The Women of the British Army in America:
Part 3 - Living Conditions

The following article by Don N. Hagist, 22nd Regiment of Foot, appeared originally in the Brigade Dispatch (XXIV, No. 3, Summer 1993), a publication of the Brigade of the American Revolution and is reprinted here with his permission.

The Women of the British Army in America: A General Overview
Part 3 - Living Conditions

As we seek to construct a detailed picture of the women of the British Army, we find it increasingly difficult to draw definite conclusions. The numbers of women "on the strength" is a matter of record. It is fairly clear that most, if not all of these women, were married to soldiers. We can determine the more common occupations of some of them. These facts allow the construction of a biography of sorts, but do not tell us much about the day to day lives of women who spent years in America in the service of their government.

In gathering material about every day life and living conditions, we find that the individual bit of information do not readily gel into generalities. Each woman had her own life, dealt with her own hardships, and made the most of her own opportunities. Rather than pretend that there is a "typical" profile, we will piece together what we can by looking at the basic requirements of life, and hope to find some common threads among diverse situations.

Habitation in the Garrison

Most of the British Army's time in America was spent in garrison. Usually, the regiments spent winters in barracks or quarters, and summers in encampments within or adjacent to towns. During these times it was not necessary for the wives to "follow" their regiments, since the regiments were not going anywhere. This is significant because it made it possible for women to find long-term housing in the towns; when a regiment was in garrison, there was no need for the wives to stay in the encampments, even if it was allowed. For this reason, we must consider habitation not in terms of barracks and encampments, but in terms of garrisons and campaigns.

The writings of Bennett Cuthbertson provide some general insight on the consideration given to married soldiers and their wives when a regiment was in garrison:

Those Soldiers who are married to industrious sober women, that can earn near as much as their husband's pay, and can be depended on for eating well, may be excused from messing with their Companies; but if on the contrary, the wives are idle, and trust to them for support, it must be insisted on, that such men be appointed to a mess, to prevent their being starved, and to oblige the women to some scheme of industry, by which alone it can be possible for their husbands to be allowed to co-habit with them: Officers should frequently enquire into the married Soldiers' manner of living, that they may be enabled to prevent, in time, any ill consequences which may arise, from the indulgence of permitting them to be with their wives.(1)

Private Men and Drummers, who are married to sober, industrious women, may be indulged with liberty to lodge with them, provided the lodgings are not too distant from the Quarters of the Company: the Non-commission-officers should inform themselves of such Men's habitations, that they may inspect their manner of living, and know where to find them readily, when necessary; and as it often happens, that several people on whom Soldiers are quartered, do not wish to have the trouble of them in their houses, and therefore desire leave to lodge them out, it will be right, in that case, to exchange to those Billets, any of the married Men who are deserving of indulgence, that they may receive the advantage of a lodging for their wives, without expence; when an Officer has none of these to serve, he should insist on having an apartment hired, fit for the reception of the Soldiers, and that will answer conveniently for messing, otherwise, he will do extremely wrong, in consenting to their being removed from the original Billet.(2)

We were able to find only a few fragments of evidence to indicate what was actually done in America. In May of 1775, the army in Boston prepared to move from barracks into encampments; General Gage issued the following orders concerning the use of the vacated barracks:

Two Regiments barracks will be assigned for the accommodation of the women and children of the army, and a place will also be assigned as an hospital for convalescents; all the other barracks are to be cleared immediately, and quitted by the troops.(3)

After the barracks were provided, however, it was necessary to order the following:

Notwithstanding the care that has been taken, to provide the women, with proper places to stay in, some of them have broke into houses and buildings that were infected with the small pox, by which there is danger of its spreading through the town... the General therefore desires the Officers Commanding corps, will have the strictest enquirey immediately made, to discover the women concerned, whom he is determined to order on board ship, and send away.(4)

Some wives appear to have made their own arrangements. In September of 1775, the 23rd Regiment of Foot was encamped on Charlestown neck; its women had been assigned to one of the barracks mentioned above. Two soldiers of the regiment, John Cox and John Woods, along with two soldiers of the 63rd Regiment, were tried by a general court martial for breaking into a store and stealing porter and oil. During the trial it was stated that the accused men left their booty in "the house where Woods's Wife lives."(5)

Early in 1780, the 37th Regiment of Foot moved from Long Island into the New York City area; soon after, the Major commanding the regiment received this letter from Brigadier General Pattison:

A Complaint having been made to Major Genl Pattison that a Number of Women belonging to the 37th Regiment have taken possession of a House near the Bowery Lane belonging to Mr Auchmuty and known by the name of the Cascina, and lately belonging to Mr Burton, I am directed by the General to desire that you will give Orders that they be immediately removed.(6)

These tidbits are insufficient to draw any conclusions, except that women sometimes had their own lodgings in the town where their regiments were serving, and that married men were not necessarily required to live in the barracks if they or their wives could find private housing. Further research may tell us what was typical, and what different arrangements were made in different locations and situations.

Habitation on Campaign

On campaign, we naturally assume that the women of the regiment simply shared tenting with their husbands, and whomever else was assigned to that tent. There were cases, however, where we know that this was not possible; sometimes wives were specifically prohibited from living in the encampment. An example is found in orders given to the 17th Regiment of Foot campaigning around New York in October of 1776, which read:

"No Women are ever to be allowed to lay in the Men's Tents."(7)

Some regiments accommodated this by providing special tentage for the women, as indicated by this description of the benevolence of the Colonel of the 5th Regiment of Foot, Hugh, Earl Percy:

He had a large tent provided for every company at his own expense, to accommodate the women; and he made it a rule to receive no other servants into his family but soldiers or their wives.(8)

On the other hand, we have evidence that women were sometimes allocated tent space with the men. An August 1776 return of tent assignments for Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Wrottesley's Company of the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards includes assignments for five wives among the 99 Serjeants, Corporals, Drummers and private soldiers in the company. There are 18 tents, most with six people assigned, a few with only five. Five of the tents each include one woman among the six people assigned (except one which has only five people altogether). Clearly, the women were considered among the total tentage requirements of the company.(9) We cannot say how these assignments were used in encampments in garrison and on campaign.

There is one additional situation in which women on campaign could find themselves. When regiments were disembarked from transports, it was often several days before the women were allowed to disembark, after the situation of the army was firmly established. This was the case in Rhode Island in December of 1776:

"No women to be allowed to go on shore till further orders: they, and the baggage will be brought on shore when proper..."(10)

When the army landed on Staten Island in the summer of 1776, the orders were somewhat less strict; women were allowed on shore during the day, but were required to return to the transports at night.(11)

Life on Campaign

Armies on campaign could find themselves in combat. The order of march was established to anticipate this, arranging the soldiers so that they could be readily employed to the best advantage in battle. Precautions were taken protect all of the assets of the army by keeping them together on the march. The fact that these assets included both the women and the baggage does not mean that the women were considered as baggage. Rather, common sense dictated that, when on the march and when deployed for battle, everything of value be kept together - baggage, stores, horses, wagons, and all noncombatants including wounded and invalid soldiers, wives, and children. Orders given by General Cornwallis on his campaign in the Carolinas illustrate this:

December 21, 1780, "Camp, Thirty Mile Halt": "The Women of the Army Will March at the Head of the Baggage."(12)

The orders were straightforward enough. Similar orders were given on various campaigns; there were minor variations, such as having the women "march on the Flanks of the Baggage of Their Respective Corps".(13)

These orders, however, were difficult to enforce. Subsequent orders given by Cornwallis make it clear that the marching orders were not followed, despite increasingly dire consequences:

December 22, 1780, "Camp Monks Corner": "the Women of the Army more Strictly to Observe the Orders of yesterday."

December 27, 1780: "The Ordr respecting Bat Men Woman, Servts & other followers of the Army is repeated, any person who may be again found out of the Line of March, will be punished on the Spot, in the most Exemplary Manner."(14)

The reason for keeping such a tight rein on the followers of the army was, of course, to prevent plunder. No amount of orders successfully stopped this constant problem. Much has been written on this topic. Since we are concerned with wives of soldiers, and not with followers of the army in general, we would like to be able to find out how much of the plundering was committed by army wives. Unfortunately, we have no way to determine this. A few bits of information persuade us that soldiers' wives were as opportunistic as anyone in taking advantage of chances to plunder. Orders given to the Brigade of Guards on Cornwallis' Southern campaign illustrate this well:

It is Br Genl O'Hara's orders that the Officers Commanding Companies cause an immediate Inspection of the Articles of Cloathing at present in the possession of the women in their Companies & an exact Account taken thereof by the Pay Serjts after which their Necessaries are to be regularly examin'd at proper opportunities; and every Article found in Addition thereto, Burnt at the Head of the Company; Except such as have been fairly purchas'd on Application to the Commanding Officers & regularly added to their former List by the Serjts as above. The Offrs are likewise order'd to make these Examinations at such times & in such a manner as to prevent these Women (Suppos'd to be the Source of the most infamous Plunderg) from evading the purport of this order.(15)

Even these systematic measures did not seem to keep order, for a week later additional orders were given:

Women to attend all Roll Calls in the Rear of the Companies (Except such as are in the Service of Officers) any, and every one found absent, to be immedy Whipp'd & Drumm'd out of the Brigade... NB: The Women to attend all Punishments.(16)

Ten days after that, however, the requirement for women to attend punishments was dispensed with.(17) We also have the following quotation, from some time in the middle of the war; unfortunately we did not record the provenance in detail.

As to the plundering, there is nothing so common as to see the soldiers wives, and other women, who follow the army, carrying each three or four silk gowns, fine linen, etc. etc. which have been stolen by the soldiers from different houses in their march...(18)

If a woman was arrested for plundering, she was subject to the same system of justice as a man, namely, trial by court martial. From May of 1774 through May of 1780, 7 women associated with the army were tried by general courts martial for plundering, theft, or receiving goods known to have been stolen. Of these, 2 are known to have been wives of soldiers. It is not known how the remainder were affiliated with the army; the court records refer to them as "followers of the army," or, in one case, "retainer to the camp."(19) We have information only for general courts martial; probably other women were tried by regimental courts for similar crimes.

Women in Battle

Following the army in any capacity always included the possibility of being exposed to battle. Although the women were protected along with the other assets of the army, they were at risk whenever there was combat. This is illustrated by an event in Rhode Island during the siege in 1778; on August 19, a soldier of the 54th Regiment Light Infantry was struck by a cannon ball, by which he

"lost his leg... as he was making shoes in his tent with his wife & children about him."(20)

The extent of the danger is exemplified by an incident in New Jersey on June 22, 1777, in a skirmish which began "where the Quibbletown Road meets and turns into the Amboy Road":

"They killed and wounded about 20 Soldiers and a Woman a Grenadiers Wife."(21)

An order given by General Cornwallis gives the impression that women were expected to actually fight in certain situations, but we do not have sufficient evidence to know whether that is really the intent of the order:

When the Brigade Marches the Women, Sick, & Weakly Men, will March in the Rear of the Second Battn & in Case the Brigade Shoud be ordered forward - and they cant keep up - they will form a Guard to the Baggage, Packs, or what else May be left in their Charge.(22)

The discussion of women in battle begs the question, did women ever disguise themselves as men and join the British Army? This subject has much allure and has drawn much attention, but documented cases throughout the entire 18th Century are few. One book devoted to the subject suggests that there are only 16 known instances throughout over two centuries, and provides only 3 examples of women soldiers, and four sailors, for the entire 18th Century.(23)

We know of no cases of women serving as soldiers in British regiments in the American Revolution. Even at the time, however, the possibility was intriguing. If we can believe the newspapers (which published many rumors and tall tales, and should be used very cautiously without additional evidence), a woman attempted to enlist in the 71st Regiment of Foot when it was preparing to come to America:

Newcastle, December 30, 1775. Wednesday last, a good-looking girl, about twenty-seven years old, dressed in mens cloaths, applied to Serjeant Miller, the recruiting officer here for Frazer's Highland regiment, and desired to be enlisted in that body, which the serjeant agreed to, and gave her a shilling. Her sex, however, was soon after discovered. She said the cause of this act was from a quarrel with her father, whose cloaths she had absconded in: and notwithstanding her sex, she would have no objection to the army, as she thought the exercise not superior to her abilities. She was, however, discharged.(24)

Similarly, Rivington's New York Loyal Gazette of September 25, 1779, carried an account of a woman trying to enlist in the army, to follow an officer she loved.

Again, we cannot document any cases of women serving as British regulars in the American War. British recruiting procedures included a physical examination and other practices which, if followed, would make it impossible for a woman to disguise her sex.(25)

There is one known occasion when a British soldier's wife did battle with an American soldier. Thomas Anburey, a British officer with the Convention Army outside of Boston, tells the story:

The soldier's wives are allowed to pass the centinels, but the other day a most ludicrous circumstance took place, by the obstinacy of an old man upon guard. He would not permit a woman, who was a true campaigner to go beyond him, great altercation ensued, in which the lady displayed much of the Billingsgate oratory, when the old man was so irritated as to present his firelock; the woman immediately ran up, snatched it from him, knocked him down, and striding over the prostrate hero, in the exultation of triumph, profusely besprinkled him, not with Olympian dew, but that which is esteemed as emollient to the complexion - and 'faith, something more natural - nor did she quit her post, till a file of sturdy ragamuffins marched valiantly to his relief, dispossessed the Amazon, and enabled the knight of the grisly caxon to look fierce, and reshoulder his musquet.(26)

Notes

1. Cuthbertson, Bennett. A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Èconomy of a Battalion of Infantry. Dublin, 1768, p. 28-29 (section titled, "Of messing, and the Advantages attending to it...").
   
   
2. Ibid., p. 35-36 (section titled, "Of the necessity of regularity in quartering Soldiers on a Town, or in a Barracks...").
   
   
3. General Orders, America, W. O. 36/1, Public Record Office, London (hereafter cited as PRO). Entry for May 31, 1775.
   
   
4. Ibid., entry for June 6, 1775.
   
   
5. Judge Advocate Papers, WO71/81, PRO, p.405-430.
   
   
6. Letter, General Pattison to Major Cousseau, March 10, 1780. New York Historical Society Collections, 1875.
   
   
7. Orderly Book of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Mawhood, 17th Regiment of Foot, October 11 - December 28, 1776. New York Historical Society manuscripts. Entry for October 12, 1776.
   
   
8. The Percy Anecdotes, New York, 1832.
   
   
9. Newbold-Irvine Papers, Box 5, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
   
   
10. General Orders, Rhode Island, W.O. 36/2, PRO., entry for December 7, 1776.
    
    
11. General Sir William Howe's orders, June 30 - October 5, 1776, Morristown National Historical Park. Entry for July 10, 1776.
    
    
12. Orderly Book, Brigade of Guards, August 28, 1780 - March 20, 1781. Published as "A British Orderly Book, 1780-1781," A. R. Newsome, ed., The North Carolina Historical Review.
    
    
13. Orderly Book, Second Battalion of British Grenadiers, 1778. George Washington Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Series 6B, Captured British Orderly Book Volume 5. Microfilm Reel 118, P37437.
    
    
14. Orderly Book, Brigade of Guards, op. cit.
    
    
15. Ibid., entry for February 28, 1781.
    
    
16. Ibid., entry for March 2, 1781.
    
    
17. Ibid., entry for March 12, 1781.
    
    
18. Almon's Rememberancer, Vol. 5, p. 154.
    
    
19. Index of WO 71/80-94, Judge Advocate Papers, PRO. Work in progress by the author.
    
    
20. "Journal of Rev. Joshua Wingate Weeks," Historical Collections of the Essex Institute, Vol. LII No. 1 (1916), entry for August 21, 1778. Another diarist says that the soldier was in a hut, and erroneously refers to his regiment as the 45th. Diary of Frederick MacKenzie, Cambridge, MA, 1930, entry for August 19, 1778.
    
    
21. "Journal of the Operations of the American Army under General Sir William Howe from the Evacuation of Boston to the end of the Campaign of 1776" (this document also includes a journal of operations in New Jersey, June 11 - July 31, 1777). British Library, Egerton Manuscripts.
    
    
22. Orderly Book, Brigade of Guards, op. cit. Entry for January 30, 1781.
    
    
23. Ewing, Elizabeth. Women in Uniform through the Centuries. London.
    
    
24. The Middlesex Journal, and Evening Advertiser.
    
    
25. It was typical to subject recruits to a physical which included examination for rupture. Cuthbertson, op. cit., p. 56 (section titled, "Of Recruiting, and what is to be particularly attended to on that Duty.
    A recruit in the 33rd Regiment of Foot, John Robert Shaw, says that on his first night as a recruit, "I was put to bed a naked man, which I thought strange, but this is a common custom with soldiers, in order to save their linen..." More likely this was a measure to prevent a new recruit from deserting during the night. A Narrative of the Life & Travels of John Robert Shaw, the Well-digger, "written by himself," Lexington, KY, 1807; reprinted by George Fowler, Louisville, KY, 1930.
    
    
26. Anburey, Thomas. Travels through the Interior Parts of America, in a Series of Letters. London, 1789. Reprinted by Arno Press, Inc., 1969. Vol. II, p. 81-82., letter dated Cambridge, December 9, 1777. "BILLINGSGATE LANGUAGE. Foul language, or abuse." Grose, Francis, A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, London, 1796.
    
    
    

Return to Canadian Resources
Return to Resource Center

The Genealogy Forum - Main Page
Beginners' Center | Internet Center | Message Boards
Surname Center | Reunion Center | File Library
Genealogy Forum News
Shop With Us

Genealogy Forum.com is a production of
Golden Gate Services, Inc. of Armada, Michigan.
© 1998 - 2006 All Rights Reserved. Brenda Jean Bova, President.
The Genealogy Forum is a member of the National Genealogical Society.
Tree logo provided by MeadPond Designs and is the trademark of GenealogyForum.com.

© 2006 Some graphics By Carol, All Rights Reserved  

 If you have any questions or comments,
please contact GenealogyForum@aol.com