As we continue to update the website, be sure to visit our ongoing project to record a detailed chronology of the 29th Foot through the entire period of the American Revolution. We’ll also be accompanying the timeline with brief histories explaining the most important events of the 29th’s history in America. If you know of any significant event that should be included, be sure to let us know!
Hey there everyone!
It’s been a heck of a long time since we’ve updated this page. You can expect much more in the near future, but for now, our Company Historian is dealing with finals and research completely unrelated to our topic. Don’t you worry, we’ll have plenty more for you this summer!
Today is the West Coaster Toy Soldier Show! If you happen to be in the Irvine area, visit some of our members at their booth. No, we’re not selling toy soldiers, but you can still learn a thing or two from our newly uniformed members about the material culture of the British Army in the American Revolutionary War!
From Canadian Military History Gateway
Governor Guy Carleton (shown above) was trapped in the city of Quebec through the winter of 1775-1776. A joint operation by American Generals Montgomery and Arnold had swung in from opposite directions and pinned the few British forces in Canada within the walled city. Carleton himself had barely escaped before Montgomery’s forces easily took the city of Montreal. Fearing that Canada would soon fall to the American rebels, Carleton managed to get one message back to the Crown before the river froze, trapping him until the spring.
In response, the British government ordered the 29th to prepare for sailing. The choice of the 29th Regiment of Foot as the first to land at the besieged city of Quebec was likely a calculated one.
Much of the British army was already in America. Half a year before Carleton’s plea reached Britain, the Howe brothers landed tens of thousand of soldiers at New York. Despite moving the largest British sea-borne invasion until World War II, the military still felt that the numbers were insufficient, and thousands of German mercenaries had been employed to supplement the force. Yet, despite the manpower restrictions, the 29th was kept at home.
They may have been kept in Britain to avoid inflaming the rebels by deploying the same soldiers who had occupied Boston five years before and perpetrated the infamous Boston Massacre. The commanders of the British invasion were, after all, the Howe brothers, who also sought a negotiated peace, and were probably not inclined to deploy those troops in New York.
The choice to leave them behind is just as likely to have been benign. The strains on the manpower of the British military weren’t felt solely in the colonies. Britain still had to maintain a military presence in Florida, throughout the West Indes, Gibraltar, India, and most importantly within Britain and Ireland. Practicality, rather than politics, may have dictated that the 29th remain on station along the English Channel.
Despite being left behind, the 29th had regained much of the reputation sullied by the Boston Massacre. The Regiment had been inspected by William Howe in 1774, who commented that despite “many old men in the regiment,” commended them on their loading, drill, and being “steady, attentive, and silent under arms.” He must have been impressed with the officers as well. When Howe took command of a combined Light Infantry battalion to be reviewed by the King himself, he chose the 29th’s Major Jeremiah French as his second in command. The Light Infantry company was commanded by Viscount Petersham, demonstrating the noble pedigree of some of the regiment’s officers.
Early in 1775, as war began to seem inevitable, the various regiments in Britain were ordered to augment their numbers in the event of conflict. Under Major General Evelyn, the officers of the 29th successfully brought the regiment up to full strength before any other. Impressed with their work, King George III said, “he would employ the 29th directly, in a situation where he trusted it might distinguish itself.”
Perhaps the choice to send the 29th was that “situation” the King referred to. The chances of success were high. Provided the city had not already been taken, the first troops to land could expect instant reinforcement by the garrison of Quebec, along with the marines of the ships that would carry them. The Americans were known to have passed through wilderness and were under supplied. When coupled with enduring a harsh Canadian winter, the Americans were not in much of a state to resist fresh troops.
The professionalism of the troops and the King’s promise may have been overshadowed by the immediate needs of the British military. The 29th was at full strength, stationed along the coast and close to the transports and ships needed to deliver the troops, and had extensive service in Canada.
Whether through the connections of the officers, the professional appearance of the troops, or sheer necessity, the 29th was not chosen to raise the siege of Quebec by mistake. It is, in fact, possible that all of these factors played a role in getting the Vein Openers across the Atlantic.
Sources
Enys, John. The American Journals of Lt. John Enys. Editor Elizabeth Cometti. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1976.
Everard, Major Hugh Edmond, History of Thos. Farrington’s Regiment Subsequently Designated the 29th (Worcestershire) Foot 1694 to 1891. Worcestershire: Littlebury and Company, Worcestershire Press, 1891.
Friends and members of Basset’s Company have come together to create new works of art portraying the historical unit and our modern instructors. Keep an eye out for a new page in the near future!
By Benjamin Cuatt
We’ll take a quick break from our examination of the history of the 29th in the Revolutionary period to take a look at a fascinating little anecdote involving the Congress, the Bible, and a printer named Robert Aitken.
According to the Library of Congress, the Revolutionary War had caused a shortage of Bibles. In the past, English translations of the Bible came from the British themselves, and this practice ceased rather quickly with the onset of hostilities. Robert Aitken, a printer in Philadelphia, took up the task of printing his own translation of the Bible, seeking the approval of the Congress (which he got) and the financial interest of the Congress (which he didn’t).
From inkandblood.com
Interestingly, Aitken approached a sticky theological question caused by the Revolution. Romans 13:1 in many translations of the Bible (the New International Version in this case) reads: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” This particular verse would seem to cast the Revolutionaries as in opposition to a divine institution.
Aitken’s translation, however, reads: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God.”
What do any theologians out there think? Is this a reliable translation of the Bible, or a politically motivated change to an ancient text?
For more on the Aitken Bible, visit the American Creation blog.
The renown historical artist Don Troiani painted a portrait of a Battalion Company Private of the 29th Regiment of Foot as he would have appeared during the Occupation of Boston. Support this talented artist and bedeck your walls with your very own Vein Opener!
Paul Revere’s engraving “The Bloody Massacre” is well known for its blatantly propagandist representation of the Boston Massacre, and is even the source for the title of that event.
From www.EarlyAmerica.com
You can easily find the numerous exaggerations in the above image. From the musket firing from a window of “Butcher’s Hall” despite the peaceful nature of the crowd, to the overly enthusiastic soldiers and their officer ordering the carnage.
In examining the image, however, I got to wondering about something else. It was a thought sparked by the incorrect statement by an overly enthusiastic history buff that the image was being portrayed as happening in broad daylight. This is easily enough dismissed with a simple glance to the upper left of the image, where you find the crescent moon. Both Revere’s plagiarized copy (above), and Pelham’s original (below), entitled “The Fruits of Arbitrary Power”, show a crescent moon.
Via Wikipedia
As the casual observer can easily see, the moons are different. In fact, it’s one of the few differences between Henry Pelham’s and Paul Revere’s versions. Revere portrays the moon as shortly past full, while Pelham shows the moon as just a sliver before new. So who was nearer the truth?
To find out, I searched through that ever useful resource: Google Books. One of the most useful guides has been The Nautical Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris, For The Year 1770. The book proudly announces itself as a product of the Commissioners of Longitude, the board created to award the Longitude Prize that would motivate the creation of John Harrison’s famous chronometer and revolutionize the art and science of navigation.
Page 25 of this work lists the phase of the moon for Sunday the fourth of March as a New Moon. Using this as a guide, we could take a look at a simple diagram of moon phases to guess the next day, the notorious fifth of March, and determine how it must have appeared as over King Street.
From www.moonconnection.com
Revere’s moon appears far too close to Full, and only somewhat leaning toward waxing. Pelham, on the other hand, is on the wrong side of the phases, though certainly closer to the actual size of the crescent.
Of course, these conclusions are based on a single source for the phases of the moon in the year 1770. Does anyone out there know of more sources for double checking the Nautical Almanac?
Pelham and Revere Moons taken from images above. Moon photograph on right from U.S. Naval Observatory Website.
From our friend Don Hagist over at British Soldiers, American Revolution comes a new source document from another member of the 29th.
Thomas Dickson Reade, the surgeon of the Regiment, wrote a book with the appropriately lengthy 18th century title, “A View of the Diseases of the Army in Great Britain, America, the West Indes, and Aboard the King’s Ships From the Beginning of the Late War to the Present Time.”
Along with Enys’ Journals and Anburey’s Travels Through the Interior Parts of America, we now have three primary source documents written by members of the 29th Regiment of Foot recalling their time in the American Revolutionary War.
With the satirical work of Grose, Advice to the Officers of the British Army, these primary sources are sure to keep us busy reading for some time!
From "Better Living Through Beowulf"
From www.gonomad.com
One of the more fascinating aspects of the American Revolutionary period, for me anyway, has always been the role of Catholics. Constantly there were angry denunciations on the part of the Colonists regarding the “Papists” and their “Romish” institutions. Of course, the British were not exactly friendly to Catholics either, but both sides found themselves allied with Catholics in one fashion or another. The Anburey Journals provide some interested stories regarding Catholics in Canada. While the anecdotes probably can’t be attributed solely to Anburey (see our previous post on the dangers of citing the Anburey Journals), we can view these stories as representative of the conflicting views of Catholicism that the British likely held. In a letter (likely plagiarized) describing the city of Quebec, the Anburey Journals read:
There are several churches in each town, but those in the upper are the most magnificent and have sustained the least damage. The largest of these, and what may be termed the cathedral has nothing worthy of notice, except a handsome steeple…After Romish service is over, on a Sunday, the Governor, with the officers and soldiers of the garrison, and the Protestant inhabitants of the city, resort thither to their worship. This little circumstance I mention to you, as the passing of the Quebec bill made such a noise in England; clearly to shew there is no animosity among the inhabitants, on the score of religion.
