Author Interview: John Rees on “They Were Good Soldiers: African Americans Serving in the Continental Army, 1775-1783”

Dear Reader,

Today we have the pleasure of being joined by John Rees, an author and historian of the American War of Independence. Though not a professional historian by training, John has dedicated his life to the study of the American Revolution, and has more detailed knowledge on the life of American common soldiers in this era than any writers I have encountered. I think John's work is an inspiration to all of us, as it shows what can be achieved when people "do history" well. 

His new book, “They Were Good Soldiers: African Americans Serving in the Continental Army, 1775-1783” was published by Helion and Company Press in the United Kingdom earlier this year. John has graciously agreed to answer some questions regarding his book. Without further adieu, let us go to the interview.

Alex Burns: John- you have just published a book regarding the African-American soldiers fighting in the Continental Army. Could you tell us a little about your book? 

John Rees:    ‘They Were Good Soldiers’ examines the subject in some detail, including black soldiers’ personal experiences before, during, and after the war (gleaned largely from nineteenth century pension depositions). The book begins by discussing the treatment of black Americans by Crown commanders and their inclusion in British, Loyalist, and German military units. The narrative then moves into an overview of African American soldiers in the Continental Army, before examining their service state by state. Each state chapter looks first at the Continental regiments in that state’s contingent throughout the war, and then adds interesting black soldiers’ pension narratives or portions thereof. The premise is to introduce the reader to the men’s wartime duties and experiences, within the context of the changing and contracting state lines they served in. The book’s concluding chapters examine veterans’ post-war fortunes in a changing society and the effect of increasing racial bias in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

    My intent from the start was to make extensive use of black veterans’ pension narratives. For those unfamiliar with the Revolutionary War pension applications (deemed by one historian, ‘one of the largest oral history projects ever undertaken’), they are the best way to hear the men’s stories in as close to their own words as is possible – to almost hear them speak. Add to that, personal details, available nowhere else, are revealed by the veterans themselves or people close to them. In essence, my wish was to present their experiences as soldiers, as citizens, and as individuals, and pension narratives are the best way to accomplish that.

AB: Although the experiences of these soldiers have not been totally ignored, this is one of the few book-length treatments of African-Americans in the Continental Army in the past fifty years. How has this story been told or neglected by other historians writing before you? 

John Rees portraying a soldier during the
American War of Indepedence

JR:   Funny enough, after being approached to write a book on African American Continental soldiers, but before I submitted my proposal, I received notice of an about-to-be-published book on much the same subject. I’d known my friend Judy Van Buskirk was working on that book, but the matter utterly slipped my mind. After discussing it with my soon-to-be editor and corresponding with Judy, I decided to go ahead with my project. 

    Even now I’ve not read Judy’s book (Standing in Their Own Light: African American Patriots in the American Revolution - University of Oklahoma Press, 2017), the reason being that I did not want to be influenced by or inadvertently plagiarize her work. A friend who has read Standing in Their Own Light tells me that while Judy and I reach many of the same conclusions concerning African Americans’ wartime and post-war experiences, my book more adeptly discusses their service in the context of the Continental army as a military organization, and uses a number of additional primary accounts. I also look further into the veterans’ pension claims, trying to sort facts from faulty memory or deliberate obfuscation. That said, Ms. Van Buskirk is an excellent historian, and I feel confident in recommending her work to anyone interested in the subject. (One of these days I’ll read Standing in Their Own Light myself, and am sure it will educate me, as well as point out the shortfalls in my own work.)

     To get back to the gist of your question, many of the previous accounts of African American Revolutionary soldiers (none, until recently, book-length) have been plagued with misinformation and myths, particularly concerning the “black” 1st Rhode Island Regiment, and have not placed their service within a proper military context. I hope I’ve made some advances in rectifying those deficiencies.     

AB: What first drew you to this particular part of the revolutionary past? It has become very common to focus on the African-Americans serving with British forces during the War of Independence: the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia even has a section dedicated to this story. What caused you to examine the American side of this issue? 

JR:    As a child I knew of Crispus Attucks’ death in the 1770 Boston Massacre, but likely didn’t know of African Americans fighting for American independence until a March 1975 U.S. postal stamp series titled “Contributors to the Cause”; one of those stamps honored Massachusetts soldier Salem Poor.  Two things really piqued my interest. The first was Benjamin Quarles’ book, The Negro in the American Revolution. First published in 1962, I read it in the mid to late 1980s, and was treated to the full scope of African Americans’ roles and experiences during the war. (I still highly recommend Mr. Quarles’ work.) The second was a passage from a post-war memoir by Henry Hallowell, formerly of the 5th Massachusetts Regiment; he wrote, simply, “In my … company [there] was 4 negroes named Jeptha Ward, Job Upton, Douglas Middleton, and Pomp Simmons … part of them called on me after their time was out. They were good soldiers.”

    I began researching the wartime period about 1985, at first focusing on a single Pennsylvania regiment. As I pored through books, and later, manuscripts and microfilm, I began copying and setting aside interesting tidbits that had little or nothing to do with the unit I was studying. That habit continued, and eventually I had miscellaneous information on a number of subjects, including African American soldiers. Over the years I amassed a good store of research, which was added to by my penchant for sharing information, which led to friends and acquaintances sharing their research with me. Around 2005 I decided I had enough material to write a small overview article on black Continentals. That was first published in 2010 in Military Collector & Historian. A few years later I embarked on a monograph focusing on black soldiers in Southern regiments, a project made easier by the discovery of Will Graves’ and C. Leon Harris’s Southern Campaigns Revolutionary War Pension website containing thousands of fully searchable, transcribed pensions. When approached by Helion & Company to do the book, I determined to go further with the subject.

  

AB: What about writing this work surprised you the most? Was there a particular discovery which you were not expecting? 

JR:    Some of the personal details revealed in pension depositions by veterans and those who knew them really floored me. In some cases it was a one-off statement, such as that by a friend of Jacob Francis, a native of Amwell Township, New Jersey, who was taken to Massachusetts as an indentured servant. Francis ended up joining a Massachusetts Continental regiment in late 1775, eventually marched back to New Jersey, and took part in the First Battle of Trenton. In a deposition by one of his old comrades in the New Jersey militia, we learn about an archaic term still used in Massachusetts early in the war, “at that time [1775 and 1776] … Jacob had been out in the New England service among the Yankeys as we then called them. Jacob called his, nap-sack ‘snap-sac’, we told him it was ‘nap sack’ he said that they called it snapsack in the New England troops that he had been with.” A larger story was the number of formerly enslaved men who had several name changes during the lives. For example, former 4th Connecticut soldier David Gardner noted concerning Caesar Clark, “He believes he [Clark] was on the Rolls by the Name of Caesar Negro …” Gardner recalled, too, “There was a Number of Blacks belonging to the [4th] Regiment – most if not all of whom had been Slaves and obtained their Emancipation by Enlistment – Some retained the Names of their former Masters – Some assumed new Names for themselves – and some had Names imposed on them by their Officers …” (Involuntary name change for black men and women was a symbol of servitude or inferiority; for newly-freed African Americans the ability to choose for themselves was a small but overt symbol of liberty.) Several men told origin stories. Cezar Shelton stated, “He was born at sea as he has always been told when his mother was being brought from Africa”; Richard Leet, “a man of Colour … [was] a native of Guinea … brought to the United States when he was about five years old & sold as a slave …” Finally, it was heartbreaking to read a number of veterans tell post-war of their enslaved family members. Philip Savoy, “a man of Collour,” who had served in the 4th Maryland Regiment, noted in his 1818 pension application, “I have a family but they are all slaves. I am myself free and ever have been.” Another former Maryland Continental, Michael Curtis, testified in 1821, “I have no wife and the children born by my wife dec’d. are slaves.”

AB: Although this is your first book, you are not new to researching the American War of Independence. Your various papers on the life of common soldiers are vital reading for anyone attempting to retrace the footsteps of the Continental Army. Was there anything different or challenging about writing a book for the first time? 

JR:   I am used to writing articles, and even large monographs, but a book is another beast altogether. I contracted for the book with Helion in late 2016, with a delivery date at the end of 2017. To say I was daunted and a bit overwhelmed is an understatement. I thought continually about how I would proceed, but procrastinated, trying to advance the manuscript, but instead working on various articles that had nothing to do with the book. By autumn 2017 I had to tell my editor there was no way I would meet deadline and needed an extension. He was very good and told me it was fine, they had other works in the pipeline ready to go and would take the place of my project. Over the next months, into 2018, through a much-needed operation on my back, and during recovery, I continued to work desultorily. About halfway through the year I finally took the leap, tore myself away from other projects and immersed myself in working on “Good Soldiers.”

    I had long thought I would never do a book, realizing I would need to immerse myself in that enterprise, and was concerned I wouldn’t have the time, energy, or discipline. Ultimately, I surprised myself, kept plugging away, and succeeded in finishing the manuscript. Adding to the workload, the Helion series the book was slated for is image intensive, and while busy writing I also had to figure out what illustrations I would to use. As per early discussions and our original agreement, Helion was responsible only for a two-page color painting, part of which would be used for the book’s cover. That left me to provide six more color images, plus a number of black and white pictures. With the kind assistance of Bryant White, who painted three works especially for the book, and the generosity of Don Troiani, the Museum of the American Revolution, and other institutions and individuals, that aspect of the project also came together.

     I do know that, in the end, advancing the submission deadline a year benefitted the final published work product. During the extra time, I gained important additional information and several images not available earlier, and was able to hone the book’s structure.       

AB: John-Can I ask: what might be the next project you take on? Do you think we can expect more books on the revolutionary era? 

JR:    When I completed the book, I really felt as if I’d never do another. Since then I’ve reconsidered and begun to contemplate the possibility. I’ve even mulled over a subject, which, if it ever comes to pass, will likely cover women with the armies of the Revolution, with a focus on the Continental army. 

AB: Thanks so much for agreeing to do this interview!

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook,  or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

Happy New Year! (Battle of Quebec City, 1775)

The Battle of Quebec by Charles Williams Jefferys

Happy New Year to all of the readers here on Kabinettskriege!

It may surprise you to learn that January 1st was not the beginning of the year for many people living throughout the Kabinettskriege era. While Catholic states had adopted the Gregorian Calendar (which places the new year on January 1st) in 1582, many Protestant states did not adopt this calendar until 1700, and England and Sweden did not adopt this until 1752 and 1753, respectively.

Like Christmas, a battle occurred on New Year's Eve in the Kabinettskriege era. This was brought to my attention by my good friend and fellow historian Andrew Dial, who will be doing a guest post about France in the Kabinettskriege era.

Defending Quebec from an American Attack December 31st, 1775 by F.H. Wellington 

On New Year's Eve, 1775, Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold attempted to storm Quebec City, in order to drive the British from a potential 14th colony: Canada. They hoped to repeat the success of James Wolfe in 1759, by defeating the defenders of Quebec City, and liberating this colony. British governor Guy Carleton marshalled the defenders and led a desperate defense. While this could be viewed as an American invasion of Canada, like the later war of 1812, some Canadians joined this invasion, such as James Livingston's 1st Canadian Regiment.

This mix of American colonists and disaffected Canadians attempted to take Quebec City by storm. They were decisively defeated by Carleton, the British garrison, and a French Canadian militia. Richard Montgomery was killed leading his men forward, Benedict Arnold was wounded in the leg, and when Daniel Morgan took the attack, he was captured by the British and Canadian militia defending the city.

The Death of General Montgomery by John Trumball

The rebel colonists were outnumbered by a 2 to 3 margin, roughly 1200 to 1800 men. In addition, the Canadians had the assistance of the heavy fortress cannon defending the city. Richard Montgomery was shot through the head by a canister blast from one of these cannons. This death scene, depicted above by John Trumball, was an attempt to show the similarity between the heroism of General Montgomery and General Wolfe, who died during the British attack in 1759. This battle ended the rebel hopes of conquering Canada.

Have a happy time bringing in the New Year, with best wishes from us at Kabinettskriege!

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

Soldiers' Life Experience in the Kabinettskriege World

Chelsea Pensioners Reading the Waterloo Dispatch, Sir David Wilkie

New Military History vs. Old Military History

Dear Reader,

Since the 1960s, writing about combat, leaders, and campaigns, (Old Military History) has been out of favor with military historians. Today, most books focus on the cultural and social aspects of life in and around the military. In addition, historians tend to focus on the lives of non-elite persons, as they provide us with a wider picture of the historical world. So, in this post, let us look at this New Military History. Hopefully, we will come away with the understanding that BOTH aspects of military history are important, and worth studying.

Reasons for Enlistment?

The classic picture of recruitment, especially in the 18th century, is that soldiers were tricked into joining the ranks through false offers of pay, intoxication, and other ploys by the recruiting officer. The 1970s movie Barry Lyndon shows the this side of military recruitment, with the protagonist deserting from one army, and then being almost kidnapped into a second. This view certainly has some basis in fact.

In his diary, Swedish Karoliner Robert Petre tells of his interest in enlistment, but also that he was promised a large sum of money by the recruiter, Captain Björnberg, which he never actually received. The English language verb, "to dragoon" literally means: to force or coerce someone into doing something. In the 18th century, a dragoon was a type of cavalry soldier. This term arose because so many soldiers were forcibly recruited, and many became dragoons, or were captured and enlisted by dragoons.

Despite these negative connotations many soldiers hoped for a better life, and enlisted for pay, food, or dreams of social advancement. The first chapter of British Soldiers, American War Don N. Hagist deals with the experiences of young men who simply wanted adventure, or were interested in having regular meals. The young soldier described in this chapter is told by the recruiter, that in the towns taken by the British army, the pigs run around with silverware attached to them, just waiting to be eaten. While the soldier is actually interested in recruitment to escape his dull life at home, he is also enticed by the prospect of military life. John Childs, in his book, Warfare in the Seventeenth Century shows that Swedish soldiers were prompted to enlist by the higher social standing granted to members of the military establishment. In the British 1706 stage play, The Recruiting Officer, playwright George Farquhar includes the following song, which may be somewhat familiar to my readers:

Our 'prentice Tom may now refuse

To wipe his scoundrel Master's Shoes,

For now he's free to sing and play

Over the Hills and far away.

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,

To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,

The queen commands and we'll obey

Over the Hills and far away.

We all shall lead more happy lives

By getting rid of brats and wives

That scold and bawl both night and day -

Over the Hills and far away.

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,

To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,

The queen commands and we'll obey

Over the Hills and far away.

Courage, boys, 'tis one to ten,

But we return all gentlemen

All gentlemen as well as they,

Over the hills and far away.

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,

To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,

The queen commands and we'll obey

Over the Hills and far away.

British musician John Tams revamped the song for the memorable Sharpe's television series, starring Sean Bean. For the musically inclined,the Tams version is available here.  While not truly historical (in that Sharpe is a fictional character) the series gives an excellent idea of life in the British military during the Napoleonic Wars, a series of wars directly after the Kabinettskriege period.

Military Life

So, after joining the army, soldiers were trained. Christopher Duffy points out that one of the reasons the Prussian military was so effective was its early system of training. Fresh recruits would be placed in the care of a older soldier or non-commissioned officer, who would carefully show them the basics of military life. At the same time, greenhorn Prussian would take continue to take part in drills with the rest of the new recruits. and This system of training very similar to the modern business practice at companies such as Enterprise Rent A Car, where large groups of new employees train together, but then disperse to satellite offices and shadow more experienced employees on an individual basis.

Once accustomed to the practices of military life, the soldiers would be placed in garrison towns during peace time, where they would look for work outside military life. Otto Busch covers the Prussian system of social-military practice, while the best English language work on the Russian Arteli system remains Russia's Military Way to the West by Christopher Duffy.

Once war broke out, soldiers would be mobilized from their garrison towns, often with tearful farewells to local families, spouses and children. Contrary to modern perceptions of soldiers and masculinity, it was often the soldiers weeping, with the children, siblings, parents, and spouses, attempting to comfort saddened fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands.

On the march, the food was generally not as good as in civilian life, and soldiers usually marched between six and nine miles a day. Some armies were capable of "sprinting," covering much longer distances in shorter periods of time. In high summer, this often lead to deaths from heatstroke, such as the Prussian "sprint" to face the Russians at Zorndorf in 1758.

Care for Soldiers after Service

After a battle, the loss of human capital was catastrophic. Many soldier died, and even more lost limbs, or were unable to serve any longer.  In order to care for these men, some nations instituted military quasi-insurance programs. In the late 17th century, Sweden had step up an a system to for continued care for wounded veterans, and a hostel system for veterans around the country. Letters between Frederick William II and Leopold von Anhalt-Dessau (The Old Dessauer) indicate a need to, "care for soldiers, who have lost their healthy limbs before the enemy." (Acta Borussica)

Many of the old soldiers would spend their twilight years at military care facilities, such as the famous Chelsea pensioners, pictured at the top of the post.  In the painting, you can see the old men, veterans of the Kabinettskriege period, (most likely American War of Independence veterans) being read the news of the victory at Waterloo.

African Experience
Interestingly, there is an African soldier pictured in the middle of this painting. African soldiers were much more frequent in the armies of Europe than it might seem at first glance. They were often forced to wear "Turkish" style military dress, or a different style uniform. In the painting, The Death of Major Pierson, by John Singleton Copley, (above) an African soldier is shown in a different style uniform. In the American War of Independence, many African soldiers fought on the British side after being offered their freedom. In the Russian army, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, a former black slave, rose to the rank of major general, and was adopted by Peter I of Russia! Today, Gannibal is most famous for being Alexander Pushkin's grandfather.

Military life in the 18th century is more than just the battlefield experiences of soldiers, or the study of cultural ideas around soldiers. By studying them together, we can gain a fuller understanding of the Kabinettskriege period.

Next Post Vote:

Vote on what I should work on next:

(Just paste your letter choice in the comments)

A) Karoliner Military Effectiveness in the Great Northern War

B) British Military Effectiveness in the American War for Independence

C) Analysis of a Kabinettskriege period soldier's diary


D) Kabinettskriege Warfare as Business: Regiments as Companies?

E) You Choose! Give me a topic you are interested in!


Thanks for reading,

Alexander Burns
2/21/2013







(Portions of the above are part of an academic paper written by the author, and his intellectual property. 2013 copyright pending)

The Spanish Military in the 18th Century

The Storming of Fort George: Pensacola, Florida, 1781

Dear Reader,

English language historians gloss over the role and effectiveness of the Spanish military in the later Kabinettskriege period. Christopher Duffy, a leading authority on 18th century warfare, discusses the Spanish briefly in his otherwise excellent book, Military Experience in the Age of Reason. On page 21, he gives us German military thinker Scharnhorst's views on the Spanish:       

           "The Spaniards have never changed. Except for their hair, which is now powdered and curled, the soldiers remain in the same condition as seventy years ago. Their generals are totally ignorant of tactics, they owe their promotion to favoritism, or to long service in the garrisons, where their only occupation is to arrange the processions to the burnings at the stake, and so on." (Scharnhorst, 1782) 

Unfortunately, Scharnhorst's perception of the Spanish doesn't match up with the Spanish military's historical actions, especially in the early 1780s, when he published his account. While English language accounts tend to focus on the Spanish failures in the 18th century, the Spanish often succeed in combat operations, and showed a great talent for combined navy-army operations. In addition, the Spanish possessed a massive overseas empire, and in most cases, successfully defended their overseas holdings through an effective system of fortification. 

Early 18th Century Spain

The Spanish military record in the early 18th century reads like a litany of defeats and disasters. For a complete list of the wars of this period, click here. While Spain participated in many wars during the early 18th century, the most damaging to Spanish interests in the short term was the global War of Spanish Succession. The War of Spanish Succession created internal conflicts in Spain, as various factions chose to support either the Bourbon or Hapsburg candidate for the Spanish throne. This made excellent opportunity for expansion by smaller powers, who were jealous of Spanish holdings in the Americas. At the end of this war, the Bourbon candidate won out, but the Spanish were forced to give up huge swaths of territory. In Northern Europe, the Spanish Netherlands became the Austrian Netherlands. In the Mediterranean, the Spanish lost the Kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, Sicily, the Kingdom of Savoy, and the naval bases at Minorca and Gibraltar.

The War of the Quadruple Alliance in 1718 ended Spanish hopes of regaining significant Italian holdings. The  Anglo-Spanish war of 1727 quickly ended with no advantage to either side.  The War of Jenkins Ear in 1739, and its continuation in the War of Austrian Succession, saw the Spanish fight the British and their allies to a draw, with no territorial changes in the colonies. The Spanish soldiers saw some successes during this war, such as the Battle of Campo Santo in 1743. (Dale Wood, shout out to you.)
 During the Seven Years' War, the British gained Florida, but this was a result of the losses of Spanish allies, the French, who gave the Spanish the Louisiana territories to make up for the loss of Florida. While the British took Cuba and the Philippines during the actual fighting, these territories returned to Spanish control after the War.

The American Gulf Coast War

In the global war surrounding the American War for Independence, the Spanish reclaimed much of the key territory they had lost in the early 18th century. Along the Gulf of Mexico, the Spanish waged a successful war from 1779-1781, defeating the British forces in a number of confrontations on both land and sea. Thomas Chavez covers this portion of the war in his 2002 book, Spain and the Independence of the United States: An Intrinsic Gift. Chavez draws much needed attention to the Spanish role in the American War for Independence, and the book is an excellent read.

Thanks in part to the excellent command decisions of Bernardo de Galvez, the Spanish defeated the British at every turn in the campaign. The British (and German forces from Waldeck,) were eventually captured by the Spanish during the siege of Pensacola, depicted in the painting at the top of the post. On the right side of the painting, an African member of the Havana militia is shown charging into the breach with the grenadiers. With the growth of the New Military History in the scholarship surrounding the Revolution, I am surprised that no study of the ethnic minorities in the Spanish army is currently available.

In Europe, a French officer in Spanish service, Louis de Crillon, led the effort to retake the naval base of Mahon on the Mediterranean Island of Minorca. He was successful, and the war ended with the Spanish retaking of Florida and Minorca.

Castillo de San Marcos

Fortifications

The vast amount of Spanish fortifications in Latin America help explain Spain's continued grasp on her American Empire. Vauban style fortifications, or "Star-Forts," such as the Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine, Florida (above), or the Fortaleza San Carlos de la Cabana in Cuba (below), allowed the Spanish Empire to survive a period in the early 18th century when the Spanish army and navy were recovering from the War of Spanish Succession. Without the Castillo de Immaculate Concepcion in Nicaragua, the British forces under the direction of William Lyttelton might have taken Granada in 1762, splitting the Spanish overseas empire in two.

Fortaleza San Carlos de la Cabana

 Like Sweden, the Spanish Empire spent the majority of the 18th century in decline, struggling to return to a position of prominence. And, like the Swedes in the Russo-Swedish War of 1788, the Spanish experienced a resurgence in military capability at the end of the 18th century. However, the Spanish, unlike the Swedes, had significant fortifications to keep their holdings intact during the period of crisis.

When examining the Spanish military during the 18th century, historians should not be so quick to accept biased northern European observers at their word. Scharnhorst, as he lambasted the Spanish in 1782, failed to see that the Spanish had changed, and that under leaders like Galvez, they were capable of competing with, and succeeding against, the British.

Thanks for reading,


Alex