Prisoner of War: John Buchanan, 9th Regiment of Foot

The story of General John Burgoyne's ill-fated 1777 campaign is well known, for it resulted in the capitulation of a substantial British army. The prisoners of war were marched to hastily-built barracks outside of Boston, expecting to be sent back to Great Britain. Among them was a corporal in the 9th Regiment of Foot named John Buchanan. Among his comrades in the 9th were corporal Roger Lamb who chronicled the regiment's two years of campaigning in America, and corporal Samuel Reeves.

Tensions ran high between the British prisoners, the American soldiers who guarded them, and the local populace. It didn't help that the British prisoners were crowded into decrepit barracks in cold weather, had nothing to occupy their time, and were guarded by local militia who did not have the professional acumen that they were accustomed to as soldiers. Among many incidents, in December 1777 John Buchanan was confined to the guard house for insulting a local inhabitant and Samuel Reeves was confined for insulting an American officer.

On 19 December the commander of the American troops guarding the prisoners, Colonel David Henley ordered those prisoners who were confined for various infractions paraded so that he could review their cases. Buchanan, Reeves and a few other confined prisoners were brought out of the guard house. Other British soldiers gathered to see what was going on. Henley, on horseback, asked the paraded prisoners one at a time why they had been confined. Henley was already unpopular with the British prisoners because of his volatile temper, and his discourse with Reeves quickly got out of hand. Reeves said that he did not recognize the man he'd insulted as an officer, or he would not have done so. Henley called him a rascal, and Reeves retorted that he was not a rascal but a good soldier, and hoped soon to be able to prove it when free to fight again for his king and country. This so enraged Henley that he ordered a sentry to run Reeves through with his bayonet. When the sentry hesitated, Henley dismounted his horse, seized the sentry's firelock and thrust the bayonet at Reeves' breast. Buchanan grabbed the firelock, but not in time to prevent Reeves receiving a slight puncture wound. Reeves continued to argue in spite of his wound, but Buchanan and the other soldiers managed to separate him from Colonel Henley. Reeves and Buchanan were ordered back to the guard house and the other prisoners were dismissed. Buchanan was told that he would be released after writing an apology to the inhabitant that he had insulted.

Apparently Buchanan wrote the apology and was released but just a couple of weeks later, on 8 January 1778, he was attempting to cross a bridge near the prisoners' barracks when he encountered Colonel Henley and another officer. Buchanan presented a pass, but Henley examined it and determined that it was

not written for Buchanan but for another man. Henley ordered a corporal and two soldiers to take charge of Buchanan and take him to the guard house in the prison compound, setting in motion a series of events that very nearly turned riotous.

A large party of American militia was marching past the British barracks. About sixty of the British prisoners gathered to watch them march by; they crowded close to the road so that it was difficult for the American soldiers to pass. In the crowd, one British soldier inadvertently stepped on the foot of Thomas Tragget (or Tredgett) of the 24th Regiment. Tragget cried out with an epithet. One of the American soldiers, thinking that Tragget was taunting them, lunged at Tragget and stabbed him with a bayonet. As Tragget and other soldiers protested, the militia man stabbed Tragget a second time, then hit him once with the butt of his firelock. The wounds were not dangerous, and within a few days Tragget was on the mend.

Soon after, the three American guards escorting John Buchanan approached the guard house. This caught the attention a British soldier who ran over and started talking to Buchanan. Unaccountably, the guards allowed the British prisoner to walk alongside Buchanan conversing with him. Moments later, they came upon the growing crowd of prisoners that was already agitated from the stabbing of Tragget.

The British prisoners crowded around Buchanan and the three guards. As the guard party attempted to push through, a British soldier slipped beside Buchanan, and suddenly took his place as Buchanan slipped into the crown. Other prisoners held onto the coat tails of the guards, preventing them from immediate pursuit.

Attempting to follow Buchanan, the guards pushed into the crowd with charged bayonets as the British soldiers cheered. Thomas Willson of the 9th Regiment, confronted with a guard's bayonet, parried when suddenly the other guard stabbed Willson in the left side. Buchanan, though, had made good his escape.

Colonel Henley, on foot this time, led a dozen or so soldiers in to disperse the British prisoners and restore order. The soldiers loaded their firelocks and Henley ordered the British prisoners to disperse. The crowd was thick by now, and the men did not move off quickly enough to satisfy Henley; he

cursed the scattering prisoners, and in his agitation stabbed Corporal Hadley of 9th Regiment in the side with such force as to bend his sword. Henley continued to shout at the dispersing prisoners, attempting to straighten his sword while threatening to run stragglers through. Several British and American soldiers received blows and minor injuries in the confused scuffling.

The British prisoners finally cleared the area and ordered was restored. Buchanan was at large among the scattered prisoners; when an American serjeant saw him and attempted to seize him, Buchanan's comrades blocked the serjeant's way, hustled Buchanan into a barracks and blocked the door. Colonel Henley, at the advice of one of his subordinates, chose not to further pursue Buchanan but instead to ask the senior British officer present to turn Buchanan in.

British officers paraded the prisoners, an American officer identified Buchanan, and he was taken away under guard. The next day he was tried by a British regimental court martial which heard testimony from American as well as British witnesses, and the British court sentenced Buchanan to fifty lashes. The next day, however, when the punishment was to be carried out, Buchanan was pardoned and set at liberty.

With three British prisoners stabbed in a single day, along with a number of minor injuries and the incidents of the preceding weeks, Colonel Henley's treatment of the prisoners was called into question by Major General John Burgoyne. Burgoyne demanded that Henley be brought before a court martial. The court sat from 20 January to 25 February, with Burgoyne himself in the roll of prosecutor. The full proceedings of the court were published and are available here. Burgoyne delivered summaries that made full use of his literary and dramatic talents, and many incidents of the preceding months were described in detail by British and American soldiers and officers.

Unfortunately, we know no more of John Buchanan. Muster rolls were not kept for the British regiments during the time that they were in captivity. He has yet to be discovered as having escaped and joined the ranks of another British regiment, or on the lists of men receiving pensions. He may have died in captivity, escaped and settled in America, or rejoined the British army in circumstances that have yet to be determined.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Phineas Baker and Henry Drennan, 38th Regiment

You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers. This guidance, familiar today, was also true in the 18th century; in fact, it may have been more true then than now. Period newspapers are outstanding sources of information filled with advertisements and notices that provide rich insight on the culture of a region, but the actual news that they contain is profoundly unreliable. Publishers relied heavily on accounts and hearsay brought to them by travelers and correspondents, and had no ability to verify (in a timely manner) much of what they published. During times of political unrest and war, exaggerated and fabricated information could be used to inflame the readership.

Captain Hugh Maginis of the 38th Regiment of Foot complained of this type of exaggerated reporting by American newspapers early in the war. In a letter to his brother in Ireland in December 1774, he wrote:

The people here and we are on bad terms, ready to cut on another’s throats. We often see here in the English papers accounts from America, not one of which contain a word of truth; they mention a great deal about the desertion from our troops, some are gone off, but not the tenth part of what they say, for our whole army, consisting of 105 companies, have not lost 120 men, although the people make use of every stratagem to make them desert, and supply them with horses and carriages to go off.

Maginis's complaint is proven legitimate by muster rolls. The ten companies in the 38th regiment had 20 desertions from the time of their arrival in Boston in June 1774 until the end of that year; they did not occur at a steady rate, but included 5 in July, 8 in September, and only one or two in each of the other months. Extrapolating to 105 companies yields a figure similar to Maginis's. Whether this was a high or low rate of desertion is a matter of perspective. It is notable that some men listed as having deserted before 19 April 1775 managed to rejoin the army later in the war and brought tales of having been coerced away or even kidnapped. It is difficult to determine whether these were factual reports or alibis designed to avoid punishment for desertion. After hostilities broke out in earnest on 19 April, desertion decreased significantly; the 38th regiment lost only 3 men to desertion from 19 April to the evacuation of Boston in March 1776. Whether the decrease was due to martial spirit or to the city being closed off from the countryside is debatable.

Continuing his thought about the local inhabitants' schemes to inveigle men away, Maginis described the exploits of two of his soldiers:

But I believe that will be a good deal stopped by the good behaviour of a young lad, a corporal in my company; he with another of the company went to a public-house, where they met some countrymen, who advised them to desert, and that they would supply them with disguises, that they might escape the easier, whereupon the corporal put on a disguise, stuffed his regimentals into one of the men’s saddle bags, and after settling their expedition, the countryman offered to take the corporal behind him, but he told him he could not ride without stirrups, so he got on the saddle, and took the countryman behind him, and set a galloping towards the nearest barrack, which, when the other observed, he leaped from behind him, and made his escape, swearing he would not wait to be shot, the corporal drove on to his own barrack with the whole prize, and no one dare to own the horse or cloaths; the corporal is thanked by the whole army, and the horse given up to him; there was no horse for the other, or he would have done the same. The corporal is one Baker, a Yorkshire-man; and the soldier’s name is Drenning a Heart of Steel from the county of Antrim.

There is one aspect of this account that casts doubt on it: the letter itself was published in a Dublin newspaper, the Hibernian Chronicle of 23 January 1775. Is this letter a piece of propaganda fabricated by the publisher or a legitimate record of an event in Boston?

It is plausible for a letter dated 14 December 1774 to have arrived in Dublin in time to have been fresh news for the 23 January 1775 newspaper, given that the journey from America to Britain was must faster than travel in the other direction. The veracity of the letter is further supported by the names that it provides, Corporal Baker and Private Drenning. The muster rolls of the 38th Regiment confirm that Phineas Baker was appointed corporal in Maginis's company on 20 August 1774, and that Henry Drennan was a private soldier in Maginis's company (variations of spelling are quite common among the names recorded on muster rolls and other documents).

The young and clever Corporal Phineas Baker whose exploit earned the praise of the army died on 17 July 1775 of wounds he received at the battle of Bunker Hill a month before. The steel-hearted Henry Drennan fared much better. The same battle that resulted in the death of his comrade created a vacancy that allowed Drennan to be appointed corporal (but not the same vacancy created by the death of Baker; Drennan was appointed only three days after the 17 June battle). Five months later he became a serjeant. When a cadre of officers and men was sent to Great Britain in December 1775 for recruiting, Serjeant Drennan was among them. He remained on this service for the entirety of the war, and took his discharge in August 1784.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Henry Pickles, 43rd Regiment of Foot

Sometimes we have just enough information about a soldier to leave us wondering why there isn't more. Such is the case with Henry Pickles, private soldier in the 43rd Regiment of Foot. He was already in the regiment at the beginning of 1773, the earliest date for which we have copies of muster rolls on hand. With his regiment he came to Boston in 1774, continued on to the New York campaign in the Autumn of 1776 and then to Rhode Island at the end of that year. It was in Rhode Island that he did something so distinguished that the commander of the garrison mentioned him by name in general orders, a very rare distinction for a private soldier.

The three-year occupation of Rhode Island by British forces is largely overlooked in histories of the war because it did not have any obvious effect on the overall course of the conflict. An abortive Anglo-French attempt to retake the island sometimes gets attention because it culminated in the 29 August 1778 battle that was among the largest of the war in terms of numbers of troops involved. Otherwise one could easily get the impression that Rhode Island was a sleepy backwater bypassed by the war raging in other regions.

For the soldiers serving in the Rhode Island garrison, this was hardly the case. The British, German and Loyalist soldiers on the island were separated from their adversaries by waterways that were quite narrow in some places, and the sea-savvy New England soldiers manning the mainland posts were able to make frequent night time raids on the island. The active petit guerre caused frequent alarms and small engagements that forced the garrison to be in a constant state of vigilance.

On 21 February 1777, an American galley called the Spitfire supported a party of American troops that landed on the island, the second landing that week. The Spitfire exchanged fire with British artillery for some six hours before drawing away heavily damaged. The raiders secured a quantity of oats and hay, forage that sounds insignificant but which was important for the British garrison that was unable to receive provisions from mainland farms.

Three weeks later on the night of 13-14 March, the Spitfire was passing through the narrows at Bristol Ferry, today the site of the Mount Hope Bridge. Movements like these were usually done at nice to minimize the danger of detection by British sentries, but nighttime navigation was itself hazardous. The Spitfire ran aground. British artillery crews, supported by soldiers on temporary service with the gunners, were highly adept at rapid deployment of their field artillery pieces and had strategically positioned them where they could be moved to repel landings. The immobilized American galley presented an excellent opportunity to use this capability, and field pieces were moved to the shore to engage the Spitfire.

Realizing the hopelessness of their situation, the crew of the galley abandoned it and made for the safety of the Bristol shore. Although the vessel was now defenseless against the British artillery, the solid iron ball and shot fired by these guns could damage the ship but not destroy it completely. Being aground already, it could not be sunk. It was essential to deprive the Americans of a valuable hull that could be refitted, so complete destruction was essential. The galley had to be burned.

Rather than wait for boats to be brought to the scene (boats were scare along the shoreline, because they could too easily be used for clandestine activities), a British private soldier took action. Henry Pickles went into the water and swam to the galley. The exact location of the grounded vessel is not known, but this swim could have been as much as a half-mile in an area with significant currents. We also do not know whether Pickles set fire to the galley himself, or brought a line that was used to haul it closer to the British shore. Either way, the Spitfire was consumed by fire and completely destroyed.

The next day, general orders given to the garrison read as follows:

Lord Percy thanks Captain Brady and the British Artillery that destroyed the Rebel Galley yesterday. He also desires that Henry Pickles, Private soldier in his Majestys 43d Regiment may be informed that he is extreamly pleased with his spirited conduct, in Swiming on Board the Galley

For a soldier to be named in orders promulgated to the entire garrison was extremely unusual. It did not, however, mean that Henry Pickles' was destined for a remarkable future in the army; in fact, we know very little more about him except what the muster rolls tell us.

He was transferred to the light infantry company of the 43rd Regiment at the end of 1777, which shows that he was a spirited and active soldier. For reasons unknown, he was soon transferred back to the battalion, so soon that he never actually appears on the rolls of the light company. This could have been for health reasons, or because the battalion wished to retain him for some reason (at this time, the light infantry company was in Philadelphia while the battalion was in Rhode Island). At the end of 1779, after Rhode Island was evacuated and the entirety of the 43rd Regiment was in the New York area, Pickles was again transferred to the light infantry. This assignment took him on several expeditions to the southward including the siege of Charleston, South Carolina and the campaign led by Benedict Arnold around Petersburg, Virginia. It also took him to Yorktown, Virginia in 1781 where he became a prisoner of war along with the rest of the British forces under General Cornwallis.

The final annotation concerning Henry Pickles is deceptive; he is listed as having deserted on 1 July 1783. A peace treaty had been signed, and prisoners of war were repatriated. British prisoners were given the opportunity to join the British garrison in New York, but many failed to arrive. As an administrative expedient, all of the prisoners whose fate was unknown were written off on the muster rolls as deserters. Henry Pickles may have settled in America, he may died in captivity or as a escapee, or he could have made his way to a British garrison in Canada or the West Indies and joined another regiment without this information having made its way back to New York. The actual fate of this soldier who had one day of distinction remains unknown.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Employed soldier: Joseph Harrison, 22nd Regiment

A reader asked, if the army was able to employ soldiers such as John Hopwood the butcher, tailors John Watkins and Patrick Lenahan, and bakers William Bayliss and John Lewis, then why were there soldiers competing with civilians for jobs in Boston in 1769 and 1770, contributing to the unrest that culminated in the Boston Massacre? This is a good question. We don't have a definitive answer, but the best guess is that the army did not have enough jobs available to accommodate all of the soldiers who were willing and able to work.

Military books of the era made recommendations to officers about conditions under which soldiers should be allowed to work outside of the army. The popular work "A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Economy of a Battalion of Infantry" by Bennett Cuthbertson includes a chapter on the subject offering the guidance that non-military jobs must not interfere with a soldier's duties and that the soldier was not to work in his uniform. Especially clear from the recommendations is that it was normal and expected for soldiers to have second jobs when circumstances allowed it - not unlike today's military.

This adds an interesting and overlooked dimension to the subject of a soldier's pay. Much is made in literature of the meager pay of 8 pence per day, from which stoppages were made to pay for food, clothing, medical care and other amenities. This pay, however, should be viewed not as the soldier's sole earning potential, but as his base pay. We have seen examples of soldiers with trades being able to work for the army and will see more in future installments. Soldiers without trades also were given opportunities to work at military projects such as building roads, preparing and maintaining fortifications, cutting work, and numerous other activities.

How much could a soldier earn at a military job? An excellent and striking example is Joseph Harrison, a soldier in the 22nd Regiment of Foot. Born in 1736, he had acquired no skilled trade by the time he joined the army in 1755. By 1782 he was a corporal.

For a period of 35 days in May and June 1782, he was among 7 men of the 22nd Regiment who, along with 7 men of the New Jersey Volunteers, worked on a boat a Paulus Hook, a British outpost of the New York garrison on the shore of New Jersey. The work these men did is not specified in the document that enumerates how they were paid, but the amount of money that they earned is significant. Each man earned 4 shillings per day, six times the base pay of a common soldier. Harrison and the other men of the 22nd Regiment each worked 18 days, and each earned a total of 3 pounds 12 shillings. This was equivalent to about four month's pay, and unlike the base wage there were no stoppages from it - it was all 'take home' pay.

Joseph Harrison was discharged after the regiment returned to Great Britain in early 1784, and received a pension. The pension rolls mention that he had a "Wounded left eye" but it is not known when or under what circumstances he received the wound.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Employed soldier: John Hopwood, 54th Regiment

Before presenting the brief story of a working soldier, let's take a moment to address a question related to our previous post on army widows. We have data that proves that some widows did not remarry immediately, but remained with their regiments and remarried a year or more later. Several people asked what these women did in the mean time that allowed them to remain affiliated with the army. I don't have an answer based on knowledge of any specific woman's career, but a likely answer can be deduced from information in my article on army women. Soldiers' wives were entitled to receive rations from the army, but not all wives were dependent upon those rations. We have direct information that some nurses drew rations through army hospitals, for example. It is also clear that women 'earned their bread' by working as sutlers and laundresses for the army, or by finding work outside of the army. Presumably, then, if a woman was in an established position and earning her own subsistence when her husband died there was no reason for the army to oust her just because she was a widow.

Soldiers, as we know, were also often employed by the army for duties other than the usual routine of carrying a musket. One such man was John Hopwood of the 54th Regiment of Foot. The native of Hutton, Yorkshire was born in 1743; he was discharged from the army in 1792 after 21 years of service, but we do not know whether this service was continuous; we do know that he joined the 54th Regiment before 1775 and served in it for the remainder of his career. If his entire career was in the 54th Regiment and was continuous, then he joined the army at the age of 28 - older than usual, but by no means unprecedented.

In an era where employment often began very young but military service did not usually begin until a young man had finished growing, some time in the late teens, most men had worked at some trade or another before becoming soldiers. John Hopwood was a butcher by profession. A statement on his discharge reveals that he worked in this capacity for the army and also reveals one of the many hazards that a career soldier faced. Hopwood had

lost the use of the two first fingers of his right hand occasioned by an accident when killing cattle for the use of the army in Septr 1778

This accident most likely occurred a few years later than the date written on the discharge. The muster rolls of the 54th Regiment show that James Hopwood was in the light infantry company of the regiment in 1778. The regiment was in Rhode Island from December 1776 through the middle of 1779, and unlike most regiments the light infantry and grenadier companies of the 54th remained with their regiment and were also in Rhode Island (operationally they were detached from the 54th, but they remained part of the Rhode Island garrison). Nothing in the muster rolls suggests that Hopwood was away from his company during this time.

The regiment served in the New York area for the remainder of the war, participating in the storming of Fort Griswold in Connecticut in September 1781, before removing to Canada in late 1783. Hopwood may have lost his fingers at any time during this garrison period. He was transferred from the light infantry into a battalion company in 1782, a common practice when a man was no longer in suitable physical condition to serve in a flank company; perhaps this transfer was the result of his accident. It is also possible that the discharge has the incorrect place, rather than date, of the accident.

John Hopwood put an X mark on his discharge rather than signing his own name. About 60% of the soldiers whos discharges survive signed their names, in spite of the conjecture that most soldiers were illiterate. In Hopwood's case, we don't know if was unable to write because of a lack of education or the loss of his fingers.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

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!