Powered By Blogger

Monday, September 23, 2019

Washington Arrests Dr Church

   On Friday morning, September 29, 1775,* after interrogating Mary Wenwood for a number of hours on the night of 28-29 September, 1775 and securing the identification of Dr Church as the author of the cyphered letter, George Washington sent a message to Watertown, where the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was sitting, to James Warren, the President of the Congress and Major Joseph Hawley, a delegate from Northampton in Western Massachusetts, to come to his Headquarters in Cambridge without delay. Washington's message requesting the assistance of James Warren is certainly understandable. But why ask for Joseph Hawley? Hawley's military rank was awarded because he served as a Chaplain in a Massachusetts regiment in King George's War and was, in fact, a member of the expedition that captured the fortress of Louisburg on Cape Breton Island.  A Yale graduate, Hawley was a long time ardent Whig who was first elected to the Massachusetts
James Warren-1763
John Singleton Copley
House of Representatives in 1751. A very religious man who was a cousin of Jonathan Edwards and who played a major role in getting Edwards removed from his church in 1751, Hawley was well known in Massachusetts and was a close collaborator of James Otis and the Adams cousins. Other than acceptance of his election as a delegate to the Provincial Congress, Hawley refused any other appointments since he felt that acceptance would demonstrate a weakness of character. Hawley suffered from depression, had what appears to be a nervous breakdown in early 1776 and never served in any office again; yet he continued to be a man of influence. But at this juncture in his life he was a very prominent Whig with an unmatched reputation for piety and integrity. Therefore, it does seem reasonable that the Virginian George Washington, newly arrived  in a New England that was almost a foreign country to him, chose to turn to Hawley for counsel and advice. Both Warren and Hawley advised Washington that Church should be immediately arrested and his papers seized.

   Washington then did, in my mind, a very curious thing. He ordered a Captain and a company of 40 men to arrest Church and place him under house arrest in the Henry Vassall House where Church resided as the Director General of the Hospitals. Precisely just where Church was when he was taken into custody is unknown. By one account it took a few hours to locate Church and arrest him. Church could very well have been in one of the other Hospitals under his control. In any event, why would Washington order a company of 40 men to arrest one middle aged physician? He certainly couldn't seriously contemplate that Church would resist. A company of 40 men marching through camp would certainly draw attention and invite speculation. That was no way to keep something confidential and
Henry Vassall House today
secret. Had Washington had the experience he would later obtain in espionage he certainly would not have handled it this way. If, indeed, Church was in communication with the British, the last thing you would want to do, at this stage, is alert the British that you had discovered this relationship. In addition, Dr Church had few, if any, peers in the Whig cause and Washington was certainly aware of that. Not to mention that as Director of Hospitals, Church held a position directly under the control of the Continental Congress. Why then humiliate Church when all he had was a letter as yet to be decrypted? I just find Washington's initial treatment of the whole affair curious.

   But one must remember that Washington's appointment as Commander of the Continental Army was a political one, engineered by the Adams cousins in order to secure unity amongst the somewhat fractious thirteen colonies. It certainly wasn't because of Washington's military prowess. In fact, one could argue that his record was rather less than impressive and that Washington was a rank amateur who had never commanded regular forces or artillery or cavalry or handled the logistics of an army in the field. Indeed, he had never commanded anything more than a militia regiment. It was the seven years of the Revolutionary War that brought out the character and steel of "the indispensable man." At this point Washington was a Commander who had to purchase a number of books on military matters in Philadelphia after becoming named Commander so he could give himself a military education.

   But Washington soon showed a talent for organization, espionage and disinformation. There was an acute shortage of gunpowder after Bunker Hill. Washington was startled when informed that the Continental Army he commanded besieging Boston only had 36 barrels of gunpowder on hand; enough to provide only nine rounds per man in case of a British offensive. Exhausting every means to obtain gunpowder, Washington embarked on a campaign of disinformation. He leaked word to British Headquarters that he was almost embarrassed to find that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had supplied him with 1,800 barrels of powder and his supply officers were having a problem finding storage space for them. Surprisingly, the British believed this although, given the Pyrrhic victory of Bunker Hill, they were disinclined to attack the rebels anyway.
  
   Upon entering the Vassall House, the contingent of soldiers searched the room occupied by Church and found nothing. Church's papers were seized and subsequently examined by Joseph Reed, Washington's secretary and aide-de camp, a very successful Philadelphia lawyer who
Washington had met and befriended in Philadelphia when he was a delegate to the Continental Congress. In a September 29th, 1775 letter to his brother-in-law, Charles Petit, Reed disclosed the results of his examination:
Dr Church, a man highly in the confidence of the people here, a member of their Assembly, &; has been arrested for carrying on a criminal correspondence with the enemy; his papers were all seized. I have perused the most intimate and confidential letters wrote to him, and am authorized to declare from them that there is no intention of going further than their late charter. This is the sentiment that runs through every one of them, nor have I seen a syllable to the contrary.

   But then, what did Washington expect to find? Would Church be so careless as to leave incriminating evidence in his room in the Vassall House? And what would be incriminating evidence? Loyalists had considered Church one of their vilest enemies for over a decade. Which Loyalist would trust him? More cyphered letters? Letters to General Gage? Obviously a search of Dr Church's papers would be in order; but what did they think they would find?
 

   Yet, in his 5 October 1775 letter to John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, reporting his arrest of Church, Washington stated " but it appeared on Inquiry that a Confidant had been among the Papers before my Messenger arrived." I have been unable to uncover anything that would explain just how and why Washington came to that conclusion. But let us examine the circumstances of Church's arrest and determine if it is plausible that a Church accomplice, assuming he had one in Washington's HQs, could have found out about the imminent arrest and risked his own safety to destroy any evidence incriminating Dr Church. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that Church had an accomplice in Washington's HQs. Nor would one assume that Church would be foolish enough to trust anyone in the HQs. Church was the highest ranking source that General Gage had in the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and Church was still a member of that body and member of the Committee of Safety. Church was too valuable to be exposed to risk in that manner. Any communication Church would make with Gage would be outside of Cambridge.

Cambridge -1776

   Washington had  assigned a sergeant's guard consisting of a sergeant, a corporal, and nine soldiers to the Vassall House/Hospital and the sergeant was instructed to take orders from Church. One would assume that a messenger from Washington's HQs to that guard would have immediately secured Church's papers. How would any accomplice first find out that Church was about to be arrested and then risk his own security to go through the papers before they were seized? How would he know what to look for? Yet the belief lingers to this day that there were incriminating letters/documents in Church's office in the Vassal House that would have proved his guilt. There is even a belief that there was a secret panel in the House where Church hid his papers. First of all, how would Church, who
Interior of Vassall House from 1907 guide
had only been in the Vassall House a few weeks, even know that there was a "secret panel" next to the fireplace that opened a door revealing a secret room that someone could stand in as had been alleged?    
   
   The origin of the "secret panel" is from a publication titled "The Cambridge of 1776" which included the "Diary of Dorothy Dudley", written to commemorate the Centennial of the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Everyone involved at the time knew that the book was a fictional creation designed to evoke living in Cambridge one hundred years prior. There are no historical sources substantiating the book. Dorothy Dudley is an entirely fictitious character; yet, to this day that diary is quoted as if it were written contemporaneously. Historians  have relied on it as a source totally oblivious to the fact that it was written one hundred years after the events, had no footnoted sources, and was intended as a somewhat "cheeky" account of Cambridge in 1776.

   Historians have even identified the person they think was responsible for "sanitizing" Church's papers but that will be the subject of a future post.

   In a 1 October 1775 letter to John Adams, James Warren reported the arrest of Dr Church as follows:

                            Dr Church has been detected in a correspondence with the Enemy...
  He owns the writing and sending the letter, says it was for Flemming (sic) in answer to one he wrote to him, and is calculated by magnifying the numbers of the army, their regularity their provisions, and ammunition, etc,  to do great service to us. There are, however, many circumstances, new and old, which time won't permit me to mention, that are much against him. The letter, I suppose, is now deciphering and when done will either condemn, or in some measure, excuse him.
    Warren's statement that there are "many circumstances, new and old...that are much against him" indicates that Warren must have communicated those "circumstances" to Washington. Just what those "circumstances" were have never been documented and they, I would assume, would have influenced Washington in his handling of the situation. The precise relationship between Church and Warren is not that well known but it doesn't appear that they were the closest of friends or, indeed, colleagues.

   Establishing a precise timeline from the letters written several days after the Dr Church's arrest is difficult, especially since Washington's own report of the arrest is written five days later and, undoubtedly, conflates the timeline. But it appears that after Church's arrest, he was asked directly by Washington about the letter. That, as best I can determine, was on the 29th of September. Church responded in the words relayed by James Warren in the letter quoted above. Church then, apparently, refused a direct request from Washington to decipher the letter. This is something inferred from the available documentation. Church, presumably, was then confined under arrest in the Vassall House while Washington considered his next step and how to go about getting the letter deciphered. I have always found it interesting that Church refused to decipher the letter. There was nothing, as he would repeatedly argue, incriminating in that letter and, indeed, exaggerated the rather sorry state of the rebel forces. The cypher used in the letter appears to be unique to the correspondence between him and his brother-in-law and so its compromise would not be that damaging. Perhaps the shock of his arrest propelled Church to take a defensive posture until he could see how things would progress. It must be remembered that Church had pleaded ill health only roughly nine days before his arrest when his request to resign from his position as Director General of the Hospital was refused.

   Washington determined that the letter had to be deciphered and he undertook measures to have that done. It wasn't until October 3rd that Washington called a council of war to discuss the Dr Church arrest. On Saturday, September 30, 1775 Washington issued a general order that the ongoing inquiry into Dr Church's leadership of the hospitals, specifically Brigadier Joseph Spencer's brigade, was postponed due to Church's ill health. I don't think that "ill health' was just as much a convenient excuse as it really reflected Church's condition.

  Before I proceed with the narrative I would like to conclude this post by mentioning one other letter written about Church's arrest. It as written by Ebenezer Huntington, a Yale graduate and a Lieutenant in a Connecticut regiment during the siege of Boston. Huntington would go on to become a Lt
Ebenezer Huntington -1806
John Trumbull
Colonel, and was present at Yorktown when Cornwallis surrendered. Th letter was to his half-brother, is dated 3 October, 1775 and was written from a camp in Roxbury.

...You will be much Surprised to hear that our famous Doct'r Church that great pretended Patriot is now under a Special Guard of a Capt'n & 40 men for Corresponding with Gage and others of his Hellish Gang the Plot was discovered by his Miss who is now with child by him and he owns himself the father (for he has now dismissed his Wife)…

 
   Huntington had absolutely no acquittance with or interaction with Dr Church and is, undoubtedly, passing on camp rumors. Was Church's mistress pregnant and had he left his wife? This is the only reference I could find that Church's mistress was pregnant and that he had left his wife. Church's relationship with his wife was undoubtedly very strained but there is no reason to believe that he had  actually left her. In fact, information indicates that Church's wife and daughters were, at the time of his arrest, in Southeastern Massachusetts and he had visited them on his trip to Philadelphia a couple of months previous. But this letter is indicative of the problems encountered trying to unravel the precise details of Church's arrest.

* Church maintains that he was arrested on Wednesday, 27 September, 1775 but he is clearly in error.







 

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Dr Benjamin Church Jr's Family

   In the coming days I will be continuing the saga of Dr Benjamin Church Jr. with posts about his arrest, trails, incarceration, and demise. And, I will be giving my assessment of his alleged treachery. Before I do that, however, I need to present some updated information, based on new research,  about Dr Church and his immediate family. Some of the details of his family can now be definitively reported or presumed. The one fact that made the strongest impression on me was that, until Church's marriage records were discovered, I had had no idea that his wife was six years older than him.

Dr. Benjamin Church, Jr.

Marriage: 18 January 1759 to Sarah Miller of St John Zachary, London, at St Stephen Parish, Coleman St, London. Witnesses were James Miller and Mary Potts. Although the marriage was in London, Sarah Miller was from the town of Ross in Herefordshire. Sarah was the daughter of James Miller and Mary (Unknown). Sarah had one sibling, a younger brother named Matthew Miller. It could be that the Mary Potts who served as a witness to the marriage was, in fact, the wife of James Miller and her maiden name was recorded as witness.
Church of St Stephen -1815
William Pearson

   Baptismal records in Ross indicate that Sarah Miller was baptized on March 18, 1728 which would make her about 30 years old at the time of her marriage. Benjamin Church would have been 24, a roughly six year age difference. At the time of his arrest, Church was 41 and Sarah was approximately 47. 

    There is an approximate six year age gap between the couple. It also appears that there is a significant gap in education and social status between the published poet, Harvard graduate and the daughter of  what appears to be small town English tradesman. A 30 year old spinster or perhaps widow, without property, certainly would not be seen as a "catch" for a 26 year old Harvard educated physician, descended from one of New England's most famous soldiers. Church certainly could have made a better match upon his return to Boston. But then again, he may have just loved her, at the time. 

      The marriage occurred while Church was studying medicine at the London Medical College and "walked the hospitals for three years."

   This marriage record also explains why Church named his first born son James Miller Church.

   The 1913 Church Genealogy by John A. Church, titled " The Descendants of Richard Church of Plymouth" reports that Benjamin Jr married Hannah Hill of Ross in Herefordshire, and that she was a sister of one of his medical student friends.  Obviously the author got Sarah's name wrong and the origin of the statement that she was the sister of a medical student is doubtful since Sarah's brother Matthew was a linen draper and snuffmaker in Ross. Of course, it is possible that Matthew was a medical student at the time of his sister's marriage to Church but, for some reason, never pursued the profession.

    There has been a St Stephen's Church in London since the 13th century. The original building was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666. St Stephens was rebuilt by the office of Christopher Wren but that building was destroyed by bombing in 1940 and never rebuilt.


Royal London Hospital. Construction started in 1754
 and only the central core would have been completed when Church studied there. 
It started to receive patients in the autumn of 1757.


  Children: 

     James Miller Church: Born in Boston and baptized at the Hollis Street Church, where his grandfather was Deacon, on 28 October 1759. Little is known of James' early life or his education except that he entered Boston Latin School, his father and Uncle Edward's Alma Mater, at the age of 8 in 1767. Records do not indicate whether he graduated or how long he attended there.
   At the outbreak of hostilities in April 1775, James Miller would have been 15 years old. Any plans to attend Harvard and follow in his father's and grandfather's footsteps, would have been curtailed since Harvard suspended all classes on May 1, 1775 only to resume on October 5, 1775 in Concord, 20 miles away.  James apparently began learning to become a physician because the pay records of the Continental Army Hospital in Cambridge and Roxbury reflect payments to a James Miller Church from Dr Charles Mc Knight * for the period August 17, 1775 to Jan 1, 1776 as a Surgeon's Mate. James' whereabouts from January 1776 until July 1777, when he arrived in England with his mother and two sisters, is unknown but one presumes he was with his Mother and Sisters in Boston.
   The next record of James is as a "Surgeon's Mate and Ensign in the Middlesex Militia", probably at the end of 1782. That unit, however, was disbanded in by the end of March 1783. He was appointed Ensign in the South Gloucestershire Militia in June 1791. Later he served as a surgeon in the Westminster Militia.
   Upon arrival in England, Sarah Church, James Miller's mother, successfully petitioned the King for a pension to cover her and her two children because of the services that her husband had rendered to the English Crown. The petition was successful and Sarah was awarded an annual allowance of L100, paid quarterly for her and her two children. On a visit to Sarah by the Commissioners sometime in 1782, they discovered that James was drawing a salary as an Ensign in the Middlesex Militia and reduced her pension accordingly. But the pension was reverted back to the original amount when the Middlesex Regiment was disbanded in March 1783.
   Sarah Church died on 7 August 1788 and in October 1788, James and his two sisters petitioned the Crown after the pension was stopped because of their mother's death.

That your Petitioners through His Majesty's bounty enjoyed an Allowance of One Hundred Pounds per Annum received quarterly by their late Mother Mrs Sarah Church who departed this life suddenly on the 8th day of August last, by which unfortunate event your Petitioners reduced situations induces them to implore a continuation of that allowance or such other as you in your wisdom shall think fit. To render your Petitioners situation more distressing, is the advanced State of Pregnancy of one of your Petitioner's whose sole support depended on her deceased Mother, and who from such situation humbly implore  your immediate attention to their case."
   On 1 January 1784, James married Mary Amey Powney in London.  It is believed that Mary and James had three children together and it is possible that James had a fourth, illegitimate child.
 
   Children of James Miller Church and Mary Amey Powney:

   i. Rebecca Eleanor Church, baptized Framingham, Kent, 22 February, 1785.
   ii. Susanna Church, baptized St Andrew, Holborn, 13 November 1791. Buried there 11 November 1792.
   iii. Fanny Church, baptized St Andrew Holborn,13 November 1791.
   iv.(?) Emma Church, born Harwich, Essex, England, ca 1807. m Thomas Peachey.

   Susanna  and Fanny Church were baptized the same day in the same church where Mary Amey Powey was baptized so it appears they had twin daughters, one of whom died within a year.
 
   In her will, Mary Amey Church left a legacy to "Emma Peachey, daughter of my late husband James Miller Church and now wife of Thomas Peachey. No baptismal records can be found for Emma Church and her birth date from 1807 is from English census records. Mary Amey Church would have been around 43 at the time of Emma's birth. The phrasing of the will would seem to indicate that Emma was her husband's illegitimate stepdaughter.

   James Miller Church died in Brighton, Sussex, England on 20 May 1834. He was buried there in the graveyard of St Nicholas Church. Mary Amey Church was buried in Brighton, Sussex, England on 29 January 1837. The parish records do not record her as being buried at St Nicholas but it would be logical to assume that she would be buried with her husband.
St Nicholas Churchyard, East Sussex, England.

   Sarah Church: Born in Boston and baptized at the Hollis Street Church on 15 March 1761. Sarah married Benjamin Weld of Massachusetts in Ross, Herefordshire, England on 1 July 1783. He likely was the son of John and Katharine (Chamberlain) Weld who was baptized in the Second Church of Roxbury on 15 April 1750. The Church family genealogy states that Benjamin Weld was a Loyalist but there is no other information to substantiate this. It should be noted that Dr Benjamin Church's
Hannah Church Weld- Age 71
older sister, Hannah Church*, married Edward Weld of Roxbury in 1757 when she was 23 or 24 years old. The Welds were a large family and I have not done the research to see if there is a connection between Edward Weld and Benjamin Weld. Sarah's marriage to Benjamin Weld didn't last that long. On 25 August 1789, Benjamin Weld petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court in Boston for a divorce from Sarah:

She, on her part, regardless of her marriage vows, regardless of charity and virtue bestowed the affection which was due to him alone, upon other men, with whom since said marriage she has had criminal collection and lived on terms of dishonor & vice. Especially she committed adultery about November in the year of our Lord and divers times with one James Talbot Monbrun a Frenchman and totally left the bed & board of your petitioner. 
   The petition for divorce included a copy of the marriage record in Ross and testimony as to its validity. A witness to the wedding testified that the parties are Benjamin Weld... who now resides in Boston... and Sarah Weld (formerly Sarah Church) one of the daughters of "Doctor Benjamin Church formerly of Boston aforesaid deceased."
   Sarah's brother-in-law testified that Sarah was a loyal wife until Benjamin left for Boston in 1787 for business reasons. Benjamin left Sarah under the care of her brother, James Miller Church. About three or four months after Benjamin's departure, Sarah "formed a criminal and adulterous connection with James Talbot Montburn." Sarah continued to live with Montburn until March 1788 when Benjamin returned to London from Boston. At that point, Montburn fled to Dominica to escape a suit Benjamin filed against him for his adulterous relationship with his wife. In addition, the witness testified that "some short time previous to the said Benjamin Weld's so returning as aforesaid the said Sarah Weld informed this Deponent that she the said Sarah Weld was with Child by the said James Talbot Montburn" and that he had since been informed that she had given birth to the baby sometime in September 1778 and that the child had died.
   Sarah's maidservant testified that she had lived with James and Sarah as her servant and had seen James and "her said Mistress Naked and in bed together." Talbot's footman testified that Sarah "did live in open adultery and cohabit with the said James Talbot Montburn Esquire taking his name and passing for his wife."
   The parish register of St Leonard in Heston, borough of Hounslow lists the baptism of Henry Talbot, child of James and Sarah" on 21 September 1788. the fact that there is no burial record is not unusual.

  [It should be noted that James Miller Church's October 1778 petition to the Crown for a pension indicates that one of his sisters was in advanced pregnancy. Are the dates wrong or was James embellishing his petition?]
   
  The only other record that could be located for Benjamin Weld is a marriage of a Benjamin Weld to Eleanor Weld on 2 September 1798 at the Hollis Street Church. Also, no other record of Sarah Church Weld has been found.

   Children of Benjamin and Sarah (Church) Weld:

      i. Benjamin Weld, baptized Kyrle Street Independent Church, Ross on Wye, 1784.
      ii. Sarah Maria Weld, born 15 June 1786, baptized St. Marylebone, 3 Aug 1786.

    Child of James Talbot Montbrun and Sarah Church Weld:

     i. Henry Talbot Montbrun, baptized St. Leonard Heston, Hounslow, London, 21 September1788, died within one year.


Hannah Church: born in Boston and baptized at the Hollis Street Church on 8 July 1764. She died in Boston on 7 April 1836. Originally buried in Trinity Church in the Tucker family tomb, she was
Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge Mass
interred with other family members on Magnolia Avenue, in  Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1872. Many notables, to include Henry Wadsworth Longfellow are buried here.


   Hannah Church married first in the parish of St Marlybone, Westminster, England, on 31 August 1786 to William Kirkby of the parish of Saint Helen, London.  William Kirkby was a merchant in Boston but no record could be found of him in the city directories. He died in Boston on 19 October 1804.

William and Sarah did own some property Hannah inherited from her grandmother Hannah (Dyer) Church (Deacon Church's widow) which the Kirkbys sold on 20 March 1804. On 22 December 1804, a few weeks after William Kirby's death, Hannah published an advertisement in the Columbian Centinel that she was moving to 53 Orange Street in the South End, next door to where she had been living, and where she planned to continue to sell English goods. 

   Hannah married her second husband, William Longhurst, at the New South Church, Boston on 22 February 1807. Longhurst was born in England, circa 1759 and he died in Boston on 23 September 1832. He is buried in the famous Granary Burial Ground with Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock. During the War of 1812, British aliens were required to register with the nearest Federal Marshall. William Longhurst registered as age 54, a cordwainer (shoemaker), who arrived in the US in October 1807 (sic). Living with him was his wife Hannah, age 45, and William "Kirkley", age 24, John "Kirkley", age 22, and Robert "Kirkley", age 16. Hannah, William, John, and Robert were all listed as being born in the USA. This would place the immigration of William and Hannah Kirby to the United States sometime in 1788 or 1789. William and Hannah had no children.

   Children of William and Hannah (Church) Kirkby:

     i. Mary Ann Kirby, baptized St Mary, Whitechapel, London, 16 November 1788. married William Tucker, year unknown, died 5 Nov 1848.
    ii. William James Kirkby, born US or England, circa 1789. died Boston 21 April 1837. buried in Mount Alban Cemetery.
    iii. Sarah Church Kirkby, baptized St Mary, Whitechapel, 27 January 1790.
    iv. John Kirkby, born 24 January 1791, baptized St Clement Danes, Westminster, 27 March 1791. died in Boston in June 1833.
    v. James Church Kirkby, born London, 23 November 1794, baptized Christ Church, Southwark, 3131 January 1795.
    vi. Robert Kirkby, born Boston (?), circa 1797.
 
Tombstone of Mary Ann Kirkby Tucker,
Granddaughter of Dr Benjamin Church, Jr.
Mount Auburn Cemetery 
   * see my blogpost on Church's Surgeons, October 12, 2015
https://drbenjaminchurchjr.blogspot.com/2015/10/dr-churchs-surgeons.html


   * * See my blogpost on Hannah Church Weld, February 26, 2013
 https://drbenjaminchurchjr.blogspot.com/2013/02/hannah-church-weld.html