Army Wives: The Remarriage Myth Dispelled

A favorite topic of mine is wives of British soldiers. Information on these women who formed an integral part of the British army in America is sparse. While the names of soldiers can be readily obtained from muster rolls and other sources provide details of their ages, backgrounds and other attributes, just learning which men were married and the names of their wives is challenging. I've been able to pull together significant information about their role in the army, but learning about the individuals remains difficult.

With this paucity of information, it is especially annoying when people propagate information that has no basis in actual research. One such 'nugget' is the notion that wives who became widows were required to remarry within days or they would be cast out of the army and left completely on their own where ever they happened to be. I've heard this repeated many times, but never seen it backed up by information from general orders, military texts, personal accounts, or any other first-hand information. Although it is true that women had to be married to soldiers in order to become part of the 'regimental community', it is contradictory to the spirit of community to suppose that widows would be cast out. Over time, direct information made the remarriage assertion less and less plausible - for example, orders directing that widows who wished to return to Great Britain would be provided passage on board transport ships - but the absence of supporting information does not directly prove that remarriage was a requirement or necessity.

It is pleasing, then, to have finally obtained specific information about several army wives whose husbands died and who then married other soldiers. Regimental muster rolls provide us with the dates that the men died. A collection of marriage licenses issued in New York City gives the date that the widows obtained license to remarry (presumably close to the date of the actual marriage). Just enough of these marriage licenses are specific about the regiments to which the men and women belonged to make it possible to associate the names of some of the women to men in the same regiments who had died. They are in Volume 46 of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record (1915), available on Google Books.

The first example we found, about a year ago, was Hester Foster of the 22nd Regiment of Foot. Her husband William died as a serjeant on 14 October 1780 in New York after a career of at least 14 years in the army. On 18 December 1780 she obtained a license to marry a 31-year-old serjeant in the regiment, Henry Vennel. A decade later he became a rare man who obtained an officer's commission after rising through the ranks from a private soldier.

This example of a woman who remarried just two months after losing her husband was weak proof that women were not required to remarry immediately. Although two months is much longer than the 24 to 72 hours generally purported as the required time limit (depending upon who told the story) it is nonetheless a fast turnaround. More information was required to get a better sense of typical practice. That information has finally come together.

Noted author Brendan Morrissey recently worked extensively with the muster rolls of the 23rd Regiment of Foot. These rolls record the death of Thomas Pearcy on 31 May 1776 when the army was in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Over two years later a marriage license was obtained by Elenor Percy, widow in the 23rd Regiment, to marry a soldier named William Rider. Variations in spelling of surnames is quite common in muster rolls and related documents, and no other soldier in the 23rd had a name close enough to reasonably have been the husband of Elenor Percy. Sadly, her new husband died in June of 1780 and we have no additional information about her.

My own recent trip to the National Archives afforded the opportunity to piece together three more examples:

Daniel Rogers, a grenadier in the 38th Regiment, died on 19 August 1775 of wounds received at the battle of Bunker Hill. Catherine Rogers, widow of the same regiment, obtained a license to marry Thomas Mason of the 38th on 2 May 1777. Mason was still in the regiment in 1783, but a gap in the muster rolls makes his ultimate fate unknown.

Richard Twine of the 54th Regiment died on 21 August 1776. His wife Ann obtained a license exactly one year later to marry a soldier in the 45th Regiment, James Wiggins. He was drafted into the 5th Regiment of Foot in 1778 when the 45th was sent back to Great Britain and the 5th to the West Indies. A gap in the rolls of the 5th from late 1778 to the beginning of 1781 leaves his fate (and hers) unknown.

Thomas Proffit of the 7th (Royal Fusiliers) Regiment died on 17 April 1777. His wife Ann obtained a license on 6 February 1779 to marry serjeant John Lomix (or Lomax) of the same regiment. He died on 28 July 1782, leaving Ann once again a widow.

Among the marriage licenses are several others that can be traced in this way when we have an opportunity to work with the muster rolls of more regiments. For now, we have these four examples of women who were widowed and then remarried a year or more later, where the marriage license information explicitly refers to them as widows belonging to their regiments. A fifth woman married within only two months. We have yet to find an example of a woman remarrying within days of losing her husband. This doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it certainly proves that it was not a requirement.

Besides putting to rest the remarriage myth, the marriage licenses open up a new mystery. Among the women named as affiliated with British regiments are four who are not called widows but 'spinsters.' My first supposition was that these women were daughters of soldiers in the regiment, but we have not been able to correlate their names with any men on the muster rolls. It may be necessary to track down the original marriage license information to fully understand this nomenclature and determine who these women actually were.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

John Harvey, Musician, 22nd Regiment of Foot

About three weeks ago I gave a talk at the commemoration of the Battle of Monmouth on 28 June 1778. The talk concerned the 60 men who were in the grenadier company of the 22nd Regiment of Foot at the time of the battle. Included was an overview of known trades practiced by men before they joined the army (and in some cases, continued during their military service). Out of 1005 men known to have served in the 22nd Regiment in America for some time between 1775 and 1783, at the time of the talk I was able to learn the trades of 311. Another post later on will present this information; for now, suffice it to say that the trades consist of a variety of occupations including weavers, tailors, shoemakers, laborers, carpenters and a wide assortment of others.

A person in the audience asked an interesting question: why were there no artists (including musicians, actors and such) on the list. While I don't have a certain answer and don't pretend to have background in the sociology of the era, I can make several guesses:

• Professional artists are only a small portion of any population. Our data sample of only 311 out of 1005 is too small to draw any conclusions either about the 22nd Regiment (there could have been some artists who aren't among the 311 whose trades we know) or the army as a whole (an estimated 50,000 British regular soldiers served in America; there could've been a few artists in some regiments but not in others).


• The army was a volunteer force, and many of the men who joined it were men who could not find work in their trades or were not interested in their trades. While not composed primarily of the 'dregs of society', the army was composed largely of working class people. It may be that artists who could not find work simply were not inclined to join the army as an alternative.


• Most of our information on trades comes from army discharge documents and deserter descriptions. Possibly the army did not recognize artistic disciplines as trades, and used the more common catchall of 'labourer' for people who had not been apprenticed in a recognized trade.

These are just guesses, of course. If we look outside the scope of the 22nd Regiment, we do fine some interesting characters. A deserter from the South Fencible Regiment, a corps raised during the American war for service only in Scotland, was advertised in Edinburgh in 1780:

Desertion.

Deserted from his Majesty's South Fencible Regiment, quartered at Dumfries, on Friday Feb. 25, 1780, Hector M'Lean, private soldier, born in Glasgow, 25 years of age, 5 feet 4 inches high, fair complexion, fair hair, grey eyes, and a little long chin'd, stout made, and walks very upright, by trade a comb maker; had on when he deserted the regimentals of the light company of the above regiment. He was formerly employed as a tumbler to a company of Stirling players, and is well known about Edinburgh and Kendal in Westmoreland: and it is supposed when he left the regiment he took the English road.
Whoever can secure the said deserter in any jail shall be entitled to Two Guineas reward, over and above what is allowed by act of parliament for apprehending deserters, and that immediately on giving notice to the commanding officer at Dumfries.

[Edinburgh Advertiser, 7 March 1780]

This man was known to have worked as a performer, but also had a more common trade. Similar were performers in the regimental bands of the 1st and 2nd Regiments of Foot, each of whom had trades in addition to their musical abilities:

Deserted from the Second Battalion of His Majesty’s First (or Royal) Regiment of Foot, commanded by his Grace the Duke of Argyle, Lieutenant-general, quartered at Fort George in the County of Inverness, William Sutherland, Five feet 10 inches high, aged 25 years, fresh complexion, dark brown hair, black eyes, had on a scarlet frock, white waistcoat and breeches, by trade a Shoemaker, was one of the Band of Music, born in the town and county of Wicklow, inlisted at Fort Augustus, in the county of Inverness, the 16th of July, 1767. Deserted from Fort George, in said county, the 18th of March, 1777.
Whoever secures the said Deserter, so that he may be brought to justice, as a perjured Defrauder of the Public, of his Colonel, any of his Officers, and given notice to the Commanding Officer of th esaid Regiment at Fort George, or to Messrs. Ross and Gray, Agents to the said Regiment, in London, shall receive Five Guineas over and above the Twenty Shillings allowed by Act of Parliament.
N. B. It is supposed the above Deserter is lurking about London or St. Albans.

[London Chronicle, April 14, 1777]

Deserted from the Queen’s Royal Regiment of Foot, at Coxheath Camp, Samuel Pollard, Musician, aged 22, five feet six inches high, of a fresh Complexion, full faced, red Hair, Haxle Eyes, well made, born in Birstal, in the County of York, by Occupation a Labourer, and had on when he deserted, a white Coat, looped with Blue and Silver, white Waistcoat and Breeches, and a Silver laced Hat. Whoever secures the above Deserter, so as he may be brought to Justice, shall have two Guineas over and above the Reward allowed by Act of Parliament.

[The Daily Advertiser (London), 26 October 1778]

Other musicians were described as such:

Deserted from his Majesty’s 17th regiment of foot, quartered in Perth, John Humphreys musician, aged twenty years, size five feet six inches one-half, very swarthy complexion and jet black hair, black eyes, hollow cheeks, has a stoop in his shoulders, slender bandy limbed, has a very hoarse voice, talks thick, plays well on the French horn and fife; had on when he deserted the musician’s uniform of the regiment, viz. a scarlet frock, with white cap [sic - cape] and cuffs laced with silver, with white buttons having the number of the regiment, white cloth waistcoat and breeches, silver laced hat. He was apprehended (but escaped) on Wednesday the 7th in the Canongate; had on a bonnet, black coat, and wore a long staff in his hand.
Whoever apprehends the said deserter, sends him to the regiment, or secures him in any of his Majesty’s gaols, shall, upon giving information thereof to the commanding officer of the regiment at Perth, receive One Guinea reward over and above twenty shillings allowed by act of parliament; to be paid by Col. Darby commanding at Perth, Capt. Lyons at Aberdeen, Capt. Wallace at Montrose, Ensign Sir Alexander Murray at Banf, Ensign Browne at Dundee, or Capt. Aylmer at Edinburgh.

[Edinburgh Advertiser, 9 October 1772]

Yet another musician with the interesting trade of Horse Jockey can be seen in one of our earlier posts.

The week after the talk I was in the London at the National Archives, hoping to find more demographic data about soldiers in the 22nd Regiment. A recently-indexed collection of discharge documents promised to provide information on several soldiers who had previously been identifiable only by their names on muster rolls. Among them was James Harvey, a man born in 1753 in the parish of Crediton near the middle of Devonshire. He enlisted in the 22nd Regiment at the slightly young age of 16 and served for 25 years in the regiment, followed by additional time in the Tipperary Militia in Ireland. While the regiment was serving in the New York area in 1782 Harvey was Master of Masonic Lodge No. 133, a lodge formed in 1767 consisting of members of the regiment. He spent most of his time as a private soldier but also spent a few years as a corporal (the muster rolls show him in this post for three years, but his discharge records only two) and three years as a drummer. He signed his own name on his discharge, suggesting that he was literate, and a note on the document refers to his "good character." Most significant to our understanding of trades in the 22nd Regiment, however, was the trade listed on James Harvey's discharge: Musician.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

James Cuffe, 62nd and 22nd Regiments

Our previous installment mentioned that Augustus Barrett deserted from the American army near New Bridge in New Jersey. This location today is a historic site well worth visiting, showcasing several beautifully restored buildings and pleasing waterfront in a location that was on the front lines during much of the American Revolution.

The installment also mentioned James Cuffe who deserted with Barrett. Cuffe's career in the British army was similar in many ways to Barrett's in that Cuffe was also a soldier from Burgoyne's army who escaped captivity, joined the Continental army, then deserted and made his way into New York. It is not surprising, though, that Cuffe's story was also distinctive in many ways.

James Cuffe was an Irishman and a barber by trade. He joined the 62nd Regiment of Foot at Cork, Ireland in May 1774. Although we can hardly deduce a man's personality based on scant military records, the evidence suggests that Cuffe was more flamboyant that we might expect for a barber. When he joined the 62nd Regiment he was put directly into the grenadier company, a highly unusual posting for a new soldier. It was rare for a man with less than a year in a regiment to serve in the grenadier company (or in the light infantry company). Cuffe may have had prior military experience, he may have had remarkably fine stature and taken quickly to the profession of arms, or it may be that the grenadier company needed a barber.

Cuffe deserted from the regiment on 3 November 1775. We have no information on the circumstances of his desertion and no advertisement for him has been found. He did, however, return to the regiment some time between February and April of the following year, and went back onto the rolls of the grenadier company. Just as we don't know why he deserted, we do not know if he returned voluntarily or was apprehended. He embarked with his regiment for Canada, arriving at Quebec in May 1776.

The next mention we have of Cuffe is from an orderly book pertaining to the grenadier battalion in Burgoyne's army in early 1777. Orders dated Boucherville, 4 March 1777, begin with this interesting entry:

James Cuff of the 62d Compy confined and [blank] for being Drunk and Striking Copl. Maher of the said Compy is Acquitted by the Court-Martial, the Major willing to do equal Justice to every rank finds

Unfortunately this is at the end of the last surviving page of the orderly book. Neither the rest of the order nor the circumstances surrounding Cuffe's crime, trial and acquittal are known.

Cuffe was among the soldiers imprisoned when Burgoyne's army capitulated at Saratoga in October 1777. His subsequent actions are chronicled in two places: his own deposition given to British officers in 1782, and in American army service records. In some ways the two sources are in agreement, while in other ways they differ.

Cuffe left the British prisoner of war barracks on Prospect Hill outside of Boston on 8 February 1778. He claims to have worked as a barber for the next year or so, but pay accounts and muster rolls for Colonel Henry Jackson's Massachusetts Regiment show him to have been a soldier in that regiment from 11 February 1778 through 31 December 1779. He served primarily on mainland Rhode Island keeping watch over the British garrison on the island portion of that colony, a garrison which included the 22nd Regiment of Foot.

He claimed that, after working as a barber, he enlisted in the "Boston Rebel Regt." with the intention of getting close to British lines in order to desert, but that he and 20 other British soldiers were instead put in jail in Easton, Pennsylvania. After three months he and another soldier broke out of jail but were apprehended and confined again, this time in Philadelphia. He was sent to Providence, Rhode Island and tried as a deserter, for which he received 100 lashes.

America service records do indicate that Cuffe deserted on 29 May 1779 and was retaken on 17 October. Whether that period of desertion corresponds to his claim of confinement is difficult to say. It is clear that he was in the 16th Massachusetts Regiment from 1 January into September of 1780. On 11 September he and Augustus Barrett received passes to "go into the Country for Provisions." They took the opportunity to desert between Paramus and New Bridge, made their way to a British ship in the Hudson River, and from there to British headquarters in New York. Cuffe gave a brief deposition at headquarters recounting their escape and describing what he knew of American positions. He and Barrett then joined the 22nd Regiment of Foot in New York, serving with some of the very soldiers they had been posted against while in Rhode Island.

Unlike Barrett who deserted in America, James Cuffe remained with the 22nd Regiment through the close of the war. The 22nd was among the last regiments to embark from New York in November 1783 and returned directly to Great Britain. Many soldiers were discharged in the first half of 1784 but Cuffe was not among them. Instead, he deserted on 28 June while the regiment was stationed in the London area.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Augustus Barret, 24th and 22nd Regiments

The American War saw several instances of British regiments being surrendered as entities to Continental forces. The two principal examples are the regiments of Burgoyne’s army at Saratoga in October 1777 and those of Cornwallis’s army at Yorktown in October 1781. Unlike individuals who were taken prisoner, soldiers in these regiments remained under the care of their officers and in the service of their regiments, albeit in captivity. Many of these men nonetheless escaped and attempted to make their way to British garrisons in New York, Canada or Rhode Island; considerable numbers were successful. Because these men left their regiments they technically were deserters. For the most part, however, these desertions were sanctioned and the repatriated soldiers were allowed to join other regiments. The most famous of these was Roger Lamb, originally of the 9th and later of the 23rd Regiment, well-known because he later published the details of his escapes.

Many other escaped prisoners told their stories in the form of depositions given to a board of inquiry that sat in New York in 1782. These soldiers, having rejoined the army, considered their time as fugitives to have been part of their military service; fully aware of their entitlements, each man set forth his claim for arrears of pay and clothing due not only from the time before escaping incarceration, but also for the time between that escape and being added to the rolls of another British regiment. Records of their testimonies are brief but concise, usually with exact dates of their departure from captivity and arrival in New York, dates which could be translated into days of service and therefore into wages due.

One of these petitioners was Augustus (or Augustine) Barrett, formerly a soldier in the light infantry company of the 24th Regiment of Foot. He was a bricklayer from Leeds in England, and had enlisted in the 24th Regiment in 1771 when he was 18 years old. Soon after he joined the army, light infantry companies were added to the establishment of British regiments; at 5' 6" tall, Barrett was the right stature for this company of young active men  For reasons not known he deserted with another soldier in December 1774 but returned less than a month later. In 1776 his regiment sailed to America, and the following year was actively engaged in the campaign that was intended to secure the waterways from Quebec to Albany but instead resulted in capitulation at Saratoga. Augustine Barrett became a prisoner of war.

Barrett was among the first deserters from the Burgoyne's incarcerated army when he left the barracks at Prospect Hill outside of Boston on 13 November 1777. Barrett deposed that he was captured five weeks after his escape and

...confined in the Prison Ship at Boston where he continued between 5 & six Months, & from thence enlisted in Col. Jackson’s Regt. in the Rebel service; that he remained in this Regt. about 18 Months...

In September 1780 while serving in Colonel Henry Jackson's 16th Massachusetts Regiment in northern New Jersey, Barrett and some other men were given passes to go into the country to seek provisions in the area between Paramus and New Bridge. Barrett and another Convention Army deserter, James Cuffe, took the opportunity to desert and make their way to the Hudson river. There they were able to get on board a British ship and then proceed to the British garrison in New York City. They joined the 22nd Regiment of Foot on 14 September, three days after deserting the Continental army.

Barrett petitioned for clothing (or the value thereof) that he was owed by the 24th Regiment, plus pay for the time between deserting the barracks at Prospect Hill and joining the 16th Massachusetts Regiment. He duly noted that "that he received pay & clothing from the Rebels, whilst he served them" and therefore did not make any claim for compensation during this time period. Barrett’s story was reasonably typical of those heard by the board; many petitioners freely admitted to service in the American army and astutely did not claim pay for the duration of that service. The board of inquiry approved Barrett's claim and many others like it.

The British officers on the board of inquiry, however, did not have access to Continental army documents that tell a somewhat different story of Barrett’s service. Contrary to his claim of spending five weeks as a fugitive followed by six months of incarceration on a prison ship, Barrett started drawing pay in the American army on 14 November 1777 – one day after he left the prisoner of war barracks outside Boston. Exactly one year later he was appointed corporal. In August 1779 he deserted but returned in October, when he was reduced to a private soldier.

The rolls for the 16th Massachusetts Regiment indicate Barrett's desertion on 11 September 1780 which agrees with his deposition and correlates to the muster rolls of the British regiment that he joined in New York. Barrett’s Continental service record suggests that he was encouraged to enlist while still a prisoner as a way to gain release from captivity. While the British board of inquiry may have accepted this as a motive to escape from a prison ship, they certainly would not have looked favorably on a man leaving the frail barracks in which so many other British soldiers endured the winter.

A Continental army roll from October 1779, the time of his return from a two-month desertion, exposes another facet of Barrett’s life. An note on the roll says that he had his “family in camp.” It is possible that Barrett was married while in the 24th Regiment, and that his wife either escaped with him or made her own way to Boston from Canada. It is more likely that Barrett married an American woman after his escape from the Convention Army, as some of these soldiers are known to have done. This supposition might explain the closure to his service as a British soldier: he deserted from the 22nd Regiment on 7 June 1783, a time when it was clear that the British army would soon be leaving the newly-created United States for posts in Great Britain and Canada. Although a wife and children would be allowed to travel with him as part of the British army, if they were American-born they may have compelled him to stay. Regardless of his motive for leaving Continental service and returning to the British army, a family in America may have provided Augustus Barrett's incentive to ultimately remain on the continent.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Lance Corporal John Lee, Brigade of Guards

We welcome your comments, questions and observations on these blog posts. A comment to our previous installment about Corporal John McChesnie brings up several interesting points. The observation that "Some English officers weren't always the calm, collected bunch they wished to portray..." is certainly true. Think of any professional organization where the entry-level people are in their late teens and early twenties - some are focused on learning and making the best impression possible, while others are cocky, headstrong and act with a sense of entitlement. Among British officers there were all sorts of personalities, from the reserved to the arrogant.

It is also important to note that this was the British army, not the English army. Lt. John Wallace of the 22nd Regiment was Irish; Corporal McChesnie was Scottish. The British army included many officers and soldiers from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as well as a smattering from America and from various European countries. In general this multinational group functioned well, but occasionally language and national pride became issues.

The comment goes on to say "...quite a few veteran soldiers were being outranked by more colorful men half their age." True enough, but this is the reality in most professional armies even today. Regardless of the factors that allow men to choose their paths, some men begin their careers as officers while others serve their entire careers in the ranks. Even today many soldiers are commanded by officers barely half their age, with varying results depending upon the personalities involved and the quality of training.

And the comment includes a question: "Do you know what prompted the Light Dragoons into a scuffle against the lieutenants in the first place?" Sadly, the court martial proceedings that give us our information on these events give no details about the scuffle that initiated things. The dragoons escaped into the night and apparently no attempt was made to identify them. Altercations between officers and soldiers (and between officers and other officers) happened from time to time, particularly in garrison towns when there was much idle time. Darkness and alcohol were often a factor. When these misadventures led to courts martial, the testimony often illustrate the confusion and uncertainly of the events themselves. Thanks to the research of Linnea Bass we have a good example in the case of another soldier of the Brigade of Guards, John Lee.

In January 1779, Lee was a lance corporal in the brigade. This meant that he was officially a private soldier, but was doing the duty of a corporal for the time being and was to be recognized as such. On the night of 15 January he was in a house being used as a barracks on Dock Street in New York City duly washing one of his shirts. Suddenly the sentry posted outside the barracks came to the door and called for help because someone had been knocked down in the street. Lee and two other soldiers went out into the dark night, where they saw a man writhing on the ground across the street and another man standing over him. Acting quickly, Lee ran over and pushed the standing man away, asking him what he intended to do to the stricken man. The pushed man lunged back at Lee, grabbing his collar with one hand and sinking his fingernails into Lee's cheek with the other. Lee demanded that he desist or be struck, and pushed the assailant away. The man lunged back; they struggled and exchanged harsh language. Soldiers poured out of the barracks, civilians poured out of houses, and several officers walking in the area rushed to the scene. The sentry who had originally called for help managed to separate the two.

As if there were not already enough people in the street, the relief guard (that is, a party of soldiers on guard duty) came up to relieve the sentry. The first person they encountered was Lee, who was bleeding and complaining of having been assaulted. Just then his assailant came up, seized him by the collar and called him the rascal who assaulted him. The man was Lieutenant Edmund Prideaux of the 7th Regiment of Foot, known as the Royal Fusiliers.

This was profoundly unfortunate for Lance Corporal Lee, for he had unwittingly assaulted an officer. Lt. Prideaux was still highly agitated, but other officers who were now on the scene advised him to have Lee confined. Lt. Prideaux attempted to write down a charge to be delivered with Lee to the provost guard, but was unable to collect himself enough to do so. The other officers took over the formalities. They went into the barracks to collect Lee (who had gone back inside) and get names of other soldiers who may have struck or insulted Lt. Prideaux. Although the soldiers in the barracks were insolent, they begrudgingly complied with what was demanded of them. John Lee surrendered himself angrily, insisting that he had done nothing wrong, and was put into confinement. People in the street took the stricken man - who proved to be an officer of a Loyalist regiment - into a house to attend to him. The disturbance was over.

The court martial of John Lee occurred a week later. Lt. Prideaux testified that he was assisting the Loyalist officer (a colleague in a regiment that Prideaux himself had recently served in) to get home because he was very drunk. When they happened to be opposite the Dock Street barracks, by chance the drunken officer collapsed in a fit. Lt. Prideaux called to the nearby sentry for help and water, the sentry called forth men from the barracks, but Lt. Prideaux was stunned when instead of receiving help he was pushed away.

Prideaux called five witnesses including a soldier who had been helping him to escort his comrade, a local resident and another soldier who saw the initial struggle, and two officers who came up as the events unfolded (or unraveled). Lee called seven witnesses including the sentry, other soldiers and non-commissioned officers who had been in the barracks, an officer who arrived late on the scene and the regimental surgeon who had attended to his wounds. The disagreements in the testimony are striking: those who testified for Prideaux insisted that he was sober while those who spoke for Lee said that he was in a drunken rage; some said that Lee struck Prideaux, some that he did not, while others could not say one way or the other. They all agreed that the night was dark enough that it was not immediately obvious that Prideaux was an officer, but some stated that he wore a blue great coat while others said he was in his regimental coat, red with blue facings (it is possible that Prideaux had been wearing the great coat initially, and shed it when the struggle ended).

Lance Corporal Lee made a good argument that he acted as the situation seemed to warrant when he pushed Lt. Prideaux, and after that acted only in his own defense. Three officers of the Brigade of Guards gave him excellent character references, stating that this was the first complaint that they had received about Lee and calling him a "clean, regular and obedient soldier," "as good a Soldier as any in the British Army," whose "particular good behavior" had led to his recommendation for lance corporal. He was nonetheless found guilty and sentenced to receive one thousand lashes. We do not know whether the punishment was actually inflicted.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Thomas McChesnie and Joseph Mauncey, Brigade of Guards

Thomas McChesnie was out for a walk one night with his colleague Joseph Mouncey in British-garrisoned New York city. The two were volunteer soldiers in more than one sense. During the era of the American Revolution the British army was, for the most part, a volunteer force - men enlisted for a career in the army, and there was (with a few exceptions) no impressment or compulsory service. McChesnie, born in county Galloway in Scotland in 1738, had left his trade as a weaver to join the 3rd Regiment of Foot Guards at the age of 21; Mouncey, born in St. Marlybone, London, had not learned a trade when he enlisted in the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards at 17 years of age in 1773.

The outbreak of war in America brought them a second opportunity to volunteer. Besides the regiments of the regular army sent to America, a composite corps was formed of volunteer soldiers from the three regiments of Foot Guards that traditionally provided security for the monarchy and government in London. 15 volunteers were drawn from the private soldiers in each of the 64 companies that comprised the Guards regiments, in addition to officers, non-commissioned officers, drummers and fifers. This detachment operated in America as the Brigade of Guards; it included a grenadier company composed of soldiers from all three of the Foot Guards regiments. McChesnie and Mouncey were both corporals in this company. On the night of 1 August 1779 they were making their way through the dark streets of old New York after a walk on the Battery at the south end of Manhattan island.

Also out for a walk that night were two young officers, Lieutenants John Wallace of the 22nd Regiment of Foot and James Drury of the 57th Regiment of Foot. They were walking towards the Battery between 9 and 10 o'clock when they parted company with each other. Moments later, Lt. Wallace heard a commotion. He drew his sword and ran to the noise where he found Lt. Drury struggling with two soldiers of the 17th Light Dragoons. The dragoons had hold of Drury, but released him after receiving several strokes from the flat of Wallace's sword; the two officers secured the dragoons and set off towards the provost with them.

This is when the two corporals met up with the two officers. Apparently there were other soldiers hovering in the darkness, perhaps drawn by the commotion, because the officer perceived that they had encountered a party of about 10 grenadiers. Lt. Drury directed the soldiers to take custody of the two dragoons and take them to the main guard. McChesnie, a with nearly 20 years in the army, responded that he could not take them without first getting their names and the charges against them; without this information the guard would not receive them. The officers, already agitated from their scuffle with the dragoons, viewed this as a flippant response. Wallace (who, it bears noting, was 19 years old; Drury was probably only a few years older) told McChesnie that he and the Brigade of Guards were rebellious rascals and, gesturing with his sword, threatened to imprison McChesnie if he did not comply with orders. McChesnie snatched the sword from Wallace's hand and responded that he would not be taken prisoner. Drury seized McChesnie by his bayonet belt and demanded his name, which McChensie readily gave. Wallace, in the mean time, moved behind McChesnie, grabbed the sword again and wrested it free. More threatening words were exchanged. Wallace asked for help from another soldier who not only refused but drew his bayonet. McChesnie's bayonet belt gave way. A scuffle ensued in which the officers received blows, but within moments all of the soldiers cleared off into the night leaving the two officers with only McChesnie's bayonet belt, an unidentified hat, and extremely wounded pride.

The young lieutenants took the belt to the commander of the Brigade of Guards who were able to trace it to McChesnie. The long-serving corporal was brought before a general court martial the following week on charges of abusing the officers and threatening Lt. Drury's life. The officers gave their version of the story, characterizing McChesnie as drunk and insolent, while Mouncey corroborated McChensie's testimony that they were sober and compliant, but that the officers became belligerent when asked for necessary information. An officer gave a favorable character witness. In a "his word against mine" situation like this a court composed of army officers had little choice but to find in favor of one of their own. Corporal McChensie was sentence to be reduced to the ranks and receive 1000 lashes.

Thomas McChesney continued his career as a soldier. After being discharged from the Foot Guards he served in several garrison corps in Great Britain, taking his final discharge in 1796 at the age of 58. Joseph Mauncey also stayed in the army, remaining the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards until 1787. Both received pensions.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Trial of William Johnstone, 43rd Regiment of Foot

Having explained some details about the source material used for these posts, it is fitting to present the proceedings of a general court martial. The text below is transcribed from a copy of the original manuscript. This is typical of the 'raw' data used to tell the many of the stories related in these pages. Some of the formatting of the original is difficult to render on a web page, particular indentations and the layout of the list of court members, but all of the information in the manuscript is shown.

Perhaps the only surprise in this case is that the soldier on trial was found completely innocent; presumably this was because there was no direct evidence that he had committed a crime, even though the circumstantial evidence weighed strongly against him. Clearly the commander in chief was of the same opinion, because he did not approve of the sentence even though he opted to confirm it.

At a General Court Martial held at the Head of Elk, in the Province of Maryland, on Friday the 29th of August 1777, by Virtue of a Warrant, bearing date the same day, from His Excellency Sir William Howe, Knight of the most Honourable order of the Bath, General and Commander in Chief of all His Majesty’s Forces within the Colonies, laying on the Atlantic Ocean, from Nova Scotia to West Florida inclusive &c, &c, &c.

Lieutenant Colonel Henry Trelawney, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards, President.

Lieut. Col. William Walcot, 5th Foot
Lieut. Col. Jas. Ogilvie, 4th Foot
Capt. John Swint. Dyer Coldstream Guards
Capt. Thos. Thomlinson, 5th Foot
Capt. John Barker, 10th Foot
Capt. John Westropp, 5th Foot
Capt. Thos. Gibbings, 23d Foot
Lieut. Myrick Shaw, 4th Foot
Lieut. William Cox, 5th Foot
Lieut. John Browne, 23d Foot
Ensign Florintius Boscawen 3d F. Guards
Ensign Robert Haddin 5th Foot

Stephen Payne Adye Esqr Deputy Judge Advocate
Members

The President, Members and Judge Advocate being duly sworn.

William Johnstone private soldier in His Majesty’s 43d Regiment of Foot was brought prisoner before the Court and accused of plundering, & the following Witnesses were examined in support of the Charge viz:

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Abercrombie of His Majesty’s 37th Regt of Foot, being duly sworn, deposed that on the Morning of the 27th Instant he met the prisoner going towards his out post, having in his hand a pretty large bundle, wrapped up in a blue and white calico Curtain, that he made him open it, and found it to contain some things of the same nature as the calico, he thinks that there was a Woman’s Gown amongst them, but with regard to this circumstance he cannot be positive; that he asked him whither he was going and he replied that he was going to this Battalion, meaning the 2d Battalion of Light Infantry, but he had then passed the Battalion several Miles, and was going the contrary way, that he afterwards asked him where he had got that Bundle of Goods and he answered from a Grenadier, upon which he ordered him to be confined; that about two hours afterwards he received a Letter from Major Cuyler, informing him that it was the General’s Order that he should endeavour to find out a soldier of the Light Infantry, who had robbed a Countryman of the name of Taylor (and by whom the Note was sent) that upon showing him the bundle, the Prisoner had been found in possession of, he claimed part of the things it contained, particularly the blue and white Calico curtain, and the Deponent then sent him to Head Quarters with the Countryman.
Q. Did the Countryman say that the Prisoner was the man, who had taken the things from him?
A. He did not.

Thomas Mudd Corporal in the 17th Regt of Foot, being duly sworn deposed that he commanded the Guard when the prisoner was put in Confinement, & he then had a bundle, in which were a blue and white Calico Curtain, a Woman’s gown, a small piece of Cloth, of the same colour as the Curtain, and a small white earthen pot, containing butter; and he heard a Countryman, upon being shewn these different Articles, claim all of them as his property, except the Woman’s gown, which he said he could not with certainty say, belonged to him.
Q. Did he hear the Countryman say that the Prisoner had taken those things from him?
A. No, he said that he did not know the Prisoner, nor did he know the man that took them from him.
Q. Did the Countryman say whether he was in his own house at the time the things were taken away?
A. He did not.

The Prisoner being then put upon his defence, said that on the morning Lieutenant Colonel Abercrombie met him, he had been to the rear of the Battalion he belonged to, in order to see an acquaintance, and on returning back among a Party of Grenadiers whom he met, on their return from a foraging party, there was one, who had a bundle, and calling to him (the Prisoner) he said, Light Infantry man will you take this. That upon asking him what it was, he answered that it was something which would be of service to him when he went to Camp, that soon after getting the bundle, he met Lieut. Col. Abercrombie, who examined him, and asked him where he was going, and he answered to his Battalion; that he was then rather in the rear of his Battalion, being between the first and second Battalion of Light Infantry, and had he not been stopped by Lieut. Colonel Abercrombie, he should have gone to this Battalion by a Lane which turned off to the left hand and led to the Battalion.

The Court having considered the evidence against the Prisoner William Johnstone together with what he had to offer in his Defence, is of Opinion that he is not guilty of the crime laid to his charge, & doth therefore acquit him.

Harry Trelawny Capt in the Coldstream Guards & Lt. Col. in the Army President

Stepn Pn AdyeDeputy Judge Advocate

Confirmed but Disapproved
W. Howe

Learn more about British soldiers in America!