I received this enquiry from a non-listmember (replies will need to be sent to her directly, not to the list): >From: "Marilyn Dungan" <mdungan@sprynet.com> >Subject: James Robertson >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:07:41 -0400 > >Hi, >I am trying to find out information on James Robertson who was one of the >Long-Knives with George Rogers Clark in his campaign in Kaskaskia in 1778 >and Vincennes in 1779. I think there were more than one James Robertson >during that time. One later ended up a major, then general. One was an >early pioneer in Wautaga Valley.The one I want was perhaps a >sergeant/quartermaster/?? maybe later Lt.?? I need the info for a book. >Acknowledgments will be in book for anyone who can lead me to the James >Robertson I need. >Marilyn <mailto:mdungan@sprynet.com>mdungan@sprynet.com

Hi, I can offer this website as a start to a bibliography list; see footnotes. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/8757/revbrit.html Jan

Lieut. Richard Williams, a soldier in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, commissioned May 13, 1773 His Journal (excerpt) 1775 - 25th April: the regt encamped - &c: NODDLES ISLAND There was little else remarkable before my arrival except a few different skermishes with small parties, the most capital of which was on the 27th May, when a party of rebels landed in the afternoon on Noddles Island and burnt a house & barn. The Admiral made a signal for all the boats of the fleet manned & armed, to land there. The Marines from the ships were soon landed as were also two Picquets from the Marines encamp'd - they marched to the high ground on the Island opposite Hogg Island and had some firing with those of the rebels who appear'd. The Diana, an armed schooner Lt. Graves, was ordered up Chelsea River to intercept the Rebels in their retreat from the Island. Unluckely she ran aground abt 11 at night near Winasimet ferry house, - the rebels fired on her with small arms & cannon & Lt. Graves was obliged to quit her abt 3 the next morning, after setting her on fire. I copied some of the foregoing notes crom Capt. M's (here he implies that his source is Mackenzie. Full Journal at <A HREF="http://search.britannica.com/frm_redir.jsp?query=lexington-concord&redir =http://members.aol.com/GuardsSite/JournalofRichardWilliams.html">Journal of British soldier - Noddles Island</A> Same story but from the Journal of Amos Farnsworth, "rebel" Subject: FARNSWORTH, Amos Jr. His Journal of the Revolutionary War Source: Matthias Farnsworth and His Descendants in America A Monograph by Claudius Buchanan Farnsworth Published privately by the author 1891 Journal of Amos Farnsworth, Jr. April 1775 "We marched and came there (to Concord) where some had been killed. Pulled on and came to Lexington, where much hurt was done to the houses by breaking glass and burning of many houses, but they were forced to retreat though they were more numerous than we. And I saw many dead Regulars by the way. Went into a house where the blood was half over shoes.. Thursday April 20, 1775 Came to Cambridge in the forenoon. There were some men wanted to go to Charlestown. I went, for one, and viewed the Regulars and found they were intrenching on Charlestown Hill. Friday, May ye 26. At night I and about ten of our company marched with a party of men, betwixt two and three hundred, for Noddle's Island, headed by Col. Nixon. We marched through Mystic, Malden and Chelsea. Saturday May ye 27. Went on Hogg Island and brought off six horses, twenty-seven horned cattle and four hundred and eleven sheep. About the middle of the afternoon went from Hog Island to Noddle's Island and set one house and barn on fire. Killed some horses and cattle; brought off two or three cows; one horse. I with five men got off the horse and before we got from Noddle's Island to Hog Island we were fired upon by a privateer schooner; but we crossed the river and about fifteen of us squatted down in a ditch on the marsh and stood our ground; and there came a company of Regulars on the march on the other side of the river and the schooner, and we had a hot fire until the Regulars retreated. But not withstanding the bullets flew very thick not a man of us (was) killed. Surely God has a favor towards us, and he can save in one place as well as another. We left the Island about sunset and came to Chelsea and on Saturday about ten at night marched to Winnisimet ferry where there was a schooner and a sloop afiring with great fury upon us there; but thanks be to God that gave us the victory at this time for through his Providence the schooner that played upon us ran aground and we set fire to her and consumed her there, and the sloop received much damage in this engagement. We had not a man killed; but four wounded and we hope all will recover. One of the four was a Townsend man belonging to our company. The bullet went through his mouth from one cheek to the other. Thursday June ye 1. There were sheep and cattle and horses we hear, to ye amount of four or five hundred sheep, twenty or thirty cattle and a number of horses brought along that our people took from the Regulars off Noddle's Island. Friday, June 16. Nothing done in ye forenoon. In the afternoon we had orders to be ready to march at six. Agreeable to orders our regiment paraded and about sunset we were drawn up and had prayers and about dusk marched for Bunker Hill under command of our own Colonel William Prescott. Just before we turned out of the road to go up Bunker's Hill, Charlestown, we were halted, and about sixty men were taken out of our battalion to go into Charlestown, I being one of them. Capt. Nutting (probably Capt. John Nutting of Pepperell, captain of a company of "minute men" from that place) headed us down to the town house. We set our sentin- els by the water side. The most of us got in the town house but had orders not to shut our eyes. Our men marched to Bunker Hill and begun the entrenchments and carried it on with the utmost vigor all night. Early in the morning I joined them. Saturday June ye 17. The enemy appeared to be much alarmed on Saturday morning when they discovered our operations and immediately began a heavy cannonading from a battery on Cop(p)'s Hill, Boston and from the ships in ye harbor. We with little loss continued to carry on our work till ten o'clock when we discovered a large body of the enemy crossing Charles River from Boston. They landed on a point of land about a mile east- ward of our entrenchment and immediately disposed their army for an attack, previous to which they set fire to the town of Charlestown. It is supposed that the enemy intended to attack us under the cover of the smoke from the burning houses: the wind favoring them in such a design; while on the other side their army was extending northward towards Mystic river with an apparent design of surrounding our men in the works and of cutting off any assistance intended for our relief. They were, however, in some measure counteracted in this design, and drew their army into closer order. As the enemy approached our men were not only exposed to the attack of a very numerous muquetry but to a heavy fire from the battery on Cop(p)'s Hill, 4 or 5 men of war, several armed boats or floating batteries in Mystic River, and a numb- er of field pieces. Notwithstanding we within the entrenchment and at a breastwork within sustained the enemy's attacks with real bravery and resolution. Killed and wounded great numbers, and repulsed them several times; and after bearing for about two hours as severe and heavy a fire as perhaps ever was known, and many having fired away all their amunition, and having no reinforcement although there was a great body of men nie by, we were overpowered by numbers and obliged to leave the intrenchment, retreating about sunset to a small distance until the enemy had got in. I then retreated about ten or fifteen rods. Then I received a wound in my right arm, the ball going through a little below the elbow, breaking the little shell bone. Another ball struck my back, taking off a piece of skin about as big as a penny; but I got to Cambridge that night. The town of Charlestown I supposed to contain about 300 dwelling houses a great number of which were large and elegant, besides 150 or 200 other buildings (these) are almost laid in ashes by the barbarity and wanton cruelty of that infernal villain Thomas Gage. Oh! the goodness of God in preserving my life though they fell on my right hand and on my left. I was in great pain the first night with my wound. Sunday June 18. I and Phineas Hubbard came to Mr. Watsons. Monday June 19. Mr. Hubbard and I set out for home. Came as far as Lincoln; met our honored fathers. Got as far as Concord that night. Tuesday, June 20. We got home. Note: Here he makes a memorandum that for a considerable time past, he could not keep up his journal on account of the wound in his arm but under date of August 14, he says: "Now I begin to write a littel;" and he proceeds: "Monday August 14. Set out for Cambridge got there that day: found our company pretty well." From that day to August 24 nothing of interest is recorded. On that day he says: "About twelve o'clock I had my arm dressed. Dr. Hart opened it nigh two inches down to the bone. About 3 in the afternoon Col. William Prescott (his cousin) gave orders to march to Sewell's Point and they marched, but I did not go with them because of my wound." He remained with the army at Cambridge until Oct. 27 and his diary contains a record of the doings, in which, in consequence of his wound, he was an actor only to a limited extent. On that day he was furlough- ed and sent home, when it was found that in addition to his wound he had camp fever. He recovered however, but was unable again to return to the army at Cambridge. I have not thought proper to change a word of this simple record of what was done under his observation and of the acts in which he was a participant from the 19th of April to the 17th of June, 1775. His words are better than mine. (Claudius Farns- worth) Much that Amos Farnsworth observed was not commited to his diary and this writer remembers listening as a boy to his reminiscences of Bunker Hill and other acts in the Revolutionary drama in which he was an act- or. Among other things I heard him say that as the troops under Colonel Prescott were leaving the entrenchment at Bunker Hill they met General Putnam who, with a large body of men had remained "nie by", as Amos Farnsworth expressed it in his diary, but had not participated in the battle. Amos Farnsworth was very near the two commanders and distinctly hear the conversation between them. Colonel Prescott began by sharply asking General Putnam why he had not sent up reinforcements as he had promised. Putnam answered that he "could not drive the damned dogs up." To this Colonel Prescott hotly responded: "Then why did you not lead them up? They would have followed you." Note: This conversation is re-iterated word for word in the memoirs of Colonel William Prescott as reported in the Prescott Memorial. On Tuesday, Dec. 5, 1775, Amos Farnsworth's father and his brother Benjamin were both drowned by the upsetting of a boat in the Nashua River, near where they lived and the whole care of the family devolved on him. Yet, in spite of his wounded and weak arm and the state of the family, the next year, in the summer of 1776, he volunteered to go to the defence of Ticonderoga in Colonel Reed's regiment that was raised in the neighborhood of Groton (MA) for that purpose. He had served as a corporal at Bunker Hill. He had done so well that he was made an ensign, equivalent to a second lieutenant, in that expedition. He went into service in Col. Reed's expedition on the 23d of July and returned home at the close of the year with his men. While at Ticonderoga he was engaged in several affairs with the British which he briefly relates in his journal, but which are not of sufficient interest to repeat here. He was afterwards while holding a commision as first lieutenant in a company of Matrosses (commanded by William Swan) in Colonel Jonathan Reed's regiment, sent with some troops to New Jersey, where notwith- standing his weak arm, he performed effective service by his bravery and judgement and by his care of his men, with whom he was always popular. His first commission as ensign or second lieutenant was in the infantry. His next commission was in the artillery or "Matrosses" as that branch of the service was called. His commission as first lieutenant is in the name of "The Major Part of the Council of Massachusetts Bay in New England," as the State government had not then been organized, and Massachusetts was then under an ex tempore government. His commission as first lieutenant is as follows: Official Document... State of Massachusetts Bay - The Major Part of the Council of Massa- chusetts Bay in New England. SEAL To Amos Farnsworth, Gentleman, Greeting. "You being appointed First Lieutenant of a company of Matrosses commanded by William Swan raised in the Sixth Regiment of Militia in the County of Middlesex wherof Jonathan Reed Esquire is Colonel to rank as Captain, By Virtue of the Power vested in us, We do by these Presents (reposing specail Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and good Conduct,) Commission you accordingly. You are there- fore carefully and deligently to discharge the Duty of a First Lieut. in leading, ordering, and exercising said Company in Arms, both infer- ior Officers and Soldiers; and to keep them in good Order and Disipline And they are hereby commanded to obey you as their first Lieut., and you are yourself, to observe and follow such Orders and instructions as you shall from time to time receive from the Major Part of the Council or your Superior Officers. Given under our Hands and the Seal of the said State at Boston the Nineteenth Day of October in the Year of our Lord, 1778. By the Command of the Major Part of the Council John Avery, Deputy Secretary Jer. Powell Artemas Ward T. Cushing Benj. Austin H. Gardner D. Hopkins Saml. Danielson N. Cushing B. White Danl. Davis Oliver Prescott Oliver Wendell A. Fuller E. Brooks Fra. Dana After the close of the war, he was commissioned as "Captain of a company of Matrosses in the Brigade of Militia in the County of Middlesex." That company is the old Groton Artillery Company. The commission bears the signature of John Hancock as "Governor and Commander in Chief in and over the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." This company is still in existence. His next commission, signed by Samuel Adams as Governor, appoints him "Major of a Battalion of Artillery in the Second Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of this Commonwealth comprehending the County of Middlesex," and is dated July 1, 1794. The poverty of the people of Massachusetts at the close of the Revolu- tionary War, and their distress in consequence of it was very great. Paper money became valueless; many were heavily indebted; taxes were burdensome; and the way out of their difficulties was obscure. Great economy in the government was needed and practiced. The military organizations were reduced to a point lower than was consistent with with safety. In the year 1786 the "Shay's Rebellion" broke out. The necessity of having some provision in the laws for the collection of debts so exasperated some hasty and indebted persons that they did as has been done in other periods of the world's history, they rebelled. Job Shattuck of Groton (MA) was one of the leaders in the rebellion. The cannon of the Groton Artillery Company, then under Major Amos Farnsworth's command were usually kept in an out-building on his farm. The first movement made by Shattuck and his associates was one October night, 1786, to break open the building in which the guns were stored, drag them across the fields to the Nashua River and pitch them into it, after which they retired quietly to their homes. The loss of the guns was learned early the next morning; the course taken with them was tracked through the frosty grass; they were very soon found, and before night they were restored to the place from which they had been taken and a guard was kept over them afterwards until the close of the political troubles. Amos Farnsworth had the reputation of being an efficient and very popular officer. In addition to his military services he was for several years a deacon of the church of Groton and he served the church in many business ways until old age diminished his powers. He died October 29, 1847 at the advanced age of ninety three years and six months. His wife survived him but a few weeks and died Dec. 11, 1847 aged ninety years. ____________________________________________________________________ Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth (Amos is in my direct line of descent)

Greetings Bob, Thank you 'very much' for the time taken for your gleanings, comments and data on the Whitby and Juliana. The applicant is part of a group of those men noted as having Captain Alexander McDonald as his enlisting officer, with a date of '3 Sep 1776'. I am hopeful that the papers of Captain Alexander McDonald will shed more light on the circumstances. BTW - the applicant was refused because they could not find any of his named buddies. Your most humble ..... Jan

=snip= > I am interested in his reference to the ship 'Juliana'; which appears > to be called the 'Whitby' by historians; first prison ship in NYC. One is at risk attempting to define historical "firsts" -- especially without a clearcut definition of the event being defined. Rev War prisoners of war where held on ships by both sides, long before specific ships were called "prison ships." I am not an expert on the subject and heartly would encourage anyone undertakening a scholarly study on the subject. Below follow some gleanings from: Wm Bell Clarrk et al., eds., _Naval Documents of the American Revolution_ 10 volumes to date (Washington DC: GPO, 1964- ) re: the two vessels: WHITBY, troop transport: Transported four companies of the 17th Regt of Foot from Cork, Ireland, to Portsmouth UK, from whence she sailed 8 Sep 1775 under convoy of HMS PHOENIX and arrived at Nantasket Roads [Boston] on 9 Nov 1775, then moved to Boston and disembarked troops. She next loaded part of a detachment of 175 Marines and sailed 30 Dec 1775 to join convoy with HMS SCARBOROUGH at Nantasket Roads, from whence she sailed 5 Jan 1776 and arrived at Savannah GA about 12 Feb 1776. The Marines went along to 'strong-arm' the Georgians into supplying rice for the amry then garrisoned in Boston an on 2 Mar 1776 there was an altercation between the British and Americans which was put down. On 30 Mar 1776 the convoy departed, heading for Boston (evacuated 2 weeks earlier). The next record found is petition dated "'Whitby' Prison Ship, N York, 9th Decr 1776" which says "... There are more than two Hundred and fifty prisoners of us on board this Ship ... all Crouded promiscuously togeather, without Distinction or Respect, to person, rank or color...." The petition suggests that all were American naval personnel. This is consistent with other sources wherein naval and merchant mariners were accounted for and exchanged independent to army POWs. So where was the 'Whitby' between 30 Mar 1776 (leaving Savannah) and 9 Dec 1776 when she is in New York harbor, chocker-block full of naval POWs? I appears she when past New York as on the morning of 11 April 1776 while alongside Long Island, when the fog lifted about 6 AM, the 'Whitby' was out of sight. HMS SCARBOROUGH & the transport 'Symmetry' both went into Rhode Island Roads for a few days; however, there is no mention of the 'Whitby' so I suspect she continued northwardly and if didn't already know about the evacuation of Boston, learned of it in time to progress unobstructed to Halifax where she woiuld have found the fleet recently arrived from Boston. HMS SCARBOROUGH arrived at Halifax on 21 May 1776. The fleet containing MGen Sir Wm. Howe's army sailed from Halifax on 10 June 1776 {If memory serves, Howe's orderly book lists those transports assigned to carry the army units). Howe reached New York on 29 June with the transports staggering in a few days later. JULIANA, troop transport, William Johnson, master: [SPECULATION: Hired at Milford Haven by Navy Board ca. 1 Dec 1775, then sent to Cork under Lt Thomas Tonken to load troops for North America] When HMS BRISTOL arrived at Cork on 6 Jan 1776, Lt Tonken's Division of Transports [including JULIANA] had already embarked troops. The Convoy under HMS BRISTOL departed Cork on 12 Feb 1776 for the Carolinas, arriving 3 May 1776 at Cape Fear River [NC] where the troops were disembarked [one of the other transports in Tonken's group had a breakout of small pox enroute and all suffered from the long voyage]. They re-embarked and on 30 May 1776 crossed the bar to form for the attempt to capture Charlestown SC. Sailing 31 May, they arrived off Charlestown bar on 4 June but I do not know whether she crossed the bar into Five Fathom Hole on 7 June [most transports did] or whether she still remained outside the bar when the gale hit. After the attack failed but before 20 July 1776 all had sailed for New York where they arrived the morning of 1 August 1776 I feel confident that I have the correct 'Juliana' identified above. She may be identical to the ship 'Juliana' Capt. Montgomery who brought NY Gov. Wm Tyron to NYC as a passenger from London. Arriving 24 June 1775, she should have been back in England a the same time "your" 'Julianna' seems to have been hired. There was aother vessel named 'Juliana' in the theatre in the rigt time period. Walter Burke commanded a small, 60 ton, brig named 'Juliana' from Ireland which 1 Oct 1775 cleared at Annapolis from Galway with a cargo of "32 servants" for Thomas Ewing in Baltimore. Others are recorded but they are after the date of your interest COMMENTS: Both the 'Whitby' and the 'Juliana' are present in New York harbor at the beginning of October 1776. Both were transport ships chartered by the Navy Board and by their presence were not among the approximately 200 empty transports sent back to the UK. I do not know why they were chosen as prison ships over other transports. As they don't show up on any official naval accounting lists, I ASSUME that they remained as hired vessels. In comparison the transport "Dutchess of Russia" (over 300 tons) was conscribed, then purchased by the British navy and converted into HMS VIGILANT which playyed a prominent role in the Philadelphia (1777-78) and Savannah (1778-1780) campaigns. Hope this helps Bob Brooks, retired downeast on the coast of Maine

Jan There is a 10 volume set of books called Naval Documents of the American Revolution. Volumes 5, 6 and 7 have entries under Lady Juliana; volume 7 has entries under Prison ship Whitby. Volumes 5, 6 & 7 cover 1776 and the beginning of 1777. I don't have time to go through and look at the entries, but there are many. jkr The other John Robertson

John. I have used the set in the past, vols 8-10, and was hoping that it would be mentioned in this set because of its encounter with the Chance etc. Thank you very much for your input. Jan "John K. Robertson" wrote: > Jan > > There is a 10 volume set of books called Naval Documents of the American > Revolution. Volumes 5, 6 and 7 have entries under Lady Juliana; volume 7 > has entries under Prison ship Whitby. Volumes 5, 6 & 7 cover 1776 and the > beginning of 1777. <snip>

This was posted on a Maritime History list and I thought some of you might enjoy the site. Be sure to read the "articles"............ ~malinda > A full size replica of the Revolutionary War privateer Rattlesnake is > undergoing restoration in Jacksonville. It is the only full-rigged ship on > the East Coast south of Baltimore. (The MGM movie replica of the HMS Bounty > used to be homeported in St. Petersburg, Florida, but has since moved north > and is undergoing extensive refitting in Maine.) You can see more about the > Rattlesnake at http://rattlesnake.daci.net/default.htm, but be advised that > the website hasn't been updated in years, so I have no idea on the ship's > current status. > >

Greetings, I recently came into possession of an 1835 PA Pension Application of an impressed 84th soldier from the Battle of Brooklyn, who returned to PA after the war. He was 16 years old at time of impressment. This is the first documentation I have seen that attempts to fill a void. I am interested in his reference to the ship 'Juliana'; which appears to be called the 'Whitby' by historians; first prison ship in NYC. Testimony to his whereabouts after the battle is as follows: ... About sunset the British and Hessians came upon us and took us prisoners. Ensign Beechy was the only officer that was present, when he was taken. He, together with about 700 others were put in two small churches, and in two or three days were all put together in one large church, and kept in the church with the window-shutters shut, for about ten days, and fed on nothing but green apples, and drank water out of old pork barrels. The apples were brought to the church door in a cart and flung unto the church. At the end of ten days we got some bread. We were kept in the church until about the 1st of October, and then taken out, and put on board a British ship, which was called the “Juliana”. The ship was very dirty and we were fed on old biscuits which was almost rotten. We remained in said ship until the last of October, when they offered to release as many as would swear that they would not take up arms again. He, with several others, refused to take oath. Some did. Some he heard died on the road home. They were then put on other vessels and taken to Halifax. .... I have been provided the following for the 'Lady Juliana': _Lloyd's Register of Shipping_ (Underwriters) for 1775/76 lists a single vessel named LADY JULIANA, a ship of 250 tons built at Whitby in 1769; C. Stevenson, master; C. Gowland, owner; draught when loaded, 15 feet; surveyed at London and destined to Jamaica. I have no information on this vessel's activities during the American Revolution, except that in May 1776, with a valuable cargo aboard, she was captured by the Pennsylvania armed sloop CHANCE (4 guns), under the command of J. Adams. This vessel appears to have been lost or permanently "acquired" by the American revolutionaries, since in 1777/78 another, larger vessel of the same name was built at Whitby. [end] The following website offers an interesting history on the prison ships starting with the Whitby. It seems that the time frame remembered by the pension applicant is quite close: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north5.html Some writers refer to ships abandoned in the harbor during the battle period. Is this one which was abandoned, Or perhaps still in some process of proving privateering in the courts??? Documentation on the 'Whitby' ? Appreciate any inputs that will help me verify. This is the first documentation I have seen that gives a glimpse for this group of soldiers. Thank you, Jan

Dear Messrs et Mesdames, I am researching a Benjamin Dixon son of Obadiah Dixon. Obadiah believed to have emigrated to Maryland with Lord Calvert. Do you find either of these men on your list of Revolutionary war soldiers? Thank you for your kind consideration. luceo non uro.. Aubrey Smith

FYI--found the following on CyndisLIst Daily Uploads, September 23, 2001. M. Corrigall ========= << URL: http://jrshelby.com/bostontp2.htm TITLE: Where was the Boston Tea Party Site DESCRIPTION: Uses numerous Bostonmaps (1722 to present) to make thecase that the Boston Tea Party sitecan indeed be located, and that it differs from all sites currentlyproposed. >>

A Different Perspective! During the 3 day battle of Gettysburg, there were 51,000 casualties making Gettysburg the bloodiest battle of American history. Additionally, when the battle had ended, 5,000 dead horses, and the other wreckage of war, presented a scene of terrible devastation. During the 10 year war in Vietnam, 4,368,000 Served in the war, 30,921died in battle, 7,273 died outside of battle, 96,802 were wounded. Nearly as many horses died at Gettysburg, as people in the twin towers. Statistics can be mean, and deceiving. I would not attempt to make statistical comparisons of wartime events, as they are really not comparable. Apples/Oranges....Horses/People....18th century/19th century/20th century! James Baker Gary06074@aol.com wrote: > Greetings. Someone sent the below to me to see if I can verify it. > Regretfully, I cannot. Does anyone know if these are correct? Thanks! > God Bless America > Gary > > • Today's Fact: During the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), total American > battle deaths were 4,435 (4,044 army, 342 navy, and 49 marines). The number > of wounded was 6,188 (6,004 army, 114 navy, and 70 marines). On September 11, > 2001, more people were killed and wounded than during the entire American > Revolution. > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Greetings. Someone sent the below to me to see if I can verify it. Regretfully, I cannot. Does anyone know if these are correct? Thanks! God Bless America Gary • Today's Fact:  During the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), total American battle deaths were 4,435 (4,044 army, 342 navy, and 49 marines). The number of wounded was 6,188 (6,004 army, 114 navy, and 70 marines). On September 11, 2001, more people were killed and wounded than during the entire American Revolution.

I received the figures below from another list. Can anyone verify their accuracy ? Thanks.........malinda jones > During the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), total battle deaths were 4,435 > (4,044 army, 342 navy, and 49 marines). > The number of wounded was 6,188 (6,004 army, 114 navy, > and 70 marines).

Time to weigh in. Complementary to the jr@jrshelby.com comments on the British viewpoint: The colonies were just that--colonies. They were not territories. There is an important difference which was not lost on the Americans following Independence. A colony is the ward of the parent, not the child. That is, the British said the colonies could only trade with British merchants. After Independence, as America expanded across the continent, Congress was careful to make it clear it was setting up Territories (Ohio Territory, for example) which could grow up to become States. The Treaty with Mexico (Guadalupe Hidalgo) makes that point specifically. The colonies along the Eastern seaboard chafed and suffered under the import/export restrictions. It is a point made clear in the popular new biography of John Adams. Though it would be years before America became a great exporting nation, that one policy alone (domination over the business of the Colonies) would have eventually brought reaction from the colonists whose lands were so fruitful.

You will see occasional messages that show messages that are sent to the list with the following after the From addressee: (by way of John Robertson <jr@jrshelby.com>) There is nothing to be concerned about on this. For some reason, Rootsweb is failing to recognize the email addresses of a few subscribers as being from subscribed members. I double-check that the members are indeed subscribed and forward the messages on to the list. Whenever I do that, it adds the above statement to the From: addressee. If I discover that the person sending the message is not subscribed, I usually conclude that they intended to be, so I usually would subscribe them, wait a bit, then forward the message to the list. In some cases, a person will subscribe then immediately post to the list. Lately, there seems to be some delay after a person is subscribed before the list will accept posts from them. As above, I confirm their list membership and forward their message to the list. There is no harm caused by any of this except that it gives me some additional list manager chores. I thought that some may be puzzled by this statement being added to posts, so felt that a bit of explanation was in order. John Robertson List manager

Greetings Lester, Some comments - My husbands Parker line also went to Quebec, Eastern Townships, in 1802. Charles Parker was from Charlestown, NH ..... and about as far from a Loyalist as one could get in the history books. It seems one of the earlier patterns of these NewEnglanders searching for lands was ... migrating north. Having several history books on the Province of Quebec (Lower Canada), I can offer you several quotes from the Early History and Settlement as described in The History of Stanstead County, PQ, written 1874: 1792 - Lower Canada was subdivided into districts, counties, circles or towns, and townships. Previous to that time, the territory had been hunting and fishing grounds for the St. Francis Indians. ... The surveys began in 1792, and completed mostly by the end of the century. ... County Richelieu - A few enterprising families from New England had found their way into the Eastern Townships before the close of the past century, but isolated as they were comparatively unknown to the administration, and, for a time, "every man did as seemed good in his own eyes." In the meantime there had been a liberal disposition manifested by the Crown and the provincial Goverments in behalf of the settlers of the Townships, and large grants of land were made to companies and individuals with the view of encouraging settlement. About the beginning of the present century, associations were formed for obtaining grants of wild lands. Two companies were started in Hatley --one by Capt. Ebenezer Hovey, and the other by Col. Henry Call. These two companies received together a grant of 23,943 acres, March 25, 1803. [continues with townships, grants sizes and names] ... The parties comprising the different companies of associates were generally poor. Only one or two in each company were able to sustain the expense of obtaining their charters. These men did as many would do at the present time. They reserved "the lion's share" for themselves, surrendering but one lot of 200 acres to each of the others. The land thus secured by [names], were sources of wealth to their owners. ......... As nothing had occurred to check the progress of the settlements up to 1812, they had attained to a good degree of strength and prosperity. The population had increased a hundred fold, and men of enterprise had laid the foundation for large fortunes by trade and otherwise. During the American War of 1812-1815, a check was given to emigration from the south, and some of the timid settlers sold out and left the country. ........ [end] A couple comments to your message ...... "Lester M Powers (by way of John Robertson )" wrote: > As a follow-on to my earlier post under the same > subject line -- > > What I think I understand is that the apparent > rush to Quebec had a profit motive at its roots, much > the same as the initial settlement of my folks' own > town in Vermont. <snip> Yip. > And yet, at least for the > Burch bunch, they go into "Loyalist" genealogy books and > that sort of thing when I *know* they weren't Loyalists. > Or, is the problem here simply that some influential > genealogists got confused? > > Lester Powers > UUABR Always a problem when no primary sources are offered for credability of the work. Hope this is of some help. Jan

As a follow-on to my earlier post under the same subject line -- What I think I understand is that the apparent rush to Quebec had a profit motive at its roots, much the same as the initial settlement of my folks' own town in Vermont. I have heard that a whole bunch of people from what was then my town, Hartford, Windsor Co., Vermont, trucked on up there all within a very few years of each other. What I can fill in using a bit of imagination, which might well be just foolish crazies on my part, is that they got over the border into Quebec and applied for rich new lands there by lying about their having been "Loyalists." What I can *NOT* understand is why all this happened in 1803. The peace treaty officially ending the Revolution was signed in 1783, as I recall, twenty years earlier. I would think that any sort of Loyalist vs. Patriot distinction would have been forgotten long before 1803. Why would anyone here or in Quebec care about such labels any more after twenty years? And yet, at least for the Burch bunch, they go into "Loyalist" genealogy books and that sort of thing when I *know* they weren't Loyalists. Or, is the problem here simply that some influential genealogists got confused? Lester Powers UUABR Me: > As for their having been "Loyalists," well, again > I can't prove anything, but I suspect that they employed > their Yankee Ingenuity, which is to say, They Lied Bob Brooks: > I suspect that the Vermont/Quebec "loyalist migration" followed these lines; > i.e., they saw an opportunity to get something for nothing. ________________________________________________________________ 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/tagj.

I have heard of the Society of Cincinnati. At one time, I looked for my Virginia-born ancestor, George Phillips, who was supposedly in Morgan's Riflemen which was part of the Virginia Continental Line. I did not find him. I presumed he was not an officer. However, now I have a confirmed ancestor, Jonathan Dayton, who was an officer in the Connecticut Continental Line. Does anyone know how I can look him up to see if he was indeed a member of the Society? Thanks, Annie

In a message dated 9/23/2001 6:57:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mbloy@dial.pipex.com writes: > The American colonies existed for the greater good > of the Mother Country - that was why we had colonies in the first place. I don't think the first emigrants leaving England to settle in America (and certainly not the later emigrants leaving other countries to settle in America) had any notion that they were on the way to a place that existed for the greater good of England. The colonies came into existence because people wanted to leave their homelands and come to America. If it later crept into the English consciousness that the colonies existed to serve them, that didn't make it so. Anne