HIGH TREASON TRIALS, DEATH SENTENCES AND PARDONS IN THE CRITICAL YEARS 1776-1781 Stephen Davidson, UELAC collaborator; Peter Richmond, Trinity College, Dublin; Bertrand Roehner, Sorbonne University, Paris Present version: 22 December 2023 A condensed version prepared by Stephen Davidson appeared in the Fall issue of the "Loyalist Gazette": 9,2,40-42 (Fall 2023) which is the journal of the "United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada". --------- ABSTRACT In a luminous article published in the "Journal of the American Revolution" Prof. William Manthorpe observes that even experienced historians, who ordinarily provide citations to primary sources, often fail to do so when relating local history. We found that this rule extends beyond the field of local history. In this paper we document a similar problem for cases which would warrant the greatest care because they involve the very lives of people. More precisely, we found cases of treason trials in which pardons granted to Loyalists as reported in primary sources differ (usually they are in smaller number) from those claimed in a succession of secondary sources. It seems that, as observed by Prof. Manthorpe, each repetition gives more credit to statements which, seemingly, are incompatible with the primary documents. At the very least such discrepancies would call for careful and convincing explanations. Such shortcomings are particularly conspicuous and disturbing in mass-trials resulting in the conviction of 10 (or more) prisoners. In our conclusion we emphasize that still other cases are waiting for investigation, something that will become possible as soon as the required primary documents have been identified and retrieved. ------- In order, from the outset to prevent any misunderstanding we should say that this paper is not about what happened. More modestly, it examines how facts were reported by American historians. More often than would be expected references to primary documents are missing particularly at critical junctures. Moreover, whenever primary sources are cited, we found in select cases fairly strange discrepancies in the way they are reported. In studies that focus on northern states in the critical years 1776-1781 there are multiple mentions of death sentences issued by courts of "Oyer and Terminer" (see below). In several cases they took the form of group-sentences involving dozens of prisoners. Most of them, however, were followed by the statement that pardons were liberally granted with the result that none, or one or at most two executions were actually carried out. The following case may be an illustration. (Raphael 2001,p.169). "In Morristown, New Jersey, the local court sentenced 105 suspected Loyalists to hang but it reprieved all those who enlisted for the duration of the war." No date is indicated and no reference is given. A similar statement about the same episode, also without date nor reference, can be found below (Martin and Lender 2006,p.94). "Patriot courts in Morristown, New Jersey sentenced at least 105 Loyalist to hang; although 4 of them held to principle and went to the gallows, the court reprieved all who consented to enlist in the American army for the war." Obviously, this statement is incompatible with the previous one. Below is a similar event, also in New Jersey, but concerning another episode (Fowler 2009,p.56). In late 1778, William Hammet "was one of the 18 men convicted of treason by the Gloucester court of Oyer and Terminer. Although the Governor's Privy Council pardoned the 17 others, Hammet was hanged on 29 January 1779". Not only does this excerpt give a date and a reference, it gives also the identification of the institution which granted the pardons. This point will prove of great importance below when this case will be investigated in more detail. In the previous examples we concentrated on group-sentences because they are the most impressive but there were also numerous cases of individual convictions. COURTS OF OYER AND TERMINER In the crisis which led to the Declaration of Independence, the colonial judicial system was largely inactivated through mob obstruction. Court rooms were closed and many judges were compelled to leave the country. Naturally, such a state of lawlessness could not be maintained for long. In October 1777 newly established civilian courts became operational in New Jersey (Hearn 2005,p.37). The new judicial system was largely a continuation of the colonial system, which was itself borrowed from the English (or more precisely Anglo-Norman) judicial system. There were two key components: * The courts of Oyer and Terminer whose main purpose was to try the most serious felonies and particularly high treason crimes. Most of the trials discussed in this paper were of this kind. * Attainder judgements were usually delivered by acclamation. A form of approval that does not require a vote, it was used in ancient Rome for naming imperial officials; more recently election by acclamation went into effect in California on 1st January 2022. This procedure saves much time to the point that several hundred persons can be picked within a few hours. Attainders will not be discussed in this paper because neither appeals nor pardons were possible. OBJECTIVES AND METHOD OF THE INVESTIGATION Needless to say, when reading that 101 out of 105 Loyalists sentenced to death were pardoned, careful historians would wish to see the primary source on which the statement relies. If the wording of the statement is given and even better, if its reference includes not only the identification of the box, but also the page numbrer it may be possible to check the content by ordering a copy. One must recognize that this ideal situation is almost non-existent. Most often there is neither wording nor precise reference. Is that not surprising when the fate of over hundred Loyalists is involved? However, it is impossible to draw any clear conclusion from such an observation. Is it just neglect or did the author present as a hard fact what is rather a likely supposition. Such an interpretation is particularly tempting when ALL convicted Loyalists are said to be pardoned. In contrast, when a number of them (as the 4 among the 105) are not pardoned, the first check is to ask for their names. When no names are given, it is almost certain that the author did not see the relevant primary document because the latter necessarily contained the names. In short, in cases which involve dozens of sentenced Loyalists one would expect authors to do their best to convince their readers that their statements can indeed be trusted. Naturally, it is not sufficient to deplore that this is rarely done; we cannot just say: "Well, if you want to be trusted, please provide solid evidence". Most probably, no solid evidence would come for which means that the question would be left "frozen". In order to start a discussion we must give positive evidence at least in a few cases. For that purpose, we will target specially selected cases that are characterized by the following features. (i) A group of Loyalists were convicted of high treason and collectively sentenced to death. (ii) Some of them were pardoned. (iii) We can access the primary document which contains the pardon statements. (iv) The number of pardons granted according to this document differs from the number mentioned in multiple subsequent secondary documents. It is clear that such conditions seriously limit the number of cases that we can present to readers but they should be sufficient to start a debate with the purpose of explaining why the numbers are different. In the rest of this paper we develop three arguments. (i) In the first we compare two pictures of the Revolution in Delaware. Secondary sources (e.g. history books published by academic presses) appear to give a more lenient view than what archive records suggest. We admit this is a fairly qualitative argument but it reveals a tendency to belittle (or even smooth over) the most serious incidents. (ii) The second argument concerns the pardons extended to Delaware Loyalists sentenced to death. Their number as reported in secondary publications is larger than what is indicated in primary sources. (iii) The third case also points out a disagreement in pardon numbers, this time in the trial of 19 New Jersey Loyalists sentenced to death for high treason. LOYALIST INSURRECTIONS IN DELAWARE The state of Delaware was selected for this investigation because, with its estimated population of only 37,000 in 1780 (North 1909, Table 1), it is the smallest of the 13 states. It has only three counties, namely from north to south: New Castle, Kent, Sussex. Delaware took a very active role in the Stamp Act episode but after 1776 it appeared that a notable fraction of its population did not favor independence. The present discussion focuses on the book published in 1977 by Harold Hancock because, in contrast to an earlier study by Thomas Scharf (1888) which is rather poorly referenced, the one by Hancock gives detailed references to primary documents. There were several Tory insurrections: the so-called Black Monday in May 1776 (a fairly unclear event), the Sussex County insurrection of Spring 1777, the Clow Rebellion of 15 April 1778, the Black Camp Rebellion of 15 August 1780. In his account of the rebellions Hancock writes (p.47-48): "As was usually the case in Tory insurrections in Delaware, no one was killed or hurt". Such a judgement is inappropriate for the obvious reason that the knowledge of historians is restricted to what is reported in their sources. New sources may become available at any time which may invalidate previous judgements. So, the only thing a careful historian can say is that the reports available at time of writing do not mention any casualties. There is a key conceptual difference between what really happened and what historians can observe. In the present case Hancock's statement is all the more surprising because actually there were at least 6 fatalities, 5 of which are mentioned (albeit mostly in fine print) by Hancock himself. On p.78-79 are mentioned the following three fatalities. (i) On 5 March 1778 Patriot Captain Kirkwood hanged a Tory in arms and burned the house of Loyalist Captain Johnson. (ii) In March 1778 two Patriot soldiers were shot and killed in an attempt to arrest the Tory leader Joshua Hill. (iii) An attempt (by the same Captain Kirkwood already mentioned) to arrest William Johnson, also a Tory leader, ended in failure but in revenge the Patriot soldiers hanged one of his servants named Samens and burned his house. (iv) In 1782 in an attempted arrest of Cheney Clow, a Tory leader, Joseph Moore, one of the sheriff's deputy was killed (p.81). (v) In May 1783 Clow was indicted for murder and sentenced to be hanged (p.81). The fact that Clow's execution occurred only in 1787 was due to successive postponents by vacillating governors. (vi) Tory Jack, a notorious Tory outlaw, was caught in Wilmington and hanged on an apple-tree. This summary execution is not mentioned in Hancock. It can be found in Scharf (1888) albeit without reference of the source. In note 12 of p.138 one learns that on 11 April 1777 the Patriot ship "Morris" was blown up by its American captain when it appeared it could no longer be defended from the attack of two British vessels. It is said that the explosion "shooked houses more than 30 miles away". The 30 mile figure may be exaggerated but on the other hand who can say that nobody was killed aboard the Morris (according to one account of 4 Sep 2019 in the "Journal of the American Revolution" the captain remained aboard), in the vicinity or aboard the two British ships (not surprisingly, all the windows of one of these ships were completely smashed). Repeated emphasis of "great leniency" on the Patriot side, comes also at the cost of omitting mentions of many Loyalists who were tried for high treason. In the "Delaware Archives" (vol.3,p.1287) we find the following persons listed for treason in Kent County, none of whom can be found in the index of Hancock's book. BURTON (Woolsey 1780), KEES (Benjamin 1782), LINDSEY (William 1782), LUCKEY (Andrew 1782), MARIM (John 1782) MEEKS (Joseph 1782), MILCHAM (Samuel 1782), MORRIS (Thomas 1782), MURPHY (Samuel 1782) PEARSON (Moses 1782), RENCH (James 1779) ROBINSON (Robert 1782), SAPP (William 1782), STOCKLEY (Benjamin 1782),TOWNSEND (Ephraim 1782), WHARTON (Isaiah 1782). The two main leaders of the "Black Camp Rebellion" of August 1780 were Bartholomew Banyum and William Dutton. Naturally, one would be interested in their fate. Regarding Banyum one learns that he was eventually arrested in 1786. Whether or not he was tried is not said. Equally unknown remains the fate of Dutton. We now come to the question of the pardon of Delaware Loyalists. ISSUE OF THE PARDONS OF 8 DELAWARE LOYALISTS In November 1780 eight Loyalists were tried for high treason and sentenced to be hanged. But writes Hancock (p.92) "on 4th November 1780 they were all pardoned by the general assembly and the sentence was not carried out". According to our reading of the Delaware Archives (vol.3), only 7 were pardoned. The details of the case are given in Appendix A. Apart from the number of pardons it turns out that there are two incompatible accounts. The account by Hancock says that 8 pardons were granted on 4 November 1780 whereas in the account based on the Delaware Archives 7 pardons were granted in January 1781. In conclusion, no matter what version is correct, we need to understand why the two versions are so different. Only then will it become possible to offer a reliable account. Note that in spite of the aforementioned uncertainties the statement given in Hancock has been repeated subsequently without further qualification. The following instances can be mentioned. * The first extract is from a recent book by Carlton Larson (2019) "In Delaware, 8 men were convicted of high treason in 1780 alone. No executions ensued, however, as all 8 men were pardoned". The reference given in support is the book by Hancock (1977). * The second extract is from the Wikipedia article entitled: "1780 Black Camp Rebellion". It reads: "Some were ordered to serve in the Continental Army, and 37 were indicted for treason and sentenced to death. However, no death sentences were actually carried out, and the Delaware General Assembly pardoned all of the participants on November 4, 1780. The reference on which this extract is based is a book published by Hancock in 1976. We were not able to procure this book but it is certainly safe to suppose that the account published in 1976 is consistent with the one by the same author written one year later. The process which leads from the acceptation of accounts unsupported by primary sources to enduring myths is analyzed with great lucidity by William Manthorpe (2019) in an article published in the "Journal of the American Revolution". We come now to a second case of blatant discrepancy between primary sources and secondary accounts. ISSUE OF THE PARDONS OF 19 NEW JERSEY LOYALISTS Although New Jersey and Delaware are two adjoining states, their experiences of the American Revolution were fairly different. According to Hearn (2005,p.36) New Jersey experienced a complete breakdown of law and order. For every legal execution that took place, says Hearn, an equal number involved no trial proceedings whatsoever. In the three years from 1780 to 1782, Hearn (p.42) counted 35 legal executions. The trial with which we will be concerned here took place in November-December 1778. The method used here is the same as in the previous case. By comparing the list of death sentences (D) and the list of the pardons (P) we can know the number of sentences (E=D-P) which were effectively carried out. First of all, however, we need to identify who had the ability to grant pardons. WHO COULD GRANT PARDONS The ability to grant pardon is specified very clearly in section 9 of the 1776 constitution of NJ. It reads as follows. "That the Governor and Council (7 whereof shall be a quorum) be the Court of Appeals in the last resort in all causes as heretofore; and that they possess the power of granting pardons to criminals after condemnation in all cases of treason, felony, or other offences". In addition we need to ascertain when the constitution took effect. For that information we are indebted to Catherine Medich, archivist at the New Jersey State Archives. She told us that the constitution came in effect from the date of its passing on 2 July 1776. In other words, when our case occurred in November 1778, the constitution had been in effect for over two years. In fact, the rule set in section 9 continues what had been done when New Jersey was a colony. It means that the pardons should be listed in the activity of the Privy Council. Fortunately, it turns out that the documents pertaining to this Council were published in Bernstein (1974). Despite the fact that, as mentioned by Bernstein in its introduction, the source is notably incomplete, we are lucky that the case considered here is indeed included. One should keep in mind that there were as many (or, depending upon the state, even more) court martial trials as there were trials in state and county courts, e.g. trials in courts of Oyer and Terminer which were especially devoted to state trials. Until the Spring of 1777, death sentences issued by court martials had to be confirmed by the "Committee of Safety", but as reaching decisions was too time consuming, they were left to the Commander in Chief, i.e. at first General Washington and subsequently it could even be confirmed by a local Major General. The important point here is that whether for civilian or military courts a document had to be issued, either confirming the pardon or allowing the execution to take place. GRANTING PARDONS Our case is contained in the account of the Council held at Princeton on 13 January 1779. The language goes as follows (p.110): "The Council advised the Governor to grant a pardon to Jonathan Chew and Harrison Wells on condition that they severally leave this state in two months and the United States of America in 6 months". As can be seen, the minutes do not record the decisions of the governor but rather the advice given by the Council. One must therefore suppose that Governor William Livingston followed the advice of his Council. The decisions for the 19 individuals are detailed in Appendix B. It can be seen that only 14 of them are mentioned in the list of the pardons which means that 5 executions were carried out. One of these concerns William Hammil (or Hammet) who is indeed mentioned in all secondary sources as being the only one executed. However the 4 others are not mentioned as being executed. As illustrations we give two extracts of secondary sources. * In Hearn (2003,p.40) one reads: "Most of the condemned were pardoned. In one case, however, clemency was deemed inappropriate". * In a note of Larson (2019) one reads: "Fowler found that 17 of the 18 men convicted of high treason in Gloucester county were pardoned". Note that the number of 18 (instead of 19) is due to the fact that Benjamin Bartholemew was not included. In the present case, the evidence seems so clear and clean that one is compelled to ask: "How could the authors who report 18 pardons find the names of DILKS (Joshua), FENNISON, LORD and NITINGALE in the list of those who were pardoned?" Among possible explanations the following may be considered. (i) Carelessness of the clerk who wrote the session reports. The spelling alterations (as seen in Appendix A) suggest that accuracy was not a high requirement. If ommissions may possibly be explained in this way, additions (as seen in the Delaware case) are unlikely. (ii) Contrary to the clear rule set by the constitution, another body (e.g. the Committee of Safety) has been allowed to interfere in the process of granting pardons. In the troubled circumstances of 1777-1778, this cannot be excluded. Then, however, the meddling should be reported elsewhere. CONCLUSION In the present paper we have described only three cases where secondary sources appeared faulty. Can one find others? There have been other cases of goup-convictions. In Appendix C we describe one of them where there were 36 death sentences. As it occurred in NJ in late 1777, the pardon decisions should also be reported in the Minutes that we have already used. More precisely, there should be a pardon list comprising 34 names. Yet, no pardons can be found in late 1777 or early 1778. The present paper is not the end of the story but rather an invitation for further exploration. Discussions with archivists convinced us that, so far, judicial aspects have not attracted great attention. This can be seen by the fact that words such as arrests, number of state prisoners, trials (by state courts or court martials), executions, pardons, or court of "Oyer and Terminer" do not often appear in book indexes. This fact is recognised in the introduction of a recent study by Carlton Larson (2019); the latter provides a valuable addition, but mostly focused on the state of Pennsylvania. Actually, the fact that each state had its own judicial system (e.g. for pardon attribution) is one of the main difficulties of this topic. We hope that this paper will encourage similar studies. Needless to say, on our side we will also keep our eyes open and track any cases with clear evidence. -------------- APPENDIX A:SUMMARY OF THE CASE OF 8 LOYALISTS SENTENCED TO DEATH (Delaware Archives Vol.3, p.1302-1305) Written in what can be called British judicial style (characterized by very long sentences and multiple repetitions) the report is rather difficult to read. Moreover, it is not obvious to distinguish formal sentences and actual facts. For instance, it is said that there was a "cruel slaughter of faithful subjects" but actually the following lines only mention a robbery of weapons at the home of a Lieutenant of the militia. However, the main source of uncertainty and confusion comes from the multiple changes in the names of the prisoners. For instance, Bevins becomes Bebbins, Moses Steward becomes Moses Stuart and then Mosses Stuert. One could understand that such changes are due to different handwritings, but in the present case it seems that the account was written by the same court clerk named Rodney. In giving here a summary of the case we have two objectives. (i) The account describes the successive steps: * The rebellion occurred around 8 August 1780. * The sentence was issued by the Court of Oyer and Terminer on 4 October 1780. * The petition for mercy was written in January 1781 (the day is not precisely specified). (ii) We wish to convince readers that the task of collecting the facts from trial accounts is not straightforward and requires great care. This observation should encourage historians to flesh out and discuss any uncertainties. In contrast, no discussion whatsoever can be found in the very short account given by Hancock (p.92). Before we begin the summary, a final point is in order to say that the names being a key point, they will be written in a form that should facilitate the comparison of lists of names. Sussex County CONVICTION and PENALTY for TREASON (summary) At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at Lewis town on 4 October 1780. The jurors aforesaid [their names were given] present that Seagoe Potter, a subject of the state of Delaware, not having the fear of God in his heart and intending to reduce the state to the domination of the King of Great Britain, on 8 August 1780 (as well as before and after), at several places and with a great multitude of other traitors, being armed with guns, pistols, swords and clubs perpetrated a cruel slaughter of faithfull subjects. They did go to the house of Clark Nottingham, a Lieutenant in the militia where they did take a quantity of arms, powder and ball. The jurors by the sheriff impannelled say that Seago [sic] Potter is guilty of the treason whereof he stands indicted. Whereupon it is considered by the Court that you, Seago [sic] Potter return to the prison from which you will be drawn to the place of execution. There you must be hanged by the neck but not till to be dead for you must be cut down alive [here comes the standard but dreadful description of an execution for the crime of high treason under British law]. The following persons were convicted and penalised as Seago [sic] Potter: BEVINS (Williams), CONWAY (John), DOWNS (Banett), DOWNS (Isaac), JOHNSON (Bartolomew), JOHNSON (Jacob), STEWARD (Moses). Immediately following this sentence there is a section devoted to petitions. PETITIONS of PERSONS CONVICTED for Treason. Jany [January] 1781. To the Honourable the General Assembly of the state of Delaware. The petition of: BIBBINS (William), DOWNS (Barnet), DOWNS (Isaac), JOHNSON (Bartholomew), JOHNSON (Benjamin), JOHNSON (Jacob), STUART (Moses). Your petitioners were at the late court of Oyer and Terminer held at Lewes town found guilty of high treason and sentenced to die. Your petitioners being much terrified with the cruel (and unheard of) sentence, pray that your Honours will grant that our lives may be sparred. Signatures: BEBBINS (William), DOWNS (Barnitt), DOWNS (Issaac), JOHNSON (Bartholoemew), JOHNSON (Benjamin), JOHNSON (Jacob), STUERT (Mosses) Two important observations are in order. (a) The list of names in the petition differs from the list in the sentence. Potter and Conway have disappeared whereas Benjamin Johnson has been added. Unless additional evidence becomes available, it is difficult to understand the significance of such changes. (b) As there is no further mention of this petition in the same volume 3 of the Delaware Archives we do not know whether it was granted or not. In addition to these mysteries, there is another inconsistancy with Hancock's account; the latter says that the pardon was granted on 4 November 1780, whereas, according to the text given above, the petition was only written in January. -------------- APPENDIX B. SuMMARY OF THE CASE OF 19 LOYALISTS SENTENCED TO DEATH AT THE COURT OF GLOUCESTER CITY IN NOV-DEC 1778 We need to compare two lists of names, namely the list of those sentenced to death and the list of the pardons. As (for some unclear reason) the names have different spellings in the two lists, we made a table with three columns. * First column: List of death sentences in the primary source, namely: "Minutes of the Governor's Privy Council, p.109-110". * Second column: List of death sentences in the secondary source, namely Hearn (2005,p.40). * Third column: pardons granted according to the primary source. 01 BARTHOLEMEW (Benjamin) pardon 1 02 BIRCH (James) -> BROCK (James) pardon 2 03 CHEW (Jonathan) -> CHEW (Jonathan) pardon 3 04 COOK (Paterson) -> COOK (Paschal) pardon 4 05 COX (Lawrence) -> COX (Lawrence) pardon 5 06 DILL (Joseph) -> DIBBLE (Joseph) pardon 6 07 DILKS (John) -> DILKES (John) pardon 7 08 DILKS (Joshua) -> DILKES (Joshua) no pardon 09 FEESMAN (Daniel) -> TUSMAN (Daniel) pardon 8 10 FENNISON (Abraham) -> FENNIMORE (Abraham) no pardon 11 FRANKLIN (John) -> FRANKLIN (John) pardon 9 12 HAMMIL (William) -> HAMMETT (William) no pardon 13 LLOYD (David) -> LLOYD (David) pardon 10 14 LORD (Isaac) -> LORD (Isaac) no pardon 15 NITINGALE (Thomas) -> NIGHTINGALE (Thomas) no pardon 16 PRATT (Joseph) -> PRATT (Joseph) pardon 11 17 STRING (Charles) -> STRING (Charles) pardon 12 18 URINE (Gideon) -> URWINE (Gideon) pardon 13 19 WELLS (Harrison) -> WELLS (Harrison) pardon 14 Therefore, in 19-14=5 cases (below), apparently no pardon was granted: DILKS (Joshua) FENNISON (Abraham) HAMMIL (William) LORD (Isaac) NITINGALE (Thomas) The court set 29 Jan 1779 as their execution date. From Hearn (2003,p.40) it is known that William Hammet was indeed executed on 29 Jan 1779. The fate of the four others remains a mystery. -------------- APPENDIX C: OTHER MASS-TRIALS Apart from the Nov-Dec 1778 mass-trial there have been other cases. In this appendix we briefly list a number of them. We describe also a technique for analyzing them when the method used above cannot be utilized because of a lack of data. Below we cite several cases of mass-trials. (1) May 1777, 16 death sentences in New York state. Primary source: Public papers of George Clinton, Vol.1 p.782 2 May 1777, Fort Montgomery Sentenced to be hanged by a court martial: 01 BUSH (Peter) mercy 02 CEELY (Lodwick) 03 CALDER (William) mercy 04 DAVIS (Jacob) mercy 05 FRELIGH (Samuel) 06 FURLONG (Jacobus) 07 LONGYAAR (Andries) mercy 08 KEYSER (Frederick) 09 KEYSER (Johannis) mercy 10 KRISPELL (Thomas) mercy 11 MARICLE (James) mercy 12 MIDDACK (Abraham) 13 OAKLY (Richard) 14 SLOUTER (Wouter) 15 STOKES (John) 16 WOOD (William) The proportion of mercys was: 7/16=44% ------------ (2) May 1777, 14 death sentences in New York state. Primary source: Public papers of George Clinton, Vol.1,p.791 3 May 1777, New York State Sentenced to be hanged by a court martial: 01 CAMPBELL (Alexander) pardon 02 FURLER (Cornelius) 03 GARDENER (Silas) 04 KEYSER (Andries) 05 LONGGYOU (Jacobus) 06 McGINNIS (William) 07 McKENNY (Arthur) 08 MIDDAGH (Jacob) date of execution is known (28 May 1777) 09 MYSENER (Coenradt) 10 RAPELJE (John) 11 ROSA (Jacob) date of execution is known (28 May 1777) 12 TEETS (William) pardon 13 MERCKEN (Sylvester Van der) 14 VLIET (John Van) * Campbell's sentence is hereby reversed. * The President do issue a pardon to William Teets in consideration of his youth. In conclusion: 14 sentenced to death, two known to be executed, two known to be pardoned and nothing certain known for the 10 others. Resolved, that General George Clinton be requested to cause the said persons to be executed at such places as he shall think proper. (Extract from the Minutes of the Convention of the Representatives of the state of NY). Kingston 3 May 1777. (3) October 1777. 36 Loyalists sentenced to death in NJ Secondary source: HEARN (2005,p.37) The scheduled time of execution was 2 Dec 1777. Two of the 36 (James Iliff and John Mee were indeed executed on this day. A 30-day reprieve was granted to the others. But "reprieve" does not mean "pardon". We have additional information for two of them. Below it will be seen that one of them remained in prison for 6 months while his brother had to wait 18 months for enlisting in the Continental army. We do not know the date of the trial but it must have been between the arrests in mid-September 1777 (according to the dataset and search engine of the New Jersey State Archives) and 2 December 1777. In the time interval 15 Sep-2 Dec there were 10 sessions of the Privy Council (p.40-58). However none of the expected pardons is mentioned in these 18 pages. Therefore, we must use another method. If we can find a record showing that one or several of these Loyalists were still alive at a later date, we can be sure that they were pardoned (despite the muteness of the minutes). It turns out that the list of death sentences comprises 4 brothers (Christian, Elias, Martin and Peter Snyder) and that we know the fate of Elias and Peter. They joined 160 other Loyalists on their way to British occupied Staten Island and they were among 60 who were taken prisoner. Peter was released after 6 months whereas Elias was kept in jail for 18 months. Incidentally, this tells us that they were not pardoned immediately but only after a fairly long delay which is certainly why we could not find their names among the pardons mentioned in the primary source They were released eventually on condition of joining the Continental army but were quickly able to desert and enlist in the New Jersey Brigade in NY. Usually the condition for release was to join the US Navy and it is easy to understand the reason for that: it was much easier to desert from a Continental unit than to leave a Navy ship. After the war they went to New Brunswick where they settled along the Kennebecasis River. It is through the file of their Compensation Claims submitted in 1787 that we know their story; see the references and Davidson (2008) . It is often possible to identify Loyalists who settled in Canada thanks to probate court records which contain information about marriages and inheritages. Another condition is that their family names are not too common; Snyder (or Snider) was a good target and the fact that there were two brothers made their identification even more reliable. (4) Oct 1778, 18 sentenced to death in Gloucester County, New Jersey. In a secondary source, i.e. O'Keefe (1971), it is said that all escaped execution. This case is discussed above and it was seen that 5 persons are not cited in the list of pardons (5) Oct.-Dec 1778. The same source says that 7 other high treason indictments were returned during the court terms of Oct and Dec. Their names were given above. It is said that they appealed to the Supreme Court of the state but its decision is not reported. A fairly enigmatic sentence presents a possible argument in favor of pardons: "In lieu of records showing any court reversal of the execution orders, historians have assumed that arguments brought in the Capt Chow appeal were the basis upon which the matters involving the condemned were found to be weak". The article ends with the statement that after the British evacuated Philadelphia in July 1778 there were additional investigations of those who had given them help during their stay. It is said that this pressure on Loyalists ended only in March 1782 and that the last indictments for joining the enemy concerned the following 7 persons: Christopher FREDERICK, Michael GARRISH, Robert LEEDS, Chistopher RAPE, Joseph RISLEY, Luke SOOY, John STEELMAN. (6) Ninety Six, Feb 1779: 20 Loyalists were sentenced to death in South Carolina. According to Davis (1979) only 5 of the 20 were hanged at Ninety Six at the end of April 1779. (7) 20 September, Salisbury, North Carolina. 80 Loyalists were indicted but the court found time to try only 10. All were convicted and sentenced to death but 4 of them were recommended for mercy by the jury. One of the judges was a person named James Iredell whose diary was published in 1857 (see below). Unfortunately, the source (namely a letter to the judge's wife) is rather sketchy. It does not give the names of those convicted, nor does it say how many were evetually pardonned by the governor. (8) 3 Jan 1780, Headquarters at Morristown. 5 soldiers were sentenced to be shot to death by a court-martial. Their names are as follows. (the source is a website of the National Archives): https://founders.archives.gov BARRETT (William), BURKE (Edmund), ROUNDS (Amos), STRAW (William), WATERHOUSE (Joseph). The Commander in Chief approved the sentence of the Court and none of the sentenced soldiers was reported pardoned. (9) 26 Oct 1781. 8 soldiers were sentenced to be hanged by a court martial, mostly for desertion. Their names are as follows (the source is a website of the National Archives): https://founders.archives.gov): ARISS (Richard), CARTY (Mathias), COSGROVE (Edward), CURLY (Owen), DENISON (Patrick), ERWIN (Abraham), JOHNSTON (James), TIMMANS (William). The Commander in Chief approved the sentence of the Court. and none of the sentenced soldiers was reported pardoned. It is very uncommon to see so many soldiers sentenced to death in a single court martial meeting. A possible explanation is that before the surrender of Yorktown it was announced by the American side that all deserters found among the British troops would be hanged immediately. (10) 5 Apr 1782, Virginia, 4 death sentences. List of persons sentenced to be hanged by the General Court. Primary source: Palmer (1875) Robt SMITH, treason; James HUGH, treason; Thomas JOHNSTONE, horse stealing; William SMITH, horse stealing. (11) 15 June 1782, Virginia. 6 death sentences. List of persons sentenced to be hanged. Primary source: Palmer (1875). George TEEL, horse stealing; Timothy CAMPBELL, horse stealing; Georga CATON, treason; Joshua HOPKINS, treason; HUGH LOGAN, rape; James LAMB, treason (12) 26 Oct 1782, Virginia. 10 death sentences. List of persons sentenced to be hanged. Primary source: Palmer (1875). Maurice WHEELER, murder; Albridgton HOLLAND, treason; Levy MOORE, treason; John HOLLAND, treason; Demsey BUTLER, treason; Henry NORFLEAT, treason; Robt HUDGINGS, horse stealing; William GORDON, horse stealing; Benjamin COTHRAN, horse stealing; Stephen ALLEN, horse stealing. --------------- References Bernstein (D.A.) editor 1974: Minutes of the Governor's Privy Council 1777-1789. New Jersey State Library, Trenton New Jersey. Compensation Claims 1787: Loyalist claims for compensation given before the Royal Commission on the losses and services of American, p.271. Davidson (S.) 2008: Brothers who bore arms together. Loyalist Trails 2008-27. Published by the United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada (UELAC). Davis (R.S.jr) 1979: The Loyalist trials at Ninety Six in 1779. The South Carolina Historical Magazine 80,2,172–181. Delaware Archives. Revolutionary War in three volumes. Vol.3 and index. Published by the Public Archives Commission of Delaware. Wilmington (1919). Fowler (D.J.) 2009: "Loyalty is now bleeding in New Jersey. In: Tiedemann (J.S.), Fingerhut (E.R.), Venables (R.W.) editors 2009: THe other Loyalists. Suny Press, Albany, New York. Hancock (H.B.) 1976: The History of Sussex County, Delaware. Sussex County Bicentennial Committee, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Hancock (H.B.) 1977: The Loyalists of Revolutionary Delaware. Associated University Press, Cranbury, New Jersey. Hearn (D.A.) 2005: Legal executions in New Jersey. McFarland, Jefferson, North Carolina. Kettner (J.H.) 1974: The development of American citizenship in the Revolutionary era. The idea of volitional allegiance. American Journal of Legal History 18,3,208-242. Larson (C.F.W.) 2019: The trials of allegiance. Oxford University Press. New York. Manthorpe (W.H.J. Jr) 2019: Critical thinking, myths and legends, primary sources. The Lewes lighthouse legend re-examined and re-interpreted Journal of the American Revolution November 4, 2019. [This is a very lucid investigation of how unreliable stories become accepted truth as they are repeated by successive (gullible) historians. At the same time, it contains convincing proofs of the reliability of the "Revolutionary War Diary" by William Adair.] Martin (J.K.), Lender (M.E.) 2006, 2015: "A respectable army". The military origins of the Republic, 1763-1789. Wiley-Blackwell. Malden, Massachusetts. McRee (G.J.) 1857: Life and correspondance of James Iredell. New York. [J. Iredell was a judge who later became a judge on the Supreme Court.] North (S.N.D.) 1909: A century of population growth, from the first census of the United States to the twelfth, 1790-1900. Bureau of the Census, Government Printing Office. O'Keefe (S.) 1971: Crossroads of history. Many charged with trahison here during Revolutionary War. Courier-Post 17 March 1971, Camden, New Jersey. [This source is a long newspaper article that is available online.Mr. A staff reporter of the "Courier-Post", O'Keefe was in contact with historians belonging to the "Camden County Historical Society". Through them he was able to read primary documents. In his article he gives the names of several groups of persons who were indicted. (i) The 18 residents of Old Gloucester County named above. (ii) A list of 17 persons whose cases were dropped. (iii) A list of 29 persons from South Jersey whose holdings were forfeited. (iv) A list of 7 persons (named above) who had joined the British.] Palmer (W.P.) editor 1875: Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts III,120,194,361. Raphael (R.) 2001,2016: A people's history of the American Revolution. How common people shaped the fight for independence. The New Press. Scharf (J.T.) 1888: History of Delaware. Vol.1: General, Vol.2: Local. [It is unfortunate that throughout this important work the accounts are not supported by references to primary sources.] Svoboda (T.) 2023: Why did the Loyalists flee? 3 Quarks Daily. https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2023/01/why-did-the-loyalists-flee.html