Which Signers 'Flip-flopped'?
Quentin H. Iorio
I'm hoping that you can answer a nagging question.
Some two years back now, I saw the PBS documentary
'Liberty'.
One of the interesting facts I learned is that two (or four, I
can't remember now) signers of the Declaration later renewed
their allegiance to Great Britain just a few months after July, 1776.
These men apparently signed a loyalty oath which Howe had
circulated in late 1776, after the fall of New York, when the
cause was looking very bleak, indeed.
Can anyone confirm this, and, if true, tell me who the men were?
Kind regards, and thanx in advance,
Quentin H. Iorio
qm...@dialeye.net
Jim Elbrecht
>Some two years back now, I saw the PBS documentary
>'Liberty'.
>
>One of the interesting facts I learned is that two (or four, I
>can't remember now) signers of the Declaration later renewed
>their allegiance to Great Britain just a few months after July, 1776.
Can anyone confirm *this*? <g> Does the Liberty show really say this?
>
>These men apparently signed a loyalty oath which Howe had
>circulated in late 1776, after the fall of New York, when the
>cause was looking very bleak, indeed.
Howe issued a proclamation Nov. 30, 1776 offering pardons for any
rebel's who would sign saying they would no longer oppose the king.
[complete text is at
http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/facts/ofrproc2.htm ]
Loyalists captured Richard Stockton within the week. He apparently
signed one of these pardons. [and doesn't seem to have gone back on
his word] Like many things, I think these oathes are open to some
interpretation. I would *not* call them loyalty oaths. The
individual one that Stockton signed seems to be missing, but surviving
ones state that the endorser agrees not to pick up arms or encourage
others to pick up arms.
There was at least one other member of *the Continental Congress* that
joined the King, but he left the congress before Aug '76 and was not a
Signer. [Joseph Galloway - his pardon survives] The vote and
later signing didn't sneak up on anyone. Those who were not of a mind
to go along had ample opportunity to bow out gracefully. Several did
between the decisive July 4th vote, and the August 2nd signing.
That's how 5 or 6 who never voted ended up with their names on the
document.
I suppose you could say that Read & Wilson, and Robert Morris
flip-flopped. Read and Wilson had both voted 'no' for Independence
on July 2. [Read because he believed it was a bad idea, Wilson because
his constituents did] In both cases, their delegations outnumbered
them on the 4th. [thankyou Ceasar Rodney for coming, and R. Morris &
Dickinson for staying home<g>]. Both men Signed on August 2nd,
however, as well as Robert Morris who stayed home because he would
have been a 'no' vote.
Jim
buc...@exis.net
>:|There was at least one other member of *the Continental Congress* that
>:|joined the King, but he left the congress before Aug '76 and was not a
>:|Signer. [Joseph Galloway - his pardon survives] The vote and
>:|later signing didn't sneak up on anyone. Those who were not of a mind
>:|to go along had ample opportunity to bow out gracefully. Several did
>:|between the decisive July 4th vote, and the August 2nd signing.
>:|That's how 5 or 6 who never voted ended up with their names on the
>:|document.
>:|
The very first Cont Congressional Chaplain went back to the British.
He wrote washington a letter trying to get washington to give it up.
See
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
Duche's Letter To Washington
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/duche.htm
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Quentin H. Iorio
Of course, it begs a few more questions.
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> [snip]
> Loyalists captured Richard Stockton within the week. He apparently
> signed one of these pardons.
Did Stockton sign the pardon before or after he was captured?
I would assume after, and therefore I would discount it, given that
it was made under duress.
If he signed after, do you know if this is what got him released from
the 'common gaol' the British threw him in?
Kind regards,
Quentin H. Iorio
qm...@dialeye.net
qio...@lucent.com
rbbo...@my-deja.com
When General Howe chased the main Continental Army across New
Jersey in November, 1776, Richard Stockton took his family to apparent
safety with a friend, John Covenhoven, whose home was well south of the
main Post Road used by both armies (and which passed near Stockton's
home at Princeton). But a Tory betrayed Stockton's presence to the
British on November 30. Apparently they beat hell out of him, imprisoned
him first at Perth Amboy and later at Provost Prison in NYC. Again he
was tortured, apparently, until he signed an amnesty application.
Congress got him exchanged, but his health was apparently broken when he
came home in late 1777 to find his mansion burned and himself shunned by
former friends. There's a biography by a descendant, T. C. Stockton,
published in 1911.
--Russ Bomberger
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Elbrecht
>Thank you very much, Jim, for this excellent information.
You're welcome. As you can tell, I rather enjoy these men's stories.
>
>Of course, it begs a few more questions.
Don't they all. That's what keeps it interesting.
-snip-
>Did Stockton sign the pardon before or after he was captured?
>I would assume after, and therefore I would discount it, given that
>it was made under duress.
I agree. The accounts that mention it, say *after* he was captured,
and that it affected his release. Other accounts say he was
exchanged. I can't find anything solid to support either. The only
reason I'm willing to accept that he did sign a pardon is that the
Library of Congress has a letter from Witherspoon to his son David
which discusses it. [a letter I haven't seen, but is referenced in a
footnote in the Washington Letters online- letter of Dec 6, 1776
discussing Howe's proclamation]
There was an article supposedly originally authored by Stockton's son
that was published in an old Guideposts magazine that discussed the
shame the Signer felt, and the reactions of his neighbors to him for
signing the pardon. I haven't tried to determine the authenticity of
the article yet. It reeks of legend, but might be 100% accurate.
It does say that he was arrested on a December night, when most of the
bios say, incorrectly, that it was Nov. 30. [He was probably with
Washington at Morven, his home, on Dec 2, and probably left Morven
after Dec 7.]
Some of the confusion might come from there being a *British* Major
Richard Stockton who was captured in the winter/spring of '77 about
the same time as Signer Richard Stockton was released. I think Major
Stockton was exchanged.
Jim
Jim Elbrecht
-snip-
Russ,
Our messages crossed, so I won't belabor the details where our
accounts are different. [and yours is the more popular account, FWIW]
An interesting history that is fairly accurate is at;
http://www.historicmorven.org/history.html If nothing else it has a
nice picture of Morven from 1875. [and don't quit at the paragraph
about the Signer-- he had 2 pretty notable sons]]
> There's a biography by a descendant, T. C. Stockton, published in 1911.
> --Russ Bomberger
I haven't seen Dr. Stockton's "Stockton Family of New Jersey and other
Stocktons" but I have it on my 'look at someday' list along with "The
Stockton Genealogy" by Elias Boudinot Stockton. Did TC also write a
biography, or is the genealogy what you're referring to?
Have you read either or both? If you have.......
Is one preferable if I'm looking for footnotes & sources?
Does either mention the account by Richard Stockton jr of the capture
of the Signer?
Thanks,
Jim
Richard A. Schulman
> When General Howe chased the main Continental Army across New
>Jersey in November, 1776, Richard Stockton took his family to apparent
>safety with a friend, John Covenhoven, whose home was well south of the
>main Post Road used by both armies (and which passed near Stockton's
>home at Princeton). But a Tory betrayed Stockton's presence to the
>British on November 30. Apparently they beat hell out of him, imprisoned
>him first at Perth Amboy and later at Provost Prison in NYC. Again he
>was tortured, apparently, until he signed an amnesty application.
>Congress got him exchanged, but his health was apparently broken when he
>came home in late 1777 to find his mansion burned and himself shunned by
>former friends. There's a biography by a descendant, T. C. Stockton,
>published in 1911.
Well, here's one signer of the Declaration of Independence who clearly
suffered for his beliefs. Nor does it seem like the British behaved
exactly like gentlemen to this signer.
I, for one, am not so sure that the signers would have been allowed to
retire quietly to the countryside had the British succeeded in
crushing the American Revolution. Counter-revolutions, like
revolutions, can sometimes have quite bloody consequences for the
losing side. It usually comes down to the question of the quality of
leadership on the winning side -- their humanitarian impulses or lack
thereof -- and the degree of control that leadership has over the
lesser fry among its followers.
---
Richard Schulman
Remove antispamming XYZ for email reply
PGP id: 0xAFB852BF
rbbo...@my-deja.com
Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com> wrote:
> rbbo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> -snip-
>
> Russ,
> Our messages crossed, so I won't belabor the details where our
> accounts are different. [and yours is the more popular account, FWIW]
>
> An interesting history that is fairly accurate is at;
> http://www.historicmorven.org/history.html If nothing else it has a
> nice picture of Morven from 1875. [and don't quit at the paragraph
> about the Signer-- he had 2 pretty notable sons]]
>
1911.
>
> I haven't seen Dr. Stockton's "Stockton Family of New Jersey and other
> Stocktons" but I have it on my 'look at someday' list along with "The
> Stockton Genealogy" by Elias Boudinot Stockton. Did TC also write a
> biography, or is the genealogy what you're referring to?
>
> Have you read either or both? If you have.......
>
> Is one preferable if I'm looking for footnotes & sources?
>
> Does either mention the account by Richard Stockton jr of the capture
> of the Signer?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
After I saw your post, I re-checked my "Stockton" notes. Some time
ago I'd planned to use Richard the Signer as a character in a novel set
in 1776-77, but gave up on him when I learned he'd been in the hands of
the British throughout the period of my story. T. C. Stockton's book is
titled _The Stockton Family of New Jersey_(1911). I tried to get it here
in Monterey through interlibrary loan, but failed; I later paged through
it on a trip to Princeton; it is more detailed than E. B. Stockton's
_Genealogy_, but I can't recommend it for either the accuracy of its
sources nor their veracity. I ended up drawing most of my notes from W.
A. Whitehead's "A Sketch of the Life of Richard Stockton" (_Proceedings
of the New Jersey Historical Society_, 2nd Series, Volume IV (1849).
Hope this helps you and Quentin,
OFC527
If I remember that Stockton _Genealogy_ correctly, Richard
Stockton the Signer married Annis Boudinot, Elias' sister, and
Elias married Hannah Stockton, Richard's sister. I think Congress
gave Elias the job of negotiating Stockton's exchange, getting
him out of Provost Prison, but I don't have a source for that.
As to the date of Richard Stockton's capture, I doubt that
I've ever seen a clear statement. "Within a week of Howe's
proclamation" is about as explicit as sources seem to get. The
amnesty proclamation was announced November 30. For purposes of
my story, my notes from Whitehead have him "betrayed" on the 30th
while he was arranging his family's safety near Monmouth Court
House with John Covenhoven. But the date of "betrayal" doesn't
have to be the date of capture, of course. Looks as though we've
got him in chains sometime during the first week of December.
Washington crossed into Pennsylvania on the 7th, so Stockton
wouldn't have had much hope for army protection after that. The
Jersey militia was more-or-less inactive in November/December
except for some hit-and-run raids against communications along
the Trenton - Princeton Post Road. That's about the best I can
glean from my notes. Anybody know the date of his exchange?
--Russ Bomberger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Jim Elbrecht
> After I saw your post, I re-checked my "Stockton" notes. Some time
>ago I'd planned to use Richard the Signer as a character in a novel set
>in 1776-77, but gave up on him when I learned he'd been in the hands of
>the British throughout the period of my story.
Bummer-- If you haven't finished, his brother-in-law Elias Boudinot
is a most interesting character who was in Princeton at the time. He
was appointed commissary of prisons that winter, and was later a
President of the Continental Congress.[and the American Bible Society
later] His biography by George Adams Boyd is heavily footnoted and
includes a lot of personal notes. ["Elias Boudinot, Patriot and
Statesman" 1952, Princeton University Press]
And if you *have* finished the novel, then give it a plug.<g>
> T. C. Stockton's book is
>titled _The Stockton Family of New Jersey_(1911). I tried to get it here
>in Monterey through interlibrary loan, but failed; I later paged through
>it on a trip to Princeton; it is more detailed than E. B. Stockton's
>_Genealogy_, but I can't recommend it for either the accuracy of its
>sources nor their veracity.
Sadly, that's true of too many genealogies.
> I ended up drawing most of my notes from W.
>A. Whitehead's "A Sketch of the Life of Richard Stockton" (_Proceedings
>of the New Jersey Historical Society_, 2nd Series, Volume IV (1849).
> Hope this helps you and Quentin,
Yes, thanks much.
jim
Quentin H. Iorio
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Quentin H. Iorio" <qm...@dialeye.net> wrote:
>Some two years back now, I saw the PBS documentary
>'Liberty'.
>
>One of the interesting facts I learned is that two (or four, I
>can't remember now) signers of the Declaration later renewed
>their allegiance to Great Britain just a few months after July, 1776.Can anyone confirm *this*? <g> Does the Liberty show really say this?
I was able to get a copy of the 'Liberty' series out of my local library
this weekend. What I mentioned above was actually contained in
episode three, 'The Times that Try Men's Souls', which covers from
the
British invasion of New York, to the battles of Trenton and Princeton.
Here is my transcription of Edward Herrmann's narration, regarding
Howe's amnesty proclamation of 30 November 1776:
"General Howe now gives the Americans another chance to surrender
with honor. He offers New Jersey citizens a royal pardon,
if they
will renounce the rebel cause.
"In just two weeks, three thousand Americans accept the offer,
*including a signer of the Declaration of Independence*."
So my memory was really faulty: it was only one signer, not two
or four, who 'flip-flopped.'
Thanx again to you and Mr. Bomberger for the excellent information.
Jim Elbrecht
Thanks for following up on this. I probably would have rented the
series and gotten tied up in it and forgotten why I was watching.
>Here is my transcription of Edward Herrmann's narration, regarding
>Howe's amnesty proclamation of 30 November 1776:
Did you notice if they mentioned whether this proclamation was
different than the two earlier ones that year? [June & Sept?] Did
they 'sweeten the pot', or just give folks another chance to see the
light.
>"In just two weeks, three thousand Americans accept the offer,
> *including a signer of the Declaration of Independence*."
Do they mention that he was under a bit of duress?
>So my memory was really faulty: it was only one signer, not two
>or four, who 'flip-flopped.'
Been there, done that. [often] Actually, if you extend it to 'Second
Continental Congress' you can get at least two, and if you go to 'the
first two Congresses' you get at least 3.<g>
>Thanx again to you and Mr. Bomberger for the excellent information.
Happy to oblige. i love it when usenet 'works'.
jim
Jim Elbrecht
> If I remember that Stockton _Genealogy_ correctly, Richard
>Stockton the Signer married Annis Boudinot, Elias' sister, and
>Elias married Hannah Stockton, Richard's sister.
You do remember that right. I can't believe that my 'signer tunnel
vision' let that little bit slip past. Stockton was a *double*
brother-in-law of Elias Boudinot.
> I think Congress
>gave Elias the job of negotiating Stockton's exchange, getting
>him out of Provost Prison, but I don't have a source for that.
That seems to be the easiest conclusion to jump to when you see a few
of the facts. [i.e. Stockton gets captured. Soon after, his
brother-in-law inspects the NY Prisons... Stockton gets released.]
I think I've read it someplace, too. It is also why I finally read
Boudinot's biography, a book that had sat on my bookshelf for 20 yrs
unread.
So I was reading the book to substantiate the obvious theory. But
then I ran into a few eye-openers that seem to *disprove* the
'obvious'.
1. The Commissary was appointed by Washington, and it appears his main
concern was getting Gen. Charles Lee back in an exchange.
2. Boudinot was Washington's second choice. [Gen Cox was #1]
3. Stockton might have already been released, as it was April before
Boudinot agreed to do the job. It was sometime in Feb when Washington
started sending out feelers to Gen Cox.
4. Despite Boyd's frequent use of business and personal letters by and
to Boudinot, Stockton is never mentioned in any of them. [even more
remarkable now that you point out that Mrs. Boudinot was Stockton's
sister.] Nothing about his capture, imprisonment, exchange, treatment
or current health. I don't think Boyd would have 'cleaned up
embarrassing details', but I wonder if descendants less removed from
the times discarded 'embarrassing letters'. OTOH, this *was* a
Boudinot biography, not a Stockton one, so those letters might be
lying in Princeton.
> Anybody know the date of his exchange?
That's the million dollar question.
Jim
rbbo...@my-deja.com
Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com> wrote:
>.(snip)
>
> Happy to oblige. i love it when usenet 'works'.
>
> jim
Same here, Jim. Except for some good order of battle data from Michael
P. Reed, and some specific Q and A stuff, as in this thread, I'd almost
given up on the newsgroup. Seemed for a while as though some posters had
memorized the handout book from the Council for National Policy and kept
posting it and posting it and posting it, and acting as though that was
"research." Good to know the newsgroup still works.
Michael P Reed
> >Did Stockton sign the pardon before or after he was captured?
> >I would assume after, and therefore I would discount it, given that
> >it was made under duress.
>
> I agree. The accounts that mention it, say *after* he was captured,
> and that it affected his release. Other accounts say he was
> exchanged. I can't find anything solid to support either. The only
> reason I'm willing to accept that he did sign a pardon is that the
> Library of Congress has a letter from Witherspoon to his son David
> which discusses it. [a letter I haven't seen, but is referenced in a
> footnote in the Washington Letters online- letter of Dec 6, 1776
> discussing Howe's proclamation]
A trip to the library magically reveals. . . .
From Smith, Paul H. ed.; LETTERS OF DELEGATES TO CONGRESS, 1774-1789 volume 6
John Hancock to the Executive Committee, 6 January, 1777
"His [Howe's] treatment of Mr. Stockton is, to the last Degree shocking and
inhuman, if Report is to be depended upon; and the Congress have so far paid
Attention to it, that they have thought proper to direct Genl. Washington to
make Enquiry into the Matter."
John Hancock to G. Washington 6 January, 1777
"You will please to propose an Exchange of the six Hessian Field officers for
him [Charles Lee], & at the same time make Enquiry whther the Report which
Congress have heard of Mr. Stockton's being confined in a Common Jail by the
Enemy, has any Truth in it, or not."
Benjamin Rush to Julia Rush 31 January, 1777
"I forgot to inform you before that when the acct. came to the congress of
your Papa's harsh treatment by General Howe, they immediately ordered General
Washington to remonstarte against it, and to threaten to inflict similar
indignities upon some tory prisoners."
Abraham Clark to John Hart 8 February, 1777
"Mr. Sargeant talks of resigning and Mr. Stockton by his late proceedure
cannot Act, I wish their places [as Delegates] may be Supplied by such as
will be reputable to New Jersey, not only by their integrity but Abilities."
John Hancock to Robert Treat Paine, 9 February, 1777
"Stockton it is said, & truly, has Rec'd General How's protection."
And the much desired. . .
John Witherspoon to David Witherspoon, March 17, 1777
"Judge Stockton is not very well in health & much spoken against for his
Conduct. He signed Howes declaration & also gave his Word of honour that he
would not meddle in the least affairs during the War. Mrs. Cochran was sent
to the Enemies Lines by a flag of Truce and when Mr. Cochran came out to meet
his wife he said to the Officers that went with the flag that Judge Stockton
had brought Evidence to General Howe to prove that he was on his Way to seek
a protection when he was taken. This he denis to be true yet many credit it
but Mr. Cochrans known quarrel with him makes it very doubtful to candid
Persons."
Three paragraphs later. . .
"I believe I wrote you that Dick Stockton and a large party were taken by our
People."
The footnote to the letter reads:
"After his capture by the British near the beginning of December 1776,
Stockton took the oath of allegiance to the king contained in the
proclamation issued by Lord howe on November 30 of that year. It is imposible
to determine if Stockton took this step out of personal conviction or because
of harsh treatment by British. In any event, on December 2, 1777 he also
signed the oaths of abjuration and allegiance prescribed by the New Jersey
legislature. In this connection it is interesting to note that as late as
December 1774 Stockton had submitted a plan for Anglo-American reconciliation
to Lord Dartmouth, then the Secretary of Ste for the American Department,
which printed in THE HISTORICAL MAGAZINE 2d Ser. 4 (1868): 228-29, and
discussed in Larry R Gerlach, PROLOGUE TO INDEPENDENCE: NEW JERSEY IN THE
COMING OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (New Brunswick, NJ Rutgers University
Press, 1976), pp. 230-31. "
Disappointing isn't it?
> There was an article supposedly originally authored by Stockton's son
> that was published in an old Guideposts magazine that discussed the
> shame the Signer felt, and the reactions of his neighbors to him for
> signing the pardon. I haven't tried to determine the authenticity of
> the article yet. It reeks of legend, but might be 100% accurate.
>
> It does say that he was arrested on a December night, when most of the
> bios say, incorrectly, that it was Nov. 30. [He was probably with
> Washington at Morven, his home, on Dec 2, and probably left Morven
> after Dec 7.]
In a letter from William Hooper to Joseph Hewes (Jan 1) he mentions that
Stockton was taken 8 miles from his house, and "carried to Brunswick & there
confined to close jail."
>
> Some of the confusion might come from there being a *British* Major
> Richard Stockton who was captured in the winter/spring of '77 about
> the same time as Signer Richard Stockton was released. I think Major
> Stockton was exchanged.
Could this be the "Dick Stockton" to whom Witherspoon refers?
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Reply to mpreedattdi.net
Quentin H. Iorio
> Quentin,
> Thanks for following up on this. I probably would have rented the
> series and gotten tied up in it and forgotten why I was watching.
You are quite welcome, Jim. It was my pleasure to help you.
I, too, love it when UseNet works.
>
>
> >Here is my transcription of Edward Herrmann's narration, regarding
> >Howe's amnesty proclamation of 30 November 1776:
>
> Did you notice if they mentioned whether this proclamation was
> different than the two earlier ones that year? [June & Sept?] Did
> they 'sweeten the pot', or just give folks another chance to see the
> light.
The episode in question (and probably the whole series) makes no
mention of the two earlier ones; though it does mention a parley
made between Washington and Howe's adjutant at Henry Knox's
headquarters on Broadway (mid-July, 1776?).
The actor playing Knox recounts the meeting. The adjutant
tells Washington that General Howe has come to America "with
great powers to pardon...". Washington, of course, refuses the
offer, and outright war begins.
That's the only mention of any conciliatory gesture before the
proclamation of 30 November.
>
>
> >"In just two weeks, three thousand Americans accept the offer,
> > *including a signer of the Declaration of Independence*."
>
> Do they mention that he was under a bit of duress?
No, the narration ends there. The next scene is an historian explaining
why so many Americans thought that the cause was lost at the end of 1776.
Jim Elbrecht
>A trip to the library magically reveals. . . .
>
>From Smith, Paul H. ed.; LETTERS OF DELEGATES TO CONGRESS, 1774-1789 volume 6
Fantastic! Although it doesn't appear to be in any of my nearby
public libraries, it is in the catalog of a nearby university library
that I've been wanting to visit anyway. [as a bonus, Union College,
Schenectady is also the Alma Mater of the Signer's son who allegedly
wrote about his father's capture & pardon- Richard 'The Duke'
Stockton.]
Thanks much.
Just a quick question, though. does it follow the style of Commager &
Morris' "Spirit of Seventy-Six" and include a bit of intro, and cite
where the letters can be found?
>
>John Hancock to the Executive Committee, 6 January, 1777
>
>"His [Howe's] treatment of Mr. Stockton is, to the last Degree shocking and
>inhuman, if Report is to be depended upon; and the Congress have so far paid
>Attention to it, that they have thought proper to direct Genl. Washington to
>make Enquiry into the Matter."
>
>John Hancock to G. Washington 6 January, 1777
>
>"You will please to propose an Exchange of the six Hessian Field officers for
>him [Charles Lee], & at the same time make Enquiry whther the Report which
>Congress have heard of Mr. Stockton's being confined in a Common Jail by the
>Enemy, has any Truth in it, or not."
This *suggests* to me that Stockton was already out by Jan 6.
It is also kind of an interesting twist. Because if he was already
out, then he had apparently already signed the pardon. And the
Congress, if they were aware of all the details, didn't seem too
concerned over it.
If nothing else it shows how much real digging it will take to
straighten out all the details of a single event of a single Signer.
>
>Benjamin Rush to Julia Rush 31 January, 1777
Good catch. Is the index that thorough, or did you know that Stockton
was Rush's father-in-law?
>Abraham Clark to John Hart 8 February, 1777
and
>John Hancock to Robert Treat Paine, 9 February, 1777
So now we know he was definitely out, and had signed a pardon by Feb
8.
>
>And the much desired. . .
>
>John Witherspoon to David Witherspoon, March 17, 1777
>
>"Judge Stockton is not very well in health & much spoken against for his
>Conduct. He signed Howes declaration & also gave his Word of honour that he
>would not meddle in the least affairs during the War. Mrs. Cochran was sent
>to the Enemies Lines by a flag of Truce and when Mr. Cochran came out to meet
>his wife he said to the Officers that went with the flag that Judge Stockton
>had brought Evidence to General Howe to prove that he was on his Way to seek
>a protection when he was taken. This he denis to be true yet many credit it
>but Mr. Cochrans known quarrel with him makes it very doubtful to candid
>Persons."
>
>Three paragraphs later. . .
>
>"I believe I wrote you that Dick Stockton and a large party were taken by our
>People."
>
>The footnote to the letter reads:
>
>"After his capture by the British near the beginning of December 1776,
>Stockton took the oath of allegiance to the king contained in the
>proclamation issued by Lord howe on November 30 of that year.
Oh boy-- More questions. I'll hold them until I get a chance to go to
the library-- But I have to comment that I disagree that the Nov 30
proclamation was taking for an oath of allegiance. Stockton's
personal note *might* have included an allegiance oath, but Howe was
just asking folks to cease and desist for their pardon. I think
Clark's and Hancock's letters above support that. They don't say
he's 'gone over', or signed his loyalty away, but that he "cannot Act"
and has "Rec'd General How's protection."
-snip-
> In any event, on December 2, 1777 he also
>signed the oaths of abjuration and allegiance prescribed by the New Jersey
>legislature.
No footnote to the footnote is there? If it was Oct 2, it wouldn't
seem so curious to me. The British then held Phila, and things looked
glum. But by Dec Burgoyne had surrendered in Saratoga, Fort Mercer
in NJ had been held, and things were looking up.
I'm sure there's a Richard Stockton on the lists of those who took
allegiance oaths, but is it the Signer?
> In this connection it is interesting to note that as late as
>December 1774 Stockton had submitted a plan for Anglo-American reconciliation
>to Lord Dartmouth, then the Secretary of Ste for the American Department,
>which printed in THE HISTORICAL MAGAZINE 2d Ser. 4 (1868): 228-29, and
>discussed in Larry R Gerlach, PROLOGUE TO INDEPENDENCE: NEW JERSEY IN THE
>COMING OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (New Brunswick, NJ Rutgers University
>Press, 1976), pp. 230-31. "
>
>Disappointing isn't it?
The adjectives I'd use would be 'tantalizing' and 'frustrating'.<g>
This one issue is a great example of how complicated things were. [and
for that matter how complicated they always are in a time of war]
There were other Signers who had made proposals to end the hostilities
even later than 1774. I haven't read it, but Stockton's 'plan for
reconciliation' was published [and apparently directed at Lord
Dartmouth] as "Expedient for the Settlement of American Dispute".
It isn't clear from the several times I've seen it mentioned whether
it was a broadside, or a newspaper article, or a letter which was
published later. But all use the term 'publish'.
I'm not at all familiar with things across the pond, but I think
Dartmouth was one of the moderates who thought we could all get along.
[Even Sam Adams mentions him in with some optimism in 1773]
-snip-
>In a letter from William Hooper to Joseph Hewes (Jan 1) he mentions that
>Stockton was taken 8 miles from his house, and "carried to Brunswick & there
>confined to close jail."
As soon as I can find my NJ map I'll get my compass out, try to decide
if Hooper was using American, English or Dutch miles, then see if this
fits with what I think I know.<G> Another good catch, BTW.
>>
>> Some of the confusion might come from there being a *British* Major
>> Richard Stockton who was captured in the winter/spring of '77 about
>> the same time as Signer Richard Stockton was released. I think Major
>> Stockton was exchanged.
>
>Could this be the "Dick Stockton" to whom Witherspoon refers?
I suspect it is. I've also found another mention of 'Dick' [I
thought that was 20th century nickname] and I think I should have
referred to him as a *Loyalist* Major Stockton. This article traces
the Major's heritage back to Richard Stockton that settled on Long
Island about 1650. The same gr-grandfather as the Signer. So they
were at least 2nd cousins, and maybe more closely related.
The sad part is that so many descendants of both sides still let 225
yr old animosities cloud their research, so until you start dissecting
things, most folks never think of the Rev-War as a 'cousins war.'
Hoping I get time to go to Union college this week.....
Jim
Michael P Reed
Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com> wrote:
> Michael P Reed <mpr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >A trip to the library magically reveals. . . .
> >
> >From Smith, Paul H. ed.; LETTERS OF DELEGATES TO CONGRESS, 1774-1789 volume 6
> Thanks much.
No sweat. My 8 yo niece wanted some books on sharks anyway. <s>
>
> Just a quick question, though. does it follow the style of Commager &
> Morris' "Spirit of Seventy-Six" and include a bit of intro, and cite
> where the letters can be found?
It is along the lines of Fitzpatrick. Each letter or document is fully
sourced, and they has far more detailed annotations than Fitzpatrick. For
example. Each volume (each covering about 4 months) starts off with a
chronology of Congress, and then a list of the Delegates (and the dates they
attended) for the period covered by that specific volume. These are followed
by the list of illustrations each with a paragraph or two of amplifying text.
The 20 odd volumes are published by the Library of Congress so it is very
professional indeed, and IMHO, the best of the published primary source
works. A definite must for any student of the Revolution.
> >"You will please to propose an Exchange of the six Hessian Field officers for
> >him [Charles Lee], & at the same time make Enquiry whther the Report which
> >Congress have heard of Mr. Stockton's being confined in a Common Jail by the
> >Enemy, has any Truth in it, or not."
>
> This *suggests* to me that Stockton was already out by Jan 6.
I am not so sure on that point. It sounds to me that he was still in
captivity.
>
> It is also kind of an interesting twist. Because if he was already
> out, then he had apparently already signed the pardon. And the
> Congress, if they were aware of all the details, didn't seem too
> concerned over it.
>
> If nothing else it shows how much real digging it will take to
> straighten out all the details of a single event of a single Signer.
If you are lucky. I am learning the hard way of what a dearth of information
exists for the Revolution. I have banged my head against the desk or wall on
more than one occasion.
> >Benjamin Rush to Julia Rush 31 January, 1777
>
> Good catch. Is the index that thorough, or did you know that Stockton
> was Rush's father-in-law?
The former. The editors had done their homework.
> >Abraham Clark to John Hart 8 February, 1777
> Oh boy-- More questions. I'll hold them until I get a chance to go to
> the library-- But I have to comment that I disagree that the Nov 30
> proclamation was taking for an oath of allegiance.
IIRC, there was an oath of allegiance contained within. It has been several
years since I last traveled to that segment of the war, and the proclamations
were only tangiantial to that which I was researching, but ISTR that an oath
was attached. I know that I have read it, but cannot remember where.
Several thousand New Jerseyians did take an oath in the first three weeks of
December though, and the Howe's were finally beginning to believe their
strategies were beginning to pay off, then came December 26th. . . .
Stockton's
> personal note *might* have included an allegiance oath, but Howe was
> just asking folks to cease and desist for their pardon. I think
> Clark's and Hancock's letters above support that. They don't say
> he's 'gone over', or signed his loyalty away, but that he "cannot Act"
> and has "Rec'd General How's protection."
>
> -snip-
> > In any event, on December 2, 1777 he also
> >signed the oaths of abjuration and allegiance prescribed by the New Jersey
> >legislature.
>
> No footnote to the footnote is there?
I just *knew* I should have inserted that, but I was getting lazy. It says
"See JCC [Journals of the Continental Congress], 7:12-13; Washington,
Writings (Fitzpatrick), 7:92; and John Hancock to George Washington January
7, 1777."
If it was Oct 2, it wouldn't
> seem so curious to me. The British then held Phila, and things looked
> glum. But by Dec Burgoyne had surrendered in Saratoga, Fort Mercer
> in NJ had been held, and things were looking up.
If he signed an oath of abjuration (recantation) and then allegiance to the
*legislature of New Jersey* would that not mean that he recanted his earlier
(alleged) oath to Howe, and swore, or reswore, allegiance to NJ and the US?
That is how I read it, but perhaps I am missing something.
Oh, and Fort Mercer was abandoned on 22 November, 1777. On 2 December, Howe
was readying an advance on White Marsh.
> I'm sure there's a Richard Stockton on the lists of those who took
> allegiance oaths, but is it the Signer?
<Shrug> One place to look for further information might be the Papers of
William Livingston. Unfortunately, that work is not readily available to me
(I did get them through interlibrary loan a year ago though).
> >Disappointing isn't it?
>
> The adjectives I'd use would be 'tantalizing' and 'frustrating'.<g>
I bow to your superior wordmanship. But I do know the feeling.
> This one issue is a great example of how complicated things were. [and
> for that matter how complicated they always are in a time of war]
The battle of the Brandywine is a real pain in the neck, while Germantown is
positively maddening. Whatever does drive a sane person wish to be a
Revolutionary War historian?
>
> There were other Signers who had made proposals to end the hostilities
> even later than 1774. I haven't read it, but Stockton's 'plan for
> reconciliation' was published [and apparently directed at Lord
> Dartmouth] as "Expedient for the Settlement of American Dispute".
> It isn't clear from the several times I've seen it mentioned whether
> it was a broadside, or a newspaper article, or a letter which was
> published later. But all use the term 'publish'.
The nearby university library (University of Michigan) has the Historical
Magazine on microfilm. If need be, I can go up and get it if need be. Hell,
I need to look some things up in the HM anyways.
> I'm not at all familiar with things across the pond, but I think
> Dartmouth was one of the moderates who thought we could all get along.
> [Even Sam Adams mentions him in with some optimism in 1773]
I'm not all that familiar with the diplomatic side of the war, and especially
Dartmouth.
> As soon as I can find my NJ map I'll get my compass out, try to decide
> if Hooper was using American, English or Dutch miles, then see if this
> fits with what I think I know.<G> Another good catch, BTW.
American, English, and Dutch miles???? Oh, friggin' great! That any
differences in measurment existed never entered my mind. Just another
neccessary little tidbit to research.
> >Could this be the "Dick Stockton" to whom Witherspoon refers?
>
> I suspect it is. I've also found another mention of 'Dick' [I
> thought that was 20th century nickname] and I think I should have
> referred to him as a *Loyalist* Major Stockton.
I really really want the muster rolls for the New Jersey Volunteers. And for
that matter, the New York Volunteers, the Orange Rangers, Loyal Americans. .
. .
> The sad part is that so many descendants of both sides still let 225
> yr old animosities cloud their research, so until you start dissecting
> things, most folks never think of the Rev-War as a 'cousins war.'
It does seem to have that small town flavor in that everyone seems to have
known everyone else.
Oh, BTW, James Witherspoon was killed at Germantown. He was decapitated by a
cannonball, which apparently was the same one that plowed through Brigadier
General Francis Nash's horse, and then his leg mortally wounding him in the
process. Probably the luckyiest shot of the war. Especially when
considering that these men were in reserve, and nowhere near the
"front-line." If the shot came straight up the road, it probably was from
the brigade guns of the 4th British Brigade. If from the right, the 3rd
Brigade. If from the left, probably from either the Third or Fourth
Virginia Brigade. I wonder what I erstwhile essayists would react if the
son of a signer was killed as a result of a friendly fire incident?