top of page

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.


Britannica: Depicting Alexander Hamilton vs Aaron Burr

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.



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.

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.


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.


Source:

.

.

.

You are hereby ordered to proceed with the Detachment under your command, along the old...

You are desired with the Detachment under your command, to proceed (on your arrival at the mouth...

The Detachment from King-George, under Lieutenant Newgent, is to be stationed at Ashby’s Fort;...

I had yours last night; and observe your dangers from the Indians about the Neighbourhood. I...

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









.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Comments


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page