Notes & criteria for American Participants. Battle of Camden SC 16 August 1780 ("Gates' Defeat").

Notes & criteria for American Participants.
Battle of Camden SC 16 August 1780 ("Gates' Defeat").

  • The decision to include an individual in the listing, in most cases, has been made by John Robertson (an individual member of a consortium of those interested in the history of the Battle of Camden) and is not offered as a summary of the conclusions of the full group. All such selections are open to further study, comment and conclusions. In each case, I have shown or linked to the source on which this decision was made, allowing users of the data to revise it for their usage based on their own criteria.

  • Those for whom insufficient verifying document can be found are marked with the following icon: ?. It is believed to be useful to include them in the single listing.

  • This listing makes no claim for being a full and definitive listing of all participants, if indeed such is a possibility. It is hoped that it will be considered as additional or complementary to other lists compiled based upon different evidence, and that it will be consistent with such. It is reasonable that any category of evidence or that for an individual should be subject to fair scrutiny.

  • Names are included on this listing because of evidence named that indicated that they were probably participants in the Battle of Camden, 16 August 1780. When it is not clear whether "1st" or "2nd Camden" is meant, I have tried to indicate this.

  • Individuals are included who were known to be in the campaign, but not necessarily in the battle at Gum Swamp. Examples are those at Fishing Creek, at Rugeley's, those detached on various assignments directly related to the campaign. When such status is known, it is provided.

  • The basis for inclusion is shown for each name. The following listing includes all reasons a person would have been included:

    1. A revolutionary war pension statement is known to exist in which the soldier, or others in his behalf, presented evidence of such participation. The phrase Pension statement: precedes any pension statement number, regardless of whether S, W, or R (to facilitate searching for such, and to eliminate the need for a separate listing of such). See Explanation of prefixes.
      Those known are entered. Additional submissions needed indefinitely.

    2. The individual is shown in one of the works by Dr. Bobby Gilmer Moss as having been a participant, and is considered to be based upon evidence presented by Dr. Moss.
      Patriots books for "...Cowpens", "...Kings Mountain", ...Moores Creek Bridge" are entered. "Roster of SC Patriots..." is entered thru G. None noted in Loyalist books, but detailed scan is needed.

    3. The individual is named in a primary document as having been present. See Documents.
      All known entered. Additional submissions needed indefinitely.

    4. The individual is a major figure in the battle, and his presence is unquestioned.
      A few entered. Need replacing with other basis eventually.

    5. The individual is listed in Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution (Baltimore, The Lord Baltimore Press, 1900), for the specific date 16 August 1780 as one of the following:
      • missing
      • wounded
      • killed
      • deserted
      Entered: killed, wounded, captured, missing, deserted. To be entered: present, other.

    6. The individual is named in Officer Casualties at Camden submitted by Dr. Larry Babits.

    7. The individual is named in 1st Brigade Losses or in 2nd Brigade Losses submitted by Dr. Larry Babits, for date 16 August 1780 or shortly thereafter.

    8. The individual is named in Dr. Larry Babits' NC Militia Losses At Camden And Fishing Creek.

    9. Persons have been listed as "verified" if a statement has been found that clearly indicates that the writer was quoting or paraphrasing from a copy of a statement of service made for the purpose of obtaining a pension, even in cases where the exact wording or the number of the pension statement are not provided. The presumption is that fabrications of such are highly improbable. Links, if available, are provided.

    10. Any source considered as acceptable for an individual is also considered acceptable for other individuals named in the same source, most typically officers. All listings for these additional persons show the source whereby they were included.

  • The sequential numbers are dynamic and will change whenever any individual is inserted earlier in the listing. They are present only to maintain a total count of listings.

  • Additions and corrections are welcome.



Pension Number Prefixes