http://www.genealogybookshop.com/genealogybookshop/files/General,Revolutionary _War/2240.html <A HREF="http://www.genealogybookshop.com/genealogybookshop/files/General,Revolut ionary_War/2240.html">GenealogyBookShop.com: The Commander-in-Chief's Guard: Revolutionary War</A>

HI Earl, No problem. The names Francis (male) and Frances (female) run in several of my lines. If they don't run in your lines, it's very easy to guess wrong about the spelling. In the letter/order Washington seems to be directing the selection of the Life Guards using Francis Moreland as both a participant as well as role model. This letter doesn't specifically refer to them as the Commander-in-Chief's Life Guards. This particular letter is dealing primarily with Quartermaster duties (which the Life Guards also saw to IIRC). In another letter relating to a 1778 Court Martial of George Albin. He was sentenced to receive 100 lashes in the "presence of the old and new Guards". Francis Moreland was named as a member of the Guards . Here's a better portal and path WASHINGTON Papers http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html Query box http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mgwquery.html Search result http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query New Address for the Washington to Stephen letter http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mgw:1:./temp/~ammem_QJ7L:: This is the page that mentions Francis Moreland ...it is now Image # 33 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw2&fileName=gwpage003.db&recNum=32&tempFile=./temp/~ammem_QJ7L&filecode=mgw&next_filecode=mgw&itemnum=1&ndocs=100 I printed my copy of this document a year ago. Apparently they've added more files and haven't maintained the integrity of their numbering system. I believe there have also been postings (on this very list, I thought) about the existence of a book about the Commander-in-Chief's Guards (or Life Guards) now in print. I haven't seen it. ~malinda E1091@aol.com wrote: > Sorry Malinda, if I may address you so, for misspelling the name Francis > Moreland. > I hope the reference you gave below mentions the men as part of Washingtons > Life Guards. Score now, after searching is : > > 4 Officers > > 12 Soldiers (not counting Francis Moreland and John Sallard, if mentioned as > Washingtons Life Guards.) > > Earl. > > In a message dated 11/28/01 3:46:59 PM, mthiesse@swbell.net writes: > > << Francis (with an "i" not an "e") Moreland was mentioned in a January 9, > 1756 > letter from George Washington to Adam Stephen which is available online in > the Series 2 Letterbooks in the George Washington Papers at the Library of > Congress < http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage > > > An image of the original document is in Letterbook 3 , Image 30. There is a > link on that site for a transcription in addition to the image. > > John Sallard is also mentioned as having his (George Washington's) "promise". > > The document is a little tricky to access from the URL (from my system). With > the info I gave you, you should be able to access it via another portal if you > have to. > > ~malinda > > E1091@aol.com wrote: > > > No Malinda, I do not have that name to date. If Frances was mentioned as one > > of Washingtons Life Guards, in any publication or letter, forward the data > to > > me please, with either web site, pension papers or other reference. I intend > > to continue adding to the list until time prohibits me from so doing. > > > > When I am sent that data, the list will be: > > > > 4 Officers > > > > 11 Soldiers. > > > > Various publications/sites state: the elite unit had it's own 13 star flag; > > the blue background and white stars were said to be the basis of our present > > flag; they were very well dressed, much moreso than the ordinary soldier; > the > > best soldier of each colonies unit was picked; minimum height was 5'10", > > except musicians, and one site said the unit consisted of 'several men from > > each colony.' Yet another site stated that the unit consisted of 240 to 250 > > men, most infantry, but some on horseback. Based on that information, the > > unit consisted of between 40 and 250 soldiers, so it appears I have many > > names to add to the list I started. > > > > If all that read this message would send me data I requested above, I may > be > > close to obtaining around 50% of the possible units strenth prior to the > > start of another century. > > > > Enjoy the information. > > > > Earl. > > > > In a message dated 11/28/01 8:34:55 AM, mthiesse@swbell.net writes: > > > > << Do you have Francis Moreland on your list ? He was mentioned specifically > > by Washington in one of his directives. > > > > ~malinda > > > > "by way of John Robertson " wrote: > > > > > Thanks much for the information. After 2 days of searching for a > list/roster > > > of men in Washingtons Life Guards, all I have found to date is a mention > > here > > > and there of the unit. With the name you sent below, I now have 4 officers > > > names and 10 soldiers, a very small fraction of the units strength. Still > > > searching. > > > > > > Earl. > > > > > > In a message dated 11/27/01 3:15:14 PM, Farns10th writes: > > > > > > << GEN. WASHINGTON'S GUARD > > > > > > VA's Corp .Henry Sparks was one of Washington's personal Guards > > > > > > 3rd Corp. Henry Sparks (1753-1836) was Revolutionary War soldier from > > > Virginia; served with Commander-in-Chief's Guard, "the flower and pick of > > > American army." While with this bodyguard Sparks fought at the battles of > > > Brandywine and Germantown. Discharged at Valley Forge in 1778. Came to > > > Kentucky, 1795; settled in present Owen Co., 1800. Buried at Sparks > Bottom. > > > > > > http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/kyprojects/markers/owen.shtml > >>

One would think there was a record of this glorious troup, Washington's Bodyguards! Hard to believe no one can find it! I have (as you have ) spent hours online trying to find it. Janice

Searching for proof that George Moritz HARTMAN was a soldier in the Rev. War. George Moritz HARTMAN(b. c.1750),married Anna Margaretha Cradyle WOLF. Lived in Lancaster, PA > Maryland > Harper's Ferry Children migrated to Hampshire Co., VA Children: Moritz HARTMAN m. 1st Elizabeth COOK, 2nd Sarah Harold HOOVER; Henry HARTMAN m. 1st Eva FULTZ, 2nd Catherine FRESHOVER, 3rd Elizabeth WISE; James HARTMAN; John HARTMAN m. Mary HUNTER; Daniel HARTMAN m. Mary Polly TELLER; Margaret HARTMAN m. Jacob BOLTON; Jonas HARTMAN m. Barbara HARPER; John Peter HARTMAN; George HARTMAN; Joseph HARTMAN; Christian HARTMAN; Mary Elizabeth HARTMAN m. 1st Jacob CLAYTON, 2nd John George DAHMER; Martin HARTMAN m. Ellen ? Thanks for any assistance. Lonny J. Watro

Since I don't have Carole's permission to resend her message that concerns this exact subject that was discussed in a message this Sept, by way of Jim & Carole Hollingsworth [jhollin@pacifier.com] here's the information she so generously gave to the list. Rhonda Houston To those of you who are interested: I have just been notified by Clearfield Company 200 East Eager Street Baltimore, MD 21202 410-625-9004 They are now reprinting the book Item No. 2240 b, by Carlos E. Godfrey. 302 pp., illus., paper. (1904), repr. 2001. ISBN 0-8063-0518-5 $29.50 plus $3.50 shipping and handling for one book.

Hello Earl, Francis (with an "i" not an "e") Moreland was mentioned in a January 9, 1756 letter from George Washington to Adam Stephen which is available online in the Series 2 Letterbooks in the George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress < http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage > An image of the original document is in Letterbook 3 , Image 30. There is a link on that site for a transcription in addition to the image. John Sallard is also mentioned as having his (George Washington's) "promise". The document is a little tricky to access from the URL (from my system). With the info I gave you, you should be able to access it via another portal if you have to. ~malinda E1091@aol.com wrote: > No Malinda, I do not have that name to date. If Frances was mentioned as one > of Washingtons Life Guards, in any publication or letter, forward the data to > me please, with either web site, pension papers or other reference. I intend > to continue adding to the list until time prohibits me from so doing. > > When I am sent that data, the list will be: > > 4 Officers > > 11 Soldiers. > > Various publications/sites state: the elite unit had it's own 13 star flag; > the blue background and white stars were said to be the basis of our present > flag; they were very well dressed, much moreso than the ordinary soldier; the > best soldier of each colonies unit was picked; minimum height was 5'10", > except musicians, and one site said the unit consisted of 'several men from > each colony.' Yet another site stated that the unit consisted of 240 to 250 > men, most infantry, but some on horseback. Based on that information, the > unit consisted of between 40 and 250 soldiers, so it appears I have many > names to add to the list I started. > > If all that read this message would send me data I requested above, I may be > close to obtaining around 50% of the possible units strenth prior to the > start of another century. > > Enjoy the information. > > Earl. > > In a message dated 11/28/01 8:34:55 AM, mthiesse@swbell.net writes: > > << Do you have Francis Moreland on your list ? He was mentioned specifically > by Washington in one of his directives. > > ~malinda > > "by way of John Robertson " wrote: > > > Thanks much for the information. After 2 days of searching for a list/roster > > of men in Washingtons Life Guards, all I have found to date is a mention > here > > and there of the unit. With the name you sent below, I now have 4 officers > > names and 10 soldiers, a very small fraction of the units strength. Still > > searching. > > > > Earl. > > > > In a message dated 11/27/01 3:15:14 PM, Farns10th writes: > > > > << GEN. WASHINGTON'S GUARD > > > > VA's Corp .Henry Sparks was one of Washington's personal Guards > > > > 3rd Corp. Henry Sparks (1753-1836) was Revolutionary War soldier from > > Virginia; served with Commander-in-Chief's Guard, "the flower and pick of > > American army." While with this bodyguard Sparks fought at the battles of > > Brandywine and Germantown. Discharged at Valley Forge in 1778. Came to > > Kentucky, 1795; settled in present Owen Co., 1800. Buried at Sparks Bottom. > > > > http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/kyprojects/markers/owen.shtml > >>

Thanks very much for your reply. After reading the book, I realize that it is a satire on what it costs contractors to deal with govt red tape. This "Farnsworth" was paid a fraction of his costs by the "Colonial" govt for development of a cannon. (It was never used against the red coats.) Oh, well. Robert

I feel that one of my Rev. War ancestors died during the Rev. War from injury or disease. I also feel that his wife may have died during that period also. My ancestor, the son of the couple above was raised by family relatives at Kingston, Mass. Is it possible that this orphan may have received a pension or bounty land on his father's service from Mass.--or would the town of Brunswick, (Maine), where his father served, compensated the orphan. I'm looking for Corp. Samuel RIPLEY, the veteran Col Cargill's regiment, I don't have much on Samuel and may be that's all there is. thanks, Charles

Hi, In addition to Ed's information ... I have found the description of this Pension Act, June 7, 1785: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/lessons/constitu/disable.html Question about this Act - The lists the states were to generate and send to Sec of War ... Would these be the lists that data for PA early pension records have been extracted from??? For PA, I am lead to believe that the original documents for the soldier were lost in a fire, and that the soldier pension information was reconstructed from what was in the 'Congressional' records. NARA indicates that is all there is on the soldiers Pension record; name, rank, $amt, pension act and commencement dates, plus a death date (appears they use the commencement mo/day date as death date for the death year). The year of death (or non-appearance) is the only clue I can see that this document offers. The county is 'Unknown'. Appreciate any additional information or clarification. Thanks, Jan

Thanks much for the information. After 2 days of searching for a list/roster of men in Washingtons Life Guards, all I have found to date is a mention here and there of the unit. With the name you sent below, I now have 4 officers names and 10 soldiers, a very small fraction of the units strength. Still searching. Earl. In a message dated 11/27/01 3:15:14 PM, Farns10th writes: << GEN. WASHINGTON'S GUARD VA's Corp .Henry Sparks was one of Washington's personal Guards 3rd Corp. Henry Sparks (1753-1836) was Revolutionary War soldier from Virginia; served with Commander-in-Chief's Guard, "the flower and pick of American army." While with this bodyguard Sparks fought at the battles of Brandywine and Germantown. Discharged at Valley Forge in 1778. Came to Kentucky, 1795; settled in present Owen Co., 1800. Buried at Sparks Bottom. http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/kyprojects/markers/owen.shtml >>

Do you have Francis Moreland on your list ? He was mentioned specifically by Washington in one of his directives. ~malinda "by way of John Robertson " wrote: > Thanks much for the information. After 2 days of searching for a list/roster > of men in Washingtons Life Guards, all I have found to date is a mention here > and there of the unit. With the name you sent below, I now have 4 officers > names and 10 soldiers, a very small fraction of the units strength. Still > searching. > > Earl. > > In a message dated 11/27/01 3:15:14 PM, Farns10th writes: > > << GEN. WASHINGTON'S GUARD > > VA's Corp .Henry Sparks was one of Washington's personal Guards > > 3rd Corp. Henry Sparks (1753-1836) was Revolutionary War soldier from > Virginia; served with Commander-in-Chief's Guard, "the flower and pick of > American army." While with this bodyguard Sparks fought at the battles of > Brandywine and Germantown. Discharged at Valley Forge in 1778. Came to > Kentucky, 1795; settled in present Owen Co., 1800. Buried at Sparks Bottom. > > http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/kyprojects/markers/owen.shtml > > >> > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237

On August 26, 1776, the first pension legislation for the American colonies as a group was enacted. A resolution of the Continental Congress provided half pay for officers and enlisted men, including those on warships and armed vessels, who were disabled in the service of the United States and who were incapable of earning a living. The half pay was to continue for the duration of the disability. On May 15, 1778, another resolution provided half pay for 7 years after the conclusion of the war to all military officers who remained in the Continental service to the end of' the war. Enlisted men who continued to serve for the duration of the conflict were each to receive a gratuity of $80 after the war under the terms of the same enactment. The first national pension legislation for widows was a Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780, which offered the prospect of half pay for 7 years to widows and orphans of officers who met the requirements included in the terms of the resolution of May 15, 1778. On October 21, 1780, the Continental Congress resolution of May 15, 1778, was amended to provide half pay for life to officers after the war; but on March 22, 1783, the half-pay-for-life provision was changed to 5 years' full pay. Pension legislation during the Revolutionary War was designed to encourage enlistment and acceptance of commissions and to prevent desertion and resignation. After the war, pensions became a form of reward for services rendered. Both during and after the Revolution, the States as well as the U. S. Government awarded pensions based on participation in the conflict. The records reproduced in this microfilm publication pertain only to pensions granted or paid pursuant to public and private acts of the U.S. Government. Public acts, under which the majority of such pensions were authorized, encompassed large classes of veterans or their dependents who met common eligibility requirements. Private acts concerned specific individuals whose special services or circumstances merited consideration, but who could not be awarded pensions under existing public acts. On September 29, 1789 (1 Stat. 95), the First Congress of the United States passed an act which provided that invalid pensions previously paid by the States, pursuant to resolutions of' the Continental Congress, should be continued and paid for 1 year by the newly established Federal Government. Subsequent legislation often extended the time limit. An act of Congress approved March 23, 1792 (1 Stat. 243), permitted veterans not already receiving invalid pensions under resolutions of the Continental Congress to apply for them directly to the Federal Government. On April 10, 1806 (2 Stat. 376), the scope of earlier invalid-pension laws pertaining to Revolutionary War servicemen was extended to make veterans of State troops and militia service eligible for Federal pensions. The act superseded all previous Revolutionary War invalid-pension legislation. Before 1818 national pension laws concerning veterans of the Revolution (with the exception of the Continental Congress resolution of May 15, 1778, granting half pay to officers for service alone) specified disability or death of a serviceman as the basis for a pension award. Not until March 18, 1818 (3 Stat. 410), did the U. S. Congress grant pensions to Revolutionary War veterans for service from which no disabilities resulted. Officers and enlisted men in need of assistance were eligible under the terms of the 1818 act if they had served in a Continental military organization or in the U. S. naval service (including the Marines) for 9 months or until the end of the war. Pensions granted under this act were to continue for life. The service-pension act of 1818 resulted in a great number of applications, many of which were approved. Congress had to appropriate greater sums than ever before for Revolutionary War pension payments. Financial difficulties and charges that applicants were feigning poverty to obtain benefits under the terms of the act caused Congress to enact remedial legislation on May 1, 1820 (3 Stat. 569). The new law required every pensioner receiving payments under the 1818 act, and every would-be pensioner, to submit a certified schedule of his estate and Income to the Secretary of War. The Secretary was authorized to remove from the pension list the names of those persons who, in his opinion, were not in need of assistance. Within a few years the total of Revolutionary War service pensioners was reduced by several thousand. An act of Congress approved March 1, 1823 (3 Stat. 782), resulted in the restoration of pensions to many whose names had been removed under the terms of the 1820 legislation, but who subsequently proved their need for aid. Congress passed another service-pension act on May 15, 1823 (4 Stat. 269), which granted full pay for life to surviving officers and enlisted men of the Revolutionary War who were eligible for benefits under the terms of the Continental Congress resolution of May 15, 1778, as amended. The last and most liberal of the service-pension acts benefiting Revolutionary War veterans was passed on June 7, 1832 (4 Stat. 529), and extended to more persons the provisions of the law of May15, 1828. The act provided that every officer or enlisted man who had served at least 2 years in the Continental Line or State troops, volunteers or militia, was eligible for a pension of full pay for life. Naval and marine officers and enlisted men were also included. Veterans who had served less than 2 years, but not less than 6 months, were eligible for pensions of less than full pay. Neither the act of 1832 nor the one of 1828 required applicants to demonstrate need. Under the act of 1832 money due from the last payment until the date of death of a pensioner could be collected by his widow or by his children. The time limit for making claims under the Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780, which promised half-pay pensions to widows and orphans of some officers, expired in 1794. For many years thereafter, unless a private act of Congress was introduced on her behalf, a widow of a veteran was limited to receiving only that part of a pension that remained unpaid at the time of her husband's death. By an act of Congress approved July 4, 1836 (5 Stat. 128), some widows of Revolutionary War veterans were again permitted, as a class under public law, to apply for pensions. The act provided that the widow of any veteran who had performed service as specified in the pension act of June 7, 1832, was eligible to receive the pension that might have been allowed the veteran under the terms of that act, if the widow had married the veteran before the expiration of his last period of service. An act of July 7, !838 (5 Stat. 303), granted 5-year pensions to widows whose marriages had taken place before January 1. 1794. These pensions were continued by acts of March 3, 1843 (5 Stat. 647): June 17, 1844 (5 Star. 680); and February 2, 1848 (9 Stat. 210). On July 29, 1848 (9 Slat. 265), Congress provided life pensions for widows of veterans who were married before January 2, 1800. All restrictions pertaining to the date of marriage were removed by acts of February 3, 1853 (10 Stat. 154), and February 28, 1855 (10 Stat. 616). On March 9, 1878 (20 Stat. 29), widows of Revolutionary War soldiers who had served for as few as 14 days, or were in any engagement, were declared eligible for life pensions. During the Revolution and in the period between the conclusion of the war and the establishment of the Federal Government, administration of the pension laws enacted by the Continental Congress was left largely to the individual States. The act of Congress approved September 29, 1789 (1 Stat. 95), which provided for the continuance of such pensions by the newly established Federal Government, stipulated only that they should be paid "under such regulations as the President. . . may direct." The act of Congress approved March 23, 1792(1 Stat. 244), which permitted the addition of new names to the existing list of Revolutionary War pensioners, specified that the Secretary of War was to administer its provisions. For most of the period between 1793 and 1819, Congress reserved to itself the power of final decision with respect to the allowance of claims. Thus an act of February 28, 1793 (1 Stat. 325), required the Secretary of War to send lists of claims to the Congress for action. The service-pension act of March 18, 1818 (3 Stat. 410), gave the Secretary of War the authority to approve applications submitted under that law, and by an act of March 3, 1819 (3 Stat. 528), he was similarly empowered to place invalids on the pension list without prior Congressional approval. Within the Office of the Secretary of War, pension matters were handled as early as 1810 by a unit called the Office of Military Bounty Lands and Pensions. Between 1810 and 1815 the unit was also referred to as the Section (or Branch) of Military Bounty Lands and Pensions. In 1815 the Branch was divided into two units; a Pension Bureau and a Land Warrant Bureau; after 1816 the Pension Bureau was generally referred to as the Pension Office. Not until March 2, 1833 (4 Stat. 622), did Congress formally provide for the appointment of a Commissioner of Pensions to execute pension laws under the general direction of the Secretary of War. When an act of Congress provided for the establishment of the Department of the Interior on March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. 395), the Pension Office was transferred to it. On July 21, 1930, by Executive Order 5398, the Bureau of Pensions (formerly called the Pension Office) was consolidated with other agencies also serving veterans, and the Veterans Administration, an independent executive agency, was established. Two pension acts pertaining to Revolutionary War servicemen were not initially administered by the Pension Office. Responsibility for executing the provisions of the act of May 15. 1828 (4 Stat. 270), was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury until authority was transferred to the War Department on March 3, 1835 (4 Stat. 779). The Secretary of the Treasury was also named to administer the act of June 7, 1832 (4 Stat. 530), but a Congressional resolution on June 28, 1832 (4 Stat. 605), relieved him of that function and transferred it to the Secretary of War. Application procedures followed by would-be pensioners varied according to the acts under which benefits were sought. Generally the process required an applicant to appear before a court of record in the State of his or her residence to describe under oath the service for which a pension was claimed. A widow of a veteran was required to provide information concerning the date and place of her marriage. The application statement or "declaration," as it was usually called, with such supporting papers as property schedules, marriage records, and affidavits of witnesses, was certified by the court and forwarded to the official, usually the Secretary of War or the Commissioner of Pensions, responsible for administering the specific act under which the claim was being made. An applicant was subsequently notified that his application had been approved, rejected, or put aside pending the submission of additional proof of eligibility. If an applicant was eligible, his name was placed on the pension list. Payments were usually made semiannually through pension agents of the Federal Government in the States. An applicant rejected under the terms of an earlier pension act often reapplied for benefits under later, more liberal laws. Best regards, Ed -- For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG

Famg1211@aol.com wrote: >For anyone who has not attempted to find a Rev. War pension application or >know of their existence, they are a terrific source of info. -snip- Good point-- and for those who feel that their ancestor couldn't have gotten a pension because they died before 1832, read about the earlier pension acts [1776, 1778, 1780 [widows] & 1818] at http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/pensions/revwar/classes.htm And for those who *have* gotten pension papers from NARA, has anyone compared what is on the microfilm series M804 and what NARA sends for $37. Series M805 is the 'abbreviated' files with just the genealogical info up to 10 pages--- but the write-up on M805 makes it sound like everything should be there. I've got a file from series M804 [an 1818 Pension for Justus Jennings] that doesn't name the 5 children & wife, though it mentions them; has an 'approval letter' & a calculation of what he is owed, but no indication that he was ever paid; only one witness; no mention of an 1832 pension, though he died in 1844; and doesn't mention his death. [he never had a widow, she died in 1839] There is also a notation on one of the cover sheets that mentions a letter to a Congressman, but it isn't in the file. Does this sound fairly typical, or does it sound like there should be more than the 11 pages? I can think of a few things I'd rather do with $37 than just repeat the info that was on M804--- but if there is a good chance of more info, I'll give that a try. Has anyone ever compared the film to what NARA sends? Thanks, Jim

The question of military bounty lands having come up, here is part of The Intro to Ohio Land History, which I read tonight and which is pertinent. Anne http://www.ultranet.com/~deeds/ohio.htm With the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Virginia and other states were asked to cede their western land claims to the fledgling government, which later used them to create the Northwest and Southwest Territories. In 1781 Virginia relinquished its claim to lands to the northwest of the Ohio River in exchange for being able to award bounty lands (land grants in lieu of payment for military service) in Ohio's "Virginia Military District" (see next). Connecticut made a similar arrangement and ceded its claims in exchange for granting lands in the "Western Reserve and Firelands". The Virginia Military District opened in 1784. Is was located between the Little Miami and Scioto Rivers in the south-central portion of the state. Virginia issued bounty land grants there until Ohio achieved statehood in 1803. Land in the Virginia Military District necessarily used the Virginia surveying system of metes and bounds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- The Land Ordinance of 1796 was passed. It defined the surveying system to be used by all future public land surveys. In this system the townships are 6 miles square, composed of 36 one mile square sections, each of which may be subdivided into quarters or smaller. The numbering of the sections is serpentine, starting in the northeast corner of the township. Townships are identified as being north or south of a baseline and in a range east or west of a longitudinal meridian line. The Land Ordinance also created the Congressional Military Tract in the heart of Ohio. The survey system used was one of 5 mile square townships, and the minimum purchase was 1/4 township (about 4000 acres), much larger than the standard military bounty warrant of 160 acres. This had the effect of decreasing the value of the warrant and encouraging speculation in land warrants. The Ohio Land Office opened in 1800 and began selling land to individuals. Ohio became a state in 1803.

Hi, In order to get a pension you had to live until 1832 when Congress established a pension program. Many of the soldiers of the revolution had already died. There was a program prior to 1832 but it was for those killed or maimed in the war so not everyone qualified. I don't now if there was a separate program for those who served in the Continental Line. As for bounty land, I'm not sure what someone would have had to do to qualify but many served in the militia, a tour of duty might be two or three months so I'm not sure if they qualified. Some might if they served multiply tours but I'm not sure. Jim Dickason31@aol.com wrote: > > Can some one help me understand why a soldier in the Rev. (or spouse) would > NOT have applied for or gotten either a pension or a land bounty warrant. > Would there be some other post war compensation that they could have gotten > in lieu of these? > > Thanx, > > Don Dickason > Genealogy interest in: > Dickason, Hamilton, Cadwallader, Himes, Garrett, > Wisely, Steinberg, Blair, Lindsay, Zahn, Borchward(t), Biesterfeldt, Brand(t) > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Conestoga Area Historical Society Web Page =-= Stokes Family Web Page http://www.rootsweb.com/~pacahs/index.htm =-= http://home.supernet.com/~jlstokes =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

For anyone who has not attempted to find a Rev. War pension application or know of their existence, they are a terrific source of info. I had looked for years to extend my Colby family line with nothing but dead ends. I located a reference in an unrelated county history that got me closer. It mentioned Rev. War service. I checked an index at a state library and he had a pension application on file. He had been denied once or twice, so info had to be resubmitted. I copied each microfilm page and later transcribed it. It had his signature from 1818. He was only 16 when enlisting in 1776. It documented his entire household value in a single column. Great reading. Named his wife, children at home, including a daughter with children that had been abandoned by her spouse. This helped me extend my line to the immigrant ancestor b. 1605. Sue Gurk from MI

Hi, Some things that no one has mentioned ... witnesses in 1832. In the case of a recent find in PA papers ... an application for a Pension, but it had been denied because no one was around to verify the applicants claims. It appears that the man knew it, but tried anyway ... and for that we have just 'a peek' of what an prisoner/impressed soldier went through after the Battle of LI. In addition, the witnesses would certainly be a key issue when either parties had relocated. Age ... it has been a while since I have read any, but do recall reading the vagueness that some applicants had in recalling events which happened up to 57 years earlier. This in combination of 'several' service periods during the war, in different places/battles, and what appeared to me, a lot of substitution for other soldiers service time ... anyway, you know, the 'age thing' ... Widows ... if young with children ... they probably didn't stay widows, with orphans, very long. Jan

--part1_9e.1e0a9f6e.2935a857_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This response came to me directly after my query on the list about a Rev. soldier with no pension and no land bounty. It was very helpful to me and I thought others on the list might find it useful to them. I trust that Bob Brooks will approve of me sending in along. thanx to all for their responses. I am relatively new to this list. It is a GOOD ONE! Don Dickason Genealogy interest in: Dickason, Hamilton, Cadwallader, Himes, Garrett, Wisely, Steinberg, Blair, Lindsay, Zahn, Borchward(t), Biesterfeldt, Brand(t) --part1_9e.1e0a9f6e.2935a857_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <rcbrooks@acadia.net> Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97]) by air-za03.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILINZA36-1127095142; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:51:42 -0500 Received: from anvil.prexar.com (anvil.prexar.com [142.167.5.3]) by rly-za01.mx.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA17-1127095047; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:50:47 -0500 Received: from rcbrooks ([142.167.32.110]) by anvil.prexar.com (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license e80ad4300c78461dee1883b377c18f00) with SMTP id <20011127145045.EVFH28031.anvil@rcbrooks> for <Dickason31@aol.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:50:45 -0500 Message-ID: <004401c17752$f3037c00$6e20a78e@rcbrooks> From: "RC Brooks" <rcbrooks@acadia.net> To: <Dickason31@aol.com> References: <49.1498a993.2934f0da@aol.com> Subject: Re: [A-REV] Sol. w/ no Pension and no land bounty Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:49:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > Can some one help me understand why a soldier in the Rev. > (or spouse) would NOT have applied for or gotten either a > pension or a land bounty warrant. I can not claim expertise in the pension process; however, I can offer a few observations. 1) Timing: There were several pension laws passed at various times. Prior to the establishment of the Federal Government in 1789, the pensions granted by the Continental Congress were very focused. Two catgories immediately come to mind -- Amputees who had lost a limb during service and Officers who had not been paid for there services. The 1818 Act required that the petitioner's need be established. I think it was in 1832 when all qualified veterans and widows of veterans who had not remarried became eligible for a pension regardless of need. 2) Qualification: As a rule, cumulative total of six months state or Continental military or naval service was the minimum acceptable to qualify for a pension. Most of the soldiers received a written discharge but many of these discharges were lost or destroyed in the interim. 3) Process: As a result of the 1818 Act an Agent of Pensions "held court" at the various county seats were the soldiers were expected to appear and "prove" their service. As the 1818 Act was for the "needy" only, I don't think the soldiers were expected to retain a lawyer and either a clerk of the court or a clerk of the Agent of Pensions (or perhaps the Agent himself) prepared the necessary paperwork. In lieu of presenting a discharge showing service in excess of the required minimum of six months, the soldiers were required to provide depositions and testimony from persons in a position to testify to the petitioners service. This was sometimes difficult to do; however, one "legal trick" commonly used was for three persons who served together to petition at the same session of court thereby mutually supporting each other's petitions while minimizing witness travel expenses. I believe many people failed to apply simply because of the difficulty of getting to court. If memory serves, the 1818 Act provided a qualifying soldier $8 per month (regardless of whether he served 6 months or over 8 years) or $96 per year. While this was below the "poverty line" of 1818, it helped people survive. As for bounty land, there was very little land awarded locally here in Maine simply because there was little federally-owned land available for grants. Although a land grant might be available in the west, of what good is 100 acres in the "northwest Territory" or "Ohio" or whatever it was called at the time. About the only thing for a 75 year old man to do was to sell it in a depressed market glutted with cheap bounty land. His neighbor grantees were no better off than he was. One man's opinion. Bob Brooks, retired downeast on the coast of Maine. --part1_9e.1e0a9f6e.2935a857_boundary--

Can some one help me understand why a soldier in the Rev. (or spouse) would NOT have applied for or gotten either a pension or a land bounty warrant. Would there be some other post war compensation that they could have gotten in lieu of these? The most common reason for one who was not an officer is simply that they didn't live long enough. The most "open" pension was not created until 1832. There were earlier pension laws, but were more restrictive, such as for invalids. J. Quick

Don Dickason <Dickason31@aol.com> > Can some one help me understand why a soldier in the Rev. (or spouse) would > NOT have applied for or gotten either a pension or a land bounty warrant. > Would there be some other post war compensation that they could have gotten > in lieu of these? My ignorance of Rev. War pensions and other perks is very deep and profound. However, a newly found long- lost cousin recently sent me the text of my umpteenth grand uncle's Rev. War pension that has two interesting points: 1. "On this 28th day of September 1832, personally appeared in open Court before the County Court of Livingston County [NY] ... Elisha Powell ... in order to obtain the benefit of the act of Congress passed June 7, 1832." Supposing that there were no earlier pension laws before this one (I have no idea if there were or not), well, my direct ancestors did not apply for Rev. War pensions for the simple reason that they happened to be dead in 1832. Being dead, it would have been considered highly irregular for them to appear in court. 2. "That ... his name is not in the pension roll of any agency of any state." I.e., assuming that he had served in, say, the War of 1812 and was pensioned for that (assuming there were such pensions), he would be ineligible for a Rev. War pension. Any other sort of pension would have disallowed a second, Rev. War pension. I have also heard rumor of land grants awarded to some Rev. War vets. The only example of this I know of personally was for land in "the Ohio country." If that happened to be the rule (and I don't know if it was or not), then vets who were unable to move for some reason (ornery spouse or other injuries) might not have been able to claim such land because they couldn't get there. But, that's just a guess. Another point might also be that many of the Rev. War vets simply didn't serve very much or for very long. The militias were part-time, perhaps even spare-time activities in many cases. Elisha Powell's pension hearing transcript shows that he was *VERY* active in the military for several years. The document reads like some kind of history book. Just guessing, again, it might be that pensions went to the long-term troopers, like Elisha, who were probably a minority. But, again, I must say that this is guesswork. I just happened to notice that this one case involved an awful lot of marching and fighting. Lester Powers ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.