Baylis calls Woodrow an "Arrant Coward"
On 15 Sept 1757 we learned that, Lt Charles Smith, who supervised building Fort Loudoun, killed a man with one punch.
Now we learn of the man, John Baylis, who surveyed the first major addition to Winchester VA in 1752 since its founding in 1744 was killed in a duel in 1765.
But before he died in that duel, he awaits a duel on 29 Dec 1757.
Baylis wrote, "I waited on the said Alixander Woodrow next Morning with my sword & Pistol’s in order to give or take . . ."
His opponent, Alixander Woodrow, was a no show.
And that no-show denies there was a duel challenge.
As of posting this, we have not found this "no-show" on the roster indicating "Alixander" Woodrow's rank in the Virginia Regiment but we will add the link once we find it.
John Baylis buys an advertisement to tell the public about it on 28 Jan 1758.
In that paid ad was a challenge to the coward to do something about it.
What does that mean?
A new Duel date?
Where was the original duel location of 29 Dec 1757?
Founders Online believes the confrontation occurred in Fredericksburg - a place where the Virginia Regiment often recruited new men.
Fredericksburg was also the same town Lt Charles Smith, the foreman of building Fort Loudoun, killed a man with one punch 15 Sept 1757.
It is interesting that the same Lt Charles Smith writes a month later, a letter to Colonel George Washington 28 Feb 1758 denying his involvement with the officers Baylis alleges to have encouraged this confrontation.
It is also interesting to note how Colonel George Washington himself might have been snagged into a challenge of a duel in 11 Dec 1755 and even more interesting how he eased himself out of such a corner.
As contrast, perhaps John Baylis was not the kind of man to find a smooth way out.
Below is John Baylis' ad compliant.
First, let us just enjoy the vocabulary of this spirited, educated man. You don't see the word prolixity anymore, but you do see it practiced even here. :) And then there's reference to the Punctilio's of Honor.
Now to explain more of his reasons behind his advertised complaint, he wrote a letter to Colonel George Washington 28 Jan 1758:
Trash Talking Lord Fairfax:
This is one of the complaints.
John Baylis writes:
Their [meaning some officers in the Virginian Regiment] abusing Lord Fairfax by setting Woodrow on & speaking disrespectfully of him as well as Threatg his person, they must upon mature Deliberation, condemn themselves for.
This trash talk about Lord Fairfax has extra meaning for John Baylis.
He was commissioned by Lord Fairfax to survey the 1752 addition of lots and streets to Winchester VA.
Baylis of course was loyal to Lord Fairfax just for that association.
There's a memorial plaque to commemorate that fact today. It has been sitting there since at least before 1912, the date of the publication discussing the plaque.
It sits in front of the 1840 County Courthouse, transformed as a civil war museum situated on the Winchester VA walking mall.
Baylis survey also coincided with officially establishing the name of Winchester. Prior to 1752 you would see the town name as Opekon or Frederick Towne. This is why you see welcome signs at all the entrances to Winchester stating "Founded 1744", but on the walking mall you see Winchester "Established 1752." The 2nd 1752 event of that town enlargement survey by Baylis was the big calendar change of 11 missing days in Sept 1752.
But back to that trash talk on Lord Fairfax.
Ownership of the land went through quite a mix-up. Conflicts between the Governor awarding land and a previous King awarding land to Lord Fairfax caused this confusion.
Lawsuits initiated during this time over who owned what went on for decades. Jost Hite, one of the original white pioneers of the land, launched a lawsuit against Lord Fairfax in 1749 variously lost or won on appeal in the 1780s and not settled until 1802 when all litigants were deceased.
That lawsuit did refer to a survey by James Wood the founder of Winchester VA.
He conducted a survey paid by the Crown and accompanied James Thomas Jr paid by Lord Fairfax on a trip to find and survey the headwaters of the northern branch of the Rappahannock 7 Oct 1736.
Source of that is page 144 of Virginia Surveyors Foundation : Virginia Association of Surveyors, 1979.
A lot of locals throughout the Northern Neck Proprietary knew about disputed ownership of land.
On top of that, conflict, Lord Fairfax was charging what was called Quitrents for those who lived on his Northern Neck Proprietary. So there was sure to be high emotions.
The Mob got the Wrong Man:
A mob had come to rough him up. But they hurt the wrong man. Baylis writes GW in that same letter:
It was observed that one Mr Cooper went from my Lodgings in the Night & got most Inhumanly Beaten by the soldiers for no other Offence but that they thought it was I—so I was credibly Informed.
This Sir is far from a curcumstantial Acct which if delivered minutely would confirm as bad an oppinion of the matter as I have.
That mob came more than once:
I can prove the Soldiers who came to my Lodgings to Mob me said (upon my asking Questions) they had good Backers & that their Officers sent them. Which seem’d true to me, for in conversation with the Officers, after that, I never heard a Soldier blamed for it nor no care was taken to punish them for their Insolence, till the Sherriff [Lewis Stephens] Complained to a Majestrate, who Ordered the Offending soldiers to Goal [Jail ] for want of Security for future good behaviour.
Indeed Capt. Bullett behaved well in every thing but a Neglect of punishing the soldiers, he Dispersed himself After I sent for him. Tho’ he appeared Ready (upon complaint made as aforesaid to put the Offenders under Military punishment).
There is no record of GW responding. GW is still dealing with dysentery. He's been gone from Fort Loudoun since 9 Nov 1757.
So who is this Baylis?
Baylis surveyed an enlargement of the city of Winchester in 1752 as discussed above.
Just so there is no confusion, John Baylis had a brother Captain William Baylis.
On 12 May 1756 GW ordered Baylis's brother, Captain William Baylis to build a fort at the mouth of the Cacapon. That same brother in June 1756 let a militia to fight Indians near Pearsal's fort in present day Romney WV. That same brother was also ordered to work the harvest 21 July 1756 and to disband once that harvest is done. Both brothers were in the Prince William militia.
Our man John Baylis was referred by Lord Fairfax as a Major of the militia 13 July 1756. This man, John Baylis, had a future. He was part of the elite. He was head of his county's militia. He served in the House of Burgesses 1761 to 1765.
But this moment in 1758 seems to be a sign of the future, a foreshadow of a different, final duel, years later in 1765, that ended John Baylis' life.
Here is a biography of our man John Baylis:
From this source, pages 133 to 141 THE BAYLIS FAMILY OF VIRGINIA Compiled by MRS. WILLETTA BAYLIS BLUM, Copyright 1958 by MRS. WILLETTA BAYLIS BLUM and DR. WILLLAM BLUM, SR. Washington D.C.
.
John Baylis.
John Baylis was born about 1727 and was killed in a duel at Dumfries, Va. on September 24, 1765.
About 1754 he married Jane Blackburn, oldest daughter of
Richard Blackburn and Mary Watts (Ashton) (Blackburn) of
Rippon Lodge, Prince William Co., Va.
In the Bond book at Manassas, Prince William Co.? Va., p. 67, Jane Baylis is named as executor for John Baylis in his will dated October 22, 1764
134
and filed on October 9, 1765. Her brother, Thomas Blackburn, was one of the bondsmen.
The facts about the unfortunate duel that led to the death of John Baylis are generally agreed upon, but there is considerable conflict between various versions of the circumstances leading up to the duel. John Scott, 18 year old son of Rev, James Scott, challenged John Baylis to a duel. At the appointed time John Scott appeared with his brother-in-law, Cuthbert Bullitt, as his second. Bullitt took the place of John Scott and in the ensuing duel shot John Baylis in the groin. Baylis died about five hours later at Rippon Lodge, where he is probably buried. While a jury acquitted Cuthbert Bullitt, feeling against John Scott as the initiator of the duel was so high that Scott had to leave Virginia for Scotland. Some time later, Cuthbert Bullitt settled in Kentucky and still later in Indiana.
John Baylis was a distinguished citizen of Virginia, and but for his untimely death in 1765, he would probably have reached great heights in the colony, state and nation. His high standing in the community and the generally expressed feelings against those responsible for his death, prove conclusively that no acts or words of John Baylis justified the challenge to and the tragic result of this duel. As early as April 30, 1763 (Prince William Co. Book of Deeds P, p. 324), Matthew Gregg acknowledged that he had falsified “with reference to the character for honesty of John Baylis” and confesses, “I believe in my conscience that he is as honest a man as ever Existed and has as much Honor in his dealings with mankind.”
The following summary of the activities of John Baylis indicates the wide range of his interests and the high regard in which he was held. His civilian assignments include the following.
In 1752, with Lord Thomas Fairfax he surveyed and laid out a part of the city of Winchester, Va. This service is commemorated by his name on a bronze tablet in front of the Court
135
[ see picture of 1752 addition surveyed by Baylis]
Survey of a part of Winchester, Va. made by John Baylis.
136
[ see picture of plaque mentioning Baylis's survey]
bronze tablet in honor of John Baylis, erected in front of the Courthouse at Winchester,
137
House at Winchester. This survey is referred to in the following grant, quoted from T. K. Cartmell, “Shenandoah Valley Pioneers”, p. 131.
“The Right Honorable Thomas Lord Fairfax, Baron of Cameron in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, Proprietor of the Northern Neck of Virginia to all to whom this present writing shall come sends greeting. Know ye that for good causes and in Consideration of the Rents and Covenants hereafter reserved and expressed, I have given, granted and confirmed, and by these presents for me, my heirs and assigns, do give, grant and confirm unto Mr. James Wood of the County of Frederick and Colony aforesaid, a certain Lott or half acre of land heretofore waste and ungranted, situate, lying and being in the Town of Winchester in the said County. Numbered ( 1 ) and bounded as in the survey and plat of the said town made by Mr. John Baylis. Also one other Lott or Tract containing five acres of Land, numbered 53, etc .
“Dated this fifteenth day of May in the twenty sixth year of the Reign of our Sovereign, Lord George the Second. Domini one thousand seven hundred and fifty three.”
It is also recorded that George Washington received a town lot in Winchester and five acres in the country for grazing.
In William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd Series, Vol. IV j and also in Henning’s Statutes at Large, 7H, p 427, reference is made to an act of Assembly to enlarge the town of Dumfries, Va. “The incorporators were all men of prominence in the locality”. The list includes 14 persons, one of whom was John Baylis. In 1761 John Baylis was appointed a trustee of the town of Dumfries.
From 1761 to 1765 John Baylis was a member of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, representing Prince William Co. It is recorded that his two brothers, Samuel and William Baylis, voted for him. According to the Journal of the House of Burgesses of Virginia from 1761 to 1765, in Nov. 1761, the election of John Baylis and Henry Lee as Burgesses was ques-
138
tioned. After a long investigation, the committee approved their election, and severely condemned the action of Howston Hooe, Sheriff, for his actions in attempting to keep the polls open longer than had been agreed upon.
John Baylis was the “King’s Magistrate” at Dumfries, Va. On p 48 of the “very old Bond Book” of Prince William Co., on May 25, 1761, John Baylis is listed as a bondsman for William Tackett, Executor of the estate of William Spiller. According to Prince William Co. Book of Deeds Q, p 141-142, on July 24, 1764, “John Baylis of the town of Dumfries in the county of Prince William, Gentleman, is made true and lawful attorney to George Booth, Jr., etc.”’ ....
On p 50 of the very old Bond Book of Prince William Co., John Baylis is recorded as a “justice” in 1762, 1763, 1764, and 1765. In Henning’s Statutes at Large, 7H, p 472, John Baylis is mentioned as an assignee of George Hancock. In Henning, 8H, p 157, in Oct. 1765, he was appointed as one of the commissioners to settle the accounts of Truro and Fairfax Parishes. (As this was a few weeks after his death, it indicates that news did not then travel quickly.)
John Baylis was active and prominent in the affairs of the
Established (Episcopal) Church. From 1757 to 1763 he was a vestryman of Dettington Parish in Prince William Co., and from 1760 to 1762 a church warden in that Parish. In the Dettington Parish Vestry Book, in 1760 and 1761, the name of John Baylis as a church warden appears on five indentures of slaves, orphans, or illegitimate children. In the History of Truro Parish in Virginia, by Rev. Philip Slaughter, in Nov. 1764, John Baylis was one of five commissioners “appointed to adjust and divide the cost of the Glebe and improvements thereon, and of the Church plate and the 50,000 pounds of tobacco levied for building churches, between the two parishes.”
John Baylis also had a distinguished military record. During the French-Indian War, he had the ranks of Captain, Major and Colonel. In the “Writings of George Washing-
139
ton,” Vol. 1, 1745 to 1756, p 367, it states that orders were
given to deliver to Capt. John Baylis tools to build a small fort at the mouth of Little Cacapon River (where it empties into the Potomac). On p 407, George Washington states that on July
21, 1756, Major John Baylis and his men were ordered to assist the inhabitants to collect their harvest.
In the Court Order Book of Prince William Co., Va., for 1755 to 1757, John Baylis made oath of the days on duty of the militia of the county, and the money expended, including money expended by his brother, Capt. William Baylis. On June 28, 1756, he was appointed Major of the militia by the Governor of Virginia. In September 1758, in the Act of the Assembly allowing pay for services in the French-Indian War, Capt. John Baylis was awarded 780 pounds of tobacco.
John Baylis was an extensive land owner in both Prince William and Frederick Counties, Va., as shown by the following records. On July 15, 1757, he bought 57 acres adjoining Col. Richard Blackburn in Prince William Co. This land was surveyed by John Baylis.
On Nov. 1, 1764, Humphrey Calvert and wife Catherine leased to John Baylis 400 acres in Prince William Co., Va. On June 5, 1765, John and Jane Baylis leased to Lewis Neil 400 acres deeded to John Baylis by Lord Fairfax on Oct. 10, 1754.
According to Prince William Co. Deed Book W, p 28-34, on March 16, 1764, John Gregg and Elizabeth Adams “lease and release” to John Baylis 670 acres of land on north side of North Run of Quantico, Co. of Prince William. Consideration 40 £. According to Prince William Co. Deed Book P, p 9, on July 15, 1760, John Baylis buys 140 acres from Benjamin Sebastian and Priscilla his wife, on Marumsco Creek.
On March 13, 1764, Benjamin Adams lets to John Baylis land purchased by John Gregg, de’d, and Richard Blackburn, dec’d (Pr. Wm. Co. Book Deeds Q, p 203-205). On Sept. 24 and 25, 1764, Philemon Waters and Sarah his wife, lease
140
and release to John Baylis land on South Run of Quantico (Pr. Wm Book Deeds Q,p 269-71). On April 1 and 2, 1765, William Moore and Margaret his wife, lease and release to John Baylis one lot or half acre of land in the Town of Dumfries? numbered 44 (Pr. Wm. Co. Deed Book Q, p 272-274).
In Pr. Wm. Co. Deed Book R, p 1 19-120, on Oct. 2, 1769, Henry Lee, Daniel Payne and Jane Baylis, Executors of the estate of John Baylis, Deceased, deed to the Rev. James Scott the lands sold to John Baylis by Philemon Waters, in obedience to a clause in the will of John Baylis directing it to be sold.
In Pr. Wm. Co. Deed Book W, p 115, on Feb. 12, 1785, William Baylis, 112, Gent, and Eliz. his wife, and Henry Baylis, Gent, of Fauquier Co. deed to Alexander Lithgow and Cuthbert Bullitt of Prince William County “all that Messuage, Tenement and Tract of Land . . . purchased by John Baylis, Gent, father of the said William and Henry from a certain John Gregg . . . and by the said John Baylis Devised to the said William and Henry Baylis”. The consideration was “180 £ current money of Virginia”.
In Pr. Wm. Co. Deed Book W, p 236-242, on Dec. 17 and 18, 1781, “William Baylis, 112, and Elizabeth his wife of Fauquier Co., Va. lease and release to John Hooe of Prince William Co., 344 acres in Prince William Co. on the Branches of Hooes and Morumscos Creek, the said land was granted to John Wallace by deed from the Proprietor’s office dated 1724, by him bequested to his two sons Thomas and Burr Wallace. Thomas conveyed his to William Baylis, 1 , Grandfather of the aforesaid William, 1 12, who gave it to his son John, 1 1, father of the aforesaid William, 112, . . . and by the said Sebastian sold to the said John Baylis, 11, in 1760, who by his last will and testament in the year 1764 or five gave it together with the other part to his son Wm., 1 12, aforesaid party to this deed.” The witnesses included Cornelius Kincheloe, the second husband of Jane Blackburn (Baylis).
Among the early purchases of land in Augusta and Fred
141
erick Counties, Va. by John Baylis are the following, recorded
in the Records of the Land Office in Richmond, Va.
In Vol. G., on Oct. 15, 1750, he bought 400 acres on the
Shenandoah River, Augusta Co., Va.
In Vol. H., on Oct. 10, 1754, he bought 423 acres on
“Opeckon” Creek (now spelled “Opequon”) in Frederick Co.,
Va.
In Vol. K., on Mar. 28, 1760, he bought 400 acres on
^^Opeckon” Creek in Frederick Co., Va.
Incident to his land holdings, John Baylis owned slaves.
On May 9, 1763, he bought from Abram Farrow for 150 £,
three slaves and one child, and cattle, horses and furniture.
This very incomplete record of the activities of John Baylis
shows that he was an outstanding member of his town, colony,
and church, and that his descendants may well be proud of him
as their ancestor.
11-W. Jane Blackburn (Baylis)
Jane Blackburn (Baylis) was born in 1733 at Rippon Lodge,
near Dumfries, Va. She was the daughter of Richard Black¬
burn and Mary Watts (Ashton) (Blackburn).
A few years after the death of John Baylis in 1765, his
widow, Jane Blackburn (Baylis) married Cornelius Kincheloe.
Pages 133-141
The Baylis Family, Compiled by MRS. WILLETTA BAYLIS BLUM, published 1758 printed by Shenandoah Publishing House Inc. , Strasburg VA.
https://archive.org/details/baylisfamilyofvi00blum/page/132/mode/2up?view=theater
End of our story.
Compiled and authored by Jim Moyer 1/28/2022, updated 1/30/2022
Below are links and sources in the course of doing our research.
Letters looked at during course of Research
To George Washington from John Baylis,
30 January 1758
From John Baylis 30th Jan. 1758 Sir
I send you here Inclosed an Advertisement such as contains fewer Lines then the other you saw & answers my purpose equally as well.
I am not naturaly Inclined to expose the Foibles of mankind because many of them happen in the course of my own Actions, but in this case I am too sensibly touched to content myself without giving to my Acquaintances a circumstantial acct of the whole affair,
Accusing Alexander Woodrow a Coward
which must consequently expose
those who were conserned in it
as well as the Intolarable Insolence & cowardice
of Alixand. Woodrow
who has no way Left
to contradict this Just Asspertion
but by shewing the World to the contrary.
Accusing GW of defending without knowledge Your Observation in Regard to the Officers not being perticularized was Just, which you must Remember I gave up & confessed my error, & told you I would Rectify it But putting yrself in a passion & openly espousing the causes of the Officers before you knew whether they were Justly or unjustly charged. this I say accompanied with such a Menacing Air to a Person whom you are sensible always preserved the greatest Regard for you, was a Little Imprudent and unjustifiable.1
It’s certain some of yr Officers behave I’ll if the following hints have the least conection with Truth.2
Officers Authorized this I can prove the Soldiers who came to my Lodgings to Mob me said (upon my asking Questions) they had good Backers & that their Officers sent them. Which seem’d true to me, for in conversation with the Officers, after that, I never heard a Soldier blamed for it nor no care was taken to punish them for their Insolence, till the Sherriff Complained to a Majestrate, who Ordered the Offending soldiers to Goal for want of Security for future good behaviour.
Indeed Capt. Bullett behaved well in every thing but a Neglect of punishing the soldiers, he Dispersed himself After I sent for him. Tho’ he appeared Ready (upon complaint made as aforesaid to put the Offenders under Military punishment).3
Trash Talk I can prove sundry ungentleman like Actions as well as Words, droped from Some of yr Officers, Which did not escape my Notice & Inteligence.
Their abusing Lord Fairfax by setting Woodrow on & speaking disrespectfully of him as well as Threatg his person, they must upon mature Deliberation, condemn themselves for.
They mobbed the wrong man
It was observed that one Mr Cooper went from my Lodgings in the Night & got most Inhumanly Beaten by the soldiers for no other Offence but that they thought it was I—so I was credibly Informed.4
This Sir is far from a curcumstantial Acct which if delivered minutely would confirm as bad an oppinion of the matter as I have.
Hoping for harmony with GW I have in this narrow Detail confined myself to truth without exagerating the matter. truly the Motive of these Lines is to gratify yr Request & keep up that good Harmony that usually subsisted between us, & Hope that a few Hot & ungarded words, from both sides, will not make the least breach in friendship between us.
Please favour me with a Line by the first oppertunity intimateing yr sentiments on the Matter.5
I am Sir with (the ussual) Respect yr Most Obedt Humble Servant
John Baylis
ALS, DLC:GW.
1. Apparently John Baylis, captain and in 1758 major in the Prince William County militia, met with GW at some time after the incident with Alexander Wodrow in Winchester on 28 Dec. 1757 and before Baylis wrote his Advertisement (printed as an Enclosure to this letter) on 28 Jan. 1758.
The confrontation may have taken place in Fredericksburg from where GW wrote John Blair on 30 and 31 Jan. 1758.
2. For the officers’ version of the incident, see Nathaniel Thompson to GW, 20 Feb. 1758, and Charles Smith to GW, 23 Feb. 1758. When he wrote “I’ll,” Baylis must have meant “ill.”
3. Because of GW’s prolonged absence from the Virginia Regiment after 9 Nov. 1757 when he went home ill, the usual letter-book copies of orders to the officers of the regiment are lacking.
It is clear, however, that at some time after Dinwiddie agreed to it on 19 Oct. 1757, John McNeill, captain lieutenant of GW’s company at Fort Loudoun, was ordered to the southern frontier to assume command of the company of Robert Spotswood, presumed to be dead,
and that Lt. Thomas Bullitt, who had briefly been in command of Peter Hog’s company in Augusta County pending the arrival of Maj. Andrew Lewis, was recalled to Fort Loudoun to replace McNeill as captain lieutenant of GW’s company.
Capt. Robert Stewart, the senior officer at Fort Loudoun in GW’s absence, left the fort on 16 Dec. 1757 to go to Lancaster, Pa., where he hoped to persuade Col. John Stanwix to aid him in getting a commission in the British army.
When Stewart left Winchester, Bullitt became the senior officer, and so he was in charge when the fracas between Baylis and the officers took place in late December. He remained the senior officer at the fort until GW’s return in early April.
The sheriff of Frederick County was Lewis Stephens.
4. This may have been Thomas Cooper, a landowner in Frederick County in 1760.
5. No response from GW has been found.
Source:
.
.
.
From George Washington to William Cocks,
12 May 1756
To William Cocks [Winchester, 12 May 1756]
To Captain William Cockes. Of the First Company of Rangers. Sir, Captain Baylis,1 of the Prince-William Militia, will give you this; and leave you a reinforcement of twenty men—with these, and the Detachment of your own company, which has now certainly rejoined you; you will be sufficiently able to send out several scouting parties: And it is my desire, you do your utmost to scour these parts, and protect the people.
You will deliver Mr Baylie2 what carpenters tools you have in the Fort: as he has orders to build a small Fort at the Mouth of Little Capecapon. I am &c.
G:W. May 12th 1756.
N.B. Take Receipts for the several Tools you deliver the Officers. LB, DLC:GW.
1. Evidently GW had intended Baylis to command the contingent of the Prince William County militia being ordered to Patterson Creek until his superior, Lt. Col. Henry Peyton, insisted upon going. See the Memorandum respecting the Militia, 11 May 1756. This is probably Capt. William Baylis, and the “Major Baylis” sent up by Lord Fairfax on 13 July 1756 is probably John Baylis. The Maryland Gazette (Annapolis) reported on 15 July 1756 that Capt. William Baylis led a contingent of the Prince William militia in a skirmish with the Indians at Pearsal’s fort in June 1756.
2. The letter-book copyist probably meant to write “Baylis.”
Source:
.
.
.
.
Memorandum respecting the Militia,
11 May 1756
Memorandum respecting the Militia [Winchester, 11 May 1756]
May 11th—Colo. Spotswood from Spotsylvania with 3 Field Officers 5 Captns 10 Subalterns and 130 private Men arrivd here & encampd in Colo. Woods Meadow.1
Colo. Henry Fitzhugh with 2 Captains 4 Subalterns 1 Clark 4 Sergts and 102 private also came to Town.2 as did 9 of the King George Deserter’s.3
The Prince William Militia were orderd to March to Morrow under the Comd of a Captn and 4 Sub. to strengthen the Forts on Pattersons Creek with a Subn & 20 men and to build another at the Mouth of Little Cacapehon but Colo. Henry Peyton who had recd a special Comn from his honour the Govr insisted upon going out to command them I expostulated with him on the absurdity of it: and represented the unnecessary charge it wd run the Country to, employing of supernumerary Officer’s but, nothing woud put aside his intentions he said his only motive in going was to serve his Country and that he expected no reward or gratuity for his trouble—and that unless he went he was sure the Men wd desert.4 present Colo. Lee, Captn Mercer and Mr Kirkpatrick.
AD, DLC:GW. See Memorandum respecting the Militia, 1–2 May 1756.
1. John Spotswood (d. 1758), the son of Lt. Gov. Alexander Spotswood (1676–1740), had been county lieutenant for Spotsylvania County since 1753, and John Thornton (d. 1777), a close associate of the Washington family, was the colonel of the militia. In an attempt in 1757 to get Spotswood removed from his position as county lieutenant, Thornton wrote Dinwiddie that “the March of the [Spotsylvania] Militia to Winchester was greatly retarded” because Spotswood “put every thing into the greatest disorder & Confusion by Abusing both Officers & Soldiers with the most Scandelouse Language” (29 Oct. 1757, Vi: Colonial Papers, miscellaneous). Foreseeing Thornton’s move, Spotswood wrote to Dinwiddie a week before asserting that there were men in the county who wished for the distinction of militia rank without assuming any of its burdens. “They suspect your Honor is going Home,” he wrote on 22 Oct. 1757, “& that when another Gentleman succeeds you there will be a general Election, & as there are some of them Ambitious to gett into The House of Burgesses they have Thought no Scheme could be so takeing with the Commonality to make themselves popular as to cry down Military Dissipline tho. their Country their Lives & Liberty are at Stake” (ibid.). The third field officer for Spotsylvania County was Maj. Benjamin Pendleton, who whose commission as major of the Spotsylvania militia was dated 29 April 1756.
2. Henry Fitzhugh, Jr. (1723–1783), was county lieutenant of Stafford County.
4. See two letters of GW to Henry Peyton, 12 May, and GW to William Cocks, 12 May 1756, n.1.
Source:
.
.
.
Other findings during the course of Research
.
From George Washington to Henry Peyton,
12 May 1756
To Henry Peyton [Winchester, 12 May 1756]
To Lieutenant Colonel Henry Peyton. Of the Prince-William Militia.
You are hereby ordered to proceed with the Detachment under your command, along the old waggon-road,1 until you come to Cockes’s Fort, on Pattersons Creek: where you are to leave a Subaltern, one Sergeant, and twenty men, to strengthen that Garrison. From thence you are to continue your march to Ashby’s Fort; which you are also to strengthen with the same number of men—and from there you are to proceed to Friend Cox’s, at the mouth of Little Capecapon—Post your party at that place; and immediately set about erecting a Fortress, for the security of the pass, and for the defence of your Detachment.
You are to draw out all such Carpenters tools as can possibly be spared from the two Forts: and you are to be very circumspect in chusing the spot of Ground to erect the Work on: which must be of the same dimensions, and built after the same model of Ashby’s. For which reason you must be very careful in examining of it.2
You are always to keep covering parties to secure your workmen: and to mount a Guard regularly on your march, and at your Station, to prevent Surprizes.
You must apply to the commissary for provisions to carry with your Detachment; and to take his Directions how to keep your party supplied for the future.
I earnestly entreat, that you will be careful to observe good order and Discipline among your men: that you will ever be mindful of the charge you are entrusted with: and diligent in executing, with the utmost Dispatch, all these several Orders. Given at Winchester, May 12th 1756.
G:W. LB, DLC:GW.
1. The old wagon road was the road that went from Winchester to Fort Cumberland by way of Joseph Edwards’s on Cacapon River, Job Pearsal’s on the South Branch, and McCraken’s plantation on the west bank of Patterson Creek. This road had long been used by settlers going to establish homes in the South Branch Manor and farther west.
2. GW countermanded these orders to Peyton 16 and 17 May. See also GW to William Cocks, 12 May 1756, n. 1.
Source:
.
.
.
1From George Washington to Henry Peyton, 12 May 1756 (Washington Papers)
You are hereby ordered to proceed with the Detachment under your command, along the old...
2From George Washington to Henry Peyton, 12 May 1756 (Washington Papers)
You are desired with the Detachment under your command, to proceed (on your arrival at the mouth...
3From George Washington to Henry Peyton, 16 May 1756 (Washington Papers)
The Detachment from King-George, under Lieutenant Newgent, is to be stationed at Ashby’s Fort;...
4From George Washington to Henry Peyton, 17 May 1756 (Washington Papers)
I had yours last night; and observe your dangers from the Indians about the Neighbourhood. I...
5From George Washington to Henry Peyton, 4 June 1756 (Washington Papers)
I was pleased to hear of your alertness in marching to Pattersons Creek upon the last alarm; and...
.
.
.
.in his room - a year later that was not allowed of one of two hanged at Fort Loudoun in 1757
Memorandum, 21 July 1756
Memorandum [Winchester, 21 July 1756] Thomas Easly, a Draught from Amelia-County, was discharged; being in a desponding state of health—and having provided an able-bodied man to serve in his room in the Regiment. Joseph Bell, Draught from Dinwiddie-County, and Christopher Smith, from Gloucester-County, are both discharged; being sick, and unfit for Duty. LB, DLC:GW.
Source:
.
Two letters responding to John Baylis' accusation
Letter 1
To George Washington
from Nathaniel Thompson,
20 February 1758
From Nathaniel Thompson Fort Loudoun February the 20th—1758 Sir I am very sorry that the Lies of Majr Baylis should give much Uneasyness to You or make You look upon Officers who are Willing to abide (in Respect of that Affair) by the severest Tryal in a disadvantageous Light. Majr Baylis has falsly aspersed our Characters—but he has not prov’d it nor can he—He has sayd it but where? in Prince William, the County in which he lives where he never expects to see one of the Persons that he has accused & where there is no one to contradict him.1 We did not imagine that You or the World would have believed him & therefore we did intend to have made ourselves easy by taking private Satisfaction. But we now think it incumbent on us to satisfy the Publick tho’ we can’t well find out the best Method. I talked with Mr Keith who saw his Advertisement & he says there is Nothing in it against the Officers that will bear an Action at Law but he says he believes he may be indicted for a Libel provided we can get one of them.2 We hear that You have one which we hope You will keep & let us have. I have wrote Baylis my Sentiments of the Matter & withal demanded a Copy of his Advertisement which I think he cannot well refuse3—for if he does the World must readily conceive that he has either advanced or affirmed a Falsity or that he is afraid to abide by the Truth. I shall be extremely obliged to You for Yr Advice in this Affair as soon as possible. Believe me, Sir, I know no Reason why he should say or even conjecture that I have behaved amiss. I believe that it will not hurt Yr Interest as a Candidate for there are too many Witnesses for it to gain Credit in this County.4 We can easyly I think acquit ourselves to Yr Satisfaction for there were Men enough by, Friends to Baylis & Strangers to us & therefore if they are prejudiced at all it must be in Favour of Baylis & I am much mistaken if those very Persons will not acquit us of any Thing to our Discredit. I am very sorry to hear that Yr Indisposi[ti]on continues—I am, my dear Colonel, Yr sincere Friend & very hue Sert Nathl Thompson ALS, DLC:GW.
1. See John Baylis to GW, 30 Jan. 1758. 2. This may be James Keith (1734–1824) who became clerk of the Frederick County court in 1762 and after the Revolution practiced law in Alexandria. 3. Thompson’s letter has not been found. Baylis enclosed a copy of his Advertisement in his letter to GW of 30 January. 4. For a discussion of GW’s early decision to stand for a seat in the House of Burgesses from Frederick County, see Robert Stewart to GW, 24 Nov. 1757, n.10.
source:
Letter 2
To George Washington
from Charles Smith,
23 February 1758
From Charles Smith Fort Loudoun February the 23d 1758 Sir I have had the Happiness, of Seeing the Letter you wrote, To Doctor Craig,1 and am Sorry to hear of your being so Much Indisposed in your Health, and I must own that I am at Present much disturbed in my mind, by Majr Baylist who Has blasted my Character in A most Cruel manner, Without the least reason, It’s true when Majr Baylist Was Last in town there was Some disturbance between Him and Mr Fells, Majr Baylist and I never had any Words to gather, which I have Sufficient proff of, I have Wrote to Majr Baylist Concerning it, and Shall Soon Convince him that I am not the Man he takes me to be—I deny the Name of a Riortor or a Coward, Which I hope to Have liberty to get Satisfaction, and you Need not to fear but, I will Clear it up with Honour, and with Shame to him.2 Concerning the work at Fort Loudoun has gone on tolerable Well in your Absence the third Barrack is Intirely Covered In, and the Last one now aframing in Order to raise. the Parapet on the Last Curtain is up, the Last Bastian Is Lay’d Over with logs and two of the ambuziers [embrasures] done and now is about the Other four, we have done all the joyners Work in the Second Barrack, We are in Great want of a Barrell of Double tens for the Last Barrack we not having One, Our Stone Masons has been Sick Ever Since you have been away, and our Stone Work is much Behind hand. The well has been allmost full of Water But now is Cleared and they are at Work in it A Gain And there is Near Ninety foot deep. I Cant Say that there Is any Likelyhood of Any Spring, We are almost out of Iron and plank, and am afraid I Shall find it very difficult to be Supply’d without a small quantity Of money to pay them of the old arrears I have advanc’d all the money I Can possibly Spare.3 The Black Smiths belonging to the publick work has behav’d Exstreamly well. I Should Send you the particulars of The Work they have done but being in haste and my Books not being Settled, Sr I am your most Humble. Servt Chs Smith ALS, DLC:GW. 1. GW’s letter to James Craik has not been found. 2. John Baylis makes no reference to Lt. Charles Smith in his letter to GW of 30 Jan. 1758. Robert Fell served first as a volunteer in the Virginia Regiment and then as an ensign from July to September 1757 when he resigned. 3. GW put Charles Smith in charge of the construction of Fort Loudoun in November 1756. For GW’s plans and specifications for the construction of the fort, see William Fairfax to GW, 10 July 1756, n.3. John Christopher Heintz, a German, was the well digger.
Source:
.
This letter had fort designs enclosed for Waggener to follow and Charles Smith is sent to help build those forts
From George Washington to Thomas Waggener,
21 July 1756
To Thomas Waggener [Winchester, 21 July 1756] To Captain Thomas Waggener, on the South-Branch. Sir, I now enclose you the plans promised in my last;1 which if you observe, you can not possibly err. The one shews the Ground-work or foundation of the Fort—The other, the Houses and conveniences therein: with such plain and easy directions for constructing these Buildings, that you cannot mistake the design. You will also receive by Ensign Smith men, to make your company equal to the rest.2 I most earnestly recommend diligence to you—You must see an indispensable necessity for it. John Cole, who was appointed to your Company, a Sergeant, has since been broke for neglect of Duty. You will receive him as private and in his room as Sergeant, Mark Hollies.3 Fail not to send down per the first opportunity, Campbell the Drummer: nor omit by any conveyance, to transmit me an account of your proceedings.4 Above all things, guard against Surprizes, by keeping out evening parties to secure your workmen. Your worst men are to be draughted for that duty; reserving the best, to work on the Forts: and they will be allowed double pay for every day they work, of which you and your Officers are to keep accounts. I am &c. G:W. Winchester July 21st 1756. LB, DLC:GW.
1. See GW’s first letter of 13 July 1756 to Waggener. For a discussion of the drawings GW made in 1756 of forts and the instructions he appended to them for building the forts, see William Fairfax to GW, 10 July 1756, n.3. Two of these plans seem to be those that GW designed for the forts that Waggener and Peter Hog were to construct in a chain along the frontier. If so, it was copies of these that GW enclosed in this letter to Waggener and in his second letter to Peter Hog of this date. The first of the two plans for the frontier forts is a plat of the fort, and the plat is keyed to a table giving the various dimensions of the fort. GW stipulates that the lines of the exterior square of the fort should be 132′ and those of the interior square, 100′. The curtains were to be 60′ long, and the wall was to be 15′ high. The bastions at the corners were to have 19¼′ flanks, 30′ faces, and be 20½′ wide at the mouth. “If due attention is given to this plan,” GW wrote, “it will be impossible to err. tho. you otherwise may be unacquainted with the Rules of Fortification.” He remarked that “if you can get a Compass and Chain to lay of the Foundn it will be highly expedt to do it,” but if “you cannot, it may be done witht but not so exactly.” What follows is a rough draft of rather elaborate instructions for laying out a fort of the specified dimensions.
The second drawing of the frontier fort shows how the fort is to be divided up and is keyed to a table specifying the uses to which the various structures within the fort should be put. GW called for a captain’s or commandant’s “Apartment,” 15′ by 20′; officer’s guardroom, 12′ × 20′; guardroom for soldiers, 17′ × 20′; prison, 10′ × 20′; two apartments for officers, 20′ × 20′ each; barrack houses for the soldiers, 60′ × 20′, which should provide room for 80 soldiers to live and space for cooking; two rooms for “Flour & Beef &ca,” 20′ × 20′, above which there would be two rooms of the same dimensions, one a powder magazine and the other to hold the commissary’s stores. He also designated “the place for the Well if you find it practicable to Sink for Water” and indicated that “all the Houses may be made in such a manner as to lodge Officers & Men on the 2d Floor” in case that should ever become necessary.
2. Charles Smith, who was made an ensign in the new Virginia Regiment in September 1755, spent the summer of 1756 as an officer in Waggener’s company working on forts on the South Branch. After his return to Winchester, he became, on 14 Nov. 1756, the overseer of the construction of Fort Loudoun there. See GW’s Orders, 18 Sept. 1755, n.5.
3. On 19 Sept. 1756 John Cole was a corporal and Mark Hollis (Hollies) was a sergeant. For the identification of these and other noncommissioned officers in Waggener’s company, see GW’s Orders, 12 July 1756, n.8.
4. GW on 13 July sent for James Campbell and instructed Waggener to “transmit me an account of all occurrencies” (first letter).
Source:
.
Northern Neck Proprietorship
.
Virginia Reports: Jefferson--33 Grattan, 1730-1880
Hite vs Fairfax
.
PATHFINDER FOR FAIRFAX LAND RECORDS AND HITE-FAIRFAX SUIT
The Fairfax Grant
Surveyors and Statesmen: Land Measuring in Colonial Virginia 1979 Sarah S Hughes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
