Lewis, James A. Neptune's Militia: The Frigate South Carolina during the American Revolution, (Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1999.)
South Carolina Audited Accounts Relating to Samuel Bulfinch SC992
South Carolina Audited Accounts Relating to Joseph Crown, Asa Cole, et al. SC1723
Dr. Lewis's excellent work, Neptune's Militia, contains within it at the end of the work an full roster of the men who served on board the frigate South Carolina. This section of the work is entitled "Appendix: Crew and Marines of the South Carolina" and fills pages 135-170 with the names of over thousand individuals. But, this vital section of the work does not indicate for which of the two cruises - the first one from Holland to the American colonies and the second one very brief and resulting in the capture of the patriot frigate after she cleared the Capes of the Delaware in December 1782 - each of these men were on board the frigate. The text of Lewis's work explains that the majority of the first crew promptly left the ship-of-war after she docked in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in May 29, 1782. Commodore Alexander Gillon and his remaining officers were confronted with the immediate need to recruit new mariners and marines in order to replenish the fighting crew and marines of frigate South Carolina.
Dr. Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, is clear in stating that the first and second crews of the frigate South Carolina were significantly different from one another in ethnic composition and combat experience. The first crew and marines were very experienced and had quite a bit of contact with the seafaring life. Most, if not all, of the American seamen and marines had either escaped from British prisons and made their way across the English Channel to France or had been released from a British prison in one of the several prisoner cartels to existed between England and her age-old adversary France. There were several - possibly well over one hundred - French sailors on board the frigate South Carolina being that the frigate was so close to their homeland. The first contingent of marines on board the frigate South Carolina were the "Voluntaires du Luxembourg" - a regiment of combat infantry that were effectively the private armed force of the Chevalier de Luxembourg. These marines had recently returned from the failed assault on the Jersey Islands in the English Channel and had to be quickly brought back to full strength to serve as marines on the trans-Atlantic voyage of the patriot frigate. Again, many of these marines had seen combat and were battle-hardened. This first crew and marines of the frigate South Carolina were undoubtedly the finest and most experienced maritime contingent to serve on board the frigate.
The second crew and marine contingent to serve on board the frigate South Carolina probably left much to be desired in the judgments of their officers and NCOs. Whereas, the first crew and marines had been quite internationally mixed, the second crew and marine contingent were probably still somewhat ethnically mixed but, originated almost exclusively from the environs of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the near shore of New Jersey. There were undoubtedly some "foreigners" or immigrants among them but, far fewer than the first crew and marine contingent contained. Many of them were young men in the prime of life who were bored on the family farm and wanted some "high adventure". Others were looking for a "change of pace" or simply a change of scenery. Probably a few of them were evading the law and saw the frigate South Carolina as their opportunity to get away from the "arms of the law". All these men were labelled as "landsmen" - inexperienced and lacking in nautical knowledge but, seen as valuable assets on board the frigate South Carolina to be trained while the cruise was in progress. Unfortunately for them, their "training period" would be cut very short and all the " maritime experience" they would gain would be the sheer terror of receiving broadsides from three British men-of-war while the frigate South Carolina was being pursued by these same Royal Navy ships. The officers and "gentlemen" on board the captured patriot frigate would be paroled until they could be exchanged for British/Hessian/Loyalist officers of similar rank and importance. But, the NCOs and enlisted men, both mariners and marines, would be consigned to one of the British prison "hulks" that rode at anchor in Wallabout Bay, New York. Many would perish of malnutrition, disease, neglect, or wounds and finish their earthly days in a shallow grave along the shores of Wallabout Bay, New York.
The writer of this blog has always been keenly interested in establishing upon which of the two cruises of the frigate South Carolina each of these men sailed. Until now, he has made his decisions from evidence provided in pension applications for individual men. But, recently, he has encountered two sizable groups of men who were represented in the "South Carolina Audited Accounts". Both of these "group offerings" seem to indicate that these men all served on the second cruise of the frigate South Carolina. The first grouping of men is the largest of the two groupings and includes the "South Carolina Audited Accounts" of twenty-one men. Their document was filed on November 28, 1805 and is chronologically the first of the two documents. It is entitled as "Joseph Crown & others - Petition: Referred to the Committee on Claims" and is cited in full as follows:
[p 2]
"November 28, 180[last digit illegible][further investigation reveals it to be a "5"]
Joseph Crown & others
Petition
Referred to the Committee on Claims
[pp 3-4]
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina
The Petition of Charles Restine [Charles Ristine?] and others, petty officers, Mariners or Marines who Served on board the Frigate South Carolina Respectfully Sheweth.
That your petitioners were employed by Commodore Gillon [Alexander Gillon], most of them at this port of Pennsylvania. to Serve on Board the said Frigate South Carolina in the Service of the State of South Carolina, as petty officers, Mariners or Marines, at first under the command of Commodore Gillon and afterwards under the command of John Joiner Esquire and continued to serve on board Said vessel as Such, and were most of them on board at the time they were Captured by the British.
That your petitioners have Considerable Sums of money due them from the State of South Carolina, as well as their wages or Services on board the Said Frigate South Carolina as for prize monies due to them for prizes made while Serving on board Said Frigate, and the proceeds of which Came into the Treasury of Said State as they were informed, and which wages and prize money they have never been able to receive, as they Supposed by reason of their chiefly residing at a great distance from Your Seat of Government, but having lately Seen a Resolve of your Honorable houses directing the Comptroller General of the State to report the Claims of all persons respecting the said Frigate South Carolina, they humbly Submit their Case to your Honorable Houses and pray that you will grant them Such relief as to you in your wisdom Shall Seem Meet --
Asa Cole
William Rey
John Irvin
John Liet
William Brown, his mark
William Grinnell
James Connell
Daniel Lane
George Patterson
John Spencer
Amos Anderson
John Allen
Ritchard Lunt [Richard Lunt], his mark
Joseph Crown
Thomas Williams
William [illegibly faint] X
John Calahan
John Craw, his mark
Richard [illegibly faint]
John Evens
James Banner, his mark"
(Note: There is a problem with four of the names cited here. An attached document, the "South Carolina Department of Archives and History Record Detail" clears up there discrepancies. "William [illegibly faint] X" is actually "William Fitzgerald, his mark". "John Craw, his mark" is actually "John Craig, his mark". "Richard [illegibly faint]" is actually "Richard Cain". Finally, the detail record includes the name of "Charles Restine", though it does appear in place of "Joseph Crown" at the beginning of the original document. "Joseph Crown & others" appears on page 2, while "Charles Restine and others" appears on page 3.)
(Note: There is another slight but, understandable discrepancy in the above cited copied document. Yet, it is a vital piece of information to the validity of this specific post and must be cleared up. In the above cited document, the petitioners begin by saying..."that your petitioners were employed by Commodore Gillon [Alexander Gillon], most of them at this port of Pennsylvania...". Yet, a glance at the attached original document, reveals that the true statement is "...at this port of Philadelphia..." rather than "Pennsylvania". Again, this slight discrepancy is most likely the result of the transcriber's error and nothing more. The reader may see that it does change the meaning of the original and needed to be corrected here.)
In fact, referring to the note immediately above, this slightly altered phrase could indicate that all of these men were either Pennsylvanians or, possibly, natives of New Jersey, close across the Delaware River. This is one of the glaring discrepancies of the first and second crews of the frigate South Carolina. The first crew was a true conglomerate of men from several colonies as well as a large number of French sailors and marines. As stated earlier in this specific post, almost all of these men left the service of the frigate when she moored in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania late in May 1782. The officers of the patriot warship were desperate to find a new contingent of mariners and marines and sent recruiting parties out into Philadelphia itself and the surrounding counties to locate these much-needed men. The first crew was the largest to serve on board the frigate South Carolina, numbering about 550 men. The second crew was smaller, about 350 men, due to the critical need to depart Philadelphia prior to the frigate being seized by creditors who had their eyes on the patriot frigate. This "choir of conspirators" - as Commodore Alexander Gillon likened these creditors - rightly so felt that the contract signed between the Commodore and the Chevalier du Luxembourg, the actual owner of the frigate back in Europe, had been violated and wanted their ship back under the conditions of the contract. At some point in November 1782, Commodore Alexander Gillon and a few of his trusted officers wisely left the "City of Brotherly Love" prior to Gillon being arrested and traveled to Charleston, South Carolina, leaving the frigate South Carolina under the command of fellow South Carolinian, Captain John Joyner. Before departing Philadelphia, he advised Captain Joyner to get the warship out of the harbor as soon as possible before she could be seized and impounded, which Captain Joyner accomplished. Unfortunately, the patriot frigate was captured by three British Royal Navy frigates as she cleared the Capes of the Delaware on December 20-21, 1782.
Again, the text of the document cited as the "South Carolina Audited Accounts" indicates that these men composed a small part of the second crew and marines that departed the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and were captured on board the frigate South Carolina on December 20-21, 1782. The remainder of this particular post will follow the tenets of this overall blog - to document information on as many of the crew and marines who served on board the frigate South Carolina while she was under patriot control. A quick reference to the original document, "South Carolina Audited Accounts relating to Joseph Crown et al. SC1723", indicates that the men's names are not in alphabetical order but, rather seem to have been signed by the men in no particular order. The writer of this blog will organize these men alphabetically in order to make it easier to locate a specific man and his related information. Any additional information provided for these men is drawn from one or all of the following sources:
Lewis, James A. Neptune's Militia: The Frigate South Carolina during the American Revolution, (Kent, OH: The Kent State 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.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Allen, John - According to Lewis's work, page 135, John Allen's position on board the frigate was given as "officer". There is no information provided for John Allen in either Moss's work or Revill's work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Anderson, Amos - According to Lewis's work, page 135, Amos Anderson's position on board the frigate was given as "no position given". Moss's work, page 17, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A.1880A.". No information is provided for Amos Anderson in Revill's work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Banner, James - According to Lewis's work, page 136, James Banner's position on board the frigate was given as "no position given". There is no information provided for James Banner in either Moss's work or Revill's work. The fact that the original document is signed "James Banner, his mark" indicates that James Banner was illiterate.
_________________________________________________________________________
Brown, William - According to Lewis's' work, page 139, William Brown's position on board the frigate is given as "mariner". Moss's work, page 112, states that "he served as a mariner in the naval department aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 831; A.A.1880A; X364; C.S.". No information is provided for William Brown in Revill's work. The fact that the original document was signed as "William Brown, his mark" indicates that William Brown was illiterate.
__________________________________________________________________________
Cain, Richard - According to Lewis's work, page 140, Richard Cain's position on board the frigate is given as "sailor". No information is provided for Richard Cain in either Moss's work or Revill's work.
(Note: There is an possible alternate last name of "Cair" given in the Lewis's citation on Richard Cain. But, since the name appears as "Richard Cain" in the "South Carolina Department of Archives and History Record Detail", in the opinion of the writer of this blog, this will be the proper spelling of his last name.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Calahan, John - According to Lewis's work, page 140, John Calahan's position on board the frigate South Carolina was "sailor". Moss's work page 135, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A.1880A". No information is provided for "John Calahan" in Revill's work.
(Note: There are two possible alternate spellings of the last name of "Callaghan" and "Callihan" given in Lewis's citation on John Calahan. But, since the name appears as "John Calahan" in the "South Carolina Department of Archives and History Record Detail", in the opinion of the writer of this blog, this will be the proper spelling of the last name.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Cole, Asa - According to Lewis's work, page 142, Asa Cole's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "interpreter". Moss's work, page 184, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 1880A". No information is provided for "Asa Cole" in Revill's work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Connell, James - According to Lewis's work, page 142, James Connell's position on board the frigate was given as "no position given". Moss's work, page 191, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. Revill, p. 385.". Revill's work, page 385, indicates that on August 16, 1783, James Connell was issued a certificate by the state of South Carolina for 149p/18s/6d for his services on board the frigate South Carolina. This is completely conjecture on the part of the writer of this blog but, this certificate amount is normally well within the range of an amount issued to a person who served on board the frigate South Carolina as a midshipman or an experienced, skilled NCO. As it turns out, James Connell was a boatswain, which is an important NCOs position and is reflected in his paid certificate amount.
(Note: The writer of this blog has received a personal letter from a descendant of James Connell indicating that he was the first member of their family to come to America. Thus, he was an immigrant to these shores, which the writer feels is pertinent information to know concerning an individual who served on board the frigate South Carolina. An assumption drawn from the quality of the last name is that he immigrated from Ireland. This assumption has since proven to be inaccurate with James Connell actually being from Kintyre, Scotland.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Craig, John - According to Lewis's work, page 142, no "John Craig" appears in Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, section entitled "Appendix: Crew and Marines of the South Carolina", pages 135-170. The name "John Craw" appears, though. The name appears very faintly signed in the original document and was interpreted as "John Craw". But, the "South Carolina Department of Archives and History Record Detail" shows the signature to be "John Craig". The writer of this blog feels that this is correct and it was duly noted as a discrepancy in one of the above footnotes. Lewis's work, page 142, cites John Craig's position on board the frigate South Carolina as "no position given". No information is provided for "John Craw" or "John Craig" in either Moss's work or Revill's work. The fact that the original document was signed as "John Craig, his mark" indicates that John Craig was illiterate.
_________________________________________________________________________
Crown, Joseph - According to Lewis's work, page 143, Joseph Crown's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "petty officer". Moss's work states that "he served on the frigate South Carolina as a petty officer under Commodore Gillon.
A.A.1665 1/2". No information is provided for Joseph Crown in Revill's work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Evens, John - According to Lewis's work, page 146, John Evens's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "no position given". Moss's work, page 298, no "John Evens" is cited but, a "John Evans" appears and has the following entry recorded for him:
"Evans, John - he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 1880A"
No information is provided for John Evens (Evans) in Revill's work.
(Note: According to Lewis's work, page 146, there are three possible spellings of this man's last name: Evens, Evans or Evins. But, two sources of reputation - Moss's work and the South Carolina Department of Archives and History Record Detail - each contain a different spelling. Normally, the writer of this blog would quite readily agree with the Record Detail document but, since the rival work is Moss's work, Roster of South Carolina Patriots in the American Revolution, a well respect and thoroughly researched work, the writer of this blog will have to record both last names until he locates convincing evidence for either of the last names.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Fitzgerald, William - According to Lewis's work, page 147, the William Fitzgerald's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "no position given". Moss's work, page 315, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 1880A. He married a woman named Sarah _______." No information is provided for William Fitzgerald in Revill's work. The fact that the original document was signed "William [illegibly faint], X" seems to indicate that he signed it as "William Fitzgerald, his mark" and thus William Fitzgerald was illiterate.
(Note: William Fitzgerald's name appears in the South Carolina Audited Accounts document as "William [illegibly faint] X". Yet, the "South Carolina Department of Archives and History Record Detail" document cite his proper last name as being Fitzgerald. Thus, it is the opinion of the writer of this blog that this is indeed the correct last name for the individual.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Grinnell, William - According to Lewis's work, page 149, William Grinnell's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "officer". Moss's work, page 391, states that "he served on the frigate South Carolina. Revill, p. 385". Revill's work, page 385, indicates that on July 30, 1783, William Grinnell was issued a certificate by the state of South Carolina for 135p/7s/5d for his services on board the frigate South Carolina. Lewis's work specifically cites William Grinnell as being an "officer". The amount paid to William Grinnell, as cited in Revill's work, page 385, was well within the normal amount issued to a person who served on board the frigate South Carolina as a midshipman.
_________________________________________________________________________
Irwin, John - According to Lewis's work, page 152, no "John Irwin" appears in Lewis's work, Neptune's Militia, section entitled "Appendix: Crew and Marines of the South Carolina", pages 135-170. Both the names of "John Irvin" and "J. Irvine" appear, though. On the original document, the name is signed in a very tiny manner but, appears to be "John Irvin" to the writer of this blog. The "South Carolina Department of Archives and History Record Detail" document shows the signature to be "John Irwin" while, again, the name appears as "John Irvin" in the "South Carolina Audited Accounts" document. The writer of this blog has chosen to go with the interpretation of the name as "John Irvin". In either case, in Lewis's work, page 152, "John Irvin" and "J. Irvine" position on board the frigate South Carolina are given as being "officer". Moss's work, page 485, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 7238" but, records his name as being "Jay Irvine" which could have been mistaken for being "J. Irvine". No information is provided for "John Irwin", "John Irvin" or "J. (Jay) Irvine" in Revill's work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Lane, Daniel - According to Lewis's work, page 154, Daniel Lane's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "carpenter". Moss's work, page 551, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A.1880A; Y298". No information is provided for "Daniel Lane" in Revill's work.
(Note: the writer of this blog is in possession of the citation from "Books Y-Z" of the work entitled Stub Entries to Indents: Issuing in Payment of Claims Against South Carolina Growing Out of the Revolution. The entry cited above - Y298 - indicates that on November 8, 1785, Daniel Lane was issued a certificate by the state of South Carolina for 73p/2s/6d for his services on board the frigate South Carolina. The text of the stub indent makes no reference to Daniel Lane being a carpenter on board the patriot frigate. But, this amount is well within the amounts paid to other skilled enlisted men on board the frigate.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Liet, John - According to Lewis's work, page 155, John Liet's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "no position given". No information is provided for "John Liet" in either Moss's work or Revill's work.
(Note: Lewis's work page 155, gives the alternate spelling of the last name as "Lief". But, a reference to the original signed document clearly indicates the last name is "Liet".)
_________________________________________________________________________
Lunt, Richard - According to Lewis's work, page 156, Richard Lunt's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "gunner's yeoman". Moss's work, page 587, states that "he served as a gunner's yeoman aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 1880A; C669". Revill's work, page 385, indicates that on May 31, 1783, Richard Lunt was issued a certificate by the state of South Carolina for 52p/13s/3d for his services on board the frigate South Carolina. The fact that the original document is signed "Richard Lunt, his mark" indicates that Richard Lunt was illiterate.
(Note: the writer of this blog is in possession of the citation from "Books C-F" of the work entitled Stub Entries to Indents: Issuing in Payment of Claims Against South Carolina Growing Out of the Revolution. The entry cited above - C669 - states all that has been cited for this individual except that it makes the claim that he was issued the certificate by the state of South Carolina on May 31, 1785 instead of May 31, 1783. The text of the stub indent does indeed state that he was a "gunner's yeoman" on board the frigate South Carolina. Again, the amount of the certificate is well within the amounts paid to skilled enlisted men on board the frigate.)
(Note: The signature indicating that Richard Lunt was illiterate was actually signed as "Ritchard Lunt" instead of "Richard Lunt". This may have been due to the phonetic manner of English language pronunciation and thus was used as such by the transcriber of the original document.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Patterson, George - According to Lewis's work, page 160, George Patterson's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "master's mate". Moss's work, page 757, states that "he served on board the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 1880A". No information is provided for "George Patterson" in Revill's work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Restine, Charles - According to Lewis's work, page 163, there was no "Charles Restine" who served on board the frigate South Carolina. There was a "John Restine" (or Restive) whose position on board the frigate was given as "petty officer". Also, there was a "Charles Ristine" whose position was given as "no position given". No information for either "John Restine" or "Charles Ristine" are provided in either Moss' s work or Revill's work.
(Note: It is strange to the writer of this blog that both interpretations of this individual's name would be so lacking in information as regards these three key works. The original document does indeed contain the following opening sentence:
"The Petition of Charles Restine and others, petty officers, Mariners and Marines who Served on board the Frigate South Carolina...".
The name "Charles Restine" is clearly written in this sentence. Yet, in the signature portion of this original document, "Charles Restine" does not appear as a signed name on the document. Also, the alternate name of "Restive" only appears in Lewis's work and never appears in any of the other two works cited above.
________________________________________________________________________
Rey, William - According to Lewis's work, page 163, William Rey's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "sailor". Moss's work does not cite a "William Rey" but, on page 802 does cite a "William Ray" and states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina. A.A. 1880A". No information is provided for "William Rey (or Ray)" in Revill's work.
(Note: In Lewis's work, page 162 and page 163 both contain a citation for "William Ray" and "William Rey", respectively. In both cases, his position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "sailor". In the original document, "William Rey" was the second signed name in the first column and is clearly signed as "Wm (William) Rey".)
________________________________________________________________________
Spencer, John - According to Lewis's work, page 166, John Spencer's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "Captain of Marines". Moss's work, page 887, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina as an officer. A.A. 1880A; A.A. 7238". No information is provided for "John Spencer" in Revill's work.
________________________________________________________________________
Williams, Thomas - According to Lewis's work, page 170, Thomas Williams's position on board the frigate South Carolina was given as "sailor". Moss's work, page 998, states that "he served aboard the frigate South Carolina as a legionnaire. A.A. 1880A; A.A. 8577". No information is provided for "Thomas Williams" in Revill's work.
(Note: This is the sole instance in the twenty-two men whose information is cited above where the citation for services on board the frigate South Carolina are in a direct discrepancy. Lewis's work clearly states that Thomas Williams was a "sailor" which indicates to the writer of this blog that he was involved on board this warship as a member of the maritime crew. Yet, Moss's work clearly states that he served "..as a legionnaire..." which would possibly mean as a combat soldier or marine. Further research is necessary to clarify this situation.
________________________________________________________________________
The lengthy list above contains the names of twenty-two men. They are quite diverse in the positions they claimed to have served on board the frigate South Carolina. They may or may not be literate, as shown by the number of them - five all told - that signed this petition with "his mark". The breakdown of their positions they claimed to have worked on board the patriot frigate are as follows:
Officer/ "Captain of Marines" - 4
Petty Officer - 2
Skilled Enlisted Man - 4
Sailor/ Mariner - 5
No Position Given - 7
(Note: This final position cited - "no position given" - seems to frequently occur in any list of men who served on board the frigate South Carolina. Yet, they did indeed serve on board the patriot warship. More than likely, they were either sailors or "landsmen", individuals with little or no experience with nautical pursuits but, signed on board the frigate in order to receive "on the job" training while the frigate was at sea. This group of men forms the numerically largest group of crew members of the frigate South Carolina cited above.)
Two unusual items stands out concerning this "petition" on the parts of these twenty-two men who supposedly served on board the frigate South Carolina. First, there is the issue of previous recompense for some of these men whose names are included in this petition. Whenever the writer of this blog has collected information from an individual's pension application, usually there is a statement towards the end of the pension application to the effect that the man was not at the time of the application nor ever has received any type of pension or recompense from the state of South Carolina or anywhere else for that matter. One would assume that this would be the case for any request for financial assistance from a specific state or the federal government, regardless of whether the request is in the form of an actual pension application or a "petition" such as we have here. But, Revill's work, Copy of the Original Index Book: Showing the Revolutionary Claims Filed in South Carolina Between August 20, 1783 and August 31, 1786, page 385-386, gives information concerning if these specific men were indeed issued a certificate of recompense for services provided the state of South Carolina while on board the frigate South Carolina. According to Revill's provided information, four of these men had already received monetary recompense well before the "petition" was issued to "...the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina...". These four men and the dates of their issuance of certificates are as follows:
Connell, James August 8, 1783
Grinnell, William July 30, 1783
Lane, Daniel November 11, 1785
Lunt, Richard May 5, 1783 or 1785
(Note: the monetary amounts of each certificate is irrelevant to the fact that they were indeed issued financial recompense by the state of South Carolina. The amounts can be found in the above citations of each man's personal information.)
The petition itself is dated "November 28, 1805" which places the document either twenty years or twenty-two years after the certificates were issued to these four men by the state of South Carolina. The writer of this blog believes that this fact of priro recompense may well have excluded these men from receiving recompense but, may have had the effect of casting doubt on the petition document as a whole. The writer of this blog has located no proof that any monetary recompense as a direct result of this petition was ever paid to any of these individuals. The "petition" and its associated documents are silent on this issue.
Second, there is the issue of whether these men were actually on board the frigate South Carolina for her second, brief cruise and were thus captured when the patriot frigate encountered the three British men-of-war off the Capes of the Delaware on December 21, 1782. All of these men must have been from Pennsylvania, most likely the immediate environs of Philadelphia and the surrounding areas, due to the statement to that effect contained within the petition itself - "...that your petitioners were employed by Commodore Gillon [Alexander Gillon], most of them at this port of Philadelphia...". That would indicate that all of these men were indeed members of the second crew and marine contingent of the frigate South Carolina. This should be corroborated easily by examining the rosters of the three Royal Navy men-of-war, HMS Diomede, HMS Quebec and HMS Astraea, for these same names appearing as prisoners of war on board each of these British warships as they were being transported back to New York City harbor. Yet, the writer of this blog was truthfully shocked when only a single man's name - Charles Restine -could be located among the prisoner of war lists. He was carried on board the HMS Quebec to New York City. The British would have been meticulous in recording these men and their given names. So, why does only a single man from the above list of twenty-two turn up on one of these prisoner of war lists if these men were indeed members of the second, brief cruise of the frigate South Carolina? The following post is intended to support this particular post and further corroborate (or not) the issue of these men being on the second, brief cruise of the frigate South Carolina.