the british were the opposing sides in the revolutionary war.
the british were the opposing sides in the revolutionary war.
who were the opposing sides in the revolutionary war?
the british
moultrie was married twice, first to dorothy mortin in 1753 and later to eleanor austin in 1762. moultrie moved to east florida in 1767 and became a planter.









































following the revolutionary war and the loss of florida by the british, moultrie moved to england and died there in 1798. he was buried at shifnal church in shropshire. in 1809, his daughter cecilia married the naval officer john bligh at st marylebone.









































his brothers were other key players on opposing sides of the revolutionary war:









































bullet::::- william moultrie (1730–1805) was a patriot general of the continental army.
john moultrie (politician)
following the pledging of lawton and stoke lacy by devereux's father, wiliam devereux the elder, for the ransom of adam le despencer, the mortimer family had contested their restoration even following the payment of the redemption in 1275, and demanded another 500 marks. in 1278 walter de heliun and walter de hopton (sheriff of staffordshire) were assigned to inquire into the dispute over stoke lacy, and in september of this year devereux was ordered to yield stanley, and mortimer to yield stoke lacy. this did not occur, and the ongoing dispute led william devereux to continue to withhold the manor of stanley from adam le despencer. on 18 february 1278 the inquiry post-mortem of henry de penebrigg (penebrug) showed that he held the rent of cattelee worth 4l 16s 8d by the grant of william devereux. on 29 september 1280 william devereux sued elizabeth, the widow of henry de penbrugge (penebrug), over a messuage, mill, and three carucates of land, etc.; and £13 8s of rent in stoke lacy. devereux claimed that elizabeth had no entry except by a demise made by his father to roger de mortimer in time of war for the redemption of adam le despencer, and which should have reverted to him according to the provisions of dictum of kenilworth. elizabeth claimed she did not hold the whole of the manor, and the suit was dismissed. the first stage of the litigation against mortimer was withdrawn after william used a defective writ in easter term 1284. the case was revived by an amended writ and pleaded again in michaelmas term 1285. the case was revived a second time against roger de mortimer, baron of chirk who then vouched edmund mortimer, 2nd baron mortimer in michaelmas term 1290 and again at hilary term 1291. in 1291 william devereux filed a complaint with parliament regarding the delay in the hearing of his plea by the justices. they indicated that he had filed the plea incorrectly when it was described that roger mortimer, 1st baron mortimer, and his father were on the same side during the conflict (second barons' war), but the king's court indicated the parties were on opposing sides. although, in fact they were on the same side at that point in the conflict, the justices were told to proceed as if they were on opposing sides. in 1292 william's stepmother, the widow maud (giffard) devereux, brought a writ of dower against edmund mortimer, 2nd baron mortimer, and mortimer vouched to warranty william devereux by the deed of william's ancestor. devereux countered that he could not be bound by that deed as it was made in a time of war, between two battles, and was voided by the dictum of kenilworth. the justices argued over whether the deed was valid if the king was imprisoned at the time, but ruled this was not a factor. the justices then questioned whether the phrase “time of war” was to be understood only of opposing parties, as william devereux's father and edmund mortimer's father were both on the same side at that time. therefore, it was not a ‘time of war’ for them. it was determined that other writs specified time only “in time of war,” but did not make any mention of opposite sides or of those who are on one side. therefore, the phrase was judged to be understood in a general sense, applying as well to one side as to both sides, and they established that the charter was made in time of war and the dictum of kenilworth applied. judgment was for william devereux and his stepmother, and he regained stoke lacy and yielded stanley.
william devereux, baron devereux of lyonshall