Dave Felzke wrote: > Found this a while back. Have no clue which John this was > but possibly John, b. 1751 in Bowenton, Cumberland County, NJ > and died in 1777 during the Revolutionary War. If this is the > correct John, then he would be the son of Timothy Brooks b. > 1727 in NJ, and the Grandson of Timothy BROOKS b. 23 Apr 1687 > in Woburn, MA??? If not, then I have no clue. > > The write up of the General Court Martial shows that at > first this John BROOKS was a "Rebel" and changed sides which > was very common in our Revolutionary War. The "Defence" of this > John BROOKS and his partner to me shows that both were very > young to have come up with such a story... > The Prisoners being put upon their Defence, say that they > quitted their Post together in Order to get some apples, that > they fell into a Creek and lost their Arms, and the next > morning gave themselves up to Major TIMPENNY at Staten Island > Island [sic] and deny having any intention of deserting to the > Rebels and further say they ventured their Lives to come in > from the Rebels to serve His Majesty. Dave, Great find! I interpret the last paragraph above more ambiguously than you do. "They ventured their Lives to come in from the Rebels to serve His Majesty" might mean that they deserted a prior enlistment in the patriot forces; or it might mean simply that they risked beatings, tar-and-featherings, imprisonment, property confiscation, or other life-threatening retaliation and/or disapprobation to oppose their neighbors and openly support the British. Since patriot sentiment was much weaker in the New York City area than further north in Massachusetts, perhaps your interpretation is the correct one. The Orange Rangers (or any ranger unit in the King's service) would have been a "partisan" unit composed of loyalist inhabitants under British commanders. The 500 lashes ordered would effectively be a death sentence, even though the deserters were "spared" the actual death penalty. How much more humane if the British had simply shot them. I don't find a John born exactly in 1727 or 1751, nor an eligible John who died in 1777 (my three Johns who died in that year did so in Massachusetts and Connecticut). Robert Peacock Brooks mentions a John/6, no birth date (est. 1752), "killed in the Revolution." If this is the same man, the line would be John/6, Timothy/5, Timothy/4, Timothy/3, Timothy/2, Henry/1. But the date is late enough that a man of this name could come from a number of different Brooks origins. Generally by the time of the Revolution the Brooks males are in the 5th to 7th generation of descent, with John and William being by far the most common given male names. Thanks for posting! Chris |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Christopher Brooks BROOKS Families of New England http://www.tributaries.org ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||