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 Joshua Mersereau S7224
The "Pension Application of Joshua Mersereau S7224" is only one of several pension applications submitted by men who served on board the frigate South Carolina during the American Revolution. At least one author has noted that this South Carolinian ship-of-war possibly generated more written material than any other ship - Continental Navy, state navy or privateer - during the entire course of the conflict. The pension applications surely rate among those written documents. But, for the writer of this blog who has become accustomed to using and recording information contained within these pension applications, it has also presented the first time that he has observed one of these applications being disputed by a government official.
The writer of this blog has been acquainted with the story of Joshua Mersereau and his pension application S7224 for quite some time now as a part of the numerous documents produced by the association of so many individuals with the frigate South Carolina. But, the thought never occurred to me that one of these pension applications might be refused by an official of the new government of the United States of America. None of any of the other pension applications encountered in my research have been refused prior to this one. Numerous of these pension applications were deferred long enough that once they were issued the applicant was deceased and the pension was awarded to their wife or next of kin. There are indeed pension applications that were "rejected" and would receive, as a result of this action, a "R" preceding the number of the pension application. But, since Joshua Mersereau's application number is preceded by an "S" designation, this means the pension was awarded to a survivor of the American Revolution and a person who actually submitted the application.
The document recording the rejection of Joshua Mersereau's pension application has only recently come to the attention of the writer of this blog. The writer of this blog is familiar with the pension application as it exists on the website entitled "Southern Campaigns American Revolution Pension Statement & Rosters" and is cited as being S7224. This document does not contain within it the document that disputed Joshua Mersereau's pension application. In fact, this document of disputation seems to have originated as a result of Joshua Mersereau filing for a bounty land warrant via the "State of Pennsylvania" on March 3, 1855. The writer of this blog has never seen this document of disputation before and cannot locate it now on the internet. Luckily, the writer made a copy of this document (almost by accident) and has the hard copy currently in his possession. The government official who drafted this document of disputation signed his name as "L. P. Waldo, Commissioner" and issued the disputation on November 11, 1854 from the Pension Office.
Commissioner Waldo makes some very compelling arguments in his decision to decline the land warrant application which received the land warrant number of "B.L.Wt.3792-160-55". The writer of this blog has decided to cite the entirety of the document of disputation due to these compelling arguments and the cogent points made within the document.
(Note: Before citing the document of disputation in full, the writer of this blog feels the need to cite ancillary information introduced at the beginning of this land warrant application. The information begins with the proper pension application number for Joshua Mersereau as "S7224" but, is followed by a bracketed statement that "[this folder is 170 pages long]". The next bit of information makes it clear that Joshua Mersereau (IV) is the son of Joshua Mersereau (III) and the brother of John L. (Mersereau) the latter of whom received the pension application number of "S7217". The ancillary information then concludes with the official statement that this is a "Declaration for a Land Warrant Agreeable to the Act of Congress of 3rd March 1855 State of Pennsylvania". The date cited immediately above falls after the date of the document of disputation - November 11, 1854.)
"Pension Office
November 11, 1854
Sir:
I have very carefully re-examined all the papers in the case of Joshua Mersereau of N.Y. together with the additional evidence now filed by you, and have to report my convictions of the invalidity of the claim for the reasons which follows. His whole statement of his service is given in a manner remarkably confused for a man of his evident intelligence, if he really did as he alleged. From the commencement of his service in 1775 to his appointment in the Commissaries Department in 1777, he does not seem to have served in any regularly organized Corps. He enters the recruiting service in 1775, (rather early for recruiting service) in the uniform of an Ensign. In three months he is a volunteer private under Lord Stirling in an expedition that lasted ten days. A few months later he is a Virginia Rifleman. Now he is made a spy by General Washington, after so servicing for a short time, he joins General Washington's army. He does not inform us in what grade or under what subordinate officers, soon after he is purchasing horses for General LaFayette and General Shifflin. Directly he is a private under Lord Stirling. In a few months after he is acting as Deputy Commissary under General Mifflin Q.M. Genl., in which capacity he declares he remained from October 1777 to April 1779, when he again becomes a private under Lord Sterling, and is appointed a guide to lead Col. Hazen's division to Richmond Fort on Staten Island. Soon after we find him with twenty others capturing a Col. Jones. Then as a volunteer under a Captain Story to capture a British Colonel. He does not enlighten us as to the success of this adventure. Now he is "on the lines" to obtain information. Now he is defending Brunswick and now Rahway, and lastly he is a carpenter on board the Ship South Carolina, where he ends his adventures by being taken prisoner together with the officers who so ingloriously yielded up that noble vessel without a struggle.
To this narrative there are several objections, to my mind. It is singularly disjointed. He rarely condescends to enlighten us as to the subordinate officers under whom he served. He charges [changes?] his grad [grade?] from officers to private and from private officer, and his locality from land to sea with as much [fercility?] as though he had been endowed with the wonderful properties of a Proteus, and was ubiquity itself. He was born in New Jersey, entered service in New York, soon joins a corps of Virginia Riflemen, again returns to service in his native north and ends his career on the sea. Is it not remarkable that history has been silent in relation to the services of a man of such remarkable versatility and talent? This silence on the part of historians would not be so ominous if he had slowly fought his way from rank to rank. But agreeably to his own statements when the Ship South Carolina surrendered and when his services closed, he was still in his minority;, being but 19 years old, having been born in June 1761. Now I confess that, to my mind, it is almost incredible that a boy of a little over 13 years of age, should have been appointed a recruiting officer in 1775, but that a lad of 16, should be taken from the ranks, and made a commissary of Prisoners, in another state than his own surpasses my power of credulity; -- I would also, remark that as far as his statements can be compared with the rolls of this office, they are discredited. We have a complete roll of the men on board the South Carolina when she surrendered, but his name is onto [not] found. -- I am bound to conclude that he and the Commissary of Prisoners, shown by the Records furnished by you, are different men. Surely a boy of sixteen years of age could not have been appointed to such a station.
There is not a shadow of proof in support of the service which he alledges he rendered before his appointment in the Commissary Department. I cannot believe that he was the commissary and his alledgations [sic] of service on the South Carolina is discredited by the rolls. The case is, therefore rejected.
I am respectfully
Your Obt Servt
L. P. Waldo, Commissioner"
(Note: The name of the patriot frigate - South Carolina - has been italicized by the author so that it is more prominent within the text. In the original document, it is not italicized and appears as regular font print.)
"L.P. Waldo, Commissioner" makes numerous salient points in his rejection of Joshua Merssereau's Declaration for a Land Warrant. Joshua Mersereau's account of his service during the American Revolution has him never serving within what Commissioner Waldo terms as "...any regularly organized Corps...". Joshua Mersereau never names any of the subordinate officers under whom he directly served. He almost certainly would have recalled at least a few of their names and placed them in his pension application. Yet, he names numerous famous officers, not the least of which are George Washington and the Marquis de LaFayette, with whom he seems to have established close relationships. In his narrative, he moves seemingly easily and quite freely from his home state of New Jersey to New York. Afterwards, he serves in a Virginia unit of riflemen and then returns to his home state for further services. He ends the war serving on board the frigate South Carolina and is paroled, even though, he was only a simple carpenter instead of being an officer.
To the mind of this blog writer, Joshua Mersereau's account of his services during the American Revolution can seem to be incredible to say the very least. He served on both land and sea and served well and valiantly. He suffered imprisonment at the hands of the British in one of the most deadly of their prisons - the prison "hulks" moored just off shore in Wallabout, Bay, NY. Yet, some of the "discrepancies" pointed out above by "L.P. Waldo, Commissioner" are cogent in the extreme and seem to cast doubt upon the veracity of the claims of Joshua Mersereau. According to page 127 of his very lengthy pension application, he was eventually awarded "...$339.50 per annum commencing March 4. 1831, for services as a seaman and Assistant Commissary of Prisoners.". This is quite a large amount for a single man to receive for service as a seaman. But, with his service also as an Assistant Commissary of Prisoners, this would be a proper amount of compensation for his duties associated with this sort of position. The question is did he actually serve in the capacity he states that he served in his pension application. Not only does "L.P. Waldo, Commissioner" dispute his statements in Joshua Mersereau's pension application but, there are what appears to be significant omissions of evidence in secondary sources which seem to indicate that Joshua Mersereau may have well falsified his claims in his pension application. There can be no way of knowing his reasoning for doing so but, this may become more evident in the next post which will examine each of these secondary sources in detail.