Tuesday, January 22, 2019

“Bread and Provisions on a March" - Why Massachusetts Militia Companies Did Not Carry Haversacks on the Eve of the American Revolution


Since 2000, the nerds have repeatedly witnessed individuals assert that haversacks were commonly worn by Massachusetts militia and minute companies when they fielded against British forces on April 19, 1775. The two most common arguments advanced have been militia and minutemen were in possession of haversacks because they were previously issued to Massachusetts troops during the French and Indian War and the item was acquired on the eve of the American Revolution from a third party source.

Unfortunately, neither argument is valid.

To begin with, what was a haversack? According to Bennet Cuthbertson, author of Cuthbertson’s System for the Complete Interior Management and Economy of a Battalion of Infantry, a haversack was made of “strong, coarſe, grey linen” and carried a soldier’s “bread and provisions on a March.”

During King George’s War and the French and Indian War, Massachusetts troops received a variety of military supplies from both His Majesty as well as the colony itself. While British supply records are silent on the issue, a search of the Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Massachusetts Bay, between 1741 and 1764 reveals a single instance in which the Massachusetts legislature authorized the colony to issue haversacks to provincial troops. Specifically, in 1761, the colony ordered “the commissary general … to provide for each of said soldiers one haversack and one wooden bottle containing about three pints, also a large hatchet to every ten men, and a tin kettle containing about two gallons to every six men in each of said regiments.” 



Cuthbertson noted that this item was “always issued as part of the Camp-equipage” and was considered regimental and not individual property. Thus, at the end of a campaign season, it would have been returned to the regimental or government stores. While in storage it was likely the bags would have rotted, been eaten by rats or other vermin, or been disposed of at the end of the campaign season

We asked noted historian and expert tailor Henry Cooke about his thoughts on the issue. As Mr. Cooke noted, haversacks were typically issued on an as-needed basis. He also pointed out that haversacks were only issued to troops who were on the move. If a soldier was located at a fixed position, for example as part of a garrison, there would be no need for a haversack to be issued.

Interestingly enough, in 1761 the theater of war had shifted from North America to the Caribbean. As a result, most, if not all Massachusetts provincial troops were stationed at fortifications in Nova Scotia and New York and did not participate in military campaigns. As a result, it is unlikely haversacks ever made their way into soldiers’ hands and instead remained in storage.



However, for argument’s sake, assuming haversacks were brought home by provincial soldiers at the conclusion of military service, why does the item not appear in Massachusetts estate inventories between 1761 and 1783?

Probate records comprise all materials related to a deceased’s estate. Documents often found in probate records include wills, administration accounts, and estate inventories. Of these documents, estate inventories are often the most significant as it lists a person’s possessions at death and their rated or fair market value. Interestingly, estate inventories from 18th Century Middlesex, Essex and Norfolk Counties reveals extensive information about male clothing and their worldly possessions, but yield no information about haversacks. For example, the inventory of the estate of Samuel Jones describes in detail a wide array of personal items, including one hat, three coats, five breeches, over eight shirts and seven pairs of stockings. However, a haversack was noticeably absent from the inventory list. Similarly, a review of William Wilson estate details a wide array of personal items and belongings, including “one staffe….one gun”, but fails to reference a haversack. The inventory list of Job Brooks went to great length to identify his worldly belongings and included references to insignificant items such as a hat case and garters. Unfortunately, a haversack was never identified amongst his personal clothing. Finally, the estate inventory of Captain John Parker of Lexington describes several military items, including a knapsack and powder horns but makes no reference to haversacks.

A second common argument advanced is that haversacks could have been acquired from a commercial vendor or a third party. Unfortunately, this argument is not supported by existing documentation. A review of Boston, Salem and Newburyport newspaper advertisements on the eve of the American Revolution yields no examples of haversacks being offered by commercial merchants. Furthermore,, Massachusetts runaway descriptions that appeared in colonial newspapers between 1760 and 1776 make no reference to males wearing or carrying haversacks.

Is it possible that local towns or the Committee of Supplies provided its militia and minute companies with haversacks? Between October 1774 and April 1775, Massachusetts was in full wartime preparation mode. Towns and villages, as well as the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, scrambled to supply its minute and militia companies with muskets, cartridge boxes, bayonets, belting, blankets and canteens. Conspicuously absent from this list of supplies were haversacks.

The strongest evidence demonstrating that haversacks were not utilized by Massachusetts minute and militia companies in 1775 are the claims for lost property following the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Bunker Hill. Militiamen submitted a wide array of compensation claims for items lost during both of these engagements. The list of discarded property included knapsacks, guns, shirts, coats, canteens, neckerchiefs and even shoe buckles. To date, we have not encountered a single claim for a lost haversack.

Given the above, it is fair to conclude that haversacks never made their way into the ranks of Massachusetts militia and minute companies on the eve of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

13 comments:

  1. Nice post - That got me curious about the New Hampshire troops. I have a digital copy of the the New Hampshire Rolls, and in Vol I (XIV)., p. 79 it lists the losses on June 17, 1775 for Colonel James Reed's 3rd NH Regiment. 99 Haversacks were listed.

    In Vol. VII of the series of New Hampshire State papers Pp 587-597 is a detailed listing, by name, of the losses at Bunker Hill. Quite a few (dozens) of "gnapsacks", "Snapsacks", and even a pillow case.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Charlie! The New Hampshire rolls are a goldmine of information. I have copies of lost property claims for Captain Benjamin Mann's (NH) Company and Captain Reuben Dow's (NH) Company for the Battle of Bunker Hill. Amazing to see all the references to "snapsacks" and "stockens".

    ReplyDelete
  3. well, that would be logical as the men had to march to boston and would need to carry provisions. Odd though that the western Coys of MA militia who also had to march wouldn't have said articles.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is not a very serious comment, but on page 49 of Don Troiani's "Soldiers of the American Revolution" where he is depicting the Battle of Oriskany one of the militiamen to the right of the tree in the center of the scene is wearing a "snapsack" which I believe is also being considered foe elimination as gear for reenactments. This is of course not an original 18th-century depiction, but I wonder what Troiani has for research on the snapsack.
    Bill

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bill!

      John Rees, a critically acclaimed historian and perhaps one of the leading experts on arms and equipment of Massachusetts militiamen and soldiers during the American Revolution has been researching the term “snapsack” as used by New England troops between 1774 and 1776. According to Rees the The New England "snapsack" was not a tubular single-strap pack with drawstring closures. Instead, the term “snapsack” was a regional slang term that was used to describe a knapsack.

      According to Rees research, the term snapsack was often used interchangeably with the term knapsack.

      The basis for his conclusion? The pension application packet and supporting documentation of Jacob Francis.

      Francis was a black man, born in New Jersey, contracted as an indentured servant when young, had his contract shifted from one master to another, and eventually ended up being taken by one of his masters from New Jersey to Salem, Mass., by way of St. Johns.

      In October 1776, he enlisted in Colonel Sergeant's 16th Continental Regiment, and served with Lee's Division as it marched through New Jersey. He fought at Trenton, was discharged there, and made his way back to Amwell Township. He served in the New Jersey militia the rest of the war, and this is what one of his old comrades, Moses Stout, wrote under oath to support Francis’ pension claim following the American Revolution:

      “I am acquainted with Jacob Francis … I recollect being out and serving a tour of duty of one month in the militia … Jacob was out and served with us that month – we went first to bound brook and from that to Pompton & Pyramus and lay there some time I recollect while we lay there there was a scouting party of 50 or 60 men turned out to go down to Hackensack & toward the English Neighbourhood as we called it. down toward Bergen & Paulus Hook Jacob went as one of the party while the was gone the Militia marched from Pyramus to [portion of page missing] … [learned] at that time that Jacob had been out in the New England service among the Yankeys as we then called them. Jacob called his, nap-sack “snap-sack,” we told him it was “nap sack” he said that they called it snapsack in the New England troops that he had been with.”

      As a side note, "snapsack" and “knapsacks” were used interchangeably on the extensive lists of items lost by Massachusetts militiamen at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

      Delete
  5. Stark's request for lost items at Bunker Hill listed both snapsacks and knapsacks in the same sentence. so no reason to think they were the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to know! Thanks for the tip...I didn't know that.

      Delete
  6. I enjoyed your article Alex. I would like to ask how often you've come across market wallets. As they are common equipage for both males and females at Battle Road I was just wondering what is know about them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rhondda! Shoot me an email tomorrow to remind me and I'll look at my notes. I know I have references to market wallets...let me see how detailed I can get. ;-)

      Delete
  7. While I have read and see your evidence it makes no Battlefield sense to that they would not have some kind of off the solder bag to carry items that they would need in a hurry. If they needed a quick bite like an apple or a piece of cheese, or needed to change a flint, or needed more cartridges I can't see them swinging a knapsack off their backs and digging to that for items. I just can't see it. But again maybe practicality has nothing to do with it either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Coldharbor! I understand exactly where you're coming from. From the research myself and others conducted, it appears that musket tools, spare cartridges, flints, etc. would have likely been kept beneath the cartridge box block or possibly in their pockets! As for food, I wish I had better news but provisions likely sat in the knapsack or in market wallets...which were commonly used by civilians to carry food. Unfortunately there is no documentation at this time to show haversacks were issued to militia and minute companies in 1775. Sorry!

      Delete
    2. It ma;y be of interest that I have studied numerous pair of common cloth and cotton velvet breeches, and several of them had chamois "shammy" or "shambo" skin pocket bags. I have also found them occasionally in coats, along with stout hemp linen pockets, all of which would be quite adequate for carrying tools, flints and other things. One feature of our dress that we under utilize are our pockets. Pockets in original civilian coats were often 10" to a foot deep into the coat skirts, yet few reenactors make use of pockets, which also would not be an encumbrance to them as would a haversack or other bag slung around their body. Military authors of the 18th century are frequently decrying the use of coat pockets by soldiers and how they distend the uniform in unattractive ways. Look at todays battle dress, especially the trousers, and they are covered with pockets. Those pockets are much easier to reach in for apples, cheese, and bread than either a knapsack or haversack. I can affirm several garments that I've studied that had tobacco fragments in them, suggesting that they may have carried a pipe and a twist, or a chaw in their pocket for quick and easy access when needed.

      Delete
    3. This is perhaps one of the best comments I have ever read! Many thanks for your input!

      Delete