18th century | Author Suzanne Adair

Caps, Kerchiefs, and Common Sense

Posted on April 3, 2015 by suzanneadairApril 4, 2015

I admit to watching the Starz production of Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander, set in eighteenth-century Scotland, with one eye on the characters’ clothing. I’ve been a history buff and Revolutionary War reenactor for so long that I cannot help it. Hollywood revels in dressing actors for historical productions. However, we all know better than to believe that those costumes are completely accurate. Right?

Here’s the character Claire Randall out of doors. Most of her clothing is fairly accurate for the time period. However none of the three pieces around her neck and shoulders is correct. For an eighteenth-century woman in the out-of-doors, especially a woman who isn’t wearing a shawl, cape, or cloak, Claire is missing several very important articles of clothing. Common sense articles of clothing.

The bodices of eighteenth-century gowns tended to be low-cut, so a woman wore a neck kerchief for modesty when she left her home—and often when she was indoors. The neck kerchief came in several variations and could be worn outside the bodice or tucked into it. Outdoors, it protected a woman’s chest from exposure to cold and blistering sunlight. It also shielded her skin from the bites of disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes and ticks.

She wore a mobcap to cover most of her hair. The mobcap prevented the buildup of grease and dirt in her hair and kept the hair from having to be washed often. It also saved her from spending a lot of time fussing over her hair every day. Indoors, on certain occasions, she might opt out of wearing the mobcap. But when she went outside, the combination of the mobcap and a hat kept the sun out of her eyes and off the top of her head, and it acted as a barrier to those nasty bugs. In the winter, it helped keep her head warm.

I’ve reenacted in living history events in the summer and winter. The kerchief does protect my chest. The mobcap and hat do protect my head. Eighteenth-century people knew what they were doing by using all that clothing. People of Western cultures in the twenty-first century think nothing of Claire’s bare head and bare chest. However if she were truly in the eighteenth century, venturing outside without a neck kerchief and at least a mobcap would tell people that she’d lost her wits, or was sexually promiscuous, or both.

Enjoy those lovely “Outlander” costumes. But do remember to take them with a grain of salt.

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

The Blacksmith’s Daughter: On Sale for the First Time

Posted on October 24, 2014 by suzanneadairOctober 24, 2014

“A ripping good read!” — Ann Parker, author of The Silver Rush Mystery Series

The Blacksmith’s Daughter, stand-alone second book of my “Mysteries of the American Revolution” trilogy, is on sale for the first time through 26 October in the Kindle Store for 99 cents. Regular price $5.99. Please spread the word.

The patriots wanted her husband dead. So did the redcoats. She took issue with both.

In the blistering Georgia summer of 1780, Betsy Sheridan uncovers evidence that her shoemaker husband, known for his loyalty to King George, is smuggling messages to a patriot-sympathizing, multinational spy ring based in the Carolinas. When he vanishes into the heart of military activity, in Camden, South Carolina, Betsy follows him, as much in search of him as she is in search of who she is and where she belongs. But battle looms between Continental and Crown forces. The spy ring is plotting multiple assassinations. And Betsy and her unborn child become entangled in murder and chaos.

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

Flogging: A Common Form of Corporal Punishment in the 18th Century

Posted on October 4, 2014 by suzanneadairMay 5, 2015

Have you been watching the excellent adaptation of Diana Gabaldon’s historical novel, Outlander, on the Starz channel? I have, and I also belong to an Outlander Facebook discussion group. Since my first book was published, readers have told me that my series appeals to fans of Gabaldon’s books because of certain settings and themes. Redcoats, war, 18th century, amoral characters, civilians in peril—hey, what’s not to like? So many interesting issues and points have emerged from the Outlander episodes that I’ve decided to explore some of them here on my blog.

*****

Early in season one of Outlander, viewers were shown the scarred back of character Jamie Fraser—the result of his being flogged with a cat-o’-nine-tails by a wacko, sadistic British officer. From all the research I’ve done into the American Revolution, I knew about the cat and the kind of damage it could do. Flogging permanently disfigured a person’s back. The makeup job done to actor Sam Heughan’s back to represent the scarring looked like what I expected, accurately depicting the traumatic damage.

But outrage, disbelief, and horror exploded in comments from members of the discussion group. Most had no idea that flogging with a cat could produce such trauma. Even after a flashback of the gruesome event was shown in episode six, the outrage, disbelief, and horror persisted. I wondered why there was such a disconnect about flogging.

Many people of my generation and earlier were spanked or “switched” if they were naughty children. That level of corporal punishment is mild compared to flogging, but if it’s a viewer’s only point of reference, the flogging in Outlander comes as a huge, horrific surprise. Also, in first-world countries, corporal punishment of children and criminals has been downplayed for several generations in favor of other forms of punishment.

Plus, in the last century, especially the first seven decades of the 20th century, I think that Hollywood’s depiction of “good guys” played a crucial role in the development of these mistaken beliefs about flogging. These Hollywood heroes had stiff upper lips when it came to pain and could unrealistically “take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’.” For all their trouble, villains seldom got more than a grunt out of these superhuman hero characters. The following two examples show you what I mean.

Errol Flynn portrayed many swashbuckling heroes on the Silver Screen. Here he is in the movie “Against All Flags.” His character, a Navy officer, is receiving twenty lashes on deck while the crew watches. It’s a ruse that his superiors concocted to convince everyone that he’s in disgrace so his reputation will precede him, and he can credibly infiltrate the villains’ operations. Aside from being a bit sweaty and emitting an occasional grunt of annoyance, Flynn’s character takes those twenty lashes in stride. He then moves on to getting dressed, hunting down the bad guys with sprightly energy, and (because he’s Errol Flynn) seducing a defiant and lovely woman. In reality, twenty lashes was a rather light sentence that might be delivered for minor crimes; often soldiers and sailors received at least fifty lashes. But those twenty would have torn the skin on a man’s back repeatedly. He’d have bled through his shirt, assuming he could have tolerated the pain of fabric rubbing his injured back. For several days afterward, he’d have been far too stiff and sore to gallivant around and seduce women, and he’d have carried scars from the flogging for the rest of his life.

Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are considered icons and hero figures almost five decades after the debut of classic Star Trek on primetime TV. This image, which provides excellent fodder for those who write slash fanfic, shows Kirk and Spock in a jail cell right after futuristic Nazis have flogged them in the episode “Patterns of Force.” To break the lock on their jail cell, Spock stands on Kirk’s freshly-flogged back so he can reach a light bulb and activate a laser-producing gizmo in his wrist. All Kirk does is grunt a little and kvetch about how the Nazis did a thorough job on his back. The two then escape the cell, beat up some Nazis who try to restrain them, and steal their uniforms. In reality, the “thorough job” any Nazi (c’mon, a Nazi, folks) would have done on Kirk and Spock would have resulted in shredded skin on their backs and incapacitation for both men.

Flogging with a cat-o’-nine-tails was a common, flexible punishment for 18th-century soldiers and sailors convicted of a wide range of infractions. The experience that men received from flogging varied, as the whip could also be made of leather, and the knots could contain sharp objects like metal spikes to inflict an additional level of damage.

Trained soldiers and sailors were a valuable military investment in the 18th-century, thus the desired outcome of flogging wasn’t usually the recipient’s death. That meant that often the flogging was delivered by a boy who didn’t have the upper body strength of a man. (Here’s an update/correction on that statement.) Floggings were usually made public. The recipient’s company mates were required to turn out and watch him be flogged. The experience bonded all of them in a grisly way. After a flogging, the man was far less likely to screw up again because his mates were keeping him in line—and keeping themselves in line. I show this briefly in chapter thirty-five of my book Camp Follower: A Mystery of the American Revolution.

One more point about flogging. While it was considered punishment, the flogging that Jamie Fraser received in Outlander also demonstrated the psychological effectiveness of torture—and I don’t just mean torture of Jamie. We’re used to thinking of most forms of torture as a way to get someone to divulge information, right? But torture is actually not too effective at that. Studies have shown that when people are tortured, they say anything to make the agony stop. Most of the time, the information they spill is useless.

So if the torture wasn’t just for Jamie (who actually withstood it and didn’t give the loco villain what he wanted), who was it for? It was for the townsfolk who were witnessing the flogging. If you watch the episode, notice their reactions. The villain turned the flogging into a weapon of terror and made it public to keep the civilians in line. And he delivered the flogging himself to give it a personal touch.

Flogging, corporal punishment in the #18thCentury, and #Outlander http://bit.ly/1rV2zSR #history #AmRev

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

Winners from the 2014 Week-Long Fourth of July

Posted on July 14, 2014 by suzanneadairJuly 13, 2014

Essayist: Lars D.H. Hedbor
Contribution: signed paperback set of the first three books in the author’s series
Winner: Lynn Demsky

Essayist: Helena Finnegan
Contribution: a $5 Amazon gift certificate
Winner: Sheila Ingle

Essayist: Dr. Christine Swager
Contribution: paperback copy of Musgrove Mill Historic Site
Winner: Tracy Smith

Essayist: David Neilan
Contribution: DVD of the South Carolina ETV program “Chasing the Swamp Fox”
Winner: Tate Jones

Essayist: Sheila Ingle
Contribution: paperback copy of Brave Elizabeth
Winner: Denise Duvall

Essayist: Jack Parker
Contribution: $10 discount certificate toward the purchase of a copy of Parker’s Guide to the Revolutionary War in South Carolina
Winner: Lars D.H. Hedbor

Essayist: Suzanne Adair
Contribution: winner’s choice of one title from author’s publications
Winner: Jenni Gate

Congratulations to all the winners!

Thanks to my wonderful essayists who contributed so much to this year’s program. Thanks, also, to everyone who visited and commented on the posts during the “Week-long Fourth of July.” Watch for another Relevant History post, coming soon.

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

Religious Diversity in America During the Revolution

Posted on July 9, 2014 by suzanneadairJanuary 13, 2024

Welcome to my blog! The week of 2 July – 9 July, I’m participating with more than one hundred other bloggers in the “Freedom to Read” giveaway hop, accessed by clicking on the logo at the left. All blogs listed in this hop offer book-related giveaways, and we’re all linked, so you can easily hop from one giveaway to another. But here on my blog, I’m posting a week of Relevant History essays, each one focused on some facet of the American War of Independence. To find out how to qualify for the giveaways on my blog, read through each day’s Relevant History post below and follow the directions. Then click on the Freedom Hop logo so you can move along to another blog. Enjoy!

*****

For two centuries, a number of myths have circulated about certain aspects of the American War of Independence. Other historians and I have debunked some of those myths in our writings. One worth examining for 21st-century Americans is the myth that the civilian population during the Revolution was made of zealous Protestants. You can see an example of that myth in the historically inaccurate movie “The Patriot,” with its imagery of an overly enthusiastic young woman recruiting men from a Protestant congregation into joining a militia against the redcoats.

Firebrand Protestants could definitely be found during the war. Britons sometimes referred to the American War as the “Presbyterian War.” But although a good number of people of the thirteen colonies and surrounding territories were Christians, they weren’t all Presbyterians or even Protestants. And the residents of America certainly weren’t all Christian.

Christianity in America during the Revolution
In Revolutionary America, Christianity was splintered into diverse sects that weren’t on the same page about how their faith should be interpreted and expressed. Probably the largest and most influential sects were Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians. In addition, there were groups of Puritans, Dutch Reformed, Quakers, Lutherans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, Eastern Orthodox, and English Roman Catholics. There were likely also groups of French Huguenots and Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian Catholics. Thus Christianity in Revolutionary America was by no means a unified religion.

Founding Fathers
Most of America’s founding fathers were Christian, but the religious persuasions of a few elude definition. “Deism” has been the label ascribed to the religious preferences of certain of America’s prominent founding fathers. In his book The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution, historian Gregg L. Frazer makes the case that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and several others were actually theistic rationalists—neither deists nor Christians.

Jews
A financial broker who helped fund the Continentals, Haym Solomon, an Ashkenazi Jew from Poland, is the most famous Jew associated with the American War of Independence. From the number of congregations in existence at the time of the war, Solomon must have been one of many Jews in America. The goals of the Congress appealed to most Jews because they’d been persecuted for centuries elsewhere in the world.

Muslims
On occasion, Africans captured for the slave trade proved to be literate Muslims who could transcribe the Quran from memory. Here are two examples provided by Daniel Dillard, a doctoral candidate in religion at Florida State University:

Job Ben Solomon Jallo (1701–1773), also known as Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, a Senegalese Muslim of aristocratic birth enslaved for a brief period in Maryland, composed three separate copies of the Quran solely from memory. Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori (1762–1829), also known as Abd ar-Rahman, the famous West African prince enslaved for 40 years in Mississippi, occasionally delighted audiences by telling them he was writing out ‘‘The Lord’s Prayer’’ in Arabic, when in actuality he had transcribed the first sura, or chapter, of the Quran, known as the fatiha.

George Sale translated the Quran into English, advertised it in American newspapers, and made it available in bookshops. As a result, a number of Americans during the Revolution owned copies of the Quran and were familiar with the Muslim religion.

Thomas Jefferson studied the Quran. It may have influenced his work on the Declaration of Independence.

Other Non-Christians
Native Americans engaged in various spiritual practices—monotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, animistic, or a combination of those. Indentured servants from the British Isles or Germany who were transported or took passage to better themselves brought with them folk religions in addition to Christianity. Captured Africans who weren’t Muslim contributed varied polytheistic religions to the mix, and those slaves who embraced Christianity in America didn’t always abandon their native religion.

A number of the nation’s founders left written records showing that they were comfortable with and supportive of faiths other than Christianity. Plus they’d seen the problems caused by state religions in other parts of the world. After the Treaty of Paris, for the good of the new country, they steered the development of the United States of America toward a government that would tolerate a variety of religions. Here are Thomas Jefferson’s famous words about religion and government:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

In America, religion-based hate crimes undermine the goal of religious diversity that the country’s founders sought. Such crimes destabilize the freedoms we enjoy today—freedoms that thousands of people purchased for us with their lives from 1775–1783 and in subsequent wars.

What do you think about the position of our founders on religious diversity? In what ways would America be different today had their position been less tolerant?

The 2014 “Week-long Fourth of July” wouldn’t have been possible without you or my talented guests: Lars D.H. Hedbor, Helena Finnegan, Dr. Christine Swager, David Neilan, Tim Osner, Sheila Ingle, and Jack Parker. What worlds can they open for you? Browse back through the posts. Look for their works. Then comment here on something you learned this week that made history relevant to you. Thanks for stopping by!

(Thanks to James Stewart, Thad Weaver, William Myers, and Martha Katz-Hyman for input on this essay.)

*****

…

…

Contribute a legitimate comment on this post by today at 6 p.m. ET to be entered in a drawing to win a copy of one of my books, the winner’s choice of title and format (trade paperback or ebook). Delivery is available worldwide. Make sure you include your email address. I’ll publish the names of all drawing winners on my blog the week of 14 July.

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

The Winning of the Revolution in South Carolina

Posted on July 8, 2014 by suzanneadairJuly 7, 2014

Relevant History welcomes Jack Parker, who was born in Pennsylvania, raised in Delaware, and has lived in Virginia, California, Colorado, and South Carolina. He earned a Bachelors Degree in Education and served four years in the U.S. Navy as an Asst. Navigator aboard the USS Spiegel Grove, then as Navigator and Executive Officer aboard the USS Pitkin County. After leaving the Navy, he moved to Colorado, rode and packed horses into the Gunnison Wilderness Area. He then spent five years living aboard a 43-foot yawl home ported in Charleston, SC, and taught several people to sail and live on the water. For more information, and to purchase Parker’s Guide to the Revolutionary War in South Carolina, check his web site.

*****

South Carolina was a leader in the Revolutionary War with many battles, skirmishes and murders. Parker’s Guide to the Revolutionary War in South Carolina was written to put the location with the “what happened there” for the actions in South Carolina, to educate those that believe the war was fought and won in the north. South Carolina was in the forefront of the war and the founding of our nation from the beginning.

The second edition of Parker’s Guide is the most complete publication on the Revolutionary War in South Carolina. The little-known events of the war in South Carolina are related here to inform everyone about the contribution of South Carolina in winning the Revolution.

One issue dividing the colonies from their motherland was that the British government required tax stamps for imported goods. On 18 October 1765, the ship Planters Adventure delivered the stamps to Fort Johnson, on James Island, where they were stored. The HMS Speedwell was stationed close to the fort on 23 October to deter an angry mob of citizens from Charleston. Two days later, the mob boarded the Carolina Packet that was thought to be carrying more stamps and the stamp officer, Mr. George Saxby, but he was not due until the next day. On 26 October, the Heart of Oak (built in Mt. Pleasant, SC) sailed into the harbor with Mr. Saxby aboard. That night, 150 volunteers from Charleston, commanded by Col. Daniel Stevens, captured twelve guards and a sergeant and took over the fort with the stamps. Upon the Speedwell sighting the “Liberty” flag of Patriot Christopher Gadsden instead of that of the British, a party was sent to the fort, where they were told the stamps must be removed from the fort and the province or they would be burned. Believing the Americans would not be deterred, the Speedwell removed the stamps and sailed out of the harbor. This action is often overlooked because it is prior to the Revolution’s accepted starting date, but is significant since it relates to the stamp problems in New England.

A Patriot, Dr. John Haley, killed Peter DeLancey, a prominent New York Tory, in a duel at a Charleston tavern. Before and during the Revolution, many notable Charlestonians met to drink and discuss politics at McCrady’s Tavern. DeLancey came to Charleston in 1771 and may have been killed over politics or a woman. The reason for his killing is unknown.

Peter DeLancey was the son of New York Royal Lt. Gov. James DeLancey. The killing of Peter DeLancey in Charleston resulted in Loyalist Brig. Gen. Oliver DeLancey raising and commanding a provincial regiment (three battalions), known as DeLancey’s Brigade of light horse troops to fight the South Carolina Patriots in 1776.

In 1775, the arms stored in the attic of the State House by the British were seized by the Americans. This was the scene of the first significant incident of the Revolutionary War in South Carolina. This incident happened just two days after Patriots fired on the British at Lexington, Massachusetts.

The war was used as an excuse for robbery and violently settling disputes. The Harrison Brothers plundered the Patriots to enrich themselves with the blessing of the British forces. The Tories on Lynches Creek, in the vicinity of M’Callum’s Ferry, began their murders and depredations early in the war. Matthew Bradley, Thomas Bradley, and John Roberts, all respectable and upstanding citizens who had joined neither party, were murdered in their homes, possibly with some other members of the Salem Black River Presbyterian Church congregation. The three Harrison brothers joined the local Tories; John Harrison later became a major and Samuel became a captain of the “South Carolina Rangers” in the British provincial service. British Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton called them “men of fortune.” They were three of the worst bandits of the area. Before the fall of Charleston to the British, they lived in a wretched log hut by the road near M’Callum’s Ferry over the Lynches Creek (River), just east of modern Bishopville, SC. As an example of the recriminations and civil war, the Americans killed Robert Harrison in his home. After the war was over, the major retired to Jamaica as a rich man with the wealth accumulated from looting Patriots’ homes and robbing his neighbors.

Within four months after Gen. Nathanael Greene’s return to South Carolina, his Southern Continental Army, with South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia state troops and militia, broke the British hold on the interior by eliminating the Crown’s posts one by one. American mounted detachments carried the war almost to the gates of Charleston. A decisive blow was dealt to the British on the battlefield at Eutaw Springs in September of 1781.

Eutaw Springs was essentially a draw, but the battle was both a material and moral victory for the Americans. The British suffered such heavy losses that they could no longer exert control beyond Charleston and its immediate environs. The British troops at Eutaw Springs were to reinforce Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, but because of their heavy losses in this battle, they retreated to Moncks Corner and to White’s Meeting House (Dorchester County) to recover. Since the British in the Battle of Eutaw Springs were unable to reinforce Cornwallis, he was defeated.

The war in South Carolina did not end with the surrender of Cornwallis, but continued until September 1783. It is generally thought that the War in SC ended when the British withdrew from Charlestown in December 1782, but there were some murders and retributions thereafter. The final act of revenge for the war was carried out in 1807 with the shooting of “Ned Turner,” one of William “Bloody Bill” Cunningham’s right hand men, by John and William, sons of Stokely Towles who was killed by Ned Turner on 18 November 1781.

*****

A big thanks to Jack Parker. He’ll provide a $10.00 discount certificate toward the purchase of a copy of Parker’s Guide to the Revolutionary War in South Carolina for someone who contributes a legitimate comment on this post today or tomorrow. Delivery is available worldwide. Make sure you include your email address. I’ll choose one winner from among those who comment on this post by Wednesday 9 July at 6 p.m. ET, then publish the name of all drawing winners on my blog the week of 14 July. And anyone who comments on this post by the 9 July deadline will also be entered in the drawing to win a copy of one of my five books, the winner’s choice of title and format (trade paperback or ebook).

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

Brave Elizabeth

Posted on July 7, 2014 by suzanneadairJuly 6, 2014

Tears of the Foot Guards

Posted on July 6, 2014 by suzanneadairJuly 5, 2014

Relevant History welcomes Tim Osner, who lives in Melvin Village, NH and has been a finalist in 2011 in the Faulkner/Wisdom Literary Competition for his novel, Tears of the Foot Guards and as a short-list finalist in 2005 for his novel, Miles Christi. Tim is the principle partner in a healthcare consulting firm. He has also been a commercial photographer in Chicago, specializing in large locations shooting for ad agencies and corporations. An ardent student of history, Tim has been a Revolutionary War re-enactor since 1984 in the re-created grenadier company of the Brigade of Guards on American Service. Look for him on Redroom. He may be contacted at tim.osner (at) tcosner (dot) com.

*****

WERE I, like N I O B E, all tears – I’d weep,
And swell the Water of the mighty Deep:
If chang’d like A R E T H U S A to a Stream,
In Tears I’d flow – and Beauty make my Theme.
Curse the Madness of the Times – and those
Who made America our fellest Foes! . . .

So begins the satirical poem, “Tears of the Foot Guards”, published in 1776 by an “Ensign of the Army,” accusing the Guards of puppyism and cowardice upon their departure for the American war.

What shall I write here about the Guards during the American Revolution? It took me nearly twenty years and many hundreds of pages for the novel that is to come out in 2015. Twenty years, I admit it—writing and rewriting, and just when I thought I was finished, I’d discover something new, and though I love the history, my task was first and foremost to tell a story.

As to the poem’s veracity, one needs only to examine the Guards’ service to see that it is patently untrue. The American actions stack up to any in their celebrated history.

When the call went out among the three regiments for volunteers to form the brigade, so many petitioned that a draft was held, and fifteen privates were picked from each of the Guards’ companies to form the composite brigade of one thousand officers and men for America Service. I could talk about their campaign uniform derived from lessons learned in the French & Indian War. How they were veterans all; in the grenadier company the average age was thirty-four with fourteen years experience. They practiced marksmanship in preparation for battle. They engaged in light infantry maneuvers to fight on broken ground. Their officers, privileged sons, were often scrappers; Capt. Watson and Lt. Col. Hyde of the 3rd and 1st Guards engaged in an impromptu duel over an old house both their companies had earmarked to demolish for firewood while occupying Philadelphia (Lt. Col. Hyde received a stab wound in his arm). On another occasion, Coldstream ensign, George Eld, made quick work of a bullying Highland officer late one night in a crowded New York coffee house. Theirs was a great pride and élan. When Lord Percy found the Guards had been assigned to his division at the Battle of Brooklyn, in a letter home, he nearly gushed over them—what splendid fellows they are. Cock-of-the-Walk. They were hard fought and in the thick of many actions. If the war had been won, what additional honors would adorn their Regimental Colours.

When I think about the Guards on American Service, what is most striking is that these were soldiers who wanted to fight this war, who believed they were preserving liberties derived from a constitutional monarchy. To them, the enemy was rabble faction hijacking the rule of law and threatening loyal citizens. They, as other British regiments, were in a hostile country thousands of miles from home. To many, it was the other side of the world. And towards the end, they found themselves embroiled in a savage civil war. “The violence and passions of these people are beyond every curb of religion, & Humanity…violences of every kind, unheard of before…” (Charles O’Hara, Coldstream Guards, January 6, 1781.)

Of the actions the Guards are known for during the Revolution, most notably Guildford Court House and the Catawba Crossing, the one that stands out to me is the nighttime sortie at Yorktown. Cornwallis’ army was surrounded without hope. The Americans and the French had taken redoubts #9 and #10 the night before, allowing the allies’ batteries to come within 300 yards. A forlorn hope was ordered to spike the allies’ guns to buy time for escape and, in the event of surrender, buy the honors of war.

At 4:00 a.m. a sortie composed the Light Infantry, the grenadier company of the 80th Foot, and the grenadier company of the Guards moved out the Hornwork, silent with bayonets fixed and flints pulled. They crossed the scarred no-mans land of three hundred yards and entered the gap between the French and American batteries. A quick and vicious fight occurred, the British spiking the guns with the tip of their bayonets as they had no spiking nails. They tumbled back as French troops began to overwhelm them. As the British retreated, a lone Guards grenadier sergeant stood on the parapet fighting off the French hand-to-hand so the party could escape. His was struck twelve times before he went down.

After the surrender, Samuel Graham of the 76th Foot was allowed to visit the Allied works. French officers showed him the sergeant’s grave whom they had buried with full honors, saying, “Voila un de vos braves gens.”

I think about soldiers. Then and now. Thinking they’re not much different—ordinary men far from home and transformed by horrific situations. I was reading T. E. Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and in the opening chapter he said of war: “We lived always in the stretch or sag of nerves, either on the crest or in a trough of waves of feeling.” So I guess of Revolutionary soldiers. I guess it of the Guards. My hope is that I’ve given them a good story.

*****

A big thanks to Tim Oster. Anyone who comments on this post by 6 p.m. ET on Monday 7 July will be entered in a drawing to win a copy of one of my five books, the winner’s choice of title and format (trade paperback or ebook).

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

Francis Marion and Nathanael Greene: Conflicts in Command

Posted on July 5, 2014 by suzanneadairJuly 5, 2014

Relevant History welcomes David Neilan, editor of The Francis Marion Papers, targeted for publication in 2015. His essay below is from a longer work: “Francis Marion and Conflicts in Command in the Southern Department.” Other projects include the Hezekiah Maham orderly book, in collaboration with the NY Public Library, and the William Moultrie orderly book. He will be giving a presentation entitled “The Weems-Horry Controversy: Where Fiction Trumped History” at the Francis Marion Symposium in Manning, SC, in October. He may be reached at daveneilan1 (at) gmail (dot) com.

*****

Francis Marion’s activities as a militia leader in South Carolina are the foundation of his legend. The reality of the life of the Swamp Fox is much less romantic. For six months after the fall of Charlestown in May 1780, Marion operated as a guerrilla commander, virtually independent of a formal command structure. It is no wonder that when the Continental Army did rejoin the field, conflicts occurred.

When Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene assumed leadership of the Southern Department of the Continental Army in December 1780, he had only the remnants of an army. Losses at Charlestown and Camden had decimated the ranks. Greene needed the cooperation of the militia to delay the British advance, until a sufficient Continental force arrived to re-take the state. Since authority over the militia rested with State officials, Greene recognized the need for diplomacy to put his plans into effect. His initial “orders” to Francis Marion were couched as requests, using the conciliatory “I beg you” and “Please” to obtain horses and intelligence.

Marion and Greene would clash numerous times during the first half of 1781. Greene’s request for horses would be repeated numerous times. Marion’s response would express his regret, then later his irritation[1]. As the war heated up, so would Greene’s need for horses, but so would the friction between the two over Marion’s failure (Greene’s opinion) or his inability (Marion’s point of view) to supply them.

Greene continued to rely on Marion to take the action to the enemy. In January 1781 Greene dispatched Lt. Col. Henry Lee to join Gen. Marion. In his letter of 16 January, Greene was less conciliatory into his directions: “You [Marion] will give him [Lee] all the aid in your power to carry into execution all such matters as may be agreed on.”

For the next two months, correspondence between Greene and Marion was infrequent. Greene was caught up in racing to the Dan River to avoid the advance of Cornwallis and then fighting the British at Guilford Courthouse. By the middle of April, Greene and the Continental Army were back in South Carolina.

When Lee rejoined Marion, they attacked Fort Watson, a small British fort on the Santee River. During the siege, Marion received stiff criticism from his former commanding officer Gen. William Moultrie. Lee asked Greene to write “a long letr. to Gen. Marion…”[2] Greene outdid himself:

When I consider how much you have done and suffered, and under what disadvantage you have maintained your ground, I am at a loss which to admire most, your courage and fortitude, or your address and management…History affords no instance wherein an officer has kept possession of a Country under so many disadvantages as you have; surrounded on every side with a superior force…To fight the enemy bravely with a prospect of victory is nothing; but to fight with intrepidty under the constant impression of a defeat, and inspire irregular troops to do it, is a talent peculiar to yourself.[3]

Marion did not have long to savor the compliments. Greene again complained to him about his failure to furnish horses.

The 4 May “horse” letter from Greene was the last straw. An exasperated Marion fired back:

I acknowledge that you have repeatedly mention the want of Dragoon horses…if you think it best for the service to Dismount the Malitia…but am sertain we shall never git their service in future. This would not give me any uneasiness as I have sometime Determin to relinquish my command in the militia…& I wish to do it as soon as this post is Either taken or abandoned.[4]

Marion, then in the midst of the siege of Fort Motte with Lee, continued to vent to Greene:

…I assure you I am serious in my intention of relinquishing my Malitia Command…because I found Little is to be done with such men as I have, who Leave me very Often at the very point of Executing a plan…[5]

Fortunately for the American cause, General Greene was in the proximity of Fort Motte. He rode sixty-five miles to meet Marion, arriving shortly after the surrender of the fort 12 May[6].

Although Greene may have mollified Marion during this first meeting, the issues continued. During a brief lull in the fighting, Marion took the opportunity to press for orders to march on Georgetown, South Carolina:

I beg Leave to go & Reduce that place which has not more than 80 British soldiers & a few torys. The Latter is very troublesome…& by the fall of Geor Town will make them quiet.[7]

As long as Georgetown was a safe haven for the enemy, Marion would be unable to maintain his advance over the Santee River.

Marion repeated his plea on 20 May and 22 May without response from Greene. The Swamp Fox delicately announced two days later, “…I find the enemy is about evacuating Georgetown & as I cannot do any thing by remaining here I have thought it most for the service to go to Georgetown…”[8]

Greene deferred ordering an attack on Georgetown, instead advising Marion to obtain permission from Thomas Sumter, who was Marion’s superior officer in the South Carolina militia.[9]

On 28 May Marion liberated Georgetown without firing a shot.

Greene begrudgingly offered his congratulations.[10]

The relationship between Marion and Greene continued to have its ups and downs. Marion’s decisive victory at Parker’s Ferry at the end of August and then his command of the first line of militia and State troops at the Battle of Eutaw Springs in September brought him commendation from Greene.

Despite the occasional conflict over orders, horses, and command issues among subordinates, for the rest of 1781 and throughout 1782 the relationship between Marion and Greene strengthened. By the end of the war, as the two became better acquainted and the war had evolved into a containment operation, Marion was Greene’s most trusted officer.

Footnotes

1. Marion to Greene, 9 Jan 1781, ALS (MiU-C), transcription, Parks, Greene Papers.
2. Lee to Greene, 20 Apr 1781, ALS (MiU-C).
3. Greene to Marion, 24 Apr 1781, Greene Papers, 8: 144-145.
4. Marion to Greene, 6 May 1781, Greene Papers, 8: 214-216.
5. Marion to Greene, 11 May 1781, Greene Papers, 8: 242.
6. Rankin, Swamp Fox, 208.
7. Marion to Greene, 19 May 1781, ALS (MiU-C), transcription, Parks, Greene Papers.
8. Marion to Greene, 24 May 1781, Tr (ScHi, South Carolina Historical Society).
9. Marion to Greene, 24 May 1781, Tr (ScHi), There is a note on the transcript of the letter: On reverse (the outside cover of the letter) that reads, “From Genl. Marion May 24th 1781 (docketed—probably in the hand of Gen. Greene’s ADC.).”
10. Greene to Marion, 10 Jun 1781, Df (NcD).

*****

A big thanks to David Neilan. He’ll give away a DVD of the South Carolina ETV program “Chasing the Swamp Fox” to someone who contributes a legitimate comment on this post today or tomorrow. Delivery is available in the U.S. and Canada. Make sure you include your email address. I’ll choose one winner from among those who comment on this post by Sunday 6 July at 6 p.m. ET, then publish the name of all drawing winners on my blog the week of 14 July. And anyone who comments on this post by the 6 July deadline will also be entered in the drawing to win a copy of one of my five books, the winner’s choice of title and format (trade paperback or ebook).

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

Reclaiming One of History’s Treasures

Posted on July 4, 2014 by suzanneadairJuly 4, 2014

Welcome to my blog, and Happy Fourth of July! The week of 2 July – 9 July, I’m participating with more than one hundred other bloggers in the “Freedom to Read” giveaway hop, accessed by clicking on the logo at the left. All blogs listed in this hop offer book-related giveaways, and we’re all linked, so you can easily hop from one giveaway to another. But here on my blog, I’m posting a week of Relevant History essays, each one focused on some facet of the American War of Independence. To find out how to qualify for the giveaways on my blog, read through each day’s Relevant History post below and follow the directions. Then click on the Freedom Hop logo so you can move along to another blog. Enjoy!

Relevant History welcomes back Dr. Christine Swager, who writes about actions in the south during the Revolutionary War. In the six books she has published, she has covered the militia contributions to the success of the Patriot cause. Although her books are historically accurate, she writes for a general readership, especially teachers and students. She is determined to make history interesting as well as informative. To recognize her work, the Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution awarded her their Lifetime Youth Achievement Award. She is also a recipient of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution’s Martha Washington Medal. Look for her on Facebook.

*****

On the hot summer night of 18 August 1780, two hundred armed men left their militia camp on the Broad River in South Carolina, and moved furtively through the area until they reached the road. Then they spurred their horses toward their objective, forty miles south. They were intent on attacking the enemy at Musgrove’s Mill on the Enoree River. An encampment of local Loyalist or Tory militia (settlers loyal to the King) was guarding a hospital site where wounded British soldiers were being housed. The site was at a ford which allowed passage for British troops stationed at Ninety-Six to cross the Enoree River and attack the settlers farther north.

The British wounded at Musgrove’s Mill were casualties of a month of skirmishes in the area north of the Enoree and most of those same Patriot militia who were headed in their direction had inflicted those wounds. Now they would finish the job. They expected to strike at dawn and overwhelm the unsuspecting Loyalist militia.

Who were these determined men? There were three commanders: Col. Elijah Clarke with his Wilkes County Militia from Georgia; Col. Isaac Shelby with his Over Mountain Men from what is now East Tennessee, (although at that time it was Western North Carolina); and Col. James Williams of the Little River Militia in South Carolina with men from other units. Col. Williams and his militia lived south of the Enoree River within a few miles of the British post at Ninety-Six. Their homes and families were threatened. Other locals who lived in the area and shared their concerns joined them.

Pivotal battle, patriot victory
However, they encountered a Tory patrol so the element of surprise was lost. To complicate the situation, they learned upon arrival that the night before, a contingent of soldiers from Ninety-Six had arrived and was camped at Musgrove’s Mill. Now they were seriously outnumbered by a force of trained, experienced and disciplined British Provincials. With the horses too fatigued from the long ride in the heat to affect a retreat, the Patriots were determined to fight. They threw up a rude barricade on the crest of a hill some distance from the British camp. To lure the enemy within range of their weapons, Capt. Shadrick Inman of Georgia led a small group of horsemen toward the British line and attacked repeatedly. The British crossed the river and moved into a cleared field below the militia line. When they came within range the militia fired. The subsequent battle was one of the most hotly contested that Col. Isaac Shelby reported that he had ever seen.

Eventually the British were routed, and as they fled, the militia followed pouring shot into the backs of the retreating enemy. The Patriots stopped at the river’s edge to wait for their horses to be brought up, as they intended to force the British back to Ninety-Six and attack that post. As they waited a courier arrived telling them that the British had defeated the Continental Army at Camden on 16 August and had overrun Thomas Sumter’s Brigade at Fishing Creek. They were advised to head north and west as the British would now move more resources into the Back Country.

The victors mounted up and headed away from the battlefield leaving on the field sixty-three British dead and ninety wounded, and took with them seventy prisoners. The Patriots lost four men. One, sadly, was the hero Capt. Shadrick Inman. The Battle at Musgrove’s Mill had been a decisive victory with Patriot militia mauling and routing a superior force of British Provincials. It was wise to leave and live to fight another day.

And they did fight another day. Many of these men defeated Major Patrick Ferguson and his men at King’s Mountain, rode with Col. Thomas Sumter when he defeated Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton at Blackstock’s and stood, shoulder-to-shoulder, at Cowpens and helped General Daniel Morgan defeat a British force commanded by Lt. Col. Tarleton.

However, it all started with the militia engagements in July and August, and, most notably, the Battle of Musgrove’s Mill. Would you not think that the site would have been preserved and revered through the years following the Revolutionary War? That was not the case. The site was abandoned and overlooked for over two hundred years! Musgrove Ford was used for generations, and a bridge was eventually built over the Enoree River at that site. Cotton fields flourished along the Enoree River until the land was depleted and erosion pockmarked the terrain. As people traveled the road, there was little evidence of the great battle that had been fought there.

Saving the battle site from obscurity
In the late 1990’s, historian Dr. George Fields determined to save the battlefield. “If the participants could march over forty miles behind the British lines to raid a fortified camp, face an enemy twice the size they expected, inflict more casualties on the enemy than in their ranks, and retreat in a forced march for two days to avoid capture behind the lines, we should, could and somehow would do the hard task of saving the battlefield,” said Fields. With the help of local citizens and businesses, he raised money to purchase a large part of the battlefield. Donnie Wilder, State Representative from Laurens County, persuaded the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism to commit to establishing the property as an historic site. On 5 May 2003, the Musgrove Mill State Historic Site was dedicated—222 years after the battle fought there contributed to the victory of our Patriot forces and the founding of our United States of America.

This month, when we celebrate the birth of our nation, we might consider the debt owed to these citizen soldiers and honor them. Are there sites in your area that could and should be saved after all these years? If it could happen in rural South Carolina, you might make it happen where you live.

*****

A big thanks to Christine Swager. She’ll give away an autographed copy of her book, Musgrove Mill Historic Site, in trade paperback format to someone who contributes a legitimate comment on this post today or tomorrow. Delivery is available worldwide. Make sure you include your email address. I’ll choose one winner from among those who comment on this post by Saturday 5 July at 6 p.m. ET, then publish the name of all drawing winners on my blog the week of 14 July. And anyone who comments on this post by the 5 July deadline will also be entered in a drawing to win a copy of one of my five books, the winner’s choice of title and format (trade paperback or ebook).

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.