Sentence Analysis

The next step in the Continental Army’s punishment of Pvt. John Short, Pvt. John Smith, and Owen Ruick was to send them to Simsbury, Connecticut, to be locked up (or locked down) in the colony’s new underground prison, later dubbed “Old New-Gate.” 

As quoted back here, on 11 Dec 1775 Gen. George Washington wrote to the committee of safety in that town, stating:

the prisoners which will be deliverd you with this [letter] haveing been tried by a Court Martial & deemd to be Such flagrant & Attrocious villains, that they Cannot by any Means be Set at Large or Confined in any place near this Camp

That letter is often quoted in connection with Loyalists, thus implicating Washington in the persecution of political prisoners.

The Old New-Gate Prison no doubt did hold some Loyalists during the war, but the courts-martial which sentenced those three men to that prison in December 1775 show that they weren’t brought up on political charges. Short was convicted as a deserter from the Massachusetts army and a thief, Smith as an attempted deserter, and Ruick as a “transient” who had encouraged Smith to desert.

The legal record shows us some other things as well.

Short and Smith were convicted of violating the Massachusetts articles of war, approved by the provincial congress back in April (shown above, as published by Samuel and Ebenezer Hall in Salem). The privates had enlisted in the colony’s army under those terms.

In contrast, during this same season Gen. Washington and his staff were wrestling with how to deal with Dr. Benjamin Church, Jr., detected in a more serious “correspondence with the enemy” than John Short. Church’s commission came from the Continental Congress, so he was bound by the Continental articles of war. That document limited his potential punishment. (The military authorities thus showed their wish to be fair; they felt they that legally they had to follow the rules in place when the accused acted, not rewrite those rules later.)

That said, these sentences show the colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut working together in the new Continental structure. Ordinarily one colony couldn’t sentence men to imprisonment in a neighboring colony. But this was a Continental Army ruling, and Washington promised that Connecticut wouldn’t have to pay the cost of imprisoning those men.

The stated sentences of two years for Short and one year for Ruick appear to have been minimums. The court-martial said both men could be confined “for as much longer as the present contest between Great Britain and the American Colonies shall subsist.” (There was no such proviso recorded for Smith, yet in practice he remained in the prison for longer than six months.)

We know now that the war would last seven more years. I don’t think anyone at the time anticipated it would take so long. But the court-martial didn’t want Short and Ruick to be free while it was still going on.

To be sure, those men’s fates could have been worse. As the American press had reported critically, the British army executed deserters on Boston Common. For theft, Short was sentenced to the Massachusetts army maximum of 39 lashes (Art. 30). In contrast, British soldiers could be subjected to hundreds.

By eighteenth-century standards, the Continental Army court-martial’s sentence to (open-ended) incarceration instead of execution, the limit on lashes, and even Connecticut’s underground prison were all reforms to the prevailing systems of crime and punishment.

COMING UP: Accounting for the prisoners.

“After the first five Stripes Never Said one word”

A couple of Continental Army diaries from the siege of Boston record what happened after the courts-martial that I recounted back here.

Pvt. Samuel Bixby was a soldier from Sutton stationed in Roxbury in 1775. The Massachusetts Historical Society published his diary a century later.

That diary includes these entries:

Dec. 7th, 1775. Thurs: Capt. [Peter] Ingersoll was tried by a Court Martial for spreading false reports about the Country, tending to defame the General. He was fined £8, and dismissed the service.—

8th. Friday. The same Court fined one man £8.7s., and sentenced him to two years imprisonment in the New Gate Prison in Simsbury [Connecticut], for stealing & deserting; and another man, John Smith, for similar offences, was fined £8, and sentenced to six months at Newgate.

Bixby didn’t record the name of defendant John Short, and his figure for John Smith’s penalty misstates the fine as eight pounds instead of eight shillings. But his officers would no doubt have been pleased that Bixby was paying some attention to these examples of military justice.

Sgt. Henry Bedinger of Virginia was also stationed in Roxbury and also keeping a diary, eventually published by Danske Dandridge in Historic Shepherdstown. He recorded these scenes:

7th. John Short, a Soldier in Coll. [Theophilus] Cotton’s Regiment Tryed by a Gen’l Court Martial for theft, Desertion, & Divers other Crimes. The C’t Sentenced him to have 39 Lashes on his Bare Back & Suffer two Years Imprisonment In Simsberry Mines in Conecticut,

he Rec’d his Corporal punishment about 4 OClock this Evening, & after the first five Stripes Never Said one word Untill he had his Due—

This Day a C’t Martial was held over some Riflemen Composed of Rifle officers the first Time

9. Two of Cap’t [Moses] Rawling’s men & one of Cap’t [Thomas] Price’s men Tryed by the above C’t Martial for Divers Crimes were Sentenced to be Whipt, accordingly the Three Companys were Drawed up, Formed a Hollow Square, (the men) were Tyed to an apple Tree, & Rec’d their Corporal punishment

TOMORROW: Shipped to darkest Connecticut.

“The said Short is a midling sized man”

During the siege of Boston, Benjamin Edes published the Boston Gazette out of Watertown. His main competition was the New-England Chronicle that Samuel Hall printed in Cambridge.

Geography put Edes’s print office closer to the Continental camp in Roxbury. On 13 Nov 1775, and for the next two weeks after, the Boston Gazette carried this advertisement:

DESETED [sic] from Capt. Earl Clap’s company in Col. Theophilus Cotton’s regiment, on the 12th of June last, and taken up on the 9th of this inst. [i.e., this month] at Cambridge, John Short, and in conveying him to Roxbury he ran-away again.

The said Short is a midling sized man, goes a little stooping, fresh looking, lately had the small pox, with a scarr on the right side of his face, and dark complection: Had on when he was last taken a blue coat, wash leather breeches, a surtout of a greyish colour, small brim’d hat with a white ribbon round the crown, and boots on.——

Whoever will take up said run-away, and secure or return him to the regiment he deserted from, shall receive four Dollars reward and all necessary charges paid by me.

Roxbury, Nov. 10, 1775. EARL CLAP.

“Wash leather” meant a form of chamois.

Short was evidently caught in late November or early December since the ad stopped appearing and he was court-martialed on 4 December, as recounted yesterday.

In addition to running away twice, as the ad described, Short’s trial record says he’d gotten Capt. Clapp to pay 36 shillings “for a former theft.” No wonder the army was ready to throw the book at him.

Part of Short’s sentence was to repay Clapp that sum plus £1.16s. for the “expense of advertising and apprehending him.” Most of that was probably the $4 reward, then pegged at £1.

TOMORROW: Witnessing the punishment.

“From his own incoherent stories”

On 4 Dec 1775, Col. Jonathan Ward of Southborough convened a court-martial in the Continental Army camp at Roxbury.

Col. Ward presided over a board of officers that included four captains and seven lieutenants.

Pvt. John Short of Rochester was one defendant in that proceeding. He had marched under Col. Theophilus Cotton and Capt. Earl Clapp (represented above by his shoe buckles) during the Lexington Alarm and then enlisted under them for the rest of the year.

Short was charged with “desertion and theft.” He pled not guilty. The record of the court-martial published in American Archives states:

On hearing the evidence brought to support the charge, the Court are unanimously of opinion the prisoner is guilty. It likewise appears very clear to the Court, from sundry papers that were found with him, and from his own incoherent stories, that he is guilty of a breach of the 27th and 29th, and also the 3d article of the Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Army.

[Those articles forbade corresponding with the enemy, leaving one’s post to plunder, and provoking mutiny, respectively.]

According to said rules, the Court adjudge the following sums of money to be paid out of his wages and effects, viz:

To Captain Earl Clapp, the sum of 1£.16s., for expense of advertising and apprehending him; also, 36s., that said Clapp paid, at said Short’s desire, for a former theft.

To William Cowing [also listed as Cowen], a soldier in Captain Clapp’s company, 36s.10d., that he carried away with him when he deserted.

To Daniel Crawford [also Croxford], in said company, 4£.16s., for the damage done him by stealing his clothes.

Likewise adjudge him to be whipped thirty-nine stripes on the naked back, and suffer two years imprisonment in Newgate Prison, in Symsbury [Connecticut], and as much longer as the present contest between Great Britain and the American Colonies shall subsist.

The court then turned to Pvt. John Smith, a soldier in Capt. Peter Harwood’s company of Col. Ebenezer Learned’s regiment. Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors includes many pages of John Smith entries, of course, but this information matches a man from Brookfield who had enlisted on 12 June.

Smith was charged with “attempting to desert to the enemy.” He pled guilty. The court sentenced him to “pay the sum of eight shillings to Brigadier-General [John] Thomas, to defray the expense of bringing him back to camp, and suffer six months imprisonment in Newgate Prison, in Symsbury.”

Finally the officers considered “Owen Resick, a transient person,” for “aiding, advising, and assisting John Smith to desert to the enemy.” He denied the charge. (Based on other sources, I now think this man’s surname should have been transcribed as Ruick.)

After “hearing and examining the evidence,” the panel found Ruick guilty and sentenced him to “one year’s imprisonment in Newgate Prison, in Symsbury, and as much longer as the present disputes between Great Britain and the Colonies shall subsist.”

Gen. Artemas Ward affirmed those sentences. They don’t appear in Gen. George Washington’s general orders, issued out of Cambridge.

TOMORROW: A glimpse of John Short.

The Mysterious Mr. Carnes

I’ve been digging for information about John Carnes’s ideological or economic situation in 1775, and coming up empty. While the problems in his ministerial career are well documented, his life for the next decade is misty. He wasn’t rich enough to be prominent, or poor enough to come to the attention of the authorities.

Aside from the episodes I described here and here, all I’ve found is that Carnes bought shoes from the newly arrived merchant John Short, and sold goods to the Box and Austin ropewalk or its proprietors. And in November 1770, he joined the Old South Meeting.

Which leaves a lot of room for speculation. For example, his brother Edward (1730-1782) owned a house that got the name “Carnes College,” but no one knows why. Was “Carnes College” where John Carnes tutored young men for Harvard right after leaving the pulpit? If so, the property kept that name even after John set up his shop on Orange Street. (In the 1790s Harrison Gray Otis bought the “Carnes College” property and built a new house there, now owned by Historic New England.)

Who was the Carnes who announced the opening of a new shop with Nathaniel Seaver in the Boston Evening-Post on 17 May 1773? The next March, Seaver advertised in the Boston Post-Boy that he was carrying on that business alone.

Did John Carnes test business in New York in October 1765, when a man of that name registered as a freeman of the city? In June 1774 a John Carnes was in New York advertising “a quantity of dry goods…exposed to sale at vendue,” or auction. In October the sheriff advertised a different auction of “the four years leases of two houses and lots of ground, situate in Murray’s street, back of the College, late the property of John Carnes.” So if that was the John Carnes of Boston, looking for better prospects, the move didn’t go so well.

But maybe John Carnes was in the South End of Boston the whole time, quietly carrying on his little business, not advertising and not getting into trouble.

A “Reminiscence of Gen. Warren” in the New England Historical & Genealogical Register for 1858 said:

Dr. David Townsend, June 17, 1775, in the morning, went to Brighton to see Mr. Carnes’s family of Boston. About one in the afternoon, Mr. Carnes came and reported that there was hot work. The British at Boston, with their shipping, were firing very heavy on our men at Bunker Hill. Dr. Townsend said he must go and work for Dr. Warren.

Was this John Carnes, having moved from the army-occupied town? Or was it a relative?

In any event, since John Carnes referred to himself in 1770 as being “in the grocery-way,” he’s almost certainly the “John Carnes a Grocer” who had agreed to send information on the British military out to Gen. George Washington in July 1775. Did he do that because he was committed to the cause of liberty? In need of money? In the grip of a grand idea? I have no clue.

TOMORROW: But I know that the Rev. John Carnes sent information.