A Memorial for Litchfield's Soldiers of the Revolutionary War

Americans did not erect statues of Continental soldiers in their town squares in the decades following the American Revolution, nor list the names of their war dead on pedestals.  Such commemorations belong to a later time and reflect the sensibilities and mourning customs of the 19^th and 20^th centuries.  The revolutionary generation had other priorities after the war.

It is true that Congress authorized a memorial in January, 1776 to the fallen Brigadier General Montgomery, and had Benjamin Franklin oversee the contract with a French sculptor, but it honored one individual and was installed in 1788 within New York’s St. Paul’s chapel rather than the public square.  The Prison Ship Martyrs monument began in 1808 as a modest effort to collect and inter the bones of those who had died on prison ships in Wallout Bay, but the crypt and memorial were relocated and redesigned on an increasingly grand scale in 1867, 1873 and 1908. 


Like many New England communities, Litchfield Connecticut has a number of war memorials on its Town Green, as well as a monument to the 2^nd CT Heavy Artillery near the field where the regiment mustered in 1862. Aside from a tree planted in 1902 on Arbor Day by the Mary Floyd Tallmage Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, there is nothing on the Green dedicated to the memory of the men of Litchfield who served in the Revolution.   There is now an effort in the community to erect such a monument, anticipating Litchfield’s tercentenary in 2019, and I have been invited to assist.


There are a number of challenges to overcome, in addition to the financial cost of commissioning a new memorial and the intricacies of the various stakeholder interests involved in its design and approval.  There is also the question of which names should be included on the monument.  It becomes a problem of geography, of documentation, and above all of accuracy, for what we write in stone has authority.


The D.A.R. compiled a list in 1912 of 507 names associated with Litchfield on its Honor Roll of Revolutionary War soldiers, including reference citations for each name.  Among these are men like Ethan Allen who were born here but moved away and whose service is associated with other places.  It also includes prominent veterans like Benjamin Tallmage who moved to Litchfield after the war and whose notable service gave luster to the community.  Some of the men on the list served with distinction, while others deserted.  Some died in service.  Some served from Morris that was once part of Litchfield but was later incorporated with the name of one of its illustrious veterans.   Some men, though perhaps not very many, should have been included on the Honor Roll as veterans from Litchfield but were not.  This will all have to be sorted out.


Names on a plaque do not tell the story.   30 men from Litchfield in a company of 36 either died during the capture of Fort Washington in November, 1776, or of disease and neglect in captivity over the next few months.  Several more were missing in action at Germantown with no record of subsequent captivity.  One, a man of 78 years, responded to the Danbury Alarm and was shot in the head after helping pursue the Crown forces back to Long Island Sound.  One died in the taking of Stony Point.  One served in the Carolinas and fought at Guildford Court House and the Siege of Ninety Six.  One transferred from the 5^th Connecticut to the Georgia battalion in 1777 and may have previously been a British deserter.  One was a bombardier with Lamb’s Artillery.  One was carried half a mile by his brother before being captured after Germantown.  Three were African Americans.  Ten received supplies for their families as part of an enlistment incentive in 1777.


In subsequent posts, I will share some of their stories.

"An Arbitrary Action, Contrary to Law, Inconsistent with Liberty": Customs Enforcement and Resistance, 1765 (Part III)

Detail from "New England from Chatham Harbour to Narragansett Bay showing Buzzards Bay"
(1779) Chart by J.F.W. Des Barres & Lt. John Knight

His Majesty's Ship  Maidstone overwintered in Newport's normally ice-free harbor during the unusually cold winter of 1764-1765, replacing the 20-gun sixth rate Squirrel (1755). Maidstone's Captain Charles Antrobus could expect little thawing in naval relations with local authorities, merchants and seafaring interests in the Town, and was forwarded that his customs enforcement mission would be resisted. Actual armed conflict had already broken out over the navy's presence the previous summer, when a waterfront mob attacked and drove off a landing party from the six-gun Schooner Saint John (purchased just a month before in Boston).

The navy was in pursuit of a deserter who may well have been a pressed man, but the citizens were also upset about a recent customs seizure and the alleged theft of some chickens by three men from the schooner.  Pelting the sailors with stones, the large crowd injured a number of the men in Saint John's boat and

took a midshipman hostage. Then some of the mob took up muskets and pursued the retreating longboat back toward the Saint John in a sloop. Before the end of the affair, the colonial gunners at the Fort George on Goat Island even fired cannon (one shot allegedly piercing her Mainsail) at Saint John before Squirrel moved up to assist the navy schooner.


When Captain Antrobus arrived at Newport December, 1764, Governor Samuel Ward sought assurances that he would refrain from pressing Newporters and keep Maidstone's impressment activities offshore, preferably beyond the jurisdiction of the Colony. Whatever concessions might have been agreed to initially soon evaporated in the face of both active and passive interference with customs enforcement by local authorities as well as through crowd action.

Customs seizures made by the navy, similar to prizes taken in time of war, went through a legal condemnation process at a vice-admiralty court on shore. Confiscated cargos and vessels deemed in violation of customs and excise laws sold by the authorities and shares in the proceeds apportioned accord to the jurisdictions involved, which in North America might include the colonial governor and Admiral Corville in Halifax along with the Exchequer and the Crown.

It was rarely a straightforward process, with owners and seamen often counter-suing customs and naval officers for damages and with claims of unlawful seizure. Although the Collectors and Controllers of customs were appointed by the British government and backed by the navy, in charter colonies like Rhode Island the governor, High Sheriff and vice-admiralty judge were all local men elected to their positions and were often uncooperative in customs cases. Captain Antrobus soon had reason to consider the local authorities throughout Narragansett Bay to be completely unsupportive of Maidstone 's customs enforcement activities. Two incidents in later winter and early Spring, 1765 made that point very clear.


John Robinson, appointed Collector of Customs at Newport in 1764, was a man of a different stripe than his predecessors who had been willing to accept enormous bribes in exchange for lax enforcement of import duties and trade restrictions. Along with Customs Comptroller John Nicholl, he coordinated with the navy to aggressively interdict smugglers in Narragansett Bay and bring cases to court.

In late February, 1765, aided by Maidstone's 2nd Lieutenant William Jenkins, these men intercepted two vessels suspected of smuggling molasses in contravention of the Sugar Act. They were the brigantine Wainscott and the sloop Nelly. One of Wainscott's principal owners was Elisha Brown of Providence, a close ally of Governor Ward and soon to be elected Lieutenant Governor himself, while Nelly belonged to Thomas Greene, who was part of a prominent Quaker family in the Colony. According to the customs officials, "it was notorious that ["Wainscott" and "Nelly"] had run cargoes of molasses", but they encountered numerous obstacles trying to prove their case in the local Admiralty court.

Admiralty Judge John Andrews set a court date for the case just days after the customs men brought their charges. Robinson and Nicholl were aghast, writing the Court on March 10, 1765: "You can't suppose it possible for us, in the space of three Days, to procure proper proofs to Support these Suits; And we must Desire of you to Urge the Necessity of an Adjournment of the Court for at least a Fortnight." In response to this, Judge Andrews gave them a single week. When the Court reconvened, the Marshall failed to issue summonses to witnesses and, the Customs men complained bitterly the Advocate "Absolutely Declined for Reasons known only to himself." The plaintiffs were left to represent themselves before the Court, but without supporting evidence the defendants were acquitted. This was not the end of the affair, with suits and counter suits continuing until 1767 when Judge Andrews brought a £10,000 defamation suit against Robinson, and the latter only escaped imprisonment through appointment to another customs position in Boston.  

L. F. Tantillo - "Salt Marsh Sanctuary"
http://lftantillo.com/18th-century/salt-marsh-sanctuary.html

The second case involved the sloop Polly, owned by Job Smith of Taunton, Massaschusetts. Polly arrived in Newport under the command of Master Timothy Doggett or Daggett on April 2nd with a cargo of molasses from Surinam in the West Indies Although her home port was up the Taunton River from Narragansett Bay in Massachusetts, Newport's customs house had jurisdiction. Master Doggett declared 63 casks of molasses and paid 3p/gallon in customs duty, then proceeded up the bay and into the Taunton River. As a hogshead at this time was 63 gallons, this was a conveniently round number. On April 4th, Robinson examined Doggett's customs declaration and, suspecting the report "was not just", brought the matter to the attention of Captain Antrobus.


Instead of dispatching a junior officer with a ship's boat to overtake the Polly, Captain Antrobus seems to have taken on this task personally. Accompanied only by a skeleton crew from Maidstone, Collector Robinson with his servant, Daniel Guthridge, and the Searcher of Customs Nicholas Lechmere, Captain Antrobus overtook Polly far upriver on April 6th near Dighton, Massachusetts. On boarding her they found their suspicions had been correct and twice as many casks of molasses in the hold as declared on the manifest.


Discovery meant that Robinson could libel the undeclared portion of the cargo and the sloop as customs seizures, but he was without the immediate means to secure his prize. No one in Dighton was willing to assist the handful of customs and navy men, so Robinson and Antrobus were compelled to return to Newport and dispatch a prize crew, leaving only Guthridge and Lechmere to keep watch over the at anchor offshore. By the time a naval detachment was sent back up river on April 8th by Captain Antrobus, the customs enforcement effort had been overtaken by events back in Dighton.


It did not help that there was a conveniently located tavern not far from shore. On April 7th, Lechmere and Guthridge rowed themselves over to quench their thirst, but found their skiff gone when they sought to return to Polly, 100 yards out in the river. At nightfall, about 40 local men "with blackened faces" sailed over to Polly and offloaded her entire cargo of molasses. Stripping her anchors and fittings, these interventionists then ran Polly ashore at high tide and stranded her on the riverbank. Neither could Lechmere and Guthridge get any support from the local Massachusetts authorities to look into the matter or support their customs seizure. Ruefully, they headed back down to Narragansett Bay to report to Robinson and Antrobus.


At this point, one can only imagine the Navy Captain's ire. One indication is the size of the force he took back to Dighton along with Robinson - thirty marines (more than Maidstone's full compliment) and forty armed seamen. On route they met the initial prize crew, which had been prevented from reaching Polly by a mob of over 100 angry men. When they boarded the grounded sloop, they found holes bored through her hull and other damage.


Undeterred, Robinson set out to recover the molasses on shore. Unable to secure a writ of assistance to aid in his search, he was instead confronted by a £ 3,000 damage suit filed by Master Daggett. Without any friends to post his bond, Robinson was jailed for several days while Antrobus worked to get the damaged Polly back to Newport. Just eight casks of Molasses were recovered, and Robinson and Antrobus decided they had had enough of local justice. Because the seizure took place in Massachusetts, they could bring the case to trial in Boston, but they preferred to take their prize to Halifax, instead, where there was an Admiralty Court that covered the entire eastern seaboard and was free from local influence. It would be very difficult for the defendants to call supporting witnesses for a case held at such great remove, but Polly ultimately was taken to Halifax later that summer and condemned as a lawful seizure.


Robinson and Antrobus went to Boston to arrange for the change of venue. Governor Bernard expressed reservations about moving the Admiralty case to Halifax (he would lose his share in any condemnation proceeds) and Antrobus told him, in so many words, to mind his own business. This left Maidstone in the hands of its 1st Lieutenant, Cuthbert Baines. It was, perhaps not coincidentally, at this same time that impressment activity spiked in Newport, culminating in yet another confrontation between the navy and a large waterfront mob, on the King's Birthday, no less. We will discuss what Rhode Islanders remember as the "Maidstone Affair" in the next post in this blog series.

Ensign Asher Levy - Jewish Patriot, Loyalist Spy (or Double Agent)?

From September, 1777 to June 14th, 1779, Asher Levy was first a cadet and later an Ensign in the 1st New Jersey Regiment of the Continental Line.  The name is spelled variously on muster return as Asher/Asser/Ashur and Levy/Lewis, but they all refer to the same person.   His pedigree is clear and he holds the distinction of being the only Jewish officer known to have served in the Jersey Line during the Revolution. 

His otherwise unremarkable service is noteworthy for being called to testify at the court martial of his commanding officer,Colonel Matthias Ogden, in early Spring 1779.  Colonel Ogden was acquitted on all charges but "the pernicious vice of gaming." Levy resigned his commission shortly thereafter, but not before adding his name to a petition from the line officers of the 1st NJ to the Governor to redress grievances about inadequate officer pay and provision. 

Asher Levy also holds the distinction, after leaving the army, of twice being imprisoned in 1780 as an enemy agent and  "notorious villain."  The minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania from February 22, 1780, include the following seemingly damning reference to Asher Levy:

"A letter from Lieutenant Colonel De Hart [of the 1st New Jersey Regiment] was read, informing the board that one Asher Levy, a person of disaffected Character, was in this City, and there was great reason to believe he was a spy."

We also have two tantalizing descriptions of him from each of his two jailbreaks that add color, if not clarity, to his story.

"One Thousand Dollars Reward

Made his escape last evening over the gaol wall of Burlington, a certain ASHER LEVY, who was committed as a spy from the enemy, and also for high treason.  He is about five feet seven inches high, about twenty years of age; has short black hair, but wears a false tail: Had on a light colour'd knap great coat, lined with green baize, and a red velvet cape; a white broadcloth jacket, and black knit breeches.  Whosoever secures said villain, and delivers him to me, shall have the above reward paid by

March 25 [1780]                       Joseph Burnes, Gaoler

- New Jersey Gazette Vol. III No. 118, March 29th, 1780"

 After his subsequent recapture, Levy escaped once more, this time making his way to New York.

Burlington August 10th, 1780

Broke out of Burlington gaol last night, two notorious villains:  The one named Joseph Heighton, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, about 24 or 25 years of age; had on a lightish coloured jacket without sleeves, a pair of striped overalls and boots; had no coat or hat: the other named Asher Levy, about the same age, about 5 feet 5 or 6 inches high; had on a fashionable hat, brown broadcloth coat, jacket and breeches, a pair of new shoes without buckles.  It is supposed they are gone towards Amboy in order to make their escape to the enemy.   Whosoever takes up and delivers them at the gaol aforesaid, shall have Four Hundred Dollars for each, paid by
                                                   
J. Phillips, Sheriff.

- New Jersey Gazette Vol. III No. 138 August 16th, 1780

Joseph (Hayden) Heighton's concurrent escape with Asher Levy may have been coincidental.  He and his brother Richard Hayden were counterfeiters, and yet another brother Samuel Hayden lead a party of King's Rangers and Loyalist refugees in a raid on Woodbridge, NJ in June 1780 to kidnap some of those who had given evidence against his kin.  Joseph and Richard Hayden ended up in British occupied New York, and in November, 1783 were arrested by the Crown and imprisoned for stealing a horse and chaise.  Villainous company, to be sure, but with no other known connection to Asher Levy after he and Joseph Hayden made their escape from New Jersey.

Levy is described in both newspaper accounts as a young, well dressed man, with estimates of age that comport with his known year of birth (1756).   Asher Levy later married Margaret (Mary) Thom(p)son in occupied New York on May 22nd, 1782 and died just a few years later in Philadelphia.

What are we to make of his reversal of allegiance?  Was he a mere turncoat, or was he something more?  Could he have been a double agent?  We will probably never know, but it is worth delving deeper into what is known about his background to see what it may reveal about his chosen path.

There were fewer than 3,000 Jews in the American Colonies at the outbreak of the Revolution and they maintained close business and family connections.  Asher Levy's family origins and alliances offer potential clues to his behavior during the Revolution.

Levy came from a prosperous Ashkenazic Jewish family with deep roots in North America.  A collateral

Moses Lev y (1665-1728)
was Asher Levy's Grandfather

ancestor and namesake was among the first Jews to settle in New Amsterdam in 1654 and the only one who remained there at the end of Dutch rule despite Peter Stuyvesant's efforts to drive them from the colony. His Grandfather Moses Levy had two marriages and many of the oldest Jewish families in America come from these lines. 

By the mid 1700s, Asher Levy's nearer relations were well established in Pennsylvania.  His Uncle Nathan Levy, in partnership with his cousin David Franks, owned the ship which delivered the Liberty Bell to Pennsylvania in 1752. Asher Levy's father Isaac Levy died in Philadelphia in 1777.

In order to secure even the lowest officer's commission in the 1st NJ, a candidate needed connections.  Ensign Levy appears to have had a very good connection through his sister Esther (Henrietta) Levy's marriage to Matthias Williamson, Jr. (1752-1836), a New Jersey militia Assistant Quartermaster in 1778 but more significantly the son of militia Brigadier General Matthias Williamson of Elizabethtown New Jersey (and coincidently one of my ancestors).  Both Ensign Levy and Matthias Williamson were called to testify in Colonel Ogden's court martial in Elizabethtown in 1779, and as shall be seen, Matthias Williamson Jr. was one of the executor's of Asher Levy's will in 1785.

Oliver De Lancey, Jr.

On the other hand, Asher Levy's Franks relatives included several clear Loyalists.  1st cousin Phila Franks eloped and secretly married non-Jewish Oliver DeLancey, Jr., who would become the senior Loyalist commander during the Revolution.  Her brother David Franks was twice imprisoned in Philadelphia and finally sent through the lines to New York until the end of the war.  His daughter Rebecca Franks was the belle of numerous British balls in occupied Philadelphia during the winter of 1777-1778, and later while in exile in New York married Lt. Col. Henry Johnson of the 17th Foot.

Asher Levy was able to leave New York before the final Peace was ratified and moved to Philadelphia.  If he were truly a "notorious villain", one wonders why a clear patriot, his brother-in-law Matthias Williamson Jr., would have deigned to be an executor of his Will.  Yet here is the summary of Asher Levy's Will, drafted in the fall of 1783 and proved in August 1785.  His wife Margaret (Mary) Thom(p)son, is listed as a witness, and both his sister Esther and brother-in-law Matthias Williamson were his executors.

LEVY, ASHER. Phila. Gentleman.

September 25, 1783. August 12, 1785. T.183.

Sister: Esther [Otherwise called Henrietta].

Exec: Brother-in-Law Matthias Williamson and Sister Esther Levy.

Wit: Margret Thomson, Richard Mount, Callaghan McCarthy.

A couple of months later, the Pennsylvania Packet posted the following notice:

If a certain Asher Levy, son of Mr. Isaac Levy, of the city of Philadelphia, deceased, will apply to the
                 Printer hereof, he will hear of something to his advantage." December 9, 1783

This was in reference to his father's will of 1777, the estate of which remained unsettled as late as 1785.  By then, Asher Levy himself had died.


It is possible that Levy really was a disaffected person, but it is also possible that Lt. Col. De Hart's letter naming him as such was an elaborate cover.  As part of an extensive merchant family he had connections throughout the Western Atlantic from Nova Scotia to Jamaica.  There were plenty of spies managed by the officers of the 1st and 3rd New Jersey Regiments and Levy could have been one of these.  Then again, Colonel Ogden may have been looking for a chance to get rid of him after the court martial testimony.  Until more data comes to light we can only speculate, but there is room for reasonable doubt that his story should be taken at face value.

The Devil in the Details of the Single Source

Every newspaper reporter knows that a single source is not enough confirmation for a story to go to press.   Those who research the clothing and equipment carried by specific military units in America during the second half of the 18th century have also learned to be skeptical and wary of the single data point.  Some defer to a Rule of Three: at least three independent primary sources from this time period, understood in proper context, to substantiate a material culture hypothesis.

Sometimes, however, a  single source appears to be the sum total of the evidence available.  For some elements of 18th century material culture - uniform clothing, flags and other related textiles - surviving examples with known provenance that can be tied with confidence to a specific issue for a specific unit are extremely limited.  Still, it pays to dig as deep as possible and follow the source material.

Even artifacts collected from a site where the circumstances of their loss are well known are not

Artifacts from Lake George, including a New=Jersey
marked musket butt plate, displayed at Fort William
Henry, Lake George Village, New York

always conclusively connected to a particular unit.  The musket parts and accoutrements that have been collected from the waters of Lake George off Sabbath Day Point almost certainly belonged to either New Jersey or New York Provincial soldiers who were ambushed and slaughtered there in 1757, but some of these might only have been issued to one of these units and not the other. 

New Jersey Provincial Colonel John Parker wrote in a note at the bottom of a return of stores in 1757 that

    "I think the men had better have pouches
     instead of powder horns as they are
    always loosing the ball they have in their pockets.
    The pouches if approved of to be made after the
    form of the Royal Americans" ¹

  
There is no confirmation, though, that such pouches were ever procured, and therefore no way to conclusively link a cartridge pouch of this type that was found in the waters off Sabbath Day Point to the New Jersey Provincials. If that level of detail matters to the researcher, the data in this example may be is strong but more evidence is needed.

3rd New Jersey Regiment 1777
as interpreted by Lt. Charles M. Lefferts
in Uniforms of the Armies in the War of the
American Revolution, 1775-1783 (1926)

The same problem exists when we read too much into a deserter description. Often a notice of desertion printed in an contemporary newspaper is the only clear documentation that we have for the clothing worn by a soldier in a particular unit. Even when there appears to be further confirmation, it needs to be weighed carefully.

Notice was placed in a newspaper on June 9th, 1777, for example, that a private who deserted from Captain John Ross' Company of Elias Dayton's 3rd New Jersey Regiment wore

"a blue regimental coat, faced with red, spotted jacket and blue breeches" ²


Better still, this desertion corresponds with a well documented issue of blue coats with red facings procured specifically for Dayton's regiment from Continental stores forwarded from Massachusetts to Peekskill, New York.   Charles M. Lefferts based his 1926 illustration, at left, on the description of that one deserter from Ross's Company.

It does not follow, however, that the jacket and breeches worn by this deserter were standard issue for Ross's company at this time, let alone Dayton's regiment.  The 3rd NJ did receive issues of both items of clothing in 1777, and in considerable quantity, but an analysis of clothing issues and returns for the New Jersey regiments by historian John Rees reveals that far more overalls than breeches were provided to this regiment.  Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that blue was a preferred or prescribed color for the unit's breeches.  We know that this one deserter wore this combination, but only the coat seems to be the uniform standard for the 3rd in 1777.   Not that this has stopped some researchers from reaching a broader conclusion.

Units might have one type of uniform and equipment authorized,  somewhat different items requisitioned and disbursed, and more evidence from contemporary newspaper accounts and deserter notices that describe them yet another way.  The New Jersey Provincial Regiment, for example, that formed for service in 1758 had the following uniform authorized by the Provincial Assembly:³

                      "...A blue Coat after the Highland Manner, lappell’d and cuffed with red, one pair
                      of Ticken Breeches, and one Pair of blue ditto, of the same Cloath of their Coat,
                      one Check Shirt and one White ditto, two Pair of Yarn Stockings, two Pair of Shoes,
                     one Hat to each Man bound with yellow Binding, one Blanket, one Knapsack, one
                     Hatchet, one Canteen, one Kettle to five Men; a Pair of white Spatterdashes and One
                     Hundred Grenadiers Caps for One Hundred of the said Soldiers, and Two Hundred
                     Falling-Axes for the whole Regiment."

New Jersey Provincials
Jersey Blues 1758by Don Troiani

This sounds like a complete and comprehensive description, but there are other data that need to be taken into account.  According to research by Scott Lance of Tenbrook's Company, New Jersey Provincial Regiment (recreated), when that historic unit marched North on its way to the frontier the men were evidently wearing stockings without white spatterdashes, and breeches different than those initially authorized.  The New York Mercury described their uniform as 

"blue, faced with red, grey Stockings, and Buckskin Breeches⁴

Moreover, Scott's review of accounts submitted by Colonel John Johnson reveal that the commander of the New Jersey Provincials was compelled to purchase additional breeches because the regiment was short of this article, along with paying for thread buttons for ticken breeches.  There was difficulty securing arms and accoutrements, too, so those cartouch pouches preferred but probably not procured in 1757 were probably not available in 1758 either.   According to standard orders issued to General Abercrombie's forces for this campaign, the New Jersey Provincials would have cut down their hats with yellow bindings,  and added leggings in either red, green or blue woolen cloth procured from Albany by their officers for that purpose⁵.

The inescapable conclusion of these sources taken together is that the men of the New Jersey Regiment in 1758 looked considerably different in the field than they did when their uniform was first authorized.

Sometimes, even multiple sources for the same uniform can be interpreted with different results.  Consider another unit from the French and Indian War period: Captain Hezekiah Dunn's company of New Jersey Frontier guards.  This ranger unit organized for the winter campaign season of 1757-1758, and unlike other Frontier Guard companies before them,  Dunn's men had an authorized

Scott Lance of the Recreated
New Jersey Ranging Company

uniform:

                       one good Blanket, a half thick Under-Jacket, a kersey
                       lapell’d Jacket, Buckskin Breeches, two check Shirts, two
                       pair of Shoes, and two pair of Stockings, a Leather cap
                       and a Hatchet" ⁶ One of these men was advertised as a deserter after the unit had traveled to Albany, and his description is the basis for a number of recreations of the Dunn's Ranger company, from painting guides for tabletop miniature wargaming pieces, to a high end toy soldier produced by Wm. Britains Company, to the uniform worn here at right by Scott Lance.

      DESERTED from Perth-Amboy, the 20th Instant, JOHN MAGEE
      from the Company of RANGERS Whereof HEZEKIAH DUNN is
     Captian (sic), Said MAGEE is about 5 feet high, 45 years of age
     Red fac'd, had on when he went away Provincial Clothing, viz.
     a Grey lapell'd Waistcoat, and an under green Jacket, a Leather
     Cap, and Buck-Skin Breeches... ⁷

This is a very interesting description.  Both the authorized uniform and the deserter clothing refer to a lapelled jacket or (sleeved) waistcoat as the outer garment.  During the 1750s, each of these articles would have had skirts coming to about hip length, about the same as short coat or coatee length during the 1770s.   Going by the deserter description, Magee's waistcoat was probably grey and had lapels, rather than being of some other unknown color with grey lapels.  Is it enough to form an opinion of the uniform of Dunn Rangers, then, or do we need to follow the Rule of Three?

It turns out that there may be another colonial newspaper description of a New Jersey Ranger coat.   I came across two possible references to it in newspapers published in 1769, over a decade after Dunn's Rangers undertook that winter campaign.  The coat is is described as part of the clothing worn by a runaway slave from Newark New Jersey.  The second of the two descriptions does not identify it with the Rangers at all, but the first one does.

                         [May 22nd, 1769] ⁸


                         Run-away, from the Subscriber, living at Newark, New-Jersey
                         on Wednesday the 17th Instant, a Negro Nan named Benjamin;
                         but it is likely he will change his name; he has a Mold on his
                         Cheek, has a down-look, of a Yellow cast, a Lively fellow, and 
                         is about 5 Feet 9 Inches high: had on when he went away, a
                         short Ranger's Coat, grey or blue, and a red Watch-coat.
                         Whoever takes us and secures the said run-away, so that he may
                          be had again, shall receive five Dollars Reward, and all
                          reasonable Charges, paid by
                                                        - Nathaniel Richards

There is no other detail offered about the coat in this runaway ad, as if merely saying it was a Ranger Coat was description enough.  The second description appears several months later, when Benjamin ran off a second time.  As a result, we cannot know for certain that the coat he wore then is the same as the Ranger Coat.

                        [October 2, 1769] ⁹


                        Run-Away, on Sunday night the 17th inst. from the subscriber,
                       living in Newark, New-Jersey, a Negro man, named Ben; he is
                       considerably upon the tawney (sic) colour, (it is likely he may
                       change his name, as he is a crafty Fellow,) he is about 30 years
                       of age, 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, well made, has a hair-mole on
                       his cheek, and lost two of his foreteeth, walks very quick, some-
                       thing stooping forward; Had on, and took with him; one blue
                       broadcloth short coat with white buttons, a nankeen laced
                       jacket laced behind, two check and two tow shirts, two pair of
                       tow trousers, one pair of wollen (sic), one pair of worsted
                       stockings, two pair of pumps, and a short gun, brass mounted,
                       and a piece of brass along the upper part of the barrel, almost
                       as far as the sight...

Neither coat is described as a jacket, though the short coat reference is consistent with a 1750's sleeved waistcoat.  There is no mention of lapels.  The blue or grey color is compatible with the coat in the Magee deserter description, especially if it were an old coat (as this one must have been, with no Ranger companies authorized in New Jersey after 1760).  One of the descriptions mentions broadcloth, not kersey as was authorized for Dunn's company in the fall of 1757.  Perhaps broadcloth is what they got.  Even with these new data points, there are more questions than answers.  Such is the nature of academic inquiry and one of the reasons that peer review matters.

Did Nathaniel Richards have a personal connection to an old Ranger Coat worn by his slave Benjamin?  Did Benjamin wear that coat when he ran away that second instance?  Were there other Provincial coats issued to other New Jersey Ranger companies aside from Hezekiah Dunn's in that single winter campaign? 
 
Here we encounter another peril that comes with finding additional data: the opportunity for a tantalizing new detail to sidetrack rather than refocus the initial inquiry.  What about that odd short barreled musket with the brass scope? Was Nathaniel Richards the same man who was later counted among the Loyalists from Newark?  There may be an even more important story in the experience of the slave Ben, who was still running at the end of 1769 - this time in a gray surtout coat - after breaking out of jail in Albany where he had been confined as a runaway.  Someone needs to follow up on those details too, even if it is not the focus of this research.

That is why we document our sources, even the single ones, and another good reason for sharing them.
________________________________________________________

1 John Johnson's Account with N.J., for Troops, 1757-8.
2  Documents Relating to the Revolutionary History of the State of New Jersey Vol. I.;  Extracts from American Newspapers 1776-1777; W.S. Stryker, editor; Trenton: 1901: page 396.
3 Acts of the General Assembly of the province of New Jersey 1753-1761 New Jersey Archives, 1st series, Volume 8: 167
4 New York Mercury June 12, 1758
5 References for these general uniform adaptations include a General order of June 30^th, 1758, recorded in the Orderly Book of Colonel DeLancey’s New York Provincial Regiment, and the Journal of Lemuel Lyon of Connecticut.
6 New Jersey, General Assembly.  Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province on New Jersey. Aug. 19-Sept. 23.  Woodbridge: Parker, 1757, New Jersey Archives, Colonial Wars File, Trenton
7 The New York Gazette or Weekly Post Boy #780, January 2nd, 1758, New York Public Library
8 The New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury #917, May 22nd, 1769
9 The New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury #936, October 2nd, 1769