Friday, October 14, 2011

Samuel Lee, 18th Regiment of Foot (Royal Irish)

Regular readers of this blog (whom I shall refrain from calling "regulars" lest they be confused with the soldiers who are the subject matter) should by now be familiar with two aspects of the lives of British soldiers during the 1770s and 1780s: they generally chose the army as a lifelong career and remained soldiers until no longer fit for service; and they were allowed to have part-time jobs, often within the army, in addition to their normal military duties. An excellent case it point is a private soldier in the 18th (Royal Irish) Regiment of Foot named Samuel Lee.

Thanks to the diligent research of Dr. Steven Baule, we know more about Samuel Lee than most British common soldiers. Born in London in 1745, Lee was already in the 18th Regiment when they arrived in America in 1767. We do not know when he enlisted, but the fact that he was in the Grenadier company in 1767 indicates that he probably had at least a year's service in the regiment by that time. He had also had time to learn the tailoring trade before joining the army, for he worked in that role for the regiment. With the 18th he traveled to Philadelphia, then spent a few years on the frontier in Illinois before marching back to Philadelphia, then to New Jersey and New York. By this time, early 1774, Lee was the Master Tailor of the regiment. This was not a rank, per se; Lee was still a private soldier. It was nonetheless a position of some responsibility and one that could earn him a significant amount of money over his base pay.

In Amboy, New Jersey, one of the regiment's tailors was tried by a general court martial for making false accusations about an officer in the regiment. During the trial several deponents spoke of a busy day in the regiment's tailors' room, the tailors and work and several officers appearing to check on the work and to get fitted for clothing. Words passed, and Samuel Lee among others was asked to testify about what he heard, but Lee was unable to recall specifics and indicated that some conversations may have occurred that he was not aware of. Another tailor clarified this, telling the court that Lee was "a little hard of hearing"; an officer asked if Lee was not in fact deaf. Lee had seen rigorous service over the last several years, but there is no indication of whether his hearing loss was related to his army career. If he stayed in the army and his hearing continued to decline, he could look forward to a pension at the end of his career.

Late in 1774 three companies of the 18th, including the grenadiers, boarded transports and sailed to Boston. There they were formed into a composite battalion along with five companies of the 65th Regiment. Lee continued his tailoring work - in December he purchased goods from a Boston merchant to make clothing for one of the regiment's officers.

As the British army prepared for distinct possibility of hostilities in the Spring of 1775, regiments were ordered on marches into the countryside for fitness. Although military writers of the era recommended that soldiers employed as servants, tailors and at other martial duties be nonetheless included in training and guard mounting, we might expect a man like Samuel Lee to be excused from marches and other duties. As Master Tailor, he was responsible for overseeing the cutting, fitting and maintenance of all of the regiment's clothing. The transition from winter to summer was usually a busy time for these men as the preparation of the regiment's annual issue of regimental clothing, received in America in the fall, was finalized for wear in the new campaign season; some regiments also took the opportunity to re-cut the previous year's clothing into campaign garb in order to preserve the new clothing, and to make specialized clothing for use in America. There were also tents to be gotten ready. It would be no surprise, then, for Samuel Lee to have stayed in Boston on the historic night of 18 April when his company was ordered out for a march towards Concord. But another remarkable piece of information has survived to tell us his actual whereabouts.

The expedition to Concord was conducted by two ad hoc battalions composed of the combined light infantry and grenadier companies from the regiments in Boston. The grenadier company of the 18th was among them. A Massachusetts militiaman named Sylvanus Wood recounted his actions that day after he had faced the British light infantry on Lexington Green:

The English soon were on their march for Concord. I helped carry six dead into the meetinghouse and then set out after the enemy and had not an armed man to go with me, but before I arrived at Concord, I see one of the grenadiers standing sentinel. I cocked my piece and run up to him, seized his gun with my left hand. He surrendered his armor, one gun and bayonet, a large cutlass and brass fender, one box over the shoulder with twenty-two rounds, one box round the waist with eighteen rounds. This was the first prisoner that was known to be taken that day.

The hapless British sentinel was none other than Samuel Lee. Perhaps his poor hearing made it easier for his captor to approach him; it is also entirely possible that Lee willingly surrendered, a surreptitious form of desertion. Although Lee was listed first as missing and then as a prisoner of war on British muster rolls, he does not seem to have been held as a captive and he made no effort to return to the British army. He set up shop as a tailor in Concord. In 1776 he married a woman named Mary Piper and with her had five children. He died in Concord in August 1790 at the age of 45.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Robert Vaughn, 52nd Regiment of Foot

On 3 March 1775 a detachment of the 52nd Regiment of Foot in Boston was ordered to practice firing with live ammunition. Firing at marks, as the practice was called, was a common exercise in the months approaching a campaign season even in peace time; along with day-long marches carrying knapsacks, these activities helped insure the fitness of the soldier for whatever the service might require. In Boston, rafts with targets were placed in the water off of Boston Common (which at that time was on the shoreline; extensive filling has dramatically changed Boston's topography). The soldiers formed and each man took his turn firing at the targets.

Robert Vaughn was among the soldiers of the 52nd Regiment ordered to fire that day. He was a 9-year veteran of the 52nd, but needed to practice his marksmanship just like everyone else. When roll was called for the detachment formed for the firing exercise at 2 in the afternoon, however, Vaughn was missing. A sergeant of his company “went to examine his Necessary’s", that is, to see if Vaughn's shoes, shirts and stockings were properly packed into his knapsack in the barracks. When a soldier was missing, it was a standard practice to determine whether he had taken belongings with him; if he did, desertion was immediately suspected. The serjeant found that Vaughn's necessaries "were all gone except a few old Things.”

At about 6:30 that night, two sentries from the 23rd Regiment posted at a way leading to a ferry were approached by the fully-uniformed Vaughn. Vaughn called out to some boatman and inquired for someone. The sentries told him he ought to go home; Vaughn claimed to have a pass to be out until ten o'clock, and had no cause to go until then. He claimed to be looking for a ferryman who was an acquaintance, and finally attempted to pass the sentries and go to the ferry. The sentries stopped him and after some more discourse Vaughn, apparently very drunk, “placed himself against a Post, and soon dropt down as if Dead, and did not say any thing more.” The sentries called for assistance and other soldiers took Vaughn to the officer of the guard.

There is a popular misconception that British uniforms did not have pockets. That they did in fact have them is proven by cases like Vaughn's; when a deviant soldier was taken to the guard is was standard procedure to search his pockets for stolen goods or for extra clothing that signified an intention to desert. When the officer of the guard searched Vaughn's coat pockets “two pair of Stockings was found, and on opening his Waistcoat to give him Air, a clean Shirt was found tied round his Waist.” The officer then searched the pockets of Vaughn’s breeches but found nothing in them.

Vaughn was tried the next day by a general court martial. Among the questions asked by the court was whether Vaughn’s necessaries had been examined recently before he was taken, to which the sergeant replied that they had; it was therefore clear that things were missing. Vaughn, in his defense, offered that he was “so much in Liquor, that he has not the least rememberance of what he was about, that he had not any intention to desert.” Hoping to win the favor of the court, he also pointed out that he had “been a long time in the Service, and at several Sieges.”

To support his claims Vaughn called on an officer from another regiment as a character witness; presumably Vaughn has served with this officer, Lieutenant Thomas Hewetson of the 59th Regiment, at some time earlier in his career. It was a poor of witnesses; Hewestson testified only that “the great length of time which has elapsed, since the Prisoner says he serv’d in the same Corps with him, has entirely remov’d any recollection at all of the Prisoner.”

The court found Vaughn guilty of desertion and sentenced him to the maximum penalty, death. Even though Vaughn was absent only for a matter of hours and was drunk when apprehended, the court no doubt looked on the methodical way in which he concealed his spare clothing, along with his attempt to get to a ferry, as proof that he was trying to leave the British garrison. Vaughn’s sentence was quickly approved, and General Thomas Gage, commanding the army in Boston, ordered on 8 March that it be “put in execution to morrow morning at seven o'Clock, by shooting the Prisoner Robert Vaughan to death by a platoon of the Regiment to which he belongs. The place of execution to be near the water below the Guard on the common.”

That night at around 9, however, in one of the many acts of clemency shown after capital sentences, the announcement was made that “The Execution of Robert Vaughan, private soldier in the 52nd Regiment, is respited till further orders.” Vaughn was fully pardoned a few days later. The death sentence was supposed to deter desertion, and remitting it was expected to endear the soldiery to their commander. The ineffectiveness of this gestured was immediately apparent, for on 14 March, less than a week after staying Vaughn’s execution, Gage notified the army that:

The Commander in chief flattered himself that the instance of mercy shewn Robert Vaughan of the 52nd Regiment would be the most eligible means to bring the soldiers to a sence of their duty to their King and Country, and to reflect more seriously on the sin they Committed in deserting the service of both; He is greatly mortified to find that clemency is so little regarded, and assures the Regiments that this is the last man he will pardon who shall be condemned for desertion.

Being sentenced to death and then pardoned certainly seems to have had an effect on the veteran soldier Robert Vaughn, but not the desired effect. On 21 April, just over a month after his pardon and days after the outbreak of hostilities, he deserted again, this time never to be apprehended.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Robert Nun, 43rd Regiment of Foot

Many of the vignettes presented here are drawn from the proceedings of British military courts. These documents, rich in details on the minor events that did not change history but which were the substance of the lives of those who lived it, survive in manuscript form at the National Archives of Great Britain, and are available on microfilm at the David Library of the American Revolution. Today, instead of distilling one of these cases into a story, we'll present the complete text of a trial. Some details of the handwritten manuscript do not lend themselves to the formatting conventions available on this forum, but we'll present the complete text including the original spelling and abbreviations.

The accused soldier was Robert Nun (or Nunn) of the 43rd Regiment of Foot. He was recruited after the war began, and joined his regiment in Rhode Island in 1777. Two years later, for strategic reasons, the British chose to evacuate their garrison in Rhode Island and return the troops there to New York. The 22nd, 38th and 43rd Regiments were the only British regulars remaining by October 1779, along with several regiments of Germans and Loyalists.

When British regiments stayed in one play for an extended period, then moved elsewhere, an interesting phenomenon usually occurred: the rate of desertion increased. We can ascribe this to two possible reasons. Some soldiers probably developed local attachments that they did not wish to leave, while others who were discontent with military service saw the regiment's movement as an opportunity to desert with less likelihood of being caught. Robert Nun literally made a break for it on the very day that the 43rd was preparing to embark, the last day of the British occupation. The proceedings of his trial reveal many interesting details of military culture, but leave ample room for discussion of Nun's actual thoughts and motivation:


At a General Court Martial, held at New York on Wednesday the 26th Jany & continued by Adjournment to Saturday 11th March 1780 by Virtue of a Warrant bearing date the 25th Jany from His Excellency Sir Henry Clinton, Knight of the most Honorable 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.

Major John Small of His Majesty’s 84th Regt. of Foot, President

Members: Major James Cousseau 37th Reg; Major David Furguson 43d Regt.; Capt. Thos. Brady R. Artillery; Capt. William Farquhar 20th Regt; Capt. Stephen Cook 37th Regt.; Capt. Alexr McDonald 76th Regt.; Capt. David Anstruther 42d Regt.; Capt. Willm Richardson 43d Regt.; Lt. John Robertson 42d Regt.; Lt. Norman McLeod 42d Regt.; 1st Lt. Francis Laye R. Artillery; 2d Lt. Charles Frazer 23d Regt.

Ensn. Mathew Wood of His Majesty’s 64th Regt. Foot Deputy Judge Advocate

The President Members and Judge Advocate being duly Sworn.

Robert Nunn, private soldier in His Majesty’s 43rd Regiment of Foot, was brought prisoner before the Court and accused of Desertion, & the following Witnesses were examined in support of the Accusation Vizt.

Serjt. William McCoy of His Majesty’s 43d Regt. Foot being duly sworn, deposed that he knew the Prisoner to have received Pay & Cloathing as a Soldier in the said Regiment, that on the 25th of October last when the regiment was going to Embark at Rhode Island, the Roll was called by a Corporal, who found that the Prisoner was absent, upon which he (the Corporal) reported him to the witness, that he (the Witness) was ordered to go & search for him, & that about three quarters of a Mile from the Encmapment he saw the Prisoner go up from behind some Bushes in his shirt sleeves, & run away, upon which he (the witness) pressed an Inhabitant to go with him; that they pursued him and secured him.
Q. (by the Court) Was the prisoner in Liquor?
A. He did not seem to him to be in liquor.
Q. Did the Prisoner carry off his Arms or Accoutrements?
A. He carried off his Accoutrements.

Serjeant Luke Touridge of the 43d Regiment of Foot, being duly sworn deposed that he knew the Prisoner to have received pay & Cloathing, as a Soldier in the 43rd Regiment & that on the 25th Octr. Last the Serjeant Major went to him (the Witness) and desired him to take a file of Men and go in search of the Prisoner; that he accordingly went, & as he was jumping over a Stone Wall he saw a Coat Waistcoat, & a Hat laying under the Wall; the hat he knew to be the prisoners; that he went up to Serjt. McCoy (who had been likewise ordered to go in search of the Prisoner) and desired him to proceed further into the brushy Wood; that they separated in the Wood & scour’d it and some little time afterwards he (the Witness) heard a Shouting, upon which he ran out of the Wood & saw the Prisoner running away in his shirt sleeves, and Serjt. McCoy with his party running after the Prisoner; the Witness further says that he did not see the Prisoner after that time till he was brought back Prisoner.
Q. (by the Court) Did he carry off his Arms or Accoutrements?
A. He carried off his Accoutrements.

Christopher Willow, private soldier in the 43d Regiment Foot being duly sworn, deposed that he was one of the party that was ordered to go with Serjt. McCoy in search of the Prisoner on the 25th Octr. Last; that about three quarters of a Mile from the Encampment he saw the prisoner in a field without his hat, Coat or Waistcoat on, that upon the Prisoners seeing the Party, he ran away; upon which they pursued him, & the Serjt. pressed an Inhabitant to go with them, that they soon came up with him, & secured him; that upon his (the Witness) coming up to the Prisoner he had a Stone in one hand, and a Knife in the other, but that he immediately threw down the Stone and put the Knife in his Pocket, & gave himself up, without making any resistance.
Q. (by the Court) Did the prisoner carry off any of his Arms or Accoutrements?
A. He carried off his pouch & Waistbelt.
Q. What sort of a Knife was it the prisoner had in his hand?
A. A common Clasp Knife.
Q. Did the Inhabitant come up with the Prisoner first?
A. Yes.
Q. What distance was he (the Witness) from the Prisoner, when he first saw the Inhabitant with him?
A. About an hundred Yards.
Q. Could he (the Witness) see the Prisoner when the Inhabitant first got up to him?
A. No, there was an Orchard between.

The Prisoner being put upon his Defence says that about a Week before the regiment Embarked at Rhode Island, Serjeant McCoy had struck him & used him very ill, upon which he went to Camp to complain to his Captain, who told him that he would see him righted, and that he had no occasion to go to the Commanding Officer; that he was in liquor at the time that he went off & did not know what he was doing and begs the Mercy of the Court.

The Court having considered the Evidence for & against the Prisoner Robert Nunn, together with what he had to offer in his Defence, is of Opinion that he is Guilty of the Crime laid to his Charge in a breach of the first Article of the Sixth Section of the Articles of War, & doth therefore sentence him to receive One thousand Lashes on his bare back with Cats of nine Tails.

John Small, Majr Comdg 2d Battn 84th Regt of Highlanders, President.
Mattw. Woodd Deputy Judge Advocate

Approved, Wm. Tryon M. G.
Confirmed HClinton


We lack certain information on whether or not Nun received the full punishment that he was sentenced. If he wasn't discontent with the army before, the harrowing experience of awaiting punishment probably influenced him even if, like many soldiers under sentence of corporal and capital punishment, he was subsequently pardoned.

Whether Nun had planned his desertion attempt or was in fact out of his senses, he seems to have learned something from the experience. In May 1781 the 43rd Regiment again embarked on transports, this time to voyage from New York to Virginia to join Cornwallis's army. But, on the day of embarkation, Robert Nun deserted once again; we've found no record of him being caught this time.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Daniel McCarty, 22nd Regiment of Foot

I have done a poor job of responding to comments on this blog. Please don't let that stop you from commenting, though - your feedback is welcome and interesting. One reader asked for more information about the Rhode Island hospital garden mentioned in the installment about James McGregor of the 22nd Regiment. There are some details on the garden and the produce it yielded in my book General Orders: Rhode Island which gives a detailed picture of military activities during one year of a British garrison. An in-depth look at the variety of considerations given to the health of British soldiers can be found in period textbooks on the subject.

Another interesting detail about the Rhode Island garrison also comes from the general orders. Soon after the garrison was established, a newspaper began publication under the name of The Newport Gazette. This paper was the work of John Howe, who had published the Massachusetts Gazette until Boston was evacuated in March 1776. Well before the inaugural issue of that paper in the early months of 1777, in fact only a week after the British landed on the island, the army sought a capable man from within the ranks, presumably to operate presses left behind by the Newport printer who had chosen to flee the British occupation:

14 Decr. 1776
If there are Soldiers in any British Regiment who understand the Printing Business, they are to be sent to Lieut. Col. Campbell in Newport.

Probably the soldier would print notices to be posted around the town, but I wonder if the soldier-printer helped John Howe with the newspaper. I thought I had found the soldier in Daniel McCarty of the 22nd Regiment. This young Irishman, born in Cork in 1757, enlisted in the 22nd Regiment in late 1775 or early 1776. At the end of the occupation of Rhode Island, he was transferred briefly into the regiment's grenadier company, and then into the light infantry - a rare but not unprecedented move. He was in the light infantry during the 1780 siege of Charleston, South Carolina, but for some reason as yet unknown he was not with the company when it was made prisoners of war at Yorktown the following year. At the end of the war he received a discharge but reinlisted; after returning to Great Britain, however, he was once again discharged.

McCarty received a pension in 1784 due to a bad leg (perhaps this was the reason he was not on the Yorktown campaign); he also received 1 pound 12 shillings in prize money as his share of the goods seized at Charleston. Rather than subsist strictly on his pension, however, he enlisted again in the 77th Regiment of Foot, taking his final discharge and rejoining the pension rolls in 1788.

When I first found McCarty's name on a list of pensioners, his occupation caught my eye: he was a printer - or was he a painter? The faint image on the microfilm made it difficult to read the cursive writing, and the writing style left only a slight difference between the two possible words. I hoped he was a printer, and that he assisted John Howe in creating the newspapers that have provided me much rich detail on the activities and culture of the Rhode Island garrison.

The original manuscript of the pension list would probably be clear enough to discern McCarty's trade with certainty. As it happened, though, I did not need to look at it. Another collection of documents also includes McCarty's name and trade, and on this one the writing is clear. He was a painter. Also, a close examination of his career shows that he did not arrive in Rhode Island until December of 1777. His trade may have occasionally been useful for the army, but he certainly was not the man who started the presses for the British garrison in Rhode Island.

Friday, August 12, 2011

John Wallace, 76th Regiment of Foot

When it became clear that the war in America would not end quickly, the British government authorized several new regiments to be raised. Among the newly established regiments was the 76th Regiment of Foot, which recruited primarily from Scotland. During the rapid recruiting of this corps in late 1777 and early 1778, a 26 year old baker from the town of Kelso nestled in the southeast of Scotland at the confluence of the Teviot and Tweed rivers. Although from a lowland region, he had apparently resettled farther north in the highland county of Sutherland where he had a little property, a house and a garden. He was literate at least to the extent that he was able to write his own name. Why a man in such a situation would join the army is not known; he may have been enthusiastic about serving Great Britain, influenced by a local officer who knew him and encouraged him, or simply compelled to go along with others in his area.

By the summer of 1781, the 76th was on service in America, part of the army under General Cornwallis operating in Virginia along the banks of the James River. On 6 July they began the complex operation of moving the army across the river. Wallace was part of a detachment of about 20 men from the 76th and 80th Regiments posted in the rear of the army, charged with protecting the army during the delicate river crossing.

In the afternoon the picket was attacked by a substantial force from an American army commanded by the Marquis de Lafayette. The British hoped to convince the Americans that most of Cornwallis's army had already crossed the river and that the rear guard was vulnerable. This meant that the little piquet guard of Scottish soldiers was not reinforced. They fought desperately for about two hours, expending 50 rounds. The subaltern officer commanding the detachment was wounded; an officer who replaced him was wounded, and then a third. When they finally withdrew, John Wallace was one of only a few who escaped unscathed. The engagement escalated into the battle of Green Spring; the Americans were driven from the field, and Cornwallis's army moved on to establish a fateful encampment at Yorktown.

Soon after the army arrived at Yorktown in August 1781, violent thunderstorms roiled through the area. A few soldiers were killed. James Wallace, after surviving the gallant stand at Green Spring, was wounded by nature's wrath. A lightning strike caused him to lose an eye. So it was that he returned from America as a wounded soldier, albeit not wounded in battle.

When he arrived at this home in the Highlands of Sutherland, he learned that friends had, in his absence, "disposed of his little property, a house & garden." He went to a town to work at his trade as a baker, but his other eye soon began to dim, perhaps from the strain caused by the loss of the first. Unable to see well enough to earn a living at the age of only 33, he turned to the government for relief. He applied for an out pension, and was able to support his case with an affidavit signed by a general officer who was familiar with his brave service at Green Spring. His application was granted, providing this young old soldier a modest income for the rest of his life.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Benjamin Reynard, 37th Regiment of Foot

Army muster rolls in general provide an overview of each soldier's career, allowing each man to be traced (in six-month intervals) from the time that he joined his regiment to the time he left it. Occasionally, however, a soldier enigmatically appears on the rolls without any indication of where he came from, and sometimes men disappear from the rolls with no explanation of where they went. Benjamin Reynard, a grenadier in the 37th Regiment of Foot provides an example of both of these nuances.

Reynard served in America, but it is not clear when he joined the army or arrived on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean. He first appears on the roll of the grenadier company covering the period 25 December 1777 through 24 June 1778. Most men who joined grenadier or light infantry companies had served for at least a year in other companies of the regiment (there were occasional exceptions, particularly for men who had prior military experience). There is no annotation on this roll that he joined the company during that muster period, and no trace of him on the rolls of other companies during preceding periods. Admittedly, more detailed analysis might resolve this mystery; sometimes there are significant changes in the ways that names are spelled from one roll to another, and sometimes even the man's first name changes (for example, there's a chance that Benjamin Reynard is the 'Thomas Raynor' who appears on the prior roll of the same company), but determining this requires careful tracing of all of the names on the rolls, a long and tedious process.

Reynard continues on the rolls of the grenadier company of the 37th Regiment through August of 1783. At that time, the regiment was reorganized due to force reductions at the end of the war; the strength was reduced from ten companies to eight, and many men were discharged. Reynard appears on a set of rolls covering the period 24 June through 24 August (an unusual muster period), but is absent from the subsequent roll covering 25 August through 24 December. Again, it is possible that his name is not obvious because of spelling permutations, but the spelling is very consistent on all of the interim rolls.

Although we lack career details on Reynard that we have for most soldiers, there survives a record of a personal vignette during Reynard's American service, something we lack for most soldiers. At the beginning of June 1779 the grenadier battalion that included his company was part of an expedition that fortified posts on the Hudson river north of New York city including Stony Point on the west shore and Verplanck's Point on the east shore. They camped in wigwams made of brush, a typical practice for the British army in America. On 4 June they fired a salute in honor of the King's birthday.

At about 10 AM on 5 June, Reynard asked his serjeant for leave to go outside of the camp to gather greens, which was granted. He took a haversack with him, and after about an hour returned to camp with the haversack full of dock greens and other wild greens. At noon he fell in for a formation.

Later that day or the next day, a local inhabitant named Mary Baker claimed that some soldiers had come to her house about two miles from the camp at around 11 in the morning of 5 June. She had an inventory of things that they had plundered which included "shirts, and a quantity of wearing Apparel." She identified Reynard as one of the perpetrators, and claimed that he had also killed a pig of hers and made off with it.

Reynard was put on trial for this crime on 7 June. Mary Baker was the only witness supporting the charge. Reynard claimed that he was away from the camp with leave but had not gone far and had only gathered greens. His serjeant and another grenadier both testified in his support, corroborating his story. Both testified that they were in the same mess as Reynard, that is, they prepared their food and dined together; this explained their explicit interest in having seen the greens that Reynard gathered, and both said that Reynard had nothing else with him when he returned to camp. (Typically a mess consisted of 5 men; military authors of the era recommended that serjeants and soldiers mess separately, so the testimony in this trial indicates either that this company of the 37th did not heed these recommendations or that the size and composition of messes varied while the army was on campaign).

In a striking verdict, which is perhaps yet another mystery about Reynard, the military court found him guilty of the crime. Apparently they gave greater significance to the testimony of the injured party than to Reynard and his two comrades. There is no mention in the trial proceedings of how Mary Barker singled out Reynard, but there are other accounts of soldiers being paraded so that wronged inhabitants could recognize an offender in the ranks. It is possible that the officers who sat on the court were privy to information that was not explicitly presented at the trial. It also may be that the court wanted to set an example to stave off plundering by other soldiers.

Benjamin Reynard was sentenced to received 1000 lashes. We have no information on the extent to which this punishment was inflicted. Sometimes soldiers who were severely punished, particularly on dubious evidence, deserted, but not this one. As described above, Reynard continued to serve through the end of the war.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Samuel and William Tuffie, 44th Regiment of Foot

British soldiers were, for the most part, volunteers; there was no compulsory service, and pressing men was legalized for only a brief period during the war and was not particularly successful. There was, nonetheless, a particular group of men who were explicitly termed 'volunteers' in the army. These were young men who had reasonable expectations of becoming officers, and served without commissions while waiting for a commission to become vacant. A vacancy did not insure commission; the commander of the regiment and ultimately the King himself had to approve commissions, and this required a measure of influence. It was also often necessary to purchase the commission. The purchase system is often criticized as a poor system for choosing officers, but this criticism is overblown and often out of context. The cost of the commission was a surety against poor performance. When he retired from the service, an officer could recoup his investment in commissions and have a tidy sum for his retirement, while an officer who failed to do his duty could be punished by being cashiered, that is, being discharged from service and forfeiting his commission. Men who had the money still had to obtain approval for purchase, which provided a safeguard against money being the sole qualification. Young men seeking to enter the army seldom had their own funds but instead had to get the sponsorship of a wealthy individual whose investment they were obliged to protect by serving well. Although there are instances of unqualified men becoming officers by purchase, for the most part the system worked well.

It meant that not all volunteers obtained commissions quickly, and some never did. A confusing aspect of the service of volunteers is that they sometimes, but not always, appear on the muster rolls among the ranks of private soldiers. There is no way to distinguish them unless other information is available. This makes it challenging to discern whether the occasional private soldier who rose through the ranks and obtained a commission was an outstanding commoner who had impressed his superiors or a young gentleman who had volunteered and eventually obtained a rank to which he'd always had legitimate aspirations.

A case in point is Samuel Tuffie. His father, John Tuffie, had been a serjeant in the regiment before being appointed Quarter Master in 1776 at the age of 32. This was a fairly common career path, and often represented the highest rank that such a man achieved; John Tuffie remained quarter master of the 44th Regiment until his death "after a short illness" 1794.

As a career soldier, John Tuffie had a family with him in the regiment including two sons, Samuel and William. Samuel appears among the private soldiers in the regiment on the first muster rolls that we have on hand from January 1775. At this time he was only about 11 years old; he certainly was not doing duty as a soldier, but there is nothing on the rolls to distinguish him as a volunteer. He was appointed drummer in February 1776, a roll more consistent with his age (although many drummers were adult men who served long careers in that capacity). Only because he wrote a memorial in 1782 seeking a commission, supported by a memorial from the commanding officer of the 44th, do we know that he was born in the army and son of John Tuffie.

Samuel Tuffie did not get the ensigncy in the 44th Regiment that the commanding officer had petitioned for because his father was "a very deserving man, has been a number of years in the Service with a Character unblemish’d & esteem’d by all the Officers of the Regt." Instead, he received a similar rank in a Loyalist regiment, Butler's Rangers. This regiment was disbanded the following year when the war ended, but Samuel's commission earned him a place on the half-pay list, a sort of reserve status that offered greater hopes of re-entering the army when an opportunity arose. That opportunity came in 1787 when he finally became an Ensign in the 44th Regiment.

William Tuffie was four years younger than Samuel, having been born in 1768. He too appears on the muster rolls of the 44th; he 'enlisted' in May 1775, and like his brother was appointed Drummer in February 1776. He was, however, discharged in April 1778 and does not appear again on the muster rolls during the war years. He nonetheless received an ensign's commission in the 44th 1791.

By 1796 the 44th Regiment was serving in the lethal climate of the West Indies. William Tuffie, by this time a Captain, was wounded in battle on St. Lucia in April. His older brother Samuel, having advanced only to Lieutenant, died of illness that same year.