Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Tascosa, SASS# 24838

Sons of Liberty.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

If anyone has doubts of what our founding fathers sacrificed to give us our freedom, you need to watch this on cable. They unselfishly sacrificed their life, liberty and their property to give us what has never been done in the history f the human race! The idea that our rights come from God and not the government was unheard of before 1776. We can not lose what they sacrificed so much for. God Bless America.

Its a 2 part series on cable. Ive seen it twice.

Edited by Tascosa, SASS# 24838
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

totally.  It shows a lot of what they gave up and here we are willing to throw it all away .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This show is from 2015, is it being shown somewhere now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent the past 20 years studying the American Revolution.  I also do genealogy as a hobby, and I've uncovered 20 ancestors who took up arms against the king (and one Tory, but we don't talk about him).  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an excellent account of the opening moves of the war. Highly recommended.

 

9D0828A4-0E51-43CB-9D25-405918540184.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is me impersonating my 5th-great grandfather.  I've posted about him before.  He was a 15 year-old corporal in a Massachusetts militia regiment when the "shot heard 'round the world" rang out.  He was one of thousands to respond and took part in the battle known as Lexington and Concord.  He remained on active duty until a year AFTER the war ended (1784), having been pulled into the Continental army when it was created.  He ended at the rank of Lieutenant.

 

When the War of 1812 began, he re-entered the army and was commissioned a Captain, and given command of a company.  When that war ended, he remained in the militia and continue to advance in rank, culminating at the rank of Colonel.  

 

Continental Army uniform regulations changed at least three times during the course of the war, so when I researched his regiment's uniform I had to choose a time during the war to impersonate.  This is how he would have appeared beginning in 1779 until the end of the war, assuming he had everything his regulations required.  There is supposed to be a silver epaulet on his left shoulder, which I have added since the photo was taken.  I may add a silver gorget just because I like them :)  He was authorized one, but whether he actually had one is unknown.  

 

Most Americans assume the Continental coat was blue with red trim, but that isn't true.  The white trim you see here (known as "facings") was created when the uniform regulations were revised in 1779.  Facing colors indicated the state from which the regiment came.  New England states used white.  Pennsylvania and a few other states had the better-known red.  Some southern states had a light blue color.  Prior to the 1779 regulations, my ancestor would have worn a BROWN regimental coat with red facings -- each regiment was different, and some of the colors appear wild to the modern eye -- bright yellow and green, etc.  

 

The red sash indicates officer status.  The sash was for ALL commissioned officers regardless of rank -- epaulets denoted the specific rank and are described below.  As the saying goes, "rank has its privileges."  The sash was designed to be used as a stretcher.  If the officer were wounded, his men could untie the sash, unfold it, and use two rifles or two sticks to make a stretcher for him.  It doesn't look like it would be wide enough or sturdy enough, but it is!  Mine is a faithful reproduction that would definitely work for that purpose.  

 

Epaulets denoted the specific rank.  Corporals wore a green one on the right shoulder only.  Sergeants wore a red one on the right shoulder.  Officers had silver for infantry and cavalry, gold for artillery, arranged thusly:  Left shoulder only = ensigns and lieutenants (modern day 2nd and 1st LTs -- yes, some Army regiments used the term "ensign" back then!).  Right shoulder only = captains.  Both shoulders = majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels.  Nothing differentiated the field grades from one another; you just had to know who they were.  Generals wore epaulets on both shoulders and a colored sash across the chest, under the regimental coat but over the vest, to indicate whether they were brigadiers or major generals.  I don't recall which color denoted which rank off the top of my head, and Washington did change it a few times.  

 

 

IMG_2213.jpeg

Edited by Cyrus Cassidy #45437
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

This is me impersonating my 5th-great grandfather.  I've posted about him before.  He was a 15 year-old corporal in a Massachusetts militia regiment when the "shot heard 'round the world" rang out.  He was one of thousands to respond and took part in the battle known as Lexington and Concord.  He remained on active duty until a year AFTER the war ended (1784), having been pulled into the Continental army when it was created.  He ended at the rank of Lieutenant.

 

When the War of 1812 began, he re-entered the army and was commissioned a Captain, and given command of a company.  When that war ended, he remained in the militia and continue to advance in rank, culminating at the rank of Colonel.  

 

Continental Army uniform regulations changed at least three times during the course of the war, so when I researched his regiment's uniform I had to choose a time during the war to impersonate.  This is how he would have appeared beginning in 1779 until the end of the war, assuming he had everything his regulations required.  There is supposed to be a silver epaulet on his left shoulder, which I have added since the photo was taken.  I may add a silver gorget just because I like them :)  He was authorized one, but whether he actually had one is unknown.  

 

Most Americans assume the Continental coat was blue with red trim, but that isn't true.  The white trim you see here (known as "facings") was created when the uniform regulations were revised in 1779.  Facing colors indicated the state from which the regiment came.  New England states used white.  Pennsylvania and a few other states had the better-known red.  Some southern states had a light blue color.  Prior to the 1779 regulations, my ancestor would have worn a BROWN regimental coat with red facings -- each regiment was different, and some of the colors appear wild to the modern eye -- bright yellow and green, etc.  

 

The red sash indicates officer status.  The sash was for ALL commissioned officers regardless of rank -- epaulets denoted the specific rank and are described below.  As the saying goes, "rank has its privileges."  The sash was designed to be used as a stretcher.  If the officer were wounded, his men could untie the sash, unfold it, and use two rifles or two sticks to make a stretcher for him.  It doesn't look like it would be wide enough or sturdy enough, but it is!  Mine is a faithful reproduction that would definitely work for that purpose.  

 

Epaulets denoted the specific rank.  Corporals wore a green one on the right shoulder only.  Sergeants wore a red one on the right shoulder.  Officers had silver for infantry and cavalry, gold for artillery, arranged thusly:  Left shoulder only = ensigns and lieutenants (modern day 2nd and 1st LTs -- yes, some Army regiments used the term "ensign" back then!).  Right shoulder only = captains.  Both shoulders = majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels.  Nothing differentiated the field grades from one another; you just had to know who they were.  Generals wore epaulets on both shoulders and a colored sash across the chest, under the regimental coat but over the vest, to indicate whether they were brigadiers or major generals.  I don't recall which color denoted which rank off the top of my head, and Washington did change it a few times.  

 

 

IMG_2213.jpeg

Do you have any info on the modifications the British made to their uniforms. I’ve read some accounts of them shortening their tunics to better suit the climate but haven’t been able to find details or images. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

This is me impersonating my 5th-great grandfather.  I've posted about him before.  He was a 15 year-old corporal in a Massachusetts militia regiment when the "shot heard 'round the world" rang out.  He was one of thousands to respond and took part in the battle known as Lexington and Concord.  He remained on active duty until a year AFTER the war ended (1784), having been pulled into the Continental army when it was created.  He ended at the rank of Lieutenant.

 

When the War of 1812 began, he re-entered the army and was commissioned a Captain, and given command of a company.  When that war ended, he remained in the militia and continue to advance in rank, culminating at the rank of Colonel.  

 

Continental Army uniform regulations changed at least three times during the course of the war, so when I researched his regiment's uniform I had to choose a time during the war to impersonate.  This is how he would have appeared beginning in 1779 until the end of the war, assuming he had everything his regulations required.  There is supposed to be a silver epaulet on his left shoulder, which I have added since the photo was taken.  I may add a silver gorget just because I like them :)  He was authorized one, but whether he actually had one is unknown.  

 

Most Americans assume the Continental coat was blue with red trim, but that isn't true.  The white trim you see here (known as "facings") was created when the uniform regulations were revised in 1779.  Facing colors indicated the state from which the regiment came.  New England states used white.  Pennsylvania and a few other states had the better-known red.  Some southern states had a light blue color.  Prior to the 1779 regulations, my ancestor would have worn a BROWN regimental coat with red facings -- each regiment was different, and some of the colors appear wild to the modern eye -- bright yellow and green, etc.  

 

The red sash indicates officer status.  The sash was for ALL commissioned officers regardless of rank -- epaulets denoted the specific rank and are described below.  As the saying goes, "rank has its privileges."  The sash was designed to be used as a stretcher.  If the officer were wounded, his men could untie the sash, unfold it, and use two rifles or two sticks to make a stretcher for him.  It doesn't look like it would be wide enough or sturdy enough, but it is!  Mine is a faithful reproduction that would definitely work for that purpose.  

 

Epaulets denoted the specific rank.  Corporals wore a green one on the right shoulder only.  Sergeants wore a red one on the right shoulder.  Officers had silver for infantry and cavalry, gold for artillery, arranged thusly:  Left shoulder only = ensigns and lieutenants (modern day 2nd and 1st LTs -- yes, some Army regiments used the term "ensign" back then!).  Right shoulder only = captains.  Both shoulders = majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels.  Nothing differentiated the field grades from one another; you just had to know who they were.  Generals wore epaulets on both shoulders and a colored sash across the chest, under the regimental coat but over the vest, to indicate whether they were brigadiers or major generals.  I don't recall which color denoted which rank off the top of my head, and Washington did change it a few times.  

 

 

IMG_2213.jpeg

Right sharp uniform, Sir. As S/SGT Buxton would say " STRACK OUTFIT."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

This is me impersonating my 5th-great grandfather.  I've posted about him before.  He was a 15 year-old corporal in a Massachusetts militia regiment when the "shot heard 'round the world" rang out.  He was one of thousands to respond and took part in the battle known as Lexington and Concord.  He remained on active duty until a year AFTER the war ended (1784), having been pulled into the Continental army when it was created.  He ended at the rank of Lieutenant.

 

When the War of 1812 began, he re-entered the army and was commissioned a Captain, and given command of a company.  When that war ended, he remained in the militia and continue to advance in rank, culminating at the rank of Colonel.  

 

Continental Army uniform regulations changed at least three times during the course of the war, so when I researched his regiment's uniform I had to choose a time during the war to impersonate.  This is how he would have appeared beginning in 1779 until the end of the war, assuming he had everything his regulations required.  There is supposed to be a silver epaulet on his left shoulder, which I have added since the photo was taken.  I may add a silver gorget just because I like them :)  He was authorized one, but whether he actually had one is unknown.  

 

Most Americans assume the Continental coat was blue with red trim, but that isn't true.  The white trim you see here (known as "facings") was created when the uniform regulations were revised in 1779.  Facing colors indicated the state from which the regiment came.  New England states used white.  Pennsylvania and a few other states had the better-known red.  Some southern states had a light blue color.  Prior to the 1779 regulations, my ancestor would have worn a BROWN regimental coat with red facings -- each regiment was different, and some of the colors appear wild to the modern eye -- bright yellow and green, etc.  

 

The red sash indicates officer status.  The sash was for ALL commissioned officers regardless of rank -- epaulets denoted the specific rank and are described below.  As the saying goes, "rank has its privileges."  The sash was designed to be used as a stretcher.  If the officer were wounded, his men could untie the sash, unfold it, and use two rifles or two sticks to make a stretcher for him.  It doesn't look like it would be wide enough or sturdy enough, but it is!  Mine is a faithful reproduction that would definitely work for that purpose.  

 

Epaulets denoted the specific rank.  Corporals wore a green one on the right shoulder only.  Sergeants wore a red one on the right shoulder.  Officers had silver for infantry and cavalry, gold for artillery, arranged thusly:  Left shoulder only = ensigns and lieutenants (modern day 2nd and 1st LTs -- yes, some Army regiments used the term "ensign" back then!).  Right shoulder only = captains.  Both shoulders = majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels.  Nothing differentiated the field grades from one another; you just had to know who they were.  Generals wore epaulets on both shoulders and a colored sash across the chest, under the regimental coat but over the vest, to indicate whether they were brigadiers or major generals.  I don't recall which color denoted which rank off the top of my head, and Washington did change it a few times.  

 

 

IMG_2213.jpeg

Researching the family tree can be interesting, my grandmother is a Lee , so when I was a kid I had to do a report on one of the generals of the civil war . So my dad showed me the family tree where Light Horse Harry Lee is my grandmothers grandfather like 3 or 4 times removed . So I decided to do Robert E Lee . And I did it in a positive light , being I was in Mi it wasn’t received terribly well by the Teacher, but I don’t remember getting a bad grade . I went to Stone Mountain in Ga a couple of years ago and the north and the south definitely still have very different views of the civil war . But it’s all our history, I still don’t get why people want to erase it different times have different morals/standards 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Do you have any info on the modifications the British made to their uniforms. I’ve read some accounts of them shortening their tunics to better suit the climate but haven’t been able to find details or images. 

 

 

 

I have read that, too.  Unfortunately I have not researched it at all.  Several books that would answer the question are on my Amazon wish list, but have been out of print for decades and are rather expensive.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

Researching the family tree can be interesting, my grandmother is a Lee , so when I was a kid I had to do a report on one of the generals of the civil war . So my dad showed me the family tree where Light Horse Harry Lee is my grandmothers grandfather like 3 or 4 times removed . So I decided to do Robert E Lee . And I did it in a positive light , being I was in Mi it wasn’t received terribly well by the Teacher, but I don’t remember getting a bad grade . I went to Stone Mountain in Ga a couple of years ago and the north and the south definitely still have very different views of the civil war . But it’s all our history, I still don’t get why people want to erase it different times have different morals/standards 

 

I'm educated as a historian, and although I'm not a professional historian per se, I use history in everything I do professionally.  The Civil War is my second area of study, behind the American Revolution and I wholeheartedly agree with you.  Erasing our history is a sin, and may cause the same mistakes to be made.  I also agree that modern-day northerners and southerners have vastly different points of view on the matter.  So much so that I avoid all Civil War discussions with southerners, and  with northerners who want to erase it.  

 

By the way, I just finished reading a biography of Light Horse Harry Lee, the Revolutionary War general who was the father of the more famous Robert E. Lee.  

 

I assume from your wording you descend from one of Light Horse Harry's other children, not through Robert?  

Edited by Cyrus Cassidy #45437

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

Researching the family tree can be interesting, my grandmother is a Lee , so when I was a kid I had to do a report on one of the generals of the civil war . So my dad showed me the family tree where Light Horse Harry Lee is my grandmothers grandfather like 3 or 4 times removed . So I decided to do Robert E Lee . And I did it in a positive light , being I was in Mi it wasn’t received terribly well by the Teacher, but I don’t remember getting a bad grade . I went to Stone Mountain in Ga a couple of years ago and the north and the south definitely still have very different views of the civil war . But it’s all our history, I still don’t get why people want to erase it different times have different morals/standards 

 

By the way, despite having studied the Revolution for the past two decades, I *still* have a hard time keeping all the Lees straight -- Major General Charles Lee, "Light Horse Harry" Lee, Richard Henry Lee, and a few more.  And they don't seem to have been related!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

I'm educated as a historian, and although I'm not a professional historian per se, I use history in everything I do.  The Civil War is my second area of study, behind the American Revolution.  I wholeheartedly agree.  Erasing our history is a sin, and may cause the same mistakes to be made.

 

By the way, I just finished reading a biography of Light Horse Harry Lee, the Revolutionary War general who was the father of the more famous Robert E. Lee.  

 

I assume from your wording you descend from one of Light Horse Harry's other children, not through Robert?  

It’s been years since I saw the paperwork but I come from one of Roberts brothers. My grandmother was Roberta Lee everyone called her Bobby . And I’m named Robert so I would say there’s some family pride in being related . I guess that would make Robert E like my great, great , great maybe a couple more uncle . 

Edited by Buckshot Bob
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

By the way, despite having studied the Revolution for the past two decades, I *still* have a hard time keeping all the Lees straight -- Major General Charles Lee, "Light Horse Harry" Lee, Richard Henry Lee, and a few more.  And they don't seem to have been related!  

The only way I have remembered was Light horse Harry . It’s my understanding Henry was his real name and he was Robert E’s father . I can’t remember right now but I believe Robert had 2 or 3 brothers I don’t remember the name of the one I come from but I believe he was a governor somewhere. But don’t hold me to it id have to get my dad to find the paperwork and who knows where that’s at . It was never been a real popular thing being in Mi , maybe if I’d grown up in the south :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

Yes, that's the Light Horse Harry you mentioned from the Revolutionary War (real name Henry).  

Since you seem to be into this is there a best way or website to trace your family tree ? Ancestry.com ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

Since you seem to be into this is there a best way or website to trace your family tree ? Ancestry.com ? 

 

I use ancesty.com, but remember you have to pay for that one.  It has access to the most records.  If you want to start with a free service, try Heritage Quest or Family Search.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

I use ancesty.com, but remember you have to pay for that one.  It has access to the most records.  If you want to start with a free service, try Heritage Quest or Family Search.

Does ancestry allow you to print everything off ? So you don’t have to maintain a membership forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

Does ancestry allow you to print everything off ? So you don’t have to maintain a membership forever?

 

You would have to use the "snipping" tool that every Microsoft computer is equipped with.  For Apple, use CMD-SHIFT-4 to take a screen shot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyrus, you left out the most important part, tell us about the gun!

 

Seamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back the Army was looking for a better Camo pattern that would better serve to hide our troops. At the same time I was reading on the Rev War uniforms that were bright gaudy colors. I asked enough "why" question until I finally got an answer.  The best answer I got was that before the battle started you could identify the location of your own units by their colors.  After the shooting started the smoke would be so thick that the colors identifying your units kept you from shooting your own people.

If he's wearing red with crossed white sashes shoot him, he's a red coat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

I have read that, too.  Unfortunately I have not researched it at all.  Several books that would answer the question are on my Amazon wish list, but have been out of print for decades and are rather expensive.  

I bought two first editions (it had been reprinted once) of a book written by Hubby's great grandfather in 1929 from www.abe.books.com. They have some obscure stuff. You might try them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get Sons of Liberty in Blu-ray DVD from Amazon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Noz said:

A few years back the Army was looking for a better Camo pattern that would better serve to hide our troops. At the same time I was reading on the Rev War uniforms that were bright gaudy colors. I asked enough "why" question until I finally got an answer.  The best answer I got was that before the battle started you could identify the location of your own units by their colors.  After the shooting started the smoke would be so thick that the colors identifying your units kept you from shooting your own people.

If wearing red with crossed white sashes shoot him, he's a red coat.

Hollywood and artists of the earlier centuries have given the impression that the British army was composed of entirely redcoats. But there were many regiments that did not wear red tunics and it was not unusual for American militia and Continental troops to use English uniforms due to the lack of equipment. The best unit identification was the banners they carried. They were usually visible above the gun smoke. Accidental fratricide was a very common occurrence in wars back then. It still can be sometimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Great, great, great, great, great grandfather emigrated from Germany.

 

He fought with Butler's Rangers for the king against the dirty, rotten, rebel, rabble revolutionaries.  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 4:41 PM, Seamus McGillicuddy said:

Cyrus, you left out the most important part, tell us about the gun!

 

Seamus

 

Sorry, Seamus, I just saw your post.  The gun I'm holding in the photo is a modern-day replica, made by Pedersoli.  It is a faithful reproduction of a Pennsylvania Long Rifle in .50 caliber, and is likely something similar to what my ancestor would have had.  Remember from my first post that he started as a militiaman at the very beginning of the war, and his militia unit was pulled in to the Continental Army when it was created.  Early in the war, the Continentals were militia units who were federalized by Congress, so they were self-equipped -- different uniforms between each regiment (if they even had one), and everyone supplied their own rifle.  

 

My ancestor was commissioned a Lieutenant in 1778, before the uniform regulations I mentioned went into effect.  The Continentals also started receiving smooth bore muskets from the French in 1778.  These are known as the "Charleville," and most were models of 1763 and 1768.  A lot of folks assume they were the newer models of 1777, but those went to the French units.  Our boys got the older ones.  

 

I don't currently own either an original or a replica of a Charleville.  I know my ancestor's regiment (12th Massachusetts) did receive them.  However, based on when he was made a Lieutenant I'm doubtful that he got one -- the smoothbore musket is an enlisted man's tool.  Officers typically carried a small rifle known as a "fusil" (sometimes "fuzzee" by the French), for the purposes of self defense.  But Americans didn't receive any of these that I know of.  I find it highly likely he simply kept the rifle he started with and used it as a fusil.  So, because I already own it, and because I think it's a historically valid argument for a low ranking officer to keep the rifle he provided to begin with, I carry it as part of my ancestor's persona.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life said:

My Great, great, great, great, great grandfather emigrated from Germany.

 

He fought with Butler's Rangers for the king against the dirty, rotten, rebel, rabble revolutionaries.  :angry:

 

Roger's Rangers?  They were an American unit who were loyal to the crown, made quite famous in the French and Indian War, but made infamous to the patriot cause in the Revolution.

 

I'm not familiar with Butler's Rangers, but "Butler" is an English name.  You said he emigrated, so that means he was not one of the "Hessian" mercenary units employed by the British crown to fight here.  It implies he fought with a Loyalist unit like Roger's Rangers.  Of course there were many smaller commands of Loyalist militia whose names I have not memorized, and some of them were ranger units -- a different ancestor of mine enlisted in a Patriot ranger regiment in Pennsylvania in 1777 when he was 14 years old!  Do you have a source for Butler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Hollywood and artists of the earlier centuries have given the impression that the British army was composed of entirely redcoats. But there were many regiments that did not wear red tunics and it was not unusual for American militia and Continental troops to use English uniforms due to the lack of equipment. The best unit identification was the banners they carried. They were usually visible above the gun smoke. Accidental fratricide was a very common occurrence in wars back then. It still can be sometimes.

 

Yes, absolutely.  I have a few books on Continental Army uniforms, many of which have been out of print for decades and I've spent WAAYY too much money on them for Mrs. Cassidy's mental well-being.  They are derived from original records on uniforms, and my small library on the matter gives the most complete record we can muster.  It only covers the Continentals, however, as each militia regiment was different and records are even more sparse.  

 

Suffice it to say, ESPECIALLY in the early war period before the French started donating uniforms, it was an absolute mishmash of colors.  I was serious in another post when I said there were bright green and yellow uniforms within the Continentals.  There were also examples of Continental units looking like British red coats.  To further add confusion, a common 18th century military practice was to reverse the colors for the regimental musicians.  So if your regiment wore blue regimental coats with red facings, its musicians wore red coats with blue facings, looking awfully British.  

 

On the British side, MOST regiments were, in fact, adorned in red.  The "facings" and other trim pieces were different between regiments, just like they are today, as was their headgear.  A few British regiments were adorned in green, but most were red.  In fact, it seems in every war soldiers come up with a colloquial name with which to refer to their enemies ("Haji" in Iraq and Afghanistan, "Gook" in Vietnam, "Kraut" in WW2 Europe, "Jap" in WW2 Pacific, "Johnny Reb" or "Billy Yank" in the Civil War, etc.).  The term during the Revolution was "lobster back."  People assume this was because of their red coats; however, it was actually because of the extensive amount of corporal punishment -- mostly by whipping -- the British army employed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No implication that Conrad Sills fought with Colonel John Butler's Rangers against the dorty, rotten rebel rabble. He absolutely as did his unit.

 

Butler's Rangers and their indian allies terrorized the "Patriots". Remember, history is written by the victors. Conrad moved to the Niagara area, was granted land by the British government and settled in SILLSVILLE near the Bay of Quinte in Ontario. :wub:

 

Butler's Rangers are well memorialized in Canada. All of its members and progeny are eligible to be members of the United Empire Loyalists. They can add a "QC" to their names. The history of the Regiment is voluminous, well documented and is celebrated in Canadian history.  :P

 

Our Canadian fiction is replete with stories of heroic Loyalists fighting for the king.  That is typical of the literature fomented by the losers in any contest.

 

Conrad's son, John,  was a drummer boy with the King's Royal Regiment of New York. That's quite a Loyalist legacy!  :D

 

I am not very expert with the Internet but will attempt to upload the official`uniform of Butler's Rangers.


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOOPS!!!!! :angry:  Not "Q"C but "UE". That;s a brain fart on my part.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

Roger's Rangers?  They were an American unit who were loyal to the crown, made quite famous in the French and Indian War, but made infamous to the patriot cause in the Revolution.

 

I'm not familiar with Butler's Rangers, but "Butler" is an English name.  You said he emigrated, so that means he was not one of the "Hessian" mercenary units employed by the British crown to fight here.  It implies he fought with a Loyalist unit like Roger's Rangers.  Of course there were many smaller commands of Loyalist militia whose names I have not memorized, and some of them were ranger units -- a different ancestor of mine enlisted in a Patriot ranger regiment in Pennsylvania in 1777 when he was 14 years old!  Do you have a source for Butler?

Loyalist New Yorkers.
http://www.uelac.org/Military/Butlers-Rangers.php

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

Sorry, Seamus, I just saw your post.  The gun I'm holding in the photo is a modern-day replica, made by Pedersoli.  It is a faithful reproduction of a Pennsylvania Long Rifle in .50 caliber, and is likely something similar to what my ancestor would have had.  Remember from my first post that he started as a militiaman at the very beginning of the war, and his militia unit was pulled in to the Continental Army when it was created.  Early in the war, the Continentals were militia units who were federalized by Congress, so they were self-equipped -- different uniforms between each regiment (if they even had one), and everyone supplied their own rifle.  

 

My ancestor was commissioned a Lieutenant in 1778, before the uniform regulations I mentioned went into effect.  The Continentals also started receiving smooth bore muskets from the French in 1778.  These are known as the "Charleville," and most were models of 1763 and 1768.  A lot of folks assume they were the newer models of 1777, but those went to the French units.  Our boys got the older ones.  

 

I don't currently own either an original or a replica of a Charleville.  I know my ancestor's regiment (12th Massachusetts) did receive them.  However, based on when he was made a Lieutenant I'm doubtful that he got one -- the smoothbore musket is an enlisted man's tool.  Officers typically carried a small rifle known as a "fusil" (sometimes "fuzzee" by the French), for the purposes of self defense.  But Americans didn't receive any of these that I know of.  I find it highly likely he simply kept the rifle he started with and used it as a fusil.  So, because I already own it, and because I think it's a historically valid argument for a low ranking officer to keep the rifle he provided to begin with, I carry it as part of my ancestor's persona.  

I had to laugh at an episode of Outlander when a Jacobite Officer described the British troops’ Brown Bess as deadly accurate at 100 yards.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.