The Aftermath of the Huddy Hanging and Lippincott Acquittal

On April 12, 1782, a party of Associated Loyalists led by Richard Lippincott hanged Joshua Huddy (of Colts Neck) on the Navesink Highlands. This was an act of retaliation for the killing of the Loyalist, Philip White. Executing Huddy for an abuse that did not involve him moved George Washington to threaten the execution of a British officer (Charles Asgill) unless Lippincott was turned over. The British refused to turn over Lippincott, but tried him for murder before a British Army court martial. Lippincott, however, was found not guilty. Now, Lippincott’s status and the threatened hanging of Asgill escalated to the highest levels of American, British, and French governments.

Even before Lippincott’s court martial concluded, the British switched commanders in America—General Henry Clinton left for England and General Guy Carleton came from Canada to New York to replace him. The Associated Loyalists withered. William Franklin, their chairman, laid low. Board Member, Duncan Ludlow, "retired from it [the Board] in consequence of disapproving of the measure.” Another Board member, Tench Coxe, disavowed Huddy’s hanging. The dissolution of the Board was reported in Boston’s Independent Ledger on July 1: "We learn that the Board of Refugees is annihilated."

News of Huddy, Lippincott, and Asgill went to Paris—where American emissaries were negotiating for peace and independence. On May 30, Robert Livingston of the Continental Congress informed Benjamin Franklin (father of William Franklin) about Huddy’s execution and the decision to hang Asgill if Lippincott was not brought to justice. A captain was sent to New York “to see if Carleton can be persuaded to give satisfaction for the murder.” Livingston concluded, “It is a melancholy case but the repeated cruelties of the British has rendered some retaliation absolutely necessary."

Appeals to Spare Charles Asgill

As news reached Europe, Asgill advocated for his life. He wrote to George Washington on May 30 claiming “protection under the 14th article of Capitulation” from the British surrender at Yorktown. Asgill argued against retaliatory executions: "I am perfectly innocent of Captain Huddy's death...nor do I know why my life should be an atonement for the misdemeanors of others." Asgill sent similar pleas to Admiral Jean Rochambeau and Carleton. He even wrote to Huddy’s estranged widow, Catherine Huddy.

Asgill’s mother, leveraging her English noble status, wrote directly to the French foreign minister, Count Charles Vergennes, on July 13, to request his intervention:

My son (and only son), as dear as he is brave, amiable as he is deserving to be so, only nineteen, a prisoner under the articles of capitulation at Yorktown, is now confined in America, an object of retaliation. Shall an innocent suffer for the guilty?... A word from you, like a voice from heaven, will save us from distraction and wretchedness.

Lady Asgill’s letters would be printed in newspapers across Great Britain and France. With some hyperbole, French nobleman Baron de Grimm noted that Asgill’s letters appeared "all over Europe” and “resounded with the unhappy catastrophe."

Purgatory for Lippincott and Asgill

Washington, meanwhile, pressed Carleton for Lippincott. He wrote Colonel Elias Dayton (commanding New Jersey’s Continental Line) on June 4, to permit Asgill’s appeal to Carleton to be carried to New York: “You will therefore give permission to Capt. Ludlow to go, by the way of Dobb's Ferry into N York, with such Representation as Capt. Asgill shall please to make to Sir Guy.” Washington also urged to Dayton to make clear to Ludlow and all British officers that he would following through on hanging Asgill:

My resolutions have been grounded on so mature a deliberation, that they must remain unalterably fixed. You will also inform the Gentlemen, that while my duty calls me to make this decisive determination, humanity dictates a fear for the unfortunate offering, and inclines me to say that I most devoutly wish his life may be saved.

Carleton could prevent the “dire extremity” of killing Asgill only when rage over “the murdered Capt. Huddy will be appeased.”

At the same time, the New Jersey partisan, Adam Hyler, attempted to kidnap Lippincott from New York. A June 19 letter discussed Hyler’s attempt (Hyler’s crew included several Monmouth Countians):

Capt. Hyler was determined to take Lippincott, on inquiry he found that the man resided in a well known house on Broad Street, New York. Dressed and equipped like a press gang of a man of war, he left the Kills with one boat, landing after dusk... then passed the residence of Lippincott where he inquired for him and found that he was absent, gone to the cock-pit. Thus failing in his object, he returned to his boat... but finding a boat from the West Indies laden with rum, he took her, cut her from her cable and sailed to Elizabethtown Point; and before daylight had landed from her 40 hogshead of rum. He then burned the sloop to prevent her recapture.

Lippincott was acquitted of murder by the British court martial on June 25, but American newspapers initially got the verdict wrong. On June 27, the Massachusetts Spy reported: “Captain Lippincott, who was principally concerned in the inhuman murder of Captain Huddy, was tried at New York Thursday last, found guilty, and was to be sent out on Friday to General Washington's camp.” On June 28, the Pennsylvania Evening Post reported:

Capt. Lippincott has been tried & found guilty; but whether the British would execute him themselves in the presence of proper persons sent by his Excellency, Gen. Washington, or send him out to the lines, was not mentioned.

It later reported, "Lippincott has certainly received a sentence of death by a court martial for the murder of Captain Huddy; and, it is expected, will be executed at New York, or out, this week."

General Henry Knox, leading prisoner exchange negotiations at Elizabethtown, was the first Continental Army officer to learn of Huddy’s hanging and he continued to follow the affair. In July, he wrote about Lippincott twice. Knox wrote that “this affair has created much ill blood between the tories and regular troops in New York.” Knox also expressed his views on retaliatory executions which “have been too frequent, under the color of the Laws of the different states.” These state laws “sully the purity of our cause.” He then considered Lippincott and doubted the need to execute Asgill:

I am pretty well convinced that the representations, and the light in which the murder of Huddy has been received on both sides of the lines will prevent a repetition of the crime and so far render retaliation unnecessary.

Knox suggested that Washington did not want to execute Asgill; Knox saw Washington as forced to execute Asgill by “his own declarations, the resolution of Congress on the subject, and the expectations of the people.” Knox then rebuffed Guy Carleton’s offer to send Lippincott’s court martial papers into American lines and with the Loyalist jurist, William Smith, to explain Lippincott’s acquittal: “The hope still exists that you will be punishing the perpetrators of this flagitious murder.” Knox then suggested that Smith, Chief Justice of New York’s Loyalist civil government, was an unfit emissary to explain a British Army court martial: “The trial having been by a military tribunal, the propriety of admitting of explanations & comments by a chief Justice of a court of civil jurisdiction does not appear to me evident.”

The status of Lippincott’s court martial papers yielded wild rumors, one of which blamed James Robertson’s mother (Robertson was the Governor-General of New York’s civil government) for losing the papers. The newspaper worried, "if they are not found, Lippincott must be tried again." A reward was offered for their return. Lippincott’s court martial papers were, if ever lost, recovered.

The Continental Congress had already acquired at least some of Lippincott’s court martial papers. These papers were cited among the documents related to Huddy and Lippincott when it investigated the matter in August. Congress examined:

• Petitions and memorials to Washington from Monmouth County on Huddy’s hanging;

• Continental Congress resolves approving the selection a British officer for retaliation;

• Proceedings of Richard Lippincott's court martial;

• Depositions taken in Monmouth County shortly after the hanging;

• Letters between Continental Army and British leaders on Huddy’s hanging and its aftermath.

Initially, these documents and Lippincott’s court martial acquittal further stoked American calls for vengeance. Arthur Middleton, a delegate in Congress wrote: "Let our enemy beware of improper conduct, and let our Friends take care [not to] fall into their hands." Thomas Paine taunted the British and called for Lippincott to be turned over:

You hold the one and we hold the other [Asgill]. You disown or affect to disown the reprobate conduct of Lippincott; yet you give him sanctuary and by so doing you effectively become the executioner of Asgill as if you put the rope around his neck... Deliver up one and you save the other; withhold the one, and the other dies by your choice. On our side, the case is exceedingly plain; an officer [Joshua Huddy] has been taken from his confinement and murdered, and the murdered lies within your lines.

Congress and Washington Soften on Retaliation

As the Huddy-Lipponcott-Asgill drama dragged into the summer, passions gradually cooled. Historian Donlad Shomette noted that the French King and Queen reviewed letters on the controversy, including a plea from Asgill's mother. They directed their foreign minister, Count Charles Vergennes to write George Washington on July 29. Vergennes forwarded Lady Asgill’s letter and wrote: "Your Excellency will not read this letter without being extremely affected... it had that effect on the King and Queen." Vergennes then asked Washington "to deliver Mr. Asgill from the fate which threatens him. I am far from engaging you to seek another victim. The pardon, to be perfectly satisfactory, must be entire."

A few weeks later, on August 19, John Rutledge of Congress issued a report. Congress resolved that it was “clearly of the opinion that the acquittal of Lippincut by the court martial is not by any means justifiable.” However, Congress backed away from encouraging retaliation, noting that “General Carleton has inquired to authorities in England… to apprehend said [William] Franklin and send him in safe custody to America that he may be proceeded with in a course of justice for the supposed murder of Captain Huddy.” Congress moved to delay execution of Asgill; ordering that he “be held in safe custody" in order to give Carleton time to punish Franklin.

James Madison, serving in Congress, wrote about Lippincott two days later. He observed: “The culprit did not deny the fact charged upon him, but undertook to justify it as a necessary retaliation, and as warranted by verbal orders from the Board of Refugees.” The military court “acquitted him on the pretext of no malicious intention.” Madison noted that “Carleton explicitly acknowledges & reprobates the crime, & promises to pursue other modes.” Madison also suggested that Washington was softening from his public position in support of executing Asgill: “Genl. Washington seems to lean to the side of compassion but asks the direction of Congress."

Monmouth County’s Colonel David Forman, who also headed the Association for Retaliation, pressed Washington for retaliation. On August 28, Forman bluntly asked, "What is to be done for the murder of the unfortunate Captain Huddy?" Washington replied evasively on September 3:

Gen. Carlton sent me the proceedings of the court martial upon Lippincott by which means he was acquitted on proving to the satisfaction of the court that he acted under the direction of the Board of Directors of the Associated Loyalists. Gen. Carlton does not justify the proceedings.

Washington stated that Carleton “has given orders to prosecute the inquiry still further. I have given him no answer, but have transmitted a copy of the proceedings to Congress." Washington told Forman that he still held Asgill "in close confinement." But the delayed retaliation was apparent. George Plater, President of Maryland’s Senate, wrote: "Pray has the affair of Lippincott blow over. I hear nothing of it."

Carleton then sent the complete minutes of Lippincott’s court martial to Washington on September 13. Carleton took the opportunity to explain that Huddy’s hanging was never approved by the British Army, “my predecessor in command was wholly unacquainted with the fact” and Clinton quickly investigated the “criminal proceeding.” Clinton considered Huddy’s hanging an “a great Barbarity in itself, as well as a daring Insult on his own authority.” Carleton also chided Washington for threatening retaliation before British legal processes were exhausted: “Tho’ it might be natural for Your Excellency to make a demand of justice for outrages against the Law of Arms, it is not ’til justice is refused, that even a menace of retaliation can be justified.”

Carleton asked Washington to show mercy for Asgill and restrain further retaliation:

I must take leave to express my claim and confidence, that you will immediately relieve them [Asgill and a second officer] from their anxieties and confinement, as a debt due to humanity, to say nothing of the requirements of honor and policy, and of the principles of all laws, civil and moral. The trial of Lippencot is now in your hands, and you will find that he has been acquitted upon the oaths of men of rank and character, on all the circumstances of the case.

Carleton promised to investigate others involved in Huddy’s murder, “I have given Orders to the Judge Advocate to make further Inquisition and to collect Evidence for the Prosecution of such other Persons as may appear to have been criminal.” But Carleton also asked Washington to consider past “violences which have naturally begotten such resentments as it is not in the condition of authority wholly to restrain.” This was a reference to Loyalist abuses in Monmouth County.

Carleton complained of continued provocations from Monmouth County, including the death sentences put upon Ezekiel Tilton, Timothy Scoby and other Loyalists. Carleton asked Washington to acknowledge the equal immorality of the Associated Loyalists and radical Whigs (such as David Forman’s “Retaliators”):

The same spirit of revenge has mutually animated the people of New Jersey and the Refugees under our command, equally criminal and deserving of punishment in all, as they lead to evils and misfortunes of the blackest and most pernicious sort. But they cannot, Sir, be partially suppressed. I know that mutual reproaches and acts of cruelty have been common in Civil Wars, but men of liberal minds invested with the dignities of high office, are, or ought to be, above the taint of such vulgar malignity.

Carleton’s letter to Washington is in the appendix of this article.

Washington continued to await guidance from Congress, writing General Benjamin Lincoln on September 30: "I am totally silent to the public, waiting the decision of Congress on the case of Huddy.” Washington confessed, “I feel, exceedingly, for Capt. Asgill; who was designated by lot as a victim to the manes of Capt. Huddy.” Washington noted the sympathies stirred by the letters of the Asgill family and expressed frustration with Congress:

To this hour I am held in darkness. The letter of Asgill (copy of which I enclose) and the situation of his Father which I am made acquainted with by the British prints, work too powerfully upon my humanity, not to wish that Congress would chalk a line for me to walk by in this business.

Finally, on October 17, Congress provided guidance to Washington—but the guidance was only that Washington should wait longer. Congress determined that there was not “sufficient reason why the Commander in Chief should recede from the determination expressed in his Letters [to retaliate by executing the British officer]” but Congress directed Washington “to suspend the Execution… in order to give the British General a further opportunity of saving the innocent by surrendering the guilty.”

Retaliation Averted: Asgill Is Released

Congress soon reversed itself. On November 7, without customary rhetorical flourish or explanation, it directed Washington to release Asgill. On November 8, it implored the British to continue investigating and seeking justice for the murder of Joshua Huddy. Newly presiding over Congress was Elias Boudinot of New Jersey. He was a former Commissary of Prisoners for the Continental government who was knowledgeable of affairs in Monmouth County.

Members of Congress had, no doubt, grown tired of the never-ending drama over Lippincott and Asgill. But the specific nudge that released Asgill came from Europe. It was “a copy of a letter from Count de Vergennes, from the 29th of July, interceding on behalf of Captain Asgill: Resolved, the commander in chief be and is at liberty and hereby directed to set Captain Asgill at liberty."

Robert Livingston wrote Benjamin Franklin confirming the importance of the French intervention: "General Carleton has sent out the trial of Lippencot, which admits the murder of Huddy, but justifies Lippencut, under an irregular order of the Board of refugees.” Retaliation was averted by “the interposition of their [French] Majesties prevented. The letter from the Count de Vergennes is made the ground work of the resolution passed on that subject."

A few members of Congress were unhappy with Asgill’s release. On November 8, Congress heard a new resolution to "fully authorize & empower" General Washington to "demand satisfaction" for "any act of cruelty contrary to the laws of war" and "to cause suitable retaliation to be made" if the demand was not satisfied. This resolution was defeated by a resounding 4-19 vote. One member of Congress wrote that “after much parade, Lippincott was acquitted” and justice for Huddy was no longer demanded:

Young Captain Asgill, some time ago allotted as a victim of Retaliation to atone for the murder of Captain Huddy, is liberated by the direction of Congress; no reasons being assigned in this resolve, the world are left to conjecture the motives.

Carleton apparently did conduct a follow up investigation. Washington acknowledged as much in a December 24 letter: “the report of the Judge Advocate of your Army respecting a farther inquisition which had been proposed to be made into the murder of Capt. Huddy.” However, there is no reason to believe that the British punished anyone for Huddy’s murder.

The Huddy – Lippincott – Asgill Affair Lives On

The sordid Huddy-Lippincott-Asgill Affairs resurfaced periodically in American newspapers over the next decade. In June 1782, Pennsylvania’s Freeman's Journal described an April landslide on the Navesink Highlands in which "some forty acres gave way… and sunk down a considerable depth, forming a cavity." The report hinted at a super natural cause, “It is remarkable that the sunken land was a short distance from where the unfortunate Capt. Huddy suffered death."

In January 1783, the Boston Evening Post published a reply to Mrs. Asgill’s plea for her son:

They [the Loyalists] doubtless represent on your side of the ocean that this little barbarity was dictated by policy; but they who know all its circumstances are convinced, that it proceeded from low, mean and pitiful revenge... May my country build her fame on the most noble and exalted virtues of generosity and humanity! May your's repent of her many deliberate murders, cease her ambition, and once more restore peace to contending nations.

In 1785, the Massachusetts Sentinel published an essay on returning Loyalists, "Ask the ghosts of Huddy, and a thousand others, massacred in cold blood, poisoned in the hold of a prison ship, or strangled on a gibbet." The essay attacked the Associated Loyalists who "scattered destruction over this devoted land" and hinted at violence against “those miscreants, the Refugees, insolently patrolling those streets that they had once deluged in a torrent of blood."

The Pennsylvania Mercury, in 1791 published a poem: "Stanzas Written on the Hills of Navesink, near Sandy Hook.” It included these lines:

The lapse of time and change of lords, beholds you still the same;

You saw the angry Briton come, You saw his blasted fame.

In rude retirements herd the deer, where forests round them rise;

Haunted still by Huddy's ghost, [with] the trembling rustic flies.

Perspective

Some antiquarian accounts of the Huddy-Lippincott-Asgill controversy suggest it caused the fall of Lord Frederick North’s government in England and threatened the Paris peace negotiations. These accounts likely over-blow the importance of the controversy. But there is no doubt that the hanging of Joshua Huddy and the events that followed escalated to the highest levels of the American, British and French governments and brought international scrutiny to the local war in Monmouth County.

By late 1782, the British had acceded, in principle, to American independence and were actively seeking peace. While they had a strategic interest in offering up Lippincott (or another man) for Huddy’s murder, their legal processes and the sentiments of Loyalists in New York prevented it. American public opinion was enraged by Huddy’s execution and it forced a reaction from Washington and Congress.

Washington’s initial threats to retaliate for Huddy by killing Asgill were, no doubt, sincere. But rage in April gave way to fatigue in October. The plea of a critical ally—the French Foreign Minister—provided Washington and Congress with the off-ramp they needed to finally ratchet down the cycle of virulent retaliation. Subsequent articles show that ratcheting down the virulence in Monmouth County did not come easily.

Related Historic Site: Independence Hall (Philadelphia)

Appendix: Guy Carleton to George Washington, September 12, 1782

Gen Guy Carleton to George Washington, 9/13/82: Sends all the materials relating to the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, in addition to the follow note: "I transmit to Your Excellency a Copy of the Minutes of the Court Martial, appointed for the Trial of Captain Richard Lippencot, accused of the Murder of Mr Joshua Huddy, together with such other Documents as may serve to manifest the whole Course of the Proceedings here, both before and subsequent to Your Requisition thereon. From these Documents Your Excellency will clearly perceive, that this Event was so far from being authorised by Government, that my Predecessor in the Command was wholly unacquainted with the Fact, until he was informed of it by Major General Dalrymple and Mr Elliot, on their Return from Elizabeth Town, and that it was no sooner known to him, than he wrote to the Board of Associated Loyalists, April the 20th signifying his Orders that they should immediately enquire into and report the Fact; a Measure which he judged necessary whereon to found such criminal Proceedings, as might serve to vindicate his Command from any Dishonor with which it might be stained. That he considered this Act as a great Barbarity in itself, as well as a daring Insult on his own Authority, and such as he meant to proceed against with Measures both of Punishment and Prevention, is manifest from his Letter to the Board of Directors, dated 26th April [4/26/82], in which he gave Command, that that Board shou’d not in future remove or exchange any Prisoner of War in the Custody of their Commissary, without having first obtained his own Approbation and Orders, and required them to make an immediate Report of the Names and Number of the Prisoners of War then in their Power, and where confined, and this, Sir, that effectual Measures might be taken to prevent the like Evils, by placing those Prisoners under his own immediate Authority; which has effectually been carried into Execution. Your Letter, Sir, demanding Satisfaction for this Injury, appears to have been dated on the 21st April and was received here on the 24th—4 Days after the Enquiry, which Sir Henry Clinton had commenced, and to this Observation I must add, that, tho’ it might be natural for Your Excellency to make a Demand of Justice, for Outrages against the Law of Arms, it is not ’til Justice is refused, that even a Menace of Retaliation can be justified, and Yet after You had been informed by Sir Henry Clinton and Lieutt General Robertson of the Proceedings and Purposes of the Government here, and while the Court Martial was sitting on the Trial of Lippencot, You have, as I am informed, put two British Officers in actual Arrest, One of them taken by Lot out of Thirteen, for the declared Purpose of Execution, tho’ under the Protection of the Capitulation of York Town, the other under Infirmities, which beside his Innocence, gave him a Title to Compassion—To Your Excellency’s cooler Judgment it is now referred, to consider, if these Things be conformable to the Law and Practice of polished Nations, and whether while You demand Justice of Us, You can rightfully take the Judgment into Your own Hands; for by holding these Gentlemen under hourly Apprehension of their Lives, as Pledges that Your Demands shall be specifically complied with, You leave Us nothing, by the most manifest Implication, but the Priviledge of blindly executing Your Decrees—But, Sir, until it is undoubtedly apparent, that the specific Satisfaction demanded under the Name of Justice cou’d be given, without a Violation of the same Justice towards others, and until it is manifest that the will to do what may and ought to be justly done, is wanting, the Right of designating innocent Persons, for the last Extremities of human Severity, cannot possibly commence, and even then it is not ’till in the very last Resort, and for the sole Purpose of staying those Injuries, which cannot otherways be stayed, that this Right (almost in any Case too horrid for Practice,) can be executed; a Right after all, which however it may exist in Theory, Yet in Practice and as extending to the Lives of innocent Men, is, as far as I have learnt in the present civilized State of Europe, happily influenced by the benevolent Maxims of Christianity, wholly unknown. And therefore to remove all Question concerning these Gentlemen, I must take Leave to express my Claim and Confidence, that You will immediately relieve them from their Anxieties and Confinement, as a Debt due to Humanity, to say Nothing of the Requirements of Honor and Policy, and of the Principles of all Laws, Civil and Moral. The Trial of Lippencot is now in Your Hands, and You will find that he has been acquitted upon the Oaths of Men of Rank and Character, on all the Circumstances of the Case—To shew my thorough Disapprobation of the Execution of Huddy, I have given Orders to the Judge Advocate to make further Inquisition and to collect Evidence for the Prosecution of such other Persons as may appear to have been criminal in this Transaction. But, tho’ I mean, Sir, to prosecute this Matter, with all the Effect which a due Regard to Justice will admit, Yet You cannot fail to observe from the Minutes before You, how very much precedeing Injuries have perplexed the Rules of Justice, and on this Account how difficult it is become, to ascertain the Quality of Actions, from the Diversity of Intentions, or to trace these pernicious Evils to any certain Motive or Source. The Province of New Jersey, You will perceive, has even legitimated these Violences, during our Contest, which have thereupon been openly acknowledged and avowed. Violences which have naturally begotten such Resentments as it is not in the Condition of Authority wholly to restrain. And in further Proof of these Facts I transmit herewith a Letter from Governor Livingston, together with our total Correspondence, to which that Letter refers. From this Letter dated the 25th June, it should appear that two Prisoners of War have been lately executed in Jersey on their Treason Law, that is, for ranging under our Standards. The whole Letter deserves Your Excellency’s most serious Consideration, and will doubtless impress upon Your Mind the Necessity of reducing as soon as possible our Contests to the accustomed Laws of War. It were well if those who so lightly pass these Bounds would ask themselves what other Limits there are, by which men may be restrained from mutual Destruction in every savage Form. Upon Occasions of like Complaint Your Excellency has refered me to the Civil Power of the Provinces, but You will now see that I am refered back again to the Commander in Chief, and indeed the Demand which Your Excellency has made of public Justice in the Case of Huddy, and Your Proceedings thereon, seem to take the whole general Question into Your own Hands. This Letter, Sir, together with the Minutes of the Court Martial, will prove too plainly that the same Spirit of Revenge has mutually animated the People of New Jersey and the Refugees under our Command, equally criminal and deserving of Punishment in all, as they lead to Evils and Misfortunes of the blackest and most pernicious Sort. But they cannot, Sir, be partially suppressed. I know that mutual Reproaches and Acts of Cruelty have been common in Civil Wars, but Men of liberal Minds invested with the Dignities of high Office, are, or ought to be, above the Taint of such vulgar Malignity; and You will acknowledge with me that it is their Duty most earnestly to join in the Check and Prevention of private Miseries, which cannot forward the Decision of any great Point, that may on either Side be desired. It is with great Satisfaction, that I read the Sentiments which Your Excellency has expressed, and the Declarations You have made of Your Desire "to soften the inevitable Calamities of War, and of introducing on every Occasion as great a Share of Tenderness and Humanity as can possibly be exercised in a State of Hostility," And You may rest assured, Sir, of my most hearty Concurrence in every Measure which can promote so desireable an End."

Sources: Robert Livingston to Ben Franklin, May 30, 1782, Ben Franklin Papers on line: http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=37&page=240a002; Hugh Edward Egerton, The Royal Commission On The Losses And Services Of American Loyalists, 1783-1785 (London: Kessinger, 2010) p 180; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Oracle of Dauphin (Harrisburg, PA), October 20, 1800; Huddy’s will discussed in Spirit of '76, vol 5, 1898, p46; The will of Joshua Huddy, Catalog of the Exhibition: Joshua Huddy and the American Revolution, Monmouth County Library Headquarters, October 2004; David Library of the American Revolution, Independent Gazeteer, n2, April 20, 1782; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); Charles Asgill to George Washington, Catalog of the Exhibition: Joshua Huddy and the American Revolution, Monmouth County Library Headquarters, October 2004; George Washington to Elias Dayton, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw240336)); Anonymous letter printed in John Barber, Historical Collections of the State of New Jersey (New Haven, Conn., J. W. Barber, 1868) pp 316-7; Massachusetts Spy, June 27, 1782; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 28, 1782; Independent Ledger (Boston), July 1, 1782; Freeman's Journal, December 25, 1782; Henry Knox to Alexander Hamilton, New York Historical Society: Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC02437.01498; Henry Knox to Guy Carleton, New York Historical Society: Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC02437.01513; Library of Congress, New York Packet, August 1, 1782; To George Washington from Guy Carleton, 13 August 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-09120, ver. 2013-09-28); National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 171, item 152, vol. 10, #701; Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 19, VI, folio 403, and No. 36, IV, folio 197. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:17:./temp/~ammem_ygyz::); Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; James Madison to Edmund Randolph, Letters to Delegates of Congress, vol. 19, p186 (www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html); David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 87, August 25 and 28, and September 3, 1782; George Plate to Robert Morris, The Papers of Robert Morris (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973) vol. 6, p 303; David Forman to Geroge Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence; George Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw250250)); Journals of the Continental Congress, American Memory, Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html; Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-89, US Govt Printing Office, v 23, p688; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Journals of the American Congress, (Washington, DC: Way and Gideon, 1823) vol. 4, p103; National Archives, Papers of Continental Congress, I36, Motions Made by Congress, v1, 421-6; Continental Congress Resolution, New York Historical Society: Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC00496.091; Robert Livingston to Ben Franklin, Ben Franklin Papers online:  http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=37&page=240a002; Letters to Delegates of Congress, vol. 19, p485 (www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html); Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; George Washington to Guy Carleton, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw250538)); Boston Evening Post, January 25, 1783; Massachusetts Centinel, February 7, 1785; Pennsylvania Mercury, January 29, 1791.