Noah Edwards is an artifact collections assistant at Museum of the Albemarle and his work forms a sketch of Edenton during the attacks by Capt. Michael Quinn, a son of John Quinn both of Edenton. John is listed in numerous sources as being an Attorney and Free Mason before and after the American Revolution from Edenton. Of which, Mr. Edwards makes no mention

In 1781, as the War for Independence has arrived to Edenton, Chowan County, North Carolina, and is completely misunderstood.  Edenton was a relatively important port town for North Carolina throughout the war.  The smallish port town and former capital of the Colony had been able to avoid most of the conflict until the end of May 1781.

On May 27, 1781, galleys belonging to Loyalists attacked warehouses in Edenton’s port and seized three merchant ships. The merchant ships were owned by George Kelley, William Littlejohn and Robert Smith, all prominent members of the Edenton community, and citizens were quick to respond to the attack.

That same night, a group took a canoe out on the water to reclaim the ships from the Loyalists. They quickly recaptured the ship that belonged to Smith, but the rescue of Littlejohn’s ship did not go so smoothly. The attempt to secure the second ship ended with her in flames as the rescuers retreated, abandoning the vessel to sink into Edenton’s harbor.

In the chaos of the situation, many of the Loyalists, started the chain of events by attacking the port, were able to escape from the harbor in their galleys. Not wanting to let them away so easily, the townspeople quickly outfitted and launched a small fleet of boats on May 29 to chase after the Loyalist galleys.

On June 6, 1781, after a small skirmish, the General Arnold, one of the galleys, surrendered to the forces from Edenton. The galley had been captained by Capt. Michael Quinn, who served and retired and then recalled into the Continental Army before allegedly switching sides.

In 2001, the East Carolina University Maritime Studies Program excavated the Burroughs’ Site in Edenton’s harbor. By examining the shipwreck, archaeologists were able to determine that it was likely the remnants of an ocean-going merchant vessel, possibly one of the ships abandoned in the harbor following the skirmishes of late May and early June 1781. 

Freemasonry didn’t dictate political allegiance. Lodges generally discouraged partisan debate, and brothers could (and did) end up on opposite sides. The fraternity functioned across lines as a social and charitable network, but membership by itself didn’t make someone a Patriot or a Loyalist.

• Patriot Freemasons: Several leading revolutionaries were Masons—most famously George Washington (Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22), Benjamin Franklin (a Provincial Grand Master in Pennsylvania and early American publisher of the Masonic “Constitutions”), Paul Revere (Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts), and Dr. Joseph Warren (Provincial Grand Master in Massachusetts, killed at Bunker Hill).
• Loyalist/British Freemasons: Freemasonry was common among British officers and Loyalists as well. The best-known example who touched both camps is Benedict Arnold, a Mason who defected to the British in 1780. British regiments carried “traveling” lodge warrants in North America, so there were plenty of Loyalist/British Masonic meetings during the war.

I have no direct evidence of any of the details relating to Michael Quinn and whether, or not to know if he was spy.  The evidence supports his traitorous deeds flying the Union Jack. He was caught run aground, jailed in Edenton, then moved to Halifax where Col. William Linton had him murdered while detained in the Halifax Jail.

However, I get more questions, than answers from the lack of records relating to all the Quin and Quinn families living alongside, or in close proximity of John Quinn. I expect John Quinn is the father of Michael Quinn living in Edenton, frequenting New Bern and Wilmington during this exact time frame to the various Masonic Temples in each place sometimes with his grandson Michael.

Unfortunately, records that were once online cannot be located and have been expunged. Primarily, the Free Mason Archives I was using are ALL now dead links. Thanks to modern genetics I feel comfortable in saying that we are of the same genetic line with our most recent common ancestor being John's father, or grandfather. My rationale is to include or exclude Michael Quinn in the family tree for Laughlin Quin of nearby Carteret County, or not?

Laughlin was born in Ireland, or England in 1712 and arrived to North Carolina circa 1733 to Beaufort Town where he is found on an English Militia Roll for 1747. Laughlin Quin died in 1774.  Most of his children all grew up in and around Edenton from the 1730's until the 1760's with their mother Mary Canaday Quinn. Before war's end the family is found in Carteret, Parts of Jones Duplin, formerly Dobbs and then New Hanover & Duplin Counties.

I cannot stipulate that he was ever one of Washington's spies, nor a Free Mason. The family retired to Tennessee and also Richmond after 1783, except for John Quinn.  John Quinn appears in Chowan Count at Edenton in the Unanimity Masonic Lodge founded from the Grand Lodge number 193 during the same period and later began to operate in New Bern, Wilmington and in the highland communities of North Carolina around Fayetteville, or Crosscreek .

It is believed by this researcher that John Quinn of Edenton and Darby Quinn of Culpeper are  Laughlin's 1st cousins if I understand atDNA signals correctly.

Interestingly, Laughlin's parents possessed means as demonstrated by researching the Dunraven Dynasty, albeit later in time. I still do not know his precise parentage lacking a yDNA test to confirm, or deny the persons are his parents. Which is the same paradox I face with Michael Quinn,  All this means is that I have researched every Quinn man from the first settlers to this continent until 1750. I still do this every day.

The 1st Earl is born in 1752, 12 years before Laughlin's death in Carteret County and 3 years after Laughlin appears in the records of Provincial North Carolina..

Valentine Richard Quin, 1st Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl (30 July 1752 – 24 August 1824), styled Sir Valentine Quin, Bt. from 1781 to 1800, was an Irish peer and politician.[1]

He was the son of Windham Quin, Esq. of Adare, and Frances Dawson, daughter of Richard Dawson, of Dawson's Grove, County Monaghan. His grandfather had added to the family's wealth and estates by marriage to the heiress Mary Widenham of Kildimo.

He was created a Baronet in 1781. He was elected in 1799 as Member of Parliament for his father's old seat Kilmallock to the Irish House of Commons, sitting until the union of Ireland and Great Britain in 1800/01.

Fast Forward to 2011 when I was the administrator of the Quinn DNA Project at FTDNA I received a strange email from someone in TN that had tested his yDNA at 36 Markers and was not named Quinn, but matched so many Quinn's and wanted to know if he could join the Quinn DNA project.  Of course was my reply. After joining the group it was a couple of months when the man disappeared, deleting his entire account at Family Tree DNA.

To date, I have not received a reply to any of the letters I have sent to Quinn Families in Nashville. They were almost all of them were family members of prominent Lawyers with the surname Quinn there. They were listed as undeliverable.

We are yDNA matches within the Uncle range of my DNA. 

(Using Capt. Quinn's Capture in Edenton as an example ONLY)

Here are concrete, sourced examples of espionage and covert intelligence activity tied to North Carolina during the Revolution (Patriot and British sides). I’ve focused on people and episodes with documentary support:

• Lt. Col. “Light-Horse Harry” Lee in NC (Patriot) – Lee’s Legion operated across the Piedmont in early 1781 using deception and close reconnaissance. His ruse at Pyle’s Defeat (Feb. 25, 1781, near present-day Burlington) is a classic counterintelligence action in North Carolina. Journal of the American Revolution
• Col. William R. Davie (Patriot) – Davie’s mounted partisans in 1780–81 screened Greene’s army, ran scouts, and struck British detachments (e.g., Battle of Charlotte, Sept. 26, 1780). While not a formal “spy ring,” Davie’s command relied on continuous local intelligence and scouting. NC DNCR+1
• Patriot “Indian spies” & frontier scouts in western NC (Patriot) – Pension files name North Carolinians who served specifically “as a spy,” often on the Catawba/Holston frontiers:
  
  • Arthur McFalls: “appointed an Indian spy… three months” in Burke/Catawba region. revwarapps.org
  • Robert Brown: “served as an Indian Spy… upper Fort upon the Catawba River… 1780–1781.” revwarapps.org
  • Philip Anthony: “served again as an Indian spy… at Davidson’s.” (spring 1781, NC) revwarapps.org
  • William Bates: “mostly on the frontiers as a spy… detached to Wilmington, NC.” revwarapps.org

• Recon on Cornwallis’s army (Patriot) – Pension testimony records a Colonel Micajah Lewis who “went with some others to spy out the force of Cornwallis’ Army” and was killed (context: Greene’s 1781 campaign in NC). revwarapps.org
• Capt. John De Treville operating for the British (British) – A paroled Continental officer turned British spy who carried intelligence to Cornwallis and was sent into North Carolina multiple times (1780–1781) to assess American strength and movements. Journal of the American Revolution
• Loyalist networks in NC (British) – Tory partisans aided British operations in 1781 as “scouts, spies, messengers, guides and waggoners,” providing local knowledge during the NC invasion. amrevnc.com
• Support & facilitation in NC towns (Patriot) – Though not a spy, Elizabeth Maxwell Steele of Salisbury aided Greene during the 1781 retreat; her tavern was a hub where news/intel and resources passed to the army. NC DNCR+1

No evidence that Washington’s Culper Ring formally extended to North Carolina, but NC absolutely had active espionage, scouting, and courier work—from frontier “Indian spies” and partisan cavalry deception, to Loyalist/British agents moving through the state. These efforts fed intelligence to commanders like Nathanael Greene and, indirectly, to Washington.

In the South—North Carolina included—the British didn’t just accept a promise; they tried to convert former rebels into active Loyal subjects. Here’s how that typically worked and what “deeds” were expected:

• Protection & Oath of Allegiance (“taking protection”)
  After major British victories (e.g., the fall of Charleston in May 1780), inhabitants who wished to come back under the Crown could appear before British civil/military authorities, receive a written certificate of protection, and swear an oath of allegiance to George III. Surviving papers show individuals producing such certificates (for example, one signed by Col. Nesbit Balfour dated 27 June 1780). revwarapps.org
• Clinton’s Proclamation (June 1, 1780)
  Sir Henry Clinton publicly offered pardon to those who “immediately return to their Allegiance,” promising “Protection and Support” to loyal subjects—an explicit path for repentant rebels to be accepted again as the King’s people. American Battlefield Trust
• From passive to active: revoking paroles & requiring service
  In the weeks after Charleston’s capture, British policy moved from mercy to obligation. Men who had accepted “parole” (a promise to sit out the war) were soon told that parole would not suffice—they must take the oath and render active support. Contemporary analysis of the southern campaign notes that this shift antagonized many who had only sought protection. CGSC ContentDM
• Local practice in occupied towns (e.g., Charleston)
  Research guides and archives for occupied Charleston note that authorities required oaths from residents whose loyalties were in doubt; lists of subscribers and related documentation survive. dar.org

Once a former Patriot had taken protection, the British expected concrete acts that showed active allegiance. Common ones: 

1. Serve in Loyalist militia or provincial corps
   After Charleston, British leadership increasingly expected protected men to bear arms—to muster for local defense, escort convoys, garrison posts, or join provincial units (e.g., South/North Carolina Loyalist militia). The shift from passive parole to mandatory militia duty is widely documented as British policy in 1780–81. CGSC ContentDM
2. Provide military intelligence & act as guides
   New Loyal subjects were used as scouts, guides, and informers, especially during Cornwallis’s 1780–81 operations through the Carolinas. (You’ll also see this reflected in American pension narratives that mention counterintelligence against such guides.) CGSC ContentDM
3. Supply and quarter the army
   Oath-takers were expected to furnish provisions, wagons, forage, and quarters, or help requisition them—standard obligations of “well-affected” subjects in occupied zones. CGSC ContentDM
4. Civic cooperation under British authority
   In occupied cities, cooperating as jurors, constables, or clerks under British-run administrations, answering summonses, and obeying military regulations all counted toward demonstrating loyalty (the requirement to subscribe to oaths in Charleston is the paper trail for this). dar.org
5. Public renunciation of the rebellion
   Clinton’s 1780 proclamation made clear the ideological component: former rebels were to “return to and Support” royal government. Publicly renouncing the rebellion (sometimes in writing) and keeping the peace were baseline expectations; the promise of pardon hinged on “due Experience of the Sincerity” of their professions—i.e., deeds matching words. American Battlefield Trust

When British columns pushed into NC in early 1781, residents who took protection or gave intelligence were expected to assist the army in these same ways—guide, provision, and muster when called. The general southern pattern applied in NC as Cornwallis moved through the state. CGSC ContentDM

Contemporaries and later historians point out that forcing formerly neutral or paroled men into active service helped kindle the partisan war—especially after summer 1780—by turning reluctant inhabitants back toward the Patriot side. Even British commentators recognized that the “obligation” approach hardened resistance. CGSC ContentDM

I conclude as the British also did.  I base his traitorous machinations and record of outrages as proof enough, for me to say he is the Traitor of Edenton as historic records represent.