Hendrix, Ge Lee Corley and Morn McKoy Lindsey, compilers. The Jury Lists of South Carolina, 1778-1779, (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1980.)
Lewis, James A. Neptune's Militia: The Frigate South Carolina during the American Revolution, (Kent, OH: The Kent University Press, 1999.)
Moss, Bobby Gilmer. Roster of South Carolina Patriots in the American Revolution, (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1983.)
Revill, Janie, copier. Copy of the Original Index Book: Showing the Revolutionary Claims Filed In South Carolina Between August 20, 1783 and August 31, 1786, (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1969.)
Salley, A. S., editor. Accounts Audited of Revolutionary Claims Against South Carolina, Volume I, (Columbia, SC: The State Company, 1935.)
Wates, Wylma Anne, editor. Stub Entries to Indents: Issued in Payment of Claims Against South Carolina Growing Out of the Revolution, Book C-F, (Columbia, SC: South Carolina Archives Department, 1957.)
South Carolina Audited Accounts Relating to William Bradford SC768
South Carolina Audited Accounts Relating to Richard Croom SC1705
The decision of the writer of this blog to include two distinct men in a single post is based on several points of historical fact. First, both of these men seem to have been on the first cruise of the frigate South Carolina as she crossed the Atlantic Ocean for her maiden voyage to the New World and the waters of the North American colonies. This is based on the absence of both of their names on any of the three British Royal Navy lists of captive Americans on board the three British men-of-war that carried the captured crew and marines of the frigate South Carolina to New York City harbor after the seizure of the warship on December 21, 1782. Second, in their audited accounts documents, they were both listed as "mariners" on board the patriot frigate, even though they received quite differing amounts for their respective services, as will be seen later on in this post. So many of the naval personnel cited in Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, have their rating on board the patriot frigate cited as "no position given". In Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, section entitled "Appendix: Crew and Marines of the South Carolina", pages 135-170, both of them are cited as being "sailors", which is synonymous with "mariner". Third, both of them received stub indents as a result of their accounts being audited by the State of South Carolina. Fourth, both of these men are addressed in Revill's work, Copy of the Original Index Book, page 385. There are only a very finite number of men who served on board the frigate South Carolina who are cited in Revill's work yet, both of them are cited in this original work. Fifth, both of these men's audited accounts are contained within the same return and they received their stub indent certificate on the same date - October 7, 1784. Sixth, and last, both their audited accounts contain a brief statement at the bottom of their accounts acknowledging Robert Coram as their attorney and assigning these account certificates to one Thomas Cochran.
First, and beginning with a quick reference to the lists of captive Americans on board the three British Royal Navy men-of-war that carried the captured crew and marines of the frigate South Carolina into New York City on December 21, 1782, the readership of this blog can easily note that neither of the men's names appear on any of these three lists of prisoners of war. These lists are cited in this overall blog and their citations and dates are referenced as follows:
"'Bound for New York City' - Roster of Captive Americans on board the HMS Diomede - December 20, 1782" and posted on "03/24/2015".
"'Bound for New York City, Pt. II' - Roster of Captive Americans on board the HMS Quebec - December 20, 1782" and posted on "03/25/2015".
"'Bound for New York City, Pt. III' - Roster of Captive Americans on board the HMS Astraea - December 20, 1782" and posted on "03/26/2015".
Neither the name of William Bradford nor that of Richard Croom appear on any of these three lists of captured Americans. One must assume from this fact that neither of these men were captured with the remainder of the crew and marines of the frigate South Carolina on December 20, 1782 and thus never experienced the captivity on board one of the prison "hulks" moored in the East River for the continuation of the war. Thus, they must have been on the first cruise of the patriot frigate as she journeyed across the Atlantic Ocean towards her namesake of South Carolina.
Second, in Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia: The Frigate South Carolina during the American Revolution, section entitled "Appendix: Crew and Marines of the South Carolina", pages 135-170, we find the following citations for these two patriot mariners:
Name: Position: Page Citation:
William Bradford Sailor page 139
Richard Croom Sailor page 143
A slight bit of more information is forthcoming in Moss's work, Roster of South Carolina Patriots, pages 93 and 218 respectively, concerning these two mariners on board the frigate South Carolina:
William Bradford - he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 692A; C529; Revill, page 385.
Richard Croom - he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. C.S.; Revill, page 385; A.A. 1641; C526.
The two citations beginning with the "A.A." followed by numbers are the audited accounts for both of these mariners. The Revill citations are both of their citations in Revill's work, Copy of the Original Index Book, page 385-386. These two citations will definitely be addressed later in this post. But, the two citations beginning with the capital letter "C" followed by a three-digit numeral are the stub indents these two men were issued by the State of South Carolina.
(Note: Richard Croom has one final citation contained within his entry in Moss's work, Roster of South Carolina Patriots. This appears as a two letter abbreviation - "C.S." Moss cites this work as being the "Columbia State, January 4, 1904 - February 1905". No further information is given in Moss's work identifying this publication. It is the assumption of the writer of this blog that this was some type of serial publication issuing out of Columbia, South Carolina that ran between the two dates given and then ceased. This serial publication could have been a genealogy society's newsletter or possibly even a form of newspaper addressing the men who served during the American Revolution.)
Third, both of these men received stub indents from the state of South Carolina as a result of their services on board the frigate South Carolina. Occasionally, these documents are referred to as "certificates". The full texts of these two stub indents are brief and are as follows. First, the stub indent for Richard Croom:
"No. 526
Book C
Issued to Mr. Richard Croom late of the Frigate South Carolina the 7th of October 1784 for Twenty Seven pounds 7/11d Sterling Ballance of wages due him on board said Ship as per Certificate from the Auditor General dated 6th October 1784.
Principal: 27p/7s/11d Interest: 1p/18s/4d"
Second, the stub indent for William Bradford:
"No. 529
Book C
Issued to Mr. William Bradford late of the Frigate South Carolina, Mariner, the 7th of October 1784 for Three pounds 4/6 Sterling ballance of wages due him on board said Ship as per Certificate from the Auditor General dated 6th October 1784.
Principal: 3p/4s/6d Interest: 0p/4s/6d"
(Note: a reference to both of the brief stub indents cited above, one can clearly see that only William Bradford is referred to as a "mariner" on board the frigate South Carolina. Richard Croom is not explicitly referred to as such. Yet, the actual audited account document which lead to the issuing of the stub indent cited as C526 does indeed reference Richard Croom as a "mariner" on board the patriot frigate.)
The obvious fact very evident in these two stub indents is that these two men received greatly differing amounts of money in their respective stub indents. Richard Croom received a substantial amount for an enlisted man/mariner - 27p/7s/11d - while William Bradford received an almost inconsequential amount in comparison - 3p/4s/6d. No further information exists which might clarify this issue. The assumption of the writer of this blog is that Richard Croom might have been skilled in some area of maritime affairs while William Bradford might not have been so skilled. Thus, the large pay discrepancy between these two men. Or, it might be possible that Richard Croom signed on with the frigate South Carolina well before William Bradford signed on and thus served on board the patriot frigate for a longer period of time. Both of these are simply suppositions and not supported by factual evidence.
Fourth, there are references to both of these mariners in Revill's work, Copy of the Original Index Book, page 385. This is rather unusual, mainly because of the finite number of men contained within this list of officers and men who served on board the frigate South Carolina. According to Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, section entitled "Appendix: Crew and Marines of the South Carolina", pages 135-170, there were easily over one thousand men who served on board the patriot frigate for either of her two cruises. Yet, only seventy-nine men are cited in Revill's work as having received certificates from the state of South Carolina. These seventy-nine men are cited in a quasi-alphabetical manner with each letter appearing in it's proper alphabetical order but, within each letter there appears to be no alphabetical ordering of individual names. William Bradford's name is second on the list but, alphabetically would be last of the four citations under the letter "B". Richard Croom is cited in his proper alphabetical order being last of the letter "C" and eleventh in the order of the overall list. Again, both of them are cited as having received their certificates on the same day - October 6, 1784.
(Note: there is a one day discrepancy between the dates of receipt of their stub indents/certificates as cited in Revill's work, Copy of the Original Index Book, page 385 and Wates's work, Stub Entries to Indents, page 93. Revill has these two men receiving their indents on October 6, 1784 while Wates has them receiving their indents one day later on October 7, 1784 The possibility here is that the Auditor General may have signed their certificates one day earlier and the following day these were issued to their respective recipients.)
Fifth, and directly referencing the final sentence of the paragraph immediately above, both these men received their stub indents/certificates on the same exact date - October 6/7, 1784. This was roughly a year and one half after the end of the American Revolution. Rather than this being sheer coincidence, there is a simple fact resulting in these two men receiving their stub indents/certificates on the same day - these men's pension requests were a part of the same return - Return 51. A set of pension applications were collected and turned into the Auditor General in a single packet. These were audited and decided upon and all the permitted stub indents/certificates returned to the Commissioners of the Treasury to be distributed to their respective recipients. This is one reason for the writer of this blog decided to include these two men together instead of addressing them separately as is usually done in this overall blog.
Sixth, and finally, there is the brief note at the end of each man's audited account/certificate that recognizes Robert Coram as their attorney and one "Thomas Cochran" as the designated assignee for their amounts contained within both of the audited accounts/certificates. The following are complete citations of these two addended notes:
"Received October 8, 1784 from the Commissioners of the Treasury of South Carolina One Years interest on the Within
Robert Coram Attorney
Richard Croom
These are to Certify that I do hereby Assign over to Mr. Thomas Cochran the Right and Title to this Indent and the Interest that may thereafter be Due as Attorney to Richard Croom
Robert Coram
(Note: the below text is in a quite different handwriting.)
Received February 21, 1786 one Year's Interest on the Within
1p/10s/4d Thomas Cochran
Received March 26, 1787 a third year's interest
1p/10s/4d Thomas Cochran
Received July 24, 1787 of the Commissioners of the Treasury full Satisfaction on both Principle and Interest by Discount on My Bond Thomas Cochran"
The text of the second addended note is as follows:
"Received October 8, 1784 from the Commissioners of the Treasury of South Carolina One Years Interest on the Within
Robert Coram Attorney
for William Bradford
These are to Certify that I do hereby Assign over to Mr. Thomas Cochran the Right and Title to this Indent and the Interest that may thereafter be Due as Attorney to William Bradford
Robert Coram
(Note: Again, the below text is in a quite different handwriting.)
Received February 21, 1786 one Year's Interest on the Within
0p/4s/6d Thomas Cochran
Received March 26, 1787 a third Year's Interest
0p/4s/6d Thomas Cochran
Received July 24, 1787 of the Commissioners of the Treasury full satisfaction for the Within Indent both Principle and Interest by Discount on My Bond Thomas Cochran"
These additional endnotes are referred to as "endorsements" but, Salley's work, Audited Accounts of Revolutionary Claims, page 4 may elucidate a darker side to these documents. On that page, the text explicitly states that "...these indents were interest bearing certificates of indebtedness.". As can be seen from the post above, both of these men have these endorsements attached to their audited accounts certificate. The assumption of the writer of this blog is that both of these men - Richard Croom and William Bradford of the frigate South Carolina - may have fallen into a situation of indebtedness to others. In this specific case, it was to an individual - Thomas Cochran. Robert Coram served as attorney for the two former mariners of the frigate South Carolina and as the official designated representative for the two former mariners stating that Thomas Cochran was the assignee of the full amounts and interest accrued on both accounts.
(Note: The writer of this blog is unsure as to who Thomas Cochran was in colonial South Carolina. But, the name Robert Coram has turned up many times in this overall blog as a midshipman and lieutenant on board the frigate South Carolina, if this indeed is the same Robert Coram. Most recently in this blog, Robert Coram served as the attorney for Midshipman John Baker who also assigned his indent amount and interest accrued to Thomas Cochran. The post addressing Midshipman John Baker is entitled "...To Make Them a Bit More Real...: Midshipman John Baker of the Frigate South Carolina: From an Examination of the South Carolina Audited Accounts" and was posted on "10/11/2020".)
The true tragedy of the American Revolution was that America won her independence from Great Britain but, in the process so many men who fought, suffered and bled in that same Revolution fell into debt and became beholden to other men of wealth and power after the conclusion of the war. This appears to be the case of Richard Croom and William Bradford, mariners on board the frigate South Carolina.
(A Final Note: The following text is taken from Salley's work, Accounts Audited of Revolutionary Claims, page 4:
"On March 19, 1785, the General Assembly ratified an Ordinance providing that 'five commissioners shall be appointed by joint ballot of the Senate and House of Representatives...empowered finally to settle all accounts which have been or shall be brought into the auditor's office, and which have not been passed by the auditor, according to what shall appear to them to be just and reasonable.'".
The footnote at the bottom of page 4 notes that one of the appointed commissioners was none other than Alexander Gillon, former Commodore of the Navy of South Carolina during the American Revolution and ranking officer on board the frigate South Carolina. According to Hendrix's and Lindsey's work, The Jury Lists of South Carolina, pages 4, 7, 11, and 17, both Alexander Gillon and Thomas Cochran served as grand jurors and petit jurors in the parishes of St. Phillip's and Michael's and St. Thomas's and Dennis's, respectively. Both of these parishes were a part of the Charleston District. There exists the strong possibility that these two men of wealth and power may well have known each other prior to the outbreak of the war and could have conceivably continued that friendship into the peace time that followed after the end of the war.)