Van Braam from 1754 to 1760
This is sort of an about face. There was much criticism of Jacob Van Braam originally. He had interpreted the terms of surrender at Fort Necessity in 3 July 1754, missing the significance of the word "assassin.' That document was accusing George Washington of having assassinated French officer, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville.
By October 1754 the House of Burgesses elects to not pay Van Braam for his service because of that mistake.
Fast Forward to March 1760. The House of Burgesses propose to compensate Van Braam for his service including his time as prisoner of the French - £828.11, and extra as a bonus for his having endured much sacrifice - £500. There was also a request to promote Van Braam in rank but nothing was done on that request.
This illustration below depicts the moment in Van Braam's life that sets the course of his life for the next 6 years. It is raining. It is night -- in more ways than one. They're surrounded. They're surrounded by the French and Indians. The French leader happens to be brother to the man they killed. The Indians are going to want some scalps and treasure. How will the Indians desires and needs be restrained? And how why does this brother not seek revenge? The answer is partly because this French leader worries about his low ammunition. He also worries that reinforcements are coming for Washington. That worry puts restraint on his Articles of Capitulation he wants Washington to sign soon.
That word Assassin
Still, that French leader scores a propaganda victory because in that rainy night Van Braam doesn't seem to catch that word Assassin in the document.
BTW, Washington and the world does not discover that word Assassin until a French ship is captured and they find that document written in French and publish it in English in 1756, two years after this moment of this rainy night. Washington finds that publication to purchase in March 1757 while in Philadelphia at Lord Loudoun big conference with the Governors of the colonies.
Terms require 2 Hostages
Van Braam and Stobo are presented to the French as hostage as a good faith to exchange some prisoners the Virginians hold.
One of the demands in the Articles of Capitulation for Washington to sign when he surrendered at Fort Necessity on a rainy night of 3 July 1754 was to give up two officers to the French to hold as hostage.
One of them was Van Braam. Jacob Van Braam. His story is discussed in this link. He's the one who didn't catch the word "Assassin", where the document accussed Washington of assassination.
The other person Washington gave up to the French was Stobo. Robert Stobo. His wild story of escape and trying to help Wolfe with information on Quebec is discussed in these 2 links.
Why the name Fort Necessity?
Here they are at a place Washington calls Fort Necessity, so called because they knew the French and Indians were coming for retribution for what Washington and his men did at a place now called Jumonville.
Washington and his men surprised a French company who allegedly were on an embassy mission. Washington and his men and Chief Half King killed and captured some of this French Company. One of those captured is a high value French prisoner- La Force. But a really horrible incident may have happened also. Fred Anderson in his book, Crucible of War, alleges Chief Half King killed Jumonville and in one horrible moment, cut open Jumonville's skull, scooping his brains out and ate them. Historians are kind of blood thirsty.
Why the about face?
Why condemn him first and then reward him later?
Below is the House of Burgesses first ignoring rewarding Van Braam in Oct 1754.
Then after more information comes to light, they then decide to reward Van Braam officially in April 1760.
They do not reward George Muse and there are reasons for that here.
The Mt Vernon website explains why the change in heart over Van Braam:
As a prisoner of war, Van Braam was taken to Montreal and unlike his associate Stobo, who escaped from prison there, would stay a prisoner until Britain captured the city in September 1760. He returned to Virginia, where a trial found him innocent of treason due to the rain soaking the paper and smudging the ink of the surrender document, as well as his poor English-speaking skills. As recognition of his service and as an apology for the original charges, he was granted a large reward, roughly £500 and 9000 acres of land in Virginia, as well as a recommendation for promotion to major in the 30th Battalion of the 60th foot Royal Americans.6
Sources:
George Washington, Journal of Colonel George Washington, ed. Randolph Greenfield Adams (New York: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1940), 22.
That's it.
That's our lead story.
See House of Burgess journals first ignoring rewarding Van Braam in 1754 ,then doing an about-face and rewarding him in 1760.
Skip around.
Read bits and pieces.
Table of Contents
Compiled by Jim Moyer. Researched first in 2014. Updated 3/18/2024, 3/19/2024, 3/21/2024
Below is the House of Burgesses first ignoring rewarding Van Braam in Oct 1754, then after more information comes to light, they then decide to reward Van Braam officially in April 1760. They do not reward George Muse and there are reasons for that.
Do not honor Van Braam and George Muse
In 1754 the Virginia House of Burgesses refuse to honor or pay both Van Braam and Muse.
By 1760 they change their mind and honor Van Braam, but Muse they still refuse to pay.
Friday 25 Oct 1754 - 1 matching term
...Upon a Motion made, Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to his Honor the Governor, to express our Approbation of the conduct and gallant Behaviour of the several Officers of the Virginia Forces, except George Muse, late Lieutenant-Colonel, and Jacob Van Braam; late Captain, and to desire his Honor to recommend them in a particular Manner to his Majesty's Favor; and at the same Time to acquaint his Honor, that it is the Opinion of this Houfe, that nothing will contribute fo much to the Succefs of the Expedition againft the Invaders of his Majesty's Dominions, as a proper Encouragement to fuch of the Inhabitants as fhall be inclined to ferve in his Majesty's Army in the prefent Expedition, and that Mr Charles Carter, Mr Landon Carter, Mr Fitzhugh, W Bland, and Mr Randolph, do wait on his Honor with the said Address....
Tuesday 29 1754- 1 matching term
...Charles Carter reported, that the Committee appointed, had, according to w M Q Order, waited on his Honor the Governor, with the Address of this House, i/ww^ expreffing our Approbation of the Condudt and gallant Behaviour of the feveral Officers of the Virginia Forces, except George Mufe, late Lieutenant- Colonel, and Jacob Vanbraam; late Captain, and do desire his Honor to recommend them in a particular Manner to his Majesty's Favor; and at the same Time to acquaint his Honor, that it is the Opinion of this House, that nothing will contribute fo much to the Success of the Expedition against the Invaders of his Majesty's Dominions, as a proper Encouragement to such of the Inliabitant, as fliall be inclined to serve in his Majesty's Army in the present Expedition ; to which his Honor answered, that he was pleased that the Sentiment of this House concurred with his own ; that he had already made a Representation to his Majesty in their Favor, and would take Care to renew it....
About Face: Reward Van Braam
Friday 7 March 1760
. . . Mr Speaker informed the House, that the Governor had delivered to him several Letters from Sir John St. Clair, Colonel Byrd, Major Stobo, and Mr Van; Braam; which he had desired him to lay before the House. And the said Letters were read, and ordered to lye on the Table. A Memorial of the Officers of the Virginia Regiment was presented to the House and read, setting forth....
Monday 10 March 1760
...Ordered, That the faid Bill be ingrossed, and read a third Time. Upon a Motion made, Resolved, That the Sum oi £828.11 be allowed to Jacob Van Braam;, being due to him for his Pay as a Captain in the Service of this Colony, from the Time of his rendering himself as an Hostage, and during his Confinement as such in Canada....
Tuesday 24 March 1760
...On a Motion made, Resolved, That the Sum of £500 be paid by the Treasurer of this Colony to Capt. Jacob Van; Braam;, over and above the Balance of his Pay that is due to him to this Time, as a Compensation for his Sufferings during a long and painful Confinement as a Hostage in the Enemy's Country....
Thursday 26 March 1760
... Alfo to the Resolve of this House For paying Capt. Jacob Van; Braam; the Sum of £500, besides his Pay, for the Services therein mentioned.
Monday 30 March 1760
...On a Motion made, Resolved, Nemine contradicente , that an Humble Address be made to his Honour the Govemour to desire that he will be pleased to take Capt. Jacob Van Braam;, who hath undergone a long and severe Captivity in Canada, into his special Favour and Protection, and recommend him for Promotion in his Majesty's Service; and that Mr Charles Carter and Mr Bland do wait on his Honour with the faid Address....
Friday 10 April 1760
...[ 258 ] His Honour likewise gave his Assent to the Resolve for allowing Capt. Jacob Van Braam; the Sum of £500, over and above the Balance of his Pay that is due to him to this Time, as a Compensation for his Sufferings during a long and painful Confinement as an Hostage in the Enemy's Country....
Compiled by Jim Moyer. Researched first in 2014. Updated 3/18/2024, 3/19/2024.
Why George Muse never gets rewarded
Below are entries from Botton 1776 blogspot when that blog first posted its research on George Muse:
MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015
George Muse (1720-1790) was born in England and moved to Virginia sometime in his youth. He took part in the 1741 British expedition against Cartagena de Indias in Colombia, led by Adm. Edward Vernon.
Another participant in that campaign was Lawrence Washington, who went home to Virginia and named his slave-labor plantation “Mount Vernon” after the admiral. In 1743 the royal governor appointed Washington adjutant general, or chief administrator, of the Virginia militia, and George Muse became one of his deputies.
When Lawrence Washington died in 1752, his little half-brother George applied to succeed him as adjutant general. The fact that George wasn’t yet even of legal age didn’t discourage him, but it was surely a factor for Gov. Robert Dinwiddie. He found a solution that meant more men would owe him favors: he broke up Virginia into districts and appointed adjutants for each. Among the new district adjutants were George Washington and George Muse.
In the spring of 1754, Dinwiddie made young Washington a lieutenant colonel and sent him out to the west to protect Virginia claims against French and Native forces. Another of the top officers on this expedition was Muse, ranked as a major—an interesting dynamic since Muse was more than a decade older.
That campaign ended at Fort Necessity. Lt. Col. Washington made a lot of strategic mistakes, but Maj. Muse hurt his reputation even more. A soldier on the expedition named James Wood wrote:
Wed. morn. 3 July about 9 oClock, an Indian arrived informed them the French and Indians were within 4 miles. in the greatest Confusion fell to diging Trenches[.] abt 11. We drew up on the parade saw the French and Indians coming down a hill We marched to take possession of a Point of WoodsMuse called to halt the French would take possession of Our Fort and Trenches ran back in the utmost Confusion happy he that could get into the Fort first
Landon Carter later recorded in his diary that Muse
instead of bringing up the 2d division to make the Attack with the first, he marched them or rather frightened them back into the trenches, so that the Colo. [Washington] at the head of the Carolina Independent Company was greatly exposed to the French Fire and were forced to retire to the same trenches, where they were galled on All sides by 1,100 French and Indians who never came to an Open ground but fired from behind trees
Muse’s comrades accused him of cowardice. Dinwiddie soon learned that Muse was “not very agreeable to the other Officers.” On 3 August the governor told Washington, “Muse wrote me, & I answer’d he was welcome to resign.” Which he did.
TOMORROW: But that wasn’t the end of the story.
Source:
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015
Yesterday I described how the battle at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 didn’t reflect well on Lt. Col. George Washington, but really didn’t reflect well on Maj. George Muse. Other officers accused Muse of cowardice, and he resigned in a huff.
Another officer on that expedition was William La Péronie, an immigrant to Virginia from France. On 3 September, he made sure Washington knew what Muse and others were saying in Williamsburg:
Many enquired to me about Muses Braveries; poor Body I had pity him ha’nt he had the weakness to Confes his Coardise him Self, & the inpudence to taxe all the reste of the oficiers withoud exeption of the same imperfection. for he said to many of the Cousulars and Burgeses that he was Bad But th’ the reste was as Bad as he.To speak francly had I been in town at the time I Cou’nt help’d to make use of my horse’s wheup for to vindicate the injury of that villain.he Contrived his Business so that several ask me if it was true that he had Challang’d you to fight: my answer was no other But that he Should rather chuse to go to hell than doing of it. for had he had such thing declar’d: that was his Sure Road—I have made my particular Business to tray if any had some Bad intention against you here Below: But thank God I meet allowais with a goad wish for you from evry mouth each one entertining such Caracter of you as I have the honnour to do my Self
La Péronie was sucking up especially hard since Washington was helping him win a higher commission in the Virginia forces. He got the promotion, but died the following year while serving under Gen. Edward Braddock.
In addition to giving La Péronie that commission in 1754, the Virginia legislature issued a resolution thanking all the officers at Fort Necessity by name—except for George Muse and one other man.
Nonetheless, Muse was entitled to some of the western land claims granted to all the officers on the expedition. That meant he and Washington continued to share an economic interest in western settlement for decades. They met with other landowners, lobbied government officials, and in 1770 agreed to trade land back and forth.
Then in December 1773 Muse sent Washington a letter complaining about some aspect of those grants and how Washington was handling them.
TOMORROW: Washington angrier than I’ve ever read him.
PERMANENT LINK: 08:30
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015
I’ve been tracing the relationship of George Washington and George Muse, an older Virginia planter who had served (badly) at Fort Necessity but then became a partner in real-estate speculation.
In late 1773 Muse wrote a letter about their business dealings which Washington didn’t like. How much did he dislike it? Here’s what Washington wrote back on 29 Jan 1774:
Sir,Your impertinent Letter of the 24th ulto [i.e., of last month], was delivered to me yesterday by Mr [Charles] Smith—As I am not accustomed to receive such from any Man, nor would have taken the same language from you personally, without letting you feel some marks of my resentment; I would advise you to be cautious in writing me a second of the same tenour; for though I understand you were drunk when you did it, yet give me leave to tell you, that drunkeness is no excuse for rudeness; & that, but for your stupidity & sottishness you might have known, by attending to the public Gazettes, (particularly [William] Rinds of the 14th of January last) that you had your full quantity of ten thousand acres of Land allow’d you; that is, 9073 acres in the great Tract of 51,302 acres, & the remainder in the small tract of 927 acres; whilst I wanted near 500 acres of my quantity, Doctr [James] Craik 300 of his, and almost every other claimant little or much of theirs.But suppose you had really fallen short 73 acres of your 10,000, do you think your superlative merit entitles you to greater indulgences than others? or that I was to make it good to you, if it did? when it was at the option of the Governor & Council to have allowed you but 500 acres in the whole, if they had been inclin’d so to do.If either of these should happen to be your opinion, I am very well convinced you will stand singular in it; & all my concerns is, that I ever engag’d in behalf of so ungrateful & dirty a fellow as you are. But you may still stand in need of my assistance, as I can inform you that your affairs, in respect to these Lands, do not stand upon so solid a basis as you may imagine, & this you may take by way of hint. . . .I wrote to you a few days ago concerning the other distribution, proposing an easy method of dividing our Lands; but since I find in what temper you are, I am sorry I took the trouble of mentioning the Land, or your name in a Letter, as I do not think you merit the least assistance fromG: Washington
Well!
This letter was my starting-point for looking into Washington’s relationship with George Muse. What, I wondered, could have caused someone so determined to keep his emotions in genteel check to write so bluntly?
I wasn’t surprised to learn that Washington had a reason to resent Muse from way back. I was surprised to see that they had continued to do business together for so long.
And I was even more surprised to find that their business relationship survived this letter in January 1774 to go on for several more years. They exchanged more polite business letters that year. In March 1783, as the war wound down, Muse asked to be reimbursed for expenses. The next year, Washington made Muse’s son his agent in the west. Evidently, real estate trumped rancor.
Source:
Sundry notes in course of doing research
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To George Washington from Thomas Pleasants, Jr., 2 June 1788
From Thomas Pleasants, Jr.
Raleigh 2d June 1788.
Sir
I have just recieved a Letter from Mr John Dydsbury, formerly a noted shoe & Boot Maker Pall-Mall London,1 but now residing at south Multon in Devonshire, requesting of me to procure him information of an allotment of Land made to Capt. Jacob Van Braam. and as your Exellencys name is mentioned, as having procured the land for Capt. Braam so I have taken the liberty of enclosing an extract of Mr Dydsbury Letter, as the most likely person to whom I could apply, to give me the information wanted, or to put me into the best way of obtaining it2— Which Will greatly oblige one, who is With great regard, and respect, Yr Most ob. Hble St
Thomas Pleasants jr
ALS, DLC:GW.
Thomas Pleasants, Jr. (c.1737–1804), lived at Raleigh in Goochland County where he was both a planter and a merchant. Pleasants served as a commissary agent for Virginia during the Revolutionary War.
1. For more than a decade beginning in 1758, GW had John Didsbury of London make his shoes.
2. Pleasant’s extract of Didsbury’s letter reads: “I beg the favor of you, if in your power to procure me an acct of a particular Lot of land on the Ohio, that you may know exactly what I mean, I must acquaint you that in 1774 Genl Washington, then procured for my friend Capt. Jacob Van Braam his quota of Land on the Ohio, amounting to 9000 acres, and in December 1775, I purchased 6000 of these Acres from the Captain who retains the 3000, and depends on my doing with his whatever I may do with my own. You may perhaps recollect this Gentleman who afterwards acquired the rank of major, sold out of the Army and at present resides in France. What I think is in favor of the quota of land, is that a Governeur, secretary, and Judges are appointed on the Ohio, from this it is Certain that some part of the Country there must be well peopled—and each of us will be particularly obliged to you, if you Can get this lot exactly described separate from any other, and learn if my part of it is occupied, and what may be the Value of it.
“By the acct I have here it is lot 15, survey the 2d Containing 28,400 acres to be divided thus—Robert Stobo—9000 Jacob Van Braam 9000 James Towers 6000 and 4400 to 11 privates at 400 each.” Jacob Van Braam, who was taken as a hostage by the French after the capitulation of Fort Necessity in 1754, was entitled to land under the terms of Governor Dinwiddie’s Proclamation of 1754. Born in 1725, Van Braam was reported to have died in 1784. For the allocation of the land to Van Braam in 1771 and GW’s attempt to purchase it from him, see GW to Robert Adam, 22 Nov. 1771, n.1.
PERMANENT LINK What’s this?
.
.
.
.
.
