying they married in 1792 is correct. She further explains that William wanted to go and fight against the rebels but she did not consent for that, and he did not go, with them not having any “child or children untill about four or five years after they was married.” Further records say that William and Mary brought with them Mary’s mother, Elizabeth Spencer who lived with them sometime before going back to a part of Virginia. The pension also says that William and Mary were married by Rev. William? Mayers, a Baptist preacher, after which the wedding party returned to his mother Elizabeth’s house “and took Dinner as Customary at that time.” Furthermore, the pension certificate notes that Mary died on September 5, 1856.
There is a Maryland law in 1853 which mentions the estate of “the late Thomas J. Gadd” in Caroline County. It is not known if this is related to Thomas Gadd previously mentioned or not.
There are numerous other sources I could have consulted for this article. However, I did look at genealogical and first-person sources on the topic. There is no doubt that this article, while it is put into sort-of vignettes on each person or groups of people, tells a coherent story of these 11 soldiers after the war. As always, comments are welcome.
 Pension of John Newton, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, S.35009. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 He claims John enlisted in the Eighth Maryland Regiment, but this is completely erroneous information.
 First Census of the United States, 1790, Hopewell, Newton, Tyborn, and Westpensboro, Cumberland, Pennsylvania, National Archives, NARA M637, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 8, Page 557. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 First Census of the United States, 1790, Queen Anne’s, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M637, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 3, Page 470. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Second Census of the United States, 1800, Queen Anne’s, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 11, Page 342. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Third Census of the United States, 1810, Christiansburg, Montgomery, Virginia, National Archives, NARA M252, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 70, Page 646. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Third Census of the United States, 1810, Christiansburg, Montgomery, Virginia, National Archives, NARA M252, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 57, Page 59. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Third Census of the United States, 1810, Wythe, Virginia, National Archives, NARA M252, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 71, Page 288. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Also cited on page 476 of Henry Wright Newman’s Mareen Duvall of Middle Plantation: a genealogical history of Mareen Duvall, Gent., of the Province of Maryland and his descendants, with histories of the allied families of Tyler, Clarke, Poole, Hall, and Merriken and in page 60 of Adamson-Duvall and Related Families by Rae Adamson Fraelich.
 First Census of the United States, 1790, Charles, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M637, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 3, Page 563. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; Second Census of the United States, 1800, Durham Parish, Charles, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 10, Page 65. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, District 4, Allegany, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_40, Page 12. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; Fifth Census of the United States, 1830, Allegany, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M19, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 53, Page 30. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; Sixth Census of the United States, 1840, District 4, Allegany, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M704, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 156, Page 59. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest. Likely no mentions in 1915 book titled A History and Genealogy of the Groves Family in America Descendants of Nicholas La Groves of Beverly, Mass.
 No John Newtons listed as living in Maryland in 1810 census. In 1820 there are two John Newtons living in the state: one in “Election District 4, Dorchester, Maryland” and another in “Baltimore Ward 3, Baltimore, Maryland.” It is not known if either of these men is the same as John Newton. In 1830 there is a man with the same name living in “District 8, Dorchester, Maryland.” It it not known if this is the same as John Newton. In 1840 there are two John Newtons living in the state: one in “Division 8, Dorchester, Maryland” and another in “Hancock, Washington, Maryland”
 Letter from the Secretary of War: Transmitting a Report of the Names, Rank, and Line, of Every Person Placed on the Pension List, in Pursuance to the Act of the 18th March, 1818, &c. January 20, 1820. Read and Ordered to Lie on the Table (Washington: Giles & Seaton, 1820), 548. Neither the Wikipedia page for “John Newton Soldier), this pension, this listing of those living in Talbot County’s Tuckahoe Hundred in 1721, within Norma Tucker’s Colonial Virginians and Their Maryland Relatives or this or this relates to him.
 Gaius Marcus Brumbaugh, Maryland Records: Colonial, Revolutionary, County and Church from Original Sources, Set, Vol. 1 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1993), 378.
 Journal of the House of Delegates, 1805, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 553, 4, 6, 38, 48, 49; Journal of the House of Delegates, 1806, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 553, 21, 29.
 Helen W. Brown, Index of Marriage Licenses, Prince George’s County, Maryland 1777-1886(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1973, reprint), 40.
 His descendants may have included William Elkins born on April 26, 1823 and died in 1897, who may have served in the war between 1812 and 1815 with the British. Other references are scattered.
 Letter from the Secretary of War: Transmitting a Report of the Names, Rank, and Line, of Every Person Placed on the Pension List, in Pursuance to the Act of the 18th March, 1818, &c. January 20, 1820. Read and Ordered to Lie on the Table (Washington: Giles & Seaton, 1820), 636.
 Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Newburn, Montgomery, Virginia, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_130, Page 185. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Evensham, Wythe, Virginia, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_139, Page 221. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 May be in here, not confirmed, but is definitely not here.
 Daughters of the American Revolution, Report of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Vol. 17 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1915), 155, 412; Letter from the Secretary of War, Transmitting the Names, Rank, and Line of everyone played on the Pension List, In Pursuance of the Act of 18th March, 1818 (Washington: Giles & Seaton, 1820), 512. A person with his name was paid amounts varying from about $48.00 to over $84 dollars. Men with his name were listed as part of Fourth Maryland Regiment, of a Maryland regiment paid until Jan. 1782 [the extra regiment], and officers who are part of the New Hampshire Line. The first two could be him. A Philip Huston received money from PA’s auditor general. Is that him? Hustons living there, related.
 William Huston buying land in PA, Huston’s Pleasure in 1786. Related? A Joseph Huston same year, James Huston next year & 1788; major Huston family buying in 1788, some in 1789, 1791, 1792, 1793 as noted here. Land transactions of Hustons in 1794, 1795, 1798 courtesy of here. There were also Huston family purchases in 1802, 1804, 1805, and 1806 as noted here. Nothing relating to that family was found here. For further resources see “Vital Statistics Records” of Pennsylvania, indexes of patents in the early 19th century, overview of their land records, and homepage of the historical commission itself.
 Third Census of the United States, 1810, York, South Carolina, National Archives, NARA M252, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 61, Page 677. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 This record also cites Charles County Land Records 1775-1782; Liber V#3; Page 426_ Bill of Sale. We, Ann Lowe and Jesse Boswell of CC, for 3000 £, sell to Walter Hanson Jenifer, the following Negroes: a woman named Monica and her children, Bett & Sam. Signed Dec 7, 1779 – Ann Low, Jesse Boswell. Wit – John Chattam. Recorded Dec 11, 1779.
 Harry Kennett McAdams,Kentucky Pioneer and Court Records: Abstracts of Early Wills, Deeds and Marriages from Court Houses and Records of Old Bibles, Churches, Grave Yards, and Cemeteries Copied by American War Mothers (US: Heritage Books, 2007), 51.
 Fifth Census of the United States, 1830, Warwick, Tuscarawas, Ohio, National Archives, NARA M19, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 141, Page 33. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Fifth Census of the United States, 1830, Christiansburg, Montgomery, Virginia, National Archives, NARA M19, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 198, Page 98. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Kentucky Pension Roll for 1835: Report from the Secretary of War (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2009), 1833; Mary Verhoeff, The Kentucky mountains, transportation and commerce, 1750 to 1911: a study in the economic history of a coal field, Vol. 1 (Louisville, KY: John P. Morton & Company, 1911), 216; The Pension Roll of 1835: The Indexed Edition, Set, Vol. III, The Southern States (Baltimore: Clearfield Company, 1992), 43. A person with his name is also on 1835 pension rolls which note that his pension started on May 4, 1818, was age 72 in 1835, and his death date is not specified (Report from the Secretary of War in relation to the Pension Establishment of the United States (Washington: Duff Green, 1835), 1829). But this is not him.
 Reportedly there is information with Gadd Genealogy by Joseph Hayden Gadd in 1939 as well.
 United States War Department, The Pension Roll of 1835: The Indexed Edition, Set Vol. 1: The New England States (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1992), 149.
 Sixth Census of the United States, 1840, Montgomery, Virginia, National Archives, NARA M704, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 567, Page 30. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
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.
Theodore Middleton was different than Alexander Lawson Smith and Archibald Golder (link when published on June 7). By 1781, he was a 23-year-old man, born in Charles County, Maryland, the son of Mary Hawkins and Smith Middleton. He had been, like the others mentioned, an officer in the Extra Regiment, but, different from them, a mid-level officer, who was promoted while others resigned their ranks.
Theodore was, when he joined the Extra Regiment, living in Prince George’s County, Maryland, where he would live until at least the 1830s. While the record of his age was lost or destroyed, he remembered when applying for his federal veterans pension, that he was a “commissioned Officer” who performed “three Tours of survice” and was acquainted with Col Luke Marbury, also from the same county, commanding a “Regiment at the battle of Jermons town” or Germantown in Pennsylvania where he was taken prisoner. He also recalled that he was acquainted with Col. John Hoskins Stone and Col. Uriah Forrest, both of whom were wounded in the battle just mentioned, along with a person named General Francis Nash, who was killed at the same battle.He also remembered that he did receive a “commission from the Governor and Council of Maryland,” but it had been “lost or mislaid” by the 1830s. 
As one of the 19 within the Extra Regiment with a pension, what he has to say is further worth noting. In applying for his pension in February 1833, he noted that he entered the Maryland Line in April 1779 as a Lieutenant and later served in the Extra Regiment with Captain Mountjoy Bayly, Major Edward Giles [link when published on June 21], Alexander Smith, and Nathanael Greene. He also recalled that he marched with the regiment
from Annapolis to Philad’a where he remained two months. From there a short time he took shipping at the head of Elk River and came to Annapolis in the State of Maryland where he staid for some considerable time. This tour of service embraced fourteen months. He then marched from Annapolis to Alexandria, Fredg. [Fredericksburg] Richmond and Petersburg Virginia, Crossed over into the State of North Carolina, and was at the battle of Guilford C. H. in said state, March 1781 [Guilford Courthouse, 15 Mar 1781]
He then said that after that point, with the end of a “Southern tour of sixteen months” he returned to Maryland in October 1781 “as a Supermerary
officer by General Green” during which time he was commissioned immediately as a Captain. At that point hewas commanded by Col. Uriah Forrest to go to Annapolis, where he stayed a recruiting officer for nine months, until he was “discharged by Col. U. Forest.” While this story has some truth to it, the fact is that he started as a Second Lieutenant, would help organize the specifics of a company within the Extra Regiment. He would later be paid as part of the “late Extra Regiment” in March and April of 1781, and be appointed “Capt. Lieutt of a Company of Foot to serve in this State for one year” the same month. He would write Governor Thomas Sim Lee in September 1781, noting about gathering infantry to organize a defense of the Chesapeake Bay region:
As a considerable time has elapsed since I had the Honor of hearing from you, concerning the raising the compy of infantry for the defence of the Bay, I should be glad to know if you still propose that corps to be raised, If not, I must Sollicit your Excellency In an apointment in the first com.[company] that may be recruited.
While the information on Theodore is not as wide-spread as other officers, there is still a story worth telling.
Beyond the pension
Scattered sources about Theodore do tell some parts of a story. On November 20, 1789, in Upper Marlborough, he married a woman named Julia/Juliana Huxton, and the following year he headed a household with two males under age 16, one female (Julia), and seven enslaved blacks.  With Julia he would have, ultimately, eight children. They would be named Sarah, Henry O., Theodore, Walter, Chloe Ann, Mary H. Charles S, and Susan.
Also in 1789, he was named as executor of Dr. Edward Semmes estate, possibly because of the close relationship between the two men. By April 1791 he was cited for not passing a final account on the estate but was allowed to sell a portion of the estate to meet the debts of Dr. Semmes. 
In later years, Theodore would still own enslaved blacks. In December 26, 1799, a woman named Ann would be described as “natural daughter of Margis, slave,property of Theodore Middleton living in Prince George’s County.”
By 1800, would be living in “formerly part of Prince Georges MD, Washington, District of Columbia, United States,” but possibly didn’t move into the district, but rather where he was living became part of the federal capital. Three white males under age 10, one white male over age 45 (himself), two white females under age 10, and one white female under age 45 (his wife) would be living in the household. Of course, he would also own 15 enslaved blacks, more than anyone on either one of the corresponding census pages. The latter implies that he had a plantation of some type, although the location of this land is not known. Despite this mention of living in Washington, D.C., he would be noted as a resident in Prince George’s County through a number of land records, perhaps indicating that the area he lived was near the border line.
Twelve years later, in August 1812, Theodore would mortgage three enslaved black men to a man named Robert Bench. They would be: Joe, age 23, Daniel, age 21, Leonard, age 40, and Jim, age 15.  This business of mortgaging enslaved blacks, a “rent-a-slave industry” was a moneymaker for slaveowners, not only showing that “the legal treatment of slaves as property in the South” (the same goes for deeds of enslaved black people) but was, at the time, used to “solve” issues of ownership over such peoples. Furthermore, the acquisition of more enslaved blacks could be “financed by mortgages” with bonds sold to investors based on “value of those mortgages” leading to securities. The latter were “based on enslaved human beings” to create a “bubble” of such assets, leading to speculation which was like that on “home mortgage derivatives that helped cause the financial crisis of 2008” as some writers have pointed out. Even Thomas Jefferson (as did others) mortgaged his enslaved blacks, which was one of “rescues” the Jefferson family had “from a bad harvest,” keeping the “family afloat while a new and grander version of Monticello took shape” as Henry Wiencek writes in Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves.
This mortgage between Theodore and Bench was a bit ahead of the curve since widespread mortgaging would not occur until the 1830s. Historical scholar Edward Baptist explains this and how US finance grew on the back on enslaved labor in increasing intensity in the 19th century:
In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world. First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.” As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee. The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.
While what Baptist is saying is admittedly controversial to some, he helps put the mortgage between Theodore and Bench into context.
In later years, he would give away land for almost nothing. In 1814, two years after the previously mentioned mortgage, he would be one of five commissioners (the others named Josiah Moore, Thomas Bunch, James Beall Senior, and James Bealle Junior) who had gained lands after the death of Ignatius Handy in 1811. However, the courts said the lands should be divided without loss and injury to all parties, and the son of Ignatius, in 1812, received land, but not the commissioners so they advertised the real estate for sale and it was bought by Mordecai Ridgeway.  Perhaps due to legal wrangling they sold all of the estate to him, including numerous parcels of land such as Friendship’s Addition, Crichet Bat, and Lanhams Delight. By almost nothing I mean that they only received $5.00 from Ridgeway. This could be because all of the commissioners were good friends of his or that they wanted to be rid of the land and didn’t care what it sold for. Whatever the reason, Middleton was involved in the middle of it.
The mid-1810s and into the 1820s
By 1815, Theodore was buying and selling land with relatively large price tags, possibly showing his wealth. That year, he paid a man named Stanislaus Hoxton $2,176 dollars for two tracts which were named “Triall” and “Deer Pond Enlarged.”  This wasn’t the end of the story for those land tracts. In 1820, his son, Henry O. paid him $50 dollars for “10 parcels” of a land, which were part of the two above mentioned tracts.  The same year, George Semmes would pay him for these two tracts. He would pay $2,000.  Six years later, the tracts were sold again. Likely because of his role as an administrator of Semmes estate, he had regained ownership over the land, and sold it for $2,000 to a woman named Sarah Folson of the same county. 
Some may say that Theodore lost money in these land dealings. After all, there was a negative 3.93% average inflation rate between 1815 and 1826, as noted by Measuring Worth, meaning that the relative value of the $2,176, which had had paid for the land, was now $1,400. Hence, you could take from this, he had a money loss, with his land worth less. However, he still gained, even when you factor in the lower relative value, he brought in $3,690 for the varied land sales in 1820 and 1826.  Hence, he garnered, approximately, a 69.6% profit from the transaction as a whole. This land dealing was noting new. Some his ancestors within the county had sold numerous tracts of land to willing buyers. 
In 1820, two men, Francis John Lobson and George Semmes, would buy $3,000 dollars worth of “goods” from Theodore.  He would grant them 12 enslaved blacks named Daniel, Phil, George, Lewis, John, Sam, Grace, Betty, Celey, Eliza, Grispey?, and Margarett. He would also give them the following:
“five head of horses, nine head of cattle, twelve head of hogs, thirty two head of sheep, and all the household and kitchen furniture which at this time belongs to me the said Theodore Middleton”
While the average price of enslaved blacks was definitely not $900.00 (if it was, they would have been paying $10,800 dollars) as it was in New Orleans at this time, they undoubtedly figured into his transactions.  Those involved in the transaction probably did not consider the dehumanizing effects of enslaved blacks being sold alongside livestock, only considering them another form of “property” as part of their wheeling and dealings.
Selling and buying of enslaved people ran in the Middleton family. His son, called Theodore Middleton, Jr. in land records, while he is called Theodore Middleton, Sr.,would pay General Semmes and Francis Tolson for a “young negro man named Sandy.”  One of his ancestors, Thomas Middleton Sr. of Piscataway, Prince George’s County, was a major player in the business as well. In February 1743, he sold an enslaved black woman named Lucy to John Lawrence for several thousand pounds, while the following year he would be paid four thousand pounds of tobacco for two enslaved blacks by James Gibbs. The first individual, a woman named Judith, he would pay three thousand pounds of tobacco, while the second was a man named Henry for which he would pay 1,000 pounds of tobacco.  Such tobacco not only determined a “man’s wealth” but it was a principal source of revenue for the colonial governments of Virginia and Maryland. After 1730, Marylanders became aware that Virginia’s inspection system gave the state “a great advantage over Maryland by raising the quality and reputation of its’ tobacco” so in 1747 the Maryland General Assembly “passed the Maryland Inspection Acts which remained a permanent feature of the trade in Maryland.” By the time Thomas engaged in this transaction, the price of tobacco has stabilized, avoiding wild price fluctuations that has been a feature in the past within the Chesapeake Bay region.
In 1832, a Virginia man named Erasmus Gantt noted he served with Middleton in the spring of 1782, including on the Potomac River, ending his military service in Annapolis.  All that is known beyond this is that he was part of the defense of the Chesapeake Bay, and would appointed a Lieutenant.
The same year as Erasmus submitted his pension, another man named John Boone, of Charles County, a Lieutenant in the First Maryland Regiment would also mention Theodore.  In the pension, which would continue after his death, sometime before 1853, by his wife Mary Laud, it would note he served from May 1776 to October 1781, fought at the battle of Yorktown, still had his discharge certificate. Even with all of that, Theodore is mentioned only in passing, deep inside the pension:
The same would seem, from a simple search, to be the case in the pension Henry Hill filed by Hester Hill, his wife. Apart from being a captain, Henry, who lived in D.C. in the 1830s, he would serve from 1777-1782, throughout the Revolutionary war, and be a native of Prince George’s County.  Unlike Boone’s pension, in 1841, Theodore would personally attest that Henry was a captain, commanding a company of Maryland militia at the Battle of Germantown (1777):
In 1838, five years after Captain Bayly, in Washington City attested to the fact that he and Benjamin Murdoch were part of the Extra Regiment, he would petition the US House of Representatives for relief.  In his petition, he would note his service as a lieutenant in the Extra Regiment, wanting five years pay for his service, and he would receive such pay accordingly.
Into the 1840s
By 1840, Theodore would still be living in D.C. while his son lived in Baltimore. Within the household would be two white males, one under age 5, the other between ages 30 and 40, and two white females, one between ages 5 and 10, the other between ages 20 and 30. With these individuals were undoubtedly his children, would be two enslaved blacks, one whom was a male between ages 5-10 and the other also a male but between ages 20 and 30. There would also be one “free” black woman living in the household between ages 10 and 24.
There a few other facts which are known about his life.  The Theodore’s wife, Julia, owned varying enslaved blacks and was well-off, to an extent, before her death in November 1842. When she died, eight children were left with only Theodore living until his death.
In terms of Theodore’s death, some sources seem to indicate that he died 85 years of age on January 28, 1844, Theodore died in Prince George’s County, but still within the bounds of Washington, D.C. seemingly. Others seem to think that he died in 1845 for some reason.  As it turns out, those that said he died in 1844 would be correct, as proved by the short death notice in the Baltimore Sun:
Hence, after his death, his heirs began to collect his pension benefits from the Federal government. Many of his descendants, including his son, had the same name, owning property in Prince George’s County which included a house of some kind. Also there are reports that his son Theodore served as a traveling agent in Baltimore for the Maryland State Colonization Society and possible mentions of him in within Daniel Boone Lloyd’s genealogy titled The Middletons and kindred families of southern Maryland.  Later, one of his descendants, James Middleton, would serve as a Confederate soldier while another would be sheriff in Harlon County, Kentucky in the early 20th century as numerous newspapers, ranging from the New York Times to Washington Post would attest.
In all, he would be honored by his family and part of the annals of Maryland history for years to come.
 He also said that in his present living area he was “personally acquainted with the Rev. Spencer Mitchell, George Semmes, Henry A. Callis, Henry Gantt, John Addison, Bazil Hatten, Notley Maddox…Henry Tolson Esqrs…Judge Key, and the Hon’le B. J. Semmes.”
 Mortgage between Theodore Middleton and Robert Bench, Aug 12, 1812, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber JRM 15, p. 283, 284 [MSA CE 65-44]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Theodore Middleton, Josiah Moore, Thomas Bunch, and Mordecai Ridgeway, Oct. 5, 1814, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber JRM 16, p. 208, 209, 210, 211 [MSA CE 65-45]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Theodore Middleton and Stanislaus Hoxton, May 22, 1815, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber JRM 16, p. 362, 363 [MSA CE 65-45]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Theodore Middleton and Henry O. Middleton, Mar. 14, 1820, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber AB 1, p. 412, 413 [MSA CE 65-48]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Theodore Middleton and George Semmes, Aug. 29, 1820, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber AB 1, p. 413, 414 [MSA CE 65-48]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Theodore Middleton and Sarah Folson, Sept. 13, 1826, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber AB 4, p. 342, 343 [MSA CE 65-51]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Originally he was paid $2,050 for such land in 1820, and $2,000 in 1826.
 [Deed involving Thomas Middleton and Catherine Plajay, Mar. 13, 1743, Prince George’s County, Land Records, Liber BB 1, p. 103, 104, 105 [MSA CE 65-12]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Bill of sale by Theodore Middleton to Francis John Lobson, April 3, 1820, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber AB 1, p. 264 [MSA CE 65-48]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 “Average Price of Slaves, New Orleans, 1804-1862” within Edward Baptist, The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 174, citing the New Orleans Sale Sample, 1805-1862, which was compiled by Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman.
 Bill of Sale from Gen. Semmes and Francis Tolson to Theodore Middleton, November 12, 1821, Prince George’s County Court, Land Records, Liber AB 2, p. 33 [MSA CE 65-49]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Bill of sale involving Thomas Middleton and John Lawrence, Feb. 24, 1743, Prince George’s County, Land Records, Liber BB 1, p. 85, 86 [MSA CE 65-12]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Bill of sale involving Thomas Middleton and James Gibbs, May 17, 1744, Prince George’s County, Land Records, Liber BB 1, p. 130, 131 [MSA CE 65-12]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Bill of sale involving Thomas Middleton and James Gibbs, May 17, 1744, Prince George’s County, Land Records, Liber BB 1, p. 131, [MSA CE 65-12]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Pension of Erasmus Gantt, 1832, Survivor’s Pension Application File, S.10.727, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Record Group 15. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Pension of John Boone, 1832, Pension Application File, S. 8076, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Record Group 15. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Pension of Hester Hill for benefits of Henry Hill her husband, 1856, Pension Application File, W. 14,907, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Record Group 15. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Middleton’s pension “includes a certificate by Mountjoy Bayly of the District of Columbia dated 27 Feb 1833, signed as shown, certifying Middleton’s service in words almost identical to those in the above application. On 11 March 1833 Theodore Middleton applied to have his pension payable in Washington, DC. A note by W. H. Middleton dated 25 Oct 1855 asks that the Commissioner of Pensions allow examination of the papers pertaining to his father, Theodore Middleton.”
 “Reports of Traveling Agents,” Maryland Colonization Journal, Baltimore, Dec. 1856, Vol. 8, no. 19, 304. He is reportedly mentioned on pages 97 and 376 at least of Daniel Boone Lloyd’s The Middletons and kindred families of southern Maryland.
This post continues the series on Maryland’s Extra Regiment, focusing on the postwar lives of certain members of the unit whom information is plentiful about to explain wide-ranging trends. Mountjoy/Montjoy Bayly, whose last name can be spelled Bayley, Baley, Bailey, and Baillie, was not like unit commander Alexander Lawson Smith, who settled in Harford County until his death in 1802. Likely of Scottish origin, Mountjoy mmigrated from Virginia, living in Frederick Town, within Frederick County. 
By the end of the war, in 1783, he had, for the time being, ended his varied military career. He served as an adjutant, and later a captain, in the 7th Maryland Regiment, from December 1776 to September 1778, when he resigned, sending George Washington a letter acknowledging this reality.  Within his duties as a captain, he fought at the Battle of Brandywine. On the day of the battle, on September 11, 1777, he led a patrol of Maryland soldiers wearing red coats, with a Quaker and “well-to-do farmer,” named Joel Baily, thinking that they were the British and welcomed them heartily as a result.  However, Mountjoy soon would be out of commission for many years.
Within the sweltering weather and rough battle of Monmouth, in New Jersey, on June 18, 1778, he “broke a blood vessel” which rendered him “unfit for duty.” He remained unable to “do duty until the Spring of 1780,” sitting in a Pennsylvania hospital, as he said years later in his federal veterans pension application.  While he sat in the hospital, in an “unfortunate disposition,” his regiment was ordered south, as he recalls. Even though he was later considered an “invalid,” meaning that he had been injured in battle, he was still chosen as a captain in the Extra Regiment, which barely had a mention in his pension, only referenced in passing as the “additional regiment” of the Maryland Line. In later years, after serving in the Extra Regiment, he served as a recruiting officer in Frederick County and as “local city major and commandant of prisoners” in the town of Frederick as captured Hessian private Johann Conrad Döhla described him.  He placed people under arrest and oversaw Hessian prisoners, from 1781 to the end of the war. He even held a court-martial, in December 1781, in the town of Frederick since the officers commanding the militia in the county did not have, in his words, “the least Idea of discipline or indeed even distinction.”
Mountjoy’s life after the war
One year before the conclusion of the war, his father, William, died. However, Mountjoy still had many siblings and his mother, Mary, surviving him. He had six brothers (Pierce, William, Samuel, Joseph, Tarpley, and Robert), and three sisters (Sarah, Nancy, and Betty).  As a result of his father’s death he may have inherited his father’s land in Virginia, which likely included hundreds upon hundreds of acres. This is buttressed by the fact that Mountjoy was buying deeds to property in Fairfax County, Virginia in 1783 and 1784, along with part of a land agreement in 1782 with his father before his death. While Edward Papenfuse says he was entitled to 200 acres in Allegheny County for his service during the Revolutionary War, no record of his land plot in that county can currently be found.  However, Papenfuse may have a valid point in saying that he expanded his land holdings in Frederick County, including 47 acres of confiscated British property, and selling 192 acres between 1785 and 1805.
In 1784, Mountjoy cemented his ties with the Edelin/Edelen (Edelin is used in this article) family, prominent and wealthy within Frederick County, especially manifested in Christopher Edelin, a merchant who had become part of the local government in the county during the Revolutionary War.  As it turned out, Mountjoy married Elizabeth Edelin, the daughter of Christopher, with the connections between the two families continuing for years to come. He would have four children with Elizabeth, called by her first name in the rest of this article, named Benjamin, Richard, Eleanor, and Elizabeth.  Two land transactions the same year seems to indicate when Mountjoy was married. In September 1784, he paid a Baltimore merchant, Hugh Young, to buy a 450-acre tract known as “Victory” and later sold that same tract to Joseph Smith, who might be the son of the person it was originally surveyed for in 1773: Leonard Smith, when the tract consisted of 468 acres.  Since Elizabeth is not included on the first transaction, but is included on the second, this indicates she was possibly married to Mountjoy sometime between September 4 and 25.
Later in the 1780s, as Mountjoy continued to buy and sell land, Elizabeth would become more involved in these transactions, especially when it came to selling land. In December 1785, he bought the land on which his father-in-law, Christpher, previously mentioned, lived, which included a stone house and sat on a street in Frederick Town (present-day Frederick).  Not long after, he began his slave ownership, as much as we know. He bought an 19-year-old enslaved Black woman named “Pack” and an unnamed two-year-old enslaved Black female from Christopher.  These transactions were not surprising since Christopher would die the following year, 1786.
It would not be until 1787 that Elizabeth would agree with one of her husband’s sales. He would sell land to numerous individuals, such as Joseph Young and George Scott, while buying land from Benjamin Dulany, mortgaging land to George Schuertzell and Peter Mantz, a former major of the Maryland Flying Camp, as the Bayly family lived comfortably in Frederick Town.  This included one piece of land called Salsbury/Salisbury Plains which was originally surveyed for Christopher in 1774, and consisted of 131 acres. By 1789, there was another change: Mountjoy re-entered the US military in 1789 as a major, the first of his forays back into the armed services. 
Mountjoy, the Maryland House of Delegates, the “Whiskey Rebellion,” and French prisoners
As a story goes, on June 13, 1791, George Washington ascended a hill in Frederick County and looked over the “beautiful Monocacy Valley.” On that day, he was met by a “Cavalcade of Horsemen from Frederick” which included Mountjoy, and Colonel John McPherson, among others.  By this point, he had the political bug. While he had served as an auctioneer years earlier in Frederick County, it would not be until the mid-1780s and early 1790s he would serve as a delegate for Frederick County within the Maryland House of Delegates.  While serving as a legislator, he voted against creating a college on Maryland’s Western shore, supported the prohibition of taxes to help “ministers of the gospel of any denomination,” and helped prepare and bring in reports on inhabitants of Frederick Town and County. One year after his last legislative term, he rejoined the military as a brigadier general, serving in part of the Maryland Militia’s Ninth Brigade, based in the upper part of Frederick County. 
While Mountjoy only served in the armed forces, for the fourth time, from 1794 to 1795, he was involved in a strong assertion of federal power. From 1791 to 1794, angry farmers, which some call “protesters,” who declared themselves “Whiskey Boys,” attacked tax collectors in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. They did so because of the whiskey tax introduced by Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, calling, in part, for a more progressive tax code that didn’t benefit the well-to-do.  Thomas Sim Lee, then the Governor of Maryland, organized state militia and “took an active part in the suppression of the Whisky Insurrection in western Pennsylvania and Maryland.” Governor Lee ordered Mountjoy to rally local militia in the area, arm them, place a guard at the arsenal, and instruct another Maryland general, Smith, to raise a force of 800 men to “restore order.”  By September 21, the rebelling farmers were dispersed, with most of them rounded up and turned over to the civil court system, as Governor Lee triumphantly told Hamilton. Mountjoy also met with Colonel Thomas Sprigg about guarding the “the magazine at Frederick.” He wrote two letters about this. The first to Governor Lee, on September 10, with part of this letter describing the political environment in Western Maryland, specifically Washington and Allegheny counties where a “Spirit of disorder” existed, with “actual riots and disturbances”:
I have thought it necessary to Send with the Arms &c Ordered to Allegany County a Strong Escort Consisting of one Complete Company. This I conceive will not be thought over cautious when your Excellency takes into View the existing Circumstances, these Arms &c will have to pass through Washington County Where the people are generally unfriendly to the present Views of the Government. Under this Idea of things I conceive it would be imprudent to risque the Supplies which you have Ordered.
In obedience to those orders, honoring me with the direction of the troops which your Excellency had commanded to rendezvouz at Frederick Town for the purpose of repressing that turbulent spirit which had violated peace & order and seemed to threaten Government itself in the Counties of Frederick Washington and Allegany…For that purpose I marched about 300 Infantry together with 70 horse through Harmans Gap which opens into the County of Washington near the Pennsylvania line, a rout which led me through the midst of those people whose turbulency it was your object to punish and repress. This was done with an intention to apprehend the characters who had been most active in their opposition to Governmt and whose names had been previously furnished to me for that purpose. It was supposed too that the appearance of an Armiment would have a very good effect, and convince those who had lost sight of their duty that Government could send forward a force at any time when necessity required it sufficient to inforce obedience to the Laws. On my arrival into Washington [County] I proceeded to carry into effect my arrangements by despatching the cavalry in quest of the Ringleaders. But upon the first display of the Horse, I found a party from Hagarstown [Hagerstown] had superceded the necessity of any exertion on my part, by having previously brought in those disorderly people to Justice. About the number of twenty [disorderly individuals] have been apprehended, all of which have been admitted to Bail except eight, these have not yet undergone their examination but most of them perhaps all of them will be committed to close Jail, without bail, however this is but opinion. Martin Bear and John Thompson had been examined before my arrival, and although both of them had been considered as notorious offenders they were admitted to Bail and to my great surprize Cols. [Thomas] Sprigg & [Rezin] Davis were their Securities. It is however but proper to add that upon the examination of these two men their was no evidence of their guilt save the general report as I am informed by those who were present 
Five years later, in September 1799, a captain in the First Regiment of Artillerists and Engineers, named Staats Morris (not the same as the British general of the same name) wrote to Hamilton about fifty French prisoners held by Mountjoy in Frederick Town. He says that
I have the honor to inform you that Lieut. Dyson returned from Frederick Town last night, having delivered the French prisoners (fifty in number) to Genl. Baily, as will appear by the enclosed receipt. By his report Lieut Newnan’s command is thought necessary as a guard over them. There have been several new cases of the fever at the fort since the date of my last letter; but from the report of the Surgeon and from the change in the weather, I am led to hope none will prove fatal. In my last letter I had the painful task of communicating to you the death of my young Kinsman, Lieut Lawrence Your letter received since containing orders for him (which I took the liberty of opening) has therefore been destroyed…[bottom:] enclosing Mountjoy Bayly’s receipt for fifty French prisoners
The same year, Mountjoy, a literate Presbyterian, planter, and “gentleman,” would become a charter member of the Society of Cincinnati, a group of former revolutionary war officers.  Specifically, he would be one of the original members of the Society’s branch in Maryland.
Mountjoy, slavery, and land transactions in the 1790s
In 1790, the Bayly family still lived in Frederick, Maryland. While living there, with the honorary title of Major still attached to his name, he owned ten enslaved Blacks, and had fourteen other “free white persons,” six of which were his family, including himself and his wife, but eight others are not known.  The same year, he further cemented his tie with the slave trade and southern slavery in the United States. He signed an agreement which sold a 17-year-old woman, named “Jenny,” to him but also agreed to manumit her at age 31, in 1807, when she would be “free” from the chains of human bondage.  It is worth noting that manumission was not a progressive action but was part of the framework of slavery itself, part of the slave system, and hence it was nothing novel as some slave traders would easily disregard manumissions while “free” Black people could still face harsh discrimination.
In later years, Mountjoy would continue his buying and selling of land, with just about each transaction ok’d by his wife, possibly indicating they worked together on business decisions, which would make sense considering she was part of the large landowning Edelin family. He would sell land to Peter Mantz, William Campbell, both of whom were revolutionary war veterans, and Henry Elser.  He would also be involved in a lawsuit about purchasing Venus and Badgen Hole, within Frederick county, and be involved in agreements about land in Virginia. The land he would sell would include a “century-old tract of land,” consisting of 120 acres, known for a long time as “Middle Plantation” which sits in the village of Mount Pleasant, with its “beautiful horse farms” as one website claims. He would also sell a part of a tract sitting on Flat Run called “Alexander’s Prospect” which was originally surveyed in 1766, consisting of 310 acres, which he bought (at a time when the acreage of the lot had decreased) along with 255 acres of a tract called Douthet’s Chance (originally 280 acres), and 68 acres of “The Resurvey on All Marys Mistake” tract.  When he bought this land it was from a man named “Alexander Hamilton” who was living in Prince George’s County. There is no confirmation this is the same as the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of the same name.
Mountjoy also made a number of land purchases.  He bought 184 acres of differing tracts, some within Emmitsburg, Frederick County, from John Payder of York County, Pennsylvania, whom he had sold certain lands before. Also, he was part of agreements between the Edelin and Bayly families, among others, over the division of the estate of his father–in-law, Christopher, and dividing up the estate of Charles M. Turner, a related party.  In later years, he would be a witness to the marriage of Susanna Ringer and Abraham Krumm (listed as “Mount Joy Bailey”) and would be involved in a case against William Sprigg Bowie and John S. Brookes of Frederick County within the state’s court system.
Mountjoy, the slave trade, Republicanism, and land deals
By 1800, the Bayly family was still living in Frederick County, but this time specifically in the town of Liberty, likely referring to Libertytown, Maryland, a small town which is currently has only 950 people. While living there, the household consisted of 26 individuals, 14 who were enslaved Black laborers, twelve of whom were White, six of which included Mountjoy and and his family, the other six not currently known.  In later years, he would show that he was directly involved in proceedings about enslaved Blacks. In 1801, he would request that certificate of the sale of two enslaved Black women, Rachel and Nell to Lindsey Delashmutt, and two years later, in 1803, he would attend a proceeding determining if two enslaved Blacks were delivered to their appropriate “master” for said enslaved Blacks. 
In the early 1800s, other than watching French prisoners (still) in Frederick Town, he would seem to show his political affiliation. In 1803 he would write Thomas Jefferson, the sitting president a letter, about a “sulphur spring,” noting that this letter was written from Georgetown, indicating that he had moved within the boundary of the District of Columbia. The following year, he would again write from Georgetown about a land dispute where he is living and the selling of sulpur, which could benefit the United States. To this letter, Jefferson replied and said that he agreed with Mountjoy. No other letters are known. However, this could indicate that the political affiliation of Mountjoy was Democratic-Republican, or Republican for short, since many of those in this category were farmers, slaveowners (like himself), and others, who wanted less government intrusion into their lives.
In this first decade of the 19th century, Mountjoy would sell and buy land like never before, which his wife, Elizabeth, continued to agree with. He would sell 154 acres to William Emmit, land which was part of Monocacy Manor to John Ringer, and sells three different tracts all consisting of more than 48 acres to a man named Patrick Reed.  Monocacy Manor, within Frederick County, included “26 dwellings with a stone base chimney” and sat on the Monocacy River, bordered by a dwelling known as Woods Mill Farm. In 1801, Mountjoy gave a man named Michael Dutro part of his estate and interest in a lot which consisted of Monococy Manor. 
The Dutro (also spelled Dutrow, Dotterer, Detro, Duderoe, Tuttero, Dudderar) family was owned hundreds of acres and an estate/farm in within the county, since it was an “old Frederick County family” as one writer put it.  As for Michael, he was described as a Federalist in 1796, living in the same county as another officer of the Maryland Extra Regiment, Samuel Cock who is described on the next page as a Democratic-Republican or Republican for short. Michael may have been born in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania. He was living in Westminster, Maryland, with three other family members, one of whom is his wife, and likely his two children.  This means that Mountjoy was selling his land to a relative local but also a person likely of the same social class as him.
There are some strange land purchases by Mountjoy which are not all together clear. I’m not talking about the exchange of lands between Jacob Jumper (gained 25 acres) and Mountjoy (gained 35 acres) in 1803.  Rather, I’m referring to the selling of his estate, right, and title to John Cockey, Jr. (likely related to this person) of Baltimore County in 1801 and the buying of John Ringer’s Estate, Title, and interest to (and part of) a lot which consists Monococy Manor, only six days later. These purchases indicate the move-ability of the Bayly family, but could also mean it is moving to a new jurisdiction. 
Did Mountjoy live in Washington County, Maryland?
Existing records show a “Mountjoy Bayly” of Washington County, described as released and no longer and insolent debtor, giving Samuel Bayly, Trustee to benefit the creditors, all the property, real and personal and mixed.  It further says that this individuals took all his bedding with him, and makes clear this transaction refers to Washington County in Western Maryland, not the short-lived Washington County within the District of Columbia where Maryland jurisdiction still applied at the time. It is worth noting that in 1774, Mountjoy was an overseer for his older brother named Samuel Bayly who was living in Colchester, Virginia.  Hence, one could make the argument that this Bayly is the same as Mountjoy we were talking about.
Further records, show this “Bayly” as living in Washington County, is an insolent debtors and a “petition from Mountjoy Bayly, of Washington county, praying an act of insolvency, was preferred, read, and referred to the committee appointed on petitions of a similar nature” in 1805. It also worth noting there is a Chancery Court case involving Washington County, specifically the “Insolvent estate of Bayly” at Clift Springs, a land tract seemingly within the county, which is apparently mentioned in this book. There is one entry for a “Clift Spring” owned Philip Barton Key in the 1790s, but it not known if this is the same property. 
In the agreement between this “Mountjoy Bayly” and Samuel Bayly, the following signature is given:
In Mountjoy’s letters to Jefferson, the following signatures are given:
In the land agreements by Mountjoy from 1800 to 1803, the following signatures are given :
From this, I conclude that the “Bayly” of Washington County, Maryland is a different person. In every single one of these signatures, except one, the letter M has a down curl. While he did write his name as “M Bayly” on several occasions, none of the signatures looked like that in the 1808 letter, which seems much neater. The fact that he did not live in this county is also reaffirmed by the letters he sent to Jefferson in 1803 and 1804 which were sent from “Georgetown,” a town within the District of Columbia. Also, the idea of him becoming an insolent debtor and giving up all of his property to creditors seems unlikely since no land records before this time indicate any sort of financial troubles. Still, some could see indicators it is Mountjoy. Ultimately, the only way to solve this dilemma once and for all would be to look at the Chancery Court case mentioned earlier, which is a case relating to the 1808 letter. However, this cannot be done currently as I do not have access to such resources. But, hopefully other researchers and interested persons can fill in this gap in the future.
Mr. Mountjoy goes to Washington
By the second decade of the 19th century, Mountjoy and his family was establishing itself in Washington. One year after his petition to Maryland General Assembly was accepted and he was paid five years full pay as a captain, he would be appointed sergeant-at-arms and doorkeeper of the US Senate. He would replace the existing sergeant-of-arms, James Mathers, who died on September 2, 1811, chosen as his successor on November 6th.  His time as a sergeant-at-arms would last 22 years, ending only on December 9, 1833. He only received $1,500 a year as sergeant-at-arms, more than the Assistant Doorkeeper but many times less than the Secretary of the Senate, even as people depended on him to keep order. While in this position, he placed his vouchers and certificates from his military service in the capitol’s senate chamber in 1812 but they were destroyed when the British burned the capital in 1814, just like many other records, such as the 1810 census of the city. 
Since there is no census, that limits the available historical information. Existing remarks on pensions of revolutionary war soldiers, and other documents, shows that he was definitively in the city in 1818 (also see here) and 1819. There is also information indicating that he observed the manumission of enslaved Blacks in 1817, 1819, 1820, 1822, and 1823. There there is his federal veterans pension, for which he applied for in 1818 while living in the District, with certain records finalized in 1828, but he remained on the federal pension roll until March 1836 as existing records indicate. 
A site, “Early Washington, D.C. Law and Family,” created by William G. Thomas and the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has bountiful information about Mountjoy. In 1814, he was one of 12 members on a jury that ruled in favor of two enslaved Blacks (John and Serena) and against a preacher/slaveowner named Henry Moscross. The same occurred in a case between three enslaved Black females (a mother named Rachel and her two children Eliza and Jane) and Henry Jarvis. The same year, he was part of a jury that ruled against an enslaved Black man named Emanuel Gasbury of Northumberland County, Virginia, and in favor a slaveowner named Henry W. Ball. However, by 1816, Mountjoy was a witness to a seeming marriage bond between Richard Love, Car Withers, and Thomas Langston. Nothing else, even looking at the existing page for Mountjoy on the subject, is currently known.
Mountjoy and the Fourth Washington Ward
In 1820, the year that the city’s charter was changed, the Bayly family reappears on the census, living Washington Ward 4, Washington City, part of the District of Columbia. One enslaved Black female, aged 26-44, one free Black man, over age 45, and six “free white persons” are listed as part of the household.  The six White peoples are his son Benjamin (age 16-18), his son Richard (age 16-25), himself (over age 45), his daughter Eleanor (age 16-25), his daughter Elizabeth (age 26-44), and his wife Elizabeth (over age 45). While it is not known how many enslaved Blacks he owned between 1810 and 1820, the fact remains that he did own 14 enslaved Black laborers in 1800, as noted before, so having only two laborers (one enslaved and the other “free” with the genders possibly indicating they were a couple/in a relationship) is a drop dramatically.
The Bayly family, living in the Fourth Ward of Washington City, was joined by 276 other households.  Furthermore, there is total of 256 enslaved Blacks (163 female, 133 male), 225 “free” Black people (113 male, 112 female), and 120 enslaved Blacks being manumitted. By contract, there are 1019 “free whites” living in this ward (534 female, 485 male). This comes to a total of 1,620 inhabitants, but only within this ward of course. The breakdown of this data shows a mostly White population within the ward:
Ray Gurganus of the DCGenWeb project, citing 1816 Washington Acts, 1820 Washington Laws, numerous issues of the National Intelligencer in 1816, 1819, 1821, and 1822, writes that in 1820 the city rearranged itself, making six wards. The second and third wards were the wealthiest, along with the area above SE E Street and to the Capitol and Treasury buildings drawing in the most well-to-do individuals, while wards in the northwest and along the river front was fraught by poverty, meaning that they didn’t attract the same individuals. Drawing from this, it means that the Bayly family lived in a district of households that were relatively well off.
It was during this time frame that Mountjoy built the Bayly House, with its picture at the beginning of this post. As the Stewart Mott Foundation describes it, he built the house sometime between 1817 and 1822, later selling the property, like the land transactions previously mentioned, to a lawyer with the name of William McCormick, in 1828.  Mr. McCormick would hold the land in a trust for a woman with the name of Alethia Van Horne. Hence, this land transaction in 1834 is likely related.
In 1822, the directory of Washington City residents described Mr. Bayly not only as the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms but also as “fronting the capitol square,” confirming, basically, that he was living in the house at the time.  Further confirming his presence is a letter that Mountjoy writes on Nov. 16, 1822, that is within the federal veterans pension application of Moore Wilson, a former soldier of the 7th Maryland Regiment:
Beyond this, very little is known. There is a record that Mountjoy was involved in an 1826 case relating to unpaid amounts by insolent debtors, where he was described as a “person of good understanding and correct demeanor” as even the defendant admitted.  Then there is a Senate resolution proposed by Thomas Hart Benton, a strong-willed Missouri Democrat, in 1830, which went to a second reading, titled “A Bill For the relief of Mountjoy Bayly.” The main text of the bill is worth reprinting here:
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the Secretary of War be directed to pay Mountjoy Bayly his commutation of five years full pay as a Captain in the Maryland line, in the war of the Revolution: Provided, He shall satisfy the Said Secretary that he was entitled to such commutation and never received it from the United States.
The last six years of Mountjoy
Like the 1820 census, the 1830 census is full of information. Still living in the Fourth Ward, the household of “Genl M Bayly” as the census shows it, indicates that he is living with his family,, including his son Richard, his daughter Eleanor, his daughter Elizabeth, and his wife Elizabeth, along with two enslaved Blacks, one which is a female under age 10, another which is a female aged 36-54.  The same year a “Mary Bailey” was living in Georgetown, just like in 1820 when two “free” Black persons were living with her). Likely, this was his mother.  If it was, then this would add an interesting familial dynamic to the story. However, more research would be needed to see if this is the case. After all, many people with the last name of “Bailey” are listed as living in this ward in 1820 and 1830 but it is not known if they are related to Mountjoy. 
This same census showed 341 household, a “Benjamin Bayly” as the marshal in the city, and many colonels and military officers living within the ward. Furthermore, using all of the pages within the census of this Washington city region, it is clear that there are 1,860 inhabitants in the ward. Of these inhabitants, 535 are White males, 591 are White females, 117 are enslaved Black men, 134 are enslaved Black women, 212 are free Black men, and 271 are free Black women.This means this means there has been an increase in the number of households by about 23%. since there were 277 households in 1820.
In terms of the number of inhabitants, there were 200 more in 1830 that were not there in 1820, an increase of more than 12%. In terms of the distribution of those living in the ward, about 28.5% are White men, about 31.7% are White women, about 6.3% are enslaved Black men, about 7.2% are enslaved Black women, about 14.5% are free Black women, leaving 11.8% to be free Black men. That means that 60.2% of the town was White, with the rest as Black inhabitants, only 26.3% of which were “free,” and 13.5% enslaved.
Coming back to Bayly, in 1832, Elizabeth would die from a form of cancer, if I remember his federal veterans pension application correctly, which misstates who she is, no surprise in terms of pensions.  After her death, he would marry another woman. While her last name is not currently known, thanks to Edward Papenfuse, we know her first name was Rebecca.  The same year (and the year following) he would, from Washington City, attest to the fact that Benjamin Murdoch and Theodore Middleton were part of the Extra Regiment.
In the final years of his life, little is known. However, there are indications that he was “praying to be compensated for extra services” as noted in the journal of the U.S. Senate for Jun 27, 1834. Also, in the Federal Pension Roll of 1835 it noted that he lived within Washington County, a county within DC, not Maryland, still receiving a Federal pension of $4,320 since the pension started in July 1828, and an annual allowance of $480.00.
On March 22, 1836, within his 82 years of age, Mountjoy died and was buried in Washington D.C.’s Congressional Cemetery. As he still owned hundreds of acres in Frederick County , one newspaper would write a short death notice:
On the 22nd instant, GENERAL Mountjoy Bayly, an officer of the Revolution, in the 82nd year of his age. His friends are requested to attend his funeral from his late dwelling on Capitol Hill this evening at 4 o’clock.
This funeral’s location is not known. It likely was not at the Bayly House, but rather was at lot 13, square 637 within the District, a property sold to Benjamin S. Bayly in 1831. It could also be at lot 10, within square 637, also owned by Mr. Bayly sometime before 1832. Using the information on an 1835 map of DC shows that that square 637 is south of the Capitol, and near a canal, which means that he stayed in the Capitol Hill region, only slightly moving around. This is undoubtedly the current location of The Spirit of Justice Park, and he could have been living in what was later called George Washington Inn, which was demolished to make way for a parking garage for the House of Representatives.
The only way to find this out would be to, perhaps, would be to contact the DC Archives. I don’t feel it is my place to do this since I would be intruding on genealogy research by the family itself, but it is open for any other researchers.
The years after Mountjoy and reflection
Since the last name of Mountjoy’s second wife, Rebecca is not currently known to this researcher, further family linkages cannot be determined. However, a number of aspects are clear. In 1838, Theodore Middleton, previously mentioned, would petition the US House of Representatives, saying that he served as a lieutenant in the Extra Regiment, wanting five years pay, citing Mountjoy as support. He would receive it, possibly indicating Mountjoy’s staying power.
Years later, in 1934, one ancestor of Mountjoy, McKendrec Bayly, would write the Washington Post a correction, showing that his spirit remained strong :
In one New York Times obit from 1910 it cites a person named Richard Mountjoy Bailey Phillips as dying. It is not known if he is related to Mountjoy. However, one Baltimore Sun article about Mrs. Sumner A. Parker has this line, which concerns an estate they owned, “the Cloisters” which was the Green Spring Valley estate of Mr. and Mrs. Sumner A. Parker.  The relevant part is as follows:
…Mrs. Parker asserted in her will that she and her late husband…built the Cloisters…[which had within it] furniture handed down by her great-great-great grandfather, Gen, Monjoy Bailey, from his home in Frederick. The testator said that her ancestor had been sent to Frederick by Gen. George Washington and place in charge of the troops housed on the outskirts of the city.
This is partially right as noted earlier in this article. However, it is wrong to say that George Washington sent Mountjoy to Frederick. Instead, he was sent on Governor Lee’s orders and was in charge of troops within Frederick County, not anywhere else, like this implies. Other stories I found noted how Mountjoy was a better and gambler and how Sterling silver knives, which were made in England in 1790, owned by Mountjoy, were stolen in 1972. 
In later years, in July 2012, the 1st Vice President J. Patrick Warner of the Maryland Society of the Sons of the American Revolution would represent the Maryland Society in a “ceremony commemorating Mountjoy Bayly.” That means that to this day, people commemorate him.
There are many resources I could have used here.  Some sources said that the pension file of George Heeter is related to Mountjoy, but no evidence seems to indicate this at all. A related book and page by Fairfax SAR chapter, give helpful hints, the latter used for some of the sources in this article, but they do not provide all of the information. Possible other sources are out there, like the entries in “U.S. War Bounty Land Warrants, 1789-1858” for Mountjoy (called Mountjoy Bailey in the record), or “New Orleans, Louisiana, Slave Manifests, 1807-1860″ of about 1831 which involves Mountjoy shipping a enslaved Black man southward (if I read that right), all of which are records of Mr. Bayly all on Ancestry which can’t be currently accessed by this researcher. Other than that, there are probably online resources that I have not found. More likely the records I don’t have here are paper records within certain archives and databases across the East Coast.
I hope that this article contributed not only to an understanding of the story of Mountjoy, but also how the story of slavery is tied into US history deeply, along with Washington, D.C. from 1820 to 1836, at least. If this article did anything to improve people’s historical knowledge and encouraged further research, then then this research did right. As always, I look forward to your comments as I continue to write on the stories of certain members of the Extra Regiment after the Revolutionary War.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119. He is listed as “Monjoy Baley” living in Frederick County’s Lower Potomac Hundred in 1776 here. The original paper record of this is in Box 2, f. 8, p. 1 of the 1776 Maryland Census. Bayly at some points preferred his last name to be spelled “Bayly” and at other points “Bailey” and “Bayley.”
 Ibid; Journal and Correspondence of the Maryland Council of Safety, July 7: December 31, 1776, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 12, 113, 179, 180; Journal and Correspondence of the Maryland Council of Safety, August 29, 1775 to July 6, 1776, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 11, 522, 523; Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 18, 189, 326, 621.
 Thomas J. McGuire, The Philadelphia Campaign, Vol. 1: Brandywine and the fall of Philadelphia (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2006), 185, 186, 368-369.
 Pension of Mountjoy Bayly, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, S-12094, BLWt 685-300. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Ibid; Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1780-1781, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 45, 356, 357, 358, 369, 658, 659, 660; Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland, 1781-1784, Archives of Maryland Online, 16, 23, 33, 34, 72, 73, 95, 102, 103, 121, 140, 165, 204, 265, 477; Johann Conrad Döhla, A Hessian Diary of the American Revolution (edited and translated by Bruce E. Burgoyne, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), 200, 205-209; Pension of Erasmus Erp, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, Rejected Pension Application File, National Archives, NARA M804, R, 3.364. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; “Applicants for Pensions in 1841: Letter from the Secretary of War” within House Documents, Otherwise Publ. as Executive Documents: 13th Congress, 2d Session-49th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1869), 4. Some records attest that Bayly was part of the Maryland Militia after 1781, although this cannot be confirmed.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119. Walter H. Buck, in a letter titled “Bayley (Bailey)” within Notes and Queries section of Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 61, September 1946, page 256, asked if Mr. Bayly was related to Pierce Bayley of Loundon County, Virginia. It seems he was related.
 Harry Wright Newman, Charles County Gentry (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2002 reprint), 123, 140-141, 195-198. The Edelen house in Prince George’s County, Maryland may be related to this family.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Victory, Leonard Smith, 468 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, April 29, 1755, Patented Certificate 4960 [MSA S1197-5387]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Deed between Mountjoy Bayley and Joseph Smith, Dec. 31, 1784, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 5, p. 273-275 [MSA CE 108-25]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayley and Hugh Young, Sept. 25, 1784, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 4, p. 413- [MSA CE 108-24]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. Also referred to on page 5 of Liber 5.
 Deed Between Mountjoy Bailey and Christopher Edelen, Dec. 11, 1785, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 6, p. 230-232 [MSA CE 108-26]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Purchase of enslaved Blacks by Mountjoy Bailey from Christopher Edelen, Dec. 30, 1785, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 6, p. 250 [MSA CE 108-26]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Mountjoy Baily and Benjamin Dulany, Mar. 4, 1786, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 6, p. 344-345 [MSA CE 108-26]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly, Joseph Young, and George Scott, Apr. 7, 1787, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 7, p. 220-221 [MSA CE 108-27]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Mortgage by Mountjoy Bayly with George Schuertzell and Peter Mantz, Jan. 31, 1788, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 7, p. 674-676 [MSA CE 108-27]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Salsbury Plains Helpt, Christopher Edelin, 131 Acres, May 23, 1774, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, Patented Certificate 4198 [MSA S1197-4619]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly, his wife, and Johnson Baker, Jan. 6, 1789, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 8, p. 460-461 [MSA CE 108-28]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119. Specifically he would serve in the Maryland General Assembly in 1785, 1786, 1786-1787, 1789, 1790, and 1793.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789–1878 (DIANE Publishing, 1996), 67. I get this part about the “progressive tax code” from what William Hogeland writes in Founding Finance. I haven’t read his book titled The Whiskey Rebellion yet, but it is still worth mentioning here.
 Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1879 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1988), 49. He cites letters of Bayley to Lee and vice versa within vol. 18 of Red Book, item 138 and the Council Letterbook. Specifically see the following within Red Books: 1794, Sep. 12. BAILEY, MOUNTJOY (Frederick Town) to GOV. Militia preparations for the Whiskey Rebellion. MSA S 989-2908, MdHR 4583-137 1 /6 /4 /15.
 Founders Online cites “ALS, Hall of Records of Maryland, Annapolis” as a source, referring to the Maryland State Archives of course. It also says that “a similar account of these events is in The Maryland Journal, and the Baltimore Advertiser, September 22, 1794.”
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 First Census of the United States, 1790, Frederick, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M637, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 3, Page 165. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Manumission of an enslaved Black woman named Jenny, Jan. 12, 1790, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 9, p. 14-15 [MSA CE 108-29]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. This also means she was born in 1773.
 Transaction between Mountjoy Bayly and Peter Mantz, July 30, 1790, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 9, p. 331-333 [MSA CE 108-29]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly and Henry Elser, Oct. 22, 1793, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 12, p. 226-228 [MSA CE 108-32]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bailey and William Campbell, Jan. 23, 1798, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 16, p. 165-166 [MSA CE 108-36]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayly and John Payder, Sept. 18, 1799, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 19, p. 41-42 [MSA CE 108-39]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. Campbell was reportedly a veteran who had served as a captain in the Maryland Line.
 Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and Alexander Hamilton, April 28, 1799, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 18, p. 241-243 [MSA CE 108-38]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Resurvey On All Marys Mistake, Alexander Masheen, 73 1/4 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, Oct. 23, 1755, Patented Certificate 3281 [MSA S1197-3699]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Alexanders Prospect, Alexander McKeen, 310 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, May 25, 1768, Patented Certificate 269 [MSA S1197-333]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/; Douthets Chance, Alexander McKeen, 280 Acres, Frederick County Circuit Court, Certificates, Patented, FR, Oct. 30, 1752, Patented Certificate 1177 [MSA S1197-1241]. Courtesy of http://plato.mdarchives.state.md.us/. When the Resurvey tract was originally surveyed in 1765, it consisted of 67 3/4 acres and when Alexander’s Prospect was originally surveyed in 1766, 167 acres were vacant and only 143 acres occupied. As for Douthet’s Chance, this tract was originally surveyed in 1750 and was 280 acres.
 Bond between Mountjoy Bayly and John Payder, Oct. 5, 1797, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 15, p. 659-660 [MSA CE 108-35]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Mountjoy Bayly, Elizabeth Bayly, Rebecca Edelin, John Lynn, Eleanor Lynn, John Hodge Bayard, Rebecca Bayard, Thomas Crabbs, Dec. 2, 1797, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 16, p. 96-98 [MSA CE 108-36]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Arrangement between Mountjoy Bayley, others, and Charles M. Turner, May 31, 1798, Frederick County Court, Liber WR 17, p. 28-30 [MSA CE 108-37]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. In the first deed listed, the executors of Christopher Edelin’s estate (the father of Bayly’s wife, Elizabeth) have recovered some of the estate, including the house, after it was under a mortgage, and furthmore, Mountjoy Bayly, Elizabeth Bayly, Rebecca Edelin, John Lynn, Eleanor Lynn, John Hodge Bayard, and Rebecca Bayard are paid 200 pounds and now have control of the whole estate. For the second one, there is an arrangement between the Bayly and Edelin families involved in dividing up the estate of Charles M. Turner, removing certain claims on his estate.
 Second Census of the United States, 1800, Liberty, Frederick, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 10, Page 221. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 At the request of Genl. Mountjoy Bayly, April 25, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 19, p. 307 [MSA CE 108-39]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Notice by Mountjoy Bayley, July 20, 1803, Frederick County County, Land Records, Liber WR 24, p. 557-558 [MSA CE 108-44]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Deed between Mountjoy Bailey and William Emmit, Sept. 9, 1800, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 20, p. 157-159 [MSA CE 108-40]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and John Ringer, Oct. 2, 1800, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 20, p. 213-215 [MSA CE 108-40]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and Patrick Reed, Nov. 26, 1800, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 20, p. 314-315 [MSA CE 108-40]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and Michael Dutro, April 18, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 21, p. 100-101 [MSA CE 108-41]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Millard Milburn Rice, New Facts and Old Families: From the Records of Frederick County, Maryland (Baltimore: Geneaological Publishing Inc., 2002, reprint), vi, 128, 132-134; Thomas John Chew Williams and Folger McKinsey, History of Frederick County, Maryland, Vol. 1 (Frederick, MD: L.R. Titsworth & Co. 1910, 2003 reprint), 781, 860, 982-983, 200, 1282, 1364, 1654-1655, 1657, 1716; John Clagett Proctor, Johannes Heintz and His Descendants (Greenville, PA, 1918), 80; Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, Archives of Maryland Online, Vol. 18, 681.
 Henry Sassaman Dotterer, The Dotterer Family (Philadelphia: Henry Sassman Dotterer, 1903), 74-76, 78; Second Census of the United States, 1800, Westminster, Frederick, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 10, Page 193. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest. Other sources, like History of Carrollton Manor, Frederick County, Md, show the long-standing roots of his family in the county.
 Account between Mountjoy Baley and Jacob Jumper, June 2, 1803, Frederick County County, Land Records, Liber WR 24, p. 557-558 [MSA CE 108-44]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and John Cockey, Jr., April 20, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 21, p. 118-120 [MSA CE 108-41]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net; Deed between Mountjoy Bayley and John Ringer, April 26, 1801, Frederick County Court, Land Records, Liber WR 21, p. 121-122 [MSA CE 108-41]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. In the latter record, John Ringer’s wife is described to be Ann.
 Deed of Mountjoy Bayly to Samuel Bayly, 1808,Washington County Court, Land Records, Original, Liber S, p. 1020-1021 [MSA CE 67-17]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Margaret Lail Hopkins, Index to the Tithables of Loudoun County, Virginia, and to Slaveholders and Slaves, 1758-1786. Baltimore, MD, USA: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1991), 731. This record, apart from access on Ancestry, can also be found here.
 Further searches show that this property was purchased by William Claggett after 1806.
 Top signature comes from page 158 of 1800 “deed between Mountjoy Bailey and William Emmit.” The second and third signatures come from page 214 of 1800 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and John Ringer.” The fourth and fith signature comes from page 315 of 1800 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bailey and Patrick Reed.” The sixth and seventh signatures comes from page 101 of the 1801 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and Michael Dutro.” The eighth and ninth signatures come from page 120 of the 1801 “Indenture between Mountjoy Bayly and John Cockey, Jr.”
 Thomas J. McGuire, The Philadelphia Campaign, Vol. 1: Brandywine and the fall of Philadelphia (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2006), 368-369. McGuire notes that he served for years as “doorkeeper of the Senate and sergeant-at-arms,” and he spelled his last name Bayly. The People of the Founding Era database shows, that Bayly served in the army, was a Sergeant-at-Arms, Doorkeeper, and Officer.
 Pension of Mountjoy Bayly, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, S-12094, BLWt 685-300. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Washington Ward 4, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_5, Page 104. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Thomas J. Carrier, Washington D.C.: A Historical Walking Tour (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2005 reprint), 18; Washington on Foot, Fifth Edition (ed. John J. Protopappas and Alvin R. Mcneal, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 2012), 31. Carrier writes that this house, built in 1822, served as Bayly’s residence as doorkeeper and sergeant-at-arms of the US Senate. It does not mention the selling of the house in 1828.
 Judah Dulano, The Washington Directory: Showing the Name, Occupation, and Residence, of Each Head of a Family and Person in Business : the Names of the Members of Congress, and where They Board : Together with Other Useful Information (Washington: William Duncan, 1822), 15.
 William Cranch, “Patons and Butcher v. E.J. Lee,” April Term, 1826 within Reports of Cases Civil and Criminal in the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, from 1801 to 1841, Vol. 2 (Washington: William M. Morrison and Company, 1852), 649-650.
 Fifth Census of the United States, 1830,Washington Ward 4, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M19, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 14, Page 2. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Fifth Census of the United States, 1830, Georgetown, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M19, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 14, Page 142. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest; Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Georgetown, Washington, District of Columbia, National Archives, NARA M33, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll M33_5, Page 51. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 In 1820, George Bailey, John Bailey (two of the same name), Lucy Bailey, Winder Bailey, and Winney Bailey are listed as living in DC. In 1830, a William Bailey, Lanor Baily, Thomas Baily, and Margaret Bayley are listed as living in DC. Even in 1800, Jesse Bailey (two of the same name), Robert Bailey (likely his brother), William Bailey, Daniel Bayly, and John Bealeyare listed as living in DC.
 Pension of Mountjoy Bayly, Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, National Archives, NARA M804, S-12094, BLWt 685-300. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al., Archives of Maryland Online Vol. 426, 119.
 Ibid. This disproves, once again, the idea he lived in Maryland’s Washington County.
 BAYLY, McKENDREC. Washington, July 5. “Gen. Mountjoy Bayly.” The Washington Post (1923-1954): 8. Jul 10 1934. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017.
 Hiltner, George J. “The Cloisters Willed as Art Museum.” The Sun (1837-1991): 2. Oct 20 1972. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017. An ancestry search of city directories reveals a man named “George MountjoyBayley,” a Sergeant, living in New York in 1830. It is not known if he is related to Mr. Bayly.
 “GAMBLING IN WASHINGTON.” New York Times (1857-1922): 2. Dec 01 1872. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017; “$16,800 Collection Stolen Downtown.” The Sun (1837-1991): 1. Oct 29 1972. ProQuest. Web. 22 May 2017.
 For instance, I found Mr. Bayly mentioned in this soldier’s pension, and numerous books within the collections of the Virginia Historical Society on the geneaology of the Bayly family apparently, with the call number of “F 104 N6 A6 v.86 no.3-4 General Collection” Reportedly p. 235, 236, 239-241, 244, 245, 247, 249, 250 of A Hessian Officer’s Diary of the American Revolution talks about Baily. He is also listed in letters I don’t have access to within the War Department Papers. Records within Maryland State Papers Series A of Bailey: “Receipt of money for enlistment purposes” (1776), “Receipt of funds for recruitment” (1777), “Order to pay and receipt by Capt. Mountjoy Bailey for militia pay” (1778), “Order to pay and receipt by Capt. Mountjoy Bailey” (1778), “Account of provisions” (1780), “Order to pay Capt. Mountjoy Bailey” (1780), “Order to pay Capt. Mountjoy Bailey” (1780), “Account for provisions” (1781), “Account for hay and corn” (1781), “Account for beef and flour” (1781), “Appointment as auctioneer and commander of the guard” (1781), “Court-martial of Col. Winchester’s Select Militia Comp.; need for wood” (1781), “Order to pay Maj. Mountjoy Bailey” (1781), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1781), “Sales account of confiscated property” (1782), “Insufficient number of guards for prisoners” (1782), “Request for funds for military expenses” (1782), “Order prohibiting liquor within the prison camp” (1782), “Appointment as sutler” (1782), “Defense of actions as commanding officer” (1782), “Defense of his actions; need for additional guards for prisoners” (1782), “Replacement of prisoner guards” (1782), “Lack of prisoner guards” (1782), “Deposition of Mr. Thomas concerning actions of Dr. Fisher” (1782), “Court of Equity proceedings; request for new prisoners guards; indenture of German prisoners” (1782), “Order to pay and receipt by Mountjoy Bailey” (1782), “Order to pay and receipt by Maj. Mountjoy Bayly” (1782), “Notification of debtors leaving the state” (1783), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1783?), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1783?), “Order to give his pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Request to give his pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay and gratuity to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Reassignment of pay and gratuity to Mountjoy Bailey” (1784), “Assignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1785), “Reassignment of pay to Mountjoy Bailey” (1785), “Account and receipt for sale of confiscated property in FR” (1785), “Certification of Maj. Mountjoy Bailey’s services” (1785), “Statement of Mountjoy Bailey’s service in stopping pillage of timber from confiscated property” (1785), “Order to pay and receipt by Maj. Mountjoy Bailey” (1785), “Pertaining to Col. Wood’s request for a reappointment as magistrate” (1785), “Recommendation of Nicholas White as armorer” (1786), “Requests return of a letter” (1786), and “Refusal of Maj. Mountjoy Bailey to settle the account of Christopher Edelin” (1787). There are likely more records, so this is just a a sampling.
Where we left off, the specifics of the Maryland’s Extra Regiment were outlined, with some focus on Alexander Lawson Smith, the commander of this regiment who had served in the Maryland Line since 1776. He had fought at the Battle of Fort Washington but did not proceed to Fort Pitt with riflemen in 1779, staying behind with the 4th Maryland Regiment until his resignation as a captain, was accepted by Continental Congress the same year.
In the 1790s
In the post-war period, Alexander became a co-founder of the Society of the Cincinnati. In 1792, he married Martha Griffith. Martha came from a family that descended from Wales, owning hundreds of acres and numerous enslaved Blacks and living across the state, but with strong roots in Anne Arundel County, and contributed more soldiers to revolutionary cause than any other family in the state of Maryland.  This is confirmed by the Assessment of 1783 showing those within the Griffith family owning over two thousand acres within Harford County, including an area named “Rumney Royal,” which would be kept in the Griffith family, a land which, would, in the coming years, be part of the story of Alexander Smith, a “Harford Man.” Reportedly, Alexander and Martha would have three children, Samuel (b. 1794), Francina Francis (1797-1860), and Martia Matilida (1799-1860)
As Alexander was settling in Harford County after the war, he began to acquire land. In February 1795, he paid a man named Michael Allen, living in the town of “William Michael,” 45 pounds to buy a parcel of land named “Duch Point,” which sat on Swan Creek, which is near present-day Havre De Grace.  As part of the agreement, Alexander had to defend the “tract and premises” against all claiming a part of the land. Later that month, the wife of Michael, named Elizabeth, appeared before local Justices of the Peace, with both Michael and Alexander present, relinquishing her right to the land and premises, saying that she was not coerced to do so, but did so “freely and willingly” since Michael had no “displeasure” in parting with the land, it seemed.. This is is interesting because it implies that some women were coerced, but also may indicate that Elizabeth had a degree of autonomy.
The location of “Duch Point” cannot be currently found within Harford County. Since this parcel of land sat on Swan Creek, which has a few “points” (High Point, Cedar Point, Plum Point, and Swan Creek Point), it cannot be the same as historical Dutch Island. Even with the exact location unknown, the contours of this story can be filled out. For one, Swan Creek, a “branch of Chesapeake Bay, mouth (2) miles north of Cole,” with a village of the same name less than a two miles northeast of Aberdeen, with warehouses there, and a place of much activity during the revolutionary war, to not be confused with other areas named Swan Creek across the state.
In later years, Marta, Alexander, and the rest of the family lived in Swansbury at the house of her widowed mother, a frame dwelling of some type. It is also worth mentioning that George Washington saw Alexander as a “personal friend,” making him an original member of the Society of Cincinnati.
In 1798, he would own 463 acres in Harford Lower & Spesutia Lower Hundreds which was worth almost $2,500 dollars on first valuation, and over $2,800 as analyzed by the commissioner. Additionally he would own 2 acres which contained six out houses and one dwelling house worth a total of $500. This specific land would be described in more detail on the page for the specific hundred, which would say the following:
Another page lists Smith as owning 370 acres in Gunpowder Lower Hundred called Tapley’s Neck. There he had one dwelling house, one mory, one 16 x 16 kitchen, one 14 x 12 x 11 house, and other specifications which cannot be read due to the nature of the original record. For all this land, he only paid $16.63 in tax, a small amount. This means that minus taxes, he would have $3283.37 worth of property, the relative value of which would be $65,300 in current U.S. dollars.
Into the 1800s
Five years later, in 1800, Alexander headed a household in Harford County’s District 2 or Halls Cross Roads. Apart from his son under age 10, daughter aged 16-25, his two daughters ages 16-25, and his wife, Martha, he owned twenty-one enslaved Blacks.  This made him a well-off slaveowner and part of the region’s politics, with the Chesapeake Bay a major region for slavery, even into the 19th century, as slavery began to expand into indigenous homelands and other areas in the Deep South. This undoubtedly reinforced his standing as a “gentleman” among the Maryland social elite, which he had gained not only as a clerk of the Harford County court but through his military career, famous from the battle at Fort Washington in 1776. Even so, the “respectability” he gained should not mask the brutalities inherent to slavery in the Americas and elsewhere.
The same year, Alexander, and Martha, his wife, along with two of her sisters, Frances and Sarah, sold a tract of land in the same county. For 1,060 pounds, they sold a tract of 370 acres named Tapley/Tapley’s Neck, that sat along Gunpowder (River) Neck, to a Baltimore City revolutionary war veteran and slaveowner named George Presbury, later a local political figure in Harford County.  This region of the county consists of an area south of Edgewood, Maryland. By August, the transaction was complete, making the Smith-Griffith families much wealthier. To find the equivalent in today’s money requires some calculations.  After going through many calculations, it is clear they would be garnering $134,489 in US dollars from George, which by today’s standards would put them (and likely George) within the top ten percent of income earners. Back then they still would have been well-off landowners, but in a different way as only select people owned land rather than a vast majority.
The 1941 Gazetteer of Marylanddescribes Gunpowder Neck as a neck “in Harford County; lying between Bush River, Chesapeake Bay and Gunpowder River.” While the area, but the 1830s, would have road-building to and from “Belle Air” (present-day Belair, Maryland), in the time that Tapley Neck was sold, there was a “small plantation” in the region, possibly one that sat on the land that was sold to George, with Maryland militiamen stationed on the neck during the Revolutionary War. The region, includes a 19-mile long tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, Bush River, has a “lower end” near the bay and an “upper end” and is still south of Edgewood. Currently, this whole region is part of Aberdeen Proving Ground, a 75,000 acre military base which was created in 1917, where chemical (and biological) weapons and agents have been tested, meaning that people who “accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated ground water, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk.”
One year later, in June 1801, Alexander, Elijah Davis, Samuel Griffith, and Frances Garretson (likely related to Aquila Nelson), all were executors of the will of Samuel Griffith, the father of Alexander’s wife, Martha, agreed on an indenture with other members of the Griffith family (Lewis Griffith and Avarella Maria Hynson of Kent County). In this agreement, the executors of Samuel Griffith’s gave the Griffith family 100 acres of land called “Rummy Royal”/Rumney Royal which sat in the county at the head of Rummy Creek between Williams Swamp and “long Bridge,” while being bound by other lands, such as Spring Garden.  This land is along Little Romney Creek, which sits within the county to this day, or “Romney Creek,” to be more broad. Furthermore, there is an area named “Romney Royal,” where a farm used to exist, so this use of words is clearly just another spelling of something that already exists.  He would die very shortly, so this property was likely distributed after his death to related family members and claimants to his estate.
The date of his death is of some dispute. Some sources claim he was buried on January 26, 1802, while his gravestone seems to say he died on Jan. 24, 1801. In this case, the gravestone should be believed over the other claims. Numerous issues of the Maryland Gazette in late January and early February 1801 and in 1802 turned up no results on Alexander. All that we have is an inscription on his tombstone as noted by one site
In memory of Col. Alexander Lawson Smith, who departed this life on the 24th of Jan. 1801, in the 48th year of his age.
While this pegs his birth in 1753, it is strange that he had no obituary within the Maryland Gazette considering his role in the war, not even in the January 29th issue. No other information is known.
After his death
In 1801, the House of Delegates reported that Alexander had been part of a petition to reopen a case between his wife and other petitioners in the Maryland Court of Appeals. It was first considered (as noted at the top of the page) and then later read and order to “lie on the table” (bottom of page). Hence, one could say that this law did not pass. Martha, his wife, was a part of numerous cases after that point, but it not known if any of them involved him, since he cannot be found within this page.
Thirty five years later, in 1836, Martha, who had remarried to a man named Samuel Jay, would petition the Maryland General Assembly for redress, and would be paid the half-pay of a captain “during her widowhood,” a time period which was not defined in the legislation:
In later years, the Griffith family would go on to live in Arkansas. To this day, they are buried in Perryman’s Spesutia churchyard, within Harford County.  As for Alexander’s ancestors, they would later be living in Illinois, reportedly.
More information would have been added to this article but online searchings only brought up the above information, as did some other searches on the topic. Regardless, this a good start to future historical research on the topic.
 R. R. Griffith, Genealogy of the Griffith family: the descendants of William and Sarah Maccubbin Griffith (Baltimore, William K. Boyle, 1892), 282, 286, 288-290, 292. In Anne Arundel County there is a Griffith Family Cemetery. The claim about contributions of soldiers comes from William Neal Hurley’sThe Griffith Families. The Griffith Family is also mentioned on numerous pages within Thomas Joseph Peterman‘s Catholics in Colonial Delmarva along with mentions in the Harford Historical Bulletin Subject Index. The Maryland Genealogical Society also reports that in Vol. 18, no. 3 there is a “Griffith Family Register” by Nettie Leitsch Major.
 Deed sold to Alexander Lawson Smith by Michael Allen, 1795, Harford County Court, Land Records, Liber JLG L, p. 365-366 [MSA CE113-11]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net.
 Second Census of the United States, 1800, District 2, Harford, Maryland, National Archives, NARA M32, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, Roll 11, Page 46. Courtesy of Ancestry.com and HeritageQuest.
 Mariana L.R. Dantas, Black Townsmen: Urban Slavery and Freedom in the Eighteenth-Century Americas (New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2008), 176; Walter Wilkes Preston, History of Harford County, Maryland (Baltimore: Press of Sun Book Office, 1901), 89, 106, 271; Laws Made And Passed By The General Assembly of the State of Maryland in 1816 (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1817), 94, 159; Harford County Court, Certificates of Freedom, 1806-1811 and 1818-1842, Archives of Maryland Online vol. 857, 46; Laying out vacant land for George Presbury of William, December 22, 1803, Harford County Circuit Court, Certificates, Unpatented, HA, Unpatented Certificate 111 [MSA S1222-111]. Courtesy of Plats.Net; Deed sold to George Presbury by Alexander L. Smith, Martha Smith, Frances Griffith, and Sarah Griffith, 1800, Harford County Court, Land Records, Liber JLG P, p. 104-105 [MSA CE113-15]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. The land deed confirms that Martha’s father was Samuel Griffith, but was dead by this time, and that Martha’s last name was Griffith. As for the plat, it shows that Mr. Presbury owned a two-acre tract of land in Gunpowder Neck called Hugh’s Fortune, which just happened to border Tapley’s Neck, which he had owned after 1760. He may have also had royal ancestry while his family would have deep roots in Harford County for years to come as noted in William B. Marye’s “Place Names of Baltimore and Harford Counties” within Vol. 53, No. 3 of Maryland Historical Magazine, specifically focusing on pages 246-247, 249-252.
 If we are to take this conversion seriously, with 1.333 Maryland Pounds (pcm) equaling one pound sterling, then that would be about 795 pounds sterling. Using Measuring Worth, the relative real price is £58,910.00 in pounds, as of 2016. If you multiple this times the inflation rate of 2016-2017, 1.76, you get 103,681.6. In order to make a more even number, let’s round this to 103,682. Using XE Currency Converter, converting British pounds sterling into US dollars, it shows that this amount of British Pounds equals 134,489.42 or to round to a more even number, 134,489.
 Preston, History of Harford County, Maryland, 203; Richard D. Sears, Ancestors of Rev. John Gregg Fee, Matilda (Hamilton) Fee, and John Gregg Hanson (US: Lulu.com, 2007), 143. Indenture of executors of Samuel Griffith’s will to members of the Griffith family, Harford County Court, Land Records, Liber JLG P, p. 457-460 [MSA CE113-15]. Courtesy of mdlandrec.net. More information about the Smith family can likely be found from resources available from FamilySearch. While only a snippet of Sears’s book can be found on Google Books, one phrase from that section shows that Mr. Smith, Ms. Griffith, and Ms. Garretson are connected: “…Alexander Lawson Smith, his wife Martha Griffith, and his sister-in-law Frances Garretson“
 William Bose Marye, “The Place Names of Baltimore and Harford Counties,” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 4, Dec. 1930, p. 338, 358. Also, in the Archives Vertical Files Documents of the Harford County Historical Society, there is a cross-reference to Romney Royal within the “Aberdeen Proving Ground – Michaelsville & various tracts” folder as noted in page 221 of this PDF.
 Helen West Ridgely, Historic Graves of Maryland and the District of Columbia (New York: The Grafton Press, 1908), 95-97, 180-181. This book lists a number of Griffiths: Martha, Alexander L., Cordelia, John H., Hannah Emily, Emily, and Samuel. Even Col. Alexander Lawson Smith is buried there, described as dying on Jan 24, 1801 at 48 years old! two others are buried in Montgomery County: Capt. Samuel Griffith (May 7, 1752-May 12, 1833), H. Griffith (d. 1794, aged 73 years), E. Griffith (d. Oct. 1797, aged 33 years), Ruth Griffith (died 49 years old), and many others not listed here.