4th Battalion/5th PA Regiment Fall News letter 2016

                                BOUDE’S LIGHT DISPATCH   Capt. Thomas Boude’s Co.

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

Letter from the Editor

By RA Cunningham

Hello 5th PA,

As we come closer to the end of the year we still have some good Events. We also need to consider coming together to be a strong force. Also to earn money for our beloved 5th PA.

Let’s concentrate on also helping our unit grow, put in your ideas.

Also, please submit pictures. I am looking for all any pictures. Especially of our wonderful Camp-Followers. The heart of the unit.

Yours Faithfully,

Rose (aka Roswell)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Battle of New York

( The second battle reenactment at Monmouth, NJ. )

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

================================================================

Rev War Docs………..

Women became responsible for family health care in addition to their responsibilities for housekeeping and childcare. They served as doctor, nurse, and pharmacist despite the fact that they rarely received any type of formal education. Trained by their mothers in raising medicinal herbs in kitchen gardens, they were skilled in concocting remedies from available resources.

During the Revolutionary War, anyone with medical knowledge was pressed into service to help tend to the sick. Each regiment brought its own physician, but these hometown doctors varied in ability. Less than 300 had a medical degree. Only a handful had graduated from the ten-year-old Philadelphia Medical College. The remainder were mainly graduates of European medical schools. Admission requirements included a knowledge of the classics and a hefty bank roll. When the student was finished, he had been exposed to plenty of theories but never to a living, breathing patient.

Despite this varied training, Revolutionary War surgeons did a notable job of attempting to save lives. Most were competent, honest, and well-intentioned, but conditions and shortages in medical supplies placed an overwhelming burden on them. Besides caring for those wounded in battle, the camp surgeon was responsible for caring for the camp’s diseased soldiers. The camp surgeon was constant alert for unsanitary conditions in camp that might lead to disease. He spent a good deal of time aiding patients rid their bodies of one or more of the four humors. Common diseases suffered by soldiers were dysentery, fever, and smallpox. Most illnesses were caused by unsanitary conditions in camp.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Abraham Clark – (1725 – 1794)

Abraham_Clark

Abraham_Clark

It is unfortunately the fact, in respect to many of the distinguished actors in the revolutionary drama, but especially in reference to the subject of this memoir, that but few incidents of their lives have been preserved. The truth is, that although men of exalted patriotism, who filled their respective duties, both in public and private life, with great honor to themselves and benefit to all around them, they were naturally unobtrusive and unambitious. The incidents of their lives were, indeed, few. Some of them lived in retirement, pursuing the “even tenor of their way,” nor was the regularity of their lives often interrupted, except, perhaps, by an attendance upon congress, or by the discharge of some minor civil office in the community.

These remarks apply with some justice to Mr. Clark, but perhaps not with more force, than to several others, who stand enrolled among the signers of the declaration of independence.

Mr. Clark was a native of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, where he was born, on the fifteenth of February, 1726. His father’s name was Thomas Clark, of whom he was an only child. His early education, although confined to English branches of study, was respectable. For the mathematics and the civil law he is said to have discovered an early predilection. He was bred a farmer; but his constitution being inadequate to the labors of the field, he turned his attention to surveying, conveyancing, and imparting legal advice. For this last service he was well qualified; and as he gave advice gratuitously, he was called, “the poor man’s counselor.”

The course of Mr. Clark’s life, his love of study, and the generosity of his character, naturally rendered him popular. His opinion was valued, and often sought, even beyond the circle within which be lived. He was called to fill various respectable offices, the duties of which he discharged with great fidelity; and thus rendered himself highly useful in the community in which he lived.

At an early period of the revolution, as he had formed his opinion on the great question, which divided the British government and the American colonies, be was appointed one, of the committee of public safety; and sometime after was elected by the provincial congress, in conjunction with the gentlemen, a sketch of whose lives has already been given, a delegate to the continental congress. Of this body he was a member, for a considerable period and was conspicuous among his colleagues from New Jersey, A few days after he took his seat for the first time, as a member of congress, he was called upon to vote for, or against, the proclamation of independence. But he was at no loss on which aide to throw his influence. His patriotism was of the purest character. Personal considerations did not influence his decision. He knew full well that fortune and individual safety were at stake. But what were these in comparison with the honor and liberty of his country. He voted, therefore, for the declaration of independence, and affixed his name to that sacred instrument with a firm determination to meet the consequences of the noble, but dangerous action, with a fortitude and resolution becoming a free born citizen of America.

Mr. Clark frequently, after this time, represented New Jersey in the national councils. He was also often a member of the state legislature. But in whatever capacity he acted as a public servant, be attracted the respect and admiration of the community, by his punctuality, his integrity, and perseverance.

In 1787 he was elected a member of the general convention, which framed the constitution; but in consequence of ill health, was prevented from uniting in the deliberations of that body. To the constitution, as originally proposed, lie had serious objections. These, however, were removed by subsequent amendments; but his enemies took advantage of his objections, and for a time he was placed in the minority in the elections of New Jersey. His popularity, however, again revived, and he was elected a representative in the second congress, under the federal constitution; an appointment which he continued to hold until a short time previous to his death. Two or three of the sons of Mr. Clark were officers in the army, during the revolutionary struggle. Unfortunately they were captured by the enemy. During a part of their captivity, their sufferings were extreme, being confined in the notorious prison ship, Jersey. Painful as the condition of his sons was, Mr. Clark scrupulously avoided calling the attention of congress to the subject, excepting in a single instance. One of his sons, a captain of artillery, had been cast into a dungeon, where he received no other food than that which was conveyed to him by his fellow prisoners, through a keyhole. On a representation of these facts to congress, that body immediately directed a course of retaliation in respect to a British officer. This had the desired effect, and Captain Clark’s condition was improved.

On the adjournment of congress in June, 1794, Mr. Clark finally retired from public life. He did not live long, however, to enjoy even the limited comforts he possessed. In the autumn of the same year a stroke of the sun put a period to his mortal existence, in the space of two hours. He was already, however, an old man, having attained to his sixty-ninth year. The church yard at Rahway contains his mortal remains, and the church of that place will long have reason to remember his benefactions. A marble slab marks the place where this useful and excellent man lies deposited, and the following inscription upon it, records the distinguished traits of his character:

Firm and decided as a patriot,
zealous and faithful as a friend to the public,
he loved his country,
and adhered to her cause
in the darkest hours of her struggles
against oppression. “

SOURCE: Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence, 1829
by Rev. Charles A. Goodrich

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Native Americans in the Revolutionary War

At the commencement of the American struggle for independence, the Native Americans in the Revolutionary War stood in a peculiar position. Their friendship became a matter of importance to both parties. To secure this, the English took particular care, and had many advantages, of which the colonists were deprived. The expulsion of the French from Canada had given the Indians a high opinion of the valor and power of British forces. They also had the means of supplying the wants of the Indians by presents of articles, which could only be obtained from Europe, and which the American Congress had prohibited the colonists from importing. They had still another and a more important advantage. Since the peace of 1763 nearly all the transactions of the English with the Indians had been conducted by agents who were attached to the home government, and who, of course, secured the Indians as far as possible, to the interest of that government, when the colonies rebelled.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Battle of Chelsea Creek

Date – Saturday, May 27, 1775Weather – 65 degrees and cloudy

Location – Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Belligerents – Great Britain The US Colonies

Commanders – G.B.-Samual Graves, Thomas Graves/ U.S – George Washington

Casualties G.B.

Force: 850
Killed: 2
Wounded: 32
Captured: 0

U.S.

Force: 900
Killed: 0
Wounded: 4
Captured: 0

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

 

The Battle of Chelsea Creek was the second military engagement of the Boston campaign of the American Revolutionary War. It is also known as the Battle of Noddle’s Island, Battle of Hog Island and the Battle of the Chelsea Estuary. This battle was fought on May 27 and 28, 1775, on Chelsea Creek and on salt marshes, mudflats, and islands of Boston Harbor, northeast of the Boston peninsula. Most of these areas have since been united with the mainland by land reclamation and are now part of East Boston, Chelsea, Winthrop, and Revere.

The British colonists met their goal of strengthening the siege of Boston by removing livestock and hay on those islands from the reach of the British regulars. The British armed schooner Diana was also destroyed and its weaponry was appropriated by the Colonial side. This was the first naval capture of the war, and it was a significant boost to the morale of the Colonial forces.

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

 

Fall 2016

Fall 2016

_____________________________________________________________________________

8 Fast  Facts about Camp Followers 

                                        by Robert M. Dunkerly

Fall 2016

They were always there, but are seldom mentioned.  Name any major battle or campaign: New York, Brandywine, Germantown, Saratoga, Yorktown, Camden, Kings Mountain, Guilford Courthouse, Cowpens, Charleston; there are accounts of Camp Followers at each of them.  Who were they?  What did they do?  Does it matter?  Think you know about soldiers’ wives?

  1. They were women of good character

Our knowledge of Camp Followers often comes through the filter of Nineteenth Century writers. They imposed their Victorian values and were judgmental and critical of these women. Later works using these sources continued to cast them as low characters, without morals. Peeling back the layers to the primary sources reveals otherwise. As it turns out, most Camp Followers were wives or girlfriends of soldiers. They were expected to be “honest, laborious Women.”

To be clear, this article deals specifically with soldiers’ wives. There were various types of camp follower, male and female, servant and slave. Not everything stated below applies to all other camp followers, though there are some generalities. Soldiers’ wives had to prove their worth to the army. Both Continental and British army orders stipulated that they had to be of good character, and had to be productive. They had to pull their weight. With limited supplies and enough logistical and discipline challenges already, why would the armies do otherwise? There was never an official policy from British high command respecting wives accompanying the army, but many examples exist of orders from various times and locations. One, for example, stated that an officer had to make a “strict inquiry . . . into the morals of the Woman.” He was to determine “whether she is sufficiently known to be industrious, and able to earn her bread.”

  1. They comprised a significant percentage of the armies in the field

We will never know exactly how many German, British, and American wives served with their respective armies.  We do know was in the thousands. Numbers depend on time and location. In general about 4,000 British wives accompanied British forces in America, and nearly 1,000 German wives were with the various German units sent here.  In the Continental Army, perhaps 4,000 served through the course of the war.

It is important to note that when in garrison or in camp, numbers were higher than when the armies took to the field.  When actively campaigning, commanders usually assigned a quota per company or regiment.   Thus, numbers were always fluctuating, and there was no standard ratio of women to soldiers.

  1. The armies couldn’t function without them

Overstated?  Think again.  There were many tasks that the armies did not generally have soldiers assigned to do.  Eighteenth century armies lacked extensive infrastructure such as well-developed medical and logistical support systems.  Soldier’s wives filled some of those roles. The list is endless: nursing, laundry, sewing, tending cattle, guarding baggage, and other odd jobs.  Often these were tasks with which women had experience; they were “domestic” tasks, to use a term of the period.  Except cooking. These women in fact did just about everything BUT cook.

Women were accepted by the army, though regulated to serve in domestic capacities, chores that were, in this era, typically performed by women.  The most common duties for women among the British army were doing laundry and nursing the wounded.  Women could also perform odd jobs like sewing, selling supplies, or herding sheep and cattle.  Some women earned their keep as servants for officers. For washerwomen, the most numerous occupation, army officers set rates for laundry and oversaw the businesses like any other civilian contractor or supplier. Tasks like washing and sewing were often done for the small group in which a woman’s husband or boyfriend belonged – the squad, platoon or company. The importance of these support services increased as the war went on and the American army’s infrastructure wore down.  The Continental Army had difficulty through the entire conflict with its supply and transportation system, which only worsened as the war progressed.  The women were tolerated, and permitted to be present, since they served a useful purpose.

Although clothing was, in general, made by contractors and altered by army tailors when regiments received it, sometimes army wives assisted in making clothing that was needed quickly. In Charleston in 1780, orders for the British Brigade of Guards noted that, “The taylors and Women of the whole Brigade to be Employed in Compleating the First Battalion in Trousers . . .”

Depending on circumstances, they did a variety of other things to keep the armies running.  The following British marching orders from 1781 shows how women could be caught in situations that require nontraditional acts from them: “ . . . in Case the Brigade Should be ordered forward . . . they will form a Guard to the Baggage, Packs, or what else May be left in their Charge.”

  1. They were officially part of the army

The army’s women were subject to military discipline.  As with soldiers, army life both restricted their personal liberty, but also provided a measure of protection. Take the case of Ezekiel Adams, a private in the 6th South Carolina Regiment, who received thirty-five lashes for “abusing” his wife in 1779.

Wives and girlfriends followed the rules and regulations of the army – because they were part of it.  Remember, they had to have an officer’s approval to accompany a unit, and had to carry their weight.  Women serving with armies received rations, were paid for work that they did, were the responsibility of their husbands’ units, and were under martial law like any soldier with the army.  Military documents referred to them as “on the strength” of the regiment. The number of wives allowed to accompany each unit on campaign was set by the local commander. Examples abound in the northern campaigns. In 1776 and 1777, British General Sir William Howe allowed six women per company with his forces in the field as they campaigned across New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. His fellow officer, General John Burgoyne, allowed three per company in his campaign of 1777 that ended at Saratoga.

  1. Following the army was difficult

Soldier’s wives shared the hardships of the army.  That included irregular rations, exposure to the weather, lack of adequate supplies, forced marches, and all sorts of hard, physical work.  It often meant long hours and short rations.

In June of 1778 British General Henry Clinton ordered that “The Women of the Army are constantly to march upon the flanks of the Baggage of their respective Corps, the Provost Martial has received positive Orders to Drum out any Woman who shall dare to disobey this Order.” Other punishments included the stocks and pillory, whipping, loss of rations, and even death.[The following orders from General Charles Cornwallis in 1781 reflect these realities:  ”. . . the officers commanding companies, cause an immediate inspection of the articles of clothing at present in possession of the women in their companies and an exact account taken thereof by the pay Sergeants, after which their necessaries are to be examined at proper opportunities and every article found in addition thereto, burned at the head of the company, except such as have been fairly purchased on application to the commanding officers and regularly added to their former list by the Sergeants as above. The officers are . . . ordered to . . . prevent the women (supposed to be the source of the most infamous plundering) from evading the purport of this order. He also wrote that he was determined to “. . . punish all men and women so offending, with the utmost severity and example.”  Frequent roll calls were implemented to discourage straggling and looting.  Orders stated that “Women to attend all Roll-calls in the rear of the companies, (except such as are in the service of officers) any and every one found absent to be immediately whipped and drummed out of the brigade.”  The army’s women were also ordered to “attend all punishments” so that the message was delivered clearly.

Perhaps the greatest difficulty of all was giving birth during the hardship of a campaign. Roger Lamb, a British soldier on Burgoyne’s 1777 campaign, recounted at length the story of a wife in his company who had set out on her own from Fort Ticonderoga to catch up with her husband on the march towards Saratoga. Alone in the woods, she went into labor; she had the good fortune to be found by a local inhabitant and taken to his house to bear her child. Not to be deterred in her journey, she set out the very next day and successfully joined the army. After Burgoyne’s army surrendered they marched from Saratoga to Boston; an officer who was on the march wrote, “We were two days in crossing the Green Mountains. The roads were almost impassable, and to add to the difficulty when we had got half over, there came on a heavy fall of snow. In the midst of the heavy snow‑storm, upon a baggage cart, and nothing to shelter her from the inclemency of the weather but a bit of an old oil‑cloth, a soldier’s wife was delivered of a child, she and the infant are both well.”

  1. Following the army was dangerous

Females with the army shared in its fate, good or bad.  Soldier’s wives suffered from lack of adequate clothing, poor food, and lived outside without shelter when on the march. They shared the sufferings and deprivations of the soldiers they accompanied. Women, especially those in a camp or among wagons in the rear, could find themselves caught up in a battle. In one engagement a Connecticut soldier witnessed women “exposing themselves where the shots were flying, to strip the dead.” He stated that, “I saw one woman while thus employed struck by a cannon ball and literally dashed to pieces.”

During the battle of Brandywine, Pennsylvania in September, 1777, the women of the 6th Pennsylvania Regiment “frequently cautioned as to the danger of coming into the line of fire,” took “empty canteens of their husbands and friends and returned with them filled with water” during the “hottest part of the engagement.”

At Camden, South Carolina in 1780, many soldiers’ wives were caught up in the American retreat.  One soldier noted, “The waggoners [sic] . . . drove on at full speed, and now and then coming in contact with a  stump, overset, and away went the camp-women, dashed twelve or fifteen feet . . .”

Even the routine of camp life had its dangers.  A soldier recorded that a soldier’s wife was killed when a wagon overset at Valley Forge in 1777.[ Often alone at times and obviously vulnerable, these women lived in fear of robbery, murder, rape, and abuse.  Many who became widows had nowhere else to go, but to continue on with their husband’s unit

  1. They are mostly forgotten

Sad, but largely true.  Few women’s names are recorded in military records; we have muster rolls to identify soldiers, but seldom more than numeric information to indicate the presence of women.  References are fleeting, and fragmentary. There are monuments to a few notable women.  Margaret Corbin, wounded at Fort Washington, New York in 1776, is remembered with a plaque at the battle site in upper Manhattan.  A state historic marker in Richmond, Virginia commemorates the service of Anna Maria Lane, who accompanied her husband through the war. Markers recall the deeds of Mary Ludwig Hays at Monmouth, New Jersey, and an impressive monument stands at her grave in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. There are monuments to women who were not with the armies but nursed the wounded or assisted in other capacities.  Two stand at North Carolina battlefields: the Slocomb Monument at Moores Creek and the Karrenheppuch Monument at Guilford Courthouse.

Unlike the experiences of the soldiers, those of their wives are little commemorated at historic sites.

  1. They made a difference

In the end, it comes down to this.  They performed vital services and often passed on vital information.  Their support roles allowed the armies to function and kept them going.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Fall 2016

Fall 2016