Clark, William Bell, editor. Naval Documents of the American Revolution, Volume 2, (Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, 1966.)
Lewis, James A. Neptune's Militia: The Frigate South Carolina during the American Revolution, (Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1999.)
Public Records Office, Virginia Colonial Records Project. "Peter Amiel - Pardon", (www.ancestry.com, no date.)
Ross, Joseph. Personal Correspondence with the Writer of This Blog - May 23 & 28, 2018.
Wikipedia. "Dyle (department)", (en.wikipedia.org, last edited - January 22, 2018.)
Pension Application - Nicholas Bartlett, S33986
Pension Application - John Mayrant, S32390
Ever since beginning this blog in late 2014, the writer of this effort has been made aware of the distinct similarities between the crew of the frigate South Carolina and a short, simple child's nursery rhyme which is as follows:
Tinker, Tailor
Soldier, Sailor
Rich man, Poor man
Beggar man, Thief
This children's rhyming recitation of "occupations" seems almost to accurately described the crew and marines of the patriot frigate. They represented so many and varied "walks of life" in whatever country of origin from which they came. The officers usually represented the "gentleman" class of aristocratic means and were frequently quite wealthy. All of the sailors and marines were representatives of the "lower sort" of people, yet were vital also to the functioning of the patriot frigate. But, Peter Amiel, the original First Lieutenant of the frigate South Carolina and John Joyner's second-in-command, would seem to beg the inclusion in the nursery rhyme of the profession of "spy". Or, better yet, does he present himself as one of the more reputable "occupations" but, is in reality a British agent? Truth is rarely ever a simple, straightforward reality and any individual involved in questionable or duplicitous activities had best be able to "cover his tracks", which is exactly what Peter Amiel seems to have done.
(Note: The writer of this blog has received more reader comments on Peter Amiel than any other individual written about in this overall blog. These comments seem to come predominantly from descendants of Peter Amiel, one of whom lives in the United Kingdom. They all confirm that the family tradition is that he was some sort of spy for the British. Yet, interestingly, the individual in the UK also confirms that the modern-day loyalist organizations here in the New World (Canada and the USA) refuse to acknowledge him as a loyalist whenever this individual approaches them concerning the issue. It is perplexing to the writer of this blog that a former opponent would refuse to recognize one of their own due to his being involved in "questionable activities" and a possible spy. Maybe it is possible that thieves, and by association, spies, only have honor among themselves.)
The writer of this blog first wrote about Peter Amiel and his interesting role on board the frigate South Carolina in a post entitled "Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave..., When We Choose to Deceive...": Espionage and the Frigate South Carolina - The Strange Case of Peter Amiel, First Lieutenant on board the Frigate South Carolina on Her Maiden Voyage to America -" and posted on "06/22/2016". This initial post was dated almost two full years ago. No new information was located and investigated concerning Peter Amiel and the shadowy circumstances under which he was cashiered from the frigate South Carolina until now. Some of this information will serve to "round out" the character of Peter Amiel and, hopefully, somewhat rescue him from the oblivion into which he seems to have been consigned by history and contemporary attitudes towards espionage and those involved in this "shadowy business".
The research of Joseph Ross has indicated that both Peter Amiel and Peter's father, John Amiel, were involved in seaborne trade prior to the beginning of the American Revolution. The following citations and information was shared by Mr. Ross through personal correspondence with the writer of this blog. Mr. Ross examined newspapers of the times and recorded that between July 1766 and September 1775, both father and son made numerous voyages to and returned from the Caribbean Sea and England. Mr. Ross examined contemporary newspaper articles and advertisements as these were the means of communicating with their readership that a specific shipment had arrived in a certain port city. Each of these will be presented here in list form in chronological order so that a type of progression of each mariner might be more easily observed. The information presented in this list will take the form of a date cited, the newspaper in which the announcement appeared, the name of the ship (when provided), port of entry, port of departure (when provided), and any comments following this specific announcement.
Date: Newspaper: Ship: Port of Entry: Port of Departure:
July 3, 1766 Boston Newsletter --------- Boston, MA -------, Hispaniola
Comments:
A week later the same newspaper identified the port of departure as Cape Francois, Hispaniola.
_______________________________________________________________________________
March 14, 1767 Boston Chronicle sloop, Chagford Dominico ----------- (?)
Comments:
The Boston Chronicle reported that on this outward voyage prior to arriving in Dominico, the sloop Chagford (possible misspelling of the Chadford) had "...lost all of her livestock except three oxen...". Ostensibly, the port of departure was Boston, MA due tot he article appearing in the "Boston Chronicle".
________________________________________________________________________________
January 14, 1771 New York Gazette and Weekly ship, Beaver New York, NY ------------
Comments:
"'John Amiel has just imported...the very best Kitesfoot tobacco' which he offers for sale at his store 'in Smith Street'.".
________________________________________________________________________________
March 28, 1771 New York Journal ship, Beulah New York, NY London, England
Comments:
The newspaper announced that John Amiel "...has...imported goods....for sale in his store...." presumably being the store on Smith Street in New York City.
________________________________________________________________________________
The tone of these announcements may have changed by this point, with John Amiel remaining at his store "...in Smith Street..." and allowing other sea captains to pilot the ships carrying his wares to New York City. These last two entries are examples of this possibility. But, these next two entries almost certainly demonstrate this fact:
July 10, 1771 ___________ ship, Lady Gage New York, NY London, England
Comments:
The newspaper is presumably either the New York Gazette and Weekly or the New York Journal but, is not named as such. The "...advertisement for his store indicates that the latest batch of goods from London..." upon a ship commanded by a "...Capt. Kemble...".
________________________________________________________________________________
October 5, 1772 New York Gazette and Weekly ship, Earl of Dunmore New York, NY --------, England
Comments:
The New York Gazette and Weekly "....names Capt. Lawrence as master...who brought in the latest cargo from England for John Amiel's store....". Presumably, the port of departure was London, England since the last three shipments of goods to John Amiel's store in Smith Street in New York City had departed that port city in England.
_________________________________________________________________________________
According to the writer of this blog's personal correspondence with Joseph Ross (May 28, 2018), Peter Amiel's name begins to appear in print as the master of sailing vessels owned by his father, John Amiel. Mr. Ross points out that "..it is possible we are seeing the completion of Peter Amiel's shipboard training and transition from mate to master...". The first posting in a colonial newspaper that refers to Peter Amiel as the master of a ship was posted three weeks after the above notice in the New York Gazette and Weekly and is dated October 26, 1772. This notice is as follows:
October 26, 1772 Pennsylvania Packet brig, Friendship Philadelphia, PA Halifax, Nova Scotia
Comment:
Again, this is the first time that Peter Amiel's name is associated with the master's position on a merchant vessel. John Amiel, Peter's father, recorded this in the newspaper mentioned above on the date referenced above.
__________________________________________________________________________________
November 30, 1772 Pennsylvania Packet brig, Freemason -------, Hispaniola Philadelphia, PA
Comment:
It is assumed that the brig Freemason's port of departure was Philadelphia, PA because the Pennsylvania Packet reported that the brig Freemason had "...cleared out of that same port a month later..." under the command of Peter Amiel.
(Note: the writer of this blog has come across references numerous times to a ship being named Freemason and the possible meaning of this specific name as concerns the master of the vessel. Historical sources have stated that this particular name may be a veiled reference to the master of that ship belonging to the Masonic Order and paying homage to the Order by naming his ship thus. Thus, either Peter Amiel or his father, John, or both father and son, may have been a member or members of the Masonic Order.)
__________________________________________________________________________________
The subsequent voyages of Peter Amiel as master of merchant vessels for his father's store "...on Smith Street..." in New York City are as follows:
April 26, 1773 Pennsylvania Chronicle schooner, Lydia Philadelphia, PA (?) -------. St. Eustatia
Comment:
It is the assumption that this merchant ship, with Peter Amiel as master of it, put into Philadelphia, PA. After all, it was the "Pennsylvania Chronicle" and Philadelphia, PA was not only the busiest port city in Pennsylvania but, was one of the busiest port city's in North America. Thus, the readership of this periodical would have understood that the ship put into Philadelphia, PA rather than some other port city in Pennsylvania.)
__________________________________________________________________________________
May 12, 1773 Pennsylvania Gazette schooner, Lydia _______, Hispaniola Philadelphia, PA (?)
Comment:
Again, it is assumed that the port of departure was Philadelphia, PA due to the newspaper reporting the Lydia as having "...cleared for departure to Hispaniola..." being based in Philadelphia, PA.
___________________________________________________________________________________
August 16, 1773 Pennsylvania Packet schooner, Lydia Philadelphia, PA -------, Hispaniola
Comment:
Obviously, this is the return trip of the above referenced voyage. Yet, it was reported in a different newspaper than the outward voyage was originally reported.
___________________________________________________________________________________
November 2, 1774 Pennsylvania Gazette schooner, Happy Return -------, Hispaniola Philadelphia, PA(?)
Comment:
"P. Amiel" is cited as being "master" on board the schooner, Happy Return.
____________________________________________________________________________________
January 23, 1775 Pennsylvania Packet schooner, Happy Return Philadelphia, PA(?) -------, Hispaniola
Comment:
This is the return voyage to Philadelphia, PA from the outward bound voyage of November 2, 1774 cited above.
____________________________________________________________________________________
March 22, 1775 Pennsylvania Packet ship, Ranger Liverpool, England Philadelphia, PA(?)
Comment:
This may have been the first recorded trans-Atlantic voyage of Peter Amiel as the master of a merchant vessel. The American Revolution is less than a month from its beginnings on April 19, 1775 at Lexington, MA and Concord, MA.
____________________________________________________________________________________
August 16, 1775 Pennsylvania Packet ship, Ranger -------, Maryland Philadelphia, PA
Comment:
This is the first recorded voyage of Peter Amiel as a master of a merchant vessel that cleared from a colonial port city and put into another colonial port city. His voyages until now had all been between Philadelphia, PA and the island of Hispaniola, except for the single voyage to Liverpool, England. It is possible that this is due to the commencement of the American Revolution and the actions of the British Royal Navy in seizing patriot shipping all along the Atlantic Ocean seacoast. The port city that the ship, Ranger put into was most likely Oxford, MD. This is according to an entry found in Clark's work, Documents of the American Revolution, Volume 2, page 395, in which Peter Amiel of the "...Ship Ranger..." is recorded as paying 2p/12s/6d in fees to the "...Deputy Collector Samuel Chamberlaine, Port of Oxford, Maryland..." on September 6, 1775, roughly three weeks after the above cited date of clearing the port of Philadelphia, PA, outward bound for Maryland.
______________________________________________________________________________________
By any measure of a man's occupation, it is clear that Peter Amiel was a skilled mariner and master of ships by the beginning of the American Revolution. If Joseph Ross's assumption of Peter Amiel initially serving as mate of the earlier voyages under his father, John Amiel, as master of ships and later as a master of ships himself, Peter Amiel had effectively seen the Atlantic world by the beginning of hostilities with Great Britain He had seen various different port cities in the Caribbean Sea on numerous occasions, sailed once to Halifax, Nova Scotia, been to London and Liverpool, England, and frequented other American colonial port cities as well. But, with the commencement of the American Revolution, Peter Amiel would turn over the command of merchant marine vessels to others and take his place as an officer in the command structure of the new rebel navy.
A question has dogged those who write concerning Peter Amiel and his subsequent service in the rebel navy of the United States of America. This question is one of the date of his being "cashiered" from the patriot navy of the state of South Carolina for whom he was ostensibly serving when it has found out that he was conducting a secret correspondence with Joseph Yorke, the British Ambassador at The Hague. This fact has frequently been passed over as having happened after the frigate South Carolina had cleared The Texel, Holland on August 4, 1781 and set sail for America. This is the effect of the statement contained within the "Pension Application of John Mayrant S32390", page 2:
"....that when the Frigate was at Philadelphia just before the capture Thomas White as 1st Lieut. in place of Peter Amiel who had been cashiered for holding a correspondence with Sir Joseph York [sic: Joseph Yorke] the British Ambassador at the Hague...".
In the opinion of the writer of this blog, Joseph Ross has addressed this concern quite well in his correspondence of May 23, 2018 with the said writer. In this correspondence, Joseph Ross states that:
"The question of Peter Amiel's loyalties and timeline can be easily surmised from the record. It is hypothesized based on the pension applications of John Mayrant and Nicholas Bartlett that [the] frigate South Carolina's 1st Lieutenant Pter Amiel was cashiered out of the service between the vessel's departure from Texel on August 4, 1781 and her arrival at Corunna on September 24, 1781. It appears to me highly unlikely that Amiel's secret correspondence to Sir Joseph Yorke was discovered on board the South Carolina in transit but more plausibly that the intrigue was found out before leaving the anchorage at Texel. Amiel's cashiering out of the service and dismissal there would leave a far lesser historical footprint than confinement and potential court-martial had he remained on the vessel. The lack of documentation strongly points to an earlier date. The fact that Amiel was in London by September 7, 1781 supports his dismissal in ostensibly neutral Holland. The lieutenant's political motivations appear obvious in the carefully crafted words of King George III's Privy Order issued on that date.".
The writer of this blog feels that the reasoning here is quite sound and logical. There are several sources that address the courts-martial that took place during the course of the American Revolution, one of these sources being James C. Neagles's work, Summer Soldiers: A Survey & Index of Revolutionary War Courts-Martial, (Salt Lake City, UT: Ancestry Incorporated, 1986.). Neither this specific source nor any of the other courts-martial sources of which this writer is aware cite this courts-martial as having taken place, either in Amsterdam, Holland or on board the frigate South Carolina as she voyaged towards her first port-of-entry in Europe after departing The Texel, Holland - Corunna, Spain. The frigate South Carolina departed The Texel, Holland on August 4, 1781 and moored in Corunna, Spain on September 24, 1781. Yet, Peter Amiel's pardon was issued on September 7, 1781 in London, England and the implication is that Peter Amiel was personally present to benefit from "...King George III's Privy Order issued on that date...". There were frequent prisoner cartel ships passing back and forth between France and England as the war was winding down. Lieutenant Peter Amiel , with proper documentation, could have easily obtained the necessary papers to have boarded one of the returning British vessels and sail for England.
This brings this narrative to the actual content of the pardon issued by King George III on September 7, 1781 in London, England to Lieutenant Peter Amiel. The document itself is filed under the heading of "Virginia Colonial Records Project" and is cited as Public Records Office - Class C. 66/3782 or PRO/C/66/3782. The text of this document is as follows:
"Peter Amiel, Pardon.
Peter Amiel late of Boston, New England, now of London, is released and pardoned for any treasons, piracies etc. committed by him alone or with others. He has been engaged in the American rebellion as an officer in the rebel Marine Service under commission from those who have 'traiterously [traitorously] usurped powers of government in the Colonies under the name of Congress'.
The King will no longer claim any sort of punishment of Amiel, and grants him now a complete peace. All judges and officers of the law are instructed to construe this pardon most beneficially for Amiel and to award it without delay or writ of allowance.
September 7, 1781
By writ of Privy Seal.".
The writer of this blog supposes that this specific example of a royal pardon possibly was composed much earlier than the assigned date of the pardon - September 7, 1781 - and reserved towards the time that it would be utilized. As stated by Joseph Ross a few paragraphs above, the words of King George III are "...carefully crafted..." and seem to almost absolutely withdraw any reservations on the part of us who are separated from these events by the passage of almost two hundred and fifty years that Peter Amiel, First Lieutenant of the frigate South Carolina, was working for the Crown government of Great Britain while he was on board the patriot frigate. All that would be necessary for the pardon to be complete and thus effectual for Peter Amiel would be a date being inscribed on the document.
Peter Amiel seems to fade from documents generated on this side of the Atlantic Ocean following this pardon issued by King George III. According to Joseph Ross, correspondence of May 23, 2018 with the writer of this blog, the following information is known of Peter Amiel personally:
"...in addition to the report of Peter Amiel serving as a Lieutenant of Marines in the Royal Navy, we know from his January 1, 1783 commission included among Amiel Family documents in Australia that the lieutenant was specifically appointed Marine Squad Officer in Chatham, the site of the Royal Navy Dockyard on the River Medway in Kent.".
But, Peter Amiel's mother, Mrs. Christian Amiel, became an active proponent for both Peter and his siblings at this point in time. According to Joseph Ross, same correspondence with the writer of this blog, the following actions can be attributed to the Mrs. Christian Amiel:
"On October 1, 1783, Peter's mother, Mrs. Christian Amiel, ...[wrote]...from New York to [Commanding General Guy] Carleton (PRO 30/55/83/1) seeking land for herself and children in her native Nova Scotia. Included with the letter was a Memorial addressed to Nova Scotia's Governor John Parr. General Carleton followed up on Mrs. Amiel request by writing a letter dated October 10, 1783 to Governor Parr (PRO 30/55/83/71) recommending the service of one of the sons Lieutenant Robert Amiel of the 17th [Regiment of] Foot and including with it her memorial. Mrs. Amiel again writes to Carleton on October 30, 1783 (PRO 30/55/85/7) indicating that she had arrived in New York after the evacuation of Philadelphia and that her husband was traveling to the West Indies to seek friends and relief. She now requests 'financial support and passage to England for herself, her six sons (who have taken a 'spirited part' with the army) and her married daughter (Mrs. Armstrong).'.
Apparently, Mrs. Amiel's request was denied as Carleton's Deputy Adjutant-General Frederick Mackenzie endorsed the letter as 'cannot be given'.".
Thus, the rejection of the Amiel family's claims against the Crown for services rendered during the American Revolution began at the origin of the independence of the United States of America. According to Coldham's work, American Migrations, 1765-1799, page 654, the above provided information is corroborated along with additional information being added:
"Christian Amiel - of Charleston, SC (also of Pennsylvania, and New York City). Memorials - London, 1784, 1785.
She is a native of America and daughter of Hibbert Newton who was Collector of Customs in NS [Nova Scotia] for 35 years. Her husband, a merchant in SC [South Carolina], at the age of 67 has been obliged to go to the WI [West Indies] to obtain support for her and her family. Of her six sons, the eldest John Amiel was an officer in the 60th Regiment [of Foot], was appointed a Major in the New York militia, has a family and was allowed 30 pounds a year. Her son Peter Amiel is a Lieutenant of Marines now on half pay, abroad and with a family. Her son Robert Amiel is a Lieutenant in the 17th Regiment [of Foot] but cannot afford the claimant any assistance. Her son Phillips Amiel was a midshipman on HM ships during the war and is now a master of trading vessels from London to the WI [West Indies] and struggling to support himself. Her son Henry Amiel is an Ensign in the 22nd Regiment [of Foot] at Windsor and also unable to contribute to her support. Her youngest son Otho Amiel holds a commission in the 17th Regiment [of Foot] and served until the end of the war, then sold his commission and went to the WI [West Indies].
Claim for goods surrendered to the American General [Benjamin] Lincoln at Charleston.
12/100/229, 101/274, 13/63/110-119, 70B(II)/27-32, 96/24-26, 125/170-172.".
In comparison to the other thousands of claims against the Crown of Great Britain filed between 1775-1783 or even later, there exists a significant amount of information initiated and filed by Mrs. Christian Amiel. Mrs. Amiel's petitions for succor are lengthy and detailed and always directed at the pinnacle of British authority wherever she was at the time. While she was in New York City, towards the end of the hostilities, she wrote twice in the month of October 1783 to Sir Guy Carleton, Commanding General of Crown Forces in North America. In England, her appeal for relief is directed to the American Claims Commission, which organization handled all of the claims against the Crown of Great Britain and, as a result of the scope of their work, amassed an incredible amount of documentation and information on each claimant. Her initial claim made to General Guy Carleton was for "...financial support and passage to England..." for herself and her family. As indicated in the above documentation, this appeal was denied. Yet, she must have found a way to get to England because her next piece of information only concerns herself. Mrs. Amiel stated that all of her sons, who had selflessly served the Crown during the conflict, were not able to assist her in any way, either due to supporting their own families, being aboard, or due to reduced circumstances for themselves. She only requests recompense for "...goods surrendered to the American General Lincoln at Charleston...".
There is no indication that this claim was settled in her favor and that she received this recompense for her losses sustained during the course of the American Revolution. There is possibly one telling indication that she might have received nothing for her losses during the period of hostilities. At the end of the line containing her name and various different places of residence, there appears the brief citation - "Memorials - London, 1784, 1785". This indicates that she filed twice with the British authorities for support, once in 1784 - ostensibly after her arrival in England - and again one year later in 1785. It is possible that after 1785, with her claims having been disappointed, she might have just given up filing any further claims. Just the fact that she filed twice with the American Claims Commission may well indicate that she, for some reason, was deemed undeserving of support from the very government that she had sustained losses of personal property for and in defense of during the American Revolution. This happened all too often in the years immediately following the conclusion of hostilities.
The final piece of new information addresses Peter Amiel's wife, Charlotte Amiel. She is mentioned in several letters that passed between different American dignitaries and military officers in France and, from these brief references, it can be ascertained that she must have been a lively and vivacious companion to Peter Amiel. But, there are indications that she followed her husband, Peter Amiel, in death and that she did not die in England. According to Joseph Ross's correspondence of May 23, 2018:
"...her post-war story can be surmised by records held in the British National Archives at Kew. Peter is already dead when his wife Charlotte's will is executed on September 20, 1809 (PRO B 11/1502/326) as she is noted as 'Widow of Bruxelles Department of the Dyle.' Her probated inventory and declaration of estate (PRO B 31/1267/702) dated May 1829 identify her as 'Charlotte Amiel widow of Brussels, Flanders, who died abroad'.".
According to Wikipedia entry for "Dyle (department)", the following information is provided concerning this region of the Low Countries:
"Dyle was a department of the First French Empire in present-day Belgium. It was named after the river Dyle (Dilje), which flows through the department. Its territory corresponds more or less with that of the Belgian province of Brabant, now divided into Walloon Brabant, Flemish Brabant and the Brussels-Capital Region. Its capital was Brussels.
The department came into existence on October 1, 1795, after the Southern Netherlands were occupied by the French. The department of Dyle was formed from the southern part of the Duchy of Brabant, part of the County of Hainaut, (Halle) and some smaller territories.
After the defeat of Napoleon the department became part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, as the province of (South) Brabant.".
In other words, when Charlotte Amiel's will was executed on September 20, 1809, she was living in enemy occupied territory. As stated above, when the defeat of Napoleon was effected in 1815, the French-dominated department became "...the province of (South) Brabant..." and was included in the territory of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. When Charlotte Amiel's probated inventory and declaration of estate were both filed in May 1829, the region had reverted to the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Belgium gained her independence in 1832. Today, this region is part of the modern-day country of Belgium.
The writer of this blog is at a loss to ascertain exactly what Charlotte Amiel was doing in enemy-occupied territory in 1809. It may well be that she was a native of this region of Europe and simply chose to return home after the earlier death of her husband. The name of "Amiel" does seem to be French/ Low Countries in origin rather than strictly English. Again, possibly she felt like returning home when she found herself alone. The petitions of Christian Amiel indicate that the siblings of Peter Amiel were otherwise occupied, scattered, and in want themselves. It may have been that Charlotte Amiel found herself alone and uncared for after the death of her husband and chose to move back to the place of her birth. It seems almost like a final, mournful epitaph for Charlotte Amiel that she is identified as "...Charlotte Amiel widow of Brussels, Flanders, who died abroad...".