Lewis, James A. Neptune's Militia: The Frigate South Carolina during the American Revolution, (Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1999.)
Pension Application of Abijah Hunt S23271
Pension Application of Joshua Mersereau S7224
There is, as it appears, to be a single source of information that supports Joshua Mersereau's application for a pension application. This is a supporting statement from an officer who is known to have served on board the frigate South Carolina for her second, and final, cruise. This is the "Pension Application of Abijah Hunt S 23271" and will be the focus of this specific post as well as any supporting statements of the "Pension Application of Joshua Mersereau S7224". Of course, being that this document is an actual pension application filed by the man who supposedly performed those duties during the American Revolution, it is to be considered a primary source document. Yet, even so, these documents are drafted by men, for one reason or another, and are therefore susceptible to errors, intentional, or otherwise. The purpose of this post will be to hopefully discern whether or not there might be further discrepancies or elements that may shed doubt on the veracity of Joshua Mersereau's claims for either a pension or a land warrant from the state of Pennsylvania.
Each man referenced here - both Joshua Mersereau and Abijah Hunt - supports the other in some manner in their pension application. As one reads these supporting statements, one gets the feeling that neither of these men knew the other one prior to service on board the frigate South Carolina. As a matter of fact, towards the middle of his longer (when compared to Abijah Hunt's supporting statement of his Joshua Mersereau's pension application) Joshua Mersereau clearly states that:
"...this deponent further saith that in the year 1800 this deponent being in attendance on the Legislature at Albany as a member thereof and the said Hunt then residing in that City in mercantile business they renewed the former intimacy and from that time to this it has continued by doing business & otherwise --...".
When both of these men filed for their pensions, both were in their early seventy's - Joshua Mersereau claimed that he was "...71 years last June..." and Abijah Hunt claimed that he was "...now 70 years of age and rising...". Both filed their pension applications within weeks of each other - Joshua Mersereau on October 3, 1832 and Abijah Hunt on October 30, 1832. Both of these men chose to file their application for a pension before the same judge, "...Levi Bigelow, a judge of Chenango County [New York]...".
(Note: Both men were residents of the state of New York at the time - Joshua Mersereau of the town of Bainbridge located in Chenango County and Abijah Hunt of the town of Sterling in Cayuga County. Joshua Mersereau above stated in his supporting statement to Abijah Hunt's pension application that he was "... in attendance on the Legislature at Albany as a member thereof and the said Hunt then residing in that City in mercantile business...". Clearly, Abijah Hunt must have moved from Albany to Sterling at some point between the years 1800 and 1832 when he filed his pension application in the presence of Levi Bigelow, a judge of Chenango County, New York. Chenango County is northwest of Albany County which lies along the Hudson River and is where Albany is located. Cayuga County is two counties further west of Chenango County in central New York and borders on one of the Great Lakes in the north of the county. Possibly, both men saw an advantage to pressing their claims for a pension if they filed their applications before the same judge. By 1832, Abijah Hunt evidently had relocated to Sterling in Cayuga County which is not that far west of Chenango County, New York where Joshua Mersereau resided and where they could both file before Judge Levi Bigelow.)
But, there is at least one other similarity between the pension applications of these two men who served on board the frigate South Carolina. Usually, men decide to make the veracity of their remarks concerning their service during the American Revolution as easily verifiable as possible. This was so that the commissioners, upon whose decision the amount awarded to the prospective pensioner rested, would be not indisposed to prove to themselves the truth of a particular man's claims. The devices utilized by these men were as varied as the applicants themselves. For instance, they would name specific officers under whom they served and who, if still alive, could verify their claims. They would list names of many men with whom they served and would thus, by sheer numbers of recited names, hope to prove the truth of their services stated by them. They might relate an easily verifiable and universally known event such as a famous battle or naval engagement and recite their role in this specific conflict, along with the names of others who also fought in this action. Or, as with the pension applications of Joshua Mersereau and Abijah Hunt, they would both relate, in their own words, an event that took place in which both men were involved, yet each would speak about the behavior or role of the other man in this specific action. Yet, it is in this particular, mutually related episode wherein the difficulty lies.
This mutually related event involves an attempt on the part of the American prisoners-of-war to retake the frigate South Carolina as she was being taken into New York City harbor. After the frigate South Carolina struck her colors on December 21, 1782, she was boarded by parties from the conquering British men-of-war. Her officers and crew were divided between these three Royal Navy warships for the journey to New York City harbor and further imprisonment or parole there. We have the three rosters of captured Americans from each of the British men-of-war that transported these unfortunate Americans to their ultimate fates in British custody in New York City harbor. According to Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, pages 96-98, and to both the pension applications of Joshua Mersereau S7224 and Abijah Hunt S23271, there were certain crew members that were left on board the patriot frigate for her final voyage into the British-held port of New York City. The reasoning behind this is unclear but, perhaps it was in answer to the problem of overcrowding on each vessel due to a prize crew being added to the complement of men on board or to divide up the Americans to prevent just such mutinous occurrences as this one. For whatever reasoning, both Joshua Mersereau and Abijah Hunt evidently ended up on the captured patriot frigate as she was sailed northward towards New York City harbor.
Details of the events leading up to the attempt to recapture the frigate South Carolina and guide her into a friendly port are fairly clear but, the paucity of sources leaves a scent of lack of veracity, once again. Dr. Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, pages 96-98 cover this attempted recapture in significant detail but, his references for this action are only the pension applications of Joshua Mersereau S7224 and Abijah Hunt S23271. The writer of this blog will leave the reading of this action from Dr. Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, to the readership of this blog due to the amount of specific detail contained within his work regarding this action. The information existing concerning this event would be too great to cite in full here. But, there are the two existing accounts that are contained within the pension applications of Joshua Mersereau S7224 and Abijah Hunt S23271. Even the individual accounts of these two patriot mariners are lengthy and, if allowed to do so, would take quite a bit of space to cite here in full. The writer of this blog will attempt here to abbreviate these two accounts without compromising the integrity of the accounts themselves. The writer of this blog will limit himself to citing only the pertinent information regarding the incident. First is the corroborating statement of Abijah Hunt supporting the pension application of Joshua Mersereau S7224 and is as follows:
"...about twenty hours after leaving the Capes of Delaware was captured by a Ship of 56 Guns and two Frigates belonging to his Britannic Majesty that the said Ships with said South Carolina Frigate proceeded to the Port of New York that on our Passage thence having a Head wind for 2 days the Carolina being the best Sailor on the wind was nearly out of sight of our convoy it being nasty weather -- at a time when the hands were aloft reefing the top sails I was propositioned by the aforesaid Joshua in Comfort with the other Prisoners on board to attempt the recapture of said Ship he asked me if there was any Arms at my command and whether if we succeeded in our Enterprise whether I would take the Ship into Port to both of which Propositions I replied in the affirmative he requested me to stand ready at the word to hand out said arms with their bayonets fixed and I so stood by the arms Chest he the said Joshua looked up to see if all was now ready when on a sudden the Companion [way] was dashed down and fastened which ended the Enterprise.".
Joshua Mersereau's account of this unusual affair on board the captured frigate South Carolina is a good bit lengthier than Abijah Hunt's account and fraught with more daring detail, action, and personal danger for Joshua Mersereau, as his previous pension and land warrant claims seem to impress upon the readership of this blog. So, the corroborating statement in support of the pension application of Abijah Hunt S23271 is as follows:
"...that Capt. Hunt was on board said ship in the River [Delaware River] and that on or about the 20th of December they sailed out to sea, and was soon attacked by 3 British ships of war and taken off the Cape of Delaware -- And further that on the 2nd day after we were captured the weather being hazy and one convoy not to be seen a plan was projected by & among the prisoners to raise en masse & retake the ship & fight our way into some port, and that this deponent personally put the question to the said Hunt whether he was capable of navigating the ship if the said prisoners succeeded in retaking the ship to which he replied he was -- the prisoners already had an arms chest at their command and this deponent requested said Hunt to stand by & take charge of said arms chest and hand out the arms when the word was given to raise, for which purpose this deponent was to go on deck & see if all was clear and give the signal & attack the officer near the companion [way] which should make the way clear for the prisoners to rush on the quarter deck where the contest was to take place, that the deponent was on the quarter deck & supposed the proper time had arrived when another officer came running towards the deponent from the cabin with a pistol in each hand, & threatening to blow him through, ordered him below. He instantly shut the companion leaf [?]. They had by some means discovered the intended attack, the prisoners were instantly ordered into the ward room & to be quiet.".
The reader must keep in mind that during the naval action referred to in the first sentence of each of these supporting statements, Joshua Mersereau claims to have been seriously wounded in the leg. He claimed on June 5, 1840 before William Hamilton, Clerk, Court of Common Pleas of Steuben County, [New York] that he "...received a wound in my leg which has never since healed...". Yet, in both of these supporting statements, Joshua Mersereau seems to have been physically and quite actively engaged in the desperate attempt to retake the frigate South Carolina. His wound, by any standards, would still be fresh and unhealed and, thus, quite debilitating and painful to Joshua Mersereau. He would thus have been unlikely to have taken such an active role in the attempt to retake the patriot frigate...if he did indeed receive such a wound on that fateful December 1782 day...and if indeed he was even on board the frigate South Carolina at the time this action took place.
Yet, there is the issue of corroboration from Abijah Hunt, a midshipman on board the frigate South Carolina. A midshipman is considered to be an officer, even if the lowest ranking officer on board a patriot ship-of-war. The word of a surviving officer was usually taken as fact of a certain enlisted man's claim as having occurred the way the enlisted man portrayed it as having happened. Though Abijah Hunt's account of the attempted recapture of the patriot frigate is less detailed than Joshua Mersereau's account, the overall details do "line up" and would seem to lend more credence to Joshua Mersereau's account of the action. But, herein lies the problem with these two supporting statements. The words of Dr. Lewis on page x of his incomparable work, Neptune's Militia, address this situation perfectly:
"It is unlikely that any other ship under American command produced more written commentary than the South Carolina. This was partly because of the size of her crew, with well over a thousand individuals serving aboard in some capacity. Also responsible for the mountains of information about the ship on both sides of the Atlantic were the controversies that swirled around the ship for nearly seventy years after she stopped sailing. Greed played a further role in putting pen and ink to paper. Individuals serving on the frigate felt themselves eligible for both state and national pensions after the war. Finally, there was just something special about the South Carolina that encouraged those who sailed on her to write about life at sea, often not fondly, at some point. An amazing number of individuals who trod across the deck of the great ship were literate.".
Among these pieces of "...written commentary..." were the numerous pension applications submitted by officers, NCOs, and enlisted men who served (or claimed to have served) on board the frigate South Carolina. These pension applications occasionally, and sometimes quite unintentionally, corroborate each other in facts and details about the patriot frigate and her operations. An event as important and crucial as the incident cited above in both Joshua Mersereau S7224 and Abijah Hunt S23271 pension applications should have been at the very least mentioned in the similar pension applications of others who served on board the frigate South Carolina on her final voyage. This particular incident - the recapture of the frigate South Carolina by members of her former crew and marines - is not referenced in any other mens' pension applications other than in the applications of these two men - Joshua Mersereau S7224 and Abijah Hunt S23271. So, once again, the veracity of this described event is called into question.
Truth be told, it may well be that none of the other men who, after the cessation of hostilities with Great Britain, filed for pension applications may have been on board the captured patriot frigate for the journey back to New York City harbor. They could have been on board one of the three British Royal Navy cruisers that took the frigate South Carolina just off the Capes of the Delaware on December 21, 1782. Yet, again, not a single other man's pension application relates this same story and service on board the frigate South Carolina generated several other individuals' applications for a pension, at least seventeen in number.
(Note: Dr. Lewis makes the following salient statement on page 202, note 17 in his work, Neptune's Militia:
"Pension applications are a flawed mechanism for measuring anything. The number filed can be influenced by factors ranging from literacy, knowledge that pensions might be available, length of service, and many other considerations. Nevertheless, there were only seventy to eighty pension applications (federal as well as South Carolina) from those who served on the second crew, which numbered well over four hundred. Of these, possibly two-thirds are questionable, names appearing on a single petition, the legitimacy of which was challenged at the time. This is a small figure compared to the pension applications generated by the first crew.".
Only nineteen could be located for the frigate South Carolina, for both crews, first and second voyage. The "missing" two are those of Joshua Mersereau S7224 and Abijah Hunt S23271, the subjects of this specific post. Again, none of the other seventeen contain a reference to this same incident.)
Dr. Lewis points out in his work, Neptune's Militia, one factor influencing pension applications being filed is the knowledge that a pension is available to be had from the government, either federal or state. In several cases, this would motivate others with a knowledge or familiarity with notifying individual to likewise file an application. This would frequently result in certain phrases or expressions being repeatedly utilized several times in the pension applications of numerous individuals. An excellent example of this would be the pension applications of the three former marines on board the frigate South Carolina who all filed their applications in a brief period of time - Michael Spatz S3957, John Fox S2219 and Jacob Fleischer S2214. Joshua Mersereau S7224 and Abijah Hunt S23271 filed their respective pension applications within four weeks of each other - Joshua Mersereau on October 3, 1832 and Abijah Hunt on October 30, 1832. In the fact that they cited almost identical information, they must have communicated prior to the filing to make sure that their citations corroborated with each other's citations. This appears to have been standard procedure for individuals who were filing at this point in time so many years after the conclusion of the American Revolution. But, the questions remain - did Joshua Mersereau "create" an incident during the American Revolution at sea on board the frigate South Carolina that would possibly positively affect both his and Abijah Hunt's claims for a pension from the federal government? Did Joshua Mersereau communicate the details of this "incident" to Abijah Hunt so that Hunt could repeat this in his supporting statement for Joshua Mersereau's application? These may be questions for an 18th century event that may well elude a 21st century examiner forever. Stated more bluntly and directly, did Joshua Mersereau falsify his pension application to increase his chances of obtaining a pension from the government of the United States? Did he also involve a likely friend, Midshipman Abijah Hunt, in the same scheme in the hopes that possibly both of them would obtain the much-sought after pension?
All information included in the respective pension applications of these two men indicates that both Joshua Mersereau and Abijah Hunt did indeed receive pensions from the government of the United States of America. The concluding statement in the Pension Application of Joshua Mersereau S7224 was "Veteran was pensioned at the rate of $339.50 per annum commencing March 4th, 1831 for service as a seaman [on board the frigate South Carolina] and Assistant Commissary of Prisoners.". At this point in time, Joshua Mersereau was almost seventy years of age. The same concluding statement in the Pension Application of Abijah Hunt S23271 was "Veteran was pensioned at the rate of $100.50 per annum commencing March 4th 1831, for service as a private for 3 months in the New Jersey militia and for 15 months as a Midshipman in the Navy [on board the frigate South Carolina]. At this point in time, Abijah Hunt was sixty-eight years of age. The American Revolution had been concluded for forty-eight years by this point in time.
(Note: the interlinary insertions concerning service on board the frigate South Carolina are made by the writer of this blog and are not included in the original text of either man's pension application. These insertions are to demonstrate that both men received credit for having served on board the patriot frigate during the course of the American Revolution.)
Both of these men were, by any standards, advanced in age. The representatives of the US government who administered their pension applications must have felt completely disposed towards the requests of these elderly gentlemen who claimed service during the American Revolution, the event which gave birth to this country and was not that far removed from the time of those younger men who were empowered to make these decisions. These men standing before these younger commissioners must have been a powerful argument for awarding a pension that they, the commissioners, "felt" the government could afford as these same men and their efforts of valor brought this country into existence. The writer of this blog supposes that the commissioners may have not "investigated" too far into their respective claims and just awarded the pensions to these two former mariners,one a midshipman and the other a ship's carpenter, based on their age and validated services on board the frigate South Carolina. Who knows, or ever will know, where the truth lay in their claims?