The act of mutiny occurs whenever a group of people (especially soldiers or sailors) refuses to obey orders and (or) attempts to take control away from their lawfully appointed officers or senior NCOs. In all, there were 19 mutinies in the Royal Navy. Two of these occurred in 1797, known as the Spithead and Nore mutinies — the first in an increasing number of outbreaks of maritime radicalism in the so-called Atlantic passage. At the first, the Spithead mutiny was peaceful and successfully addressed common economic grievances. The Nore mutiny was just the opposite.
A Word About Marines
Historically, as a principal duty, marines serve as naval infantry. The word is French for “by sea,” which is probably why the French have always referred to English troops as marines. They always arrived by sea.
Initially, a ship’s crew assumed the tasks of marines at sea. They were, first, sailors. There was not much distinction between sailors and soldiers aboard ships because, for the most part, the crews of vessels fighting one another met in close combat, and it was a melee. Sailors had to know how to fight. But they also had to know how to fight once they reached their destinations.
In antiquity, Roman soldiers fought on Roman combat ships as marines. The Italians were the first to employ specially trained sailors to serve as naval infantry (c. 1200s). The chief magistrate of Venice assigned ten companies of these specialized troops to a naval squadron and sent them off to address some disagreement with the Byzantines. The mission went well for the Italians, and so they decided to retain such men and called them “sea infantry.” Soon after, the idea caught on with other countries. The Spanish Marine Corps, founded in 1537, is the world’s oldest (still-active) corps of marines. The Netherlands created its corps of marines in 1665. In most cases, though, modern marines are specially trained sailors.
The British Royal Marines were the first naval infantry who were NOT sailors. During the 1600s and 1700s, the Royal Navy would form regiments of marines by taking soldiers from the British Army and disbanding them when no longer needed on active service. In 1775, the American Congress formed Marine battalions modeled on the role of their British counterparts — to serve as naval infantry. Today, U.S. Marines are trained from the beginning of their commissions/enlistments to serve as naval infantry — although the Continental Congress stipulated in the recruitment of marines “that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office or enlisted into said battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea, when required.”
The employment of Marines as general handymen and orderlies for flag officers of the Navy is no innovation. So ingrained had this idea become by 1881 that a naval encyclopedia in that year defined the word “orderly” as “a Marine private detailed as a messenger for the commanding officer.” The admiral’s orderly, therefore, had to be a leatherneck — a bluejacket wouldn’t do. And it became the role of marines, not engaged in combat at sea, to preserve order aboard ship. In port, sentinel posts were established to prevent desertion — and at all times, marines kept an ear cocked for the faintest rumblings of mutiny.
Heinous Mutiny
Mutiny at sea was always problematic — and in 1797, what made it so was the fact that Great Britain was at war with Revolutionary France. The Royal Navy was a primary component of the war effort. There were also concerns among home offices — that the mutinies might be part of broader attempts at revolutionary sedition instigated by “troublemaking organizations,” such as the London Corresponding Society and the United Irishmen (see also: “Conclusion”).
Spithead was an anchorage near Portsmouth, and at anchor were sixteen ships under the command of Admiral Alexander Hood, Lord Bridport. No country has done a marvelous job caring for its Navy’s ships or the men who handle them, and the United Kingdom is no exception. And the men were not happy. Between 16 April to 15 May, the men of the channel fleet protested against the living conditions aboard ship, they demanded more pay for their services, better food, increased shore leave, and compensation for sickness and injury.
On 26 April, a supportive mutiny broke out on the additional 15 ships, each of which sent delegates to Spithead to participate in negotiations. It was probably about time for a review of pay accorded to the men of the sea. Their pay tables dated to 1658. The pay was still reasonable for those times — even through the Seven Years’ War. But in the last decades of the 18th century, nations experienced high inflation rates. Sailors with families to support were struggling to make do.
Another sore point for the Navy was the fact that, in recent years, the government granted pay increases to the British Army, to militia forces, and even to naval officers. But another issue affecting morale — and perhaps the Royal Navy’s budget- was its new practice of coppering the hulls of its warships. In 1761, coppering meant that combat ships no longer had to return to port as often to have their hulls scraped. The additional time at sea significantly altered the sea service rhythm, yet the Admiralty had made no adjustments. Senior officers were slow to grasp the difficulty of the deck-hands work. Impressment was a common practice suggesting that some of the crew served against their will.
Finally, in the war with France, the British Admiralty announced a new quota system known as the Quod.[1] More than one clever politician discovered that sending convicted criminals to serve with the Navy was convenient. Generally, these “conscripts” did not mix well with a ship’s company. Dissention aboard ship was one of the items on a marine’s to-do list.
The mutineers were led by elected delegates and tried to negotiate with the Admiralty for two weeks, focusing their demands on better pay, demanding an end to the so-called 14-ounce purser’s pound.[2] And the men wanted to get rid of a few officers, as well. No one mentioned flogging or impressment … but they could not abide an ass wearing an officer’s uniform. Throughout the mutiny, the crews maintained their regular naval routines aboard their ships and their discipline, and they consented to allow some ships to leave Spithead for convoy escort duties or combat patrols and promised to suspend the mutiny and go to sea immediately if French ships were spotted heading for English shores.
Negotiations broke down over such issues as pardons for mutineers, and some minor incidents broke out with a few unpopular officers. When the situation calmed down again, Fleet Admiral Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe (brother of Major General Sir William Howe) intervened to negotiate an agreement to obtain a royal pardon for all crews, the reassignment of some unpopular officers, a pay raise, and abolition of the purser’s pound.[3]
The Nore Mutiny
The Nore is a long bank of sand and silt running along the south-central portion of England’s final narrowing of the Thames Estuary. Until 1964, it was the seaward limit of the Port of London. It was so dangerous that the world’s first lightship was established there in 1732.
Inspired by the example of their comrades at Spithead, the sailors at The Nore also mutinied an incident that began on 12 May 1797. The sailors of HMS Sandwich seized control of the ship, and several other ships within call’s reach followed their example. Other ships quietly slipped away despite gunfire from the ships in rebellion. Scattered ships make it difficult to organize mutinies among other ships, but each involved vessel quickly elected its delegates. The men of HMS Sandwich elected Seaman Richard Parker to serve as President of the Delegates of the Fleet.
Seaman Parker was a former master’s mate who was reduced in rank at a court-martial for insubordination and subsequently discharged.[4] Life was hard for Parker in Exeter, and he fell into debt. This situation caused the county council to nominate Parker for duty with the Navy, and he found himself as an ordinary seaman aboard Sandwich. He had only recently joined the crew when the mutiny broke out. Parker, an older and more experienced man, fully aware of the squalid conditions aboard Sandwich, took no part in the mutiny, but he did empathize with the crew, and he agreed to represent them with the officer commanding — even though he exercised no control over the actions of the mutineers.
Crewmen formulated a list of eight demands and, on 20 May 1797, presented them to Admiral Charles Buckner. They wanted pardons, increased pay, and modifications of the Articles of War and demanded that the King dissolve Parliament and make immediate peace with France. As one might imagine, the demands infuriated the Admiralty, which offered nothing in return except a pardon (and the concessions already made at Spithead) in return for an immediate return to duty. By the first of June, mutinied ships formed a blockade of the Thames.
Captain Sir Erasmus Gower, commanding HMS Neptune in the upper Thames, put together a flotilla of fifty loyal ships and determined to use them to prevent mutineers from reaching the City of London. It was essentially Gower’s intentions that made the mutineers at Nore begin to waiver, but not before they made the wrong decision to blockade London, which prevented merchant vessels from entering port. Parker then decided to move the mutinied ships to France — which infuriated the regular English sailors and caused them to take back a few ships.
Among most of the mutineers at The Nore, if anyone was thinking about treason, it was only a few. Most men simply wanted less squalid living conditions, better food, and better pay. Parker issued orders to allow passage to merchant ships on the Thames but ordered the detention of the Royal Navy’s victualling ships. Historians claim that Parker wanted the Admiralty to have a good impression of the mutineer’s intent; other academics argue that it was a bit more complex than that. And, in any case, Parker was out of his depth.
After the successful resolution of the Spithead mutiny, the Admiralty was not inclined to make any further concessions, mainly as they felt some leaders of the Nore mutiny had political aims beyond improving pay and living conditions. The rebellion fell apart when Parker signaled ships to sail to France. When the mutineers (on most ships) observed the signal, they refused.
It did not take long for the Royal Navy to convict Seaman Parker — of treason and piracy. It also did not take the Royal Navy to hand him from the yardarm of Sandwich. Shown at right is Parker’s death mask.
Following Parker on the yardarm were 29 other seamen. An additional 29 went to prison. Nine men received a flogging, and several more found themselves headed for the penal colony in Australia. Most men, however, received no punishment — which until then was unheard of in the Royal Navy.
One tidbit: posting the watch
Ship’s crews stand their watches (periods of duty) according to the hour of the day. In the days of sail, watches were divided into two sections: port and starboard. Each of these was on duty for four hours, and then they were off duty for four hours. One stroke of the bell indicates the first half hour of the watch. An additional bell strikes for each succeeding half-hour. Eight bells indicate the end of a four-hour watch. Whenever the time calls for two or more bells, they are sounded in groups of two.
The first five watches
First watch: 20:00 to 00:00
Middle watch: 00:01 to 04:00
Morning watch: 04:01 to 08:00
Forenoon watch: 08:01 to 12:00
Afternoon watch: 12:01 to 16:00
Following the afternoon watch, the next four hours are divided into two “Dog Watches.” The first dog watch occurs from 16:01 to 18:00, and the second dog watch from 18:01 to 20:00. The dog watch can be changed every day so that each watch gets a turn at eight hours of rest at night. Otherwise, each crew member would be on duty for the same hours daily.
Before The Nore mutiny, Royal Navy vessels sounded five bells to signal the end of the last dog watch; after The Nore mutiny, five bells no longer signified the last dog watch because that was the signal aboard Sandwich to begin the mutiny.
Conclusion
There have seldom been what one might call “good feelings” between the English and the Irish. The Society of United Irishmen was a sworn association in the Kingdom of Ireland formed after the French Revolution to secure “equal representation” of all the people. In 1798, the society instigated a republican insurrection in defiance of the British Crown. Espousing principles they believed had been vindicated by the American Revolution, and the French Declaration of the rights of man, Presbyterian merchants who formed the organization in Belfast vowed to make cause with their Catholic brethren. In 1800, England abolished the Irish legislature, and everything went downhill from that point forward.
At the time of the Spithead and The Nore mutinies, British politicians assumed that the United Irishmen were behind these troubles as part of a plot to overthrow the British monarchy and establish in its place a British Republic. This was not true, of course, but given their turbulent past, everyone (Irish or British) was prepared to believe it.
Sources:
Nalty, B. Certain Aspects of Manpower Utilization in the Marine Corps: Historical Background. Marine Corps Historical Reference Series, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1959.
Roulo, C. Why Are Marines Part of the Navy? U.S. Department of Defense, online publication.
Manwaring, G. E. The Floating Republic: An Account of the Mutinies at Spithead and The Nore in 1797. Harcourt-Brace, 1935.
Woodman, R. A Brief History of Mutiny. Carroll & Graff, 2005.
Endnotes:
[1] Introduced by Prime Minister William Pitt (the Younger) in 1795. The system required every British county to provide a certain number of men for service in the Royal Navy. The quota depended on the population of the counties. In some cases, county commissions found it difficult to meet their quota, so they offered bounties to landsmen, which created some dissension among regular swabbies. The system lasted through 1815, when the British decommissioned most of its navy.
[2] The purser’s pound was an arrangement where the ship’s purser was allowed to keep 2 ounces of food for every 16 ounces of food sold to the crew.
[3] Howe commanded HMS Baltimore during the Jacobite Uprising in 1745.
[4] Master’s Mate is no longer a rank in the British or American navies. Originally, the master’s mate was an experienced senior petty officer who assisted the ship’s master but was not in line for an officer’s commission. By the mid-18th century, though, this rate was a senior midshipman awaiting a commission to lieutenant.
There are two Banastre Tarleton’s. The first one — the real one — is part of British Army history and, of course, that of the American Revolution. The second Banastre is an invention of Hollywood writers and every historian content to evaluate history through 21st-century rose-colored lenses.
I have no inside information about what goes on inside Hollywood production studios. I simply know that whenever Mel Gibson begins a project having anything to do with British history, the British always come out looking horrible. He did that with the film about William Wallace, which was more fiction than fact — and he did it with the film The Patriot, where he painted Cornwallis as dishonorable and Banastre Tarleton as a war criminal.[1] Placing “entertainment” aside, if that’s what fictional history is, Gibson and others are teaching their American audiences revisionist history. Given the current state of education in the United States, one may argue that Americans don’t need any help learning the wrong history.
Taking another look
Banastre Tarleton was born on 21 August 1754. I’ve read that he was either the second, third, or fourth of seven children of John Tarleton, the former lord mayor of Liverpool, a money lender, a merchant, and a slave trader. Banastre was fortunate to have a wealthy father — just not lucky enough to be his father’s first born son. Although his father paid for his education at prestigious Oxford University, his was a rather undistinguished learning experience. He seemed more interested in drinking, gambling, and consorting with loose women than studying. When his father died in 1773, Banastre inherited £5,000, which he promptly squandered. The purchase of his military commission was a gift of his mother, who promised her son that he’d seen his last monetary gift from the home front.
What kind of person was Banastre Tarleton? For a young man raised in the home of a slave trader, we might expect that he developed a cold-hearted worldview. In later life, as a member of Parliament, Tarleton rigorously defended the slave trade (upon which his family’s fortunes rested), and he was known to verbally attack abolitionist politicians.
Coronet Tarleton arrived in North America in 1776 and was assigned rather mundane duties of an administrative manner. It did not take him long to run up another £2,500 of debt. We may not have heard any more about Banastre Tarleton were it not for the stunning defeat of General John Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777.
A twenty-one-year-old Banastre Tarleton sailed from Cork in December 1775 with Lord Cornwallis. Cornwallis’s mission was to capture Charleston, South Carolina. This expedition failed, but in the following year, Tarleton joined the main British Army under General William Howe in New York. Coronet Tarleton was assigned to Colonel William Harcourt.[2]
Coronet Tarleton was part of a scouting party ordered to gather information about the movements of General Charles Lee in New Jersey. On 13 December 1776, Tarleton surrounded a house in Basking Ridge and forced General Lee, dressed in his nightgown, to surrender by threatening to burn down the house. Lee surrendered.
Subsequently, Tarleton’s campaign service in 1776 earned him the position of brigade major; he was barely 22 years old.[3] He was promoted to captain on 13 June 1778, having served in several combat engagements — including the Battle of Brandywine and others (1777 – 1778). One such battle was an attack on a communications outpost in Easton Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, which was guarded by Captain Henry Lee III. In this battle, the patriots repulsed the British assault. Captain Tarleton was wounded in this action.
Burgoyne’s defeat at Saratoga led senior British commanders to shift their efforts to the southern colonies, where they believed Loyalists would help them to win the war. To help accomplish that, General Sir Henry Clinton created a British Legion from among the communities of British loyalists. Formed in July 1778, the Legion initially consisted of several small loyalist militia units from New York, placed into a single organization of mounted infantry, cavalry, and “flying” artillery.[4]
In 1778, Tarleton was 24 years old. His mission was to patrol, track, raid, assault, shock, and destroy enemy guerrilla forces. Between 1778 – 1782, the British Legion participated in 15 separate combat operations — but, by every account, Tarleton completed his mission enthusiastically, efficiently, and ruthlessly … giving rise to the claim that the young colonel was guilty of war crimes.
Any British notion that southern loyalists would save the day was a substantial miscalculation because what the British had to contend with in the Carolinas was the backcountry Scots-Irish who had been pushing British buttons since 1740.
In 1778, these hard-headed people (and their offspring) had become rebel militiamen and guerrillas. Colonel Tarleton’s attitude was that if these people were going to ruthlessly attack British formations and baggage trains, then they should be prepared for some ruthlessness in return. To his credit, Tarleton’s legion was constantly in the saddle, far afield from regular garrisons. They seized what they needed to sustain themselves — from the King’s subjects, which was only proper. These rebels were, after all, committing their treason on the King’s land.
At most, Tarleton had around 500 men in uniform. On average, it was probably closer to 300. When the Legion needed more men, Tarleton’s officers recruited them from among the loyalist communities (and rebel deserters). He motivated the men by convincing them that they were the British Army’s elite fighters. They distinguished themselves by wearing green uniforms rather than redcoats. Tarleton’s standing order to his men was to give the enemy “fire and sword.” And that’s what they did.
Waxhaws
Charleston, South Carolina, fell to General Sir Henry Clinton’s British forces on 12 May 1780. A column of around 380 patriot reinforcements known as the Third Virginia Detachment, serving under Colonel Abraham Buford, failed to reach the city before it’s capitulation. Once they realized that the city had fallen, they withdrew. Buford’s command involved two companies of the 2nd Virginia Regiment, 40 light dragoons, and two six-pound cannons.
Having taken the city, General Clinton prepared to return to New York, appointing his deputy, Lieutenant General Cornwallis, to assume command of the southern army. Even though a week had elapsed when Cornwallis learned of Buford’s presence, he dispatched Colonel Tarleton to pursue him. At that time, Tarleton’s command consisted of around 230 Legionnaires, reinforced by 40 men from the 17th Light Dragoon and a three-pound cannon.
Colonel Tarleton aggressively moved his men 150 miles rapidly, catching up with Buford on the afternoon of 29 May. The area in which the two forces caught sight of each other lies along the border of North and South Carolina — an area known as the Waxhaws.[5] Colonel Tarleton sent a message to Buford demanding his surrender. Initially, Buford refused and ordered his baggage and weapons train to continue moving northward in all due haste. He then formed a battle line in an open field across his route of march, placing his infantry in a single line with orders not to fire until the British approached within ten yards.
While approaching Buford’s position, Tarleton organized his force into three attacking columns. He deployed 120 British dragoons on his right flank, intending to dismount his infantry to fire upon the Americans and pin them down. His center column consisted of his elite force, regulars of the 17th Light Dragoons and Legionnaires to charge straight ahead, and a left flank column of 30 legionnaires under his personal command, intending to sweep the American right flank and drive for their baggage and reserves. Tarleton retained his only cannon in reserve.
Colonel Tarleton ordered his attack as soon as its elements were in position. Buford’s men, having been ordered to withhold their fire, were overwhelmed by the speed and aggressiveness of the British assault. Tarleton’s three columns devastated the American defenders. As quickly as it had begun, the battle was over. British casualties were slight, with five killed and 14 wounded. The American losses were 113 men killed and 203 wounded — with Colonel Buford escaping to safety. When Buford was out of danger, he reported the engagement as a massacre of surrendered men. Even now, the American Battle Trust refers to this engagement as the Buford Massacre.
Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton tells us a different story. In A History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Southern Provinces of North America (1787), Tarleton tells us that after arriving at Camden, he obtained intelligence from local citizens that Colonel Buford had quit Rugeley’s Mills on 26th May and was marching in all haste to join a corps thought to be marching on the road between Salisbury and Charlotte town in North Carolina. With this information, Tarleton moved vigorously to prevent the union of these troops.
Tarleton’s men reached Rugeley’s Mill in daylight and learned that the Continentals were in full retreat some twenty miles down the road toward Catawba. Motivated by his enthusiasm to meet the enemy, Tarleton quickened his pace, sending Captain Kinlock ahead with a message to the American commander: surrender his force. Buford turned back to meet the British foe.
By this time, heat and humidity had defeated many of the British cavalry and dragoons, men who were so worn out that they began to drop out of the formation and fall into the rear of the column. This was the condition of Tarleton’s men as he approached the Americans — and the commander realized that his men did not have the energy for a prolonged engagement. This is why Tarleton decided to attack the enemy as soon as possible — and to prevent reinforcements from reaching the American line. At this moment, the only circumstance favorable to the British light dragoons was the known inferiority of the American cavalry.
At 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the advanced guard of the British charged a sergeant and four men of the American light dragoon and made them prisoners. Colonel Buford readied his 380 men for action, forming them in a single line with a small reserve, and ordered his baggage and wagons to continue their march.
Tarleton formed his men for an attack with haste. He assigned 120 mounted men to the right flank under Major Cochrane. He ordered Cochrane to dismount 60 dragoons to gall the Americans’ flank. He directed Captain Corbet and Captain Kinlock to charge the center, and he would lead 30 men to sweep the American right flank.
Thus far, Buford had not fired upon Tarleton. When the British arrived within fifty yards of the American line, Buford ordered the riflemen to present — but their officers ordered them to hold fire. In accordance with Buford’s intention, the Americans would only have one shot before the British were inside the line.
The American riflemen took their shot when the British were within ten yards. Colonel Tarleton’s horse was shot, and he collapsed with the animal. Tarleton quickly recovered, but his men, thinking he was shot, unleashed their rage upon the Americans, and Buford’s battalion was soon broken and “no quarter” delivered before Tarleton could regain control of this force.
When the Americans had taken their shot, Tarleton’s horse was shot, and he collapsed with his horse. Tarleton quickly recovered, but his men, thinking he was shot, unleashed their rage upon the Americans, and the battalion was soon broken with no quarter delivered before Tarleton could regain control of his men. Given the over-stimulation and vindictiveness of the legionnaires, the loss of American officers and men was significant.
The wounded (American and British) of both parties were collected with all possible dispatch and treated with equal humanity. The American officers and soldiers who were unable to travel were paroled the next morning and placed at the neighboring plantations and in a meeting house not far distant from the field of battle: Surgeons were sent from Camden and Charlotte town to assist them, and every possible convenience was provided by the British.
To dispel the idea popular among some American historians that General Cornwallis countenanced “war crimes” in his command, he actually did not seem to have much patience for misbehavior among his soldiers. In 1781, Lord Cornwallis rode to the front of Tarleton’s regimental column and ordered Colonel Tarleton to dismount his regiment and have his men and officers stand at attention by their mounts.
Tarleton, as we now know, was one of Cornwallis’ favorite officers. Was he too lax with his men? Perhaps. Although, what he may have lacked in disciplinary judgment, he made up for in his enthusiasm and battlefield courage. As his men stood at attention, Lord Cornwallis and several civilians walked down the line looking at each trooper, inspecting each face. From time to time, Cornwallis and the civilians engaged in hushed conversations. Finally, Cornwallis ordered his guards to seize two men — a private and a sergeant and pulled them out of the ranks. The two legionnaires appeared before a court martial charged with rape and robbery. Found guilty, Cornwallis had them hanged.
The British Army could be brutal. Some will argue that harshness to influence discipline is part of military virtue. Either the men are disciplined, or they are not. No doubt, Colonel Tarleton was feeling uncomfortable as he observed his men swinging from the gallows. General Cornwallis had warned his favorite officer to bring his legionnaires to heel because he believed they were playing fast and loose with proper decorum as representatives of His Majesty’s Army.
There is little doubt that Tarleton’s command was ruthless. War is a ruthless business, and there can be no doubt that rebellious colonists were traitors to the Crown. Tarleton was walking a tightrope. How much ruthlessness is acceptable? Where does one draw the line?
In South Carolina, Francis Marion (also known as the Swamp Fox) had long served as a British and later state militia officer. Marion never served in command of a field army or participated in a major engagement, but his expertise in irregular (guerilla) warfare earned him a promotion to brigadier general. Throughout the southern campaign, Colonel Tarleton did everything within his power to disrupt and, if possible, capture General Marion — without success.
Marion was a popular son of South Carolina, and he had no problem gaining the support and assistance of local citizens. Tarleton, on the other hand, unapologetically took what forage he needed to support his men. South Carolinians were less inclined to support the rash British dragoon. It was a matter of culture: Tarleton treated the people of South Carolina for what they were — the King’s subjects. In time, even the loyalists began to resent Tarleton’s haughtiness and became less inclined to offer any support.
Colonel Tarleton was instrumental in helping General Cornwallis win the Battle of Camden in August 1780. He also defeated Thomas Sumter at Fishing Creek (Catawba Fords) but was less successful with Sumter at Blackstock’s Farm (November 1780).
Colonel Tarleton’s forces were virtually destroyed on 17 January 1781 by General Daniel Morgan at the Battle of Cowpens. Tarleton and 200 men managed to escape the battlefield. Colonel William Washington commanded the rebel cavalry when attacked by Tarleton and two of his men. Washington stopped Tarleton by aggressively assaulting him with his sword and challenging him by saying loudly, “Where is now the boasting Tarleton?”
A young coronet of the 17th Dragoons, Thomas Patterson, rode up to strike Washington but was shot and killed by Washington’s orderly. In this encounter, Washington wounded Tarleton in his right hand, and Tarleton returned the favor by shooting Washington, wounding him in the knee, and also wounding his horse. Washington, incensed, pursued Tarleton for sixteen miles, finally losing sight of him at the Goudylock Plantation.
In Conclusion
Banastre Tarleton was a gallant military officer — one who took his duties seriously, and perhaps, in some instances, too seriously. But he was no war criminal, and he did not die in a hand-to-hand fight with Mel Gibson. Tarleton returned to Great Britain and entered the world of politics. His combat wounds served him well as a returning hero. Not everyone agreed with General Tarleton’s account of the Southern Campaign, of course … proving that the British Army, like most other armies, are highly political.
In 1812, Tarleton was commissioned to full general. He anticipated being appointed to command British forces in the Peninsular War, but that assignment went to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke Wellington. Instead, Tarleton held military command in Ireland and England.
Sources:
Bass, R. D. The Green Dragoon, Sandlapper Publications, 2003
Reynolds, W. R. Jr. Andrew Pickens: South Carolina Patriot in the Revolutionary War. McFarland & Company, 2012.
Scotti, A. J. Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton. Heritage Books, 2002.
Wilson, D. K. The southern strategy: Britain’s conquest of South Carolina and Georgia, 1775–1780. University of South Carolina Press, 2005.
Raddall, T. H. Tarleton’s Legion. Collections of the Nova Scotia Historical Society, 1949.
Tarleton, B. A History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the southern provinces of North America. 1787. Kindle Edition.
Endnotes:
[1] Historian Michael Bryant states that the first use of the term “war criminal” occurred in 1906 in a book on international law, suggesting also that the concept existed much earlier than that.
[2] Coronet was the lowest commissioned grade of the British Cavalry, equivalent to modern-day second lieutenant.
[3] A brigade major is the chief of staff of a brigade. It is a job position, not a rank; however, such men commonly held the rank of major (but also captain), but intentionally below the rank of lieutenant colonel who generally served as officers commanding subordinate battalions. Brigades major provided detail concerning and executed the intentions of the brigade commander.
[4] Flying artillery was a new concept in 1778. It involved fast-moving cavalry, swift movement of artillery, and mounted infantry (dragoons) formed from Caledonian Volunteers, West Jersey Volunteers, Captain Kinloch’s independent New York Dragoons, Philadelphia Light Dragoons, the Prince of Wales’s American Volunteers, and the 16th Light Dragoons. To lead the Legion, Tarleton was advanced to lieutenant colonel and ordered to move his 250 cavalry and 200 dragoons to the Carolinas.
[5] A geographical region extending beyond both sides of the North and South Carolina border within Lancaster, Union, and Mecklenburg counties.
Lieutenant Colonel William Washington of the 3rd Continental Light Dragoons rode quietly at the head of his regiment. He was a large man for a light horseman. He was over six feet tall with bear-like shoulders, a ruddy face, and clubbed brown hair. One of his commanding generals described him as the “Hercules” of his day. Perhaps. That isn’t what we see in his portraits. We see an ordinary-looking man with no wig or hat, a round, honest face, and a casual open stare.
By September 1781, Colonel Washington was 29 years old. A wounded veteran of six years’ service, a former minuteman in Stafford County, Virginia, and a member of the Old Dominion gentry. His cousin, of course, was the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army.
William did not share those aristocratic attributes — he was more comfortable in the saddle than in parlors and drawing rooms drinking tea and discussing politics. No, William was a fighter. He amused himself with horse racing, good cigars, fine whiskey, and a modest wager. He was unassuming, respectful of others, self-confident, good-humored, and friendly. But there was also another side to William Washington: he was hot-tempered when his blood was up. When he led his regiment into the fight, he was always the first man across the line of departure. Like a badger, once he had hold of his enemy, he wouldn’t let go. But, as with all good soldiers, it was only a matter of time before his luck ran out.
Beginnings
George Washington was 20 years old when Cousin William was born in 1752 — and only two years away from igniting the Seven Years’ War. William’s parents were Bailey Washington, Sr., and Catherine Storke Washington, who were married in 1749. William was their second-born child, whom Bailey named William after Catherine’s father, William Storke, the Sheriff of Stafford County.[1] Bailey was moderately wealthy — the owner of 1,200 acres of prime agricultural land near Aquia Creek. The bad news for William was that he would not stand to inherit this property. Still, he was raised in a privileged environment, and while 1,200 acres wasn’t as large as the estate at Mount Vernon, it was large enough to require an investment in horses. William Washington was raised in an environment of horse breeding, horsemanship, and horse racing.
At one time, Stafford County was part of Westmoreland County, created in 1664 as the Virginia colony sought to organize itself through a series of commonwealth structures. In time, Stafford County (named after Staffordshire, England) gave way to such jurisdictions as Arlington, Fairfax, and Prince William counties and the city of Alexandria.
As a southern planter, Bailey Washington raised his children within the context of Anglo-Virginian culture, suggesting that William was brought up as a gentleman. Beyond his primary education, William trained to become a church minister. His post-primary education included Greek, Latin, mathematics, and theology. William was well into training when the American Revolution sent him in a completely different direction.
In 1775, William Washington was 23 years of age with an incredibly acute sense of duty and of right and wrong. When Virginia began raising troops to resist Great Britain, William gave up his studies and life as a planter’s son to join the patriot cause. Patrick Henry delivered his Liberty or Death speech to the Virginia Convention in March. Lord Dunmore, Virginia’s governor, wisely removed gunpowder from the public warehouse in Williamsburg to prevent it from falling into “local” hands, which only aroused the patriots even more.
Subsequently, news arrived from Massachusetts detailing the Battles of Lexington Green and Concord. Like many of his fellow citizens in Stafford County, he was raised in the tradition of the Common Burden. He was among the first of Virginia’s youth to answer the call “to arms.” Already a member of the minutemen organization in Stafford County, he formed a militia company in the early summer.[2] In Richmond, the convention created three infantry regiments commanded by Patrick Henry, William Woodford, and Hugh Mercer.[3] On 12 September, at a meeting at the Spotsylvania Courthouse, local minutemen elected William Washington and Townshend Dade to serve as captains in Hugh Mercer’s 3rd Regiment of Infantry. Assisting Mercer was Lieutenant Colonel George Weedon and Major Thomas Marshall. Later that year, the regiment became part of Brigadier General Hugh Mercer’s Brigade of the Continental Army in New York and was assigned to the command of Major General Nathaniel Greene.
Fighting in the mid-Atlantic region, young Captain Washington commanded the 7th Company. Lieutenant James Monroe, later the 5th President of the United States, served as Washington’s second-in-command.[4] During the Battle of Trenton, Captain Washington and his XO distinguished themselves by leading a charge against a battery of Hessian artillery. Washington and Monroe received serious wounds; both received the personal thanks of their Commander-in-Chief, General George Washington. While recovering from his injuries, the Continental Army advanced William Washington to the rank of major and, on 27 January 1777, provisionally assigned him to serve in the newly created 4th Regiment of Continental Light Dragoons.[5]
Transition
During the night of 26 September 1778, the 3rd Regiment of Continental Light Dragoons, serving under the command of Lieutenant Colonel George Baylor, had found billeting in the town of Old Tappan, New Jersey. A town citizen with loyalist sentiments notified British forces, and Baylor’s command was attacked in their quarters while still asleep. Colonel Baylor, wounded in the lung by a British bayonet, was captured and taken prisoner. A short time later, Baylor’s XO, Major Alexander Clough, also injured, died of his wounds.[6] In light of the loss of the regiment’s two principal command officers, Continental Army HQ advanced Major William Washington to Lieutenant Colonel and ordered him to assume command of the 3rd Dragoons.
Between September 1778 and the late summer of 1779, Colonel Washington recruited replacements and supervised their training. On 19 November, the Army HQ ordered Washington to join the command of Major General Benjamin Lincoln in Charleston, South Carolina.
Southern Department Fights
On March 10, 1780, Washington’s regiment joined forces with the remnants of the 1st Continental Light Dragoons at Bacon’s Bridge, South Carolina. His mission was to reconnoiter and screen against advancing British troops. On 26 March, Washington had his first encounter with the British Legion, a brigade-sized unit of dragoons under Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton.[7] It was a minor victory near Rantowle’s Bridge on the Stono River. Afterward, on the Ashley River during the fight at Rutledge’s Plantation, Colonel Washington again bested a detachment of Tarleton’s Dragoons.
On 14 April 1780, Colonel Tarleton assaulted the encampment of General Isaac Huger at Monck’s Corner, successfully routing the Continental force (including Washington’s Dragoons). Washington’s losses included 15 dead, 17 wounded, 100 captured, and the loss of 83 horses.
Colonel Washington led his remaining troops across the Santee River to escape capture. The severe attrition of Washington’s command forced its amalgamation with the 1st Continental Light Dragoons under Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Walton White. While waiting to cross the flooded Santee River, British forces surprised and defeated Colonel White’s dragoons at Lenud’s Ferry on 6 May 1780. With Colonel White’s capture, command of the dragoons passed to Colonel Washington. Washington moved the regiment to North Carolina for recruitment, provision, and training when General Lincoln surrendered the southern army and the city of Charleston to Cornwallis on 12 May.
British forces defeated the reconstituted southern army, formed under General Horatio Gates, at the Battle of Camden, South Carolina, on 16 August 1780. This loss opened up the south to British control. General Nathanael Greene soon replaced Gates, whose cowardice in the field permanently discredited his former service in the northern theater
General Greene divided his army between himself and General Daniel Morgan. Colonel Washington was placed under Morgan, who tasked Washington with conducting raids in western South Carolina. Washington’s two notable successes included capturing Rugeley’s Mill on 4 December. In this engagement, Washington bluffed 112 loyalists into surrendering a strongly fortified structure without firing a single shot. To achieve the bluff, Washington used a Quaker Gun — a felled tree placed in the wagon bed and shaped to look like a large cannon.
In the second engagement at Hammond’s Old Store in the Little River district, Colonel Washington defeated 250 Georgian loyalists, killing or wounding 150 men and capturing the remaining one-hundred troops.
Colonel Washington’s successes became a source of irritation to General Charles Cornwallis, who soon turned to Colonel Tarleton and ordered him to “chase down” General Morgan’s “flying corps.” Tarleton’s orders led directly to the Battle of Cowpens on 17 January 1781.
General Morgan’s battle plans called for Washington’s group of 80 Continental dragoons and 45 mounted Georgia infantry to serve as either a defensive or offensive unit (as the situation required). Washington’s first encounter with the enemy involved the rescue of a South Carolina militia unit as it was reloading behind the front lines of Morgan’s left flank. The unit was under an aggressive assault by Colonel Tarleton’s Legion. Colonel Washington crushed the attackers, regrouped, and then pursued the British left flank infantry. After repeated assaults by Washington, the Americans moved through the British infantry and attacked a small artillery position behind Tarleton’s front lines.
Surrendering troops create battlefield confusion. This is what happened when the main British infantry decided to surrender their arms after Tarleton attempted to withdraw. Washington, in close pursuit, found himself in an isolated position and, because of it, soon found himself the focus of an attack by Colonel Tarleton and two of his aides. The courageous Washington met Tarleton head-on, calling out to him, “Where is now the boasting Tarleton?”
A young coronet of the 17th Dragoons, Thomas Patterson, rode up to strike Washington but was shot by Washington’s orderly as Washington struck Tarleton with a blow from his sword. Colonel Tarleton returned the favor by shooting Washington in the leg, which luckily only creased his knee but also wounded Washington’s horse.[8]
Colonel Tarleton turned his horse and withdrew from the engagement. Washington, whose temper had not yet cooled, pursued him for sixteen miles — eventually giving up the chase at Thickitty Creek, near the plantation of Adam Goudylock. For his valor at Cowpens, Colonel Washington received a Congressional silver medal.[9]
After the Battle of Cowpens, Washington’s dragoons assisted the withdrawal of General Nathanael Greene to Dan River, Virginia, by providing rearguard actions against British forces under General Cornwallis. Subsequently, Colonel Washington returned to North Carolina as a vanguard for Greene’s re-emerging army.
In March 1781, Washington’s dragoons fought at the Battle of the Guilford Court House, Greensboro, North Carolina. This battle successfully fought as a defensive action gave General Cornwallis a victory — but an expensive one. The fight only lasted around 90 minutes, but in that time, Cornwallis gave up a quarter of his men to death or incapacitation. Upon learning of the battle’s details, Sir Charles James Fox, a British Member of Parliament, quipped that with another victory, such as at the Guilford Court House, the British Army in North America would be in ruins.
According to Cornwallis’ report, the British gave up three officers and 88 men of other ranks killed, with 24 officers and 374 men of other ranks wounded, with 25 men “missing in action.” Colonel Tarleton was one of the wounded officers.
The Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill (also, the Second Battle of Camden) occurred on 25 April 1781 when British forces under Major General Francis Rawdon assaulted Continental troops occupying Hobkirk’s Hill. After a fierce clash of arms, during which Colonel Washington could not assault Rawdon’s flank, General Green ordered a withdrawal, leaving Rawdon’s smaller force in possession of the hill. Despite the British victory, Rawdon eventually fell back to Camden, abandoned it, and withdrew to Charleston. Greene was willing to accept defeat in this and three other engagements for the longer-term benefit of depriving the British of their control of South Carolina beyond the city of Charleston.
The last Carolinas engagement during the American Revolution occurred at the Battle of Eutaw Springs. In early 1781, Major General Greene initiated the campaign to end British control over the South Carolina backcountry. His first objective was to capture a village designated as Ninety-Six. On 22 May, Greene laid siege to the fortified village — but its loyalist residents would not budge.
Within thirty days, Greene became aware that General Rawdon was leading reinforcement to offer relief to Ninety-Six. A Continental assault against the village was repelled, so to avoid having to confront Rawdon, General Green withdrew toward Charlotte, N.C.
General Rawdon did pursue Greene for several days but abandoned the pursuit because his men were exhausted and in need of resupply. Ninety-Six was the only remaining inland British outpost after the fall of Augusta. Unable to sustain the outpost, General Rawdon decided to burn the village and withdraw to Charleston. General Rawdon, being in poor health, decided to return to England, leaving command of Charleston in the hands of Colonel Alexander Stewart.
By mid-July, General Greene moved his exhausted army to a bivouac on the High Hills of Santee. The men needed the rest, and Greene needed a place to await the arrival of reinforcements.
On 13 August, Colonel Stewart led around 2,300 men to Thompson’s plantation (south of the Congaree River). He then fell back to Eutaw Springs on 27 August (about 2 miles east of present-day Eutawville). The Battle of Eutaw Springs was Colonel Washington’s final Revolutionary War action. Midway through the fight, Greene ordered Washington to assault a portion of the British line positioned in a blackjack thicket along Eutaw Creek.[10] The order was not only stupid, but it was also a needless sacrifice of good cavalry: the thicket proved impenetrable and British fire repulsed Washington’s mounted charges. During the last charge, Washington’s mount was shot from under him, and he was pinned beneath his horse. British troops bayonetted Washington, and he was taken prisoner and held under house arrest until the end of the war.
On September 8, 1781, Washington’s final action was the Battle of Eutaw Springs, the last major battle in the Carolinas. Midway through the battle, Greene ordered Washington to charge a portion of the British line positioned in a blackjack thicket along Eutaw Creek. The thicket proved impenetrable and British fire repulsed the mounted charges. During the last charge, Washington’s mount was shot out from under him, and he was pinned beneath his horse. He was bayoneted, taken prisoner, and held under house arrest in the Charleston area for the remainder of the war. General Charles Cornwallis said of Colonel William Washington, “There could be no more formidable antagonist in a charge, at the head of his cavalry, than Colonel William Washington.”[11]
In Conclusion
The list of patriot officers of William Washington’s quality is very small. That Colonel Washington compares favorably with the most notable American Revolution heroes is indisputable — it is a shame that few Americans today know about this tremendously aggressive, tactically proficient, and strategically adept regimental commander.
Our schools teach that the American Revolutionary War ended with General Cornwallis’ surrender to George Washington at Yorktown, Virginia, on 19 October 1781. The worst of it is that it isn’t true. Considerable fighting occurred in the two years after Yorktown and even expanded to the European continent. After Yorktown, there were at least 200 additional fights in South Carolina alone — most often between Whig (patriot) and Tory (British loyalist) militias.[12] Moreover, a violent civil war occurred between 1781 – 1783 as Indian tribes raged against each other, offering no quarter.
After Yorktown, the British embarked on an aggressive policy to reestablish its hold on the Caribbean. After Yorktown, the British confronted the combined forces of Spain, France, and the Dutch Republic. There was also the matter of French meddling in India, British mischief in Vermont, and the role of the Dutch navy in keeping the British “on alert.”
The last British soldier withdrew from the newly created United States on 25 November 1783 — three months after the signing of the instrument of peace (known as the Treaty of Paris of 1783) — a process that was begun in 1782, after Parliament voted to suspend military operations following Cornwallis’ surrender in late 1781.
Colonel William Washington met Jane Elliott of Sandy Hill, South Carolina, when she made his regimental battle flag, which he carried with him from the Cowpens to Eutaw Springs. Retained under arrest in Charleston through the end of 1782, Colonel Washington nevertheless made good use of his time. He and Jane Elliott were married on 21 April 1782. Washington, unable to inherit his father’s Virginia estate, became quite wealthy through marriage (as did his cousin George). Miss Elliott owned the Sandy Springs plantation and several other properties in St. Paul Parish.
In 1785, William and Jane Washington purchased a townhouse at 8 South Battery in Charleston. They pursued low-country farming and raised thoroughbred horses. William was elected to the state legislature between 1787 – 1804 and accepted the post of brigadier general of the state militia in 1794.
Following his presidency, George Washington retired to Mount Vernon to struggle with his predicament of being land-rich and cash poor. He had vast acreages in the Virginia piedmont but could not sell the land due to the encroachment of squatters. Ultimately, he grew restless in retirement, prompted by tensions with France. In 1798, as part of the continuation of the French Revolutionary Wars, French privateers began seizing American ships — the so-called Quasi-War that lasted until 1800.
On 4 July 1798, President John Adams nominated Washington to serve as a lieutenant general as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armies. President Washington accepted the post and served in it until his death 17 months later. His work involved planning for a provisional army without offering specific details (to avoid political implications). In recommending individuals to serve at high rank, Washington broke with the recommendations submitted by Thomas Jefferson. By this time, the two men had become enemies.
While serving as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army, Washington offered his cousin William a commission as brigadier general in the U.S. Army. William accepted the commission, particularly as it involved defensive works in South Carolina and Georgia, should the French attempt an invasion of the United States. During this period, William served as an officer on his cousin’s staff.
In his late 50s, William Washington became ill and suffered from a lingering ailment — likely cancer. He passed away on 6 March 1810, aged 58 years. He was survived by Jane, his wife, and their son and daughter (Elizabeth). Elizabeth was married to Major General Alexander Spotswood, the grandson of Colonial Virginia’s lieutenant governor.
Brigadier General William Washington — was one of America’s finest Revolutionary War officers.
Sources:
Babits, L. E., and J. B. Howard. Long, Obstinate, and Bloody: The Battle of the Guilford Courthouse. The University of North Carolina Press, 2009.
Glen, J. The Washington’s: A Family History. Savas Publishing, 2014
Glickstein, D. After Yorktown: The final struggle for American Independence
Haller, S. E. William Washington: Cavalryman of the Revolution. Heritage Books, 2001.
Murphy, D. William Washington, American Light Dragoon: A Continental Cavalry Leader in the War of Independence. Westholme Publishing, 2014.
Endnotes:
[1] Do not confuse the subject of this essay, William Washington (1752 – 1810), with a distant relative, William Augustine Washington (1757 – 1810). William Washington was George Washington’s second cousin once removed; William Augustine Washington was George Washington’s nephew.
[2] Beginning in 1774, minutemen were organized from within the ranks of colonial militia but trained specifically as an early form of special operations infantry. These men were the “rapid reaction” force of the colonial militia. They held themselves in readiness to report/respond to emergencies within moments of an alert. The name derived from the fact that they were expected to respond “within a minute” of an alert.
[3] Dr. Hugh Mercer was a Scot who eventually achieved the rank of Brigadier General in the Continental Army. He previously fought as a Jacobite in the Battle of Culloden, in the Seven Year’s War, and in the early battles of the American Revolution. He was killed in action at the Battle of Princeton.
[4] The “second-in-command” of an American military unit is variously referred to as “executive officer” or “deputy commander.” The executive officer is usually referred to as simply XO, while a deputy commander is generally referred to as “deputy.” When serving in temporary command, the XO or deputy will sign official documents as “Acting Commander.”
[5] The United States Army never had a cavalry component until 1861. Before then, the horse-mounted troop was referred to as dragoons. In effect, dragoons were horse-mounted infantry. They would ride into battle, dismount, and fight as infantry. After 1861, horse-mounted troops were called cavalry with a distinctly different mission.
[6] George Baylor previously served as General Washington’s aide-de-camp. The 3rd Dragoons often served as security escorts for Martha Washington, who accompanied her husband during his military campaigns, and also served as Washington’s reconnaissance force, collecting and reporting information about the disposition of British Forces.
[7] The British Legion was an organization recruited and formed in the colonies of British loyalists. A regimental-sized cavalry, the commander of the British Legion was Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton.
[8] A British version of this fight can be found in the records of the 17th Dragoons (Ch. 33)
[9] The Battle of the Cowpens was significant because the Americans totally destroyed the Brigade of Dragoons under Colonel Banastre Tarleton. Such losses made the conflict a turning point in the war. General Morgan’s success came as a result of his effective employment of a double envelopment of Tarleton’s force. Of Tarleton’s 1,000 men, all of whom were British loyalists, 850 were killed or captured.
[10] Blackjack red oak is a deciduous tree growing about 15 meters tall.
[11] Balch, Thomas, ed., Letters, and papers relating chiefly to the provincial history of Pennsylvania. Applewood books, 2009, attributed to a letter written by Major William Jackson quoting General Lord Cornwallis.
[12] Such terms as patriot and loyalist are far too imprecise to use in any discussion about the American Revolution. Glickman suggests using the words Whig and Tory … so that everyone knows who did what. British loyalists were, after all, patriots as well.
Anyone who believes that the American Revolution was a war easily fought doesn’t know enough about American history. We might argue that the revolution first occurred as an idea in the heads of British citizens who began to wonder if they could forge their future without the interference of the king or parliament. Fighting the revolution was an entirely different matter. Still, before we get to that discussion, we need to explore what else was happening in the world besides men muttering over their mead in a Massachusetts pub about burdensome taxes.
In the last years of the Seven Years’ War (also called the French and Indian Wars), British fleets and armies ranged across the world stage, dismembering France and Spain’s colonial empires. But in London, from around 1750, British ministers had to consider the prospect of defending British territories from a wide range of enemies.
Looking at North America, it was logical to assume that some colonies could defend themselves, but there were questions about the other colonies. Nova Scotia would be a problem — French catholic priests would see to that. In any case, if the British knew anything about the French from the previous 400 years, it was that the French could not be trusted. One could always tell when a French diplomat was lying because his lips were moving. In any case, if the French seized Halifax, all the other British American colonies could be rolled up without much effort.
The Virginia colony was always reliable and well-populated with men who knew how to fight. Pennsylvania’s Quaker politicians would open their doors to the French without a quibble. No one knew where the ethnic German colonists would come down on the question of war with France. Georgia and South Carolina could not defend themselves against the Cherokee, much less French marines. In the West Indies, enslaved Black people outnumbered British Army regulars and colonists. The thought of a slave revolt was disturbing, indeed. This was only the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, the French Bourbons were threatening, but so too were the highland Scots, Irish Catholics, and North American Indians, and there was this ongoing and highly perturbing talk inside England about republicanism. British politicians decided it was time to act. Highlanders became the flower of the British Army, and Irish Catholics were recruited as well. In Pennsylvania, German colonists formed two regiments of Royal American infantry. Amazingly, 21,000 American colonists stepped up to defend the British colonies in 1758. Before 1763, most native Indian tribes had sided with the British. Arcadian troublemakers found themselves deported to Louisiana. There was even some talk of forming a pro-British French militia.
And yet, the preceding concerns were only half of the problem. North America had no four-lane highways to move large numbers of troops. Those troops would have to be transferred by ship if that were necessary. The Atlantic coastline was the only highway. Additionally, there were no “fast means of communication.” Coordinating widely dispersed military forces was difficult in the extreme.
The revolutionary campaigns were complex, made so by weather, climate, the distances between cities, thick foliage, and the lack of adequate roads to move troops, artillery, and supply wagons. The British Army was, in 1775, the world’s premier land army. Who, in their right mind, would challenge it?
In those days, armies depended on foraging to feed the men and animals. There was no question that the British Army could forage; the king owned everything — he could take what he needed. His subjects might be compensated, or they may not. The Continental army had to rely on the patriotic spirit of local farmers. A third of these farmers were British loyalists, with another one-third opportunists who would offer forage to whoever paid the highest.
The American Revolutionary War was a complicated series of campaigns. It is hard to imagine the distances in an age where automobiles can travel five hundred or more miles in a single day. It would take an American or British soldier 33 days to march 500 miles in 1775. Granted, the number of men who participated in the American Revolution pales compared to modern warfare, but the number of combatants was significant for those days. As with all armed conflicts, whatever could have gone wrong, did.
American land forces included (in total over seven years) 200,000 patriots. American naval forces included 106 Continental and State-owned ships. We don’t know how many men served in the navy, but Continental Marines had 132 officers and 2,000 enlisted men. The Americans were aided by 53 French navy ships and an unknown number of French land forces. Including all losses (Continental Army/State militia and civilian populations), the Americans gave up 70,000 war dead, 6,100 wounded in action, 17,000 losses from disease, and around 130,000 additional deaths attributed to smallpox. [1] The total of French allied dead was 2,112. Setting aside America’s war dead, the average life expectancy for a white male adult in 1780 was 39 years.
Opposing the Americans during the revolution were 48,000 British troops, 30,000 German troops, 25,000 loyalist troops, and 13,000 American Indians. What we know of British casualties is limited. Historians contend that British combat dead totaled 5,500 men; German allies lost 7,774 men, of which 1,800 died in battle. Nearly 5,000 German troops deserted in North America. Of British loyalists, 7,000 died during the American Revolution, including 1,700 combat dead and 5,300 from unspecified diseases.
Some Background
American Marines were created upon the recommendation of the Naval and Marine Committees of the Second Continental Congress in October and November 1775. The officer commissioned to recruit the two Marine battalions was Samuel Nicholas, a native of Philadelphia. Nicholas was born in 1744 (d. 1790), the youngest of three children of Anthony and Mary Chute-Cowman Nicholas. Anthony was a blacksmith; Mary’s uncle Attwood Shute was the mayor of Philadelphia from 1755-58. Samuel graduated from the College of Philadelphia (present-day University of Pennsylvania) in 1759. On 28 November 1775, Sam Nicholas was commissioned by the Second Continental Congress to serve as Captain of Marines. He was the first officer commissioned in the Continental Naval Service.
Upon confirmation of his appointment, Captain Nicholas started planning his recruitment campaign around the number of ships that would require a complement of Marines. Captain Nicholas’ secondary assignment was the command of the Marine Detachment aboard USS Alfred. In this capacity, Captain Nicholas answered to Commodore Esek Hopkins.[2]Alfred sailed on 4 January 1776 for Nassau (See also, The Marine’s First Amphibious Raid). Nicholas returned to Philadelphia in April 1776 and resumed command of the Marine battalions. In June, Congress promoted Nicholas to Major Commandant Continental Marine Corps.
In October 1776, the people of Philadelphia speculated that when British General Sir William Howe was tired of chasing patriots in New York, he would march his army to invade their fair city. Fearing such an eventuality, the Continental Congress organized committees and met with various members of the Pennsylvania legislature to plan a defense of the city. A Pennsylvania committee submitted its recommendations to the Continental War Board. They proposed that Congress permanently assign four companies of Marines in Pennsylvania or at Trenton to defend Philadelphia from British or Loyalist troops.[3] The Pennsylvania committee also suggested an additional two Virginia militia battalions and a German militia battalion.
Contrary to the general concerns of Philadelphia citizens, British General William Howe was already engaged in Westchester County and, for the time being, posed no threat to Philadelphia. Major Nicholas and his staff continued recruiting and training Marines in Philadelphia through the fall of 1776. By then, the First Battalion was well-organized, disciplined, and (more or less) functional. Nicholas adequately provided for their nutritional needs and saw they were accorded comfortable billets. Still, some Marines deserted from their service responsibilities, with few returning to face the consequences.
Private Henry Hassan took his punishment but, within a month, deserted for a second time. Even then, the Marine Corps was not everyone’s cup of tea. One Marine who returned may have regretted his decision when, having been found guilty at a court-martial of desertion and quitting his post without authority, received fifty lashes on his bareback for desertion and twenty-one additional lashes of the whip for quitting his post.
The Marines Mobilize
Suddenly, in mid-November, Philadelphia was abuzz with rumors of an approaching British fleet. Congress directed the Marine Committee to arrange its naval forces in the Delaware River. Accordingly, USS Randolph was made ready for sea. Major Commandant Nicholas ordered Captain Shaw to select Marines from the First Battalion, prepare them for duty at sea, and report to the officer commanding the frigate.
Captain Shaw’s Marines reported to Randolph before the ship’s crew. In 1776, few mariners were interested in serving in the Continental Navy with British sloops of war roaming the American coastlines and taking station in busy seaports. The rumor of an approaching British fleet was only that; the fleet was actually several British merchantmen, but Randolph’s preparations continued.
Meanwhile, the land war was turning against General Washington. After defeats at Long Island, White Plains, Fort Washington, and Fort Lee, General Washington began his long retreat through New Jersey. He was in desperate need of veteran soldiers. The British Army’s march to Trenton posed a real threat to Philadelphia. By late November, General Washington was in a precarious situation; the British pushed him from Harlem Heights to Upper Westchester County. He crossed the Hudson on 13 November and began his painful and embarrassing withdrawal to Hackensack, Newark, Elizabeth Town, and Brunswick.
From Brunswick, Washington sent a letter to President (of Congress) John Hancock begging for immediate reinforcements. Hancock wanted to help, but with common knowledge that 10,000 British troops were enroute, there were no long queues of volunteers at the recruiting offices. Washington led his under-staffed army out of Brunswick on 2 December, marching them through Princeton and finally halting them on the banks of the Delaware River.
When General Howe occupied Brunswick, everyone still above the ground inside Philadelphia went into cardiac arrest. All Philadelphia shops and schools closed by order of the Council of Public Safety. All able-bodied citizens and militia took up arms to defend the city. What actually happened was that the good citizens of Philadelphia, able-bodied or not, ignored the Council of Public Safety, loaded their wagons, and deserted the city. There was much to accomplish in such a short period of time, and defending the city was not very high on anyone’s agenda.
Once city officials realized their fellow citizens were gutless wonders, they urgently appealed to the Congress for Continental Marines. Responding to the will of Congress, Major Nicholas detailed three companies of Marines for the defense of Pennsylvania. Company officers inspected their men and readied them for service in the field. With orders to report to General Washington, Major Nicholas marched his Marines down to the waterfront to board gondolas.[4]
The Marines’ departure from Philadelphia did nothing to bolster the morale of its few remaining citizens. While Major Nicholas proceeded to General Washington’s camp, city officials formed a regiment of militia — three battalions — in all, around 1,200 men. These were citizens who didn’t get away from Philadelphia fast enough. They were well-clothed but poorly armed. Within a few days, the regimental commander, Colonel John Cadwalader, was ordered to proceed and report to General Washington.
General Washington was happy to receive reinforcements — even Marines — but he wasn’t sure what to do with them.[5] This problem was solved when Colonel Cadwalader arrived on 5 December. Since Cadwalader and Major Nicholas were Philadelphians, Washington asked Cadwalader to absorb the Marine battalion into his regiment, along with the USS Delaware and USS Washington crews under captains Charles Alexander and Thomas Read. Colonel Cadwalader’s regiment became a de facto brigade with these additional forces.
However, General Washington had far more on his plate than personnel issues. For one thing, Washington was puzzled by General Howe’s delay in Brunswick. Washington decided to march his men toward Princeton on 7 December. Informants cautioned Washington that he was walking into a collision with the British. Since it was not the time or place of his choosing, General Washington again retreated to Trenton and withdrew across the Delaware River. In this process, Washington ordered his men to remove or destroy anything valuable to the enemy.
General Washington did not know that Similar problems plagued general Howe. He did not have timely or reliable information about his enemy. Wisely, Howe was cautious in his pursuit of Washington but unwisely divided his force into two corps. The first, under Major General James Grant, Howe ordered to Trenton. The second corps, under Major General Charles Cornwallis, General Howe ordered to Maidenhead — a position halfway between Trenton and Princeton.
The vanguard of Grant’s force reached Trenton just as the last of Washington’s army crossed the river into Pennsylvania. General Cornwallis’ troops reached the East bank of the river 15 miles above Trenton, but Washington had wisely removed all boats from that location and positioned his field canon on the west bank. These measures brought General Grant’s advance to a screeching halt.
Once General Howe became aware that Grant and Cornwallis lost their momentum, he abandoned his immediate plan for a Pennsylvania campaign. Instead, he ordered Grant and Cornwallis to establish winter camps. Ultimately, these cantonments stretched from Hackensack to Burlington on the Delaware River. General Howe then went to his winter camp.
Observing British forces constructing bridges and river-side docks, Washington logically concluded that Howe’s delay was only temporary. Desperate for reliable knowledge concerning British activities, General Washington sent a letter to Pennsylvania’s Council of Safety asking them if it would be possible to send Commodore Thomas Seymour upriver to reconnoiter the area. He also ordered Colonel Cadwalader to send a battalion to Dunk’s ferry. The battalion’s two-fold mission was to guard the crossing and scout the area of Bordentown across the Delaware River.
On 11 December 1776, Hessian Colonel Carl E. U. von Donop departed Trenton with a force large enough to seize Bordentown and Burlington. Von Donop encountered only light resistance from local militia, but his presence forced Washington’s scouting party back across the river. The Germans had no problem occupying Burlington, but local Loyalists complained that his presence would only attract the attention of the Continental Navy. Von Donop organized a delegation of Burlington citizens to confer with Commodore Seymore to receive his assurances and gain information from Seymour that might benefit General von Donop. Meanwhile, Hessian troops began patrolling inside the town.
Commodore Seymour met with citizen delegates and, to his credit, was direct in response to their inquiries. Seymour would have no sympathy for Burlington if von Donop occupied it. As soon as he observed the Hessian town patrols, Seymour opened fire, forcing von Donop’s army to withdraw northward and aggravating the ulcers of the townspeople.
On 12 December, Marines from USS Hancock, serving under Marine Captain William Shippin, occupied Burlington. Reports from Seymour and his scouts confirmed Washington’s suspicions. Consequently, Washington established a defensive perimeter on the West Bank of the Delaware south of Burlington. Brigadier General Philemon Dickinson secured Yardley’s Ferry and tied his defense line with that of Brigadier General James Ewing. Colonel Cadwalader’s force tied in with Ewing from Hoop’s mill to Dunk’s Ferry.
While General Washington created his line of defense, militia General Israel Putnam supervised the defense of Philadelphia. In the middle of these preparations, such as they were, HMS Roebuck anchored just inside Delaware Bay. Roebuck’s position prohibited ships from reaching the open sea. Congressional delegates ordered the Marine Committee to send warnings of Roebuck’s station to local merchantmen.[6]
The Committee then considered the employment of Randolph and Hornet — both ship’s captains received instructions placing them under General Putnam’s orders. Congress offered a $10,000 bounty to the crew and Marines of Randolph if Captain Nicholas Biddle could bypass HMS Roebuck and get into the open sea.
Having done its duty in defense of Philadelphia, Congress promptly removed itself to Baltimore. Congressional delegate Robert Morris, however, remained behind as a congressional liaison to General Putnam. He advised Putnam to send Randolph and Hornet to sea without delay. Putnam agreed and ordered both frigates readied for sea. Morris’ idea was to send Biddle to sea in search of British ships operating off the coast of New York. Despite Biddle’s recruitment of sailors from the city prison to man his ship, he did not have a full crew complement and was reluctant to shove off without an entire crew.
Captain James Nicholson, commanding Hornet, received different instructions. Since Hornet had a barely adequate crew, Morris and Putnam ordered Nicholson to sail to South Carolina and, once clearing the capes, proceed to Martinique, where he might find crewmen and military stores needed for Washington’s army.
Both Continental ships set sail on 14 December, setting a course for Hog Island. The following day, a messenger vessel overtook them with instructions to put into Chester to await the arrival of merchantmen destined for France. While anchored in Chester, another boat arrived from Philadelphia, recalling both ships. After Morris learned that HMS Falcon and two bomb ketches (ships rigged for firing mortars) had arrived to reinforce Roebuck, he recalled Randolph and Hornet, fearing their loss to the Royal Navy.
Morris was also concerned about Captain C. Alexander’s frigate Delaware; he asked Washington to release the ship back to Philadelphia. Colonel Cadwalader, under whose command Delaware was placed, concurred. Major Nichols formed a detachment of Marines for service on Delaware, placing them under the command of First Lieutenant Daniel Henderson and Second Lieutenant David Love. The shifting of officers led to the temporary appointment of Sergeant James Coakley to First Lieutenant.[7] The loss of 20 Marines from Cadwalader’s command had little effect on Washington because, on 14 December, the British had gone into winter quarters.
The Marines under Major Nicholas numbered around 130 officers and men. While under Cadwalader’s command, the Marines shared the usual service duties with the brigade, including guard duty. Cadwalader, well aware of General Washington’s concerns about gaining intelligence about enemy movements/intentions, assigned his guard units the additional task of obtaining information and passing it up the chain of command. Guard units were also instructed to harass the enemy whenever possible.
Washington appreciated Cadwalader’s foresight. He constantly fretted over the possibility of a sudden attack by Howe’s forces, particularly since Washington’s army was weak and under-equipped. An army collapse at that point would be a disaster for the patriot cause. Of additional concern to Washington was that most of his army’s enlistments would expire on 31 December 1776. These factors prompted General Washington to seize the initiative against Howe while he still had an army. News of Howe’s withdrawal and the scattering of his forces encouraged Washington’s line of thought. By 24 December, General Washington had formulated a plan for offensive operations.
Washington’s primary objective was Trenton. His plan called for crossing the Delaware River at three locations, executed by Cadwalader’s brigade, Hitchcock, Ewing, and a militia company under Captain Thomas Rodney.[8] Captain Rodney would cross the river near Bristol and join Colonel Griffin, who was already in New Jersey. Together, this force would march on Trenton and join Washington’s main body. Ewing would cross the river at Trenton Ferry to the north of Cadwalader. Ewing’s primary task was to capture the Assunpink Bridge to prevent the Hessians from escaping Trenton. Washington commanded 2,400 troops and decided to cross at McKinley’s Ferry, ten miles above Trenton. Once his three brigades reformed in New Jersey, Washington intended to march on Princeton and Brunswick.
Trenton was under the control of Hessian Colonel Johann Gottlieb. In keeping with German tradition, Gottlieb’s regiment celebrated Christmas with feasting and strong drink. Washington readied his men in Pennsylvania, but a fierce winter storm set in as the day progressed. Snowfall was dense, and the temperature was agonizingly bitter. Nevertheless, by 1800, Washington had sent his advance force across the Delaware River. Poor weather, dropping temperatures, and coagulating river ice impeded Washington’s operations by midnight. By then, Washington’s operation was already three hours behind schedule.
The army wasn’t assembled and ready to march until 0400. Throughout the night, the storm worsened. General Washington divided his command into two corps. Brigadier General Nathanael Greene led the first of these toward the left and seized the Pennington Road, while Colonel Arthur St. Clair proceeded southeast, down the river road.
Within a mile of Trenton, Greene deployed his men to form a half-circle around the town. Greene’s approach alerted the Hessians. A number of pickets retreated to an area north of town. Washington launched his main assault at around 07:00. Patriot artillery opened fire into the ranks of Hessians, whom Gottlieb had formed to repel the patriot force. The barrage decimated the Hessians, and they withdrew to the edge of town. German officers rallied their men, reformed the ranks, ordered “fix bayonets,” and started back to confront Washington’s force. Soon aware that they were outnumbered, the Hessians began a fighting withdrawal. Unhappily for the Germans, they withdrew into elements of Ewing’s force at the Assunpink Bridge. With their officers dying right and left, the German troops became confused and soon surrendered.
The second group of Hessians rallied under Major von Dechow to re-take the bridge, but they were soon defeated. The battle lasted barely two hours. Washington suffered the loss of one man killed and three wounded. The Hessians lost 22 killed, 83 wounded, and 891 captured. Six hundred Germans managed to escape capture and moved rapidly toward Bordentown.
As it turned out, Washington’s force assaulted the Hessians without the support of either Cadwalader or Ewing’s full complement. As Cadwalader attempted to cross the Delaware River, the storm increased in intensity; dangerous ice impeded his movements. Out of concern that the storm might cause the loss of his canon, Cadwalader delayed sending his main force across the Delaware River.
General Ewing faced the same predicament and, with the exception of his initial advance guard, made no further attempt to cross the river. General Washington, meanwhile, was unaware of any of these circumstances. Having defeated the Hessians, his mission accomplished, General Washington returned across the Delaware River. He dispatched a force to accompany his prisoners to Philadelphia and resumed his defense of the West Bank.
Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, Robert Morris had no success recruiting crews for Pennsylvania’s militia Navy. Service at sea with low pay may have been too much to ask. Captain Biddle grew obstinate about not having a full crew, but with Washington’s victory at Trenton, there was no longer a reason to send Randolph to sea.
Late in the day on 26 December, General Washington received a letter from Cadwalader explaining his reasons for failing to complete his mission. When General Cadwalader wrote his letter, he did not know where Washington was. He informed Washington that he intended to cross the Delaware River “the following morning.” By then, Washington had returned to Newtown, Pennsylvania. Washington’s reply asked Cadwalader to delay crossing the river until the two men could confer. Of course, except for one regiment under Colonel Hitchcock, Cadwalader had already crossed.
Having received General Washington’s instructions, Colonel Hitchcock canceled his planned movement across the river. He dispatched a messenger to Cadwalader advising him of recent events and instructions. Cadwalader conferred with his officers. Ultimately, Cadwalader decided to remain in New Jersey and make an attack against Burlington. He sent Colonel Joseph Reed ahead with a small scouting force. At 0400 on 28 December, General Cadwalader marched to Bordentown and took possession of the military stores abandoned by the Hessians. There being no food for his men, however, Cadwalader proceeded to Crosswicks, where he located food stores.
Major Nicholas’ Marines, being attached to Cadwalader’s brigade, did not participate in the Battle of Trenton, but they would not have long to wait for their first taste of land warfare. From Crosswicks, Cadwalader rejoined Washington outside of Princeton on the night of 2 January 1777. Washington attached Cadwalader’s brigade to Brigadier General Greene’s Division. At dawn on the morning of 3 November, Major Nicholas’ Marines arrived at the outskirts of Princeton. Green placed the Marines in reserve.
General Washington’s plan called for a dawn assault on Princeton, but at dawn, he was still two miles from the town. Intending to delay Cornwallis, Washington sent 350 men under Brigadier General Hugh Mercer to destroy the bridge over Stony Brook. Shortly before 0800, Washington wheeled his army to the right through Clarke’s farm and proceeded to enter Princeton through an undefended section.
En route to Stony Brook, Mercer’s brigade encountered two British infantry regiments and a cavalry unit under Lieutenant Colonel Charles Mawhood. This collision of combatants was the initiating engagement in the Battle of Princeton. Mercer and his men put up a stout defense against overwhelming forces. The British, mistaking Mercer for Washington, quickly surrounded him and demanded his surrender. Incensed, Mercer drew his sword and attacked his captors. Defending themselves, the enemy beat him to the ground and bayoneted him repeatedly.[9]
With Mercer’s executive officer dead, junior officers and troops became disorganized. Having observed the fight, General Washington rallied what troops remained of Mercer’s force and pushed the British back.
Upon hearing the clatter of muskets, Brigadier General Cadwalader led his 1,100 men against Colonel Mawhood, whose men at the time were disorganized. Mawhood rallied his men, reorganized them, and put them into ranks for an assault or defense. Cadwalader’s brigade was mostly composed of untrained, inexperienced, poorly armed militia. Nicholas’ Marines occupied the brigade’s right flank, but observing Mawhood’s battle line, the militia on the left began to falter.
General Washington, observing Cadwalader’s hesitance, ordered Colonel Edward Hand to move his sharpshooters forward to the right of the Marines. Washington courageously rode amongst the young militiamen and encouraged them. Colonel Hitchcock’s regiment soon arrived and took a position to Colonel Hand’s right. The Americans advanced against Mawhood’s left and center, forcing the British to withdraw and scatter. Despite Mawhood’s efforts to rally his men, the British line was defeated.
Washington’s Continentals controlled Princeton within an hour, and the British withdrew to Maidenhead. Washington estimated enemy casualties were around 500 incapacitated and 100 left dead on the field.[10] Of his own, Washington reported 30-40 slain, including Brigadier General Mercer, Colonel John Haslet, Captain Daniel Niel, Ensign Anthony Morris, Jr., and Marine Captain William Shippin.
The Battle of Princeton was the first time in the Revolution that General Washington’s army saw the fleeing backs of British Redcoats — and the Continental Marines had their first taste of land battle. General Howe regarded Washington’s victories at Trenton and Princeton as minor inconveniences, but to the Americans, having taken on the world’s greatest land army, the victories proved that the British could be beaten. In writing of the American victories at Trenton and Princeton, modern British historian Sir George Trevelyan observed, “It may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater and more lasting effects upon the history of the world.”
Sources:
Collins, V. L. A Brief Narrative of the Ravages of the British and Hessians at Princeton, 1776-1777. New York: Arno Press, 1968.
Fischer, D. H. Washington’s Crossing. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Ketchum, R. The Winter Soldiers: The Battles for Trenton and Princeton. Holt Publishing, 1999.
McCullough, D. 1776. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006.
Smith, C. Marines in the Revolution: A History of the Continental Marines in the American Revolution, 1775-1783. Washington: Headquarters U. S. Marine Corps, 1975.
Endnotes:
[1] Most of the 17,000 dead due to disease involved Americans imprisoned on British prison ships. British prison ships were obsolete, captured, or damaged ships used to house American prisoners of war. Conditions aboard these ships were appalling; far more men died as British prisoners than died in actual combat. The men languished in frigid conditions without adequate nourishment or clean water. According to historian Edwin G. Burrows, disease and starvation killed half of those taken on Long Island and as many as two-thirds of those captured at Fort Washington in 1776 — a realistic estimate of between 2,000 and 2,500 men in the space of two months. British guards harassed and abused the men constantly. Of the total, 10,000 men died from simple neglect. When they died, the British simply threw their bodies overboard into the New York harbor. Well over 1,000 prisoners were transported to England, where they performed forced labor in the mines. The British released some prisoners after they agreed to serve in the British Navy.
[2] Commodore was an honorary title (not a formal rank) bestowed on navy captains serving in command of two or more vessels of the Continental (later U. S.) Navy. Esek Hopkins was forced out of the Navy in 1778.
[3] There were around 80 Marine privates in a company and five companies of Marines in a battalion. It is amazing to imagine that the war board imagined that ten companies of Marines could defend against one or more British regiments.
[4] A Revolutionary War (period) gondola (also a gunboat) was a 54-foot, 29-ton boat armed with a single 24-pound bow canon.
[5] During the period from the Revolutionary War to the end of World War II, the Army operated under the War Department, and the naval forces operated under the Navy Department. When Nicholas reported to General Washington, the Army Commander-in-Chief was uncertain that the naval forces were reliable (or useful) — one problem was that they had no obligation to obey Washington’s orders. They were in the Navy Department with a completely different chain of command.
[6] On 6 July 1776, Pennsylvania’s Committee of Safety authorized the purchase of ships for the defense of Philadelphia. By October, thirteen small ships had been constructed, six of which were operational by August: Bulldog, Burke, Camden, Congress, Dickinson, Effingham, Experiment, Franklin, Hancock, Ranger, and Warren. Deciding overall command of the fleet was contentious, however. The first commodore was Thomas Caldwell, who resigned due to ill health. Caldwell was replaced by Samuel Davidson, a junior captain whose appointment ahead of more senior men nearly caused a mutiny of officers. Davidson was removed from naval service and replaced by Thomas Seymour. Captain John Hazelwood objected to serving under Seymour owing to his advanced age. Eventually, the Committee of Safety removed Seymour and appointed Hazelwood in his place.
[7] This reflects that even in these early days of American Marines, the Marine Corps placed tremendous trust and confidence in their noncommissioned officers and offered the most exceptional among them advancement into the officer ranks.
[8] Washington promoted Cadwalader to Brigadier General.
[9] Mercer, later discovered on the battlefield, was rushed to the home of two Quaker women. They nursed Mercer for nine days until he passed away.
[10] Actual British casualties were 270 men of all ranks.
— Furnish close and continuous fire support by neutralizing, destroying, or suppressing targets that threaten the success of supported units. To accomplish this mission, Marine Corps artillery (a) provides timely, close, accurate, and continuous fire support. (b) Provides depth to combat by attacking hostile reserves, restricting movement, providing long-range support for reconnaissance forces, and disrupting enemy command and control systems and logistics installations.[1] (c) Delivers counter-fire within the range of the weapon systems to ensure freedom of action by the ground forces.
Historical Note
For half of its 245-years, the U.S. Marine Corps has operated as a task-organized, mission-centered expeditionary force capable of quickly responding to any national emergency when so directed by the national military command authority. The term “task organized” simply means that the size of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) depends entirely on the mission assigned to it. A Marine Corps combat team could range from a rifle company to a reinforced brigade.
Before the Spanish-American War, when the mission of the Marine Corps was limited to providing sea-going detachments of qualified riflemen, the size of the Corps depended on the number of ships that required Marine Detachments.[2] The mission of the Marine Corps has changed considerably since the Spanish-American War. The U.S. Navy’s evolving role is one factor in the changing Marine Corps mission, but so too is advancing technological development and a greater demand for the Corps’ unique mission capabilities. One thing hasn’t changed: The Marine Corps has always been —and remains today— essentially a task-organized service. Today, we refer to all forward-deployed Marine Corps combat forces as Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs).
The Basics
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl.
—Frederick the Great
Artillery is a weapons platform used for launching munitions beyond the range of infantry weapons. Modern artillery evolved from much-simpler weapons in ancient times — used to breach fortifications and by defensive forces to withstand an enemy assault. Although not referred to as artillery, siege engines such as the catapult have been around since around 400 BC. Until the development of gunpowder, the effectiveness of artillery depended on mechanical energy. If one wanted to increase the effectiveness of such weapons, then one would have to construct larger engines. Gunpowder changed all that. For instance, first-century Roman catapults launching a 14-pound stone could achieve kinetic energy of 16,000 joules.[3] A 12-pound gun in the mid-19th century reached kinetic energy of 240,000 joules.
In the Middle Ages, artillerists adapted their weapons to support land armies. They accomplished this by constructing horse-drawn wagons to provide mobility to heavy weapons. Before the 20th century, when artillerists (gun crews) marched along beside the horse-drawn wagons, field artillery was commonly referred to as “foot artillery.” There was also a distinction between field artillery and horse artillery; the latter was used to support cavalry units, employing lighter guns and, eventually, horse-mounted gun crews. During World War I, technology changed horse-drawn artillery to wheeled or tracked vehicles.
Marine Corps Artillery: The Early Years
In addition to serving as shipboard riflemen, early Marines also manned naval guns. This may be the Corps’ earliest connection to the use of artillery. There are differences between the employment of naval vs. land artillery, but the fundamentals are similar. Nevertheless, the evolution of Marine artillery is linked to the growth of the Corps, and the modern development of the Corps began at the outset of the Spanish-American War. Marines have performed amphibious raids and assaults from its very beginning, but only as small detachments, often augmented by members of the ship’s crew (ship’s company). The Marine Corps formed its first (task-organized) amphibious battalion in the Spanish-American War. In that episode, the Corps distinguished itself as a naval assault force and proved its usefulness in projecting naval power ashore. See also: The First Marine Battalion.
As the U.S. Navy grew into a global force, the Marine Corps grew with it.[4] Within a few decades, the Marine Corps evolved from shipboard detachments and providing security for naval yards and stations to a force capable of seizing and defending advanced bases and forming and employing expeditionary assault forces. Artillery played a vital role in this evolution. From that time on, innovative thinkers helped make the Marine Corps relevant to the ever-evolving nature of war and its usefulness to our national defense.
The Marine Corps developed tables of organization and equipment (TO/E) to standardize requirements for combat and combat support personnel and their equipment. For example, all infantry, artillery, and combat support battalions are uniformly organized. Artillery regiments (generally) have the same number of battalions, battalions have the same number of batteries, and all headquarters/firing batteries are likewise similar in composition.[5] Organizational standardization remains a key element used by headquarters staff in determining whether or the extent to which Marine Corps units are combat-ready.
Infantry is the mission of the Marine Corps — projecting naval power ashore. The mission for anyone who is not an infantryman is to support the infantryman. The mission of Marine Corps artillery reflects this reality.
Following the Spanish-American War (1898), the Marine Corps developed the Advanced Base Force. This was essentially a coastal and naval base defense battalion designed to establish mobile and fixed bases in the event of major landing operations outside the territorial limits of the United States. The Advanced Base Force was a significant shift away from the Marine Corps’ mission up to that time. It marked the beginning of Marine expeditionary forces.
The Advanced Base Force was useful because it enabled the Navy to meet the demands of maritime operations independent of the nation’s land force, the U.S. Army. This decision was far more than an example of service rivalry; it was practical. In many cases, troops, and supplies (as the Army might have provided) were simply unavailable at the time and place the Navy needed them. The General Board of the Navy determined, at least initially, that no more than two regiments of Advance Base Forces would be required from the Marine Corps.[6] In those days, Advanced Base Battalions had one artillery battery (to provide direct fire support to the battalion) and naval shore batteries to defend against hostile naval forces.
In July 1900, a typical Marine artillery unit was equipped with 3-inch guns and colt automatic weapons. The Marine Corps organized its first artillery battalion in April 1914 at Vera Cruz, Mexico. This battalion would become the foundation of the 10th Marine Regiment, which distinguished itself in combat in the Dominican Republic in 1916.
First World War
Global war didn’t just suddenly appear at America’s doorstep in 1917; it had as its beginnings the Congress of Vienna in 1814. By the time the United States entered World War I, the war to end all wars was already into its third year of bloody mayhem. During those three years, the American press continually reported on such incidents as German submarine attacks on U.S. commercial shipping and a German proposal to Mexico for an invasion of states in the U.S. Southwest. There is no evidence that Mexico ever gave serious consideration to Germany’s proposal.
To prepare for America’s “possible” involvement, Congress authorized an expansion of the Marine Corps to include two infantry brigades, two air squadrons, and three regiments of artillery. The three artillery regiments and their initial date of activation were: the 11th Marines (3 January 1918), the 10th Marines (15 January 1918), and the 14th Marines (26 November 1918).
Major General Commandant George Barnett wanted to form a Marine infantry division for duty in France; General John J. Pershing, U.S. Army, commanding the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) not only opposed the formation of a Marine infantry division, but he also wasn’t fond of the idea of Marine Corps artillery regiments.[7], [8]
When the Commanding Officer of the 11th Marines became aware of Pershing’s objection to Marine artillery, he petitioned the Commandant to re-train his regiment as an infantry organization. Thus, in September 1918, the 11th Marines deployed to France as an infantry regiment of the 5th Marine Brigade. However, once the 5th Brigade arrived in France, General Pershing exercised his prerogative as overall American commander to break up the brigade and use these men as he saw fit. Pershing assigned most of these Marines to non-combat or combat support duties. Upon returning to the United States in August 1919, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) deactivated the 11th Marines.
The Commanding Officer of the 10th Marines also pushed for service in France. The regiment was equipped with 3-inch guns. Since there were no 3-inch guns in France, the War Department (Army) barred the 10th Marines from European service. When the Navy offered to convert 14-inch naval rifles for use as rail guns (mounted on train cars), the War Department conditionally approved the suggestion (along with a 7-inch weapon) — but only so long as the Navy used sailors to man the guns, not Marines.[9] Eventually, the Navy negotiated a compromise with the Army: sailors would handle the 14-inch guns, and the 10th Marines would service the 7-inch guns. The 10th Marines began training with the 7-inch guns in early October 1918. The war ended on 11 November 1918. On 1 April 1920, the 10th Marine regiment was re-designated as the 1st Separate Field Artillery Battalion, which had, by then, incorporated French 75-mm and 155-mm howitzers.
The 14th Marines, having been trained as both infantry and artillery, never deployed to Europe. The result of political/in-service rivalry was that no Marine Corps artillery units participated in World War I.
(Continued next week)
Sources:
Brown, R. J. A Brief History of the 14th Marines. Washington: Headquarters, US Marine Corps, 1990
Buckner, D. N. A Brief History of the 10th Marines. Washington: US Marine Corps History Division, 1981
Butler, M. D. Evolution of Marine Artillery: A History of Versatility and Relevance. Quantico: Command and Staff College, 2012.
Emmet, R. A Brief History of the 11th Marines. Washington: Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps, 1968
Kummer, D. W. U. S. Marines in Afghanistan, 2001-2009. Quantico: U.S. Marine Corps History Division, 2014.
Russ, M. Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign, Korea 1950. Penguin Books, 1999.
Shulimson, J., and C. M. Johnson. U.S. Marines in Vietnam: The Landing and the Buildup, 1965. Washington: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1978.
Smith, C. R. A Brief History of the 12th Marines. Washington: Headquarters, US Marine Corps, 1972.
Strobridge, T. R. History of the 9th Marines. Quantico: Gray Research Center, 1961, 1967.
[2] The size of the detachment depended on the size of the ship.
[3] A measure of energy equal to the work done by a force of one newton when its point of application moves one meter in the direction of action of the force, equivalent to one 3600th of a watt hour. A newton is equal to the force that would give a mass of one kilogram an acceleration of one meter per second – per second.
[4] If there is a “father of the modern navy,” then it must be Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914), whom historian John Keegan believes is the most important strategist of the 19th Century and, perhaps, the most influential American author of his time (1890). Mahan’s writing so influenced Theodore Roosevelt that it led him to pursue modernization of the US Navy as the key to achieving America’s full potential as an actor on the world stage.
[5] Currently, infantry battalions consist of “lettered” rifle companies. Artillery battalions consist of “lettered” firing batteries. In the past, when the primary mission of a combat organization was infantry, subordinate units were generally referred to as companies, even when one of those subordinate units was an artillery unit.
[6] Established in 1900, the General Board of the Navy was tasked to anticipate and plan for future tasks, missions, and strategic challenges and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy on matters of naval policy, including the task organization of naval expeditionary forces.
[7] Senior army officers had legitimate concerns with regard to the incorporation of Marines into field armies during World War I. Beyond the fact that army officers did not see a need for a Corps of Marines, and regarded them as a “waste of manpower” that could be better utilized in the army, the naval forces operated under a different system of laws and regulations. Perhaps the question in the minds of some senior army officers was whether the Marines would obey the orders of their army commanders.
[8] Prior to World War I, it was common practice for shipboard Marine Detachments to form provisional (temporary) organizations for specific purposes. In most instances, such organizations involved provisional battalions, but occasionally the Marines also formed provisional regiments and brigades. When the mission assigned to these provisional organizations was completed, brigades, regiments, and battalions would deactivate, and the Marines assigned to such organizations would return to their regular assignments. Marine regiments did not have formally structured battalions until after World War I. Instead, regiments were composed of numbered companies (e.g., 24th Company). One of the army’s concerns was that the use of Marine formations within Army units would only confuse ground commanders and further complicate the battlefront. It was during World War I that the Marine Corps adopted the Army’s regimental system. Rifle companies were formed under battalions, and battalion commanders answered to their respective regimental commanders.
[9] Before 1947, the Secretary of War (Army) and Secretary of the Navy operated as co-equal cabinet posts. After the creation of the Department of Defense, all military secretaries, service chiefs, and combat forces operated under the auspices of the Secretary of Defense (except the Coast Guard, which at first operated under the Treasury Department and now operates under the Department of Homeland Security).
In August 1775, following hostilities between the colonists and British troops in Massachusetts, King George III declared the American colonies in rebellion. The declaration prompted Congress to assemble a Continental Army under General George Washington. Ten months later, in June 1776, Richard Henry Lee proposed a Congressional resolution calling for independence from Great Britain.
As the independence movement gained momentum, Congress convened a five-member committee to write a formal public statement to justify its declaration of independence. Committee members included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson authored the first draft, and after making a few suggested changes, a second draft was submitted to Congress on 28 June 1776.[1] Congress debated the proposed resolution on 1 July. Two states opposed the resolution, two more signaled indecision, and New York abstained. Delaware broke the tie vote the next day, and the two states that opposed the resolution shifted to favor it. The final vote on 2 July was 12 to 0 in favor.
After the vote, a few members of Congress wanted yet another look at the resolution, which resulted in further modifications. Congress approved the final draft on 4 July 1776. The Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America went to press on 5 July. Congress ordered 200 copies. On 8 July, the declaration was read aloud in front of the statehouse in Philadelphia. New York agreed to support the statement on 9 July. The official “original” was signed on 19 July, except that some members were absent, so the signing continued as the remaining members became available until 2 August.
No one in Congress celebrated the Declaration of Independence. The mood was subdued; everyone understood that they had performed an act of high treason, and everyone realized the punishment for high treason was death. Benjamin Rush later recalled that as congressional representatives signed the document, everyone believed they were signing their own death warrant.
We celebrate our Independence Day on 4 July. One day prior, British General Sir William Howe led the British Army ashore on Staten Island, New York; the hostilities that had begun in Massachusetts continued as part of the New York and New Jersey Campaign (July 1776-March 1777). Howe drove Washington’s Continentals out of New York but erred by over-extending his reach into New Jersey. General Howe could not exert complete control over both. The best he could do and did do was maintain control of New York harbor.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
General Washington
General Washington was unable to hold New York, but neither was he finished with Howe. Throughout his failed campaign, Washington received unsolicited intelligence reports from individual patriots. After evacuating the Continental Army from Brooklyn Heights, General Washington asked William Heath and George Clinton to set up “a channel of information” on Long Island.
Heath and Clinton began looking for volunteers for clandestine operations. One of these volunteers was Captain Nathan Hale.[2] Soon after signing on for secret service, the somewhat full of himself Hale traveled to New York City under an assumed name. Unfortunately, not everyone is well-suited for espionage; Nathan Hale was one of these. The British quickly unmasked Hale and almost as speedily executed him for high treason.
General Washington learned a valuable lesson from Hale’s execution, not the least of which was that for a secret mission to succeed — well, it must remain secret. He also learned that volunteer spies simply wouldn’t do. What he needed was a well-organized, discreet, professionally managed “secret service.”
After Hale’s execution, which historians claim deeply affected Washington, he decided that civilian spies would be less likely to attract attention than military officers. Washington turned to William Duer to recommend someone to lead this effort in New York City. Duer recommended Nathaniel Sackett. However, Sackett was hesitant to take risks, and his intelligence (though worthy in some instances) took too long to produce. Washington soon replaced Sackett with Captain Benjamin Tallmadge, Hale’s classmate at Yale.
In early 1777, Colonel Elias Dayton of the New Jersey Militia established a spy network on Staten Island.[3] Colonel Dayton’s system eventually tied in with another, known as the Mersereau Ring.[4]
Following their victory at the Battle of Brandywine on 11 September 1777, the British occupied the city of Philadelphia on 26th September. General Washington thereafter focused much of his espionage efforts within the city of Philadelphia. Washington recruited Major John Clark, a wounded/recovering veteran of the Battle of Brandywine, to accomplish this.
In August 1778, Lieutenant Caleb Brewster of Norwalk, Connecticut, volunteered to provide General Washington with intelligence. Washington found Brewster’s initial report quite helpful, so to expand Brewster’s usefulness, Washington appointed General Charles Scott as Brewster’s handler and tasked him to find additional spies, if possible. Captain Tallmadge became General Scott’s principal assistant. As it happened, both Tallmadge and Brewster were acquainted with Abraham Woodhull of Setauket (Long Island); Tallmadge suggested that Brewster recruit Woodhull to help channel information through the network.
Abe Woodhull was probably an ideal spy because he was a convicted smuggler. Tallmadge may have reasoned that if the British suspected Woodhull of smuggling, it was unlikely that they would also suspect him of espionage. Woodhull was in prison when Tallmadge made him the offer: his freedom in exchange for working for Tallmadge. Once Woodhull agreed to the arrangement, Washington arranged his release from prison with Governor Jonathan Trumbull. To protect Woodhull’s identity, Tallmadge gave him an alias: Samuel Culper, Sr.
Tallmadge and Scott had differing views about the best way to run an espionage ring. Scott preferred single-mission agents — men he could send out on a mission, afterward returning to Scott with a full report, and whom he could then assign to subsequent missions. Captain Tallmadge had a different idea: he wanted stabilized agents to collect information and pass it along (via courier) to Scott’s headquarters. Both methods were effective, and both ways were hazardous.
After Scott lost sixty percent of his “single mission” agents, whom the British captured and executed, General Washington reasoned that since Tallmadge had not lost a single agent, his method of collecting and transmitting secret information was “best.” When General Scott resigned his post, Washington replaced him with Tallmadge.
Woodhull/Culper proved his ability in October 1778 by providing Washington with valuable information about British activities in Philadelphia. To assist him, Woodhull recruited his brother-in-law, Amos Underhill. Underhill and his wife Mary (Woodhull’s sister) ran a boarding house and pub catering to British soldiers. British soldiers do two things very well: they drink a lot, and they talk a lot. Underhill’s initial problem was that Washington thought his initial reports were too vague. It wasn’t enough to listen to what the British soldiers had to say; Washington expected Underhill to validate what they said, as well.
The process of conveying information to Brewster was dangerous, complex, and time-consuming. When Brewster had information for Tallmadge, it was hand-carried from Staten Island to Setauket and then from Setauket to Tallmadge’s headquarters at Fairfield, Connecticut — a distance of 188 miles, 30 of it across Long Island Sound. To accomplish this feat, Woodhull recruited two couriers: Jonas Hawkins and Austin Roe. Their task was to carry messages between Woodhull and Brewster. It was up to Brewster to deliver messages to Tallmadge. Crossing the Long Island Sound in a small boat was no easy task. Brewster had six “drop” sites.
Mary Underhill (who some claim was actually Anna Strong) assisted her husband by posting pre-arranged signals to indicate which spies had information to submit. For example, if Mary hung a black petticoat on her wash line, Brewster had arrived in town. If she hung up some quantity of handkerchiefs on her clothesline, it told the courier which of Brewster’s six drops the information was to go. Is this true? We aren’t sure, but it does indicate how intricate the spy network was (and had to be).
The British were many things, but stupid wasn’t one of them. The British knew about Washington’s spying campaign. They suspected Abraham Woodhull, Amos, and Mary Underhill, and they were keen to capture General Scott. The British knew; the Americans knew that the British knew, and this made American spycraft all the more difficult because the British didn’t need indisputable proof of high treason. Reasonable suspicion would be enough to send a spy to the gallows.
Everyone in Setauket with a role in Washington’s spy network became nervous when the British arrested John Wolsey, a known smuggler, and a master of self-preservation. Sure enough, John Wolsey made a deal with the British. In exchange for his liberty, he agreed to tell what he knew about Abraham Woodhull. As it turned out, however, all Wolsey knew about Woodhull was something he’d overheard a lobsterback say … which was that Woodhull was suspected of being involved in a spying ring.
John Graves Simcoe
Wisely, Abe Woodhull was a cautious man who realized that he was operating on borrowed time. With men like Wolsey running his gob, Woodhull was prudent to worry about his safety. British Colonel John Graves Simcoe led his Queen’s Rangers to Setauket to look for Woodhull, who at the time was in New York.[5] In the process of looking for Woodhull, Simcoe arrested his father, Judge Richard Woodhull, and had him tortured, inflicting him with grievous injuries to obtain information about his son. A loyalist militia officer, Benjamin Floyd, who was married to a member of the Woodhull family, vouched for Abraham, which gave Simcoe pause in his investigation. Subsequently, Woodhull conveyed to Tallmadge that he was not able to continue operating as a Continental spy.
In a letter to Tallmadge in late June, General Washington suggested considering Mr. George Higday as a possible replacement for Woodhull. Unhappily for Higday, the British intercepted Washington’s letter, which prompted Colonel Banastre Tarleton’s raid into Tallmadge’s camp.[6] Tarleton captured several documents, all confirming what the British already knew: Washington had spies. Mr. Higday’s espionage career was over before it began.
Tarleton’s raid also convinced Abraham Woodhull that his early decision to retire was a wise and prudent course of action. However, before his retirement, Woodhull did manage to recruit a new spy, a man named Robert Townsend. Mr. Townsend’s alias was Samuel Culper, Jr.
Robert Townsend had several reasons for joining Washington’s spy network. He was first of all motivated by Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense.[7] He was also put off by British harassment of his family (because of their religious affiliation) — and because Abraham Woodhull was an excellent salesman. As a devoted Quaker, Townsend could not participate as a soldier. Ordinarily, this belief system might have also prevented him from joining the spy network. Still, a schism between religious and political Quakers (aided by Paine) pushed Townsend into the “political camp.”[8] There was one more provocation: Colonel Simcoe of the Queen’s Rangers seized the Townsend home and converted it into his headquarters.
Mr. Townsend was a businessman. He owned a trade goods store and a coffee shop in partnership with Mr. James Rivington. Mr. Rivington was the publisher of a loyalist newspaper, and Mr. Townsend was one of his regular journalists. As a merchant, coffee shop owner, and reporter, Townsend had access to numerous British officers and NCOs and their places of patronage. As a contributor to a loyalist newspaper, Townsend had credibility within loyalist society — such that British loyalists were happy to talk to him. Both Townsend and Rivington formed the core elements of the Culper Ring in New York City.
Despite the stress of espionage, which produced strained relations within the Culper Ring, the effort produced more information than any other American or British intelligence network during the war. American espionage focused on British troop movements, fortifications, and operational plans. For example, the Culper Ring foiled British plans to ambush the French in Rhode Island. Arguably, this information saved the Franco-American alliance. Culper also uncovered the correspondence between Benedict Arnold and British Major John Andre, General Clinton’s chief intelligence officer.
To clarify what General Washington wanted from the Culper Ring, he provided them with specific instructions (see a special note below).
Townsend wasted little time energizing his spy activity. Nine days after accepting Woodhull’s “offer of employment,” Townsend reported that two divisions of British infantry were preparing for an expedition to Connecticut. In 1780, Townsend discovered a plot by British officials to ruin the American economy by circulating counterfeit currency. He reported that the British hierarchy was optimistic about an imminent end to the war. Townsend’s timely reporting permitted Congress to recall all of its money then in circulation.
Throughout his employment, Townsend remained suspicious of everyone and every circumstance. To safeguard the identity of his spies, Tallmadge utilized several protective measures. In addition to pseudonyms, Tallmadge also developed a system consisting of seven-hundred sixty-three numbers. The number 745 represented England; 727 for New York; Robert Townsend was 723, and so forth.
Robert Townsend’s conduct of spycraft was both astute and sensible. How sensible? How good was Townsend at keeping secrets? Townsend died on 7 March 1838. He was 84 years old. When he died, he took everything he knew about the Culper Ring with him. What we know of Robert Townsend was only revealed in 1930 by American historian Morton Pennypacker. Not even General Washington knew the identities of his spies.
And none of his spies knew that General Washington was Agent 711.
Sources:
Rose, A. Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring. Penguin Books/Random House, 2014.
Special Note:
General Washington’s Instructions:
Culper Junior, to remain in the City, to collect all the useful information he can — to do this, he should mix as much as possible among the officers and refugees, visit the coffee houses, and all public places. He is to pay particular attention to the movements by land and water in and about the city especially. How their transports are secured against an attempt to destroy them — whether by armed vessels upon the flanks, or by chains, booms, or any contrivances to keep off fire rafts.
The number of men destined for the defense of the City and environs, endeavoring to designate the particular corps, and where each is posted.
To be particular in describing the place where the works cross the island in the rear of the City-and how many redoubts are upon the line from the river to river, how many Cannon in each, and of what weight and whether the redoubts are closed or open next the city.
Whether there are any works upon the Island of New York between those near the City and the works at Fort Knyphausen or Washington, and if any, whereabouts and of what kind.
To be very particular to find out whether any works are thrown up on Harlem River, near Harlem Town, and whether Horn’s Hook is fortified. If so, how many men are kept at each place, and what number and what sized cannon are in those works.
To enquire whether they have dug pits within and in front of the lines and works in general, three or four feet deep, in which sharp pointed stakes are pointed. These are intended to receive and wound men who attempt a surprise at night.
The state of the provisions, forage and fuel to be attended to, as also the health and spirits of the Army, Navy and City.
These are the principal matters to be observed within the Island and about the City of New York. Many more may occur to a person of C. Junr’s penetration which he will note and communicate.
Culper Senior’s station to be upon Long Island to receive and transmit the intelligence of Culper Junior …
There can be scarcely any need of recommending the greatest caution and secrecy in a business so critical and dangerous. The following seem to be the best general rules: To entrust none but the persons fixed upon to transmit the business. To deliver the dispatches to none upon our side but those who shall be pitched upon for the purpose of receiving them and to transmit them and any intelligence that may be obtained to no one but the Commander-in-Chief.
Endnotes:
[1] The declaration took the form of a grand jury indictment — allegations not proven, and many that history proves were not even true. In modern times, one popular axiom is that it’s possible to indict a ham sandwich and such was the case of America’s “indictment” of King George II. The colonist’s real problem, aside from King George insisting on his prerogatives as Great Britain’s king, was the British Parliament, but since a government legislative body cannot be indicted, Jefferson and other members of Congress decided to make their point by indicting the King.
[2] Hale came from a prominent Connecticut family. He began his education at Yale at the age of 14, attended classes with Benjamin Tallmadge, and figured rather prominently in the college’s debating society. He graduated with honors in 1773 at the age of 18 years. When the British executed Hale, he was 21 years old.
[3] Later, Revolutionary War brigadier general, mayor of Elizabethtown, and member of the New Jersey General Assembly. He was the father of Jonathan, a signer of the U.S. Constitution.
[4] Started in December 1776, this operation focused on intelligence gathering in New Brunswick and New York. John Mersereau was the primary supervisor of this effort.
[5] Simcoe, from Cornwall, was the only child in his family to survive into adulthood. He entered British military service in 1770, participating in the Siege of Boston, New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia campaigns. Tradition holds that Simcoe, in ordering his men not to fire on three withdrawing Continental officers, saved George Washington’s life. He later served as Upper Canada’s first lieutenant governor and was responsible for founding Toronto and for establishing Canada’s judicial system (1791-96).
[6] Contrary to how Mel Gibson portrayed him in the fictional film The Patriot, Tarleton was not so much of a scoundrel as he was a fighter. He never burned down a South Carolina church filled with parishioners, but he did threaten to torch the home of General Charles Lee of New Jersey unless he surrendered to Tarleton’s authority. At the Battle of Waxhaw, the 22-year-old captain, commanding provincial cavalry, assaulted a superior force of Continentals under Colonel Abraham Buford. Buford refused to surrender despite the fact that Tarleton gave him that opportunity on two occasions. With Buford’s refusal, Tarleton’s force of 149 troops attacked Buford incessantly, killing 113 Americans, wounding 203, and taking prisoners of those left alive when Buford finally agreed to surrender. The Americans called it a massacre; it was no such thing. It was war. Tarleton was not the butcher revisionists have claimed.
[7] Paine argued that any Quaker who believed in pacifism at any price was not a true Quaker.
[8] Religious Quakers were among the strongest supporters of the British during the revolutionary war period.
One significance of Methuen, Massachusetts (settled in 1642) is that it served as one of the first American portals for Scots-Irish immigrants. Today, approximately nine million Americans claim Scots-Irish descendancy. One of these American-born Scots-Irishmen was the son of James and Mary Rogers, whom they named Robert, born on 8 November 1731. Eight years later, in 1739, the Rogers family relocated to the Great Meadows district of New Hampshire. Robert was fifteen years old when he joined the New Hampshire militia during King George’s War (1744-1748).
Background
What made European wars so very complex during the early modern period (1453-1789) was that (a) they were mired in complex rules of noble succession, (b) several of the major royal houses were related to one another through marriage, and (c) the continual (and often confusing) secret alliances that existed between them. So, before continuing, let’s sort out the War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748).
The War of the Austrian Succession was a conglomeration of several conflicts, two of which developed after the death of Charles VI, head of the Austrian Hapsburgs and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Upon his death in 1740, Charles VI had no male heirs. Since there were proscriptions against a woman becoming heir to specific European thrones (notably, the Holy Roman Empire), Charles VI’s daughter Maria Theresa was determined to defend her right of inheritance. A separate issue was that the Hapsburgs had retained the Crown of Holy Roman Emperor since 1437. This was an elective position, not subject to the right of inheritance. The European ruling houses decided that it was time to end Hapsburg’s Holy Roman dynasty.
The participants in the War of Austrian Succession included Austria, Bavaria-Saxony, the Dutch Republic, France, Hanover, Prussia, Savoy, Spain, Poland, Italy, Sardinia, and Great Britain. Its significance was that it reshaped the balance of power in Europe, established a precedent for subsequent wars of succession, and because it obligated the involvement of alliance partners into affairs that ordinarily would be none of their concern. British involvement came from its alliance with Austria, which opened the door to additional conflicts with France and Spain, who were allied against Austria and needed minimal prompting to war against the British — their North American competitor.
The War of Austrian Succession, as it evolved in British America, became King George’s War (1744-1748), the third of four “French and Indian Wars” fought in North America. King George’s War was also a continuation of the War of Jenkins’ Ear fought between Britain, Spain, and Spain’s ally, France.
Young Rogers
Following the tradition of the “common burden,” Robert Rogers enlisted as a private in Captain Daniel Ladd’s Scouting Company of the New Hampshire Militia in 1746.[1] In the following year, he joined the Scouting Company of Captain Ebenezer Eastman. In both assignments, Robert Rogers joined the effort of the local militia in guarding the New Hampshire frontier against French and Indian raids. The strategy of these ranging companies was to “hit them before they could hit you.”
Young Washington
In 1753, Virginia’s lieutenant governor, Robert Dinwiddie, commissioned the half-brother of Lawrence Washington, the Adjutant-General of Virginia, a young man named George, as a Major of the Virginia militia and appointed him to command one of the colony’s four militia districts. At the time, the British competed with France to control the Ohio Valley. Initially, the effort involved the construction of British and French fortifications along the Ohio River. Dinwiddie dispatched Major Washington on a three-mission expedition into the Ohio Valley. Washington’s orders were to demand the withdrawal of French forces from Virginia land, establish peace with the Iroquois Confederacy, and gather intelligence about the disposition of French military forces.[2]
In November, Major Washington’s force reached the Ohio River but was soon intercepted by a French patrol and escorted to Fort Le Boeuf. The officer commanding Fort Le Boeuf was Commandeur Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre (1701-1755), who welcomed Major Washington by rendering him every courtesy of his rank and position. Washington dutifully informed Saint-Pierre that it was his duty to insist that the French vacate Virginia colony land. A few days later, after providing Washington and his men with food stores and extra winter clothing, Sant-Pierre handed his reply to Gov. Dinwiddie in a sealed envelope and sent George and his men on his way back to Williamsburg.
In February 1754, Dinwiddie advanced Washington to lieutenant colonel and appointed him as second-in-command of the Virginia Regiment of militia, a force of around 300 men.[3] His new orders were to take half the regiment and confront French forces at the Forks of Ohio (the convergence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers). Washington’s expedition set off in April, eventually learning that those French forces included around 1,000 men engaged in the construction of Fort Duquesne. Washington established a defensive position at Great Meadows, seven miles from the French construction site.
With the understanding that the French force involved around 1,000 men, Washington enlisted the aid of Indian allies (presumably Iroquois) and moved to attack the French garrison, which consisted of around fifty men. The confrontation became known as the Battle of Jumonville Glen, during which Washington’s force killed all French defenders, including its commandant, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville. When French officials learned what had happened, they accused Washington of making an unprovoked attack, which would only be true if the French were not encamped on British territorial grounds. The Battle of Jumonville ignited the (fourth) French and Indian War (1754-1763).
The French and Indian War (1754-1763)
War with France engulfed the British colonies in 1755, also spreading to Europe. Initially, the British suffered several defeats, most notably the massacre of General Braddock’s force at the Battle of Monongahela. Indians who were not already allies of the French were encouraged by these early French victories and joined with the French against British settlements. A series of deadly Indian raids soon followed the entire length of British western settlements.
In 1754, Massachusetts governor William Shirley appointed John Winslow as major-general of the colonial militia.[4] In 1756, General Winslow turned to the 25-year-old Robert Rogers to raise and command soldiers for service to the British Crown. Recruitment wasn’t difficult because frontier citizens were badly frightened (not to mention angry) by the sudden increase in Indian depredations.[5]
Rogers raised an irregular (militia) company of rangers, one of several New England ranger companies with a tradition dating back to the 1670s. The model for Roger’s ranging company was Gorham’s Rangers, initially formed in 1744.[6] During the French and Indian War, Gorham’s Rangers was a contemporary company raised by Robert Rogers. Among Robert’s early recruits were his younger brothers James, Richard, and John.[7]
The only likeness of Rogers known to exist
Roger’s Ranger Company was an independent provisional force trained, equipped, paid, and commanded by Captain Rogers. The mission of this rapidly deployable light infantry unit was reconnaissance and such special operations as conducting winter and night raids on French towns and military encampments. The company operated primarily in the area of Lake George and Lake Champlain (New York). It was particularly adept at moving rapidly but quietly over rugged mountain terrain and rain-swollen rivers. Rogers’ ranging tactics proved so effective that the ranging company was eventually expanded into a corps of more than a dozen companies (around 1,400 men), which became the chief scouting arm of British land forces in North America.
The usefulness of Rogers’ company during 1756 and 1757 prompted the British to form a second ranger company in 1758. Eventually, the fourteen companies of rangers would include three all-Indian units (two of Stockbridge Mahicans and one of Mohegan and Pequot composition). Governor Shirly promoted Robert Rogers to Major and placed him in command of the Ranger Corps.
The Fighting
There were no Queensbury Rules of fighting a guerilla war during the French and Indian War. As good as Rogers’ Rangers were, they didn’t always win the day. In January 1757, Rogers led a 74-man company in an ambuscade near Fort Carillon (near the narrows along the southern region of Lake Champlain).[8] After capturing seven prisoners, a force of around 120 French regulars, militia, and allied Indians attacked Rogers. The strength of the attack forced Rogers to withdraw. The French killed fourteen of Rogers’ men, took six as prisoners, and wounded six others. It was only through his use of snowshoes that Rogers and his men escaped without further casualties.
Later that year, a company of rangers was stationed at Fort William Henry when the French placed the fort under siege. When the British commander realized that his fight was over and surrendered, the French massacred every British regular and militia soldier, including Noah Johnson’s Ranger Company of sixty men.
In March 1758, another company of rangers attacked a French and Indian column, but once again, the rangers took heavy casualties, losing 125 soldiers killed, eight wounded, and 52 surviving through rapid withdrawal.
In May, four companies of rangers (around 500 men) went ashore at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, during the siege of Louisbourg. Three companies of Rogers’ Rangers and one company of Gorham’s Rangers. While conducting search and destroy operations, the rangers encountered over a hundred French and Mi’kmaq warriors. In the ensuing fight, Rangers killed fifty and took 70 more captives.
In July, Rogers’ Rangers took part in the Battle of Carillon. Some two-hundred French Canadians and three-hundred Indians attacked a British convoy, killing 116 and capturing 60 men. A month later, at Crown Point, a French force of 450 men attacked a smaller force of British light infantry and provincials. Ranger Captain Israel Putnam was one of the men captured. The British lost 49 killed in this battle but claimed 100 or more dead French and Indian allies. Putnam was later saved from burning at the stake by the intervention of a French officer.[9]
The St. Francis Raid of 1759 was one of the more infamous engagements of the rangers. In retribution for what General Amherst thought of as Abenaki treachery, he sent Rogers to destroy the Indian settlement at St. Francis, near the southern shore of the St. Lawrence River outside Quebec. Major Rogers led a force of 140 men from Crown Point deep into French territory. The raid was successful, which, according to Rogers, meant that he and his Rangers slaughtered 200 women, children, and elderly people.[10] News of the attack reached Trois-Rivières around noon that day. Captain Jean-Daniel Dumas organized a force of experienced fighters to pursue Rogers.
The Rangers, burdened by the weight of their supplies and the inconvenience of marching prisoners, made good progress, covering the 70 miles to Lake Memphremagog in about eight days, but at this point, their rations began to run out. The wearied condition of his men and dwindling food stores forced Rogers to divide his men up into smaller units, which he sent out independently with orders to proceed to the abandoned Fort Wentworth. Rogers suffered 21 of his men killed, six wounded, and five missing in action (later determined captured) during this operation. But as to the number of casualties on both sides, British and French reports reveal significant discrepancies of the same incident.
In the spring of 1760, the Rogers’ Rangers joined the Montreal campaign under General Jeffrey Amherst, which included a raid on Fort Saint Therese, a French supply hub between Fort Saint-Jean and Ile Aux Noix. After destroying the fort, the French and Indians assaulted the Rangers during their withdrawal but inflicted only minor casualties.
Afterward, Amherst ordered the Rangers to support the column of Brigadier General William Haviland. General Haviland dispatched Rogers’ four ranger companies (augmented by a detachment of light infantry and Indian allies) with three cannons through the forest and swamps to take up a firing position to the rear of the French position. It was a difficult task, taking several days, but Rogers did manage to set the artillery along a riverbank facing the French naval force.
Rogers’ order to fire completely surprised the French navy and caused some panic among them to move their ships out of harm’s way. When one sloop cut her cable, wind and current carried her to shore and fell into the hands of the British. The other ships managed to escape but went aground in a bend in the river, and these too were eventually captured by Rangers, who swam out to board the vessels.
With their line of communications severed, the French had little choice but to evacuate the island. General Amherst moved quickly to capitalize on his successes by forcing a French withdrawal to Montreal, which surrendered without a fight in the following month.
After the French and Indian War
After the fall of Montreal, General Amherst assigned Rogers to Brigadier Robert Monckton, who ordered Rogers to capture Fort Detroit. Once accomplished, there being no further need of Rangers, Amherst disbanded them and sent them home. Following their standard practices of the day, the British retired Robert Rogers at half-pay.
Rogers’ income proved dire because the British did not reimburse him for the money he had spent out of his pocket paying and equipping his men, which rendered Rogers destitute. He traveled to London, where, in an attempt to produce an income, he authored a book about his adventures and helped develop a stage play about Pontiac’s War. Both the book and play were successful enough to earn him an audience with King George III. The King rewarded Rogers for his service by appointing him as Governor of Mackinaw, a minor posting.
In America, General Thomas Gage replaced Amherst as Commander-in-Chief. Unfortunately, Gage detested Rogers, and from every account, the feeling was mutual. In 1767, General Gage charged Rogers with treason for having established a “too comfortable” relationship with French Canadians. Having arrested Rogers, Gage ordered that he be taken to Detroit in chains to answer the charge. General Gage’s evidence was insufficient to stand up in court, but despite his acquittal in 1768, Gage ordered Rogers deported to England. To meet Rogers on the dock were London officials who promptly escorted him to debtor’s prison where he languished for three years.
In 1775, with a war on the horizon between Britain and the American colonies, the disenchanted Rogers returned to America and offered his services to the American military commander, George Washington. Washington, however, suspected Rogers as a British spy and ordered his arrest. However, the clever Rogers escaped and promptly offered his services once more to the Crown.
Based on Rogers’ previous success, the British commissioned him to command the Queen’s Rangers as regimental colonel. As General Gage previously stated on more than one occasion, Colonel Rogers was no gentleman — a fact that Rogers seemed to prove when he appointed, as officers of the Queen’s Regiment, owners of taverns and brothels.
Worse than that, however, beyond the arrest of Nathan Hale (a somewhat naive young captain who was ill-suited for espionage), the Queen’s Rangers had no successes in battle. In late October 1776, while General Washington withdrew his army toward White Plains, New York, General William Howe landed troops in Westchester intending to cut off Washington’s escape.
General Howe ordered Rogers to cover his eastern flank by seizing the village of Mamaroneck. During the night of 22 October, patriot Colonel John Haslet attacked the Queen’s Rangers, achieving complete surprise and inflicting many casualties before withdrawing. Even though the Rangers quickly recovered and attempted to pursue Haslet, General Howe sacked Colonel Rogers (and his officers) and appointed someone more “appropriate” to command the regiment. Howe may have cited Rogers’ poor health as justification for his relief, but the fact is that Rogers was an alcoholic, and he soon after returned to London.
Rogers returned to America in 1779, again obtained a commission to command the King’s Rangers, but that appointment lasted only a few months before he was again sacked for drunken behavior. Rogers returned to London, England, in 1780, where he remained until he died in 1793. He was 63 years of age.
Conclusion
Robert Rogers was not the only military commander to succumb to alcoholism. Famed patriot George Rogers Clark (the elder brother of William Rogers Clark) also died in the generally held disgraceful condition of alcoholism and self-pity, albeit several years later.
Robert Rogers did not invent unconventional warfare, nor even “ranging,” but he did display an affinity for special operations or “thinking outside the box.” Benjamin Church of Massachusetts was the first to establish “ranging” units of frontiersmen and friendly Indians in 1675. Those men would “range” between outposts looking for the sign of hostile Indians and French troublemakers. Church’s memoirs, published in 1716, became the first de facto American military manual — and there were several ranging units in existence long before Rogers’ Rangers.
But British ranging units never gained the respect of the regular forces, particularly from among the British Army’s aristocratic leaders. The stigma of commanding unconventional forces also attached itself to Colonel Sir Banastre Tarleton, and some degree to Colonel John Graves Simcoe, a fact carried forward in time to the Civil War when both Union and Confederate generals regarded partisan rangers as bushwhackers and murderers (which, in some cases, they were).
Still, the accomplishments of ranging units speak for themselves. The Rangers were one of a few non-native forces able to operate in the inhospitable backcountry under harsh winter conditions and rugged mountain terrain. By every account, the young Robert Rogers was an exceptional leader who mustered, paid, equipped, trained, and commanded his men. His Twenty-eight Rules for Ranging and Roger’s Standing Orders form part of the U.S. Army’s introduction to training materials on ranging. It wasn’t until much later in his life that Robert Rogers lost his glory and his honor.
Sources:
Cuneo, J. R. Robert Rogers of the Rangers. Oxford University Press, 1959.
Fryer, M. B., and Christopher Dracott. John Graves Simcoe (1752-1806): A Biography. Dundurn Press, 1998.
Ross, J. F. War on the run: the epic story of Robert Rogers and the conquest of America’s first frontier. Bantam Books, 2009.
Scotti, A. J. Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton. Heritage Books, 2002.
Sheftick, G. Rangers Among First Leaders of America’s Army. U.S. Army Historical Center, 2016.
Zaboly, G. S. True Ranger: The Life and Many Wars of Major Robert Rogers. Royal Blockhouse, 2004.
[2] The name the Iroquois Confederacy gave to Major Washington was “Conotocaurius,” which we are told means the destroyer or devourer of villages.
[3] In British America, the colonel of the regiment was a secondary assignment of the colonial governor. Since most colonial governors never left their homes in England, the lieutenant governor served as de facto governor and also as lieutenant colonel of the colonial militia. Dinwiddie served as lieutenant governor under Governor Willem van Keppel (1751-1756) and was reappointed under Governor John Campbell (1756-1758). Subsequent to the Battle of Jumonville, Dinwiddie appointed Lieutenant Colonel Washington to command the Virginia Regiment.
[4] John Winslow was the grandson and great-grandson of two Massachusetts governors, the first of which, Edward, was born and raised in Droitwich, England, seven miles from the town of Worcester, where my wife was born.
[5] While on his recruitment drive in Portsmouth, Robert met his future wife, Elizabeth Browne, the daughter of a local minister.
[6] In 1744, John Gorham raised an auxiliary unit of mixed native American rangers led by Anglo officers for participation in King George’s War. Gorham was originally charged to reinforce regular British troops under siege at Fort Anne and was later employed in establishing British control over Nova Scotia fighting against Acadian and Mi’kmaq Indians.
[7] Richard died of smallpox in 1757 at Fort William Henry. Later, Indian enemies disinterred his body and, in retribution, mutilated it. Whether these Indians came down with Richard’s disease is unknown, but if they did, they probably spread it around the tribe.
[8] Fort Carillon was later named Fort Ticonderoga.
[9] Native American tribes frequently used ghastly torture techniques to torment their captives, the specific technique dependent upon the folkways of a particular tribe and perhaps on the circumstances of the conflict and capture. Burning captives at the stake was common among northeastern tribes.
[10] The French insisted that Rogers “only murdered” 30 innocents.
Here’s health to you and to our Corps Which we are proud to serve; In many a strife we’ve fought for life And never lost our nerve; If the Army and the Navy Ever look on Heaven’s scenes; They will find the streets are guarded By United States Marines.”
Third stanza of the Marine Corps Hymn
A bit of Marine Corps history:
As my regular readers should know by now, the United States Marine Corps celebrates its birthday on 10 November. The Marine Corps Birthday is a unique celebration honoring all Marines and their families, past, present, and future. It rekindles the connection of Marines since 1775. My readers should also know that the Marine Corps has defended the United States and the American people in every one of those years. On this day, we Marines honor our traditions with reverence and respect; we pay homage to the distinguished service of the Corps and of those who have worn our uniform.
The Second Continental Congress created the Marine Corps on 10 November 1775, eight months before America’s Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. Congress created the Marines to serve alongside the Continental Navy — and have done so ever since. The first Marine Corps Commandant was Major Samuel Nicholas. During the 7-years of the Revolutionary War, the Marine Corps increased from its original two battalions to just over 2,100 Marines. It was then, and remains, the nation’s smallest armed force. Despite its small size, however, the battle history of the United States Marine Corps is second to none.
At the end of the Revolutionary War, Congress disbanded the Navy and Marine Corps. Our founding fathers, having experienced the tyranny of the British Army, had no interest in maintaining “standing armies.” In 1794, however, circumstances changed. Beginning around 1785, Islamist pirates operating off the North African coastline seized American ships and held them, their crews, passengers, and their cargoes for ransom.
Initially, Congress thought that it might be cheaper to pay these brigands their money, but each year ransom demands increased until the United States was paying out about twenty-percent of its annual budget to Barbary Pirates. President George Washington asked Congress to bring back the Navy and Marine Corps to deal with the pirates and guarantee America’s sovereignty at sea. In 1794, the Navy (and Marine Corps) were placed under the Secretary of War. However, in 1798, legislation was enacted to establish the Navy as a separate department, and the Navy and Marine Corps as separate branches of the armed forces.
Pursuant to Marine Corps General Order No. 47 (1921), the Commandant of the Marine Corps directed that the following be read aloud to all Marines on 10 November of each year:
(1) On November 10, 1775, a Corps of Marines was created by a resolution of Continental Congress. Since that date many thousand men have borne the name “Marine”. In memory of them it is fitting that we who are Marines should commemorate the birthday of our corps by calling to mind the glories of its long and illustrious history.
(2) The record of our corps is one which will bear comparison with that of the most famous military organizations in the world’s history. During 90 of the 146 years of its existence the Marine Corps has been in action against the Nation’s foes. From the Battle of Trenton to the Argonne, Marines have won foremost honors in war, and in the long eras of tranquility at home, generation after generation of Marines have grown gray in war in both hemispheres and in every corner of the seven seas, that our country and its citizens might enjoy peace and security.
(3) In every battle and skirmish since the birth of our corps, Marines have acquitted themselves with the greatest distinction, winning new honors on each occasion until the term “Marine” has come to signify all that is highest in military efficiency and soldierly virtue.
(4) This high name of distinction and soldierly repute we who are Marines today have received from those who preceded us in the corps. With it we have also received from them the eternal spirit which has animated our corps from generation to generation and has been the distinguishing mark of the Marines in every age. So long as that spirit continues to flourish Marines will be found equal to every emergency in the future as they have been in the past, and the men of our Nation will regard us as worthy successors to the long line of illustrious men who have served as “Soldiers of the Sea” since the founding of the Corps.
John A. Lejeune, Major General Commandant
During the Marine Corps Birthday Ceremony, a traditional birthday cake is presented to those in attendance. After the cake is cut, the first slice is first presented to the oldest Marine present, who then passes it to the youngest Marine. It is a symbolic transfer of wisdom and understanding from the older brother to the younger. This is a hallmark of Marine Corps training that begins at boot camp or officer’s candidate school and is repeated throughout a Marine’s entire service. Understanding Marine Corps history and living up to the high standards of those who went before is an integral part of Marine Corps service.
Our Motto
The motto of the U. S. Marine Corps is Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful). It reflects a Marine’s unwavering patriotism, tenacity, and their commitment to God, Country, Corps, and their brothers in arms. The official march of the U. S. Marine Corps is titled The Semper Fidelis March by John Phillip Sousa. Enjoy the following presentation by the United States Marine Corps Band.
The Marines are known by several nicknames, but some of these aren’t suitable for print and are largely a result of vile lies, misrepresentations, and Army-Navy jealousy. But two of these nicknames are Leatherneck, which comes from the thick leather collar worn by Marines during the age of sail to prevent decapitation, and Devil Dog [Teufelhunden] which is what the German soldiers named Marines during World War I.
Our Hymn
The Marine Corps Hymn, is one of the most readily recognized songs in the world today and is the oldest of our country’s service songs. The history of our hymn has been clouded by the passage of time and sometimes confused by inaccurate oral traditions, but there is never any confusion on the part of listeners of the Marine’s hymn. It is as easily identified with the Marine Corps as the Star Spangled Banner is with the United States of America.
The Marine Corps Hymn has become a sacred symbol of the pride and professionalism of a Marine; when played or sung, all Marines rise to their feet and stand at attention for its duration. The music to the hymn originated with the opera Geneviève de Brabantcomposed by the French composer Jacques Offenbach. One listening to Couplets des Deux Hommes d’Armes will immediately recognize the tune.
We do not know who penned the words to the Marine’s Hymn — but tradition claims that it was an unidentified Marine sometime after 1867. The first two lines of the verse were taken from the words inscribed on the Battle Colors of the Marine Corps: “To the Shores of Tripoli.”
The Battle Colors were so inscribed after the Barbary War of 1805. Later, after the Marines participated in the capture of Mexico City and the Castle of Chapultepec (also known as the Halls of Montezuma) in 1847, the inscription on the Colors was changed to read, “From the Shores of Tripoli to the Halls of Montezuma.” Whoever wrote the words to the Marine Corps Hymn reversed this order.
American intelligence-gathering and analysis before World War II was a function performed by four separate departments: the Navy Department, War Department, Treasury Department, and the State Department. In the Navy, for example, the Office of Naval Intelligence (established in 1882) fell under the Bureau of Navigation. ONI’s mission was to collect and record such information as may be useful to the Department of the Navy in both war and peace. It was a mission that remained unchanged for sixty-two years. Over time, ONI would expand their activities to include both foreign and domestic espionage whenever such operations were beneficial to the mission of the Navy. Similarly, the State Department had its cipher bureau (MI-8) (which was shut down in 1929), and the Army had its Signal Intelligence Service. None of these activities were coordinated, and seldom did the agencies share information between them.
Out of concern for this lack of coordination, President Franklin Roosevelt appointed his friend of many years, William J. Donovan, to devise a plan for a coordinated intelligence service modeled on the British Intelligence Service (MI-6) and the British Special Operations Executive (SOE). Donovan called his organization the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Eventually, OSS would manage 24,000 intelligence agents, 13,000 of which were American employees, between 1941-1945.
Donovan was looking for a unique sort of individual — a person with a doctorate who could win in a bar fight. Some were academics, some were military officers and enlisted men, some were athletes, filmmakers, and a few were convicts. Donovan employed them as spies, saboteurs, code breakers, analysts, map makers, forgers, and propagandists. They became expert in penetrating enemy territory by parachute and from the sea. They kidnapped people, blew up bridges and railroad yards, stole secrets, and put together the networks that did all of those things.
One-third of these people were women. One of them was an actress named Marlene Dietrich; another was a woman named Margaret Mead, a pioneering anthropologist. Julia McWilliams developed a shark repellent. Julia is more famously known as Julia Childs. Another, Jean Wallace, was the daughter of the Vice President of the United States. Several of these women were killed in the line of duty, such as Jane Wallis Burrell in 1948.
Virginia Stuart served the OSS in Egypt, Italy, and China. At first, Virginia wasn’t sure what the OSS did, but she wanted to serve her country, and someone directed her to the “Q Building” (OSS headquarters in Washington where the Kennedy Center now stands). Armed with a bachelor’s degree from Skidmore College, Virginia applied to the OSS in November 1943. She was naturally adventurous, but there was a war on and most of her friends were participating in it in one form or another. Her older sister, Edith, had joined the Navy as a chemist. Virginia thought she might do that as well, but in 1943 the Navy was looking for scientists and medical personnel, not liberal arts majors. Ultimately, the OSS hired Miss Stuart. She was simply told, “Work hard, get the job done no matter what it takes, and keep your mouth shut.”
Stuart later recalled that the work in the Secret Intelligence Branch was grueling, the environment uncomfortable, the hours long, and that everyone became addicted to the caffeine in Coca Cola. Initially, her job included assembling and making sense of hundreds of reports submitted in abbreviated form from secret agents in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Everyone had a sense of urgency, and everyone realized that the information they were receiving was important, no matter how insignificant it may have seemed when it first arrived — everything from troop movements and decoded radio messages to logistics issues and plans for secret penetrations of enemy held territory. The longer the war went on, the more information there was to analyze and categorize. What stood out in Virginia’s memory from those days was that there were no “men’s jobs and women’s jobs.” There was only the one job, and everyone did it.
All the information was classified, of course, but some of it was more secret than other. She recalled that “Eyes Alone” material was quickly delivered to Colonel Donovan’s desk. It was the “most important” because of its sensitivity or timing.
When an opportunity presented itself, Virginia requested overseas service. After eight months of waiting, she was sent to work in Cairo. She and three other women dressed in khaki uniforms boarded a ship, along with Red Cross workers and war correspondents. No one was to know who they were, what they did, or where they were going. Virginia was going to Cairo because that was the OSS forward headquarters for Middle Eastern operations.
Cairo was a place where one could hear dozens of languages: English, Italian, French, Yugoslav, and Turkish among them. In addition to military personnel, there were politicians, academics with expertise in the economy, logisticians, and yes — even German spies. OSS headquarters in Cairo was a converted villa with a secure code room in the basement. It was a place where newspapers and magazines from around the world were read and analyzed. The analysis required men and women who were not only fluent in several languages but also familiar with cultural nuances, which made the work even more challenging. This unusual library of information had a wide range of uses, from people who needed to manufacture official-looking fake documents, to others who were looking for a slip of the teletype (so to speak). Sometimes, OSS received information coded in classified advertisements.
A year later, the OSS dispatched Virginia Stuart to China. A week later, Virginia learned that the United States had dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan. There was no detailed information about the event, of course, and no one was sure what an atomic bomb was. But while the world was focused on the bomb, secret agents parachuted into Manchuria dressed as Chinese Nationalist officers to conduct guerrilla raids against Japanese occupation forces there, and to help plan for the liberation of Japanese POW camps. Eventually, Virginia married one of these men, a British-Australian colonel attached to MI-6. Virginia Stuart, after her stint with OSS, married and raised a family in such places as the Philippine Islands, Honduras, and later became a news anchor in Rhode Island.
The end of the war signaled the end of OSS. Few of the uniformed services chiefs appreciated Roosevelt’s OSS (General MacArthur and others) who felt that intelligence gathering, and analysis, belonged within their purview. President Truman, an old Army hand from World War II, agreed with his generals. Of course, none of these generals (or even Truman) seemed to understand that the OSS provided vital intelligence from a vast network of sources they could not have managed on their own. Despite the fact that OSS technically worked for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Truman wanted the OSS to disappear. He made that happen in July 1945.
But not even Truman on his silliest day was stupid enough to do away with the assets created by OSS over nearly five years. At the end of World War II, the OSS continued to collect valuable intelligence information about the Soviet Union, which almost immediately began working against the interests of the free world. Over a period of two years, what was once the OSS , transitioned into the CIA, and many of the people who worked for OSS found themselves doing essentially the same tasks for the renamed spy agency.
The contribution of our women to America’s secret service didn’t begin or end with World War II. During the Revolutionary War, a woman known only to history as Agent 355, served as part of the Culper Spy Ring, and played a pivotal role in the arrest of British spy, Major John Andrew and the infamous traitor, Benedict Arnold. Anna Smith, living in Long Island, helped communicate information to General Washington through a code system that depended on the way she hung her laundry to dry.[1] It may not seem like much of an effort, but that is the nature of the clandestine service: vital information in drips and drabs, funneled to the people best positioned to make sense of it.
Women made ideal spies simply because men didn’t think they were capable of it. Most of these women are unknown to us today precisely because they were very good at what they did, and also because once they had achieved such remarkable results, men simply forgot about them.
During the Civil War, Pauline Cushman, an actress, was a Union spy discovered by the Confederacy. She was saved from hanging by the arrival of the Union Army mere days before her execution. Sarah Emma Edmonds also served the Union cause, disguising herself as a male soldier, sometimes as a black man, at other times as an old woman, to spy on the Confederacy. Harriet Tubman, in addition to helping to free enslaved blacks, served the Union Army in South Carolina by organizing a spy network and occasionally leading raids and spying expeditions. Elizabeth Van Lew was an anti-slavery Virginian who smuggled food and clothing to Union prisoners and provided information about Confederate activities to Union officials. It was this woman who cleverly placed Mary Elizabeth Bowser as a spy in the home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
Not all the ladies were in the trenches during World War II, but this one was. Virginia Hall was an American spy with the British SOE and about as tough as they come. While on a hunting trip in Turkey, a gun accident caused her to lose her leg. She named her prosthetic device “Cuthbert.” In connection with the SOE and OSS, Hall led networks of agents in various specialized missions, rescued prisoners of war, and recruited hundreds of spies to work against the Nazis. Her quick wit kept her two paces ahead of the Gestapo, who spent a lot of time and effort trying to find out who she was. Hall was able to outpace the Gestapo because she was a master of disguise, and Germany lost the war knowing that whoever this woman was, she was the most dangerous of all Allied spies. Virginia Hall is the only civilian woman to receive the Distinguished Service Cross.
Marion Frieswyk was a cartographer, who along with others in the OSS, produced three dimensional topographic maps of such places as Sicily in advance of the allied landings there in 1943. Marion was a country girl with a knack for numbers. At the age of 21 years, her ambition was to become a school teacher after graduating from Potsdam Teacher’s College in 1942, but the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii changed her plans. A college geography professor encouraged her to apply to a summer graduate school course in cartography at Clark University; he told her that the war effort would demand trained map makers. Out of her class of thirty students, the OSS recruited only two: Marion and a fellow named Henry. The OSS offered to pay her $1,800 a year and she was soon off to the nation’s capital.
Customized map making was a new innovation in 1942. The OSS spared no expense sending civilian employees around the world to procure existing maps; geographic researchers and draftsmen transformed these maps into detailed representations of places where the Allies would fight their battles. As in the case of Sicily, Marion and others produced a number of topographic models — it was a combination between artists’ studios and woodworking shops, where jigsaws were employed to produce precise 3-dimensional changes in elevation beginning at sea level. The Sicily map was the first custom made topographic map ever made in the United States.
In 1943, Marion married her classmate from Clark University, Henry, the other student hired by OSS. She and Henry were married for 64 years. After the war, when Truman disbanded the OSS, Marion and Henry transferred to the State Department where they worked until the creation of the CIA. Marion stayed with the CIA until 1952, resigning so that Henry could accept an assignment in London. In recognition of Henry’s 25 years of government service in cartography, the CIA presented him with the Sicily Map that he had helped produce in 1943.
Most of these stalwart women from World War II have passed on, but courageous, hardworking, thoroughly dedicated women continue to serve the United States in the Central Intelligence Agency. Gina Barrett, for example, is a 25-year veteran intelligence analyst with the CIA, who wrote the first report warning US officials about Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s — she was one of a team of six other women focused on the Middle East’s merchants of death, but Ms. Barrett is quick to point out that women have always played a role in America’s clandestine services. Maja Lehnus is another woman, who in over twenty-nine years of CIA service, held six different leadership positions in the field of chemical, biological, and nuclear armaments. Lehnus is the woman at CIA who does the worrying for things that most people don’t even know about — or even want to know about.
The CIA’s clandestine mission for women include a wide range of projects, from counter-terrorism to field operations, the technical aspects of bombs, and space weapons developments. Most of these women are married with children and none of them look anything like an Albert R. Broccoli spy. But the clandestine service is a tough row to hoe and the work can wear anyone down. One such clandestine professional, whose identity is secret, is an explosives expert. The job, she says, is unrelenting, and if someone working in this field doesn’t find a way to step away from it, it will eventually kill them.
There are no seductresses at the CIA, reports one woman. That’s all Hollywood stuff. There is no erratic behavior. What there is, and has always been in the American secret services, are women like Virginia Hall, who are prepared to do whatever it takes to accomplish their vital (to the United States) missions.
Eloise Page was one of 4,500 women employed by the OSS. She began her career as a secretary; she retired as the third-highest ranking officer in the CIA’s operations directorate. In the operations section, she had responsibility for planning and directing covert operations and recruiting foreign spies. Page was the CIA’s first female station chief. Suzanne Matthews followed Page’s pathway. She joined the CIA as a secretary in 1975 and worked her way up to case officer.
Janine Brookner was another of the CIA’s shining stars. She joined the agency in 1968. The CIA offered her an analytical position, but she was adamant about wanting an assignment in operations. Ultimately, as a senior case officer, Brookner infiltrated the Communist Party and recruited a highly placed Soviet bloc agent. Today, Brookner is a Washington, D. C. lawyer.
Female employees of the CIA continue saving American lives every day. Completing this daunting task requires constant vigilance and attention to detail. The demand associated with this work requires compartmentalization, checking one’s emotions, and keeping a cool head under intense pressure. Currently, women make up around 45% of the CIA’s workforce and 34% of the agency’s senior leadership. The third and fourth most senior positions in the CIA are held by women.
Currently, there are 137 gold stars affixed to the CIA’s Memorial Wall, signifying CIA personnel killed in the line of duty. Thirty-seven of these stars do not identify the name of the veterans because their names remain classified. Eleven of those stars are for women, such as Barbara Robbins who died in Vietnam in 1963, Monique Lewis who was killed in Beirut in 1983 and Jennifer Matthews who was killed in Afghanistan in 2009. Some of the women who lost their lives (as with their male counterparts) had a spouse and children at home. Working insane hours protecting the homeland is one kind of sacrifice — giving up their life for the homeland is the ultimate sacrifice.
Endnotes:
[1] The British had their spies, as well. Anna Bates disguised herself as a peddler of knives, needles, and other dry goods to the Continental army. While she was doing that, she took careful note of the soldiers weapons, which the British believed was useful information.
The story of Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus, as with most of what we know about the ancient world, is wrapped in both fact and myth. Historians believe this because ancient record-keepers were more storytellers than historians. It is also likely that what they didn’t know as an absolute fact, they made up. That’s what storytellers do — and it usually does make for a good story.
In any case, according to the story, Cincinnatus saved Rome on two occasions. In 458 BC and 439 BC, the Senate of Rome summoned Cincinnatus, a modest farmer, and gave him dictatorial powers to raise an army to defend Rome — which he accomplished. Then, when the fighting was over, Cincinnatus promptly relinquished his power and returned to his beets.
If the story is true, then the account of Cincinnatus could provide us with the earliest example of a citizen-soldier (also known as militia). A militia is a military force raised from the civilian population during an emergency to serve in defense of the state (or community) or enforce the laws thereof.
Four hundred years later, during the Gallic Wars (a series of conflicts between 58-50 BC), Julius Caesar invaded Britannia because the Celts aided and assisted the enemies of Rome.[1] Once Caesar had completed his punitive campaign, he returned to the continent — mission accomplished.
Rome’s formal occupation of Britain occurred between 43-410 AD.[2] Roman government in Britain started well enough, but bribery, fraud, and treasonous behavior soon followed — presumably because corruption was part of Rome’s political landscape. Apparently, this is something the United States inherited from the ancients, as well. But life in Roman-Britain was further complicated by a more-or-less constant stream of invasions and assaults on Roman settlements by those who objected to Rome’s presence: the Picts, Irish/Scots, and later, the Anglo-Saxon hordes. By the beginning of the fifth century, Rome’s military resources were stretched to the limit. A more pressing need for military manpower at home forced the Romans to withdraw their legions.[3]
During Britain’s Anglo-Saxon period (410-660), also known as the Migration Period, massive numbers of Germanic people escaped the chaos of their homeland and made their way to the Albion shore. Upon arrival, they quickly learned that they were no safer in Britain because of the constant presence of marauders from northern Europe. At best, these invaders helped create a sense of insecurity among the British people — at worst, the seeds of national paranoia. Of course, when people are trying to kill you, then you aren’t paranoid.
During this period of great peril, Anglo-Saxons established a tradition called “the common burden.” It was an obligation of community service toward the collective defense of towns and villages, and it was particularly noteworthy in the ancient settlements of Kent, Mercia, and Wessex. It would be safe to say that thousands of able-bodied men were called upon to defend their boroughs from evil-doers over several hundred years. By the 10th century, the common burden tradition had evolved, and it became the duty of landowners to assume the responsibility for organizing and maintaining armed militias.
Following the Norman invasion of England in 1066, William I saw the wisdom and prudence of local militias, and he incorporated the Anglo-Saxon tradition of the common burden. William’s grandson, Henry I of England, mandated the following: “He will possess these arms and will bear allegiance to the Lord King Henry, namely the son of Empress Maud, and he will bear these arms in His service according to His order and in allegiance to the Lord King and his realm.” — The Assize of Arms, 1181.[4]
The Common Burden
The Assize of Arms established armed militias (on-call) by dividing the free populations into socio-economic categories. Those who were wealthiest had the greater obligation to acquire and maintain various prescribed weapons. In 1285, the Statute of Winchester expanded the Assize to include every able-bodied male person regardless of their status (free men or those bonded to the land), who were between 15 and 60. Local gentry made the decision which of them served and under what circumstances. The Statute stated, “Every man shall have in his house arms for keeping peace according to the ancient Assize.”[5] When called upon, the duty of these men might include expeditions away from their shire, local guard duty, local defense, and occasionally escort duties. Feudal military service ended during the reign of Edward III (1327-1377) — replaced by indentured service.[6]
Indentured soldiers incurred an obligation to serve their lord for a specified length of time. It was the beginning of the profession of arms. When the lord no longer needed professional soldiers or could no longer afford them, he might sell the contract to another, or the lord might have permitted the soldier to serve another as a mercenary. In this way, soldiers began migrating from one conflict to another — mainly because the profession of arms is all they knew how to do.
A problem arose when there were no conflicts. In these instances, it was common to find that soldiers turned to outlawry — marauders who preyed on defenseless hamlets, villages, or towns. Circumstances like these caused town officials to return to the idea of local militias, and once more, locals served “on-call” of their community’s needs.
In 1581, British law stipulated, “If any [highborn] man being a Queen’s subject, and not having a reasonable cause or impediment, and being within the age of sixty years (except spiritual men, justices of the bench, or other justices of Assize, or barons of the Exchequer) have not a longbow and arrows ready in his house, or have not for every man child in his house between seven years and seventeen of age, a bow and two shafts, and every such being above seventeen years a bow and four shafts, or have not brought them up in shooting, if any man under the age of four and twenty years have not shot at standing targets (being above that age) have shot at any marks under eleven score yards with any pick shaft or flight,” shall be punished.
Colonial Militias
Translated, the Latin term Posse Comitatus means “force of the county.” It refers to a citizens group assembled by officials to deal with an emergency. The term also applied to any force or band called forth to confront hostiles.
By the time the English fixed their sights on North America, France and Spain already claimed much of it, and neither kingdom was well-disposed to share it with Englishmen. There was no regular English soldiery in the early formation of British colonies, so to protect themselves from assaults by Spanish coastal raiders and from hostile Indians sicced upon them by French colonial officials, English settlers created local militias modeled on those of the mother country. These early American militias were crucial to the survival of the British colonies.
Colonial Militia
Naturally, the Englishmen who migrated to North America took with them their long-held British values and traditions. Among these traditions was a general loathing for standing armies and the profession of arms.[7] The reason for their profound contempt for the military was simple enough: British soldiers were instruments of government tyranny. Even after more than 100 years, British-American colonists viewed the Redcoat as a clear and present danger to colonial autonomy and liberty.
Beyond the preceding, British-American settlements were bastions of Puritan values. Outside instruments of a tyrannical parliament and king, American settlers were deeply offended by the uncouth Redcoat. He was profane, bawdy, and addicted to Satan’s beverages. Besides, the professional soldier was an outsider. Militia, on the other hand, was part of the community. They were family by blood or marriage, they were neighbors, and they were people who everyone could count on when needed — and so it was understandable that organized militia also viewed the Redcoats with suspicion.
The issue of suspicion and contempt was a two-way street because British regulars also had little regard for local militias. In the view of professional soldiers, militias were undisciplined and unreliable mobs who tended to bolt once the sound of that first shot reverberated through their ranks. This claim was, of course, valid. Colonial militia were not soldiers; they were farmers. They were undisciplined because they followed their own hook. They decided for themselves whether they liked the odds on the battlefield. More often than not, they made these decisions at the spur of the moment, prompted by others with similar fears, and usually, at the worst possible time.
The American militia was not an ideal defense mechanism, although some militias were more reliable than others. Some militia refused to fight outside their county/colony — but there were also great successes, such as demonstrated at the Battle of Louisbourg in Nova Scotia. But the militia was generally useful to colonial governments because once they activated the militia, officials could reposition the Redcoats elsewhere — where the need was greater.
Each British colony had a unique system for creating and maintaining its militia force. In most cases, regulations specified “able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 to 45.” Militias were formed under the auspices of the colonial charter, which required militia members to furnish their own armaments.
The first colonial militia was formed in Massachusetts in 1636. Historians tell us that the early organization of the Massachusetts militia explains how the New England militias became part of the political framework. More than one hundred years later, New England militia, having been thoroughly infiltrated by the Sons of Liberty, became the fuse that lit the American Revolution.[8]
From Colonial to American Militia
American militia became the foundation of the Continental Army and played an important role in General Washington’s strategies throughout the war of independence. Militia carried out the siege of Boston, which gave Washington the time to organize his army and decide how best to prosecute the war. It was the militia that later became part of Washington’s sophisticated spy network.
On April 19, 1775, American rebels and British regulars traded volleys at Concord Bridge. (North Wind Picture Archives/Alamy Stock Photo)
After the war, the colonist’s distrust of standing armies carried over to the new United States, and Congress disbanded the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. A small American Legion was restored, but the only seaborne force remaining was the Revenue Cutter Service. Issues involving a state militia (and who should control it/pay for it) became hotly debated.
Despite the traditional distrust of standing armies, President Washington realized that the United States could not remain sovereign if it did not have the capacity of protecting its communities, ports, coastal regions, or its commerce — and so began the process of reconstituting the armed forces. The timing of Washington’s initiatives could not have been better; the Quasi-War (with France) and the War of 1812 (in which the American militia played an important role) were just around the corner.
The militia is a long-held American tradition — part of our British heritage — and, one might argue, one that has maintained faith with its original purpose. If modern Americans understood this history, they would realize that the strength of a community is that everyone belongs to it; everyone carries the burden of community obligation. Community watch programs are one manifestation of this. Community militias do not force membership — they are volunteer organizations. Such militias offer no monetary benefit; there is only a sense of accomplishment by serving the community’s interests. What are those interests? Common cause, mutual security, and survival.
In early America, militia organizations combined military defense with community policing. Militiamen served because their community needed them. But as we all know, time changes all things. In the past, American militia played a key role in the common burden even if it was not always professionally competent or efficient — but this is because they weren’t regular soldiers. They were homeboys who did the best they could with what they had and, much like another militia unit that we’ve all learned to respect — the Texas Rangers — militiamen were often shoddy looking characters, undisciplined, and would only follow the orders of the officers they themselves respected and elected. American militiaman decided whether and when to fight — and they chose when they’d had enough of it.
13th NY State Militia 1861
The American Civil War was a crossover period. There were militia organizations back then, but they became fewer once the regular army assumed responsibility for protecting settlers from Indian hostilities. They also became fewer in number when the law took hold. County sheriffs could hire deputies and raise (volunteer) posses. The United States had an army in 1861, but it wasn’t large enough to complete the task of preserving the Union. It fell upon the states to raise a force of volunteers to augment the regular armies on both sides of the issue. The people who volunteered to serve their state were the same kinds of people from an earlier period, albeit identifying more with their respective states than with their counties. Even so, recruitment for state regiments came from one or more counties. There were exceptions, of course. The Kansas Red Legs and Missouri Bushwhackers are two — but it is difficult to say whether these were truly area militias or simply armed thugs with a mean streak.
Today there are state guard units and national guard organizations. As one example, the Military Department of Texas includes the Texas State Guard and the Texas National Guard. Together, these two organizations are regarded as the Texas State Militia. The commander-in-chief of all state military forces is the governor, directed by the Adjutant General of Texas. The governor of Texas commands the Texas Department of Public Safety similarly, including the Texas Rangers and other state troopers. Unrelated to state government, there are also numerous volunteer militia groups throughout the United States.
Good vs. Bad, Right vs. Left
Texas State Militia on the border
Lately, almost every discussion about the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States — the right to bear arms, has become a political narrative. There is nothing ambiguous about the Second Amendment, which states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Nevertheless, some continue to argue against this Constitutional right and regularly seek ways to limit or deny that right to citizens of the United States. Nearly every state addresses “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” which is every state’s right under our system of constitutional federalism. Still, the debate continues. Pro-gun groups (including almost every private militia group) insist that the Second Amendment means what it says. Anti-gun groups insist that guns in the hands of private citizens pose a danger to public safety. Still, to make that argument, they must also ignore the history of the American militia. Criminals in Chicago have managed to elevate their city to a murder capital in the United States; yet, not one of these murdering thugs has ever belonged to a militia organization.
By claiming that anyone who supports the Second Amendment is a racist or a domestic terrorist, anti-gun arguments have become particularly nasty. In response, pro-gun enthusiasts echo the Gonzalez Flag of 1835: Come and take it.
Today, in making word associations between “militia” and “white supremacy” and “Bible-thumping Christians,” anti-gun criminals (those acting in contravention of the law) have increased the intensity of the debate, even claiming that gun-carrying citizens are un-American. It is an interesting argument given the entire history of militias and the people’s right and responsibility to bear arms dating back to 500 AD.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 allowed citizens to “have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by the Law.” In modern arguments, particularly among those with a pro-gun point of view, and given Sir William Blackstone’s ageless opinion,[9] we may argue that U.S. gun rights indeed are a primary example of American exceptionalism. Moreover, gun-rights advocates strenuously argue that the Second Amendment is an American’s only protection from federal totalitarianism.[10] When one considers the numerous instances where the federal government has violated the constitutional rights of the American people, it is impossible to find fault with that reasoning.
Among those who argue that militias of an earlier time were ‘white supremacists,’ it is only accurate in the sense that many American communities (north, south, southwest, midwest, and northwest) were mired in the filth of Democratic Party politics and remained in that morass through the early 1970s. In the post-Civil War period, when radical Republicans placed the Freedman’s Bureau in charge of state governments, racial hatred increased — which serves as another example that too much government benefits no one.
Modern militias see themselves as a check against the totalitarian government — and while this would not have been possible in 1776, it certainly was the case a few years later during Shay’s Rebellion (Massachusetts) and the Whiskey Rebellion (western Pennsylvania). Oddly, some militias supported the rebellion, and other militias joining President Washington’s ranks. But returning to today, modern militias (generally) are not part of state mechanisms; they are privately organized, loosely connected groups of men and women who, for some reason, scare the hell out of the Democratic/Progressive Party apparatus.
Less than a year ago, federal authorities charged thirteen so-called Wolverine Watchmen (a Michigan-based militia) with terrorism, conspiracy, and weapons charges. Six men faced additional charges, which included conspiracy to commit the kidnapping of Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Lately, however, there is information that the entire episode was an FBI entrapment operation. Among those who have no trust or confidence in the federal government, they will argue that this isn’t the first time the FBI has created a crime in order to make an arrest. The ploy, so the argument goes, is first to outline a criminal act, plan it, participate in it, arrest the “perpetrators,” lay on them every possible criminal charge, and then let the event play out for years until no one even remembers what happened. Meanwhile, if none of these fellows are convicted, the federal government has destroyed them financially. There must be a lesson in all this, somewhere.
We should know that there are “bad actors” everywhere in our society, but if we hope to restore civil society, then we have to let the facts lead us to proper conclusions. There may be some off-center militias in America today, but they are few in number, and we serve no good purpose by applying a too-broad brush stroke to militias that see themselves as serving their communities.
Sources:
AL Schuler, A. Sir William Blackstone and the Shaping of American Law. New Law Journal, 1994.
Beckett, I. F. W. Britain’s Part-Time Soldiers: The Amateur Military Tradition, 1558-1945. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Publishing, 2011.
Barnett, R. E., and Heather Gerken. Article I, Section 8: Federalism and the Overall Scope of Federal Power. National Constitution Center online.
Chermak, S. M. Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement. Dartmouth, 2002.
Tucker, S. G. Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Volumes 5. Philadelphia, 1803; Reprint 1969.
United States Constitution, Amendment II, 1792.
Endnotes:
[1] Britannia is a personification of the ancient Roman Province, of the isles Britain and the British people; she is a helmeted female warrior, armed with a trident and a shield. In earlier times, the Roman name for Britain was Albion.
[2] Occupation rather than conquest because it is doubtful that any historian can make the argument that the Romans ever conquered the British people.
[3] By this time, of course, there was already a substantial Roman civilian presence in Britain. It was a Roman custom to award large land grants to legionnaires once they had served 25-30 years under Rome’s standard. These people and their descendants, became British farmers, blacksmiths, shopkeepers, and teamsters.
[4] Henry II of England, (also Henry Plantagenet) (1133-1189) (Reign 1150-1189) laid the foundation of English Common Law and influenced the development of societies in Brittany, Wales, and Scotland. Henry’s creation of armed militia to serve on call of the lord king was a reaction no to the so-called Great Revolt (1173-75).
[5] A court that convened at various intervals in each county of England and Wales to administer civil and criminal law. These courts existed until 1972 when the civil jurisdiction of Assizes was transferred to the High Court, and criminal jurisdiction was assigned to the Crown Court.
[6] Military indenture was a legal contract between a soldier and the man he served. The contract was written out twice on one sheet of paper and then cut into two in such a way that the jagged edges would fit together (hence the name indenture). The soldier retained one part, his captain the other. Any subsequent dispute would require that both parties fit the copies together to resolve the problem.
[7] Later reflected in the US Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: [The Congress shall have the power …] “To raise and support armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years.”
[8] Initially formed as a secret society/separatist group to advance the rights of citizens and oppose the arbitrary imposition of taxes. The group disbanded after repeal of the Stamp Act, but the name was taken up by other local groups prior to the outbreak of hostilities between the British government and the colonies. Some might argue that secret societies and clandestine raids is a mark of cowards, bolstered by the fact that during the so-called Tea Party, they dressed themselves as Indians.
[9] “This may be the true palladium of liberty … The right of self-defence is the first law of nature. In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Sir William Blackstone, 1803.
[10] In an article by R. E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center and Heather Gerken, Professor of Law at Yale, the authors provided an overview of Article 1, Section 8: Federalism and the Overall Scope of Federal Power. Historically, federal-state relations have always contested, with federalism undergoing four distinct phases: Enumerated Powers Federalism (1787), Fundamental Rights Federalism (1865), New Deal Federalism (1933), and State Sovereignty Federalism (1986-). The authors credit the Rehnquist Court with the revival of Enumerated Powers Federalism, and the Roberts Court, which continues the work of Rehnquist favoring state sovereignty over federal authoritarianism.
Fix Bayonets! 