Tag Archives: 10th Massachusetts

Open to Interpretation

19 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in History, Living History, Reenacting, Research

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Interpretation: I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately, reducing it to basics. Beverly Serrel challenges exhibit designers to articulate the one Big Idea about their work; one sentence that describes what your exhibition is about. I’ve been thinking about the Big Ideas for some upcoming exhibitions and programs at work, and in my personal work.

Some seem easy: Slavery in Rhode Island: Everyone was involved, everyone is connected. Slavery is part of our shared past. We are all part of the web of complicity. (Pick one, they’re all related.)

For the house museum, and the living history day at the house museum, it’s a little more complicated. We tried an involved story line last year and it didn’t seem to matter to visitors who were mostly intrigued by watching pretty costumes in a pretty house.

Thomas Gainsborough, The Housemaid. 1782-86. Tate Museum, Presented by Rosalind, Countess of Carlisle 1913, N02928

Thomas Gainsborough, The Housemaid. 1782-86. Tate Museum, Presented by Rosalind, Countess of Carlisle 1913, N02928

What I’ve settled on for now is a crude variation of “it takes a village,” in that a complex web of food and support networks was necessary to sustain an elegant 18th century mansion. (Our theme this year is Rhode Island Seascape and Landscapes, AKA Surf & Turf.) I begin to imagine diagrams that support that theory: small holding farmers and dairymen and fishermen who sold supplies to the wealthy, the merchants importing goods, the sailors and captains and shipbuilders needed to bring the barrels of china, boxes of sweets and tea and nankeens back to Rhode Island to support the scenes of elegant perched at the very top of the social pyramid.

Then I come to my personal interpretation and Bridget Connor. What is that story about? A Bridget with a troubled past and nothing left to lose? Poor women struggled to survive in an unstable war economy? Or simply that not everyone in the Revolution was a hero?

The Shurts off there Backs

17 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in History, Living History, Research

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Francis Wheatley, 1747-1801, British, Soldiers and Country Women, undated, Pen and black ink with watercolor on medium, smooth, cream wove paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

Francis Wheatley, 1747-1801, British, Soldiers and Country Women, undated, Pen and black ink with watercolor on medium, smooth, cream wove paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

Among the things I wondered about Bridget Connor and her court martial was from whom she’d bought that “publick shurt.” Why would a soldier have an extra shirt, or be willing to sell an extra shirt?

There are some circumstances in which it is plausible.

ClothingRegs1776_77

While shirts could have been sent from home,  regulations established in 1777 called for soldiers be issued two shirts, or an equivalent bounty. A soldier who wanted cash for alcohol or other non-regulation and non-issued goods or services might sell his second shirt, or steal a shirt to sell.

With the context of what soldiers should have been issued, we can  begin to tease the story out of the orderly books.

Regimental Orders July 15th 1782

At a Court Martial whereof Capt Dean was pre
sident, was tried Paul Pendexter & Titus Tuttel
soldiers in the 6th Company 10th Massachusetts Regt
For Stealing a Shurt and Disposing of the Same
ware Both found Guilty and Sentancd to Sixty Lashes
on there Naked Backs—the Colo approves
the opinion of the Court and orders it to
take this Evening and the prisoners to Return
to Duty——-The Court Martial of
which Capt Dean is president is Desolvd

The quote above is a full seven days before Bridget appears at her own Regimental Court Martial “for purchasing a publick Shurt from a Soldier.”

Paul Pendexter and Titus Tuttel were just the guys to get caught, until Bridget was discovered. It does make me wonder if there was an extensive ring for black market shirts (and where did they go once Bridget had them? Did she try to sell them back into the public stores, i.e. the quartermaster)?

Criminal masterminds these people weren’t, but it does seem possible that the Shirt Ring was fairly busy before it was collared.

tite Dressed

15 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in History, Research

≈ Comments Off on tite Dressed

Tags

, , , ,

William Dickinson, 1746-1823, The Relief, 1781, Stipple engraving and etching on moderately thick, slightly textured, beige laid paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

William Dickinson, 1746-1823, The Relief, 1781, Stipple engraving and etching on moderately thick, slightly textured, beige laid paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

Reading the Abbott orderly books takes some patience, even though they have been transcribed. As with so many 18th century texts, punctuation is unreliable and open to interpretation. Here’s an entry from July, 1782, on the subject of uniforms, guard duty and fatigue duty.

July 22 1782
The Greatest Care and aten
tion is to Be pade to the preservation of the Mens
Clothing and to keep the Cloth Clean.. As
the Guards are always to Be fill Dressed in
uniform they are not while on that Duty to be
put on Ferteeg or any kind of Meaniel service
but to appear Clean, tite Dressed and In a
Soldierly manner when any parties for
Ferteeg are Necesery they are not to be applied for
and Sent in there undress or Ferteeg Clothes
this order to be Strictly observed

Which seems in more sentence-like form to be:

The greatest care and attention is to be paid to the preservation of the men’s clothing and to keep the clothes clean. As the guards are always to be full dressed in uniform, they are not, while on this duty, to be put on fatigue or an kind of menial service, but to appear clean, tight dressed, and in a soldierly manner. When any parties for fatigue are necessary, they are not to be applied for, and sent in their undress or fatigue clothes. This order to be strictly observed.

Here’s what I think it means:

Pay attention to the men’s clothing and keep it clean.
Men assigned to guard duty are always to appear in full uniform. When on guard duty, these men are not to be assigned to fatigues or menial duties. They should instead always appear clean, neatly dressed, and solider-like. When fatigue parties are called, the guards are not to be assigned to that duty, so that they do not appear on guard in their fatigue or undress uniforms. This order is to be strictly obeyed.

Order!

10 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in History, Living History, Research

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Francis Wheatley, 1747-1801, British, Soldier with Country Women Selling Ribbons, near a Military Camp, 1788, Oil on canvas, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

Francis Wheatley, 1747-1801, British, Soldier with Country Women Selling Ribbons, near a Military Camp, 1788, Oil on canvas, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

You know you’re taking something seriously when you’re willing to pay for the privilege of reading a primary source. The microfilm I ordered from the Phillips Library arrived a week or so ago and I managed to snatch an hour or so between meetings to read and print some of the most interesting pages. I get a week or so more before the reader at work goes to storage, and then I’ll have to go haunt another library.

This is the kind of stuff I will happily read at bedtime, though it should also be noted that I will read regimental record books at bedtime, or runaway ads, so we may not share tastes in literature.

I was willing to pay for the film because I wanted to read the books in full to get a better sense of the context in which Bridget Connor was operating. (Delightedly, I realized last night as I fell asleep, of course there’s no death record for her in Massachusetts. She was expelled from camp at Newburgh, so why would she walk all the way back to Massachusetts? Why not set up a new life in New York? A whole new place to look for her!)

Beyond Bridget, there’s a wealth of detail in the Stephen Abbott Orderly Books.

Thomas Sandby, 1721-1798, British, Encampment at Maestricht, 1747, Pen in black ink, over graphite with gray wash on medium, moderately textured, beige, laid paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

Thomas Sandby, 1721-1798, British, Encampment at Maestricht, 1747, Pen in black ink, over graphite with gray wash on medium, moderately textured, beige, laid paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

“Regl Orders 5th June 1782
the Regiment will make Every preparation
to March on Fryday the Soldiers are to
Clean there arms to Morrow and pack up
there Clothing.. The Commedants of Com
apanies are Directed to Send the tent poles
which are Finished to Morrow by 12 oClock
to the Landing where the tent Lay the Guard
with the tents will pitch a No of tents Suff
iciant to Cover the Straw and what ever Bag
gae is Brought previous to the march”

This helps us get a picture of the camp, and from the order about the tent poles, I think we may gather that there were plenty of tent poles NOT expected to be finished. (My colleagues enjoyed that part when I read it aloud at work.)

Regimnl Orders June 6th 1782
the Regiment will turn out to Morrow Morning
at the Beating of the Revelee and to March
By Six oClock they are to pack there cloth
ing and kook there provisions this Evening
when they have arivd on the Ground for Encam
ping the officer commanding on the Spot
will order a partry if Forty men from the Reg
iment a Capt and two Sub’s to Command them
to Return to the Encampment in order to asist
in Bringin on the Baggage the Soldiers
are to Carry there kittles in there hands and
are to Leave there arms and pakes &c at the
New Encampment any Soldier who is found
Plundering another pack is to be tyd up and
punished with out Trial..

Carry their kettles in their hands, their provisions cooked the night before. Now, wouldn’t that change an encampment’s appearance? Let alone tied up plunderers…

Who was Bridget Connor?

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in History, Living History, Research

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Detail, James Malton, 1761-1803, A Military Encampment in Hyde Park, 1785, Watercolor with pen in black ink, with traces of graphite on moderately thick, moderately textured, beige, laid paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection. B2001.2.999

Detail, James Malton, A Military Encampment in Hyde Park, 1785. YCBA Paul Mellon Collection. B2001.2.999

Who knows? She’s hard to find, though I am told and have real hope that the microfilm of the Abbott orderly books that chronicle her misdeeds in wending its way to me down the dirty, salt-and-sand covered highways of southeastern New England.

Where have I looked for her and Francis Connor, whom I presume is her husband?

Francis appears in Soldiers and Sailors of Massachusetts, for seven months’ service. That’s all I can find.

Well, crap, right? This genealogy stuff in Massachusetts is hard work—there are so many more people and towns than we have here in Li’l Rhody—but diligence and method pay off, and when you figure you’ve about exhausted the primary sources you can access for now,[1] you turn to secondary sources.

Lest you think I dislike Deborah Samson, note that I found her life a useful source in thinking about Bridget, as well as Book of Ages and Jane Franklin Mecom’s life. I’ve also been re-reading Holly Mayer’s Belonging to the Army.

Crippled soldier with family. Etching, London (?) ca. 1760. Lewis Walpole Library, 760.00.00.16

Crippled soldier with family. Etching, London (?) ca. 1760. Lewis Walpole Library, 760.00.00.16

The common denominator: poverty, and the resulting lack of choices. This is useful for Bridget, because her story is probably one of necessity. Most women who followed the Continental Army, and worked for it, were from the lowest ranks. [2] These are women who would do what was necessary to survive, and as Mayer notes, “would rather steal than starve.” [3]

I’m not suggesting that Bridget, who would likely have received rations, needed to steal shirts to survive: I rather think she was attempting to leverage her position and profit by ill-gotten gains. But how did she end up in the Army to begin with? Massachusetts in 1782 is not New York in 1780, or Rhode Island in 1778.  What drove her to (presumably) follow Francis Connor?

Late in the war, maintaining troop strength is more difficult. The fervor of patriotism has cooled, and recruiting sergeants find it harder to fill the ranks.[4] There are bounties to be had, and the economy has suffered. Could Francis have been a property-less laborer who enlisted for the bounty? Nothing talks like cash. And, if the couple were tenants somewhere, without Francis’ income, Bridget might not have been able to maintain a home. Laundry doesn’t pay that much.

Why didn’t she stay with family? Could they have been indentured servants? Could they have been immigrants? My guess is that Bridget had no family, and if Francis had family, Bridget got on with them as well as she did with the officers of the 10th. I think she had nowhere to go, no way to survive without Francis.

Did they love each other? Did they like each other? Were they grifting together? I don’t know—but Francis Connor deserts the same day Bridget Connor is expelled from camp, so they’re bound together in some way. No matter what, Bridget was assuredly dependent on Francis.

Knowing so little about them opens up a world of possibilities, and the “opportunity” to do a great deal more research on the context of 18th century Massachusetts populations and enlistments. My best guess is that they’re an unpropertied laboring class couple from Boston, source of many of the relatively unstable and non-homogenous companies that made up the 10th Massachusetts. I also think they don’t have family, and might be former indentured servants. I have guesses about their religion and country of origin, which could be why the records are so hard to find. [5]

Looking for Bridget, and not finding her, leaves me with more and more questions, and I’m happy about that.

[1] She’s in the Abbott Orderly books, at least. Other Orderly Books to follow, as time and funds permit.

[2] Mayer, Belonging to the Army, page 122.

[3] Mayer, page 127

[4] How do you think Deborah Samson got in, passing as a boy? That’s 1782 for you.

[5] The Catholic Diocese of Rhode Island maintains separate historical vital records, and when we cannot find someone in the usual town records, we ask the genealogist if their family is perhaps Catholic or Quaker. Lack of evidence can be a suggestion of faith in my home state. But could these two be Irish Catholic in Massachusetts in 1782? I have no idea, but it seems a great stretch and a great question all at once.