Talk:Richard Stockton (Continental Congressman)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE CONTROVERSY

Sir William Howe was able to report to the ministry at home that over forty-eight hundred individuals, twenty-seven hundred of them from New Jersey, had signed the oath and received their pardon. A recent study estimates that two thirds of those submitting had done so between December 8 and 16, the days of optimum British success in the Garden State. The Jerseymen who accepted amnesty included some prominent public figures, among them John Covenhoven, Stockton’s host at the time both men were captured, and Samuel Tucker, a state supreme-court judge.

The proof of Richard Stockton’s defection comes from reliable sources: two of his New Jersey colleagues in the Continental Congress, both of them fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence. On February 8, 1777, Congressman Abraham Clark wrote to John Hart, still another signer and at the time Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly. One of the matters dealt with in Clark’s letter was the filling of vacancies in New Jersey’s congressional delegation:

Mr. Sergeant talks of resigning and Mr. Stockton by his late proceedure cannot Act. I wish their places may be Supplied by such as will be reputable to New Jersey, not only by their integrity but Abilities.

Beyond a doubt Stockton’s “late proceedure” that disabled him from further service in the Continental Congress was his acceptance of what the Howes had offered. Another congressman and signer, Dr. John Witherspoon, wrote his son David in March, 1777, from Philadelphia:

I was at Princeton from Saturday … till Wednesday. … Judge Stockton is not very well in health and much spoken against for his conduct. He signed Howe’s Declaration and also gave his Word of Honour that he would not meddle in the least in American affairs during the War.

Witherspoon was the president of the College of New Jersey and an old acquaintance; it is probable that he and Stockton personally discussed the whole lugubrious affair during Witherspoon’s visit. Stockton appears never to have denied either the fact or the scope of his recantation.

The public disapproval of his conduct that was reported to David Witherspoon must have been general and widespread and sufficient to require Richard Stockton, despite his impaired health, to take a new oath of allegiance to the state of New Jersey in December, i777- That oath is preserved in the state’s archives. Significantly, Washington in a counterproclamation issued late in January, 1777, pursuant to the emergency powers vested in him by Congress just before it learned of the victory at Trenton, had called on every person who had submitted to the Howes to repair to the nearest American general officer “and there deliver up such protections, certificates and passports, and take the oath of allegiance to the United States of America.” Those who refused to do so were invited “forthwith to withdraw themselves and families within the enemy’s lines”; failing to do which within thirty days they would “be deemed adherents to the King of Great-Britain, and treated as common enemies of the American States.”

JohnFlaherty 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of ongoing Revert War

It seems likely to me that "American Patriot" is probably our repeat editor on the Stockton betrayal issue who has finally registered a name. I was hoping for this to facillitate discussion.

The very choice of name (which implies a bias, an attitude of implied superiority - that anyone who disagrees is NOT a patriot - and also is in violation of Wikipedia's prefered username policy) make me less than willing to give credence to his raison detre, however, we should adress this issue once and for all and make changes or not. If "AmericanPatriot" wants to make his case calmly, and according to good style, consise argument (with sources), and Wikipedia policy then I am open to discussion. Otherwise I recommened we continue to edit out comments counter to the article as it stands now. User:JohnFlaherty

P.S. The last TALK entry from "AAP" was an example of how NOT to make the point or argument. I recommend he look at other talk pages and this one for example of how to make his case.User:JohnFlaherty

An American Patriot is not a man, and since when does being a patriot imply a bias, an attitude of implied superiority? I consider myself a patriot because I spent 21 years as a military wife and I think I earned that honor in addition to losing my son-in-law in the first Gulf War. I am most willing to make my case calmly and in good style. Just tell me what I need to do to have the unproven statement about Richard Stockton having the dubious honor of being the only signer to betray the cause taken off the web page. Thank you and I am only sorry I did not sign in earlier. Proud to be An American Patriot.

I considered you could be female. I chose the male pronoun not as an insult but based on a 50/50 chance for ease of communicating. He/she becomes tedious.

Your screenname implies a great deal. It is biased by definition. This is why Wikipedia discourages people from using names like the one you chose (please read their guidlines) and recommends using your name or nuetral handle. I served eight years myself for whatever that is worth in this discussion (Cold War and Gulf War).

This is a tangental issue however so I suggest we move on for now.

First I suggest you sign in under your usuername for all TALK entries (or a main article entries for that matter).

Second, learn a bit more about how to make a post. Look at other TALK and main article enties for proper formatting and style. Currently, your entry style makes it difficult to discearn your point or the validity of comments.

Third - you need to make your point to us. Wikipedia's policy is that all things being equal, the original content stays. You need to prove you argument rationally and with documented sources. Stop simply eliminating comments. That is not how it works here. Wikipedia works by consesus.

The burden of proof is on you. You need to make your argument and then accept what the consensus of editors is - whether your views become the new content, whether a compromise between the two views is reached (the most likely scenario) or if they are rejected.User:JohnFlaherty Sorry to disagree but when I read the guidelines I felt An American Patriot was acceptable. In my Webster dictionary a patriot is one who loves his (her) country. I attend DAR meetings (Daughter's of the American Revolution) and my husband is a member of SAR (Son's of the American Revolution) and we all proudly call ourselves American patriots. I am not computer savy so you will have to excuse my lack of etiquette in editing. Just point me to the right page and I will make my case in defense of Richard Stockton and the attack against his character. I have done a great deal of research on him and am most willing to share documented sources. Thank you for your comments and help. User: An American Patriot

I will be away from the computer for a few hours - maybe until tomorrow. I answered your questions in detail and offered some pointers but I forgot to save them and post when my browser locked up. I haven't the time to re-write them just now. I will answer your questions in detail then.--JohnFlaherty 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this website is visited by many I would respectfully request that the comment about Richard Stockton having the dubious honor of being the only signer to betray the cause be taken off the article until we can make our case. The issue is brought up later in the article and I feel that is enough on the matter. Thank you for your consideration.

I have amended the text to say this for now;

"It was at this point that he renounced the revolution and signed a different declaration, a "Declaration of Allegiance" to the King, George III and gave "his word of honor that he would not meddle in the least of American affairs". If true, this would make Stockton the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to betray the cause. Some however maintain that this was unsubstantiated rumor and deserves no creedance.

This should suffice as a temporary solution until we can sort this issue out.--JohnFlaherty 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to see any documents arguments in support of this position AAP or shall I revert the article back to the content from last week?--JohnFlaherty 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to respond until today forgive my delay.

These are the facts with documentation in regard to the release of Richard Stockton.

Richard Stockton's treatment, while a prisoner provoked a remonstrance from the Continental Congress and on January 3,1777 they directed General George Washington to look into the status and condition of Richard Stockton and he did.

PROOF: The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush; George W. Corner, Editor; The American Philosophical Society, Princeton University Press, 1948; page l30: "At Princeton I met my wife's father who had been plundered of all his household furniture and stock by the British army, and carried a prisoner to New York, from whence he was permitted to return to his family upon parole." The preceeding statement was written by Dr.Rush in his diary sometime after the battle of Princeton where he talks of attending to General Mercer and said he died a week later putting the time for meeting Stockton in Princeton around mid January 1777.

PROOF: The Howe Brothers and the American Revolution; Ira D. Gruber; W.S. Norton and Company, Inc.; 1972 page 195: "British offficers and rebels agreed the proclamation of November 30 had been a failure. Most of the 4,836 colonists who took advantage of the proclamation had done so before Trenton while British troops were enjoying their greatest success; AT NO TIME, however, HAD A LEADING REBEL SOUGHT PARDON." Jan l8, 21,22,29, Feb 7, 1777, Tatum, ed., Jour. of Serle, 176-177, 178-179, 180, 186: John Shuttleworth to (Walter Spencer) Stanhope, June 29,(i.e.,Jan. 29), 1777, Sterling, Annals of a Yorkshire House, II, 21: Henry Laurens to John Laurens, Feb. 3, 1777, C.O.5/40; the Howes to Germain, March 25, 1777, and (enclosed therein) declarations subscribed as a result of the proclamation of Nov. 30, 1777, C.O. 5/177.

PROOF: Abstracts of the Council of Safety Minutes, State of New Jersey, l777-1779; page 70: December 22, 1777 "Richard Stockton Esq. was called before the Board and took the Oaths and was dismissed." Richard Stockton was required to take the oath because, according to the Council of Safety "those who were forcibly removed from New Jersey and moved into the enemy's lines" (prisoners), were required to take the oath. If you took protection you were required to turn in your protection papers, there is NO reference in the minutes of Richard Stockton turning in protection papers as he would have been required to do. (Of those did take protection - in the minutes it gives their name, it is noted they turned in their protection papers, took the oath and were dismissed.) If you read these minutes it is interesting to note how many neighbors made false claims against their neighbors. Just like the false claim against Stockton in the Witherspoon letter and rumors ran rampant.)

PROOF: There was nothing ever written in the Rivington Gazette (Tory) or any other newspaper of the time stating Stockton took protection or was spoken against. History books of that time do not support the claim.

PROOF: Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, Vol. III; John Sanderson; R. W. Pomeroy; l823 ; page 103: "After the release of Mr. Stockton, his constitution was so materially impared that he was never again able, except by occasional counsel and advice, to render any imprortant services to his country. In fact, during the few remaining years of his life, he was never perfectly restored to health." (Nothing written about Stockton taking protection or recanting in 34 pages on Stockton. This book was published while some of the signers were still alive and is the most complete book on the signers ever written.)

Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence; Rev. Charles A. Goodrich; Published by William Reed; 1829 (Wrote Stockton was released and nothing written about Stockton taking a Protection or recanting.)

Signers of the Declaration of Independence; B.J. Lossing; Derby & Jackson Publishers; 1857; page 80: (Stockton was exchanged.)

AMBIGUIOUS:

Some authors beginning in l940 have used the John Witherspoon ambiguious personal letter to his son to push the claim that Richard Stockton took the protection and recanted signing the Declaration of Independence.

In the March l7, 1777 letter John Witherspoon states, "Judge Stockton is not very well in health & much spoken against for his conduct. He signed Howes declaration & also gave his word of honour that he would not meddle in the least in the American affairs during the War. Mrs. Cochran was sent to the Enemies lines by a flag of truce and when Mr. Cochran came out to meet his wife he said to the Officers that went with the flag that Judge Stockton had brought Evedence to General Howe to prove that he was on his way to seek a protection when he was taken. This he DENIES to be true yet many credit it but Mr. Cochrans known quarrel with him makes it very doubtful to candid Persons".

Did Witherspoon mean that to the candid person these rumors about Richard Stockton's conduct and signing Howe's declaration were not to be believed? This letter was written to his son from Philadelphia, after a four day stay in Princeton..and is just relaying rumors about Stockton to his son and nothing more. The letter NEVER said Stockton SWORE ALLEGIANCE to the King and said Stockton DENIED TAKING THE PROTECTION. Why do some authors use this unsubstantiated, ambiguious letter to push their theory and libel Richard Stockton? This new modern parade of revisionist history writers, bent on the disparagement of American Heritage is shocking to me. They seem to think it is a "new and exciting" revelation of "Truth" which they have discovered. In fact of course, it is neither new, exciting nor the truth.

The letter of Abraham Clark talking about Mr. Stockton's "proceedure" was his parole or his resignation from congress and it certainly does not prove he took protection or recanted.

Writers need to have documented first hand proof before they attack the character of a founding father that gave his life, his fortune and his sacred honor for his country and this character assination directed at Richard Stockton saying he betrayed the cause, etc, without proof needs to end. I personally think it is a national disgrace that authors and historians theorize these old documents, guess as to what the writer meant to say, then write a book and without PROOF dishonor these great men of history. I am here to defend a founding father against a claim that he betrayed the very cause that he suffered so much for. How many of us today would put our lives on the line and do what these signers did? The very thought of being hanged, drawn and quartered if caught by the British must have weighed heavy on their minds. Would you put your signature on the line? And how would you feel if you were accused of betraying the very cause you suffered so much for based on a 228 year old rumor? My American Revolutionary War ancestors fought for that cause (freedom) and as a result of their sacrifices we are today a free country.

I say if you do NOT have first hand solid proof do no harm to ones character based on second hand information. I further agree with Herman Ausubel's dictum: The historian who aspires to be a judge must not try his case by a code unknown to the defendant." I believe I speak for millions of American citizens who are tired of history being rewritten.--An American Patriot 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)--An American Patriot 00:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--64.12.116.6 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had time to research all of these points, but I can say one thing - there was never any exchange of prisoners made.

I am in the middle of a discussion with a history teacher from Stockton University right now. His opinion is that Stockton did sign the paper and take the oath. I will report back with more detail when we are done conversing. I also invited him to participate here.

--JohnFlaherty 14:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC) I have been away from home several days and would like to reply to your comment that no exchanges were made. Would you care to share the proof? I believe that there were exchanges in l777 and later in the war signers Middleton, Rutledge and Heyward were exchanged. I am pleased that a professor at Stockton University is in this discussion and would ask him to share with us his proof of Stockton taking the oath. --An American Patriot 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a problem with your comment about Stockton betraying the cause that appears on the article about him. I think you should remove it until this is sorted out. Why would you want to keep that information on there when you are having to sort out if it happened or not? Nothing ever written in these two ambiguious letters you use EVER said he swore allegiance to the King...so why is that written in the article? And for the sake of argument... IF he had taken the Oath under extreme DURESS after six weeks in prison, how would that make him betray the cause? He never aided the British like Benedict Arnold... now that would betray the cause. Over 4,836 men took the protection and if you read the Minutes of Safey for New Jersy it didn't seem to be a big deal. They turned in their protection papers took the oath and went on with their lives. Even in the Witherspoon letter he mentions "Mr. McDonald is come back and taken the Oaths to the State of New Jersey and behaves well"...so it didn't seem to be a cause for concern or a betrayal. When our POW's came home from Vietnam and the Gulf War did we say they betrayed the cause because they said things under torture and duress? We were thankful they were home safe and considered them hero's so why should Stockton not be treated the same? Especially when there is NO primary evidence that he ever took the Protection. --An American Patriot 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a problem with saying he did NOT betray the cause. I have been on jury duty and have not been able to present the opposite case yet - the point is that the more I look into this (including my discussions with the Stockton College professor) the more I feel sure that he DID...yet I still do not object to the disclaimer we put in to deal with your views because that is what is fair at this point.

Basically, what I am saying is that many good compromises result in both sides being unhappy. I assure you, I am unhappy about the disclaimer. I suggest we leave the listing the way it is for now. It has been modified at least three times to satisfy your position. That is enough for now.

I am sorry but the two things I disagree with have never been changed in your article. Saying he swore allegiance to the king, and saying he betrayed the cause. These have never been removed only the wording changed around. A later paragraph deals with the Howe claim and that should suffice. And again I ask you how did he ever betray the cause? I thought the professor at Stockton was going to participate in the discussion...but I have seen nothing so far. --An American Patriot 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not reading what I wrote very carefully.

I never said I CHANGED the claim, I said I addressed your claim.

The entry now says If true, this would make Stockton the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to betray the cause. Some however maintain that this was unsubstantiated rumor.

This more than covers your claim on the issue - that the allegations are NOT true and are based on rumor.

That is called compromise. It will do for now.

--JohnFlaherty 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You really need to read more carefully. I NEVER said that he WAS going to participate. I said I INVITED him too.

I think enough time has gone by for you to back up your claim (with primary evidence) of Richard Stockton taking the oath or take it off the article. I have given you more than enough PROOF to prove he did NOT take the oath. You may talk to the good professor all you like but an OPINION without PROOF is exactly why this rumor has gone forward. I have respectfully asked that you take the comment off and you refuse. My concern is many children read this and will believe this remark about him betraying the cause. You are libeling a founding father. I seem to be the only one participating in this discussion and seem to be going nowhere with you as you never address any of my questions such as how did he betray the cause? I also do not appreciate the remarks that I need to read more carefully...I suppose I wrongly assumed that you would immediately want to remove remarks that were proven untrue and that the professor when invited to participate would want to do so especially when he works at Stockton University, my mistake.

P.S. I doubt John Seigenthaler Sr. had to prove he was not a Nazi when he had libelous remarks removed from Wikipedia.--An American Patriot 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to note that your Oath of Allegiance Controversy is nearly word for word from an article "The Signer who Recanted" written in 1976 by Frederick Wiener. He like all recent authors uses these secondary source letters to push his claim.--An American Patriot 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth (the twin issues of claiming I said the professor was going to participate and that I changed the claim I made). It is not my fault you have reading comprehension problems.

Contact Wikipedia. Be my guest. You do not get to determine how much time a person gets to evaluate evidence. I have been on jury duty all week and have had personal distractions which have prevented me from giving your "evidence" the proper reading and verification. I am fully confident that any Wikipedia staff you contact will support my actions here. Wikipedia is all about compromise on controversial issues and it has been myself and a few others who have bent your way the entire time. I am sure they'll just love your screen-name too. It will immediately tip them off to your biases and is in direct conflict with their prefered screen-name protocol.

Since it is clear we are at an impasse, I took the liberty of contacting a professor of History at Stockton College here in NJ. The letter I sent is as follows;

Dear Professor Lubenow,

My name is John Flaherty and I am an editor for the Wikipedia.org entry on Richard Stockton.

There is a debate among the editors of this entry on Richard Stockton that I was wondering if you could assist us on, or offer other avenues of research if possible.

The issue is the debate surrounding whether or not Richard Stockton, when held as a captive of the British forces during the Revolution, took an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Mr. Witherspoon's letter as well as other sources seem to say yes, but different sources counter this argument claiming it is unsubstantiated rumor.

This debate has been ongoing for some time within the editorial group and no solution seems forthcoming. Wikipedia, as you may know, is accessed by millions of people world-wide. The truth about these allegations is, as you can imagine, of considerable importance given Mr. Stockton';s role in America's founding as well as by the fact that so many people look to Wikipedia as a "first glance" source for information.

Any assistance you can provide in this case would be most appreciated.

Best regards,

John Flaherty

I will post any responses that are relevant, in their entirety.

Thank you for at least allowing me to finally see the message to the professor. I look forward to seeing any PRIMARY evidence he may have. I would also like to add that probably 99.9% of all history books on the American Revolution or the Signers of the Declaration of Independence DO NOT include this rumor about Richard Stockton. If Stockton had taken the Howe's protection, renounced signing the Declaration of Independence, and betrayed the cause it would have certainly been part of history just like Benedict Arnold. So your statement that "SOME however maintain that this was unsubstantiated rumor" is way off the mark. Only after the Witherspoon letter was (discovered) did a few modern authors attempt to use this ambiguious letter about rumors to attempt to rewrite history. Another big problem with the Witherspoon letter is he said in the letter Stockton "gave his Word of Honour that he would not meddle in the least in American affairs during the War" this would have been required on his parole that Benjamin Rush said Stockton took. The Howe Proclamation required the following: "I, A. B. do promise and declare, that I will remain in a peaceable obedience to his Majesty, and will not take up arms, or encourage others to take up arms, in oppositon to his authority" and this is NOT what Witherspoon wrote.--An American Patriot 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You once again misunderstand. Finally let you see it? This is not the same professor and I posted the e-mail here at Wikipedia about three minutes after I sent it to Professor Lubenow.

--JohnFlaherty 19:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said you were talking to a professor at Stockton College so naturally one would assume this was the same professor. I thought you said we needed to make our case calmly, and according to good style, your rude comments are far from good style sir.--An American Patriot 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The emotional tone of this entire issue was set by you from word go. You are the one who misread many of my posts and accussed me of saying things I never said. You are the one who makes emotive comments. You are the one who makes threats. You are the one who has done nothing but complain about everything from the begining.

As is readily apparent from the e-mail I sent to Stockton College, and my editing, several times, of the comments in the article to provide balance, my only goal here is to discover the truth. Your entire mannerism and style has discredited your opinion, so I am looking to outside sources to verify them. Your very screen-name implies bias.

--JohnFlaherty 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with your remarks and what difference should my screen-name make to you as long as it is not vulgar or disrespectful? I am here for ONE REASON to clear Richard Stockton's web page of this unproven rumor. I gave you proof - more than enough proof. That is what you required of me.--An American Patriot 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not offer proof. You offered conjecture and opinion and OMISSION of evidence in some cases. Your one "proof" of the Rivington Gazette isn't even logical. You cannot cite lack of commentary by one source as proof something did not happen.

Unlike you, I am seeking truth. You are not. You have already made up your mind. I am pursuing outside, independent, professional opinions and sources to clear this up. I find your evidence uncompelling and your emotional attachment to this issue discrediting. I will continue to seek professional or original source material until I am satisfied I have the truth (at this point I am NOT satisfied that the article reflects the truth either way - that is the difference between us. I WANT to know the truth, which is why I am researching this. I do not take your opinion or "evidence" as sufficient to do that however).

--JohnFlaherty 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The negative tone here is not helping. I will stop on my end. No one will be happier than I to find out that these allegations are unfounded. If I do, I will immediately change the entry to reflect reality. Until that time the entry as it stands now is a good compromise.

--JohnFlaherty 00:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we both want the truth.

To date no one has found any proof that Judge Richard Stockton took the 30 Nov. 1776 Howe Protection and swore allegience to the king. No one has found any evidence that this event was written or published by the papers or books of the time. My husband has a Stockton cousin (an attorney) who carefully researched protections, in England and has found NO written evidence that Judge Stockton ever took protection (this is pointed out in the Gruber book on 'The Howe Brothers and the American Revolution' as well as 'The War for American Independence, From 1760 to the Surrender at Yorktown in 1781' by Samuel B. Griffith II, that NO American of any consequence EVER choose Howe's offer).

Therefore when studying if an event occured or did not occur in our system of proofs, lack of evidence is a very strong indicator that an event did not occur, i.e. Judge Stockton did not take the Howe Protection but was paroled as Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote in his autobiography. In the court of public opinion unless someone finds PRIMARY evidence that without a doubt Judge Stockton took protection everything else is just an opinion and anyone writing about this period in Stockton's life must indicate that it is just their opinion and not based on any primary evidence.

So we are at an impasse as my extensive research into this period of his life and the events ongoing in the revolution indicates that he was paroled and nothing more. Whenever I am confronted with this issue I provide what I consider proof and the other party can never provide anything other than the Witherpoon letter talking about rumors being spread about Judge Stockton and according to Witherspoon Judge Stockton DENIED taking the protection. Current authors do not include that portion of the Witherspoon letter. The Abraham Clark letter writing about Stockton's 'procedure' is not clear what he is writing about.

I am waiting for you or anyone to provide PRIMARY evidence that Judge Richard Stockton took the Howe protection, swore allegience to the King, betrayed the cause and/or recanted signing the Declaration of Independence.--An American Patriot 19:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know no one has found any proof? I have seen it refenced in several places, including "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fischer.

I am looking for primary sources or expert opinion. In the mean time, you need to tone down the rhetoric and dismissive tone.--JohnFlaherty 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone had found primary proof they would certainly not be trying to use the ambiguious Witherspoon and Clark letters. As to David Hackett Fischer...He is incorrect from the first paragraph. He states it was Richard Stockton "who brought the College of New Jersey to Princeton, near his home" when in fact it was John Stockton his father who gave money and land to bring the College to Princeton. I will not go into all the other incorrect remarks he has written except to tell you that after the paragaph about "this signer of the Declaration of Independence now signed a declaration of allegiance to the king and gave his word of honor that he would not meddle in the least in American affairs" his footnote 12 then quotes Rush Autobiography, page 147. The quoted information is not only NOT there but on page l30 Benjamin Rush writes "At Princeton I met my wife's father who had been plundered of all his household furniture and stock by the British army, and carried a prisoner to New York, from whence he was permitted to return to his family upon PAROLE". My husband contacted Fischer about this and other errors in the book and Fischer then quoted the Witherspoon letter and with NO other proof said he thought Stockton took the oath. Is that not a opinion? In his latest book "Liberty and Freedom" his bias toward Stockton goes even further when he writes on page 191 about the Trumbull painting of the Declaration of Independence... "Richard Stockton skulks in the background; he would be the only signer to renounce the Declaration when British troops approached his home in New Jersey". Richard Stockton was captured Nov.30 and when the British did approach his home he was in Provost prison in New York and was not released until mid January. Don't take my word on this check it all out for yourself. Fischer is responsible for most of the remarks being made lately about Judge Stockton and his information and footnotes are incorrect, he knows it but simply dosen't care as he is a well known writer and readers think HE would have accurate facts. Unfortunately that is not the case.--An American Patriot 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that the Whitherspoon letter is false. It is your opinion that other evidence of questionable value is proof he did not sign this declaration. David Hackett Fischer is a source of worth. The more I see of this the more I am convinced there may be something to this. Now that does not mean it IS true. What it means is that it may be true and therefore, the wording in the entry is sufficient until other leads come back. It covers both the possibility that Stockton took the oath as well as the possibility is is untrue.

--JohnFlaherty 12:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion the Witherspoon letter is false, only that it is ambiguious, dealing with rumors and should not be used as a source to attack Stocktons character. I have spoken to a few professors myself and they also have a problem with the Witherspoon letter. David Hackett Fischer being a source of worth to many readers is exactly why this attack against his character has gone on. Do you honestly think most readers take the time to check the accuracy of his footnotes and statements? Like you they consider him a writer of worth. He quotes Rush, the info isn't there. Rush said he was paroled. He said he 'thought' Stockton took protection. What about his remarks in "Liberty and Freedom" do you think that is an accurate statement? Readers read this and believe it. The painting was done many years after Stockton died and not all the signers are in the painting. Some men in the painting didn't even sign the Declaration but Trumbull wanted to honor them as important men. This is why his remarks about Stockton are just not true. Not to mention Stockton wasn't in Princeton when the British arrived. I don't mean to bore you with details I am just trying to get my point accross to you in the only way I know.--An American Patriot 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a member of the Stockton Family?--JohnFlaherty 19:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC) No I am not a member of the Stockton family. Would it matter if I was? Are you going to look into the information I gave you? What is the OMISSION of evidence that you claim I gave you?[reply]

It absolutely would matter if you were a member of his family. It would indicate that you are not the most objective source.

I am not going to hold your hand on this. I explained your omissions and your evidence. I have looked into this and spoken to two historians and both claim that the evidence points towards him taking the oath but that there is enough discrepency to warrent the disclaimer. The entry therefore is a good compromise and will stay as it is.

--JohnFlaherty 11:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold my hand?? It is evident that you have not researched the information I have given you and continue to rely on opinions of others and not research. I would say Sir William Howe would be a good source for the truth as well as Benjamin Rush. You choose to contact a couple of professors, get their input and think you are finished based on their opinions and your disclaimer? A good compromise are you serious?...You libel him and then say maybe it isn't true? You said you would report back with more detail when you were done conversing with the history teacher from Stockton University... nothing from you on this. You never shared any information or had the courtesy to answer any of the questions I asked you such as how did he betray the cause.. only rude comments. If your only souce of worth is Fischer..with his mistakes regarding Stockton that I told you about and asked you to check out the mistakes for yourself... it dosen't say much for your work as an editor. There is NO PRIMARY SOURCE that proves Richard Stockton took the Howe's Proclamation! Benjamin Rush's testimony in his OWN words.. that Stockton was PAROLED carries more weight than Witherspoon's ambiguious letter about rumors and what you choose to read into it. Witherspoon NEVER said he swore allegiance to the King or betrayed the cause.. those are your words. You are NOT interested in finding the TRUTH only opinions based on a questionable secondary source. A history professor in New York that I contacted said "If there was credible evidence that Stockton took the protection why was it not brought to the attention of the NJ authorities? Witherspoon says that Stockton denies the allegation made by Cochran. Why would Stockton deny something that could be so easily proven against him? I can't think of another case where the British offered to release a prisoner if he signed a loyalty oath, and a oath given under duress isn't much of an oath. If Stockton signed the oath, why not get him to make a public statement and use it for all it would be worth? It is very odd, as Gruber and others have remarked. All the more so that it wouldn't even be mentioned in the Howe-Germain correspondence. I'd have to say that Cochran doesn't look like a very good witness for the prosecution. And since he's really the only witness, it's not a very compelling case."--An American Patriot 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I relied on the opinions of educated men who are acknowledge experts in this field. You attack Fischer and I should take your word for it?

Who are you? What do you do? You don't even use your real name like Wikipedia recommends. You hide behind a name which reeks of bias. Are you an expert in this field?


I have looked into this. I have taken the time to discuss this issue with people in the know. I have named at least one of them - a man who is a best selling historian! This is not good enough for you? Tough. I have a life. I am not going to refute each trivial detail over and over so you can just repeat yourself. The Witherspoon letter and other evidence point to the likelyhood he made the oath. Since there is some mitigating evidence to the contrary, the entry addresses this.


You have no personal ax to grind here? There are no personal connections to this issue at all?

--JohnFlaherty 02:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my background earlier but will add airline stewardess, professional model, interior designer, realtor, author. I have traveled the world and had the honor of the company of Royalty, Presidents, Vice Presidents, Ambassadors, Senators, Governors, Admirals, Generals, and CEO's. May I ask of your background? I condsider myself an authority on Richard Stockton as well as Annis Boudinot Stockton as I have studied and done years of research on them. Your experts I dare say probably know much less about Richard than I do unless they have spent several years researching him and you gave no details as to why they "thought" he took the oath. Fischer did very little research on him as is obvious by the many mistakes he made in the book. His bias toward Stockton is evident in Washington's Crossing and Liberty and Freedom. Fischer calls Stockton a turncoat, infamous, skulking while relying only on secondary ambiguious information and he "thinks" he took the oath? I told you before don't take my word for it LOOK at his footnote 12, the information isn't there and I don't care that he is a prize winning historian his information is not correct. He accuses Stockton of being a turncoat based only on a rumor yet he never makes any remarks whatsoever about the biggest turncoat of them all (other than Arnold) Joseph Galloway. Galloway is mentioned several times in the book and helped the British.. Washington wanted to capture and hang him yet Fischer never called him a turncoat or infamous! Richard Stockton is a founding father that suffered more than any other signer for signing the Declaration of Independence and he deserves better from you and Fischer. Your comment that the Witherspoon letter POINTS to the LIKELYHOOD he took the oath says it all. I thought you were looking for the Truth not opinions and rumors. This is your proof that he took the oath? What about the Rush autobiography that said he took a PAROLE and the lack of any PRIMARY evidence that he took the oath? You name Fischer as your person in the know...I can name hundreds that have not agreed with him and would not stoop to using a rumor about Stockton and pushing it as the truth. Do you know Fischer? You seem to be staking your reputation on his book being a source of worth.--An American Patriot 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You first...I asked if you have a personal ax to grind here? I have asked you before if you are related in any way to the Stockton family. In light of your vast experience with leaders and generals and royalty and others you say you know, I ask again - you have no personal connections to this issue at all?

:BTW - I am an engineer, veteran, website designer, historian, political scientist, writer, father, poet, skier, fisherman, NASCAR fan, Steelers Fan, ex-band manager and all-around great guy.--JohnFlaherty 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a very impressive background and share many of the interests that my husband of 40 years and I enjoy. I grew up in Montana, Colorado and New Mexico and enjoy the outdoors. I am not related to Richard Stockton but my husband is. He has not been a part of this discussion as I have taken it upon myself to defend Richard Stockton from this attack against his character. My grandson was given the middle name of Stockton and I want him to grow up to be proud of the Stockton name. Since Fischer's book came out with the turncoat, infamous, remarks about Stockton this attack on his character has spread like wildfire. My husband is related to several signers...Thomas Nelson, John Adams, Samuel Adams, all cousins and Richard Stockton (Grandfather) Benjamin Rush (uncle by marriage). He is also a cousin to George Washington and Queen Elizabeth II. In our free time we dress in period clothing and speak free of charge on the Declaration of Independence, Richard Stockton and Annis Boudinot Stockton to Schools, social groups, DAR, SAR, etc. Last year we lectured at Middleton Place in Charleston on the Declaration at the 225th seige of Charleston and lectured at the grand opening of Morven, Richard Stockton's home in Princeton as a museum. It is our passion to bring the Declaration of Independence and the men who signed it to children and anyone that cares to learn more about it. This is why I am so passionate about the attack against Stockton's character with NO Primary evidence. As I said I have studied and done extensive research on Richard and Annis as well as the other signers as we we lecture on them. When a claim like this is made against ANY founding father without any primary evidence it must be addressed promptly or it will be spread like this accusation. If PRIMARY evidence was there that Stockton took the oath I WOULD ACCEPT it... but not a 228 year old rumor spread by loyalist Richard Cochran. As I mentioned before my husband wrote to Fischer and Fischers response was he "believed" Stockton took the oath, named four other authors that have come to the same "conclusion" that Stockton took the oath using the Witherspoon letter as their "evidence" over the past 60 years and to my knowledge he is the only one to call him a turncoat, and infamous that is Fischers style alone. He and the others have NO PRIMARY EVIDENCE and he did not comment on his mistakes in the book probably because of legal concerns. My husband gave a speech about his correspondence with Fischer and Fischers accusations about Stockton at Independence Hall on July 4, 2005 to the Descendents of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (he is a member) and got a rousing ovation when he said we MUST defend our ancestors honor as they are not here to defend themselves. As a historian what period do you cover? As a poet did you know Annis Boudinot Stockton was one of America's first published female poets? She wrote over a hundred poems on the most important political and social issures of her day and was a favorite correspondent of George Washington. --An American Patriot 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going to get a reply from you John?--An American Patriot 20:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you want me to say?

--JohnFlaherty 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take David Hackett Fisher over a Richard Stockton in-law with a chip on her shoulder. Vidor 06:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is improper in its use of the pejorative "betray" (and elsewhere in the discussion Mr. Flaherty uses the term "defection"). The term misled me to think that Richard Stockton had somehow aided the British (which he did not); Mr. Flaherty's text misled me to think that Richard Stockton had actually committed some act of treason (which he did not). I think when someone is in captivity and brutalized as Richard Stockton undeniably was for months, it is not accurate to consider their signing some "oath" to their captors as a volitional act, let alone "betrayal" or "defection". The issue is not so much whether or not the man signed the Howe document as is whether he did so voluntarily, without coercion, and, in any event, whether it really meant anything. -- K.Alan Sept. 19, 2006

Taking the king's pardon was an act of treason against the Patriot cause. It is betrayal, and it is defection. The issue is, in point of fact, whether he signed the Howe document. Whether it meant something is not an issue at all, because it most certainly DID mean something. Stockton's reputation was ruined, he was not allowed to serve any more in the Congress, and he was forced to retire from public life. Plenty of other people endured suffering in that war without signing George III's "I'm sorry" note. Vidor 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So ... you're saying that when John McCain, while held captive by the North Vietnamese, and as a result of being tortured, signed a confession declaring himself a war criminal, we should accept that as a binding admission and he should be tried and convicted in the Hague and imprisoned? Nonsense. That is neither defection nor betrayal, and both of those terms are simply inaccurate. It seems to me that the point and aim of Wikipedia should at the very least be not to mislead. McCain, by the way, actually did more than sign some piece of paper as Stockton allegedly did; he disclosed his ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that his target had been a power plant. But it would still be misleading to call that a "defection" or "betrayal". Writing your name on some piece of paper (and I don't care what it is -- a confession, a deed, an oath, an affidavit, a roll of toilet paper) is an absolutely meaningless act of no consequence when you're a prisoner of war and being abused or tortured into signing. Even the English common law at the time recognized the doctrine of duress (in circumstances far less dire and threatening than that which Stockton or McCain were made to suffer) -- maybe that legal doctrine did not apply to the King, but, after all, the American Revolution was a rejection of the divine right of Kings. You wrote, "Plenty of other people endured suffering in that war without signing George III's 'I'm sorry' note." But how many other signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured by the British yet did not sign the Howe document despite being mistreated or tortured? (That's not a rhetorical question; can you tell me the answer?)

Regardless of what your opinion is, I don’t think it is proper for the Wikipedia text to editorialize, as it does by characterizing Stockton’s allegedly signing the Howe document (at least under the circumstances in which Stockton allegedly signed it) as supposedly nevertheless treason, betrayal or defection. I think that this text:

"If true, this would make Stockton the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to betray the cause.”

should instead be revised to read as follows:

"If true, this would make Stockton the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to have also later signed an oath of allegiance to the King of England.”

-- K.Alan Sept. 24, 2006

I think you make a good point, K.Alan. The use of the word "betray" insinuates a bias, and should be removed. I strongly recommend changing it to your suggestion. Snagglepuss 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about it, Mr. Flaherty? K.Alan Sept. 25, 2006

You're not a Stockton descendant too, are you, K. Alan? As to the substance of your allegations...do you have any evidence that Richard Stockton was physically beaten, as McCain was? The Vietnamese stabbed McCain with a bayonet, broke both his shoulders, and beat him regularly for years. Do you have any evidence that Richard Stockton was physically assaulted in that way? Is it not more likely that Stockton signed the oath because he was cold and hungry and wanted to go home? Beyond that, Mr. K. Alan, you are totally wrong on the facts. Signing the Oath of Allegiance was most certainly considered a "betrayal" and "defection". It might do you some good to actually read the article. It was not a meaningless scrap of paper, as you make out. Stockton "was much spoken against for his Conduct", as Witherspoon writes. He was barred from returning to Congress, as Abraham Clark wrote in his letter. That's in the American Heritage article in External Links. I didn't include that in the main article because I couldn't find a verbatim transcript of Clark's letter. Also, he was required to take ANOTHER oath to the United States in December 1777. So, despite your own ahistorical view that the oath to the King was meaningless, Stockton's peers in 1777 obviously felt very differently. I think we should go by the actual facts, and not revisionist latter-day perceptions.

It was a defection. It was a betrayal. Richard Stockton signed an oath of loyalty to the King of Great Britain, whose armies had invaded the United States and were engaged in a shooting war with the American people. The Random House Dictionary includes among the definitions of treason, "a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, drafted by Stockton's peers, includes amongst the definitions of treason against the United States "adhering to their enemies."

Calling signing the oath a betrayal isn't editorializing. It's a statement of fact. Vidor 04:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vidor:

You wrote: “You're not a Stockton descendant too, are you, K. Alan?”

Answer: No. What’s your bias, Vidor? Mine is the offense I take to being misled by the pejorative editorializing in the article on Richard Stockton, which I wrote about in my original post.

You wrote: “As to the substance of your allegations...do you have any evidence that Richard Stockton was physically beaten, as McCain was?”

I did not allege anything. I was assuming the accuracy of what Mr. Flaherty wrote in his own article about how Stockton was treated while in British captivity. What he wrote there was that he was “brutally treated as a common criminal. He was then moved to Provost Prison in New York where he suffered from lack of food and freezing cold weather along with the other prisoners. After nearly six weeks of brutal treatment, Stockton was released, his health ruined.”

It doesn’t matter whether Stockton was beaten. When you’re kidnaped, or a soldier or rebel captured by the enemy, it doesn’t matter what you sign. The document is meaningless because your signature on the instrument is not volitional. But I see that you apparently draw a distinction between, on the one hand, physical beating and, on the other hand, any and all other manner of torture of any kind whatsoever. Subjecting someone to extreme temperatures, depriving him of food and water, exposing him to vermin or immersing him in excrement – none of that for example counts as torture to your way of thinking. Do you work in the Bush administration?

You wrote: “The Vietnamese stabbed McCain with a bayonet, broke both his shoulders, and beat him regularly for years.”

Actually, what I understand from McCain’s book and from interviews he has given (the ones that I have seen) is that he was injured when he was shot down and the North Vietnamese withheld medical care from him until he signed their documents and gave them some information beyond his name, rank and serial number. They apparently beat him afterwards but I understand from your comments that you nevertheless think he should be prosecuted for treason against the United States. I understand, you nevertheless consider him a traitor and a war criminal.

You wrote: “ Do you have any evidence that Richard Stockton was physically assaulted in that way?”

I was relying on Mr. Flaherty’s article. But in any event, does it matter? No.

You wrote: “Is it not more likely that Stockton signed the oath because he was cold and hungry and wanted to go home?”

It does not matter, but that would be good enough reason for me. If Al Qaeda captured you, kept you warm and well fed (or treated you as the Brish treated Stockton), and all you had to do was sign a document renouncing your citizenship, converting to Islam and pledging your allegiance to Osama bin Laden – or be held captive indefinitely (how long was Terry Anderson held in captivity and treated pretty reasonably?) – after six weeks, what would you do? Signing a document against your will is an absolutely meaningless act (something I notice you do not deny).

You wrote: “Beyond that, Mr. K. Alan, you are totally wrong on the facts. Signing the Oath of Allegiance was most certainly considered a ‘betrayal’ and ‘defection’. It might do you some good to actually read the article. It was not a meaningless scrap of paper, as you make out.”

It most certainly is totally meaningless as a simple matter of well-settled law. And while I’m not a descendent of Richard Stockton’s, I am a licensed attorney and have been in practice for over 20 years. But you do not need any legal knowledge, training or experience to know that if someone is holding a gun to your head to force you to sign over to the gunman the deed to your house, your signature on that deed is absolutely meaningless. It is so obvious as to not require any serious discussion, that when the enemy during wartime captures you and offers you some reward (food, warmth, comfort, medical treatment for your injuries, or freedom) in exchange for signing a document, you are not bound by anything you sign because it is not a voluntary act on your part to sign the thing. By contrast, turning over information such as the location and strength of your forces, military or other information that the enemy does not already have and can use against your countrymen – that’s something entirely different – and Mr. Flaherty’s use of the term “betray” initially misinformed and misled me to think that Stockton had done something of that sort (which it appears even you admit and understand Stockton never did). Maybe to be loyal to your country or your cause you should endure some torture, even death, to withhold that kind of information from the enemy. But sign some document? Come on; get real. I did actually read the article. Did you? Explain your bias.

You wrote: “Stockton ‘was much spoken against for his Conduct’, as Witherspoon writes. He was barred from returning to Congress, as Abraham Clark wrote in his letter. That's in the American Heritage article in External Links. I didn't include that in the main article because I couldn't find a verbatim transcript of Clark's letter.”

Are you Vidor or are you Mr. Flaherty? Which of you is the author?

In any event – so what. The Witherspoon text you quote does not characterize Stockton’s “conduct” as betrayal, treason or defection. People have spoken badly of George Washington, too – with far better reason. For some interesting reading regarding that great patriot and father of our country, George Washington, allow me to suggest "George Washington's Expense Account," by Gen. George Washington and Marvin Kitman. You may come away with a different opinion of Washington too. Patriot or financial opportunist? (And GW was never an English captive.) Just because his contemporaries might have seen no impropriety does not conclusively prove there was none. The point is still this: The article improperly takes the side of those who allegedly criticized Stockton for allegedly signing a piece of paper while in English captivity. That is editorializing rather than simply reporting. If you want to write an editorial, fine; but in my opinion you should not do so in the guise of an encyclopedic entry or article.

You wrote: “Also, he was required to take ANOTHER oath to the United States in December 1777.”

So what. Lots of married people renew their vows, probably for the same reason Stockton took ANOTHER oath to the United States in December 1777. It probably made him feel good to do so especially after having allegedly been made to sign the Howe document while in English captivity. His having taken ANOTHER oath does not transform the Howe document into a binding document; it does not transform a past act done against his will into a voluntary act. Americans also take the pledge of allegiance every day; but it does not mean, imply or suggest that they committed some prior act of treason or betrayal. Plenty of atheists even recite the pledge with the “under God” language in it just to “go along to get along” – and they do all these things without being in enemy hands, without being beaten, without being tortured. It’s still meaningless. The United States Supreme Court even so ruled. It does not transform an atheist into a believer. When George W. Bush was “required to take ANOTHER oath” of office in January 2005, that did not mean, imply or suggest that he stopped being president at any time since January of 2001 when he took it the first time.

You wrote: “So, despite your own ahistorical view that the oath to the King was meaningless, Stockton's peers in 1777 obviously felt very differently. I think we should go by the actual facts, and not revisionist latter-day perceptions.”

I did not say “that the oath to the King was meaningless”. I said that if Stockton signed such an oath while in English captivity, his doing so was not voluntary but was instead coerced, and therefore meaningless. I understand you think that every piece of paper ever signed by anyone under any and all circumstances whatsoever is forever and absolutely binding, final, and sacrosanct. You’re wrong -- but that's not an insult or an affront to you; it is a simple and indisputable fact.

In any event, the article improperly editorializes by adopting the view of those of Stockton’s peers who allegedly “felt” what you claim they felt. If you want to report that some at the time considered it a betrayal, defection, treason, fine; do so and provide your sources and basis – but I don’t think I’ve seen any of those words in the quotes attributed to any of Stockton’s contemporaries which were cited to or quoted in these pages. But in any event this article does not do that. Instead it authoritatively and misleadingly asserts that if Stockton signed the Howe document, “this would make Stockton the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to betray the cause”. That is a pejorative, opinion, editorial, “spin” and not fact. The fact that political “spin” existed in the 1700s – and was practiced by Stockton’s peers just as politicians practice it today – is of no moment.

FACT: Stockton was in English captivity when he allegedly signed the Howe document. FACT (though not an essential fact): Stockton was mistreated while in English captivity. The article says among other things, that he was “brutally treated as a common criminal. He was then moved to Provost Prison in New York where he suffered from lack of food and freezing cold weather along with the other prisoners. After nearly six weeks of brutal treatment, Stockton was released, his health ruined.” FACT: While in English captivity, Stockton did nothing and provided no information to aid the English in the war. You and I are apparently in full agreement on these facts. LAW: An oath of allegiance to the enemy signed by a prisoner of war during captivity is not binding, is not treason, is not betrayal, and is not defection, because it is not voluntary. (You have not offered any refutation of this – because, of course, you can’t . Instead all you do is turn a blind eye to it.)

This isn’t “later-day” “revisionist” history. Earlier this month Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush “the devil”. According to your view, 225 years from now, when “just this guy, ya know” writes an article about Bush in Wikipedia and states authoritatively in the text that Bush was the devil incarnate, the fact that the words of Bush’s contemporaries – the duly-elected president of another nation in the same Hemisphere no less – back-up that assertion is all the proof that’s necessary to transform political spin and editorial into gospel. Once again, I think your view is wrong.

You wrote: “It was a defection. It was a betrayal. Richard Stockton signed an oath of loyalty to the King of Great Britain, whose armies had invaded the United States and were engaged in a shooting war with the American people.”

He ALLEGEDLY signed. But assuming he did, so what. You give so much credence to the alleged fact that “he signed it”. So what. It is not worth the paper it’s allegedly written on. That’s simple, uncontroversial, unmistakable, well-settled law – just as it was in the 1700s.

You wrote: “The Random House Dictionary includes among the definitions of treason, ‘a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.[’]”

So when you’re looking for the legal definition of treason against the United States, you look in the Random House Dictionary rather than in the United States Code. That’s really impressive research on your part. In any event, where do you get the idea that signing a document against your will while being held in captivity by the enemy is a “violation” of your “allegiance”? Where is that in your Random House Dictionary?

You wrote: “Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, drafted by Stockton's peers, includes amongst the definitions of treason against the United States ‘adhering to their enemies.’”

Article III, Section 3, clause 1 does not define treason as “adhering to their enemies”. Have you read it? Your statement implies that you have not read it (or that if you read it, you don’t understand it). Neither does the United States Constitution (either there in that clause or any place else) provide that signing an oath of allegiance to the enemy while in their custody as a prisoner of war constitutes “treason” or “adhering”. Please show me a case from any court of the United States that holds that signing an oath to the enemy while being held as a prisoner of war constitutes treason.

I’m also still waiting for you to tell me how many other signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured by the British, and how many of those were also held in poor conditions yet did not sign the Howe document. (I take it from your silence that, so far as you know, there were none – and you appear to claim to be the authoritative historian in these matters.)

You wrote: “Calling signing the oath a betrayal isn't editorializing. It's a statement of fact.”

You’re wrong. All of our revolutionary heroes were all traitors if you look at them from an English perspective. Is it therefore a “fact” that they were all traitors? Maybe to your mind.

Vidor, unless you adopt a more civil tone (I note your initial foray into this discussion was the ad hominem comment that another participant had a "chip on her shoulder" -- and no, I'm not related to her and don't know her) AND either come up with something NEW, or actually answer some of my questions, I’m not going to waste any more of my time responding to your posts. I still would like to hear from Mr. Flaherty.

-- K.Alan September 29, 2006

Well, that sure was long. To review--first, you failed to provide any evidence that Stockton was treated as badly as McCain was. He certainly wasn't held for nearly as long. You made a statement, that Stockton's signature was "not volitional", that is not supported by any fact or evidence; there is nothing in the record to show that Stockton was compelled to sign his oath. You suggested that Stockton was tortured; there is, again, no evidence whatsoever to that effect. You made a false statement that McCain was not beaten until AFTER he signed his confession, something you could have learned if you'd taken the trouble to read about John McCain here at Wikipedia. You suggested that the British were holding a gun to Stockton's head; yet again, no evidence whatsoever of this.
You follow this with still another falsehood: that it is "obvious...that when the enemy during wartime captures you and offers you some reward...in exchange for signing a document, you are not bound by anything you sign." False, of course, as was shown by what occurred: Stockton was barred from returning to Congress and was required to swear another oath to the United States. Your next falsehood is to say Stockton was "allegedly" criticized. There's nothing "alleged" about the criticism; Witherspoon's letter was real and exists.
Your next point, comparing the signing of an oath to George III with renewing wedding vows, isn't a falsehood, but is most bizarre. Your next comments about the Pledge of Allegiance and the inaugral oath are irrelevant. You follow that by repeating the falsehood that Stockton's peers "allegedly" disapproved of his action.
The next falsehood is your allegation that the article definitively states Stockton signed the oath. It does not. It is written in conditional language. Your assertion that the "LAW" states that such an oath as Stockton's is not binding is, of course, still another falsehood, because the oath was regarded as binding by his peers, who did not allow Stockton to resume his seat in Congress. After that, your next falsehood is denying that Article III of the Constitution does not include 'adhering to their Enemies' as one of the criteria for treason against the United States. It does. Read it.
In closing, I will say again that the article should conform to the viewpoints of the period, rather than latter-day revisionism.
(Also, this discussion page is getting very long. What's standard procedure for reducing length? Edit out the earlier exchanges?) Vidor 02:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vidor: Your assertions do not gain any credence by your repeating the same clap-trap over and over and over again. Your newest assertion, that I supposedly "deny[] that Article III of the Constitution does not include 'adhering to their Enemies' as one of the criteria for treason against the United States" is an absolute falsehood on your part. YOU asserted (falsely) that "Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, drafted by Stockton's peers, includes amongst the definitions of treason against the United States ‘adhering to their enemies.’” I pointed out to you (correctly) that "Article III, Section 3, clause 1 does not define treason as 'adhering to their enemies'." If "one of the criteria" for an animal being classified as a bird is that it have wings, then your assertion that the "definition" of a bird is a winged animal is not correct. Please stop trying to distort and mis-state what I said.

As for the length of my last post, you had so many incorrect and mis-informed assertions all packed into your previous post that it took a while to dissect them all. You need not repeat what I've already debunked. I understand your need to turn a blind eye to it all -- because you cannot refute it; you apparently lack the ability to even look up the United States Code sections which define what treason is; you have yet to cite any example whatsoever of any of Stockton's peers ever using the term "betrayal" or "defection" or "treason" to describe anything that Stockton allegedly did; and you have yet to respond to a single question that I posed. But your mind is closed.

Why don't you stick to baseball and stop pretending that you know better than attorneys the answers to legal questions?

K.Alan October 1, 2006

Your newest assertion, that I supposedly "deny[] that Article III of the Constitution does not include 'adhering to their Enemies' as one of the criteria for treason against the United States" is an absolute falsehood on your part.--K. Alan, 9-29-06
Article III, Section 3, clause 1 does not define treason as “adhering to their enemies”.--K. Alan, 10-1-06
Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Per request above, U.S. Code definition of treason: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Also, am still waiting for any evidence that Stockton was physically compelled to sign the oath. Vidor 12:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vidor: You keep ignoring the dependent clause “giving them aid or comfort” which is in both Article III Section 3 clause 1 AND in your own un-cited portion of the U.S. Code. “Adhering to their enemies” is not the definition of treason any more than “having wings” is the definition of a bird.

Not only that, but you have not answered my previous posts in which I said, among other things:

“Neither does the United States Constitution (either there in that clause or any place else) provide that signing an oath of allegiance to the enemy while in their custody as a prisoner of war constitutes ‘treason’ or ‘adhering’. Please show me a case from any court of the United States that holds that signing an oath to the enemy while being held as a prisoner of war constitutes treason.”

You also have not answered a dozen other questions I posed.

Ignoring the facts will not make them go away, Vidor.

You also wrote: “still waiting for any evidence that Stockton was physically compelled to sign the oath”. I answered that already. One of the reasons my posts are so long is that you simply ignore the answers (because your arguments fit better in your own fantasy version of reality) and ask them to be repeated to you.

I previously wrote (among other things in response to this):

“You wrote: ‘As to the substance of your allegations...do you have any evidence that Richard Stockton was physically beaten, as McCain was?’

I did not allege anything. I was assuming the accuracy of what Mr. Flaherty wrote in his own article about how Stockton was treated while in British captivity. What he wrote there was that he was ‘brutally treated as a common criminal. He was then moved to Provost Prison in New York where he suffered from lack of food and freezing cold weather along with the other prisoners. After nearly six weeks of brutal treatment, Stockton was released, his health ruined.’

It doesn’t matter whether Stockton was beaten. When you’re kidnaped, or a soldier or rebel captured by the enemy, it doesn’t matter what you sign. The document is meaningless because your signature on the instrument is not volitional. But I see that you apparently draw a distinction between, on the one hand, physical beating and, on the other hand, any and all other manner of torture of any kind whatsoever. Subjecting someone to extreme temperatures, depriving him of food and water, exposing him to vermin or immersing him in excrement – none of that for example counts as torture to your way of thinking. Do you work in the Bush administration?

  • * * * *

You wrote: ‘ Do you have any evidence that Richard Stockton was physically assaulted in that way?’

I was relying on Mr. Flaherty’s article. But in any event, does it matter? No.

You wrote: ‘Is it not more likely that Stockton signed the oath because he was cold and hungry and wanted to go home?’

It does not matter, but that would be good enough reason for me. If Al Qaeda captured you, kept you warm and well fed (or treated you as the Brish treated Stockton), and all you had to do was sign a document renouncing your citizenship, converting to Islam and pledging your allegiance to Osama bin Laden – or be held captive indefinitely (how long was Terry Anderson held in captivity and treated pretty reasonably?) – after six weeks, what would you do? Signing a document against your will is an absolutely meaningless act (something I notice you do not deny).”

That’s physical compulsion to sign. Ignoring the answers will not make them go away, Vidor.

K.Alan October 1, 2006.

"It does not matter, but that would be good enough reason for me."--Thankfully, the Patriots of 1777 had higher standards. Vidor 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did the cause no good for Stockton to languish in the enemy's prison. And I notice that you haven't answered the hypothetical I posed -- what if you were captured by Al Qaeda?

It also makes strategic sense for a POW to get out of enemy hands by any means possible without aiding the enemy. And signing a piece of paper did not assist the British in the war in any manner. The longer you remain in enemy hands, the longer you risk death, torture, and pressure or compulsion to disclose secrets or information. If it truly was as shameful a thing for Stockton to sign the Howe document as you say it was -- if signing it truly was more terrible than any possible threat of torture or harm -- then Stockton made a more significant and noble sacrifice for his country by signing it than he would have made by refusing to sign.

But you would rather have our POWs languish indefinitely and die in deplorable conditions in enemy hands than sign their name on a piece of paper. To what end? You exalt a coerced signature to some incredibly lofty thing. Get real.

K.Alan October 1, 2006

Mr. Flaherty: when are you going to revise the text of this article to make the peice accurate?? (rather than the unsubstantiated, derogatory editorial which it currently is):

This sentence: "If true, this would make Stockton the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to betray the cause."

should and must be revised to read as follows:

"If true, this would make Stockton the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to also later sign an oath of allegiance to the King of England." K. Alan December 7, 2006

When is Wikipedia going to take all the false information off the article about Richard Stockton swearing allegiance to the King. It clearly never happened as evidenced by early history books. And furthermore- no one swore allegiance to the King when you took the Howe Proclamation- you were only required to remain obedient- just like a parole. It was also never a oath of allegience to the King. Even the Witherspoon letter never said he took Howe's Proclamation. Howe's Proclamation is not the same as Howe's document. Howe's document was what Stockton signed to get his parole. Do some homework -read the document (Howe's Proclamation) and stop libeling him. Just because a few authors have decided to pass along this old rumor relayed by Witherspoon to his son it- is NOT proof. You are attempting to rewrite history by passing along conjecture and innuendo and you need to stop NOW.

Reference if anyone wants to incorporate it[edit]

"Richard Stockton of New Jersey was the only signer taken prisoner specifically because of his status as a signatory to the Declaration, "dragged from his bed by night" by local Tories after he had evacuated his family from New Jersey, and imprisoned in New York City's infamous Provost Jail like a common criminal. However, Stockton was also the only one of the fifty-six signers who violated the pledge to support the Declaration of Independence and each other with "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor," securing a pardon and his release from imprisonment by recanting his signature on the Declaration and signing an oath swearing his allegiance to George III." <ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp|title=The Price They Paid|publisher=snopes.com|accessdate=2007-07-05}}</ref>. — xaosflux Talk 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, I will not be watching this page, and don't care if this is included or not, just ran across it and thaught it may have relvenace. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in on the "Controversy"[edit]

"There seems to be a long standing misunderstanding of the language here. Stockton signed a document requiring his obedience. He did not pledge his allegiance. Allegiance implies loyalty and fidelity. Obedience implies passive submission. Stockton was clearly beaten, but there is no evidence he was actively loyal. Because Stockton was a gentleman, the end effect would have been identical, but difference is huge. Please do not confuse his submission to the King as a beaten man with allegiance which he never pledged.

204.9.123.50 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Paragraph[edit]

I noticed a large segment of text in the "Revolutionary War" section that has some useful information it it, unfortunately, it is full of POV and is rather poorly written. If it is going to be included, please edit it to reflect a NPOV and fix the grammar and prose. The segemnt in question is as follows:

  • The circumstances of Stockton's release from custody are clear as shown above, but a well known modern author uses innuendo, rumors and flawed research to claim that Stockton signed Howe's Proclamation and swore an oath of peaceable obedience to the King. [3]John Witherspoon wrote to his son David in March 1777, stating that Stockton "signed Howe’s Declaration and also gave his Word of Honour that he would not meddle in the least in American affairs during the War". Howe's Declaration is the parole Stockton signed giving his Word of Honor not to meddle in American affairs as described by Dr. Benjamin Rush and cited below. Witherspoon never said Stockton signed Howe's Proclamation and took protection and Stockton denied it as cited in Witherspoons letter, and the rest deals with the rumors spread about Stockton by Cochran - to confuse matters even more Stockton's cousin was also named Richard Stockton and had joined the British - probably causing people to confuse the two in the rumors. Regarding being much spoken about for his conduct people did not know the difference between a parole, a pardon or protection as it was all new to them. [4] Congressman Abraham Clark, writing to John Hart about filling vacancies in New Jersey's delegation to the Continental Congress, wrote "Mr. Sergeant talks of resigning and Mr. Stockton by his late procedure cannot Act." This statement reflects Stockton's resignation from Congress due to poor health after his parole. [5] Fellow signer Dr. Benjamin Rush in his autobiography wrote "At Princeton I met my wife's father who had been plundered of all his household furniture and stock by the British army, and carried a prisoner to New York, from whence he was permitted to return to his family upon parole." Dr. Benjamin Rush was the only one to clearly state that Stockton was given a parole, everything else is conjecture.(Corner 130)[6] In December of 1777 Stockton again swore an oath of allegiance to the United States. Every elected member of Congress from New Jersey swore a oath of allegiance to the United States so does that mean they took Howe's protection? Also all the Officers of Washington's Army were required to take a oath of allegiance. [7]

If it is not fixed relatively soon, I will edit it myself, or just remove it altogether depending on what is more feaseable. Thanks. Snagglepuss (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Newjerseynewsroom.com[edit]

I offer this not as a reliable source but as an indication of a controversy that has exceeded the bounds of Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the facts because I don't know them. --TS 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one.Smallman12q (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems clear he did sign oath to king[edit]

I haven't been involved in this subject area before, but because of the news article, linked by TS above, I did a little search. A Google Book search showed a vast number of books that detailed that Stockton did indeed sign an oath of allegiance to the king, but then recanted it later once he got back into Revolutionary arms. Some sources stating as such include "Gallantry in Action", "Washington's crossing", "The Uniting States", and much, much more, as can be seen from the search. What literature is there that disputes this, seemingly, widely supported event? If I don't receive a reply within 24 hours, i'll just go ahead and change it, adding the sources given above. SilverserenC 00:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 6,2012.

I would say history had it right for nearly 200 years, look at all the hundreds of history books about the Declaration of Independence and Richard Stockton. Then a letter about rumors and innuendo about Stockton surfaced and a few authors decided to rewrite history. Verifiable proof is missing. Because you read it in a book doesn't make it true. Look at the citations in Washington's Crossing about Stockton, the cited information isn't there. Other mistakes are made about Stockton and the authors bias is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.113.254 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if it's not something that's written down anywhere available, then we have to go with the sources that are available. SilverserenC 22:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks on Stockton's patriotism do not follow any written or factual history published at the time of the American Revolution or for the next 160 years. These accusations are based on conjecture and innuendo written by an editor in 1936.

Other writers soon picked up on the accusation and in my opinion the worst offender is 'Washingtons Crossing', one of the books you quoted. The author writes: "Stockton was the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who abandoned the American cause and swore allegiance to George III." The Howe Proclamation of November 30, 1776, never required one to swear allegiance to George III, one was only required to remain in peaceable obedience. Furthermore, there is absolutely no proof that Stockton ever took the Howe Proclamation.

He further described Judge Stockton as "turning his coat," and says that "Stockton completed his infamy" and was "a sad and pathetic figure." These remarks have no merit, are not accurate and are an affront to the character of one who gave much for his country and personally suffered for being a signer of the Declaration of Independence. According to Webster's Dictionary, a turncoat is "one who switches to an opposing side." Stockton was a prisoner of war and never switched sides or aided the British.

The author further wrote: "This signer of the Declaration of Independence now signed a declaration of allegiance to the king and gave "his word of honor that he would not meddle in the least in American affairs". This statement is not correct as the author interject his opinion that Stockton signed a declaration of allegiance to the king. This critical judgement is based on conjecture and then the author adds a short quote from the Rev. John Witherspoon letter in an attempt to support his charge. The proceeding information is also cited as coming from the autobiography of Benjamin Rush (Corner p.147). That cited information is not there.

I contacted the author and provided him with proof to the contrary and pointed out that his footnotes, citing the autobiography of Benjamin Rush(Corner p.147) did not back up the information he had quoted. Benjamin Rush wrote: "At Princeton I met my wife's father who had been plundered of all his houshold furniture and stock by the British army, and carried a prisoner to New York, from whence he was permitted to return to his family upon parole." (Corner p.130) The author replied he "believed" Stockton signed the declaration, no verifiable proof only his opinion.

This author mistakenly identifies Richard Stockton as bringing the College of New Jersey to Princeton. Richard's father John Stockton gave money and land to bring the College to Princeton in 1754 not Richard. The negative bias of this author is apparent, as he describes the departure of Rev. John Witherspoon from Princeton under the same circumstances as Richard Stockton's escape from the British Army, in that Witherpoon "chose the response of flight" (Fischer p. 162) versus "lost his nerve and fled" as Richard Stockton is described. He also has the poor taste to include pictures of Stockton, his wife Annis, their home, and under the pictures writes "Stockton was the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who abandoned the American cause and swore allegiance to George III".

Sorry, I must go but will give verifiable proof later.(69.139.113.254 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Stockton (Continental Congressman)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article could use some help from an expert, and simply isn't comprehensive enough to warrant anything higher than a B rating on the quality scale. It is in need of some further formatting and citations. Also, there appears to be a significant flame war on the talk page.

Last edited at 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Stockton (Continental Congressman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Stockton[edit]

Recently discovered that Mrs Cochran carrying the flag of truth to talk to her husband about Richard Stockton treatment in prison was none other than Richard's sister Rebecca and her husband was Judge Richard Cochran. Richard Cochran was a judge with Richard Stockton. Rebecca's husband was not Rev William Tennent as has previously assumed.

Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society Vol 60 1942 page 102Lookforthetruth (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Stockton_(Continental_Congressman)&oldid=1203533769"