Welcome to Finding the Maryland 400

Featured

Battleoflongisland

The American stand led by Lord Stirling at the Battle of Brooklyn, which included the men of the Maryland 400. Detail, Battle of Long Island, by Alonzo Chappell (1858)

Welcome to Finding the Maryland 400, an effort to discover and explore the lives and stories of Maryland’s first war heroes, led by the Maryland State Archives in partnership with the Maryland Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.

Raised in early 1776, the First Maryland Regiment joined the rest of the American troops that made up the Continental Army in New York City in August, on the eve of the Battle of Brooklyn. That battle, also called the Battle of Long Island, was the first major engagement of the war, and was an overwhelming British victory. Only the heroic stand by a small group of Marylanders–now known as the Maryland 400–held the British at bay long enough to allow the Continental Army to escape total destruction, at the cost of many Maryland lives.

Learn more about the Marylanders at the Battle of Brooklyn, beginning with the British landing on Long Island a few days before the battle, and moving forward.

There are many ways you can learn more about the First Maryland Regiment:

You may support this project through a donation to the Friends of the Maryland State Archives; indicate “Maryland 400″ under Additional Comments. If you have questions or suggestions, please get in touch with us at msamaryland400@gmail.com.

Scroll down to read our latest posts!

Maryland Declares Independence

On July 6, 1776, the Convention of Maryland finally broke formal ties with Britain and the Calvert family that had ruled the colony since the 1630s. Maryland’s Revolutionary leaders were slow in taking this step, just as they had been slow to expel their colonial governor a week earlier, and in assenting to armed struggle against England.

The members of the Convention—the province’s self-appointed legislature, meeting without approval from their colonial rulers—enumerated their grievances against Great Britain, offering a list familiar to anyone who read the Declaration of Independence this weekend. Citing unjust taxation, subversion of justice, and coercive and vengeful acts against the colonies, with the “inexorable resolution of reducing these colonies to abject slavery,” the Convention declared

Compelled by dire necessity, either to surrender our properties, liberties and lives, into the hands of a British king and parliament, or to use such means as will most probably secure to us and our posterity those invaluable blessings,

We the delegates of Maryland, in convention assembled, do declare, that the king of Great Britain has violated his compact with this people, and that they owe no allegiance to him; we have therefore thought it just and necessary to empower our deputies in congress to join with a majority of the united colonies in declaring them free and independent states…[1]

Even then, Maryland’s hesitant leaders wished it to be known they were not eager revolutionaries:

No ambitious views, no desire of independence, induced the people of Maryland to form an union with the other colonies. To procure an exemption from parliamentary taxation, and to continue to the legislatures of these colonies the sole and exclusive right of regulating their internal polity, was our original and only motive. To maintain inviolate our liberties, and to transmit them unimpaired to posterity, was our duty and first wish; our next, to continue connected with, and dependent on Great Britain…[2]

The Convention’s resolution was published in the Maryland Gazette five days later, alongside the Declaration of Independence itself. That issue can be viewed here;  the declarations are on page 3.

Notes:
1. The Declaration of the Delegates of Maryland, published in Proceedings of the Conventions of the Province of Maryland, Archives of Maryland Online, vol. 78, pps. 201-203.

2. Ibid., 203; emphasis added.

The Summer of Independence Begins

The beginning of July 1776 was a busy time in Annapolis. News that the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia had voted to declare independence from Britain would be a few days in arriving, but both independence and armed conflict were foremost in everyone’s mind. [1]

Five days earlier, Maryland’s royally-appointed governor Robert Eden had been forced out of the city. Eden’s friends among the Revolutionary government had helped him arrange a peaceful, dignified exit, one that came some two years after his authority had evaporated. As the day of departure drew close, however, several indentured servants and a deserter from the First Maryland Regiment escaped to the Fowey, the ship which was to take Eden to England, and when the ship’s captain would not give them up, Eden and his party were forced to depart immediately. They left in such haste that much of Eden’s luggage and furniture remained in his mansion in packing crates. [2]

Since the early spring, six companies of the First Maryland Regiment had been stationed in Annapolis where they were receiving their training. While their orders to depart for New York would not come for another week and a half, news streaming into town about independence, and British troop movements, must have made it clear that they would be marching north soon.

To the 450 soldiers already in town, even more were added with the creation on June 29 of the Flying Camp, a short-term (nine-month enlistments) reserve force. Troops were raised all summer, and purchasing supplies took place across the state.

Meanwhile, news of resolutions in favor of independence filled the pages of the Maryland Gazette, Annapolis’s newspaper. The June 27 and July 4 issues carried accounts of Gov. Eden’s departure, news of independence resolutions in other colonies, and calls for Maryland to issue its own.

From today’s vantage point, with the benefit of knowing what was about to happen, the first days of July 1776 can feel like prologue to the years of war that were to come. And yet, even then, with newly-enlisted troops massing, and news of independence arriving daily, it must have seemed that Annapolis, and America, was on the brink of something momentous.

We’ll have more next week, celebrating the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Maryland. Have a happy Fourth of July!

Notes:

1. The Declaration of Independence was published in the Maryland Gazette on July 11, 1776, a topic for a future post. An excellent summary of the events in Annapolis during the summer of 1776 can be found in Jane Wilson McWilliams, Annapolis City of the Severn (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011), 94-95.

2. The deserter was John Nottingham, a private in John Day Scott’s Seventh Company. Maryland State Papers, Red Books, vol. 12, p. 44, MdHR 4753 [MSA S989-17, 1/6/4/5]

Second Lieutenant Thomas Goldsmith and the Battle of White Plains

Thomas Goldsmith’s military career began on January 3, 1776 when he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of Captain John Day Scott’s Seventh Company of the First Maryland Regiment.[1] As Frederick Wilhelm von Steuben detailed in his publication, “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States,” as a second lieutenant, Goldsmith was tasked with teaching a small group of recruits military formations and how to follow orders. [2] Most importantly, Goldsmith was to teach the soldiers fearlessness and comradeship, through his own “judgment, vigilance, and bravery.”[3]

Pension of Thomas Goldsmith. The National Archives. Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files. NARA M804 B. L. Wt 2399-200. From fold3.com.

Pension of Thomas Goldsmith. The National Archives. Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files. NARA M804 B. L. Wt 2399-200. From fold3.com.

After only being in the military for ten months, Goldsmith brought to life what it meant to be valiant during the Battle of White Plains on October 28, 1776. At the Battle, the Continental Army was attacked by the British on the hills surrounding the village of White Plains.[4] As one Maryland soldier detailed, “Smallwood’s [regiments] suffered most, on this occasion, sustaining, with great patience and coolness, a long and heavy fire– and finally retreated with great sullenness, being obliged to give way to a superior force.”[5]

During the confrontation with the British, Goldsmith saw that a fellow soldier had been wounded and attempted to rescue him. Risking his own life, Goldsmith ran onto the battlefield, but as he was carrying his “wounded brother” back, Goldsmith received a mortal wound to his knee. Goldsmith died in October of 1776, within days of his injury.[6]

Read more about Goldsmith’s life here.

.

Notes:

[1] Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, Archives of Maryland Online, vol. 18, p. 15 [hereafter Archives of Maryland vol. 18]

[2] Robert K. Wright, Jr., The Continental Army, “Washington, D.C.: United States Army, 1983), 137-142.

[3] Frederick Steuben, Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, Part I. (Philadelphia: Styner and Cist, 1792), 74; Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, Archives of Maryland Online, vol. 18, p. 15 [hereafter Archives of Maryland vol. 18]

[4]  David Hackett Fisher, Washington’s Crossing, (Oxford University Press, 2004), 110-111.

[5] “Extract of another letter, dated in the evening of the above day”, Maryland Gazette, November 7, 1776, Maryland Gazette Collection, Image 1202, MSA SC 2731.

[6] Pension of Thomas Goldsmith. NARA M804 B. L. Wt 2399-200. From fold3.com

James Farnandis meets George Washington

James Farnandis was the ensign of the First Company when the British captured him at the Battle of Brooklyn on August 27, 1776. Farnandis remained a prisoner of the British in New York until his exchange on March 24, 1777. Upon his release Farnandis traveled to New Jersey and met face-to-face with General George Washington.

Farnandis’ reasons for meeting with Washington were twofold; he was delivering a letter about prisoners and providing vital military intelligence. Farnandis carried a letter from Colonel Robert Magaw, an American officer held prisoner who wrote that American prisoners lacked “common necessaries,” and that “their circumstances must soon be extremely disagreeable and even wretched unless relieved by remittances of their pay or otherwise.”[1] In the margins of the letter were instructions for Washington to refer to the specific case of Farnandis. Therefore, Farnandis was not merely acting as a courier, he was providing important information on the status and conditions facing American prisoners and telling the story of his own experience. Farnandis’ presentation evidently moved Washington; in his response to Colonel Magaw, Washington pledged to do “every thing in my power” to improve the situation of American prisoners.[2]

Farnandis also provided vital military intelligence. In a letter to Jonathan Trumbull Sr., the governor of Connecticut, Washington wrote that Farnandis had informed him that large, weekly supplies of fresh provisions were being delivered to the British in New York via Connecticut, which he deemed “a practice so wicked, and so injurious in its consequences.”[3] Farnandis also revealed that British officers were recruiting soldiers in Connecticut, and that one British sympathizer, John Hart, was traveling to Rhode Island john_hart_providencewith the intention of passing counterfeit money. Washington reminded Trumbull, “It highly imports us to detect and apprehend these villains whose crimes are of great enormity.” Farnandis’ intelligence was accurate and quickly acted upon; in May 1777 a court-martial convicted and executed John Hart in Providence after being found “a traitor and spy.”[4]

Farnandis’ meeting with Washington is unique in the history of the First Maryland Regiment; a very low-ranking Maryland officer briefing the commander of the Continental Army. Farnandis’ own experience enhanced the information in the letter demonstrating to Washington the conditions that confronted American prisoners. Even in captivity, Farnandis displayed his dedication to the cause, gathering important intelligence and relaying it to the army’s leadership immediately upon his release.

Notes:

[1] “To George Washington from Colonel Robert Magaw, 6 April 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0075.

[2] “From George Washington to Colonel Robert Magaw, 20 April 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0204.

[3] “From George Washington to Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., 12 April 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0137.

[4] “Providence, May 24,” Providence Gazette (Providence, RI), May 24, 1777, vol. 14, issue 699, p. 3.

The role of a first lieutenant during the Revolutionary War

At the start of the American Revolution, the Continental Army did not have a concrete understanding of soldiers’ roles within a regiment and how to properly prepare for war. As a result, in 1779 Frederick Wilhelm von Steuben, Inspector General of the Continental Army, cohesively organized military strategies in his publication, “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States,” now referred to as the “Blue Book.” Von Steuben laid the foundation for how soldiers were to be trained, the roles and ranking within a company, and military strategies.[1]

As von Steuben explained, the role of the first lieutenant was crucial to the success of the regiment. One first lieutenant in particular, was Thomas Harwood of Captain John Day Scott’s Seventh Company of the First Maryland Regiment. Commissioned on January 3, 1776, Harwood, as a first lieutenant, had a myriad of responsibilities. [2]  Leading his men by “his judgment, vigilance, and bravery,” Harwood was to teach the soldiers discipline, order, and fearlessness.[3] Having his men learn to follow protocol was essential to helping limit the amount of casualties during the war.[4]

During the first half of 1776, Harwood aimed to gain the trust of his soldiers so that he knew what was going on in his company. Yet, the challenge Harwood and the First Maryland Regiment faced, was that none of the soldiers, including Harwood, had any military experience prior to enlisting. As a result, it was the job of the first lieutenant to teach the new recruits military formations and how to be soldiers in a cohesive unit.[5]

All the requirements of a first lieutenant needed to be followed, so that in the event of the captain’s death, the first lieutenant could quickly step in and take over. In such an instance, during the Battle of White Plains on Oct 28, 1776, Harwood’s captain, John Day Scott, was mortally wounded, forcing Harwood to take over the control of the company.[6]

Throughout his post-revolution life, Harwood borrowed heavily from a myriad of creditors to invest in over 10,000 acres in Georgia and over 1,000 acres in Pennsylvania. However, Harwood was unable to sell the land and thus, when his creditors came after him, he found himself drowning in a sea of debt and legal cases. Having to declare bankruptcy in the late 1790s, Harwood had to sell all of his possessions, including his personal belongings, to pay back his creditors.[7] As a result, “by his imprudence he had not only ruined himself but also his children.”[8] Thomas Harwood died in Calvert County in 1804. [9]

Read more about Harwood’s life here.

Notes:

[1] Robert K. Wright, Jr., The Continental Army, (Washington, D.C.: United States Army, 1983), 137-142.

[2] Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, Archives of Maryland Online, vol. 18, p. 15 [hereafter Archives of Maryland vol. 18].

[3] Frederick Steuben, Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, Part I. (Philadelphia: Styner and Cist, 1792), 74.

[4] Steuben, 74.

[5] Steuben, 74; Wright, 137-142.

[6] Pension of John Babbs. The National Archives. Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, NARA M804 S.45241. From fold3.com.

[7] Thomas Harwood. Calvert County, Case# 2621, 1799, Chancery Court, Chancery Papers, MdHR 17,898-2621 [MSA S512-2695, 1/36/2/079].

[8] Thomas Harwood. Calvert County, Case# 2621, 1799, Chancery Court, Chancery Papers, MdHR 17,898-2621 [MSA S512-2695, 1/36/2/079]; Robert H. Smith and Caroline Smith vs. Joseph Wilkinson. Calvert County, Case #5003, 1804, Chancery Court, Chancery Papers, MdHR 17,898-5003 [MSA S512-5149, 1/37/1/084].

[9] Harrison Dwight Cavanagh, Colonial Chesapeake Families: British Origins and Decendants,” Vol. 1. (Xlibris LLC, 2014.), 329.

Maryland 400 Presentation

If you’d like to learn about the Maryland 400, and you happen to be able to come to Annapolis next Wednesday, June 10, at noon, then you’re in luck!

As part of the Maryland State Archives’ Lunch and Learn lecture series, Finding the Maryland 400 staffers Owen Lourie and Sean Baker are giving a presentation about the project, the Battle of Brooklyn, and the lives of the men who fought it.

For more on the lecture, and other upcoming lectures, go here:
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/homepage/pdf/lunch_learn2015.pdf

Hope to see you there!

“Winged Messenger of Death”: Captain Edward De Coursey’s Letter to a Friend

Captain Edward De Coursey’s April 1777 letter to his friend James Hollyday is one of the most unique documents relating to an individual soldier from the Maryland 400. As the third lieutenant in the Seventh Independent Company, De Coursey fought at and survived the Battle of Brooklyn, but became a prisoner of the British at some point in the engagement. While the British did not formally exchange De Coursey until September 27, 1777, De Coursey’s letter is proof he received a parole, returned home to Maryland, and continued to serve in the army prior to his exchange.

“Edward Coursey to James Hollyday, April 12, 1777.” Hollyday Papers. 1677-1905. MS. 1317. Manuscripts Department. Maryland Historical Society.

“Edward Coursey to James Hollyday, April 12, 1777.” Hollyday Papers. 1677-1905. MS. 1317. Manuscripts Department. Maryland Historical Society.

At the time of his writing the letter, De Coursey was serving as captain in Colonel John Patton’s Additional Continental Regiment, having received a promotion to captain on January 13, 1777. The “additional regiments” were sixteen regiments authorized by Congress at the end of 1776. Although Patton’s Regiment was mostly composed of soldiers from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, it is unlikely that De Coursey was the only Marylander in the unit. While his relationship with Colonel Patton is unknown, Patton’s former commanding officer, Colonel Samuel Miles, was a prisoner of war with De Coursey and possibly recommended him to Patton.

Although De Coursey’s letter focuses on his courtship of James’ sister, Anna, and his fear of rejection from her, the letter provides great insight to the mentality and life of a company-grade Continental Army officer. Like other veterans of the Battle of Brooklyn, De Coursey had witnessed the horror of war and was acutely aware of the lurking presence of the “winged messenger of death,” that accompanied service in the army. De Coursey also refers to the time consuming duties of an officer, which would “prevent me from having much time to reflect on my unhappy fate,” should Anna rebuff him.

While De Coursey declared his intention to resign his commission and devote himself to Anna, he did not resign from the army until August 1778, more than a year later. It seems likely that, as he had feared, Anna turned down his request and he remained in the army to help cope with the failed relationship. Since he did not resign until August 1778, De Coursey would have likely fought in Patton’s Regiment at the major battles of Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth during the Philadelphia Campaign. Though he wrote that he did not wish to preserve his life if rejected, De Coursey managed to survive the war and much longer after that, living until April 26, 1827. De Coursey appears to have eventually gotten over his love of Anna, as he later married Ann Nicols and had three children with her.

Introduction for Joshua Rifkin

Hi everyone,

My name is Joshua Rifkin, and I have the honor of interning at the Maryland State Archives for the summer, where I will be continuing the research of the Maryland 400. I graduated from the Park School of Baltimore in 2013 and am about to enter my third year at Stevenson University, where I am studying public history and cyber security. In 2013, I spent my senior year working and ultimately completing a 60 minute documentary about my school’s 100 year history, in which I researched the impact of WWI and WWII on the school’s evolution. That documentary ended up being featured on PBS’s blog.

Without a doubt, the founding years of this nation are my favorite period in history to research. Thus, I am quite excited to not only have an opportunity to work on, but also to learn about the Maryland 400 beside Project Director Owen Lourie and Staff Researcher Sean Baker. The timeless and transcendental documents here at the Archives will help me uncover the lives of those who valiantly fought the British during the Battle of Brooklyn. I look forward to being able to add my own research to the wonderful work on the project all ready done by Jeff Truitt, Daniel Blattau, Emily Huebner, and Taira Sullivan, by using the primary sources and documents the Archives has in its possession.

Throughout this project, I will be updating the blog with posts about the lives of the Maryland 400 and interesting insights, as well as in-depth biographies of some of the men of the Second and Seventh Company of the First Maryland Regiment.

-Joshua Rifkin

The Short Life of Capt. Daniel Bowie

Daniel Bowie had been a soldier for seven months, and a captain for just seven weeks, when he wrote out his will on August 26, 1776, the day before he was mortally wounded at the Battle of Brooklyn. We have featured Bowie’s will before, since it is such a remarkable document, and we have now posted a greatly expanded biography of him.

Bowie was part of a prominent family in Maryland. Four first cousins served in the General Assembly, and he was the stepbrother of one governor, and cousin of another. Had Daniel Bowie survived the war he would undoubtedly have done similar service. To say that “the Maryland troops…[were] all young gentlemen,” as one observer noted, would be an exaggeration, but it was certainly true in the case of Daniel Bowie. [1]

Bowie was not the only person who made out a will while in the army. Joseph Butler, one of Bowie’s lieutenants, dictated his will the night before the Battle of Brooklyn. Edward Sinclair, a private in the Fifth Company, “being mindful of the uncertainty of human life,” wrote his about six weeks later, and Corporal Zachariah Gray of the Third Company did the same in January 1777, not long after he reenlisted. These wills give us insight into the men who wrote them, and serve as a powerful reminder of the presence of death to the men of the army. Indeed, Bowie, Butler, and Gray were all killed in combat, and Sinclair died in camp, probably of natural causes.

Read more about Daniel Bowie’s life here.

Notes:
Joseph Plumb Martin, Private Yankee Doodle: Being A Narrative of Some of the Adventures, Dangers and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier (1830; reprint, George F. Scheer, ed., 1962), 26.

Defeats and Doubts: The Continental Army in 1776

William Harrison served as the first lieutenant in the Seventh Independent Company when the company fought alongside the First Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Brooklyn. Following Captain Edward Veazey’s death at the battle, Harrison received a promotion to captain and took command of the company. Harrison remained in charge of the company as the army retreated across Manhattan and struggled for survival.

The fall of 1776 was a critical period for General George Washington and his fledgling army. The Continental Army had narrowly avoided complete destruction at the Battle of Brooklyn and the British easily drove them from Lower Manhattan. In a letter to his cousin following these losses, General Washington described his personal feelings on the state of the army “Such is my situation that if I were to wish the bitterest curse to an enemy on this side of the grave, I should put him in my stead with my feelings.”[1] These early defeats lowered morale throughout all ranks of the army, as the privates blamed regimental officers, the regimental officers blamed the senior commanders, and the senior commanders blamed the privates.[2]

Captain Harrison was among those officers that placed blame upon his superiors. In a November 1776 letter to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, the president of the Maryland Council of Safety, Harrison specifically questioned the army’s leadership and conduct in defeats at the Battle of White Plains and Fort Washington.[3] Harrison fought at White Plains and described the result:

In this affair, as in too many more of a similar nature, our Generals show’d not equal judgment to that of the Enemy. We were badly disposed to receive the attack of the Enemy’s small arms, and unfortunately much exposed to their Artillery, which flank’d us so heavily as to render the post tenable but a short time. The matter was ended by a confused and precipitate retreat on our part with the loss of 90 men killed and wounded.

harrsisonletterpg1

William Harrison’s letter to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, November 28, 1776. MARYLAND STATE PAPERS (Red Books), vol. 16, p. 60. [MSA S 989-23, 01/06/04/011]. Published in Archives of Maryland vol. 11, p. 488.

Harrison’s pessimistic view of the battle was understandable given the result, but the Battle of White Plains actually demonstrated the improving performance of the Continental Army. One Hessian officer wrote that the Americans “had made their defenses better than usual, and maintained their posts with extraordinary tenacity.”[4] Furthermore, although the Americans suffered heavy losses, they also inflicted severe casualties upon the attacking British, with one British officer estimating that 349 men had been killed or wounded.[5]

The loss of Fort Washington especially troubled Harrison: “We have been unfortunate enough to loose Fort Washington, a capital stroke against us in my opinion as we shall soon find it very difficult to keep up a communication between the Northern and Southern Provinces.” Harrison specifically questioned the tactics used in defending the fort given the apparent situation:

It required little foresight to know, that as Genl Howe had his whole armament at hand, he would make a vigorous effort, if any at all; and as he was furnish’d with conveniencies for passing Harlaem Creek, was it to be thought that he would confine his attack to one place? However I am undertaking to judge perhaps without having the truth of things, this I think very certain, that it would have taken 5000 instead of 2000 men to have defended against Genl Howe’s Army.

Harrison’s criticism of the affair at Fort Washington was not without merit. The British vastly outnumbered the garrison and the defensive arrangement of the Americans made the fort nearly impossible to defend. Despite the apparent folly of the senior commanders in attempting to hold the position, General Washington originally planned to abandon the fort but only changed his mind at the urging General Nathaniel Greene.[6] While the loss of the fort and men was demoralizing, it is doubtful that the Americans could have held the position given the overwhelming number of British troops and its isolation from the rest of the army.

Although Harrison’s attitude was clearly pessimistic, his attitude about the army and its commanders at this juncture in the war was far from unusual. General Washington was an inexperienced commander leading inexperienced soldiers and it reflected in the defeats of 1776, leading many to resign or leave when their enlistment expired. Captain Harrison’s lack of confidence in the army and its commanders evidenced in his letter no doubt contributed to his decision to resign from the army in December 1776. Although Harrison was correct in his criticism, he failed to see that defeats suffered in 1776 gave the soldiers and commanders of the Continental Army invaluable experience and helped forge a professional and battle-tested army.

Notes:

[1]From George Washington to Lund Washington, 20 September 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives.

[2] David Hackett Fisher, Washington’s Crossing, (Oxford University Press, 2004), 106.

[3] MARYLAND STATE PAPERS (Red Books), Letter from Harrison to Jenifer, vol. 16, p. 60. [MSA S 989-23], published in Archives of Maryland vol. 11, p. 488.

[4] Fisher, Washington’s Crossing, 111.

[5] Fisher, Washington’s Crossing,111.

[6] Fisher, Washington’s Crossing,111.