Vaudant’s Old Field, South Carolina
1 June 1781

             Around the first of June Sumter sent Lieutenant Colonel
Richard Hampton and Colonel Charles Myddleton south from Ancrum’s
Plantation.  Sumter wrote Greene that he had given Hampton the
“disaffected Orangeburgers.”
         They were to engage any enemy who was attempting to relieve the
siege at Fort Ninety Six.  Hampton defeated a force of fifty South
Carolina Royalists at Vaudant’s Old field, under the command of Ensign
Henry Livingstone.  Hampton “killed several” including Ensign
Livingstone.  He also “made some prisoners, took a number of negroes, and
thirty odd fine horses”.

Patrick O'Kelley                        http://www.2nc.org/
Author of "Nothing but Blood and Slaughter" The Revolutionary War in the
Carolinas
Volume One 1771-1779          http://www.booklocker.com/books/1469.html
Volume Two 1780
http://www.booklocker.com/books/1707.html
Volume Three 1781
http://www.booklocker.com/books/1965.html
Volume Four 1782
http://www.booklocker.com/books/2167.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 6/1/2006 6:30:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
goober.com@... writes:

They  were to engage any enemy who was attempting to relieve the
siege at Fort  Ninety Six.  Hampton defeated a force of fifty South
Carolina  Royalists at Vaudant’s Old field, under the command of Ensign
Henry  Livingstone.  Hampton “killed several” including  Ensign
Livingstone.  He also “made some prisoners, took a number of  negroes, and
thirty odd fine horses”.



Perhaps someone should have told Livingston he was killed.  He  was alive and
well and served with the Royalists through the end of the war, in  Captain
George Dawkins' Company.  He was at St. Augustine in 1783.  He  was not actually
a Carolinian, but a member of the Livingston family of New  York.

Todd W.  Braisted
4th Battalion, New Jersey  Volunteers
IVBNNJV@...
www.royalprovincial.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Larry,

   I have to respectfully disagree that these army units were the beginning of a
"navy."
   Although they used watercraft and seamanship skills, these forces were part of
the army.  Wynkoop may later have become a naval officer, but he was still in
the army on Lake Champlain.

   "Water carriage," using craft on the waterways, was still the preferred means
of transport, when available, for any military expedition's baggage, supply and
artillery trains, both in North America and Europe, in the eighteenth century. 
That did not make the armies' transport services, or the soldiers and contract
boatmen manning them, a "navy."

   Expand the example to Sullivan's Indian expedition of 1779.  The chief of
artillery, Col. Proctor, acted as the "commodore" of the batteaus and other
craft that carried the bulk of the provisions and supplies from Wyoming to Tioga
Point on the Susquehanna.  That did not really transform him into a naval
officer.  Proctor even armed some of the craft with his howitzers and
grasshoppers, manned by his artillerymen.  That did not make them "marines." 
The watercraft crews consisted of Continental soldiers drafted from the line,
and by Pennsylvania militiamen contracted as boatmen by the Quartermaster
Department.  And although Proctor's boats were repeatedly referred to as the
"flotilla," and he as "the commodore," in the officers' journals of the
expedition, they were not part of the navy either.  Clinton's wing of the
expedition from Lake Otsego to Tioga on the Susquehanna, and Brodhead's moving
up the Allegheny from Fort Pitt to Mahoning, also relied on "water carriage"
  for their supply trains, with soldiers drafted from the line to act as boatmen
as well.

   Another example, albeit post-Revolutionary War, was the Lewis and Clark
expedition.  The Corps of Discovery, or "Captain Lewis' Company," was an Army
unit.  It traveled the Missouri River in a keel boat and two pirogues, and the
Columbia in a "flotilla" of canoes, all manned by soldiers (and in some cases
civilian contract boatmen).  Although the ensign flown on the keel boat was the
same as that prescribed for vessels of the US Navy and Revenue Cutter Service,
that did not transform Lewis and Clark into naval officers, nor the soldiers of
the Corps into sailors.

   Best Regards,

   Glenn

Larry Maxwell <Patriot1775@...> wrote:
     Captain Jacobus Wyncoop/Wynkoop, was a member of the New York City
Militia <snip>. During the French & Indian War, Wynkoop commanded batteaux men
under Gen. Shirley in 1762.

During the 1775 Canadian Campaign, Gen. Schuyler recognized Wynkoop’s
naval experience, as well as the experience of his men as sailors. That
led Schuyler to put him in change of securing boats on Lake Champlain
[_NY in the Revolution_, pg. 78]. He became the first Commodore of what
would later become the United States Navy [_NY in the Revolution_, pg. 254]

On 13 April 1776, Wynkoop was sent to enlist more Mariners. He had them
enlisted and ready by 24 April. [_NY in the Revolution_, pg. 94]. He
personally commanded the sloop, “Royal Savage.” <snip>





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Howdy,

> We portray the 3rd NH Regt of late 1778-1779 in the brown Lottery
> coat uniform. The 3rd NH left Valley Forge in June 1778 with 316
> effectives, and in Nov 1778 were issued 316 sets of French contract
> clothing. That makes it a 100% uniformed regiment (at least for one
> brief, shining moment in time).

    We are also portraying that Lottery coat moment.  However, it is
not 100% uniformed.  The Lottery coat issue was only coat, waistcoat,
breeches, and stockings.  Shoes, hat, cartridge boxes, bayonet
scabbards, shirt, canteens and knapsacks are up for grabs.  It could
have been just about anything available.

Patrick O'Kelley
goober.com@...

Howdy,

> They  were to engage any enemy who was attempting to relieve the
> siege at Fort  Ninety Six.  Hampton defeated a force of fifty South
> Carolina  Royalists at Vaudant’s Old field, under the command of
Ensign
> Henry  Livingstone.  Hampton “killed several” including  Ensign
> Livingstone.  He also “made some prisoners, took a number of
negroes, and
> thirty odd fine horses”.
>
> Perhaps someone should have told Livingston he was killed.  He
was alive and
> well and served with the Royalists through the end of the war, in
Captain
> George Dawkins' Company.  He was at St. Augustine in 1783.  He
was not actually
> a Carolinian, but a member of the Livingston family of New  York.

    The only source for this fight was from the Draper manuscripts,
Sumter papers, and was written by one of the participants.  He
thought the guy was dead.  Thanks for correcting this.
    By the way, if anyone else ever sees anything wrong with any of
my "225 years ago today" posts, let me know.  Sometimes my
information is only told by one side, and I'm not one of those
historians that gets angry just because someone makes a correction.
    Let me know.
    Thanks,

Patrick O'Kelley
goober.com@...

Tom,

   The Navy concedes that the engagement at Valcour Island was an Army battle,
although fought on the water, because there WAS a Continental Navy in existence
at the time of the battle, and no unit of it was on or even near Lake Champlain.

   To your comment "dismissive of the claim... Well HELL where else would they
have come from?"   I would like to respond.

   Remember, the Navy was established on October 13, 1775 (and recognized by
Congress the following month), one year before the battle at Valcour Island,
October 11, 1776.  Congress began issuing commissions to naval officers, and
authorized the recruitment of sailors into the Navy, before many of Arnold's
"sailors" would have enlisted in the Army (one-year enlistment terms were the
norm for Continental soldiers).  Some of the states also had their own navies
(Pennsylvania's established in 1775, for example).

   If he was in fact a naval officer, why did Arnold not transfer to the
Continental Navy, which was then in existence, instead of remaining in the Army?
The soldiers returned to their units, at least until their enlistments expired
at the end of the year.

   Actually, IF Arnold would have been considered a naval officer, and hero, the
Navy would certainly have named a destroyer USS Benedict Arnold.  Under the old
naming conventions, destroyers were named after famous naval heroes, and Navy
and Marine Corps recipients of the Medal of Honor and Navy Cross.

   Some classes of aircraft carrier were named after famous ships in US history -
e.g., Bon Homme Richard, Enterprise, Ranger.  They also named certain classes of
aircraft carriers after famous battles.  There once was a USS Valcour Island. 
They also name named carriers after land battles, e.g., Lexington, Ticonderoga,
Saratoga, Cowpens, Yorktown.

   Best Regards,

   Glenn

Tom Castrovinci <tcast@...> wrote:
   I would posit yet another 'if Arnold had not turned traitor' hypothesis,
that he would in fact be given credit for fighting the first American Naval
engagement and thus a legitimate founder of the U.S. Navy.

This of course is too inconvenient under the actual circumstance...thus
notes in the margin like...the crews came from the Continental muster are
dismissive of the claim... Well HELL where else would they have come
from?... I would imagine if they WON the Battle of Valcour Island they
probably would have STAYED on as de-facto Naval Personnel.

Can you imagine the Aircraft Carrier Benedict Arnold instead of Bonhomme
Richard?



---------------------------------
Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone.  Get Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

PS to my lst post:

   I meant to say "one-year enlistment terms were the norm for Continental
soldiers" add "in 1776."




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2˘/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

IF Captain Pearson would have challenged Jones Paul Jones to surrender in
French, he would have said:
"Avez vous amenez votre pavillon?" (Have you struck your colors?) IF
Jones
did say, "I have not  yet begun to fight", he would have responded to
Pearson's challenge thusly: "Non, je n'ai pas a l'instant commencer la
bataille!"
Nay--- perhaps ONE more posting <G>!!!
   As an old Annapolis Tour Guide (trained to "interpret" the USNA!") that
question makes perfect sense, because ......... we were taught that Jones actual
response was, "Strike???  I may sink, Sir, but I will never strike"....and that
the remainder of the quote came later....maybe after the sun was over the
yardarm...

   Mids of old had a poem, which, given discussion about yardarms, might be of
interest.  Indeed, his remains were buried in a Protestant cemetary, which
subsequently had a building constructed over it.  Adm. Porter found him, buried
there, in a lead coffin which had been originally filled with some sort of
alcoholic liquid.

   When he first arrived at the USNA, he was laid to rest in a temporary tomb
outside (until his crypt - VERY similar to Napoleon's - think there's a
statement there??? - was ready for him), and across the street from, the Chapel.
He was moved indoors later...
   At any rate...from early 20th century USNA lore...here goes (with all due
respect to JPJ)

   "Everybody works but John Paul Jones
   He lays around all day
   His body pickled in alcohol
   On a permanent jag, they say..."

   A tip of the cup to Jones and Barry et al...one might say they ALL had the
right stuff!
   .



---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On page 350 of "Washington's Crossing," Fischer writes," More than a
few men of military age were so angry that they changed uniforms of
Loyalist green and red for continental buff and blue."

Then on this forum I get a response that includes:

<...No uniforms for Provincials  arrived at New
York before April of 1777.  And they were  all green faced white.  Green
uniforms were already in Canada for  Provincials and militia, but that
would have
nothing to do with the Army in  America.

Todd W.  Braisted
4th Battalion, New Jersey  Volunteers
IVBNNJV@...
www.royalprovincial.com>

Which is it?

Thanks,

DT Fletcher
"The Thomas Rodney guy"

Green faced white was the original uniform colors, but there were also blue and
green facings in the first lots.  Later there were also orange, black and buff
facings available.  In later 1777 (for the 78 campaign season) the loyalists
were to exchange into standard British red coats.  However, not all units
switched to red such as the British Legionaires.  Ranger units (esp. Queen's
Rgrs and Butler's Rgrs) were either green or red.

Bob Johnson
bobjinfl@...
Ocala, FL
Writer, Gamer, Retired


----- Original Message -----
From: fletcheror
To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 6/1/2006 12:00:32 PM
Subject: [Revlist] loyalist colors


On page 350 of "Washington's Crossing," Fischer writes," More than a
few men of military age were so angry that they changed uniforms of
Loyalist green and red for continental buff and blue."

Then on this forum I get a response that includes:

<...No uniforms for Provincials  arrived at New
York before April of 1777.  And they were  all green faced white.  Green
uniforms were already in Canada for  Provincials and militia, but that
would have
nothing to do with the Army in  America.

Todd W.  Braisted
4th Battalion, New Jersey  Volunteers
IVBNNJV@...
www.royalprovincial.com>

Which is it?

Thanks,

DT Fletcher
"The Thomas Rodney guy"






Visit the RevList Homepage, which includes a list of sutlers, RevList member
photos, FAQ, etc., at

http://www.liming.org/revlist/

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please send a message to
Revlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.



SPONSORED LINKS School education Pre school education



YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  Visit your group "Revlist" on the web.

  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  Revlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back in 2000, when the "Patriot" was being released in theaters, I
was visiting my favorite Park Ranger/Historian/Reenactor, Don Long
at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park. I mentioned that
after spending all of that time on the set in S.C., and watching
what could've been a better movie go down the tubes, that I didn't
think I could enjoy it. His response was, you people (reenactors)
are Godsend. By doing the "Mohicans",tv doc's, and "Patriots", you
are the latest favor of the week. Whether the info is correct or
not, you are reminding people of their past history, you are getting
them to think, you are getting them to look for book's, and the big
plus is, you are getting them to come to our Park's, and to your
reenactment's, where we can reeducate them. Don was right, I have
seen the positive results from what was originally thought as farby.
I have found that people will focus on you talking history, once
they know you have been in a movie. Various park's starting taking a
second look at what they had been teaching. Several park's have made
new movies for their visitor centers. We just had "GW", on cable,and
now we're getting a new 13 part series on the revolution. So whether
the story is correct or not, we should all say thank you to the
people who produce these shows, because it's bringing people to us
asking questions, and from what I've seen here on the list, new
recruit's to some unit's. Oh, another plus, it give us something to
talk about on the list.
                Just my thought's,
                 STUART STEELE
                   2nc

  P.S. Just wanted to say thank's to Paul Hutchins, for what he did
for us in S.C.

Dear list,

In my real life I build bridges.  With that said, most times I only
get to see holes with rocks, dirt and mud, but this project is
different.

The Bridge I am building is over the site of an 18th century ford
across the North Branch of the Raritain River.  It is also next to
where a iron foundry was located (possibly 18th Century).

We have found some of the original log planking for the ford and also
what appears to be a set of "Crucible Tongs".  I have posted a few
photos of the tongs to the photo section titled "Tongs?".  I was
hoping that some of the members of this list might be able to verify
what they are.  They got a little bent when the excavator dug them up
frankly I am amazed they were not totally mangled. For scale they are
about 3 feet long

I am still looking for that elusive crate of muskets or preserved
barrel of uniforms.  For now I guess this discovery will have to do.

Cheers,

Paul Hutchins

This may have come up before, if so I apologize...

Who is the best source for 18th century military tin goods?

Who (other than the famous Tim Wilson of Williamsburg) is the best
source for 18th century military other ranks shoes?

Thank you for the great exchange on the ever hot topic
of "authenticity".  Some say that unless you have the right numbers, in
the right places, wearing and carrying all original and shooting live
ammo it will never be authentic.  So we do the best we can a 21st
century folks to recreate the soldier of the 18th century and some very
small element of his world.

Respectfully,

George F. Franks, III

At 12:37 PM 6/1/2006, you wrote:

>We have found some of the original log planking for the ford and also
>what appears to be a set of "Crucible Tongs".  I have posted a few
>photos of the tongs to the photo section titled "Tongs?".  I was
>hoping that some of the members of this list might be able to verify
>what they are.  They got a little bent when the excavator dug them up
>frankly I am amazed they were not totally mangled. For scale they are
>about 3 feet long

That's what they look like to my eye.  The length isn't unusual, I
have seenlonger ones.  Good old wrought iron there, that's why it
bent instead of snapping.

They need a good soaking in the old  "Make-It-Pretty" (tm O.R.H.G) for sure

Tony



                          Olde River Hard Goods
                              350 West Catawissa Street
                                Nesquehoning PA 18240
                                          570-669-9421
                The best old tool store in Pennsylvania!
                      http://www.oldetoolshop.com

In a message dated 6/1/2006 12:51:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bobjinfl@... writes:

Green  faced white was the original uniform colors, but there were also blue
and  green facings in the first lots.  Later there were also orange, black and
  buff facings available.


Actually, that is not the case.

The original green coats sent to the Army in America and issued in April of
1777 were all green faced white.  The second batch of clothing was red  faced
either white, green or blue.  That was the 1778 clothing.  The  1779 clothing
was green again, with unknown facings.  The clothing from  1780 on was all
red, except for a few specific regiments.  The 1780 red  clothing was the first
with a lot of facing colors- buff, white, black, orange,  blue and green.

In 1775, 3,000 suits of green clothing was sent to Canada for Canadian  units
that were never actually raised.  These coats were faced red, buff  and blue.
  Half the clothing was sent back to England to prevent its being  captured,
the rest given to the Quebec Militia and later the Provincials raised  in
Canada.  Green clothing was also sent out for the Royal Highland  Emigrants, and
the Royal Fencible Americans, green faced red & white  respectively.  The Nova
Scotia Volunteers also took some of the latter's  clothing.

More clothing information may be found on our website:

_Loyalist  Institute: Clothing & Supplies Main Page_
(http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/supp/supp.htm)


Todd W.  Braisted
4th Battalion, New Jersey  Volunteers
IVBNNJV@...
www.royalprovincial.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hear, Hear.

David Vargo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have just spoken with 2 of my bosses who went through basic training and
learned the history of thier military branch.  The first was taught that the
Navy traces it's origins to the beginning of the Continental Navy and does not
consider Army usage of ships as being of the Navy.  The 2nd, in reference to an
earlier post, served in the Air Force and they trace their origins to 1947 when
they became a separate force.  Just FYI, I figured these guys must know since
the information was taught in basic training.

   Margie

Pat,

I'd disagree with you on the point of Continental stores always being
"up for grabs" in that while the deficiencies are always highlighted,
there were always attempts at uniformity.

In 1776, General Andrew Lewis, commanding the Virginian Continentals,
wrote:

“It is recommended to the Colonels to make their men appear as
uniform as possible in their Dress, that their Hatts shall be cut,
all cocked in Fassion, that their Hair be likewise cut exactly the
same length.  When the Regiments are under Arms, the Officers to
appear in their Hunting shirts; the Officer’s as well as men to die
their shirts in a uniform manner.  These attentials may appear
Trivial, but they are in fact of considerable importance, as they
tend to give what is called Espirt de Corps without which Regiments
never grow in Reputation.”
SOURCE:  Campbell, Charles ed. The Orderly Book of That Portion of
the American Army Stationed at or Near Williamsburg, Va., Under the
Command of General Andrew Lewis.  Richmond: 1860, April 3, 1776

Indeed, there are several examples of the Continental Army
standardizing and equipping soldiers uniformly.  For instance, the
"New Pattern" 29-hole cartridge pouch would become almost universal
for the Continental Army starting in 1778 through the end of the
war.  Certainly there were variations depending on who the contractor
was making them and shortages, but Washington wrote:  “May 8, 1780.
Gentlemen: It appears by the inclosed Copy of a letter from Baron
Steuben that about 1500 Muskets fitted with Bayonets and the same
number of Bayonet Belts and Cartouch Boxes of the new construction,
are wanting to compleat the troops in this Cantonment.” which
indicates that a single pattern was being issued en mass.

My area of study is focused on the Virginians, but here are some
further examples of items in the hundreds, if not thousands, being
issued indicating uniformity:

   “I mentioned in my last the arrival of a fifty-gun ship from
France.  She has brought the most valuable cargo that ever arrived in
one ship…the Cloth on board alone cost 80,000 pounds sterling.  There
are 4,000 suits ready made; 20,000 pairs of stockings; 15,000 pairs
of shoes; 7 or 8,000 hats; several thousand shirts ready made;
besides a great quantity of linen…This cargo is sufficient to cloth
our quota without purchasing and more, will prevent the emission of
more money for this purchase.”
SOURCE:  G.W.P. Custis, Recollections, op cit, p. 549 June 17, 1778

“1903 Blue & Green Cloth Breeches…291 Pair Red Serge Breeches...784
Red flannel Waistcoats…435 Best Red Cloth Waistcoats…492 Red Serge
Waistcoats”
SOURCE:  John Moss and Christian Febiger, October 29, 1778, Invoice
for Blankets and Clothing.  The Writings of George Washington from
the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.

“768 soldiers hats and 12 silver laced hats for sergeants”
SOURCE:  Delivery by Virginia State Clothier Captain John Peyton,
February 1780.  Philadelphia Public Store Account Book, p. 35,
Virginia State Library

“Head Quarters, New Windsor, April 20, 1781.
The Marquis de la Fayette has informed me that he had sent Colo.
Barber to Philada. to make application to the Board for light
Cloathing for  his detachment, previous to knowing that I had sent
from hence 1200 shirts,  1200 linen Overalls, 1200 pair of shoes,
1200 socks and 100 hunting shirts purposely for them and about 900
Hunting shirts and 3000 pair of socks for the southern Army in
general. The Deputy Cloathier has likewise ordered about 4000 pr. of
shoes which were in Jersey to be sent to Philada. for the southern
Army. ”
SOURCE:  George Washington to Continental Congress War Board, April
20, 1781

“Yesterday I had the Satisfaction of marching Col [John] Green with
400 Rank and file, on his way to the Southward...For those men I have
procured a jacket with sleeves, one shirt, a pair of linen overhalls,
a knapsack, Blanket, and a pair shoes each.  This Detachment is
completely furnishd with Camp Equipage.  In order to complete them I
was obliged to take Eight Horse Men’s tents out of those Stores sent
on.  The men are all Armed with Gun, Bayonet, and 40 Rounds."
SOURCE:  Steuben to Greene, December 1780, The Papers of General
Nathanael Greene. Edited by Dennis Conrad et al. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1976, page 584

There would definitely be variation from regiment to regiment, or
brigade to brigade, and things did wear out and would have
substitutions.  After Stony Point, Wayne wrote Washington that the
clothing of the Light Infantry was "very Ragged--especially the
Virginia Line whose coats are so worn out that they are Obliged to
Substitute Linen hunting Shirts" and within three months Greene was
writing Jefferson that “Many of the men are so ragged that it is
painful to exact common duty of them.”  The jackets supplied to “the
last detachment” [Green] were “made so bad,” and with no lining in
the shoulders that “the rubbing of the Musquet has worn them to
pieces.”  That said, the desire was always for uniformity, hence the
complaining and "make do" efforts like Wayne having his brigade cut
their worn hats down to caps in 1778, etc.

My main point being that at some times Continental regiments were
completely outfitted head to toe in what they were supposed to have.
At other times they looked like savages and had little more than a
shirt to their name.  However no generalizations either way can be
made, you need to look at each impression and moment in time
individually.

Cheers,
Todd Post
2d Virginia Regiment
www.secondvirginia.org

"The heroism and gallantry of the second Virginia regiment I cannot
help particularly mentioning; they would do honour to any country in
the world. It is universally believed they behaved the best of any
troops in the field."
-- Virginia Gazette, October 17, 1777


On Jun 1, 2006, at 9:11 AM, rgrokelley wrote:

>    We are also portraying that Lottery coat moment.  However, it is
> not 100% uniformed.  The Lottery coat issue was only coat, waistcoat,
> breeches, and stockings.  Shoes, hat, cartridge boxes, bayonet
> scabbards, shirt, canteens and knapsacks are up for grabs.  It could
> have been just about anything available.
>
> Patrick O'Kelley
> goober.com@...

George,

> Who is the best source for 18th century military tin goods?

Carl Giordano, http://www.cg-tinsmith.com/, is the only tinsmith I
know using hot-dipped tin.

> Who (other than the famous Tim Wilson of Williamsburg) is the best
> source for 18th century military other ranks shoes?

Off the shelf or custom made?  Custom made, Ken Treese also makes
shoes, but if you're looking for off the shelf, most people seem to
be happy with Robert Land's offerings.

Cheers,
Todd Post
2d Virginia Regiment
www.secondvirginia.org

"The heroism and gallantry of the second Virginia regiment I cannot
help particularly mentioning; they would do honour to any country in
the world. It is universally believed they behaved the best of any
troops in the field."
-- Virginia Gazette, October 17, 1777

Hi,
  The best craftmanship of tinware that I've seen is,
   Peter Blum
   817 Dobbins Mill Rd.
   Elkin, N.C. 28621
   336-366-3222
   3rd generation tinsmith out of Old Salem, N.C.


  For shoes try,
   Matthew the Cordwainer
   2720 Tsawasi Rd.
   Knoxville, Tn. 37931
   865-691-5347
   www.thecordwainer.com


        STUART
         2nc

List,

   I agree with Robert, and add that privateers - legitimized pirates - were
engaged in a private businesses endeavor.  "Prize money," depending on the terms
of the letter of marque, was either paid by the government upon delivery, or
after the sale of the prize and cargo on the market.  After the crew's share was
divided, investors were paid a return on their investments, and the ship's
owners realized the remainder as profit.  The "letter of marque" was the license
to engage in that business.  Privateers rarely sought to engage warships.

   A naval cruiser that sought and captured enemy merchant ships and cargo was
called a "commerce raider."  The government paid the naval personnel their
"prize money," but the "profit" was returned to the treasury.  Naval personnel
could also be entitled to prize money for the capture of enemy warships.
   Glenn

robert johnson <bobjinfl@...> wrote:

But privateers were not navy, but legalized pirates of a sort, sailing under
letters of marque.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2˘/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A few recent pearls of wisdom from the mouths of reenactors got me
searching for more "quotable quotes" that can be gathered together. Heard
any good, pithy one-liners that sum up what we're doing and why we do it?
Please share them!

Cheers, Folo

The ones that started it:

It's no good to have a "kewl sword" if you're wearing combat
boots.--Douglas Sunlin

Even though hell hath no fury like a reformed farb, they wouldn't do that,
because they all remember that they started out like that
too.--Roger  hm95thfoot

IMHO, anything that creates interest in this period of our country's history is
a benefit. While it may not be a perfect representation, I agree that it makes
folks THINK, and want to know more. And, how the general public goes about
getting more information  is where we ALL come in. It is of value whether we are
interpreting at an event, doing school and/or library programs/displays,
volunteering at historic sites, or sharing our research, knowledge and
experience on lists such as this. We can continually reinforce the concept that
"real" people lived this history of ours; it is not just a "story"
   to read in a book or see on the large or small screen. I'm sure we have all
seen the interest (beyond curiosity) of those who take the time to talk to us at
events, even for a single question.

   And, business being business, the entertainment industry knows what interest
is "out there"; in other words, what "sells". It would be foolhardy to think
documentaries and movies secure financial backing and get made without someone
being sure of a good market, for both ratings and profit.

   Eileen Stelljes



---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Todd Post wrote:


In 1776, General Andrew Lewis, commanding the Virginian Continentals,
wrote:

"It is recommended to the Colonels to make their men appear as
uniform as possible in their Dress, that their Hatts shall be cut,
all cocked in Fassion, that their Hair be likewise cut exactly the
same length.  When the Regiments are under Arms, the Officers to
appear in their Hunting shirts; the Officer's as well as men to die
their shirts in a uniform manner.  These attentials may appear
Trivial, but they are in fact of considerable importance, as they
tend to give what is called Espirt de Corps without which Regiments
never grow in Reputation."
SOURCE:  Campbell, Charles ed. The Orderly Book of That Portion of
the American Army Stationed at or Near Williamsburg, Va., Under the
Command of General Andrew Lewis.  Richmond: 1860, April 3, 1776

******

     Where might a copy of "The Orderly Book of That Portion of the
American Army Stationed at or Near Williamsburg, VA. Under the Command
of Genreral Andrew Lewis" be found - online or in print - - ?

	 Thanks you.

Hugh Harrington

And if you believe what they teach in basic training I have a Bridge in New
York for sail.
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Interesting thread. I have a different - but related - take on this.

How about we work on some of the few things that have as close to
universal acceptance as exists in our hobby?

For instance - gaitors, britches, etc need to be snugly fitted
(appropriately tailored).

It's the old twenty yards criteria that some will probably hate - but at
twenty yards, exactly what those britches are made of (within reason
obviously) is not so apparent, but baggy fitting cloths ARE. Nothing
kills a Brit (or Continental I suppose) impression quite like a nice
uniform with half-gaitors that would fit over your waist...

So, some simple encouragement on tailoring. Gaitors can be done by
anyone (just move the buttons) to make them look better. (I know, I know
- if they are way too big they still won't look quite right - but
they'll look a LOT better.) Other cloths take some more talent - so how
about a few tailors/seamstresses offer some seminars (free would be
best) at events with tips on how to bring in that rear waistcoat seam,
etc.

Hmmm...now that I think of it, that's probably all that is universally
accepted! LOL

YHS,

Dave White
4th Reg't of Foot

Howdy,

>I disremember, but weren't there naval battles between
>American Privateers and British ships prior to Valcour
>Island?

         How about official State navies, and not just privateers?  I have
several in my books.  Maybe the SC Navy is actually the "father" of the
US Navy (or maybe CPT Joseph Turpin of the Defense and Comet).  I do know
that they began flying the SC Navy flag ("Don't Tread on Me" with 13
stripes) from all US Navy warships after September 11th.  Here they are
chronologically:

Bloody Point, South Carolina         9 July 1775

         GA Navy schooner Liberty and two SC Navy barges captures HM armed
schooner Phillipa

Hog Island Channel, Charlestown Harbor, South Carolina          11 – 12
November 1775

         SC Navy schooner Defense versus HM sloops of war Tamar and
Cherokee

Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina               12 January 1776

         SC Navy pilot boat Hibernia versus boats from HM frigate Syren

North Carolina Coast               5 February 1776

         HM frigate Syren captures SC Navy pilot boat Hawke

Sandy Point, South Carolina         14 March 1776

         Two SC navy tenders captures Loyalist ship

Charlestown, South Carolina           19-20 March 1776

         SC Navy brigantine Comet captures merchantman St James

Charlestown Bar, South Carolina            21-22 March 1776

         SC Navy brigantine Comet versus HM Sloops of War Falcon and
General Clinton.  Captures the General Clinton

Charlestown Bar, South Carolina             19-22 May 1776

         SC Navy brigantine Comet versus HM frigate Sphinx

The Breach Inlet, Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina            21 – 29
June 1776

         SC Navy schooner Defense versus HM schooner Lady William and HM
sloop Ranger

Dewee’s Inlet, South Carolina         21 July 1776

         SC Navy row battery captures HM Transport Glasgow Packet

Patrick O'Kelley                        http://www.2nc.org/
Author of "Nothing but Blood and Slaughter" The Revolutionary War in the
Carolinas
Volume One 1771-1779          http://www.booklocker.com/books/1469.html
Volume Two 1780
http://www.booklocker.com/books/1707.html
Volume Three 1781
http://www.booklocker.com/books/1965.html
Volume Four 1782
http://www.booklocker.com/books/2167.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Howdy,

> I'd disagree with you on the point of Continental stores always
being
> "up for grabs" in that while the deficiencies are always
highlighted,
> there were always attempts at uniformity.

    You misread my statement.  The Continental stores may not have
been up for grabs, but the NC line sure was.  I can document shirts
that are striped, checked, plain, colored, and just about all cloths.
    I can document both hats and caps, made of leather and of wool.
    I can document shoes, no shoes, moccasins and something
called "Negro shoes" (which I think is a chunk of leather nailed to a
block of wood)
    I can document Leggings, gaiters, half gaiters and spatterdashers.
    I can't document a single neckstock, except a white one on a
single officer.
    So, though we were given the Lottery uniform, the rest of our gear
at that time is up for grabs. When I tell the new guys what to get I
tell them that it is up to their fancy on things like shirts and hats
(within reason).

> Indeed, there are several examples of the Continental Army
> standardizing and equipping soldiers uniformly.  For instance, the
> "New Pattern" 29-hole cartridge pouch would become almost
universal
> for the Continental Army starting in 1778 through the end of the
> war.

     Down here there is an issue of French boxes and bayonet belts to
the Continentals (Maryland and such) in 1781.  Exactly what French
box that was, it is not known. This is something new that has only
been uncovered in the last year and it is not quite clear as to what
it was.  I figured the bayonet belt was the French 1776 issue, since
this would have been a large amount.  France was switching from a
1776 pattern to a newer one.  However this is also only conjecture.

Patrick O'Kelley
goober.com@...

Take a deep breath before you read this...

I have expressed interest to well respected journal for military
historians to work on an article about the current view of the
common soldier in the Continental Army (yes I know this covers ALOT
of ground) vs. the interpretation in 1976 at the height of the
Bicentennial (think "Sketchbook '76" and Peterson's "Book of the
Continental Soldier" plus the BAR and related interpretations at the
time).

If anyone in this forum is interested in contributing to this
research effort based on material on-hand plus new material and
analysis, please let me know.

Respectfully,

George F. Franks, III

--- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "rgrokelley" <goober.com@...> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> > I'd disagree with you on the point of Continental stores always
> being
> > "up for grabs" in that while the deficiencies are always
> highlighted,
> > there were always attempts at uniformity.
>
>    You misread my statement.  The Continental stores may not have
> been up for grabs, but the NC line sure was.  I can document
shirts
> that are striped, checked, plain, colored, and just about all
cloths.
>    I can document both hats and caps, made of leather and of wool.
>    I can document shoes, no shoes, moccasins and something
> called "Negro shoes" (which I think is a chunk of leather nailed
to a
> block of wood)
>    I can document Leggings, gaiters, half gaiters and
spatterdashers.
>    I can't document a single neckstock, except a white one on a
> single officer.
>    So, though we were given the Lottery uniform, the rest of our
gear
> at that time is up for grabs. When I tell the new guys what to get
I
> tell them that it is up to their fancy on things like shirts and
hats
> (within reason).
>
> > Indeed, there are several examples of the Continental Army
> > standardizing and equipping soldiers uniformly.  For instance,
the
> > "New Pattern" 29-hole cartridge pouch would become almost
> universal
> > for the Continental Army starting in 1778 through the end of
the
> > war.
>
>     Down here there is an issue of French boxes and bayonet belts
to
> the Continentals (Maryland and such) in 1781.  Exactly what French
> box that was, it is not known. This is something new that has only
> been uncovered in the last year and it is not quite clear as to
what
> it was.  I figured the bayonet belt was the French 1776 issue,
since
> this would have been a large amount.  France was switching from a
> 1776 pattern to a newer one.  However this is also only
conjecture.
>
> Patrick O'Kelley
> goober.com@...
>

Paul:
I think you're right on here. Having worked in a foundry for 8 years
and having poured tons of aluminum, I've used many of these. The
item you found is more likely a "shank" though. Tongs are usually
used to pull a crucible from a furnace. A shank is used for pouring.
Crucibles today are made of silicon, although they have been known
to be made from graphite, clay and other materials.  In your case,
it looks like only one side of the shank matches the cricible curve,
sometimes both sides do. This is done to steady the crucible while
it's being tipped for pouring the molten metal, otherwise it would
rotate in the holder. Go to most any foundry web page and look it
up, or google the words crucible and shank....it'll come up. The
foundry world is very old and hasn't changed much. The standard joke
at work back then was "nothing changes".

Bob Allegretto
2d Dragoons
Ex- foundry manager


--- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <hutchins.paul@...> wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> In my real life I build bridges.  With that said, most times I
only
> get to see holes with rocks, dirt and mud, but this project is
> different.
>
> The Bridge I am building is over the site of an 18th century ford
> across the North Branch of the Raritain River.  It is also next to
> where a iron foundry was located (possibly 18th Century).
>
> We have found some of the original log planking for the ford and
also
> what appears to be a set of "Crucible Tongs".  I have posted a few
> photos of the tongs to the photo section titled "Tongs?".  I was
> hoping that some of the members of this list might be able to
verify
> what they are.  They got a little bent when the excavator dug them
up
> frankly I am amazed they were not totally mangled. For scale they
are
> about 3 feet long
>
> I am still looking for that elusive crate of muskets or preserved
> barrel of uniforms.  For now I guess this discovery will have to
do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul Hutchins
>