What Price Loyalism? The Case of John Cruden, Commissioner of Sequestered Estates

North Carolina Office of Archives and History

What Price Loyalism? The Case of John Cruden, Commissioner of Sequestered EstatesAuthor(s): Jeffrey J. CrowSource: The North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (July, 1981), pp. 215-233Published by: North Carolina Office of Archives and HistoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23534959 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 09:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

North Carolina Office of Archives and History is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The North Carolina Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:02:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncoah

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23534959?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


What Price Loyalism? The Case of John Cruden,

Commissioner of Sequestered Estates

By Jeffrey J. Crow*

Around two o'clock on the morning of April 5, 1782, an improbable party of

dismounted British dragoons waded ashore near the mouth of Taylor's Creek

just west of Beaufort, North Carolina. Vigilant militiamen, who had been

placed on alert the day before, spied the intruders, opened fire, and drove them

off. The invaders retreated briefly but then landed farther up the beach. Meet

ing only token resistance, the British easily captured the port town and com

menced two weeks of occupation and plundering.1

Ostensibly this minor battle appears to be one more example of the random

violence of the American Revolution, a bloody struggle that spared few in the

South. Yet a closer investigation of this curious episode opens a whole range of

questions beyond simple military concerns. Foremost among the latter include:

Why did the battle occur a full six months after Charles, Lord Cornwallis sur

rendered at Yorktown, Virginia? What was the purpose of the obscure invasion?

Why did the British wait so late in the war to attack coastal North Carolina?

Traditional explanations of the southern war fail to answer satisfactorily even

these military questions. Certainly coastal North Carolinians were no strangers to British marauders. During the war the British attempted to interdict the

trade of Ocracoke and Beaufort, through which most of North Carolina's and

Virginia's commerce streamed, by stationing privateers and warships off the

*Dr. Crow is head, General Publications Branch, Historical Publications Section, Division of Ar

chives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. An abbreviated version of the paper was read by Dr. Crow at the meeting of the Association of Historians of Eastern North Carolina,

held on April 3, 1981, at St. Andrews Presbyterian College, Laurinburg. 'Brief references to the clash at Beaufort were made by David Stick in The Outer Banks of North

Carolina (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1958), 70, hereinafter cited as Stick,

Outer Banks of North Carolina; and by Norman C. Delaney, "The Outer Banks of North Carolina

during the Revolutionary War," North Carolina Historical Review, XXXVI (January, 1959), 16.

Jean Bruyere Kell was the first to uncover extensive documentation on the battle and to publish her

findings in "The Day the British Took Beaufort," New East, IV (April, 1976), 10-14. A fully docu

mented account of the battle itself, including photographic reproduction of many of the pertinent

documents, appears in Jean Bruyere Kell (ed.), North Carolina Coastal Carteret County during the

American Revolution, 1765-1785 (Beaufort, N.C.: Carteret County Bicentennial Commission,

[1976]), 21-27, 32-54, hereinafter cited as Kell, Carteret County during the Revolution. This article

began originally in 1976 as a research report, assigned by the former director of the Division of Ar

chives and History, Larry E. Tise, into claims that the battle of Beaufort was the "last battle of the

Revolution." That claim can be quickly dispelled. Howard H. Peckham, in The Toll of Inde

pendence: Engagements & Battle Casualties of the American Revolution (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1974), 95-99, 127-128, records forty-two military engagements between April 24, 1782,

and April 17-24, 1783, and thirteen naval engagements between April 8, 1782, and March 21, 1783.

VOLUME LVIII, NUMBER 3, JULY, 1981



216 Jeffrey J. Crow

7-5

V.I HlGjlXN 1 Al°Xt 5 i , // ¥/S~n &f at,n,,,ub _ SgtJK."

S*

h

x^.,ro'^ A*./1 r?\ ^ \j j/£/ if-."' ^ î, "'Vi// '

-r,.. '1 /i«* > --f1 *£/" i ^ -A""' *"-V_»,'

»**n aw®8 \ t* ~ 4. "i J -v/l ? Teterxbu,

1<K

** C C i Vfl' , j?" r* ̂Tcterxbuw

JVorf&lk \

, - •* ^ v ~ - • v ̂ -*-y "< ,-> I'mtai \ \ 1

-V X "'/ll .*.*!! AAsftf X - $fr'jfcrSf,2r2?i} li ,Vvi>RS?F ^Y**- /( u

/OrlV i V' • lri Ii« Uo JX_ (J _» i1) tjvS%f

' ^^3>\ j\ r* TTai+#»wa«

a' *** J*t* . I c

4^) (v i »t Aiawnas > nw Xt^ X\ \j C»'^/a/.^<. '^JfynrtA 3 ^ \ =®i t l ,. I -A\ ' ;\\4s:^nVmû ^:^Mw

11 vSSMw*™ 4

^'"T > Augusta » /

,0 \o *>&etfu?e \ \C.Carterel or /ifmam \> *w? w J< . y

Portion of "An Exact Map of North and South Carolina, & Georgia, with East and West Florida, from the latest Discoveries" (1779). From Map Collection, Archives, Division of Archives and His tory, Raleigh.

coast to prey on merchant craft. This porous blockade proved ineffectual. Bri tish foraging parties occasionally raided the Outer Banks as well, but along the coast only Wilmington in 1781 succumbed to British forces for any length of

time, and it was evacuated by November.2

Thus, the seizure of Beaufort in 1782 stands seemingly as an incongruous event until a wider look at the war in the South is taken. The impetus for this small-scale invasion emanated from South Carolina where the British were pre paring to evacuate Charleston. It was not British military strategists who masterminded the attack, but John Cruden, a North Carolina loyalist and com missioner of sequestered estates for Lord Cornwallis. This article examines Cru den's career as a quasi-military administrator for the British army. In so doing it explores several questions about the complex of motives that attached certain merchants to the British cause; about the conflation of public and private inter ests in Anglo-American society and political thought; and, concomitantly, about the raison d'etre for the battle of Beaufort. John Cruden's fascinating role in the closing days of the Revolutionary War sheds new light on the frequently neglected post-Yorktown phase of the southern conflict.

2 Stick, Outer Banks of North Carolina, 44-71.

THE NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL REVIEW



What Price Loyalism? The Case of John Cruden 217

John Cruden was a latecomer to North Carolina. His uncle, John Cruden, Sr., had business interests in the Bahamas before he founded a store in Wilmington in 1772 with John, Jr., and the latter's brother James as partners. John Cruden and Company quickly established itself as one of the leading mercantile firms of

Wilmington and the lower Cape Fear country with additional stores at Cross Creek and in Guilford County. The elder Cruden, doubtless plagued as much by Revolutionary politics as by his poor health, left North Carolina for Jamaica in

January, 1775, sat out the war, and depended on his nephews to hold the busi ness together. Before he left, the elder Cruden "complied with all the orders, & resolves of the Committee [of Safety], under whose jurisdiction he was situated; subscribed for the relief of the distrest Inhabitants of Boston, and upon the req uisition of the Committee, agreed to deliver up what gunpowder he had then re

maining on hand, for the public defense."3 His nephews, however, followed a

different course. As recent émigrés to the colonies, the younger Crudens showed scant sympathy for the patriot cause. John, Jr., came under the scrutiny of the

Wilmington Committee of Safety, perhaps the most radical group in North Carolina. When he refused to sign the association of the Continental Congress, which suspended all trade with Britain, the committee branded Cruden a trait

or, "unworthy of the rights of freemen and . . . inimical to the liberties" of the

country. Threatened with the boycott of his business, Cruden signed the associ

ation in March, 1775." Such coercion merely stiffened his deep-seated loyalism.

According to Josiah Martin, North Carolina's last royal governor, John Cruden,

Jr., "engaged at the utmost hazard to supply the Loyalists with provisions at

the time of their taking arms," presumably a reference to the Battle of Moores

Creek Bridge in February, 1776.5 For this transgression the Fourth Provincial

Congress at Halifax on April 16, 1776, declared Cruden "unfriendly to the

American rights" and ordered that he be taken into custody.6 The revolutionar

ies were too late. On April 8, 1776, John and James Cruden fled Wilmington and took refuge on board the British ship Jenny. They were discharged in Ja

maica on July 2.7

'Petition of John Cruden, Sr., February 2, 1779 (Campbellton), Legislative Papers, February 9-13,

1779, Box 23, Archives, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, hereinafter cited as Petition of John Cruden, Sr., 1779, State Archives.

'Wilmington Committee of Safety, March 7, 13, 1775, William L. Saunders (ed.), The Colonial

Records of North Carolina (Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 10 volumes, 1886-1890), IX, 1152,

1166, hereinafter cited as Saunders, Colonial Records. Biographical information on the Crudens has

been gleaned from the Memorial of John Cruden to Lord North, August 22, 1783, FO 4/1, English Records Collection, Box 16, State Archives, hereinafter cited as Memorial of John Cruden, 1783, State Archives; Claim of James Cruden, June 21, 1788, AO 12/37, English Records Collection, Box

4, State Archives, hereinafter cited as Claim of James Cruden, 1788; Claim of John Cruden, Decem

ber 12, 1784 (St. Mary's River, East Florida), Treasury Papers, English Records Collection, Box 17,

State Archives, hereinafter cited as Claim of John Cruden, 1784; and Petition of John Cruden, Sr.,

1779, State Archives. Also see Carole Watterson Troxler, "John Cruden, Jr.," in William S. Powell

(ed.), Dictionary of North Carolina Biography (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press

[projected multivolume series, 1979—], 1979), I, 466-467.

5Josiah Martin to Lord George Germain, April 9, 1777, Walter Clark (ed.), The State Records of

North Carolina (Winston and Goldsboro: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes, numbered XI-XXVI,

1895-1906), XI, 715, hereinafter cited as Clark, State Records.

'Journal of the Provincial Congress at Halifax, April 16, 1776, Saunders, Colonial Records, X,

519-520. 'List of loyalist refugees aboard Jenny, WO 60/28, British Records Collection, State Archives.

VOLUME LVIIl, NUMBER 3, JULY. 1931



218 Jeffrey J. Crow

Compelled to abandon his stores and business in North Carolina at the age of

twenty-two, John Cruden, Jr., became an embittered and strident loyalist and

spent the next decade devising various schemes to recoup his fortune and to

avenge his expulsion. After a brief sojourn in the Bahamas, he arrived in New York in 1777, where he combined an instinct for making profits through public service with a violent rhetoric to make himself known to British officials on both

sides of the Atlantic. He advocated to his father, a cleric in England who con

veniently passed along the letters to the earl of Dartmouth, the "levelling" of Boston on the ground that "desprate distempers require desprate cures." He de

plored what he regarded as Britain's lenient policy toward the American rebel lion. He argued that the crown should set up military governments in each col

ony. Loyalists, he maintained, would "never complain of the severity, strict

order, or discipline of a Military Government. . . ." They would give up "many conveniences" to see "a factious set of republican rascall's brought to submis

sion," particularly "those imperious gentry of South Carolina and Charles Town." Cruden admitted that "there is Cruelty in destroying the property of

your friends—but every Man who has anything at Stake and who is the friend of the King would cheerfully make the Sacrifice, and Burn his house rather than this Country should become indépendant."8

Above all, Cruden urged the crown to issue "Letters of Marque" to the "Mer cantile Interest to fit out Strong Vessells to cut the Trade of the Southern Colo nies." Privateering and its potential profits intrigued Cruden. New York was a notable center for privateering, and while in exile there Cruden doubtless be came acquainted with numerous merchants who had made fortunes in priva teering and who continued their shady activities on behalf of the crown during the Revolution. In particular Cruden pointed to Ocracoke, where an "amazing quantity of goods" was brought into North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. Cruden's "Private Adventurers" would accomplish two purposes: they would check the flow of supplies to the "Rebell Army ... in that round about way," and they would realize a "profitt" from the "Service they would render Govt "9

Cruden's truculent views and past support impressed Governor Martin. When Charleston fell to British arms in May, 1780, Cruden joined Martin in South Carolina, where he volunteered for the loyalist militia. But North Carolina's royal governor had other plans for his fiery, if ambitious, protege. Martin per suaded Cornwallis to name Cruden commissioner of sequestered estates: "Lord Cornwallis has been pleased, on my recommendation, to appoint Mr. John Cru den to execute the purposes of His Lordship's important Proclamation of the 16th inst. [September, 1780], and I am hopeful his character, capacity and in

tegrity, which qualify him for any Trust, will bespeak your Lordship's favour to continue him in office."10 Four years after fleeing Wilmington, Cruden found

"Extract of Letter from John Cruden to the Earl of Dartmouth [?], November 14, 1777; Extract of Letter from John Cruden to the Reverend William Cruden (his father), December 24, 1777, January 20, 1778, Dartmouth Manuscripts, 1720-1783, English Records, Box 1, State Archives.

"John Cruden to the Reverend William Cruden, January 28, 1778, Dartmouth Manuscripts, 1720-1783, English Records, Box 1, State Archives.

'"Josiah Martin to Lord George Germain, September 21, 1780, Clark, State Records, XV, 82.





Charles, Lord Cornwallis (1738-1805), commander of British forces in the southern colonies, was persuaded by Governor Josiah Martin to appoint John Cruden commissioner of sequestered estates in September, 1780. Engraving from John Andrews, History of the War with America, France, Spain, and Holland . . . (London: Published by his Majesty's Royal License and Authority, 4 volumes, 1785), II, opposite p. 249; reproduced in Donald H. Cresswell (comp.), The American Revolution in Drawings and Prints . . .

(Washington: Library of Congress, 1975), p. 13.

himself in the unique position of effecting the very kinds of policies he had been

propounding. Cruden's job as commissioner of sequestered estates was to supplement the

British army's commissary in the South. The commissary of captures moved with the army and picked up goods along the way. But Cornwallis wanted the commissioner of sequestered estates to work on a more permanent basis, that is,

to operate confiscated plantations that were owned by revolutionaries. In this

way Cornwallis expected a permanent supply of horses, food, and other com modities. According to the British commander's proclamation, Cruden, upon re

ceipt of a warrant from the commandant in South Carolina or at Charleston, could seize real and personal property: lands, produce, cattle, horses, even

slaves." Eventually, Cruden had in his charge over 100 whig plantations and over 5,000 slaves. The list of haughty republican rascals, to paraphrase Cruden, whose estates were seized read like a roll of prominent South Carolina whigs, among them John Mathews, Francis Marion, Arthur Middleton, Ralph Izard, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, and William Moultrie.12

Cornwallis imposed certain checks on his new commissioner: all property must be inventoried in the presence of loyal militia officers or of freeholders; re

ports must be made to the Board of Police in Charleston twice a year; and whig families were to receive a share of the plantations' produce for their own sup port. Despite these restrictions British and American authorities understand

ably took different views of Cruden's administration. The loyalist South Caro lina Board of Police in February, 1782, admired the "great pains" that Cruden had taken in conducting "himself with a laudable Zeal to promote the Interest

"David Ramsay, The History of the Revolution of South Carolina (Trenton, N.J.: Printed by Isaac Collins, 2 volumes, 1785), II, 169-171, hereinafter cited as Ramsay, Revolution of South Caro lina-, Franklin and Mary Wickwire, Comwallis: The American Adventure (Boston: Houghton Mif flin Co., 1970), 142-143, hereinafter cited as Wickwire, Cornwallis.

"George Smith McCowen, Jr., The British Occupation of Charleston, 1780-1782 (Columbia: Uni

versity of South Carolina Press, 1972), 93, 153-154, hereinafter cited as McCowen, British Occupa tion of Charleston. Another historian has estimated that Cruden had as many as 400 whig planta tions in his charge. See Sylvia R. Frey, "The British and the Black: A New Perspective," Historian, XXXVIII (February, 1976), 229-230, 232.




220 Jeffrey J. Crow

John Mathews (1744-1802), republican governor of South Carolina, 1782-1783, charged that Cruden and most of his officers had misconstrued the term seques tration and had unfairly and "indiscrimately" confis cated the property of South Carolina whigs. Mathews's own plantation was among the more than 100 seized

by Cruden. This miniature portrait, possibly of

Mathews, is held by Gibbes Art Gallery, Charleston, South Carolina; reproduced by permission.

of the Crown. . . ,"13 That same zeal, however, provoked the rage of South Caro lina whigs. When the Palmetto State's legislature met at Jacksonborough in

January, 1782, it ordered the confiscation of tory estates and the banishment of other loyalists on the ground that the British had seized, sequestered, and ap plied to their own use "the profits of the [confiscated] estates . . . and . . . com mitted the most wanton and wilful waste of property both real and personal to a

very considerable amount." When British military leaders protested the actions of the Jacksonborough assembly, republican Governor John Mathews retorted: "In the common acceptance of the word, it is true, sequestration means no more than a temporary privation of property; but your sequestrator general [Cruden], and most of his officers, have construed this word into a very different mean

ing. . . ." Mathews asserted that properties had been "indiscrimately torn from their owners" and that despite assurances of a "liberal allowance" to families whose estates were confiscated, "some have obtained trifling sums . . . while others have been altogether denied."14

Cruden's audited accounts for expenditures in 1781 offer several clues on how

he managed his office. The couriers, one McCrae and "a faithfull Negroe" Lon

don, received frequent payments for carrying dispatches to Cornwallis through dangerous territory. On one occasion Cruden paid four Negroes to row McCrae in an open boat from Charleston to the Cape Fear to deliver dispatches to the British forces. Cruden also presented cash "reward[s] to Negroes who was most forward in coming to the lines." Most of the expenditures, however, were for the

provisioning, maintenance, and payroll of the British army under Cornwallis's command. Cruden repaired boats; rented houses to quarter officers and troops

and another to establish a hospital; paid for impressed horses, kegs of rum for

"South Carolina Board of Police, 1782, Cornwallis Papers, PRO 30/11/110, folios 1-11, Library of

Congress, Washington, D.C., hereinafter cited as South Carolina Board of Police, 1782, Cornwallis

Papers. "William Moultrie, Memoirs of the American Revolution (New York: Printed by D. Longworth, 2

volumes, 1802), H, 321-323, 327-337.





sailors going to Cape Fear, various clothes, blankets, and shoes, and notably for cordwood and foodstuffs taken from whig estates, including corn, potatoes, hogs, calves, turkeys, and sheep. Not the least of his expenses was the hiring of

Negroes.15

These accounts notwithstanding, many acts of expropriation doubtless went

unrecorded—except in the minds of the dispossessed. Even so, Cruden's office did not function as well as the British had hoped or as the Americans later claimed. The confiscated plantations failed to yield a profit. Cruden's duties of ten overlapped with those of another British army officer, the commissary of

captures, while patriot raids frequently destroyed caches Cruden had built up. Consequently the plantations commonly ended up deserted, neglected, or

ruined; and slaves followed the British army or fled to Charleston in expectation of escaping to freedom.16

All of these problems boded ill for Cruden's personal finances. Under the terms of his appointment as commissioner, he was to earn his emoluments from the produce of the sequestered estates. This arrangement was not unusual by eighteenth-century standards. Distinctions between the public and private sec tors were unclear, and the boundary between private aggrandizement and com

munity welfare shifted with modes of public finance, social needs, and military necessity. The merging of public and private interests was particularly typical of imperial officials, who were told in effect: "Do a good job for the common weal and make what profits you can from the opportunity."17 As Cruden's

bright opportunity dimmed, he poured his own money and credit into the se

questered plantations. This decision was a fateful one, for he could have instead

systematically stripped the estates of all their wealth. He needed horses, food, tools, clothes, laborers, overseers, clerks, and inoculations against smallpox that was then ravaging the low country. In Cruden's own words, "His personal atten tion was sedulous, and unremitting—and from His private funds were frequent, and large advances of money—to promote advantage from the property in His

charge. . . ,"18

Despite his efforts Cruden proved unable to supply British encampments at

Camden, Winnsboro, Ninety-Six, or Charleston. By 1781, moreover, the war was going badly for the British. As Cruden explained, "The failure of the Cam

paign of 1781 with the fall of Lord Cornwallis standing as I did the head of a

great department, plunged me in difficulties overwhelming. . . ,"19 The South

15 Auditors' report on accounts of John Cruden, November 16, 1787, PRO Tl/651, British Records

Collection, State Archives, hereinafter cited as Auditors' report on accounts of John Cruden, 1787.

16Wickwire, Cornwallis, 239-240. Cornwallis's commissary of captures was Charles Stedman, whose history of the American Revolution has long been a standard in the literature. See Charles

Stedman, The History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American War (London: Printed for the author, and sold by J. Murray, 2 volumes, 1794).

"Michael Kammen, "A Different 'Fable of the Bees': The Problem of Public and Private Sectors

in Colonial America," in John Parker and Carol Urness (eds.), The American Revolution: A Heri

tage of Change (Minneapolis: Associates of the James Ford Bell Library, [University of Minnesota!,

1975), 53-68, hereinafter cited as Kammen, "Public and Private Sectors in Colonial America."

"John Cruden, Report on the Management of the Estates Sequestered in South Carolina, by Or

der of Lord Cornwallis, in 1780-1782, edited by Paul Leicester Ford (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Historical

Printing Club, 1890), 21, hereinafter cited as Cruden, Report on Estates Sequestered. "Claim of John Cruden, 1784, State Archives.




222 Jeffrey J. Crow

"IT TREREAS repeated complaints have been made to me,

V? that the property.of the efirmy fcquclitred in hiv hands, '»

dandeftinvly earned away, and othcrwife injured, I think it imtim

bent <*n me, inûftice to the truft rrpofed in me, topubhlh an entrap

from the proclamation of live Right Ilijoounbie F-arl Cortinalio, <d

the 16th September. 1780, that no perfon rruy plead ignoiaRf*- in

future. And I do hereby warn all perfon*, a, thoy fhJi anlwcr !< r

the fame, at their peril, front injuring in any manner, the property of the enemy in my poflV.Tmn, either bprctnctffj negroes en Ik ard

Hups, carrying away the timber or other property, or mnlefhttg the

people employed by me And I do require ail the inhabitants who

are in arrears for hoyfe-rcr.t or negro hire to my office, to pay the

lame up to the ift inHant, to Mr. Jawrs Goioon, at hi* office.

No. 31. Meeting-ftreet, on or before the 16th of thi* month, and

hit receipt fha'l be a luffieient dilc Large. JOHN CRUDEN.

Câriefivmrn, lOtb Afrt!% 1781.

ExtraQ /mm a Proclamation ef the Right-Hmomrailr Charges

£4tri CotMWALI IS, Liemttimrl-GtiuraJ »/ Hi* IGmjtfii'> bl,

** And I do hereby declare, that any perfon or pcrfons •bftruCtmg «r impeding the (aid Comtniilionrr in the cierution of hr« do'*, by concealment or removal of any property he ntay be authonh d to

farce or otherwife, (hall, on cutiridian, be punifhed as aiding arid

abetting rebellion. And if any perfon or perfons (hall mike ddc«m ry where anyeffeAs are concealed or attempted to be carried a«^y, or

(hall give any necHFtry information to the faid Joust CBontu,

Efquirc, fo that dfit&t belonging to a perfon whole eftate is (cpief tcred may Wfecured, the perfon or perfon* giving fwch information thai! be mod liberally rewarded. And aUrffkers civil and military, and all

perfcen wbatfoever, are ftridtly eajnmfd and required ro aid

and all ft the faid John Crvideo and hi* tlepntiea in the execution of the

«rttH rrpofcd in him. The abeve neat given under fab Lerd/tep't hand and fee! mt

Urn, m tb* dtfrtft «y H***fmm, it ti,

Stslf Cqrotr+s, tbr ibtb !i*p4rm.brr, IjScX

Notice published by John Cruden in the Royal Gazette (Charleston, South Carolina), April 17, 1782.

Carolina backcountry became a scene of "confusion, robbery, and murder," Cruden said. Whig partisans, attaining once again the initiative, destroyed Bri

tish-held plantations, murdered overseers, razed houses, and slaughtered live

stock. Compounding Cruden's. difficulties was the cavalier disregard of his au

thority by British officers. Ostensibly charged with control of all confiscated

property in South Carolina and North Carolina, including "the Negroes of the

Enemy in North-Carolina," Cruden expected the various departments in the

army "to account to him for all the property that may have come into their pos

session, of which the labour of Negroes, makes a very material article." In

particular James Moncrief, head of the engineering department, owed "him a





very large Ballance, on account of the labour of Negroes furnished by the Com missioner. . . ,"20 Cruden complained bitterly to General Alexander Leslie, com mander of British forces in Charleston, that his only chance to make a commis sion was to receive recompense for the services of Negroes to the army, but mili

tary officials were ignoring him and his authority. The commissioner demanded reimbursement at the same rate he paid for Negroes to repair and equip his own vessels: 2 shillings 6 pence per day for "Labourers" and 6 shillings for "Mechan icks."21

Nor was the army the only client with delinquent accounts. Charleston loyal ists and merchants evidently made use of Cruden's vast reservoir of manpower or expropriated whig property with even less compunction than the army. Cru den finally issued the following notice, dated April 10, 1782:

Whereas repeated complaints have been made to me, that the property of the enemy se

questered in my hands, is clandestinely carried away, and otherwise injured, ... I do

hereby warn all persons, as they shall answer for the same, at their peril, from injuring in

any manner, the property of the enemy in my possession, either by removing negroes on

board ships, carrying away the timber or other property, or molesting the people em

ployed by me. And I do require all the inhabitants who are in arrears for house-rent or

negro hire to my office, to pay the same. . . ,22

As if all these problems were not enough, Cruden soon found himself facing an even graver threat and responsibility: how to feed and provision the burgeon

ing numbers of loyalist refugees and slaves flocking to Charleston in anticipa tion of British evacuation of the South. By the spring of 1782 provisions from

outlying sequestered estates had been effectively cut off by the advancing American army of General Nathanael Greene. Only Charleston and Savannah

remained in British hands, and few British authorities realized the enormity of

evacuating these ports.23 As the months passed and the population of Charles

ton—black, white, and redcoated—swelled, conditions became acute. In May,

1782, Thomas Farr wrote patriot Colonel John Laurens of serious food shortages in Charleston: "I verily believe that their Beef and Pork, is short indeed, and so

is their Bread and Flour, the Rice helps out, but they have lately reduced the

Rations, and substituted Oatmeal instead of Bread or Rice, for three days in the

Week allowance, all this has alarmed both Soldiers and Negroes."24 Although il

licit trade between loyalists and whigs had flourished during British occupation of Charleston, it could not meet the extraordinary demands of wartime scarcity.

Consequently, General Leslie sought permission from General Greene to buy

20South Carolina Board of Police, 1782, Cornwallis Papers. "John Cruden to Gen. Alexander Leslie, April 8, 1782; Cruden to Major Kelly, April 12, 1782,

PRO 30/11/7-44, Cornwallis Papers.

22Royal Gazette (Charleston, S.C.), April 17, 1782, hereinafter cited as Royal Gazette.

23Eldon Jones, "The British Withdrawal from the South, 1781-1785," in W. Robert Higgins (ed.), The Revolutionary War in the South: Power, Conflict, and Leadership (Durham, N.C.: Duke Uni

versity Press, 1979), 265-266, 270-271.

"Thomas Farr to Col. John Laurens, May 17, 1782, in Mabel L. Webber (ed.), "Revolutionary

Letters," South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXXVIII (January, 1937), 7. See

also McCowen, British Occupation of Charleston, 90-94; and Alexander R. Stoesen, "The British

Occupation of Charleston, 1780-1782," South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXIII (April, 1962),

71-82.




224 Jeffrey J. Crow

In the costliest American defeat of the Revolutionary War, British troops captured Charleston on

May 12, 1780. Prominent in this 1780 view of Charleston harbor is the Provost (large building, cen ter), which was used by the occupying British as a prison. Engraving courtesy Library of Congress.

provisions directly from American merchants. Greene refused on the ground that he had no authorization from Congress to stop fighting. Leslie was thus

forced to send out "parties to seize provisions near the different landings, and to

bring them by water to Charleston."25 Large, armed foraging parties conducted

raids up the Santee River until the day of evacuation, December 14, 1782.

In this operation Leslie had the unstinting cooperation of the commissioner of

sequestered estates. Cruden had galleys built, equipped, and manned at his own

expense with "dismounted Troops," that is, dragoons. In effect the galleys were

miniature privateers—privately owned military vessels meeting a very real pub lic need. They were stationed in rivers and creeks "contiguous to the Valuable

Estates, to Cover the Shipment of produce, in small craft, and Convoying the

same to Town. . . ." Cruden sent out the "strongest vessels" to procure "valu

able Magazines of Grain" that were then "issued as sparingly as possible." Ad

ditionally the commissioner spent considerable sums on medicine for the Ne

groes to cure "Malignant disorders."26 It was at this desperate juncture that Cruden cast a hungry eye toward the

bulging storehouses of maritime North Carolina, the back door of American

commerce that Cruden had urged the British to shut since 1777. William Black

ledge, a lifelong resident of the area, later described Beaufort's crucial impor tance to wartime commerce: "During the Revolutionary war all vessels of heavy burthens as well as all others which fill to the Southward of Cape Lookout ran

into Beaufort rather than run the risque of being taken while lig[h]tering at

Ocracock or weathering Cape Look Out, & from Beaufort sent their Cargoes in

lighters to such ports on the waters discharging at Ocracock or [as] they saw

25Ramsay, Revolution of South Carolina, II, 370-373, 565-566. For an account of several British

foraging expeditions "to collect provisions for the use of this Garrison" and the "necessary subsis tence of the numerous loyalists preparing to remove with their property to Florida," see Gen. Alex ander Leslie to Gen. Sir Guy Carleton, September 8, 1782, CO 5/107, British Records Collection, State Archives. The letter also discloses the death of whig Col. John Laurens, high-spirited son of

Henry Laurens, the prominent South Carolina revolutionary and former president of the Conti nental Congress.

26Cruden, Report on Estates Sequestered, 12-17.





To the determined and entcrprifmg Ps tends

of the ROYAL CAUSE\ HO are w illing to (lep forth, ami gain HONOURS ami RICHES in UiC trtifjng the Encmtea of <J * *ar-BtiTAi*.

ALL of the above tlifcrtption, who will en ter on bom! the (Lip PKACQC.K* now lying in tire (lieam, will meet with the grratefl en

couiagement, by applying to Capt. Duuea#

McL«am, onboard faul Chip. N. R. GKOO it the Mad.

ONI' HUNDRED DOLLARS to be given, on all occa sions to the tit ft man who beau's an emmy'* veflel.

This notice, which appeared in a March 6, 1782, supplement to the Royal Gazette, implored "the determined and enterprising Friends of the ROYAL CAUSE . . . willing to step forth, and gain HONOURS and RICHES in distressing the Enemies of Great-Britain" to apply to Captain Duncan McLean on board the privateer Peacock. An added inducement was "GROG at the Mast."

proper." Blackledge attributed Beaufort's importance "to the fineness of its in let & harbor when compared with Ocracock."27

Cruden, the merchant and commissioner of sequestered estates, understood this linking of geography, economics, and military imperative. With the lines between public and private sectors seamlessly conjoined, he launched an attack on Beaufort, North Carolina. The tiny armada that set out in April, 1782, was, declared one North Carolina whig, "private property fitted out by one Cruden from Charlestown, Refugees [loyalists] supported by about 70 Regulars, for the

purpose of plundering, destroying all public Stores, and laying waist Mills, and Salt Works, of every kind."28 Captain Duncan McLean commanded the priva teer Peacock as well as two schooners, the Retaliation and the Rose. The British

dragoons aboard were under the command of Major Isaac Stuart.29 Cruden's preparations in Charleston had not gone unnoticed. Nathanael

Greene, encamped at Dorchester, South Carolina, had received intelligence on the expedition in late March, 1782. He warned republican Governor Thomas Burke of North Carolina: "A force consisting of four vessels, mounting in the whole forty-four gun[s] and manned with two hundred and fifty seamen, are

preparing in Charlestown and will sail in a few days. Their object is to plunder and destroy the Town of Beaufort, in North Carolina, in which they are in formed that there is a large quantity of public and private stores. Should they be repulsed there, they will proceed to Ocracock with the same view."30 Greene

"William Blackledge to Thomas Jefferson, February 2, 1808, copy from the Papers of Thomas

Jefferson, Library of Congress, in John Gray Blount Papers (PC 193.35), State Archives. "John Easton to Gov. Thomas Burke, April 19, 1782, Governors Papers, Alexander Martin, State

Archives.

"Royal Gazette, April 24, 1782. 30Gen. Nathanael Greene to Gen. Jethro Sumner, March 30, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI,

575; Gov. Thomas Burke to General Assembly, April 17, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 286.




226 Jeffrey J. Crow

Nathanael Greene (1742-1786), commander of Amer ican forces in the Southern Department, warned Gov ernor Thomas Burke of Cruden's impending expedition to "plunder and destroy" the town of Beaufort. En

graving from the files of the Division of Archives and History.

despaired about his position: "My situation is very critical. I have given all the Southern States reasonable warning, and if they neglect to support me, they must abide the consequences. ... It is evident the Enemy mean to prosecute the War, and I wish you not to rest in the shadows of security. . . ,"31 Governor

Burke, who was preoccupied by loyalist David Fanning's murderous rampage in

Randolph and Chatham counties, entertained few illusions about imminent

peace. He feared "Internal Enemies, but if the Enemy invade us in force, I am afraid we shall not be able to prevent them from landing." At first Burke scoffed at "reports of the landing of some British troops at Beaufort . . . , but not authenticated. I can see no object for them and can scarce credit it." But later he called out 1,000 militiamen, ordered the removal of public stores from New Bern, and sought help from the French fleet stationed at Chesapeake Bay. In the end, however, Burke's actions proved tardy and ineffectual.32

To gain access to the town the British employed some devious subterfuge. Posing as patriots who had just captured two enemy vessels, the British per suaded several whalers to act as pilots and to guide the small fleet into the in

let. The "whalemen" complied, and, with the Retaliation in tow "under Rebel colours hoisted over the British," the Peacock, like a seagoing Trojan Horse, was maneuvered through the dangerous shoals. Once inside the bar, the British

had little trouble taking the town from outnumbered and outmanned local mili

tiamen. The British dragoons, who had earned a fearsome reputation through

"Nathanael Greene to Thomas Burke, April 8, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 276. 32Thomas Burke to Alexander Lillington, April 7, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 582-583; Burke

to Nathanael Greene, April 12, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVT, 282; Burke to Count de Roch

ambeau, April 16, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 593-594; Burke to Richard Caswell, April 16, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 594-595; Burke to General Gregory, April 16, 1782, Clark, State

Records, XVI, 595; Burke to General Assembly, April 17, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 284-286; House of Commons to Burke, April 20, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 290-291; Burke to Richard

Caswell, April 20, 1782, Clark, State Records, XVI, 601-602. The battle of Beaufort climaxed Burke's feckless and ill-starred tenure as governor; see John S. Watterson IR, "The Ordeal of Gover nor Burke," North Carolina Historical Review, XLVIII (April, 1971), 95-117; Watterson, Thomas

Burke, Restless Revolutionary (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1980), 171-200.





vl Ccamta Inlet

w iWumoufk

'V

\fAPK LOOK OPT \

} -V 'New and Accurate

/ MAP

r

This portion of "A New and Accurate Map of North Carolina in North America" delineates the coastal region of North Carolina in the vicinity of Beaufort. From Map Collection, State Archives.

out the Revolutionary War under such leaders as Banastre Tarleton, went about

their business with utter ruthlessness. The "Women & Children from Town

came to our Camp in great distress," reported militia Colonel John Easton. The "wantonness of their plunder in this place, surpasses anything of the kind," he

angrily related, "I have heard of cutting open of Beds, strowing the feathers over the flores, and in the Streets, and destroying every Article of furniture they could not beer [bear] off, taking the Close from Womens backs, sarching of their

pocketts, and otherwise abusing them in a very cruel manner, not leaving many

a mouthful of provisions to Eat. . . ."33

For the next week the British occupied Beaufort and plundered its inhab itants nearly at will. Skirmishing, a truce, and an exchange of prisioners failed to dislodge the invaders. Indeed, the British deemed the raid a great success as

they removed "the stores and merchandize found in the town, which was con

siderable, on board the ships. . . ." They also seized vessels and boats in the

harbor, among them "a fine ship, loaded with masts, spars, rice, tobacco, and naval stores, for the French West-Indies; a fine schooner and sloop, and a number of small craft and whale-boats." Eventually Captain McLean burned what he could not take with him, including pitch, tar, turpentine, a brig, and

numbers of small craft. The British also claimed the destruction of several mills.34

33Royal Gazette, April 24, 1782; John Easton to Thomas Burke, April 19, 1782, Governors Papers, Thomas Burke, State Archives. For other sources on the particulars of this battle see Kell, Carteret

County during the Revolution, and Legislative Papers, House of Commons, April 17-30, 1782, Box

44, State Archives. 31

Royal Gazette, April 24, 1782.




228 Jeffrey J. Crow

PUBLtCK

Notice has l«cctt given, that Saturday, the xpth inllxnt, wii appointed for the diltribiuiim of the ttft j>n.,cr *.*

of pnac*, capcuiedat Beaufort in North-Cai©lin», {>5 the Letters ot

Marque, Peacock, Retaliation and Kofe; but I am iiiforun d. fintc

iofcrttnif the lanit, that in d;r«4t and flagrant violation of my order*, exeeffivc enormities and deurctliriuii* were committed np«,n the pro

perty- of individual*: And I hereby therefote (hall, and do, fufpeod and delay the faid Jiftnbutioa, until the Hi idled icrutiny »i made, towardc the detr^boB thole guilty of luck offence : but fur the mute

fpeedy and effciftu.il recovery of the property to unjuiitfyabiy purloin ed, 1 do offer to whatever perfon, that (ball difcover, and dtlitrer up to me, any part ol the fame; at the rate of ten pet cent, (or one tenth ®f the whole) according 10 the fale or appiaifeincnt of the article* fo rr claimcd: And I do hereby declarejmv firm intention to reptefent asob*

jedb of moft exemplary pundhmcut, whoevti (halt be found fecluding, detaining, or kmoaing to he detained, any |>a't of the /aid property ; The proceed* of goods I" refcucd, (that are by my iiiftruetioiu, ex

empted from ftiaure a* legal capture) (hall be retained hy me, a» well a* the (hare* of delinquents which (hall h* fuifrited, and unreferved

ly appropriated, as an indemnity and compcalutiou to the undefigBcd {offerers at Beaufort.

To exonerate myfelf in the clcareft manner from the mnft remote

Imputation, foranr caceffe*committed, which I vciy lit.ctrrly lament, t annex an extract of frveral of my inltrudUnri*, to Mr. Duncan M'Lcan and Captain Patrick Stewart, commanding the expedition; Which I meant to be AriHly and unequivocally obeyed; a> I declared the plan was primarily an lerraken, and intended by me tn be pro fecuivd; upon flic moll liberal priiuiplr of hoOilr retaliarion. *» a

Britifh fubjeA, and an individual, whole commercial Inflict have been

fitch that Scarce otic capital harbour. in any of the Colonies, but ha* contained a capture fiom my Housa.

The following INSTRUCTIONS to Mr. Duncaw M'Lta*. Jblaftt r of the Peacock, m»ft be implicitly, and molt ftricfly obeyed.

" No officer, fcaman, or marine, is, in any cafe whatfocvay, gad be thy provocation evrr iti great to infult x prifoner.

*• No one is, on forfciiu e of prire-money, am! confinement

during the cruife, to enter a dwtiling-houfe, is any part of thy ene

my's country, without the leave of the Commanding Offuer. " That the utmoft refpeft mull be lliewn to prifoncrs of

any condition : and 1 direct thai they met* with the officer*. «* That whoever intuits, maltreat*, or behave* in any lhape

whatfucver, unbe-nmingly, to wouica or childryn, thall loifait ptue toency iftd be confined

" That any one, who fhall in any fliape Injure, or cmbearlc

property by whoever owned, without orders ftwm th» CeurmuicUiig Officer, fh .11 fuftatn the feme forfeiture and puttift-.ineBt a* above.

" That it i* always to be undcrftood, that wearirg-apparel

and houlhold-furmture, of every kind (except loom* and msnuUAar

ing utenfils, which arc to be deftrpyed) are not upon any pretrnce whatfocver, to be taken away fr«m the Inhabitant* : And wherever

they rr po(Ttff.-d of dry rood-, which cannot be ufeful in proU-cttftng the war, fuchxrc to bereftmcd; but tf * is not under food to extend to good* in fbopv, ware*, houfes fix falc."

| JOHN CRlfDhN. Charhji/nfm, ?etA jl 1 aV, J 78a.

In this lengthy notice published in the May 25, 1782, issue of the Royal Gazette, Cruden attempt ed to disassociate himself from the "excessive enormities and depredations" committed upon the citizens of Beaufort during the previous month by Captain Duncan McLean and Major Isaac Stuart.





Casualties on both sides were slight, but the British accomplished their mis sion. Commissioner Cruden had become privateer Cruden. How much profit he realized from this ambitious venture is unclear. When he learned of the unspar ing pillage of the "sufferers at Beaufort," however, he was outraged. In what

amounted to a public apology, Cruden chided Stuart and McLean for "flagrant violation of my orders." He had heard disturbing reports of "excessive enormi

ties and depredations" and of property being "unjustifiably purloined." The

commissioner demanded the return of private property such as clothing and

household goods that had been confiscated, and he pledged to indemnify the

citizens of Beaufort. Moreover, he ordered that those parties guilty of unauthor

ized plundering not share in the proceeds of the "legal capture." Cruden ex

plained that "the plan was primarily undertaken, and intended by me to be

prosecuted, upon the most liberal principle of hostile retaliation, as a British

subject, and an individual, whose commercial losses have been such that scarce

one capital harbour, in any of the Colonies, but has contained a capture from

my House."35

Cruden did not remain long enough in Charleston to make good his promise to indemnify Beaufort's plundered inhabitants. He had difficulties enough in

collecting claims upon the British government. Determined to restore the family fortune he had sunk into the British war effort, Cruden spent the last years of

his life conspiring to win restitution with the cooperation or endorsement of the

British government. In this quest the thousands of blacks nominally under his

control in the South loomed large; indeed, he staked most of his hopes and

plans on them. In January, 1782, Cruden and Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia who had offered freedom to all slaves who revolted against the revo

lutionaries in 1775, concocted a quixotic scheme to subdue the South with Ne

gro troops. The plan called for the arming of 10,000 blacks under loyalist of

ficers.36 When that proposal failed, Cruden insisted to General Leslie that any

proceeds from the sale of Negroes under the army's purview be used to reim

burse him, but General Sir Guy Carleton, commander in chief of British forces

in the thirteen former colonies, scotched the idea and suggested that Cruden ap

ply to the British treasury for a settlement of accounts.37

Joining the loyalist exodus from Charleston to East Florida, Cruden acted on

that advice by submitting memorials to the treasury in 1783 and 1784. The

commissioner complained that "at the evacuation of Charles Town a consider

35 Royal Gazette, May 29, 1782. Despite his thirst for the profits of privateering, Cruden evidently

did not share a taste for its coarser side. The British used privateering to good effect in its colonial

wars all through the eighteenth century—one more instance in which the pursuit of private profit

promoted the "public good." For an excellent account of the Age of Privateering, see James G.

Lydon, Pirates, Privateers, and Profits (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Gregg Press, Inc., 1970), with an

introduction by Richard B. Morris; also see John D. Faibisy, "Privateers and Prize Cases: The Im

pact upon Nova Scotia, 1775-1783," Prologue, XI (Fall, 1979), 185-199.

36Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press, 1961), 150. 37 Sir Guy Carleton to Alexander Leslie, September 10, 1782, Report of American Manuscripts in

the Royal Institutions of Great Britain (London: Printed for His Majesty's Stationery Office by

Mackie and Co., 4 volumes, 1904-1909), 1H, 112, hereinafter cited as Report of American Manu

scripts.

VOLUME LVI11, NUMBER 3, JULY, 1981



230 Jeffrey J. Crow

able number of Negroes, the property of the Enemy (being obnoxious to their

Owners) were sent by General Leslie to the West Indies and your Memorialist was informed that the Commander in Chief was to pay the Value of them to their Owners, and that they Were to be Embodied to serve as Troops in the

Islands, . . . but since that time . . . they are now Employed for the benefit of in

dividuals, who have no right to such advantage. . . Cruden demanded that the Negroes "be restored to him till such time as finall Regulations" were made.

Moreover, he sought authority over all Negroes formerly owned by the revolu

tionaries, who were scattered in garrisons across the continent and Caribbean islands and held "in the hands of those Who have basely decoyed them away, under the Mask of humanity" without the "poor Negroes" having any redress. The commissioner argued that all power to deal with the "Negro property of America" should be lodged in one person, and in his view his position as com missioner of sequestered estates made him the logical choice. Cruden asked the crown to restore the "easy and independent" life he had known before the war and before "I enter'd into office," pointedly reminding the ministry that he did not receive "directly or indirectly any Emolument whatever[,] which was ex

tremely troublesome. . . ." He had assumed the obligations in the service of the crown and under the apprehension that he would be indemnified.38 He asked

nothing for his personal labor, only that his debts be paid. If Cruden's public duties sapped his private wealth, he nonetheless "sacrificed Fortune" because of "Principles of Love, Duty and Affection to my Sovereign and Country. . . ,"39

Cruden also contemplated capturing a monopoly on tobacco shipped from the nascent United States. To effect such a plan would have required essential co

operation from the crown, which Cruden believed he could secure in the British West Indies. The plan was deceptively simple. He proposed in 1785 that the British restrict Americans from purchasing salt in the Caribbean. Because salt was such an indispensable commodity, the Americans could be forced to trade

only tobacco for salt and, moreover, to ship it exclusively in British ships. De clared Cruden: "taking the whole trade of the Empire into purview I do not know any one branch which possibly can prove so productive or nationally bene ficial." Such a monopoly, Cruden insisted, would also provide a "solid political advantage to our Country by preserving the very essence & spirit of our Naviga tion Act, which is the Grand Palladium of our national existence. . . ,"40 Like so many of Cruden's schemes, this one was never realized.

How high a price did John Cruden pay for his loyalism? Cruden, the South Carolina Board of Policy, and General Leslie all made broad assertions at vari ous times as to how much was due the commissioner of sequestered estates, with estimates ranging from £6,854 to £13,000. However, the British auditors

'"Memorial of John Cruden, 1783, State Archives; Claim of John Cruden, 1784, State Archives. "Alexander Leslie to Sir Guy Carleton, August 10, 1782, Report of American Manuscripts, III, 63;

Claim of John Cruden, 1784, State Archives; Wickwire, Cornwallis, 239-240. '"Extract of letter from John Cruden, New Providence, December 22, [1785?], British Library

Add. Ms. 38,218, British Records Collection, State Archives. Cruden's scheme may not have been so farfetched. British Orders in Council in 1783 crippled American commerce by barring it from the West Indies, except for a few enumerated provisions—among them tobacco, naval stores, and lum ber—which had to be carried in British bottoms. Lawrence S. Kaplan, Colonies into Nation: Ameri can Diplomacy, 1763-1801 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1972), 160-163.





"ands 0^/60

,s&a>u?>'/-. . . . ^/., 2..//

>&2<t-ic2^ .

///t/la?>-/-/i*/f6iy&ti^ ^/,00a—

J/S/? IjS// &?l t s t/s s 1 /f^-{ S S. s ■ t /U7../L7

i ly/n / t&fJwnX- J ' /

- 2.247.. /6..y

^^JftcV/aô/lrGA#rt-0-i/a-t$i teiV/L^fdOs/ fd*f/bec/^

S"~i ( j .

6t-S/-} -?S6-0j/ //£ ,. -4<£ 1, ' £*. it/vy

M*. f

The concluding portion of the auditors' report on accounts of John Cruden, 1787, summarized the "allowable sum" of Cruden's claim to be£5,246.2.11 and included deductions totaling £2,217.16.7, leaving a "Balance to be paid Mr. Cruden infull" of £3,028.6.4. From PRO Tl/651, British Records Collection, State Archives.

who finally examined Cruden's accounts took a different view of his receipts and expenditures. Cruden had divided his claims into four separate accounts and periods for the years 1780 to 1783. The auditors approved three of these ac counts and determined that the commissioner had an allowable sum of

£5,246.2.11 due him. The auditors continued: "There is also another account ex

hibited; but as the same does not appear to have undergone any examination

whatever, is unsupported by any vouchers, and is even un-attested by the ac countant [Cruden] himself, we do not think ourselves justified in taking any further notice of it in this Report." Curiously, this fourth account appears to have covered the period from April 16, 1782, to September 16, 1782, the very time in which Cruden would have realized a profit from his successful Beaufort

expedition. Perhaps Cruden was reluctant to disclose to the British ministry the exact details of his Beaufort venture and the amount of profit he realized, espe cially at a time when he would have had to continue to make huge outlay of




232 Jeffrey J. Crow

funds to feed and fuel Charleston, for which he wanted reimbursement.41

Having stipulated Cruden's credits, the auditors then proceeded to tally his

liabilities. Cruden had received £7,000 from the crown to perform his varied du

ties, for which only £6,000 was "carried to the credit of Government" in the

commissioner's accounts. The auditors therefore deducted £1,000 from Cruden's

credits. Governor Martin, moreover, in his claims, dated 1784, stated that he

gave Cruden £1,217.16.7 "in several Sums for pay to sundry Provincial [loyalist] Officers. . . ."In three years Cruden had been unable to furnish vouchers to

prove that he had expended the total sum for its intended purpose, so the audi tors deducted that amount too from Cruden's balance. In the end, the auditors certified that £3,028.6.4 "may be paid to Mr. Cruden or his Attorney in full sat isfaction and discharge of all Claims whatever upon Government, as Commis sioner for Sequestered Estates in South Carolina; and that he may at the same time be discharged from rendering any further account of the Sum of £7,000 im

prested to him." The report was dated November 16, 1787.42

Ironically, John Cruden never learned of the auditors' decision. He had died an eccentric, incoherent, and broken man in the Bahamas on September 18, 1787. Increasingly erratic behavior had marred the last years of his life. After

fleeing to East Florida in 1783, he became embroiled in politics there, briefly conspiring to prevent the transfer of the colony from Britain to Spain. His plans to capitalize on the labor of exiled Negroes or to monopolize American tobacco never materialized. Nor could he return to North Carolina. When his brother James briefly landed in Wilmington in 1783 to salvage what he could of the

family business, the sheriff issued a warrant for his arrest, which he barely evaded. Only John Cruden, Sr., perhaps might have been able to return to North Carolina, having been granted citizenship by the state in 1779, but he died also in the Bahamas in 1786. James Cruden continued to badger the Brit ish government to repair the family fortune, and finally in 1788 the loyalist claims commissioners allowed him £2,400, well below the £9,621 he claimed for the three stores of John Cruden and Company in North Carolina.43 Whether or not James Cruden was able to collect the £3,028 due his brother as commis sioner of sequestered estates is not known, but James often acted in his brother's behalf and assumed many of the commissioner's duties. Whigs in Wil

mington blamed James for permitting many North Carolina Negroes to escape to Nova Scotia with the British evacuation of the South.44

Cast in an uncompromisingly difficult role as quasi-military administrator, John Cruden showed unflinching devotion to the crown's cause and to his own. In typical eighteenth-century fashion his position encouraged him to pursue pri

"Auditors' report on accounts of John Cruden, 1787, State Archives. "Auditors' report on accounts of John Cruden, 1787, State Archives. "Claim of James Cruden, 1788, State Archives; Petition of John Cruden, Sr., 1779, State Ar

chives. The General Assembly's deliberations on the elder Cruden's petition for citizenship may be followed in Clark, State Records, XIII, (501, 695-696, 711, 718-719, 761, 767-768, 819, 821; XVIII, 806, 809. The visionary antics of John Cruden, Jr., in East Florida and the Bahamas are recounted in Carole Watterson Troxler, The Loyalist Experience in North Carolina (Raleigh: Division of Archives and History, 1976), 42-44.

"Archibald Maclaine to George Hooper, August 14, 1783, Clark, State Records, XVI, 972-973.





vate gain through public mandate. Never able to combine the two functions

successfully, Cruden gambled his personal fortune on the British war effort and

lost. Cruden paid a high price for his loyalism. He symbolized one segment of a

mercantile class infused with the bourgeois ethos of the age, but a class also tied

to the crown by tradition, economic interest, and a metropolitan concept of the

British empire. If Anglo-American society conflated private interests with pub lic ones, the American Revolution produced new tensions between the two sec

tors and demanded the subordination of personal wealth and property to the

public good.45 Public virtue, however, had different meanings for different peo

ple. In a cruel irony Cruden did sacrifice his fortune for what he perceived as

the "public good," but for an imperial future, not a republican one, thereby as

suring his fate.

•'' Kammen, "Public and Private Sectors in Colonial America," 64-65; Gordon S. Wood, The Cre

ation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969),

191, 415-419. The starting point for any discussion of the merchant class and its role in the Revolu

tion remains Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1918; New York: Atheneum, 1968); see also Leila

Sellers, Charleston Business on the Eue of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press, 1934), 203-235; and George C. Rogers, Jr., Charleston in the Age of the Pinck

neys (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969), 52-53.




Date post:	16-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jeffrey-j-crow
View:	215 times
Download:	3 times

What Price Loyalism? The Case of John Cruden, Commissioner of Sequestered Estates

Documents