In July 1776, Brig. Gen. Benedict Arnold brought charges against Col. Moses Hazen for disobeying orders and neglecting merchandise seized in Montréal. Hazen was a Massachusetts-born Québec landowner and merchant who commanded a small regiment of Canadians in the Continental army. In April when Arnold took command in Montréal, he called Hazen “a sensible judicious officer, and well acquainted with this country,” but soon the two men despised each other.
In the French and Indian War, Hazen had been a lieutenant and captain in Roger’s Rangers and then a lieutenant in the 44th Regiment of Foot. As a ranger, he led brutal raids against the Acadians in present-day New Brunswick. He fought in the major battles along the St. Lawrence River, and Gen. James Murray commented that he had seen so much “bravery and good conduct” in Hazen “as would justly entitle him to every military reward he could ask or demand.” At the start of the American invasion of Canada in the late summer and fall of 1775, Hazen was caught between the warring sides: his property along the Richelieu River was plundered by the Americans, who considered him an enemy, and then he was imprisoned by the British. With the fall of Montréal in November, he committed wholeheartedly to the American cause. He was forty-three in the summer of 1776, eight years older than Arnold.
Although historians argue about details, as a teenager Arnold had only limited experience in the French and Indian War. He became a rising star in the first year of the Revolutionary War, helping to seize Fort Ticonderoga, leading an expedition through the Maine wilderness to Québec, and maintaining the siege through the harsh winter. Arnold and Hazen may have had more in common than they might have admitted to. Both were ambitious, aggressive, mercenary in business, and quick to take offense if they believed their honor was at stake.
Their dispute began as the American invasion of Canada was collapsing. On May 26, 1776, following the American surrender at the Cedars west of Montréal, Arnold wanted to lead a relief expedition to cross the Ottawa River and attack the Natives and British from the rear at dawn. Citing his “long experience with the Indian character,” Hazen argued that the Indians would not be surprised and would quickly kill their American captives. Col. John Phillip De Haas of the 1st Pennsylvania Battalion, who had fought on the western frontier in the earlier war, supported Hazen’s view. Arnold was “highly irritated” when the council of officers agreed with the colonels and voted not to attack. “Some reproachful language . . . passed between Arnold and Hazen,” observed young Cap. James Wilkinson.
Arnold returned to Montréal certain that the invasion of Canada was a lost cause. With the agreement of the Commissioners from Congress, Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll, he ordered goods and provisions seized in the city, but always with a promise of payment. The merchandise was tagged with the owner’s name as if Arnold and the commissioners expected the debt to be repaid when the Continental treasury was full.
Arnold entrusted the goods to a Major Scott for transport to Fort Chambly where Scott tried to turn them over to Hazen, who was the commander on the upper Richelieu River. “Colonel Hazen refused taking the goods into store, or taking charge of them; they were heaped in piles on the banks of the river,” wrote Arnold to Maj. Gen. Philip Schuyler on June 13. Even after Hazen placed guards, the goods were “neglected in such a manner that [a] great part were stolen or plundered.” 
Arnold told Brig. Gen. John Sullivan, “It is impossible for me to distinguish each man’s goods, or ever settle with the proprietors . . . . This is not the first or last order Colonel Hazen has disobeyed. I think him a man of too much consequence for the post he is in.”
In response, Hazen called for a court of inquiry or a court-martial. “I am very conscious of having done my duty in every respect; but if otherwise, I am equally unworthy the honour which the Congress conferred on me, as unfit for the service of my country.”
No statement from Maj. Scott survives. Although he is central to the incident and to the court-martial that followed, no historian seems to have identified Scott’s first name, regiment, or state, let alone to have found details that might allow for an evaluation of his trustworthiness as an officer or a witness. The difficulty is understandable. Francis Bernard Heitman’s Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army during the War of the Revolution, April, 1775, to December, 1783 lists twenty-two Scotts, but none at first glance meets the criteria. The only Major Scott did not serve in Canada or on Lake Champlain and was promoted to the rank in the fall of 1777. Only one Continental officer named Scott served in the north, Captain John Budd Scott of Col. William Maxwell’s Second New Jersey Regiment.
Packed into one hundred fifty bateaux, the retreating American army reached the Crown Point narrows on Lake Champlain during the night of July 1-2, 1776. Within a few days, Hazen was arrested. Arnold wanted an immediate trial, but Hazen protested to Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates, who was in command at Ticonderoga, arguing that the men on the court-martial panel were not all field officers, meaning colonels, lieutenant colonels, and majors. Gates agreed that Hazen had a right to be tried by his peers. Hazen contended as well that the panel had been “named by his accuser.” “This (if a fact) is also very irregular,” Gates commented in a letter to Arnold.
A new panel consisting of thirteen field officers was announced on July 18. Captain Scott, no first name given, was appointed judge advocate. This Scott was unquestionably John Budd Scott, a young attorney from Sussex County, New Jersey. He had served in the New Jersey Provincial Congress and was chosen as “First Major” of the county’s First Regiment of Militia. The Sussex County Committee of Safety objected to that appointment for reasons they did not record, but the Provincial Congress confirmed it. Then Scott took a captain’s commission in the 2nd New Jersey under Maxwell, but continued to use his loftier militia rank when he could.
The trial opened on July 20, but was adjourned quickly because Arnold was busy with the construction of the fleet to defend Lake Champlain. For about five days he was in Skenesborough (present-day Whitehall), New York, giving – as Gates told Continental Congress president John Hancock – “life and spirit to our dock-yard.”
Col. Enoch Poor, a merchant and shipbuilder from Exeter, New Hampshire, presided over the panel of twelve other officers. Impartiality based on a lack of knowledge of events and people was impossible. There were only about forty regimental field officers in the camps at Ticonderoga and across Lake Champlain on Mount Independence. They knew each other, Arnold and Hazen, and the gossip in the army. Four officers on the panel were part Arnold’s First Brigade, located on the high ground on Mount Independence. Two men had recent disagreements with him; another was soon to write a savage characterization.
Two months earlier, Colonel De Haas, who had already sided with Hazen against Arnold’s proposed surprise attack after the Cedars, resisted written orders from Arnold, received May 30, to “burn and destroy the town and inhabitants of Canassadaga [present-day Kanesatake],” a Mohawk settlement forty miles northwest of Montréal. De Haas called a council of officers, which agreed not to attack. A false rumor went through camp in early July that De Haas, like Hazen, had been arrested.
Col. Elisha Porter, an attorney from Hadley, Massachusetts, clashed with Arnold just a few days before the trial reconvened. Porter’s militia regiment, which was part of Arnold’s brigade, had cleared ground on Mount Independence and had nearly completed their camp of log huts when a staff officer ordered Porter to “remove ye officers’ houses, &c., and alter the front of my encampment.” Porter protested to Arnold, but he agreed with the alterations, and grudgingly Porter complied.
And Col. William Maxwell, whose regiment had joined the siege of Québec in March, had seen as much of Arnold’s leadership as anyone in the army. Like Hazen and De Haas, Maxwell was older than Arnold and had extensive experience as an officer in the French and Indian War. After the defeat of Arnold’s fleet on Lake Champlain in October, 1776, he told New Jersey governor William Livingston that Arnold was “our evil genius to the north.” This opinion was likely formed before the court-martial.
In Arnold’s absence, the court met from July 22 through July 28, bringing discipline to an army that had been devastated by the disaster in Canada. Scott facilitated the trials as judge advocate. He was prosecutor and legal adviser, but he was also expected to be so impartial that he could be a “friend” to the accused. Usually judge advocates coordinated trials, walking witnesses through their testimony without engaging in aggressive questioning.
Hazen’s trial reconvened on Wednesday, July 31. “Nothing extraordinary,” noted Colonel Porter, who must have expected something else. By August 1, the trial was not going as Arnold or Scott wanted. “Divers[e] witnesses” testified that the goods had been damaged or lost under Scott’s care, not Hazen’s, and Scott himself admitted he never gave Hazen written orders from Arnold. The court was told Hazen never took control of the goods and had no place to store them if he had.
According to Arnold, during the trial Hazen offered the “grossest abuse,” and the court allowed him to speak without reprimand. Historians have suggested that Hazen, who knew the Montréal merchants personally, accused Arnold of seizing property for personal gain. In fact, there were rumors of packages of select goods being labeled with Arnold’s initials.
Scott’s role in the court-martial is confusing. A few days later, Poor told Gates that the court saw in Scott a man with an “overstrained zeal to serve as Judge Advocate during the course of the trial,” who was “extremely solicitous to give evidence in the cause.” Some historians have interpreted Poor’s comment as meaning that Scott was not judge advocate but acted “as if” he were. But while it is hard to believe that any court would rely on a legal adviser so personally involved in a case, Scott unquestionably had been appointed to the position. Perhaps Poor meant that Scott had stopped presenting evidence dispassionately and had become an aggressive prosecutor. Once Scott asked the court for permission to cross-examine a witness who was favorable to Hazen, but it is unclear whether his request reveals he was no longer judge advocate or if it shows him wanting to confront a witness whose statement he found objectionable (Poor did not note the court’s response.) At some point in the proceedings, Scott was replaced as judge advocate by Maj. William D’Hart of the 1st New Jersey Regiment.
Finally, when Scott himself was called to testify, presumably by Arnold, Hazen objected, and after hearing arguments, the court agreed. Scott was viewed as “so far interested in the event of Colonel Hazen’s trial, as to render his testimony inadmissible.”
Arnold objected, saying he would enter a formal protest if Scott was not permitted to testify. In his written objection, Arnold told the court that Scott was “my principal evidence.” He had “punctually obeyed” orders and “of course is not the least interested in the event of Colonel Hazen’s trial.” Arnold concluded, “I do solemnly protest against their [the court’s] proceedings and refusal as unprecedented, and I think unjust.”
The panel of officers believed that Arnold had questioned the integrity of the court and directed Colonel Poor to demand an apology. He told Arnold, “You have drawn upon yourself their just resentment, and that nothing but an open acknowledgment of your error will be conceived as satisfactory.”
Poor explained to Gates that Arnold’s protest was “couched, as we think, in indecent terms, and directly impeaching the justice of the Court.” If a superior officer could “blast” a court-martial with a protest, then an honorable acquittal would be impossible and an accused officer would always be sent “back to his room a melancholy prisoner.” Poor assured Gates that the protest was not the only affront: “The whole of the General’s conduct during the course of the trial was marked with contempt and disrespect towards the Court.”
Asked for an apology, Arnold refused to back down and in a written response delivered on August 2, he told the officers, “Your demand I shall not comply with.” The directions of the court and the “extraordinary demand” of the President were “ungenteel and indecent reflections on a superior officer.” Then Arnold issued a challenge to any and all members of the panel: “As your very nice and delicate honour, in your apprehension, is injured, you may depend, as soon as this disagreeable service is at an end (which God grant may soon be the case,) I will by no means withhold from any gentleman of the Court the satisfaction his nice honour may require.”
With that, the court exonerated Hazen and in a few days sent Gates a forty-two-page record of the trial, which suspiciously does not survive, along with copies of letters filled with outrage. Gates accepted the dismissal of the charges against Hazen. On August 10, in celebration of his vindication, Porter and the other members of the court dined with Hazen. Then on August 12, they ordered Arnold arrested for “conducting himself in a contemptuous, disorderly manner, in the presence of said Court; by using profane oaths and execrations; by charging the court with injustice in the course of the proceedings; and by using menacing words before them.” Gates promptly dissolved the court. 
Finally on September 2, Gates wrote Congress about the trial. He told President Hancock that Arnold might have crossed the “precise line of decorum” and that he, Gates, had been “obliged to act dictatorially, and dissolve the Court-Martial,” since “the United States must not be deprived of that excellent Officer’s Service, at this important Moment.” By then, the fleet under Arnold’s command was sailing north to battle.
For the most part, historians have taken Arnold’s side in the court-martial, seeing jealous, lesser men trying to bring down the most talented and active officer on Lake Champlain. Arnold insisted that he was the victim of “their private resentment.” In a letter to Schuyler on September 11, 1776, Gates wrote: “To be a man of honour, and in an exalted station, will ever excite envy in the mean and undeserving. I am confident the Congress will view whatever is whispered against General Arnold as the foul stream of that poisonous fountain, detraction.”
But critics of the panel miss how seriously the officers tried to do their job. “We had nothing but the good of our country and the discipline of the army in view,” they told President Hancock. If they erred, they believed, it was in giving Arnold too much leeway in the hope that he would “become sensible of the impropriety of his conduct.” Some men on the panel were petty and undeserving, but others were rock-solid.
Col. William Bond died of bilious fever within a month of the court-martial and was greatly mourned. Maxwell, De Haas, and Poor were soon promoted to the rank of Continental brigadier general. Historian David Hackett Fischer has called Maxwell “a combat leader of true genius” for his conduct of the New Jersey winter war of 1777. At Saratoga, Poor worked for reconciliation between Arnold and Gates, who had lost all respect for each other, and helped to keep Arnold in camp for the decisive battle on October 7, 1777. De Haas soon resigned from the Continental army, but in July 1778 following the raid on the Wyoming Valley in northeast Pennsylvania, he rallied the settlers and militia on the frontier, winning praise for his actions.
At the other end of the spectrum, Maj. Nicholas Haussegger, by then colonel of the Pennsylvania German Battalion, was captured (or perhaps he deserted) at Assunpink Creek on January 2, 1777, dined happily with Hessian officers in New York, and was eventually declared a traitor. In the summer of 1779, Maj. Jotham Loring, by then a lieutenant colonel, was tried on numerous charges, including defrauding his regiment, and was dismissed.
Hazen’s career after the court-martial had a few constants. He worked for a second invasion of Canada, launched from the upper Connecticut River. He petitioned for compensation for his financial losses and for promotion. And he was never far from the courtroom, facing or bringing charges. In June 1781, he was breveted as a brigadier general. He and substitute judge advocate D’Hart were the only men from the court-martial on Lake Champlain still in the Continental army when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.
For Arnold, the controversies of the spring and summer of 1776 never went away. In December 1776, Lt. Col. John Brown of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, presented Gates with thirteen charges against Arnold for incompetent, dishonorable, cruel, illegal, and traitorous activity. Brown expected to have nearly thirty witnesses testify against Arnold, including Hazen, De Haas, and Maj. John Sedgwick, a member of the court-martial panel from Burrall’s Connecticut State Regiment. In May 1777, the Congress’s War Board met with Arnold and reported that Brown had “cruelly and groundlessly aspersed” his character.
By the winter 1778-1779, Arnold was facing new charges from the Pennsylvania Council, which claimed that, among other crimes, he was profiteering from his position as military governor of Philadelphia. In the Pennsylvania Packet, Arnold engaged in a war of words with secretary of the council Timothy Matlack. Arnold defended himself by taking the patriotic high ground, writing that he had “served my country faithfully for near four years, without once having my public conduct impeach’d.” In response, the Packet published Brown’s thirteen charges, and Matlack commented, “When I meet your carriage in the street, and think of the splendour in which you live and revel . . . and compare these things with the decent frugality necessarily used by other officers in the army, it is impossible to avoid the question: From whence have these riches flowed if you did not plunder Montreal?” Within two months Arnold made his first offers to the British through a Loyalist merchant.
And what of Captain/Major Scott, the forgotten man at the heart of Hazen’s court-martial?
Scott was soon back in court. Early in October 1776 he was arrested by Col. Maxwell and charged with embezzling from the regiment’s payroll. Scott asked Gates to discharge him from arrest so he could help defend the Lake Champlain forts, and then he tried to resign his commission before a court-martial could be held. But Gates would not allow him an easy way out. He was found guilty and cashiered for “defrauding the Continent, by presenting a full pay-roll, drawing the pay accordingly, and also of ungentlemanlike behaviour in extorting extraordinary prices for some articles purchased for his men.”
Soon afterwards Scott attempted to join a Loyalist regiment, the 5th Battalion of the New Jersey Volunteers, but officers objected. In May 1778, he became a captain in another Loyalist corps, the Royal American Reformees, led by Rudolphus Ritzema, who had also served in Canada on the American side. The regiment was short-lived before it merged into the British Legion. In the fall of 1778, a John Scott, apparently the same man, was a captain in the British Legion. Six months later, he retired before the regiment was sent south. In May 1779 John Budd Scott was married in British-held New York.
 Benedict Arnold to Philip Schuyler, April 20, 1776, in Peter Force, ed. American Archives (Washington, D.C.: 1837-1853), Ser. 4, 5:1099. Abbreviated below as AA.
 Allan S. Everest, Moses Hazen and the Canadian Refugees in the American Revolution (Syracuse University Press, 1976), 1-45, quote on 13.
 James Kirby Martin, Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary Hero: An American Warrior Revisited (New York University Press: 1997), 28-29 discusses other possibilities and concludes the future general served for only a few weeks in 1757.
 James Wilkinson, Memoirs of My Own Times (Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1816), 1:45-46.
 Commissioners in Canada to President of Congress, May 27, 1776, AA, Ser. 4, 6:590.
 Arnold to Schuyler, June 13, 1776, AA, Ser. 4, 6:1038.
 Arnold to John Sullivan, June 10, 1776, AA, Ser. 4, 6:797.
 Arnold to Schuyler, June 13, 1776; Arnold to Sullivan and Moses Hazen to Sullivan, June 13, 1776, AA, Ser. 4, 6:1105.
 A sampling: Mark R. Anderson, The Battle for the Fourteenth Colony (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 2013), 325; Isaac N. Arnold, The Life of Benedict Arnold: His Life and Treason (Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Company, 1880), 97-99; Douglas R. Cubbison, The American Northern Theater Army in 1776: The Ruin and Reconstruction of the Continental Force (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, 2010), 165; Everest, 42, 44; Robert McConnell Hatch, Thrust for Canada: The American Attempt on Quebec in 1775-1776 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979), 219; Martin, 218-219, 239-240. Alone among primary or secondary accounts, Wilkinson identifies Captain Scott as having charge of the plundered goods. Wilkinson also knows Scott’s future career. (Wilkinson, 1:70.)
 Francis Bernard Heitman, Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army during the War of the Revolution, April, 1775, to December, 1783 (Washington, D.C., 1893), 358-359.
 Lewis Beebe, “Journal of a Physician on the Expedition against Canada, 1776,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 59 (October 1935), 4:341-342.
 Horatio Gates to Arnold, July 15, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:358.
 Doyen Salsig, ed., Parole: Quebec ; Countersign: Ticonderoga: Second New Jersey Regimental Orderly Book 1776 (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1980), 173-174; “The Wayne Orderly Book,” Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, vol. 11, no. 2, (Sept. 1963), 98.
 New-Jersey Provincial Congress, List of Deputies, AA Ser. 4, 3: 41; New-Jersey Provincial Congress, October 26-27, 1775, AA, Ser. 4, 3:1234-1235. Scott’s exact age is unknown, but his parents were married in October 1750. Florence E. Youngs, ed., Genealogical Record: Saint Nicholas Society of the City of New York (New York: Saint Nicholas Society, 1905), 249.
 Gates to Hancock, July 29, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:649.
 Wilkinson, 1: 47; Arnold to Commissioners, June 2, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:16; Beebe, 342.
 Elisha Porter, “The Diary of Colonel Elisha Porter, of Hadley, Massachusetts,” Appleton Morgan , ed., The Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries (New York: A.S. Barnes, 1893), 202.
 William Maxwell to Governor Livingston, October 20, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 2:1143.
 “The Army Lawyer: A History of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, 1775-1975,” (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1975), 16.
 Porter, “The Diary of Colonel Elisha Porter ,” 203.
 Papers of the Continental Congress, R71 i58, p 385, 397. Or Fold3: Continental Congress Papers / Papers of John Hancock, 385, 397.
 Poor to Gates, Aug. 6, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:1273; Martin, 240; “Arnold and a General Court-Martial,” The American Historical Record, vol. 3, no. 34 (October 1874), 448.
 Poor to Gates, Aug. 6, 1776, ibid.
 “Arnold’s Protest,” AA, Ser. 5, 1:1272.
 Poor to Arnold, Aug. 1, 1776, Ser. 5, 1:1272; Porter, 203; Court to Gates, Aug. 6, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:1273-1274.
 Porter, “The Diary of Colonel Elisha Porter ,” 204; “Arnold and a General Court-Martial,” 448.
 Gates to Hancock, Sept. 2, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:1268.
 For examples, Isaac Arnold, The Life of Benedict Arnold, 99; Martin, Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary Hero, 242.
 Arnold to Gates, Aug. 7, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:1274; Gates to Schuyler, Sept. 11, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 2:294-295.
 Field Officers to Hancock, Aug. 19, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 1:1072.
 David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 348-349; Henry B. Livingston to Schuyler,” Sept. 24, 1777, in Isaac Arnold, The Life of Benedict Arnold, 182; “Disposition of Jeremiah Fogg,” New-Hampshire Gazette; or State Journal, and General Advertiser, January 15, 1781, The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 60 (July 1906), 311; Abram Hess, “The Life and Services of General John Philip de Haas, 1735-1786,” Paper Read before the Lebanon County Historical Society, February 10, 1916 (Lebanon, Pa.: Lebanon Historical Society), 87; Jeff Dacus, “Brigadier General John de Haas: A Bad Example to Others,” Journal of the American Revolution, allthingsliberty.com/2015/04/brigadier-general-john-de-haas-a-bad-example-to-others/
 Fischer, Washington’s Crossing, 300, 528; Ethan Allen, The Narrative of Colonel Ethan Allen (Bedford, MA: Applewood Books), 88-89.
 General Orders, Aug. 12, 1779, George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, online at http://memory.loc.gov
 Brown to Gates, Dec. 1, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 3: 1158-1159; Brown to Theodore Sedgwick, Dec. 6, 1776, Massachusetts Historical Society.
 Brown to Gates, Dec. 1, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 3:1158-1159; May 23, 1777, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, ed. Worthington C. Ford et al. (Washington, D.C., 1904-37), 8: 382; John to Abigail Adams, May 22, 1777, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Smith, Paul H., et al., eds., (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1976-2000), 7:103.
 Pennsylvania Packet, Feb. 9 and March 6, 1779, Readex Microprint.
 There is a second mystery involving a Captain Scott. On September 23, 1776, two hundred fifty Americans attacked Montresor’s Island (present-day Randalls Island now joined to Ward Island) in the East River off Manhattan (AA, Ser. 5, 2:523-524). Captain John Wisner of Isaac Nichols’ New York militia regiment and a Captain Scott (no first name or regiment given) failed to land their boats, setting up a disaster for those who did. Both were charged with cowardice. Wisner was tried and cashiered (AA, Ser. 5, 2:610-613), but Scott was never brought to court-martial and seems to have vanished from the record. Historian John C. Fitzpatrick, the 1930s editor of The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, identified the Montresor’s Island Scott as John Budd Scott of the 2nd New Jersey Regiment, basing his view on Heitman’s information that Scott was cashiered on November 2, 1776 (“General Orders, September 29, 1776,” note 50, The George Washington Papers, Library of Congress: American Memory at http://memory.loc.gov; Heitman, 359). However, there seem to be no primary sources that identify the Montresor’s Island Scott, and it is unlikely that John Budd Scott left Lake Champlain at a time when the forts were daily expecting attack, embarrassed himself at Montresor’s Island two hundred fifty miles away, and then hurried back to Ticonderoga to be dismissed on other charges.
 Scott to Gates, Oct. 17, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 2:1103-1104; Scott to Gates, Oct. 27, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 2:1267; Orderly Book, Nov. 2, 1776, AA, Ser. 5, 3:534; “A History of the 5th Battalion, New Jersey Volunteers,” The Online Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies, http://www.royalprovincial.com/ ; “Roll of Officers in the British American or Loyalist Corps,” Collections of the New Brunswick Historical Society (Saint John, N.B.: Sun Printing Company, 1899), 2:246; Genealogical Record: Saint Nicholas Society of the City of New York, 249.