Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 8,690, William Elliott, S.C.
Page 1

(3 - 1776)
SERVICE S. C
Elliott, William
Phoebe
NUMBER W.8.690

CONTENTS
Page 2

5258
South Carolina
Phoebe Elliott widow of William who served in the Revolutionary war, as a Pri Cav. & Inf

Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 88 Dollars 33 Cents per annum, to commence the 4th day of March, 1848.

Certificate of Pension issued the 12th day of Decr 1849 and sent to Edward Cantwell
Wilmington N. Carolina

Recorded on Roll of Pensioners under Act February 2, 1848, Page 310 Vol
3E

[right side]
Let to [illegible] 10 Oct 1783
"   "   "  
1871   "  "   "
Feb 71 Hon W. Elliot history [illegible]
1892 Nov 28 Hist to Rev John H Elliott

City
Page 3

United States of America
State of South Carolina
District of Beaufort

On this 10 day of May 1848 personally appeared before me John M. Dakin Magistrate

Mrs. Phoebe Elliott widow, aged 76 years a resident of Beaufort South Carolina, who being first duly sworn according to law, doth on her oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the act of Congress of July 7 1838, entitled “an act granting half pay and pensions to certain widows.”

That she is the widow of William Elliott dec’d formerly of Beaufort aforesaid, who was a volunteer private in a troop of horse raised in said Beaufort or neighborhood, that he served for awhile under Captain Edward Barnwell, that this troop belonged to the militia of South Carolina, that while so serving under arms he was present at the engagement at Jacksonborough; at Savannah River and at Johns Island; that he was severely wounded and captured on the 2nd May 1779. That on the 17 May 1781 he was confined in one of the prison ships in Charlestown harbour, and was a prisoner 26 August 1781 as appears by his return taken in Charleston Vol. 2 p. 542. That subsequently he was sent in a cartel by the enemy to Yorktown to be exchanged; that on the passage he with other prisoners rose upon the crew, captured the vessel and escaped into Beaufort North Carolina, from whence after months of delay he returned to his home in South Carolina. That she calls attention to the period of his imprisonment because one of the certificates from the Comptroller General office of South Carolina shows a service of only about 19 months whereas deponent has reason to believe that her husband served in arms during the war of the revolution two years and more.

She further declares that she was married to the said William Elliott on the 23d May 1789; that he died on the 8th May 1808; that she is still his widow, and in support of her claim herewith she annexes proof. Deponent saith she has not heard nor does she know of another William Elliott other than her husband having served under arms during the said Revolutionary War.
Page 4

Deponent saith that no Judge resides within thirty miles of her residence, and that her present
health will not permit her to travel beyond that distance to execute the
declaration.
[signed] Phoebe Elliot
Sworn to before me on the day & year above mentioned
Jno N Baker
Magistrate
Page 5

State of South Carolina
Beaufort District
Personally appeared before Jno. M. Baker Esquire, Magistrate Edward Barnwell of Beaufort, planter, who maketh oath, "that he is nearly sixty four years of age, & has known William Elliott, the late husband of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott the claimant in this case from his earliest recollection; that he heard from his uncle Robt Barnwell, that his nephew the said William Elliott accompanied him, Robt Barnwell, as a soldier among the troops sent from this district, by the council of safety in Charleston under Col Step Bull, to Savannah & Purrysburgh, to quell some disaffected movements of traitors, in the year seventeen hundred & seventy six. that said William Elliott was also among the troops engaged under Gen Moultrie, with the British under Major Gardiner, in seventeen hundred & seventy nine, upon this Island of Port Royal, in which engagement, by the returns of the field officers, forty of the British were killed & wounded among them a Major. - the enemy fled to their shipping in Broad River, & the American could not pursue as they had expended nearly all of their ammunition. This deponent saith further that he has heard from his father Edw Barnwell & uncle Robt Barnwell, that the said William Elliott their nephew, was taken prisoner with themselves in the engagement with the British at Mathews plantation upon Johns Island, in seventeen hundred & seventy nine, and that this deponent has seen the scar of a very dangerous wound in the breast, shewn to him by the said William Elliott, as received on that occasion; that William Elliott was among the prisoners put on board of the Prison ship, the Pack horse in Charleston harbor, & when sent for exchange to the North, assisted in overcoming the guard on board, running the schooner into Halifax, North Carolina, from whence, they returned home some time before the close of the war; that the said William Elliott never took protection from the British, & his name is to be found with his uncles, John, Edward, & Robert
Barnwell among those who signed a petition to Gen Greene, that he would not permit
Page 6

any injurious consequences that might accrue to them, while prisoners, to have any influence in preventing a retaliation for the murder of Col Hayre

This deponent further saith, he is the keeper of the Public Parish Register of this Parish that the following extract is a true copy therefrom, except that the dates are fully written out of the birth, marriage, & death of said William Elliott " William Elliott, son of William & Mary Barnwell, born July ninth seventeen hundred & sixty one, married twenty third of May seventeen hundred & eighty seven, to Phoebe Wright & died eighth day of May Eighteen hundred & eight: and that said Phoebe is still his widow

This deponent further saith, that William Phoenix who hath made affidavit in this claim is without exception, the most respectable colored man he has ever known, & that he holds a high stand, as a member of the Baptist Church in this Town of Beaufort
[signed] Edward Barnwell
Sworn to & duly certified before me this 29th day of October 1849
Jno. M. Baker
Magistrate

State of South Carolina
Beaufort District 
It is hereby certified that the above is the genuine Signature of John M Baker Esquire, who was at the time an acting Magistrate in and for this District Commissioned and Sworn and authorized
by Law to take affidavits.

Witness my hand and seal of office this 31st day of October A.D. 1849
Wm Youmans Sr
CCP

S
Page 7

William Elliott was born July 9th 1761 was married to Phoebe Wright May 23d 1787 and died on the 8th of May 1808

I, Joseph R Walker Rector of the Parish of St Helena Beaufort South Carolina say that the above is a true extract from the records of said Parish
[signed] Jos. R. Walker
Rector of St. Helena Church
Beaufort SC

Nov. 29 1847
Sworn to before me the 29th Nov 1847
Jno. M. Baker
---
Magistrate
Page 8

Rev. & 1812 War Section
February 15, 1927

Mrs. Dayton C. Atkinson
2611 E. 73rd St.
Chicago, Ill.

Madam:

I have to advise you that from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim, W. 8590, it appears that WILLIAM ELLIOTT was born July 9, 1761, and was the son of William and Mary (her maiden name was Barnwell).

While a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina, he enlisted in 1775 or 1776 and served as a private with the South Carolina troops. During a part of the time he served under Captain Edward Barnwell (who was his uncle) and Colonel Stephen Bull. He was in an engagement at Port Royal and also at Matthews’ Plantation on Johns Island where he was wounded in the breast by a bayonet May 20, 1779, and was captured. On May 17, 1781, he was confined in Charleston harbor on the prison ship, “Pack Horse.” While on the way to Yorktown to be exchanged the prisoners captured the crew and ran the ship into Halifax, North Carolina, and made their escape. William Elliott then returned to Beaufort, North Carolina, and joined the South Carolina troops and served until the close of the Revolution
Page 9

He married May 23, 1787, Phoebe Wright.
He died May 6, 1808.
His widow, Phoebe, was allowed pension on her application executed May 10, 1848, at which time she was seventy-six years of age and was a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina.

Respectfully,

E. W. MORGAN
Acting Commissioner
Page 10

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Washington, D. C.,        , 19

Sir

In reply  to your request for a statement of the military history of    William Elliott,  a soldier of the Revolutionary  War, you will 
please find below the desired information as contained in his widows application for pension on file in this Bureau. 
==================================================
DATES OF  ENLISTMENT OR  APPOINTMENT.   
Enlisted in March  1776  discharged                                      
finally in 1781 or 82 
LENGTH OF    SERVICE 
rendered  actually 10 months Cav & 14 months Inf. 

RANK. 

OFFICERS UNDER WHOM    SERVICE  WAS RENDERED.  
  Captain          Colonel
The fol officers ... over

    STATE

Battles engaged in,     Port Royal Island (Feb 3 1779   May 29 1779)
                                          Mathews Plantation

Residence of soldier at enlistment,  Not given

Date of application for pension,   May 10 -  48

Residence at date of application, Beaufort S C.

Age at date of application,   Born Beaufort S.C.  July 9, 1761

Remarks: Her pension was allowed

Very respectfully,

Commissioner

Rev John H Elliott
1211 Oat 
City

7941 B - 3 m
Page 11

Capt Edward Barwell  Col
Stephen Ball and Capt
Alexander,
Page 12

Chicago Illinois
12 - 21 -1926
BOARD OF EDUCATION
CITY OF CHICAGO
ENGLEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL
STEWART AVENUE and SIXTY SECOND STREET
AUTOMOBILE AND ELECTRICAL DEPT.
Mr. D.C. Atkinson
Department of the Interion,
Bureau of Pensions, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir:-
May I ask for help on the ---
Revolutionary War Records of Thomas
Elliott, aide to Brig. Gen.
Marion who
with Joseph Elliott Capt were prisoners on ship
"Torbay"
while William Elliott was
on Board prison ship "Schooner Pack Horse"
Reference McCrady's South Carolina
Revolution 1780-1783
Especially interested in William Elliott.●
also the record of Godlieb Fink who died in Va. 12. 26 - 1801.

Yours truly,
Mrs Dayton C. Atkinson,
2611 E. 73rd Street
Chicago Illinois.
[stamp] PENSION U.S. OFFICE R DEC 27 1926
Page 13

1927 Feb. 15. hist
to Mrs Dayton C.
Atkinson

Revolution South Carolina
WIDOW, &c.
File No. 8690
Phoebe Elliot
Wid
William Elliott
Pri Rev. W[illegible]
Act: Febry 2d [illegible]
Index:--Vol. A Page 21
[Arrangement of 1870.]
Page 14

Wm Elliott (SC)
Born in Beaufort Sc July 9. 1761 Son of Wm & Mary (Barwell) Elliott
when he married May 23. 1787 to Phebe Wright who applied for pension
in May 1848 aged 76 years & of Beaufort He died May 8. 1808
According to the statement of the resident witnesses he may have entered
the service late in 1775 but in March 1776 he was a private with his Uncle
Capt Edward Barnwell & went with Col Stephen Ball to George to quit a disturbance by Torres
(A Wm Elliott is reported in a Book on file as enlisting in March 1776
in the 5th Regt & served about a year but there are no means of identifying him
with the one of Beaufort) He a fight at  Jackson Co & Savannah but no date is
Stated.
On or before 1779 he served as a horseman with Capt Alexander
& was in the battle at Port Royal Island (Feby 3 1779) probably under Genl
Moulton defeated the enemy, after which they joined Lincoln at Perrysburg
& was in the fight on Mathews plantation on John Island May  21 1779 when he recd a bayonet 
wound in the break & taken prisoner in Aug 1781 he was put on board
the Castel Packhouse to be exchanged at Yorktown, (Va probly), but the
Captured the vessel & carried into Halifax harbor N. C.& escaped to joined
Genl Sumpter Brigade
Page 15

[image to dark to transcribe]
Page 16

8705
South Carolina
Phoebe Elliott
widow of
William
who was a Pri. Car & Inf In
in the Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate
of 88 Dollars 33 Cents per annum, to commence
on the 4th day of March, 1843.
=
Certificate of Pension issued
the 12th day of Dec 1849
and sent to
Edward Cantwell
Wilmington
North Carolina

[Acts of March 3, 1843 & June
17, 1844.}
Recorded in Book A
Vol. 2 Page 165
Page 17

Letter in the matter of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott
Wilmington N. Carolina Sept 17. 1849
Sir,
I have the honor to inform you that upon the death of my late father P Cantwell Esq of Charleston, I was employed to confirm this application of Mr. Phoebe Elliott, of Beaufort S. Ca, who claimed,
through him, a pension under the Act 3 March 1837, and 22 February 1848 for the services of her husband William Elliott of Beaufort S. Ca. under Genl Sumpter in the war of the Revolution

I ask thee, to acknowledge the letter of June 14th last, in relation thereto. This and the letter of 13 Nov 1848, at to the same case, and which reference is made, is now before me and the contents of both have been carefully noted. -

It is understood, for there communications, that the evidence now on file, is sufficient to establish the marriage of Phoebe and William Elliott the 23d May 1787 and therefore before the first day of January nineteen hundred and ninety four (see Act 3 Mar 1837). The death of the same William Elliott in 1808. - and the further fact, that he William Elliott served for ten months in Col Hampton Regiment
of Sumpters Brigade

The difficulty, which now presents itself is to establish satisfactorily the identity of the said William Elliott,, the husband of Phoebe of Beaufort, and the soldier of Sumpter's Brigade to reason this difficulty, the affidavit of Roper Pinckney aged 78 was filed in December 1846. This witness knew William Elliott of Beaufort So. Ca. whose widow Phoebe, is now an applicant for a pension. He swears  that the said William Elliott of Beaufort did serve under
Page 18

Sumpter in one of the up country Regiment, but he does not say it was Col Hampton, nor does he swear to the length of service. Hence, as I understand the Commissioners letter of 14 June, although Mr. Pinckney affidavit may be admitted to establish the part of the service of W Elliott of Beaufort under Col Sumpter, it does not identify him with the particular soldier, to whom according to the Comptroller Gen'l Certificate (filed in that occasion) Indent for ten months service, with Col Hampton of Sumpters Brigade was issued. Nor do I understand, from the proof yet offered, is the established service, for any definite period whatever

You are kind enough in your last letter to suggest" that it is possible, that the receipt in the account, upon which this Indent for ten months duty was issued, may show the place of residence of Elliott

I have not failed to submit this suggestions, to the Comptroller General of South Carolina, who has charge of the Records, His reply is officially stated at No 6. With "abstract" which I have the honor to enclose, the name of William Elliott occurs thirteen times upon the Books of his office. It belongs to four different persons. The residence of all of them, he has been able with much labor, to fix and ascertain for the record with the single exception of his whose service, as a member of Sumpter Brigade are there recorded

It will he apparent has upon an examination of the Abstract which he has furnished me and which is herewith enclosed, that although we have been unable to discern the place of Elliott residence, by reference to the record yet these record which contain the names of all of Sumpter men, have,  through the suggestion of the Commissioned, been the means of furnishing the evidence required, in
the indirect manner also explained
Page 19

It appears further, for this "Abstract of all the entries; that there were but two persons named William Elliott, who perform militia duty in So Carolina during the war, there an Sumpters Wm Elliott whose residence does not appear, and 2 William Elliott of the Ninety six dist who signs his name with a mark see No 5

The other entries, refer exclusively to supplies furnished by one William Elliott of Ponton Neck, who died in app. May 1779 and the William Elliott of Cheraw, Peedee, or Marlborough District whose horse was impressed for the with public service

3 William Elliott of Sumpter Brigade was neither the one nor the other of these, who are each quite district, and distinguishable. He was also a man of education, and signed his own name,

I think it fair therefore to presumee that as there are only four of the name, to wit. 
1st W Elliott of Ponton Neck
2d W Elliott of Cheraw Peedee a Marlborough
3d W. Elliott of Ninety Six district, and
4th W. Elliott of Sumpters Brigade, that not only in this last, the same who is spoken of by Mr. Pinckney as having served with Sumpter, but that there was but one of the name in his Brigade, and consequently that William Elliott of Beaufort, and the Wm Elliott to whom the Indent for service (10 mos) issued are one and the same person.-- The last link in the chain of evidence, is the products of the handwriting of Wm Elliott of Beaufort, Several of his signature have been sent me, for inspection by Mr Elliott. There were forwarded in Black the Deputy Comptroller, for comparison with the
signatures of the same individual in Columbia

If, as I  think, this "Abstract of all the entries" thus proves that there was but one person named Wm Elliott in Sumpters Brigade to wit: him spoken of by Mr. Pinckney, and to whose Indent for  10 mos.
Page 20

was issued, then the additional fact of 10 mos and 40 days service is also established, on all the officer named in the "Abstract" are Captains and and Colonel and who certify to W. Elliot service further period and members of Sumpter Brigade. This will come to the two years required by law

I have thus sir endeavored my [illegible] to sketch the process by which the husband of the claimant, and to soldier of Sumpters brigade is identified. It is circumstantial evidence of a very striking and to me, conclusive character. I have labored to make it as clear to your mind as to my own and fear that I shall require more of your time, and severe examination, then can well be spared; but my client's pride as well as her necessities are enlisted in your decision, and I hope it will be favorable

With [illegible] and my perfect respect
I remain your obt servt
Edward Cantwell
Page 21

Wilmington 16th Oct 1849
Sir,
Your letter of 6th inst, reaffirming the decision made on the 26th September in the Elliott business, has been duly received I began to say in reply, that the quotation made by me, referred [illegible] to the imprisonment of William Elliott, and was in these words only "whether he was detained a prisoner, or exchanged she cannot say". If while he observed, upon another reference, to my letter of Octo 1st and 29 September, that the Abstract of the Comptroller Genl, dated 14 Sept 49 was introduced by me for the special purpose of proving from authentic records, that there are but two persons, named William Elliott, who performed personal duty." This fact, being somewhat material, I am anxious, that it should retain the position, in this discussions, originally assigned it, as a pension warranted by the "Abstract of Issues" furnished you, by the proper officer, and not, quoted by me, as a statement, taken, or Mrs. Elliott's declaration.

It is however, to be regretted, that any quotation at all was made. The words, ascribed by me to Mrs. Elliott, do appear it is time, in the original copy of her declaration, found among the papers but upon a subsequent comparison of them, with the context, I was persuaded even before reading your letter, that they certify and confirm the construction placed by you, upon the whole instrument. It is somewhat mortifying, that it should have escaped my notice, that Elliott, must have been a prisoner; for it is quite plain, that had he not been a prisoner, he could neither have been "detained", "a prisoner, or exchanged". The suggestion was made, without full examination, and being untenable, and contrary to Mrs. Elliott declar[ation]
Page 22

[declar]ation, it is withdrawn

I would sincerely deplore, this attempt (Mrs. Elliott being a resident of Beaufort, and more distant by Mail, than Washington) to reconcile without consultation, this seeming conflict of testimony
if in my zeal for her success, I had given just occasion for a remark so unkind, and an insinuation so severe, as that which in this connection, seems to suggest that Mrs. Elliott's sworn statements are
drawn from other sources, than her own bosom; saw, where much borrowed light, is expressly acknowledged. I am persuaded that did the commissioner, enjoy the privilege of her acquaintance, he would reject it, as unworthy of her character, and which, even which is denied: the adjudication of her claims, did not make necessary

the Comptroller General, having, in reply to my demand as is stated in my letter of 1st October; stated that the Accounts and receipts of Book M. have been destroyed by fire, it is now impossible 
to produce the full transcript, of all, the Indent and Accounts" now required. and therefore, unless Mrs. Elliott will enable me to offer evidence of the service of her husband, from 1776 to 1779 when
herby captured, or greater [illegible] be shown, we must be content with your decision.

In the hope that at some future day, such proof will be furnished, I began to repeat the facts upon which the present claim has been made: Mrs. Elliott claims that her husband the late Wm Elliott of Beaufort, entered the service in 1776 or 77 in the Beaufort Militia commanded by his under Edward Barnwell, he served with him at Jacksonborough, Savannah Rim, and other places, down to the 20 May 1779, when the whole command, was
Page 23

cut to pieces in Johns Island here he was wounded and captured:
she cannot say whether he was detained, or exchanged and afterward
recaptured, but on the 17 May 1781 he was with the Barnwell's and
other put aboard the Pack Horse: whence he escaped, and in 1781
joined Sumpter Brigade with which he continued to serve till the
end of the war: she claims than proved by Col Pinckney's affidavit,
that three was, at least, but one William Elliott with Sumpter, and it
was Wm Elliott of Beaufort, the same fact is established by the Abhart
of the Comptroller, which shows a continuous, and consecutive service
or 1781 until 1783
It is unfortunate  for her, that she cannot prove these
facts, more satisfactorily, but they are nevertheless true and I
hope she may yet succeed in securing your favorable decision
I am sir
by Respectfully
Yr obt sevt.
Edward Cantwell
James L. Edwards Esq
Washington City
D.C.
Page 24

Pension Agency
Charleston 29 Sept 1853
Sir,
I herewith forward the Vouchers of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott a pensioner under act 2d Feby 1848
for authority to pay the same
I am Sir Respectfully
Your Ob sent
Jno C Cochran
Agent

L. P. Waldo Esqr
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington
D.C
Page 25

Pension Agency
Charleston 29 Sept 1851
Sir,
I herewith forward the vouchers of Phoebe Elliott Pensioner under act 2 Feb 1848
for authority to pay the same -
I am Sir Respectfully
your ob sent
Jno C Cochran
Agent

J.E. Heath Esq
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington D.C.
Page 26

Charleston, So Car,
8 June 1848,
Sir,
the accompanying proof is submitted for the purpose of establishing the claim of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott to the pension money due her as the widow of Wm Elliott who served as a private in the militia of No. Carolina during the war of the Revolution.

The claims for the period he was a prisoner of War in the City, and in the prison ships of the enemy- This part of her case is sustained, 1st by her own declaration 2nd by the affidavit of Mary Markies 3rd by the public authentic history of the war in which Wm Elliott is named by the historian
Ramsay and others 

She also claims for the period proved by the official certificate of the Comptroller General of South Carolina to wit, 19 months, as evidenced by the payment to said Elliott of the sum of L94,,0,0 Sterling

As it may perhaps facilitate this examination Respectfully subjoin a calculation in order
to show that the sum of L94.00 as set forth in the certificate shows say, 19 months service

I remain sir
very respectfully
your obt servt
R Cantwell

To
James L Edwards Ex
Commissioner of persons
Washington
City
(Turn over
Page 27

I assume that out of the $94.00 paid for services and interest, that there was paid to Wm Elliott for Services L81 00. Because the interest on L81 for 2 ½ years, to wit from, April 1782 to October 1784,
is 13.5.0
L 94.5.00

Now as established in the case of Ed Martin of the So. Ca. Roll March 1841, the pay of a trooper in the Revolutionary War, was 2.10 1/4 Sterling per day
1 year 6 months and 18 days at 2 10 1/4 is say L80.14.00
Add ont on same for 2 1/2 years as above 13.5.00
E. E. L93. 19.00

This approximates as near as may be to the L 94.00 mentioned in the certif of the Com Gent of So Ca.
Page 28

Referred to Mr. Cantwell's letter of 17 Sept 1849
Comptroller Genl's Office
Columbia S.C. Sept 14th 1849
Abstract of all the entries in this Office, relating to the name of William Elliott together with a brief outline of the facts stated in each reference
Book D.
Indent & Apl 101
William Elliott Plantation of Powson Neck died previous to 16th May 1779 - estate furnished
supplies to the American Army for which Mrs. Sabrina Elliott as Executrix was paid
Book N
Indents & apc. 240, 241 & 242 
Estate of William Elliott supplies furnished
 Do ___  Do ___
Book R.
Indent & apc 96
Estate of William Elliott supplies furnished
 Do ___  Do ___
Book 2
Indent & Apc 303
William Elliott of Cheraw, Pee Dee or Marlborough paid for a man impressed for State Troops - no militia duty-
Book W.
Indent & Apc 445
William Elliott - 96 District service since the reduction of Charleston & for a gun and horse lost in the militia service in 1781 and by whose order attested by his mark only the amount due was paid him Charles Sullivan
Book M
Indent 214
William Elliott Services as a private in Alexander Troop, W. Hampton's Regt Sumter's Brigade State Troops - Pay and County L94 Sterling (no place of residence stated),
Book X
Indent 2108
William Elliott arrears of Clothing-- Special Bounty Sumters Brigade-(no place of residence stated)
Book I.
Indent & Apc. 227
William Elliott Jr supplies furnished. 30 days duty as horseman under Capt Knox and 16 as footman
(place of residence of widow not named)-
Look O.
Indent & Apc 391
William Elliott Militia duty on horseback as private in 1781 & wagon service in 1781 & 1782 being 98
Page 29

days duty & 40 days wagon service - (residence not mentioned)
============================================
10                         }
Book O                }                                
Indent & ap 401}
William Elliott- Militia duty per Capt. Joseph Calhoun's
Pay Bill commencing in 1780 & ending in 1783 being
34 day on horseback & 31 days on foot-
(residence not mentioned)
======
11                           }
Book P.                  }
Indent & ap 662}
William Elliott - 87 days duty as horseman in the
companies commanded by Captains Pagan, Mills
& Cooper in Col Lacey's Regt 30 days as
Sergt under Capt Hugh Mc Lure Col Lacey's
Regt - 36 days with wagon & team certified
by Col Lacey - 47 days in Capt Hugh
Whitesides Company, Col Brown's
Regt as footman - a gun mare, saddle
& bridle lost in service (residence not
mentioned)
===============
For Comptroller Genl.
James A Black
Deputy Comp Genl.
Page 30

Exceptions to Commissioners Report of 26th September upon the "Abstract of all the entries relating to the name" William Elliott furnished by the Comptroller General of So. Ca. in the Claim of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott of Beaufort So. Ca
Exception 1st 
(Note. These exceptions are taken, in the order, in which they are, upon the Report of 26 Sept.)
That the Abstract and Synops, shows thirteen entries of the name, to wit, 101, 240. 241. 242, 96, 303, 445, 214,2108, 227, 391 (not 39) 401, 662, and, not eleven only, as is stated in the Report, These entries, thirteen in number, embrace however, all the Record proof, in South Carolina, connected with the same.

2d
Exception 2d. That, "the first five" were not given to "Soldiers" as is stated, in the Report, nor even Nos. 101,240, 96. "The Abstract" states on the contrary, that the first five, were all given to Mrs. Sabrina Elliott (presumed to have been no soldier) the Executrix, for Supplies furnished, not for services performed, by deceased husband, before 16 May 1779, when sd husband died." These entries do not prove the service for which Phoebe Elliott claims, nor were they introduced for that purpose,
-
Exception 3d That 2108, is admissible, as evidence to show st least the fact of service, or perhaps
more properly enlistment, in Sumpters Brigade, by a certain Wm Elliott,

Exception 4th No 227.
That Wm Elliott of Beaufort, may be presumed to have used the ""for this time only. It is thought to in our power, to prove that he sometimes signed his name there, by other testimony, to wit: some original letters. The objection purely technical,

Exception 5th That No. 39 (391) and 401. do not embrace service for the same period. as 214" which is shown thus, (copy of the Abstract in 214) - Indent M. 214. Issued the first day of October 1784 to Mr William Elliott" (no residence stated) late private in Alexander troop, Wade Hampton's Regiment
Sumpter, Brigade of State troops for ninety four pounds sterling, Balance of Pay and County due him for service in that troop, together with interest thereon from pt April 1782, agreeably to Resolution of Assembly of S.C. of eleventh March last (1784)

1. A copy of his Resolution was filed in the Pension office by Mr Jas A Black, in the case of McKenzie,
and wife informed to designate no one by name or residence.
Page 31

It will be observed from this, that it contains, as no statement of the year when the service was 
performed and the Accounts which according the Indents of Book M. are reported by the Comptroller, to have been burnt in Washington, It is true, that it may fairly be presumed, and the fact, for argument sake, is admitted, that the service was performed before 1st April 1782, perhaps the account was due that day since interest is calculated thence. But the service was for ten months, and taking 1st April 1782, as the terminus point, in hand, June 1781, as the starting point. This calculation would still leave a broad margin of time wherein the same person named in 214 might have performed the services designated in 391 and 401, which are as follows; to wit:
O. 391. William Elliott, (no residence 98 days duty as horseman foot militia, in 1781 regt
"  "   "  "   "  40 days " Wagon service in 1781 and 1782.
O, 401.  "   "   "  34 days horse service, in Calhoun Company same
  "   "   "   "  31 days duty on foot in Calhoun Company of same

The two last, and rendered, according to the "Abstract, at various periods Beginning n 1780 and ending in 1783, covering a space of three years, with 65 days duty only in all. showing conclusively, that he was absent the greater portion of the time, and attached to other commands, and removing the supposition, that "Calhoun's Wm Elliott, anyway a distinct person, from him, who served under other Captains, in the same period (to wit 1780-83) in the same Brigade 

Exception 6th
That the time the service covered by 662 is stated, that, there are means at command for ascertaining, whether 662 was issued to the same as 214 or not, and first, the means of ascertaining the identity of the individual, may be found in this, that all the officers, under whom the services charged for, in 662 was performed, and members and enbattlers of Sumters Brigade, as will be seen from History: Second, the Abstract states distinctly, that the time for which the service was paid as
follows to wit:
87 days with Col Lacey, mounted man
30 days with Col Lacy as Sergeant, and here let me remark that this Entry explains, the declaration about "the Commission", said to have been seen by Mrs. Elliott, in the possession of her husband. It was a warrant of Sergeanty only that Mrs. Elliott saw.
36 days waggon duty. Lacey's regiment making in all 20) days duty with Lacey, Regt of Sumpters Brigade,
Page 32

But the Report urges that Mrs. Elliott does not claim for service under these officers. I will state in reply, that it is not to be expected that Mrs. Elliott an old widow lady, should remember the names of all the different officers under whom her husband served seventy years ago. The swears however 
that he was both a horse and foot soldier, and served under different officers, after the service under Capt. Barnwell, in 1778. Barnwell, Company was cut to pieces in 1779-

Mrs. Elliott does not say positively that her husband was assigned(see her declaration), on the contrary after tracing him particularly for the time he entered the service in Captain Barnwell's company up to the 20th May 1779, she says, "whether he was detained a prisoner, or exchanged she cannot say" the facts about the imprisonment, she got from Ramsay, and are not given or her own authority, or of her own knowledge, she was doubtless led into an error by the similarity of the names, for Mr. Roger Pinckney swears positively that at and after the time of the reduction of the City of Charleston in 1778 he was serving in one of the upper regiments, commanded by Genl Sumpter, which he could not have been, had he been a prisoner as stated from History,

The Abstract, was introduced, for the special purpose of proving from authentic records, that there were but two person named William Elliott who after 1779 performed personal duty namely William Elliott of 96 district service at Charleston, and no doubt the prisoner alluded to in Ramsay, and William Elliott of Sumpter Brigade, of Beaufort District.

I think it impossible that there could have been more than one Wm Elliott, with Sumpter, because the Indents and this Abstract show that the services upon which they were issued in all performed on the time entering between 1780 and 1783, Had there been, more than one the aggregate of indents would have amounted not only to more than three years, (which is not the case, since the
whole amount fall a day or two short of but had there been more than one, it would likely have exceeded [illegible], which was longer than the service of Sumpter command, and of the war. With these remarks, I again submit the case, to the indulgent consideration of the Comr

It seems my hand, after a man like Roger Pinckney (known not only in South, but in all Carolina) attest the service of the present claimants husband, and upon the proof above obtained with much labor and expence, that it would fail through some technicality. Mrs. Elliott is undoubtedly the wife of one of
Page 33

 Roger Pinckney is to be at alalehliend
Sumpter gallant [illegible] if Roger Pinckney is to be at alalehliend    She is now rapidly approaching the grave,
I hope her last moments, will not be [illegible]by the reflection,
that to the ingratitude of her county, and the failure of her just claim
there is added the damning stain of wilful [illegible], upon one of the
prudent and most respectable families in Carolina
Edward Cantwell
Wilmington N Carolina  1849
Page 34

Wilmington N Carolina
1st Oct 1849,
Sir,
I have your reply to your letter of 26 in relation to Mrs. Elliott claim, the honor to state, that the Comptroller Genl of South Car under date of Augt 21. last informed me that all the Accounts of Book
and receipts had been destroyed by fire in Washington, and none remained in his office. This information was given in reply to my letter forwarding certain letters of the late Elliott of Beaufort, for the purpose of instituting a comparision under directions of June 14th

Annexed I hand a list of error and exceptions and in your Report, contained in the letter of 26 doubtless, by my inartificial and prolix statement of 17 Sept last for which I throw myself your kind indulgence

Mrs. Elliotts claim is founded, she desires me to say, under the Act of March 3d 1837. and she expects to prove, nearly two years service of her husband under Genl Sumpter 

New examination of the proof in connection with the annexed Exceptions will show, there and but two persons of the name who performed actual duty the war, and the William Elliott (mentioned in Ramsays sketch of Beaufort District and Kinleys Beaufort District, dated 1809 Pages 590, 591). as deceased old and highly respectable citizen of Beaufort Dist. and the husband of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott was one of them and the only person of the name in Sumpter Brigade. 
Very respectfully
Constantine
Page 35

Wilmington N.C. 29 September 1849
Sir,
Before proceeding further, I respectfully pray your opinion, upon the following statement of Mrs Elliotts claim,

Your letter of 14 June, stated the whole difficulty in the case to be in establishing the identity of Mrs. Elliotts husband, with the particular soldier, to whom Indent 214 for 10 months service, with Sumpter, was issued

We filed in 1848, the affidavit of Roger Pinckney 78 years old, the witness swore, he knew Wm Elliott of Beaufort S.C. he was the husband of the claimant, and he served in the war, with Sumpter

This admitted, here is no proof of service, with Sumpter of ten months

But the Abstract forwarded you, shows. That there were but two of the name, who did themselves, actual duty. Wm Elliott of 96 and he was not of Sumpters Brigade. The other of whose residence, the Compt Genl, says there is no evidence, but who is mentioned at 214.218.227. 391. 401.662, as has served with Sumpter and his various captains&

The residence of the latter appearing in no case of entry is it not fair to presume, that those references all relate to the same individual. 2d And therefore, that it could none other, than Wm Elliott of Beaufort, the husband of the applicant, who is proved to have served with Sumpter? An answer is Respectfully Requested
by your obt svt
Edward Cantwell
Page 36

Wilmington 24 Nov 1849
Sir
I am instructed by my client, Mrs. Phoebe Elliott of South Carolina, to say, very respectfully, that no
answer has been received by her, or me, to the papers forwarded in her claim, on the 4th ult

These were supposed to contain satisfactory proof of the services of her husband as a soldier for 1775 to 1782, and corrobative proof, in addition to those already filed, of his service under Sumpter, down to 1783

Her increasing age and infirmity, will be sufficient excuse for again requesting a speedy settlement, and adjustment of her claim
I am sir
Very Resply
your mo obt servt
Edward Cantwell

Col J. L. Edwards
Court of Pensions
Page 37

Wilmington No. Car.
21 November 1849
Sir,
I have in this letter the pleasure to enclose the affidavits of William Phoenix and Edward Barnwell which are intended to establish the service of William Elliott for 1775 to 1781. These will no doubt remove any remaining difficulty in the establishment of the claim of Phoebe Elliott of So Ca
I any Resply
Edward Cantwell
Mrs Elliott Atty


to the Commis of Pensions
Washing City
D. C
Page 38

Wilmington 5 October 1849
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the last in reply to my letter of 29 in relation to the Elliott claim

Since the date of my letter of that date to wit upon the 1st October after a severe examination, during which I discovered many important errors, in the report of the 26th (caused no doubt by my want of skill in preparing the case) I had the honor to present in a list of Exceptions, certain grounds of relief for the presumption of identity, which I make no doubt have been quite satisfactory the department at least. I sincerely hope so. Pardon me for repeating the 1st 24.218.227.39 (91) 401. 162. all issued 1780 to 1783, might, and probably were, all issued to the same person because, when the time they prove, in all, added; it amounts to less than two years, and had there been more than one William Elliott, in Sumpter Brigade at the same time, it would have exceeded two years; as suppose, that, in Alexander troops then had been two William Elliott, and Indents to both, and the residence of each not stated, here there would be proof of twenty months service, instead of ten only. Now as the whole of these Indents call for but 23 months 1898, it is easy to see, that had there been only two claiming for the same period, it would have exceeded, the three years tween 1780 and 1783, and if "six or seven" as was suggested by the Report, the term of service proved by Wm Elliott, would have far exceeded the duration of the war, besides this, a careful examination of the Indents shows a consecutive service; by which I mean that no two Indents are issued for the same identical term of service, and thus that although the Indents are all dated, some of them in the same year, there is no
reason why the same person, be not entitled to both; for the whole time in service of both [illegible] 
in no case, exceed the year or years, in which they are they both dated me, then they some bear date the same year, but the amount of service in no two, exceeding the amount of time in the year, they may have both been done by the same Captain Calhoun credits Elliott for service of three years 1780.81.1783, but for sixty-five (65) days only, in all
Page 39

Surely; the same individual may have been 1030 days in service in the same year, under other commanders! and therefore the same reason, the same person could have prepared 609 days service under other of Sumpter officers, in 1778.1781, 1782, 1793. which all the amount claimed for

This I think establishes, that there was not but one Wm Elliott in Sumpter's brigade.

The records being indents (a corroborative fact of the argument) as to the residence in all the Indents; the only proof of his residence is that furnished by Mr Pinckney, who must regarded as trifling with his conscience and the government, unless he is believed to establish the service of Mr. Phoebe Elliotts husband, in that brigade

This is so far true, that under this affidavit and the silence of the record, none other than Mrs. Elliott, the claimant, such regarded by the department as the wife of Sumpter man and consequently unless she receive the pension no one else is entitled
I am Very Resply
Edward Cantwell
Mrs. Elliot Atty
Page 40

32.681 [crossed out]
10786
South Carolina.
Phoebe Elliott
Widow of William Elliott who was a pensioner under the Act of 
and who died on the 8th May 1818. of   in the State of South Carolina who was a Pri. Cav. in the Company commanded by Captain Barnwell of the  commanded by S.C. in the Pri. Cav. line for 10 mos Pri. Inf. 14 mos
---
Inscribed on the Roll of Charleston at the rate of 88 Dollars 33 Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1836.
---
Certificate of Pension issued the 12th day of Decr 1841 and sent to Edwd. Cantwell, Wilmington No. Ca.
Total amount, $
[Act July 7, 1838.]
Recorded by J. P. Chase Clerk,
Book D  Vol. 1  Page 307
Page 41

Charleston So. Ca
15 Febry 1849
Sir
In reference to the claim of Mrs. Phebe Elliot widow of William Elliot who served in the war of the Revolution the department wrote on the 13th Nov. '48, that it required evidence to show the identity of said William Elliot with the William Elliot who served in Hamptons Regiment as referred to in the Certificate for balance of pay and bounty of £ 94 issued from the office of the Comptrol Genl. of So Ca
To prove which I now respectfully submit the affidavit of Roger Pinckney Esqre. whose testimony had been addressed within cases submitted to the department, the Mr Nathl. Heyward referred to in the affidavit of W Pinckney is absent from the City. - And it is hoped that the proof addressed will be deemed satisfactory.
I am Sir
very respectfully
your obt Servant
P Cantwell

James L. Edwards
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington City
Page 42

William Phoenix
Affidavit service of Wm. Elliott
fr 1775 to 1781.

Filed by
Edward Cantwell
[illegible] N.C.
Page 43

[right side cut off]
State of South Carolina
Beaufort District
On this the 
Magistrate in and for said District perso
nally credible and reliable witness, who 
that he was the body servant of the late Robe
war, that said Robert Barnwell together with the
the British in the year 1775 and deponent says
Elliott husband of Mrs Phoebe Elliott of this Dis
Barnwell, they belonged to the same section of
in 1775 and accompanied them with the troop
deponent says that while so the servant of the
in the vicinity during the action in the early
in this District when the Americans under Gen
Major Gardiner. The militia of this to wit O
of John Barnwell and William Elliott was the
kindred and he so continued serving we
when the company was surprised by the B
on John Island and dispersed. William Ell
and so was Robert Barnwell they remain
reached Hallifax North Carolina when William
stands and believes joined General Sumpter
again in the latter part of the year 1781 and
died in 1808 and further deponent saith not
Sworn to & subscribed before me on the day & year above mentioned
Jno. M. Baker
Magistrate
Page 44

[left side cut off]
26th day of October 1849 before me John M Baker 
nally appeared William Phoenix aged 83 years on 
being duly sworn according to law says on his oath
Barnwell Esq of this District during the Revolutionary
two brothers Edward and John took up arms against
that he was well acquainted with the late William
strict the said William Elliott was a connection of the
country and entered the service together with them
under Col Stephen Bull to Georgia in March 1776
late Robert Barnwell he was present or a plantation
part (about January or February, 1779 at Port Royal Island
enel Moultrie defeated the British from Savannah under
at Royal Island were mounted and under the command
in present with them his neighbours and family
the them until the month of May in the same year (1779)
ritish while encamped at the Plantation of Mathew
was bayonetted in the breast and was taken prisoner
so prisoners in the hands of the enemy until they
Elliott with others escaped and as this deponent under
Brigade deponent saw the said William Elliott
he was still in the service said William Elliott
William Phoenix
Page 45

I do hereby certify that William Phoenix has been for very many years a member of the Beaufort Baptist Church & has always borne a high reputation for integrity & veracity
R. W. Fuller.
Pastor of Beaufort Baptist Church
The above certificate
Sworn to before me
this 29th day of Octr 1849
Jno. M. Baker
Magst. -

State of South Carolina
Beaufort District
It is hereby certified that the above is the genuine Signature of John M Baker Esquire who was at the time an acting Magistrate in and for this District Commissioned and Sworn and authorized by Law to take affidavits.
Witness my hand and seal of
office this 31st day of October
A.D. 1849.  Wm Youmans Esq.
C.C.P.
Page 46

13721
June 12. 48
Phobe Elliott, form by.[crossed out]
Widow of William.
Act 7 July 1838
S.C.
---
admitted
Pr Can  10 -- 41.66
Pr Jn  14 -- 46.66
[total] $88.33
Com 4 March 1836
to 6 Mar 184-
frm 6 March 1843 to 6 Mar
1848, and from that time
for life

Edward Cantwell
Wilmington N.C.
[crossed out] P. Cantwell  Charleston S.C.
Page 47

Comptroller General's Office
Columbia So. Ca. 25 March 1848
Indent Book
M No 214 -
Issued the first of October 1784 to Mr William Elliott, late private in Alexander's Troop W. Hampton's Regiment, Sumter Brigade of State Troops, for ninety four pound Sterling being balance of pay and bounty due him for services in that Troop; together with Interest thereon, from the first of April 1782 to date hereof agreeable to Revolution of General Assembly of the Eleventh of March last.
£ 94. 0. 0

I do hereby certify, that the foregoing is a -- correct copy taken from the records of this office. ---
William C. Black
Comptr. Genl
for Benjamin Hart
Page 48

State of South Carolina
District of Beaufort
On this 17th day of May A.D. 1848, personally appeared before me John. M. Baker Magistrate for said District Mary Mackie widow aged 88 years, a resident of Beaufort South Carolina who being first duly sworn according to law Deposeth, that, she was well acquainted with the late Mr. William Elliott decd. and is acquainted with his widow, Mrs. Phoebe Elliott, that, she knows them 70 years, that they always were considered amongst the most respectable people. That she remembers distinctly the fight with the British at Johns Island near Charleston So. Ca. during the war of the Revolution, that, she has distinct recollection of its being reported then, that, said William Elliott was wounded & taken prisoner, and afterward she heard of his being put on board one of the prison ships by the British, and of being sent away. - Dept. saith that these things are familiar to her, because she knew said Wm. Elliott from his boyhood - and Dept. says she is not aware of any other William Elliott being in the service but the William Elliott herein referred to.
Sworn to before me this day
and year above written I also
Certify the credibility of the affiant
Jno. M. Baker
Magistrate
---
Mary Mackie
Page 49

[image state seal of South Carolina]

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
BY HIS EXCELLENCY,
David Johnson
Governor and Commander-in-Chief, in and over the state aforesaid,
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME,
Know Ye, That John M Baker Esqr whose signature appears to the annexed affidavits, is one of the magistrates for Beaufort District in the State aforesaid, duly qualified to administer Oaths, and take depositions &c.--
and that the said signature of Jno. M Baker Magistrate is genuine. -
THEREFORE, all due faith, credit and authority is and ought to be had and given to his proceedings and certificates as such.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused to be affixed the seal of the State, in the City of Charleston & State aforesaid the Seventh day of June - in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and Forty Eight and in the Seventy Second - year of the Independence of the United States of America.
BY THE GOVERNOR.
David Johnson

Thos. S. Jones 
Deputy Secretary of State

[seal]
Page 50

State of South Carolina
District of Charleston
On the 28th day of December 1848 personally appeared before me the undersigned a notary public & magistrate for sd. District Mr Roger Pinckney a resident of Charleston aged 78 years who being first duly sworn according to law, saith that he resided in Charleston S.C. during the war of the revolution, That, he knew Mr. William Elliot of Beaufort S.C. whose widow Mrs. Phebe Elliot is as he is informed an applicant for pension. - That, the Deponent always heard and believes the same to be true; that, said William Elliot did serve under arms against the british in said war. in some of the up country regiments, under General Sumter  Deponent was too young to carry arms then, but he distinctly remembers the british troops coming into the city to take possession, and then subsequent evacuation of the same. Deponent does not remember that said William Elliot served in any of the Charleston Companies, and Deponent saith that he never knew but of one William Elliot being in the service. and that, was the one above mentioned who belonged to Beaufort S.C. as aforesaid. - Deponent saith that he believes he is since the decease of Mr John Cart, the only male inhabitant of the City who was old enough to recollect the commencement of the Revolution with the exception of Mr Nathl Heyward.
Roger Pinckney
(turn over).
Page 51

Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 28th day of December 1848. Duly
certify that the witness is personally
known to me.
P. Cantwell
Not Pub & [illegible]
for Charleston Dist
So Car