O’Neill 1

Connor O’Neill
Undergraduate Honors Thesis
3-18-22

Honors Thesis:
An Examination of the Non-Commissioned
Soldiers in the British First Regiment of Foot
Guards Deployed to the American Colonies
during The American War of Independence.
 O’Neill 2

The American War of Independence began on April 19th, 1775, in Lexington,

Massachusetts, where British soldiers fired upon the town militia and were later engaged by

other local militia forces. These colonial militias forced the British soldiers back to their garrison

in Boston in a running battle, which lasted nearly all day and all the way back to the city. Over

the following months, the American Revolution began in earnest, with colonies rebelling

against England and fighting against its army. The colonial rebels soon forced the British army

from New England and Boston, where it retreated to Nova Scotia, but this was only the opening

phase of the war. During this time, part of The British First Foot Guard, His Majesty George III’s

personal household regiment, was deployed to the American Thirteen Colonies in order to deal

with the rebelling colonists across the Atlantic. This regiment was one of many sent to the

rebelling Thirteen American Colonies in what is known as the Second Embarkation of troops

from Great Britain, bound for the war in America. These troops were sent from Britain and

other holdings in Europe and rendezvoused with the British troops which had evacuated Boston

in March of 1776 to Canada, and this now combined fleet sailed down the coast of New

England and landed on Long Island in New York, beginning the second phase of the American

Revolution, bringing full scale war to the newly declared independent colonies. The war now

became much more widespread, with the British opening up fronts all along the coast of the

Thirteen Colonies, provoking a frontier war with the Native Americans against the rebelling

colonists, and civil war like engagements between American patriots and colonial loyalists.

British wartime operations eventually came to include military actions in Canada, the interior of

the colonies, military action in the West Indies, large scale fleet battles on the high seas,

engagements with American allies in Europe, and the further outbreak of war in the British
 O’Neill 3

holdings in India. The American War for Independence, which began as a small regional

rebellion, quickly spiraled into a world spanning war, with many major European nations

fighting against England, being joined by regional allies. This essay will focus on the war in the

Thirteen Colonies, specifically the war beginning with the capture of New York by the British

army.

This focus will be on the experiences of the singular regiment of the First Foot Guards

during their campaign in America. While in the Thirteen Colonies, the regiment participated in

notable battles such as Brooklyn Heights, Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Guilford

Court House, and Yorktown to name a few. Being part of the King’s personal Guard

necessitated a different type of soldier than much of the other parts of the British Army. The

First Foot Guards were the best of the army, the elite, the professional soldiers. This is certainly

seen throughout their campaign in America as they were used at key points in many battles and

were renowned for their bravery and determination, even in the face of massive casualties. Yet

simply stating that the soldiers of the regiment were elite professional soldiers does not tell us

what type of men made up the regiment. Who were the soldiers of the regiment and what can

be ascertained about serving in the First Foot Guards in comparison to other British regiments

during the American Revolution? In order to try and answer this question, an examination of

the professional, yet regular soldier in the regiment, is needed. Thus, this document will look at

the Non-Commissioned soldiers, both the officers and enlisted men, of the First Regiment of

Foot Guards. From this line of questioning, this essay will examine the statement that the First

Foot Guards were the elite soldiers of the British Army yet were made up of the same kind of

men as the rest of the army.

 O’Neill 4

The Non-Commissioned soldiers of the regiment were the men of non-noble status,

consisting of the enlisted men and the non-commissioned officers, comprising of the ranks of

Private, Corporal, and Sergeant. The Corporals and the Sergeants dealt with much of the day-

to-day operations and direction of the private soldiers, commanding them in battle but also

interacting with them on daily basis. The Private made up the rank and file of the regiment,

being the frontline soldiers of the British Empire. These were the men who spent their lives in

the military, yet all had unique backgrounds which made them elite on the field of battle, even

though the regiment was made up of regular men. Through an examination of the regiment, its

actions in the American Revolution, and primary documents from Non-Commissioned and

Commissioned officers, we will investigate the Non-Commissioned soldiers of the regiment,

looking at who they were as men, and what was their life like both in and outside the First

Regiment of Foot Guards. This will allow us to see how and why the regiment was elite on the

field of battle, throughout their campaigns in the Americas, but was still made up of the

common middle-class man who were the backbone of the British army, indicating a

commonality with the rest of the British Army during the American Revolution.

In order to look specifically at the First Foot Guards, one must first analyze the general

state of the British Army during the American Revolution, so as to create a baseline from which

to look at the elite First Foot Guards. The British army was broken down into regiments, which

was an administrative organization, not a tactical one, consisting of ten companies, eight of

which were called “battalion companies” and two which were flank companies. i At the

outbreak of the American War for Independence, the army was smaller than it had been during

the Seven Years War. It had been subject to a force reduction, and the army now consisted of
 O’Neill 5

48,647 men, 39,294 of them infantry, 6,869 cavalry and 2,484 artillery, with only about eight

thousand stationed in America.ii Each soldier received a negligible amount of pay at eight pence

a day, which on the surface seemed enticing to the perspective recruits, but pay was actually

much less due to deductions for food, repairs, and other aspects of life as a soldier. iii This led to

recruiting problems for the army, strictly based upon the life one could expect as soldier, and

while men were provided with the dashing redcoat uniform, they were just as likely to have

insults as well as compliments hurled at them because of this. Thus, it became a common

sentiment about the army that “life guardsmen and felons were equally undesirable in

respectable company.”iv Yet even with these downsides associated with being a British soldier,

it was a lucrative profession which could lead to a better life than in the civilian world for those

with less means. “During times of peace, men enlisted in the British army as a career; there was

no fixed term of enlistment, and a man expected to serve until he was no longer fit for the

physical demands of the military”.v This in turn allowed for soldiers to receive a pension from

the government, which, as long as the veteran reported to collect his pension each time and

was willing to serve in the reserve home guard if called upon, provided for a consistent income

for the rest of his life. This was especially enticing for many recruits as the promise of consistent

pay, even after ones exit from the army, was not something that could be had through civilian

work.vi Recruits many times were volunteers, and the army was not based upon large groups of

draftee regiments as this was a highly unpopular tactic in enticing men to join the army.

Impressment was used to an extent by the British army but it was found to be unpopular and

prone to corruption. Few individuals were coerced into the army as an impressment act passed

in 1778 noted that “only men who were ‘able-bodied and idle,’ and those who were ‘disorderly’
 O’Neill 6

and ‘could not, upon Examination, prove themselves to exercise and industriously follow some

lawful Trade or Employment.”vii Laws such as these then broadened their scope, so recruiters

could impress most anyone, not working, if they found themselves able to do so. “Incorrigible

rogues… thieves, pickpockets and vagabonds… were apprehended and delivered over as

soldiers to the regiments” yet this was highly disliked by both the individuals apprehended and

their new regiments as the impressed men were prone to desert and destroyed the

professional pride “most assiduously to be cultivated in every regiment”.viii One such example

of corruption of recruiting parties occurred to a former veteran of the Foot Guards, who one

night fell asleep drunk at a tavern, woke up to his army discharge papers burned by the

recruiter, a shilling in his hand, and the recruiter telling him that he had enlisted to fight in the

war.ix Complaints and legal proceedings against impressment practices and recruiters became

numerous and the practice was used only if absolutely needed by the army. The army took to

creating patriotic recruiting practices which flaunted the material goods one could gain from

serving in the army, rather than the hardships endured while in it. Yet even with most of the

army consisting of volunteer recruits, the British government had a hard time finding willing

recruits to fight in the Americas against the rebelling colonists.

The American War for Independence was a highly unpopular war among much of the

populace of the British Empire. The lower classes and merchant classes were not enthusiastic

about serving in the army or navy in order to fight those they considered to still be English, and

for a short time, drafting was a method used to gather recruits to fight in the war. The war was

not popular enough for many “Englishmen to take the King’s shilling and enlist,”x and many

times navy and army recruiters fought over the same possible draftees, especially when
 O’Neill 7

municipal authorities in cities such as London, refused to cooperate with the royal

governmentxi. Many regiments turned to other tactics of recruitment such as lowering

standards and creating enticing recruitment bounties and highlighting the glorious aspects of

life as a soldier. Various deployed regiments simply put height or age criteria such as “Young

Lads under Twenty Years of Age, five Feet five Inches high, and Men, under Twenty-eight, five

Feet six” while another regiment simply listed “Gentlemen Volunteers”xii as standards for

recruiting. Much was also made of the crisp uniform of the British soldier, and although disliked

by many for what the redcoated Regular represented, the scarlet red coat and colorful facings

made a brilliant look for a young man with few prospects in life. Recruiters promised being

“handsomely Clothed, most completely Accoutered” in order to capitalize on this theme, and

when paired with enlistment bonuses of three guineasxiii, the recruiters were able to draw out

reluctant recruits for the war in the American colonies. Young men infected with wanderlust or

suffering from social woes, many times turned to the army for a new life, and the army used

this to their advantage when recruiting.xiv An example of this appears in the account of John

Robert Shaw from 33rd Regiment of Foot, where Shaw ran away from his home intent on joining

the army as he did not seek to work for his father and was rebellious in nature.xv He initially was

rejected by the recruiters as he was “to low and under size” at the age of sixteen, yet

determined to join the regiment, Shaw pressured the recruiting Sergeant, who despite his initial

rejection of the young man, accepted him into the regiment.xvi This further gives credence to

the poor state of British recruiting during the war, as the army was willing to lower standards

and accept those it normally would not, in order to refill the ranks of depleted regiments.
 O’Neill 8

Interestingly enough, former hotbeds of dissent against England in the British Isles,

specifically Scotland and Ireland, became bastions of Royal support for the war against the

American rebels. Former Jacobite lords in Scotland and Ireland, used the American revolution

as a way to reaffirm their support for the House of Hannover.xvii High Churchmen in the Church

of England and many upper-class merchants also supported the government and the war, along

with large portions of the Catholic population in the British Isles.xviii This soured much of the

lower classes against the war as well, as these groups were the traditional backers of the Stuart

kings, who had made war upon England previously in multiple Jacobite revolts and the English

Civil War, being seen as proponents of direct royal power and abuse of that power.xix Thus

recruiting problems for the war stretched back almost a hundred years, touching upon cords of

discontent with the monarchy generated during the English Civil War, which had never fully

disappeared with the restoration of the monarchy. Despite these recruiting woes for the British

army, enough men were found for the war in the colonies for the remainder of the campaigns

across the Atlantic. Once the war become no longer confined to the colonies and became a

global war against France, Spain, the Dutch, and others, recruitment in the army seemed to

increase.

Yet this brings us to the question of who these individuals were that enlisted in the

regular army? This is fairly similar to one of the main questions about the First Regiment of Foot

Guards deployed to the Americas, and they seem to have very similar answers. When enlisting

in the British army, recruiters would take about anyone yet preferred men who were over

seventeen years of age and close to fully grown. A sampling of men from the 22 nd Regiment of

Foot, which was initially stationed in Boston, found that a majority of men “enlisted in their
 O’Neill 9

early twenties, often after having completed trade apprenticeships, meaning that even new

soldiers were seldom young soldiers”.xx This can be corroborated from with information taken

from the Roll of the Age, Size, Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd of the First Foot Guards, as

the information is strikingly similar. From the Grenadier Company of the Guards, a Sergeant

George Bennett is listed as a Weaver at age twenty-five upon his deployment to the colonies.xxi

Corporal Thomas Mounuy is listed in the rolls for the Grenadiers as a twenty-eight-year old

Laborer, while a Private William Hilkins is listed as a thirty-year-old Cordwainer upon his

deployment.xxii From one of the Foot Guards’ Battalion companies, similar examples appear

with both Non-Commissioned officers and Privates who are over the age of twenty and

previously had a job outside of the army. This is seen with a Serjeant Morton who was a

Carpenter of twenty-six years of age, Corporal Davis, and Accomptant at twenty-eight years of

age, and Private Edward Butler who was a thirty-five-year-old Blacksmith, to name but a few

examples.xxiii Recruitment practices for the 1st Foot Guards also fall in line with the standard

recruiting practices of the army, as the Brigade Orders for the regiment, from London, on the

27th of January 1776 state; “The commanding officers of regiments are to send recruiting

parties to recruit men for the augmentation. The bounty is 3 guineas. Grown men of 5' 6 1/2" or

growing boys of 5' 5 1/2" are acceptable.”xxiv Thus the regiment, upon initial examination,

appears to mirror the British army as a whole in who would join its ranks and how it

endeavored to recruit new men to fill the regiment’s ranks.

This then raises the question of how was His Majesty’s First Foot Guard different than

the other regular regiments of the British army? This can be found in the service record of the

Guards throughout the campaign in the Americas. They are routinely mentioned in letters from
 O’Neill 10

both British and American officers when writing about major battles such as Guilford

Courthouse and Monmouth. One letter wrote of the fierce fighting of Guards at Guilford

Courthouse where the American Captain John Smith and parts of the 1 st Maryland Regiment

“were in the throng, killing Guards and Grenadiers like so many furies… The Guards came

rushing up very strong.”xxv Lieutenant General Sir Henry Clinton wrote of the Guards at the

Battle of Monmouth, in dispatches back to England, stating “the Guards on the right of the

Grenadiers began the attack with such spirit, that the enemy gave way immediately. The

second line of the enemy stood the attack, with greater obstinacy, but were likewise

completely routed.”xxvi General Lord Cornwallis wrote that while on campaign in the Carolinas

and under attack at the Catawba River the Guards “behaved gallantly, and though they were

fired upon during the whole time of their passing, never returned a shot until they got out of

the river and formed.”xxvii In the 1870s, Lieutenant-General Sir F. W. Hamilton of the British

Army, and a Guard himself, wrote a thorough history of the Guards and their many campaigns

across the world. In relation to the Guard’s campaign in the Carolinas during the American

revolution, he heaped much praise on the regiment for their coolness in battle and discipline in

face of a superior enemy. General Hamilton wrote of the battle of Guilford Courthouse,

painting a picture of the integral nature of the Guards regiment during the battle;

The British showed great courage in this encounter; their numbers were only 1,445
against from 5,000 to 7,000 of the enemy, strongly posted; and its says much for the
discipline of the Guards, that though on two separate occasions the two battalions were
for a time thrown into confusion by an overpowering fire and superior numbers of the
enemy, they were both rallied on the field of battle without retiring, and continued to
attack till the enemy was finally defeated.xxviii
Renowned for their discipline and willingness to continue the fight even under the most

withering of fire, the First Foot Guards were marked as the elite of the British army. An
 O’Neill 11

eyewitness of the Battle of Guilford Courthouse wrote that “There is not perhaps… on the

record of history an instance of a battle fought with more determined perseverance than was

shown by the British troops on that memorable day.”xxix American General Nathanael Greene,

also mentioned the Guards in letters about battles in which the Guards were engaged. In

reference to the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, he writes that the Guards;

having broken the 2nd Maryland Regiment, and turned our left flank, and got into the
rear of the Virginia Brigade… About this time Lieutenant Colonel Washington made a
charge of horse upon part of the Brigade of Guards, and the first Regiment of
Marylanders… followed the Horse with their Bayonets: nearly the whole party fell a
sacrifice.xxx
Although this does not praise the actions of the Guards on the battlefield, it shows how well

they fought, and due to the actions of the Guards, the British forces broke through American

lines and begin to flank and encircle the entirety of the American Army. The Guards were only

stopped by the attack of two American regiments at once, which the Guards were able to hold

off with great cost to the American army. These various comments about the conduct of the

Guards at famous and pivotal battles such as Monmouth and Guilford Courthouse allow for a

picture to be painted about the elite nature of the regiment.

The 1st Foot Guards had the reputation as an elite regiment due to their courage and

strength in battle, setting them apart from the rest of the army. The Guards were regularly used

as a Flank Company, along with the composite regiment of Grenadiers which were made up of

Grenadiers from the various other regiments. The Guards and Grenadiers worked in tandem

with each other during many battles and were placed on key flanks. At the Battle of Long Island

in 1776, the Guards were part of the British detachment that was sent to flank around the

American entrenchments and encircle the American forces, attempting to expose and attack
 O’Neill 12

the enemy’s flank.xxxi At the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, the Guards and Grenadiers were

posted on the right flank of the British army and were responsible for pushing battle hardened

Continental line infantry off the field.xxxii Further, at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, British

artillery opened fire into their own lines, in which the 1 st Foot Guards were engaged in hand to

hand fighting with American line infantry and cavalry. The Guards did not break and with the

help of the canon, won the engagement, even while having taken large numbers of casualties

from friendly artillery fire.xxxiii The actions of the regiment on the field of battle also allow for

the comparison of other regiments present on the same battlefields. Also present at the battle

of Guilford Courthouse was the 23rd Regiment of Foot, also known as the Royal Welch Fusiliers,

and the caliber of the regiment can be ascertained from their actions on the battlefield. The

Fusiliers weathered the fire of the American musket and “They instantly returned it and did not

give the enemy time to repeat their fire but rushed on them with bayonets.” xxxiv The Fusiliers

were commended for their actions by a Captain Saumarez who stated “No troops could behave

better than the regiment… and marched on with the most undaunted courage,” xxxv painting the

actions of the Fusiliers in a similar light to that of the Guards. Yet this courageous action was

not to last as upon advancing forwards against the American lines, the Fusiliers took fire into

their flank, bringing down many of the soldiers, and “instinctively the Fusiliers turned around

and ran back towards the ridge they had just descended, with the Virginians in pursuit. The

fight became one of companies and even smaller groups of men.”xxxvi Ironically, the breaking

and subsequent retreat of the Fusiliers is what prompted General Cornwallis to send the

Guards into the fight, in order to hold his fracturing line. In the same battle, two regiments both

experienced highly similar circumstances, yet one held and did not break, while the other did.
 O’Neill 13

From this, one can ascertain that there is something unique about the Guards in the fact that

they were able to withstand sustained close quarters fighting, flanking attacks, and friendly

bombardment, without breaking from the battle. This can be attributed to better training and

greater experience on the battlefield than most other regiments in the British army. Yet even

with their elite status on the battlefield and their preferential treatment off the field of battle,

the Guards were still common soldiers.

Part of what made them the elite of the British army and coveted by British

commanders on the field of battle was the impeccable training of the Guards. The regiment

took regular soldiers, drawn from all walks of life, and provided them the best training in the

British Empire. The First Regiment of Foot Guards was initially raised in 1656 by Charles II of

England while in exile in Belgium during the rule of Oliver Cromwell.xxxvii Since then, the

regiment has remained a standing force, loyal to the monarch of Britain, as his or her personal

bodyguard regiment.xxxviii The regiment was consistently and regularly trained due to its nature

as a standing regiment, making it ready for battle, parade, and guard duties. Orders from March

15th, 1776, while the regiment was still in England, state that “The Men . . . under Arms, they

should recollect that as they have the honor of belonging to the Corps of Foot Guards it ought

only to be their ambition to be distinguished by the exactness of their discipline & the regularity

of their conduct.”xxxix The First Foot Guards showed this discipline and conduct during their time

in the American colonies as well as in England, and this quality of discipline and soldiery

conduct, only stems from exemplary and consistent training. Further evidence to this point

comes from the regimental orders for March 18th, 1776, when King George III reviewed the

troops before their embarkation to fight overseas. On the day in question at

 O’Neill 14

About half past nine, his Majesty, attended by General Carpenter, Colonel Matthews,
several of the Nobility, and other officers of the army, came on the Common, when he
was received by a royal salute. The soldiers made a fine appearance, and went through
their evolutions with great dexterity, first forming themselves into various squares, and
then platoon and circular firing, after which they made a general running fire, in
imitation of a pursuit, till they had each expended thirty-two rounds of powder, with
which they were provided before they took the field. His Majesty expressed the greatest
approbation of their performance, and seemed particularly pleased at the chearfulness
which appeared in their countenances to embark for their intended expedition.xl
While this is only a parade ground review of the regiment, this paired with their actions on the

field speak to the training of the regiment.

A regiment of the era of muskets and canon operated from regimental cohesiveness

instilled through training and drill. Without these, regimental formations such as forming

square, platoon firing, and firing and advancing could not be completed as they were reliant

upon the regiment working as one unit. Since the regiment was always ready for war as a

standing regiment in the army, it regularly participated in drills and training so as to remain

battle ready. This stands in opposition to the training of the many other regiments in the British

Army, which only had training when called up to fight. Both before and after the American

Revolution, many regiments during peacetime “were broken up and scattered in small parties,

perpetually on the move to keep public order in the absence of a police force.”xli This made it

nearly impossible to “conduct efficient field training on a higher level than that of the individual

soldier.”xlii Thus, while many of the regiments in the British Army remained in active service,

they were never trained as a fully cohesive regiment until they were mobilized for wartime.

The training of other regiments “in the manual of exercise (how to fire their muskets) or

in drill (the necessary skill in marching required to deploy the regiment in various formations)

was, in many cases, no greater and conducted with a good deal less enthusiasm than that of the
 O’Neill 15

militia.”xliii If a recruit joined a regiment that was stationed in his town of residence, he

immediately began training for an indefinite period of time, sometime numbering a few weeks,

to months, to years. “There were no boot camps and no army-wide training regimens to which

new recruits were subjected”xliv beyond the standard procedures on how to handle a musket

and bayonet, and thus, the length and quality of the training was reliant upon the commanding

officers of the regiment. If a soldier was recruited by a roving recruiting party, the new soldier

would stay with the recruiting officer for an indefinite period of time until a group of recruits

was to be delivered to an army encampment. During their time with recruiting officers, recruits

learned the basics of soldierly such as “hygiene, military deportment, and various procedures”

yet lacked uniforms and equipment, thus were unable to fully drill and train as a soldier beyond

basic marching and orders.xlv This could go on for a year or more, until there was an

opportunity for the new recruits to be united with their parent regiment. xlvi

Returning to the case of John Robert Shaw from the 33rd Regiment of Foot, he provides

an example of this recruiting procedure. He writes that two weeks after his enlistment his

training began as part of the recruiting party and he was “obliged to go to Leeds in order to

march around with the recruiting party and exercise myself in in running, jumping and learning

to walk straight.”xlvii After an unspecified amount of time training with his recruiting party, Shaw

then obtained an eight week furlough, before returning to his recruiting party, whereupon the

party continued to recruit until it had a large enough amount of men then marching onto the

Chatham garrison to deliver the recruits to the army.xlviii He then stayed in Chatham for almost

a year, drilling with nineteen other men of huis regiment before being shipped out to join the

regiment currently fighting in the American Colonies.xlix The experience of John Robert Shaw
 O’Neill 16

was a fairly regular one for men who enlisted during the war. For the First Foot Guards, this

practice differed, as they were always stationed in London, guarding the king, and thus were

able to have a continuous schedule of drill and training as well as parade ground reviews. This

kept them in top fighting shape and they also did not suffer from the long periods of training

with recruiting parties, as the base of operations for the regiment did not move. Recruits could

be sent to be trained and the regiment had the most standardized drill and training found in the

army, as the regiment had been active and serving for over a hundred years. This discipline and

training served them well upon their deployment, wherever they fought in the Thirteen

Colonies.

When sent to the American colonies, the soldiers to be shipped off were chosen by draft

from the sixty-four companies of the three regiments of Foot Guards. l Fifteen men from each

of the companies of the First Foot Guards, Coldstream Guards, and the Third Guards were

drafted from their regiments for service in the American colonies.li Deployment overseas was

not a coveted role by both the rank-and-file members of Guards as well as the officers. In a

letter from January of 1776, while the Guards were still stationed in London, the officers wrote

that they could not decide upon who should be sent with the regiment citing:

a difficulty arose about nominating what officers are to go with them… it is thought it
will be determined that no officer of a higher rank than a Captain is to be sent; this
difficulty in appointing proper Commanders arises from the gentlemen who hold
commissions in the guards, ranking above those who hold the like commissions in
marching regiments.lii
This comes from the fact that any Guards officer sent would automatically outrank any of the

regular army officers, and many higher-ranking officers did not want to serve against the

American rebels. Many commanders throughout the army and navy of the British military
 O’Neill 17

turned down commissions to fight in the colonies, either flatly refusing the commission or

taking a commission to fight only once the war became world spanning, involving Britain’s

historical enemies of France and Spain. In all, the number of men with officers sent from the

Three regiments of Guards consisted of 1,097 men, all destined for service in the colonies.liii

These men deployed to the Thirteen Colonies varied in lifestyle and social status, yet all

were professional soldiers. They were exemplary on the battlefield, but not necessarily so off of

it. After disembarking from the ships that carried the British soldiers from England to the

Americas, on Long Island, the British army as whole was described to be “riotous as satyrs” and

a “virile army”liv that was eager for a fight after having been on a long voyage from England to

Canada, and from Canada to New York. While this statement speaks to the entire army, the 1 st

Foot Guards were part of this army and can be seen party to the actions of the troops on Long

Island. General Orders from June 29th, 1776, state in the strongest terms “Any person belonging

to the Army or Transports found guilty of Plundering… will be executed upon the Spot”lv

showing the serious nature of the problem of plundering, anticipated by the commanders of

the British Army. This was not an unfounded fear as during the army’s occupation of Boston,

prior to the attack on New York, the city had been plagued by burglaries and robberies

committed by the soldiers. Muggings and robberies occurred regularly, and soldiers and their

friends burgled many shops and homes during the occupation of the city. At one point during

the occupation of Boston, “local newspapers warned Bostonians not to purchase wood or ashes

from soldiers, because of the likelihood that the wood had been stolen.”lvi Thus, the

commanders of the British army sought to end the problem before it even began, but this did

not deter the army from plundering as it continued its campaigns in the colonies.
 O’Neill 18

The problem of the British army plundering the countryside became incessant as the

war progressed, as the army moved through wealthier areas of the American colonies. When

the British army marched on Philadelphia in 1777, problems with plundering the countryside

began as soon as the army began their trek through the colonies of Maryland and

Pennsylvania.lvii “There was a good deal of plunder committed by the Troops, notwithstanding

the strictest prohibitions… it is not in anyone’s power to prevent this where there is such a large

an army and such a mixture of troops.”lviii The 1st Foot Guards committed their fair share of

plundering and offences against the local population, engendering no support or like of the

invading English army. In one instance, Guardsmen Private Robert Hicks of the Grenadier

Regiment of the Guards,lix and Guardsmen Thomas Burrows were found coming back to their

encampment intoxicated, carrying bundles of clothes, after having been absent for roll call.lx

They were subsequently put on trial for plundering, where the Guards defended themselves by

saying they had been searching for fence rails and “some light infantrymen came by and

dropped the bundles” which they then picked up not knowing what they contained. lxi The two

men further claimed to have “found some bread and liquor, the latter which they drank,” yet

unsurprisingly, the men were found guilty of looting and sentenced to receive five hundred

lashes each.lxii

This episode is interesting as this can be cross referenced with the Roll of the Age, Size,

Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd for the First Foot Guards in America, giving us a better

understanding of who these men were. While Thomas Burrows is not found in these

documents, indicating that he was most likely from the Coldstream Guards or the Third Guards,

Robert Hicks is found in the Grenadier rolls for the 1st Foot Guards. Hicks is listed as a Private
 O’Neill 19

from the town of Fairford in Gloucester County in England, who was twenty-five years of age

and a Laborer upon enlisting in the Guards.lxiii This private seems to be indicative of many other

men in the ranks of the Guards, in that he was in his middle twenties and working in a laboring

profession before joining the regiment. This one instance of plundering is not the only to be had

when it concerns the Guards. Guardsmen Thomas Burford tried to sell stolen silver table ware

to Hessian Grenadiers who “would buy anything” but rather was turned in by his prospective

buyers.lxiv Another record of plundering appears in a Guards officer’s letter where he describes

the heinous acts that went along with the act of stealing. The officer writes “A soldier of ours

was yesterday taken by the enemy beyond our lines, who had chopped off an unfortunate

woman’s fingers in order to plunder her of her rings… I really think the return of this army to

England is to be dreaded by the peaceable inhabitants.”lxv The Guards officer openly speaks of

the depredations of the British troops in his letter back home, indicating the foul nature of the

troops while off the battlefield and idle in enemy territory. Further bad behavior can be seen in

1778, when Guardsmen Jeremiah Nicolas assaulted an officer while in the New York barracks,

illustrating the poor behavior of some of the soldiers while not on duty.lxvi

Although there is sufficient evidence to damn Guards for their behavior while off the

battlefield, there are still instances where the soldiers of the regiment acted morally and

ethically in their dealings with other soldiers and the populace. An example of this appears in

Guardsmen Private Joseph Collins, aged thirty-eight,lxvii who was offered a variety of tableware

while on duty in Philadelphia in 1778 but turned down buying the goods as he suspected them

to be stolen.lxviii In 1779, the Guards seized smuggled goods being sent from New York to Long

Island, which were then auctioned with the proceeds being divided between the sergeant who
 O’Neill 20

confiscated the goods and “the poor of the city.”lxix In March of 1777, at British Headquarters in

New York City, a Guardsmen sentenced to be executed had his execution stayed as “The

Commander in Chief in consideration of the general good Behavior of the Brigade of Guards will

not put in Execution the Sentence of the General Court Martial.”lxx This statement speaks

volumes about the conduct of the Guards while off duty. We see from earlier orders that

plundering and other foul behavior was dealt with in the severest of forms, either with corporal

punishment or execution. For the Commander in Chief of the British Army to personally stay

the execution of a Guardsman due to the general good conduct of the Guards indicates that the

regiment was usually well behaved. This would not have happened if this was not the case, as

discipline was essential to the British army when dealing with many soldiers of disparate

backgrounds, in a foreign land, which was generally hostile to the army’s presence. Even though

there is less evidence concerning the good behavior of the Guards and specifically the First

Guards, bad behavior was the exception and not the norm. Poor behavior is much more

frequently written down, as disciplinary reports would be made about incidents, court martials

held, and officers would write about particularly heinous offenses in their letters. From

combining what is known about the bad behavior of the regiment and the regiment’s good

behavior, a conclusion can be formed that the regiment acted in a normal manner while on

campaign. They were not saints by any means, but they were not vicious killers and criminals

who inflicted pain and misery for sport.

Another aspect which set First Foot Guards apart from the rest of the British army is the

general quality of the soldier who inhabited the regiment. This can be seen through information

on desertions, as there is little information on this topic pertaining to the First Foot Guards in
 O’Neill 21

comparison to other regiments deployed to the colonies. The distinguishing factor is that the

Guards were professional soldiers who soldiered as a career and did not seek to live another

life. Prior to the campaigns of 1776 and even the outbreak of the war in 1775, British regiments

that were stationed in Boston suffered from desertion as many soldiers found lives in the new

world, outside of the army, as a more promising prospect. “At least forty of the regulars

deserted within the first two weeks of the occupation” of Boston and desertions continued

throughout the army’s stay in the city.lxxi When the army returned an invaded through New

York, desertion continued to be a problem for much of the army. Men would generally desert

for local sweethearts in the cities and towns the soldiers were stationed in, as they did not seek

to part when the army was ordered to move.lxxii Some other men would desert for more

mundane reasons, such as they found a more lucrative job in the colony or simply no longer

liked serving in the army, yet some deserters sought to join the rebel army, and this caused

great consternation for the British army. Irish soldiers in the British army were rather

susceptible and prone to desert and join the American cause, as for in the words of one Irish

deserter; “finding they [the Americans] were striving to throw off the yoke under which my

native country – sunk for many years – induced me to share the same freedom that America

strive for.”lxxiii Desertion plagued many of the regiments of the British army ranging from

relatively poor regiments such as the 52nd Foot, to the more storied regiments such as the Royal

Welch Fusiliers. By the end of the war, the Royal Welch Fusiliers had lost one hundred and

ninety-three men to desertion, “around 15 percent of those who had served” during the

regiment’s deployment in the Thirteen Colonies.lxxiv Once again the story of John Robert Shaw

provides insight into the mind of the British soldier in regard to desertion, as he himself
 O’Neill 22

deserted the army after being captured by American forces. Initially being taken captive by

American forces while in the Carolinas, Shaw soon escaped American captivity and began to

make his way back to the British army yet changed his mind and sought to leave the

employment of the British army.lxxv He stated that;

Upon further reflection, however, I was determined against having any further
connection with the English army; but if I could by any artifice get enlisted in the
American army, as the war was, in all probability, nearly at an end, I should soon get my
liberty, and be released from the hardships of military duty, of which I was pretty well
tired.lxxvi
Shaw provides a firsthand example of the quality of many of the enlisted men, in that they were

ambivalent towards the war and did not seek to truly fight in it. Once again, this attitude

differed from that of the Guards, as the regular soldiers of the British army were not necessarily

in the army for life or as a career, whereas the soldiers in the First Regiment of Foot Guards

were.

Understanding how the First Foot Guards lived during their campaigns in the Thirteen

Colonies is also essential to understanding how the regiment acted and who the men were that

enlisted in it. While on campaign, many times the conditions in which soldiers lived were not

the best and contributed to poor health and fatigue. As the Guards were deployed all over the

Thirteen Colonies from New York down to the Carolinas, they dealt with everything from

extreme heat to extreme cold and varying weather conditions. In 1779, on the island of

Manhattan, The Guards were tasked with building a cantonment from which to live while on

garrison duty in New York but were hampered by poor weather and lack of materials.lxxvii These

quarters were meant to be winter quarters for the Guards regiments, but they were not

completed until after Christmas of 1779 as they “were obliged to send men without the lines to
 O’Neill 23

get wood, all the trees having been cut down when the works at this post were erected”. lxxviii At

other times, the First Foot Guards were billeted in wigwams as temporary shelters, but these

provided little shelter from the elements and were prone to breaking if mishandled.lxxix While

on campaign in the Carolinas in 1781, an Officer from the Guards wrote of the living conditions

of the army stating;

Our Army cannot afford to carry tents, so we are obliged to live in the Woods & make
the best Shifts we can, but this will be attended with the worst consequences to our
men’s health when the rainy season comes on.lxxx
Poor marching and living conditions are not new phenomena for armies while in foreign

countries, yet information such as this sheds light on the living conditions of the British army

and the First Foot Guards during the war.

Further information about the standards of living can be found in soldiers’ testimonies

during the Siege of Yorktown. The British army, now besieged in the city of Yorktown in Virginia,

was blockaded by sea and besieged by land. This led to siege conditions within the city, and

soldiers and townspeople were forced into less-than-optimal living conditions. One soldier

complained “We get terrible provisions now, putrid ship’s meat and wormy biscuits that have

spoiled on the ships. Many of the men have taken sick here with dysentery or the bloody flu

and with diarrhea. Also the foul fever is spreading”lxxxi indicating the poor conditions of those

besieged in Yorktown. Another soldier from Cornwallis’s trapped army wrote,

Early this morning we had to change our camp and pitch our tents in the earthworks, on
account of the heavy fire of the enemy… One could… not avoid the horribly many
cannon balls either inside or outside the city… Many were badly injured and mortally
wounded by the fragments of bombs which exploded partly in the air and partly on the
ground, their arms and legs severed or themselves struck dead.lxxxii
 O’Neill 24

This statement about the condition in which the soldiers lived while besieged in Yorktown

shows the strain of the living conditions and deadly nature of the continued siege. Although

these two anecdotes are not from the Guards, much of the remaining regiment of the First Foot

Guard was posted with Lord Cornwallis’s army, which was besieged in Yorktown. They endured

the same conditions as the common soldiers who were trapped in the city with them. They

dealt with disease, poor food quality, heavy fighting, and incessant bombardment throughout

the siege, as they shared their experiences with the rest of the trapped British army.

By the time of the Siege of Yorktown, the 1st Foot Guards had also sustained massive

numbers of casualties throughout its many campaigns in the colonies. When Lord Cornwallis

surrendered at Yorktown on October 19th, 1781, five hundred Guardsmen surrendered along

with the rest of the army and were subsequently taken into American custody. These five

hundred men from the three composite regiments of the Guards, were but a fraction of the

1,097 men sent over to the Americas in 1776.lxxxiii The three regiments of the Guards, combined,

had lost nearly half of their total strength, and much of it was captured at Yorktown, with only a

hundred Guardsmen not captured, as they were stationed at Fort Johnson near Charleston,

South Carolina.lxxxiv Throughout the war, the three regiments of Guards had taken massive

casualties in the various campaigns in which they were involved. At the Battle of Monmouth,

the Guards were in the thick of the fighting, engaging the Americans on the flanks, sustaining

casualties from enemy fire and heat exhaustion as they fought throughout the day. Record

from the Return of the Number of Men, Wagoners, Women & Children victualled at Monmouth

the 27 & 28th June 1778 show that the regiments consisted of 982 men before the battle,

indicating that already 115 men from the three regiments of Guards had died in preceding
 O’Neill 25

battles or from the elements.lxxxv As mentioned earlier, Guards, especially the First Regiment,

were considered to be the elite British regiments within the army, and as such, they were

placed at essential points in the battlefield. This brought them into some of the most intense

fighting while engaged with the enemy, and their direct interaction allowed the British army to

carry the day against the American forces.

The most notable battle in which the Guards, and specifically the 1 st Foot Guards, were

engaged was the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. Here their actions allowed for the British army

to drive the American army, led by Nathaniel Greene, off the field of battle, but at massive cost

to the strength of the regiment, taking the worst casualties of the entire war for the Guards

regiments. The Guards were engaged in heavy fighting on the British right flank, as it was here

that the American line was beginning to buckle. The Guards were met by American Dragoons,

who charged in to plug the gap in the American line. The Guards Grenadiers were then sent

into the fray, while at the same time, Lord Cornwallis ordered that British artillery fire into the

mass of men. General O’Hara, the British second in Command and a Guard’s officer himself,

protested against this, but Cornwallis persisted in his decision.lxxxvi The commander of the

British artillery then “directed his shots so as to spare his own troops as much as possible, but

the normal dispersion of grape shot made it inevitable that the fire would inflict casualties on

both sides.”lxxxvii This slaughter allowed the Guards to push the Americans, who then fled the

field of battle in retreat, winning the battle for the British army. Yet this victory was hard won

as the British army, which had consisted of 1,900 men, lost “532 officers and men, whom 93

were killed in action; another 50 died of wounds within a few hours. The Guards lost 11 out of

19 officers and 206 out of 462 men; 41 of these officers and men were killed or died of
 O’Neill 26

wounds.”lxxxviii One of the American commanders, Light-Horse Harry Lee, wrote of the

engagement stating “The slaughter was prodigious on the side of the enemy, making in killed

and wounded nearly one-third of his army… Our loss was very disproportionate: only fourteen

officers and three hundred and twelve rank-and-file of the Continental troops killed, wounded

and missing.lxxxix A member of the British Parliament,xc Charles James Fox, commented on

Guilford stating, “Another such victory would destroy the British army!”xci due to the massive

number of casualties sustained in the battle.

This was also the case for the First Guards in America. With such high casualties

sustained by the Guards, in a single battle, another battle such as Guilford Courthouse, could

have easily seen the destruction of the regiment. Yet this battle never came; rather the British

Army was pursued to Yorktown, Virginia, where they eventually surrendered. The total British

army that surrendered at Yorktown numbered around 8,885 men, with 552 casualties for the

entire army.xcii In comparison to the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, the ratio of casualties to the

size of the army was much greater than at Yorktown, as the Guards Brigades lost nearly half of

the casualties at Guilford. At Yorktown, the Guards regiments and the First Foot Guards did not

take such a great number of losses due to the nature of the battle. Yet by the time of the

surrender of Cornwallis, 1,500 men were sick, and due to the small and cramped conditions in

which the soldiers lived, some of these men would have been Guards.xciii

When the British army surrendered to the American and French forces besieging the

city, they proceeded outside the city and gave themselves over to their new captors. A Dr.

Thatcher, who was part of the Continental Army, wrote of the encounter in his letters. He

recorded;
 O’Neill 27

The royal troops, while marching through the line formed by the allied army, exhibited a
decent and neat appearance as respects arms and clothing… But in their line of march
we (perceived) a disorderly and unsoldierly conduct. Their step was irregular and their
ranks frequently broken. But it was in the field, when they came to the last act of the
drama, that the spirit and pride of the British soldier was put to the severe test. Here
their mortification could not be concealed. Some of the platoon officers appeared to be
exceedingly chagrined when giving the word ‘ground arms,’ and I am witness that they
performed this duty in a very unofficer-like manner; and that many of the soldiers
manifested a sullen temper, throwing their arms on the pile with violence as if
determined to render them useless.xciv
While this does not specifically speak to the First Foot Guards and the other Guards regiments

which surrendered at Yorktown, it can be assumed the regiments likely acted in a similar

manner to the rest of the army. This theory can be corroborated by the fact that the actions of

the First Foot Guards, during the American Revolution, do not appear in the short history of

Grenadier Guards, published by the current Regimental Headquarters.xcv The Grenadier Guards

are the modern iteration of the First Foot Guards in Great Britain, and the regiment’s history

dates back to its founding in 1656, yet its actions in the Americas during the American War for

Independence garnered it little recognition back home. As they were captured in defeat, this

deserved little praise in the eyes of England, and much of the regiment remained in captivity

until 1782 when it was returned to its English commanders and the First Foot Guards set sail

back to England.xcvi

This was severe blow to the men of the regiment, who were made out to be the best

and most elite members of the British army, but to be defeated by the American rebels and

held captivate for the remainder of the war, stained the record of the regiment for years to

come. Upon their return home to England, the First Foot Guards received no special praise,

simply resuming their duties as before, and the non-commissioned officers and enlisted men of

the regiment went back to their daily lives as soldiers in His Majesty George III’s Personal
 O’Neill 28

Guard. Those that returned continued life as regular soldiers, without much change in their

services to the crown or recognition for their efforts during the American War for

Independence. Much of the British army suffered a similar fate upon their return to Great

Britain, and by ten years after war, only the 23rd, 33rd, and Guards Regiments which had served

under General Cornwallis, had not been disbanded.xcvii Information can be garnered about this

period of the lives of the returned Guardsmen from their wills and other document pertaining

to financial accounts. While the war was still going on, in 1778, the financial status of some of

the Guardsmen can be established through records from an account book for the Brigade of

Guards. The account book states that balances “due to heirs” of deceased soldiers, never

exceeded five pounds.xcviii This shows the little amount the soldiers received in compensation

for carrying out the duties of a Guardsmen, as their families were compensated, in the event of

their death, at the same rate as regular soldiers from other regiments.xcix This same

standardized pay and return to a normal soldier’s life continued to occur with the First Foot

Guard’s return to England.

Fifteen years after the conclusion of the American Revolution, a Colonel George Hanger,

former officer in the First Foot Guards, wrote his memoirs about the war in the American

colonies.c While Colonel Hanger was not a Non-Commissioned officer or enlisted soldier, the

context in which he wrote his memoirs sheds light on the life of the soldiers from the First Foot

Guards after the war. Colonel Hanger wrote his memoirs while working as a Coal merchant,

after having been sent to debtors’ prison for failing to pay debts, only recently having been

released.ci Also interesting are his views on the American War for Independence and his

involvement in it. He wrote “Reader, not be alarmed! I am not going to fight over the American
 O’Neill 29

War; it is as much forgotten as the Trojan War, and the recital of one would be as interesting to

the public as the other.”cii This statement is truly telling about the public’s opinion of the

American Revolution as well as the opinions of the soldiers who fought in it. It was never a

popular war, but especially after the defeat of the British by the American rebels, the war

became anathemized by England. As seen here, even soldiers from the First Foot Guards sought

to forget the war and their role in it, as it was not a victory but rather an ignominious defeat.

Further insights into the lives of the soldiers of the First Foot Guards can be seen by

looking into the wills of men from the regiment. Whereas this provides invaluable insight into

the soldiers who served in America, only a few wills are known to survive.ciii These wills came

from The National Archives in Kew, England, and are both of the Non-Commissioned soldiers as

well as the Officers for the First Regiment of Foot Guards. The wills of the regular soldiers from

the period of the American Revolution and after the war, all were of soldiers stationed in

England. Although this does not exactly show who the soldiers were that were sent to the

Americas, it allows us to paint general picture of the soldiers of the regiment. One of these

wills, that of a Private William Carpenter from 1799, shows the strong family ties espoused by

this soldier. Upon his entrance into the First Foot Guards, in 1793, he stated that “I give and

bequeath all my property whatsoever together with all money’s due… for this sole use of my

Sister Elizabeth Younig now living in… the city of London.”civ This provides two essential insights

into the life of a Non-Commissioned soldier in the Guards. First, this provides a view into the

family life of a Guardsmen, as Private Carpenter bequeaths all of his earnings and property to

his sister upon his death, indicating no other significant next of kin. He also mentions in his will

the marital status of his sister, indicating her as widowed, while living in London.cv This paints a
 O’Neill 30

picture of a caring and loyal brother, who may have joined the Guards to help his sister

financially, as he specifically references her being widowed and making sure to give all to her in

his will. Secondly, this also allows for us to understand the short, predicted lifespan of a

Guardsmen in the First Foot Guards. Private Carpenter made his will upon joining the Guards,

as he expected the possibility of death as England was in the midst of fighting the French

Revolutionary Wars. This is a poignant example, as Private Carpenter’s will is executed in 1799,

indicating that he died on the field of battle or while on campaign.cvi While Private Carpenter’s

will is not directly from the period of the American Revolution, we can assume, from the

information available, that wills similarly existed for the soldiers of the Guards during the

American War for Independence. Through the wills, the Guardsmen can be humanized, as we

can see who they care for and attempt to extrapolate why they cared for these individuals,

especially as they were always subject to die on the field of battle, being the professional

soldiers that they were.

From 1797, an example from a Sergeant Joseph Cumberlidge allows us insights into his

personality and what he valued highly in his life. Sergeant Cumberlidge served in the First Foot

Guards during his tenure as soldier, and his rank as sergeant enabled him to have considerably

more means and materials than that of Private Carpenter. Cumberlidge makes mention of “all

my household goods” as well as his “morning apparel,” books, and monies, specifically

identifying items to be given to individuals rather than simply bequeathing all to a singular

individual.cvii This specificity shows the value Cumberlidge placed in his possessions, and the

two most telling items on the list of items to be given away are the books and the “morning

apparel”. Both of these items indicate that Sergeant Cumberlidge was a literate man of some
 O’Neill 31

means, as he could afford to have books and attire that was meant for socializing and relaxing

in. Thus, while he was not a gentleman of noble birth, Sergeant Cumberlidge emulated noble

pursuits as a Non-Commissioned Officer in the Guards. Further information garnered from his

will indicates the character of the man that he was. The first line of his will after his identifying

information reads “I humbly bequeath my soul to God beseeching his most gracious acceptance

of it” and continues in this manner for subsequent lines.cviii About two thirds of his will consists

of devout prayer and entreaties to God to accept him when he dies, showing his religious

nature. It is not until he first bequeathed himself to God, that he began the actual substance of

the will, indicating to whom he was giving his possessions and who he wished to be the

executor of his will. This is interesting as it enables one to see the religious nature of the

soldiers and the way in which the Non-Commissioned Officers of the Guards tried to act as their

superiors. Devotion to God and devotion to duty many times go hand in hand, and in the case

of Sergeant Cumberlidge, this appears to be the case. Although once again, this is from a period

later than the American Revolution, using the data available, one must extrapolate and assume

that similar practices of the Non-Commissioned Officers persisted earlier in the history of the

First Foot Guards.

The wills of soldiers of the First Foot Guards are essential to understanding who these

soldiers were. Although the wills of the non-commissioned soldiers of the First Foot Guards

come from the period immediately after the American War for Independence, they are still

essential to understanding the soldiers from that period. As seen earlier, the soldiers of the

regiment seem to remain fairly consistent as most Guardsmen had some level of education,

joining in their mid-twenties, and were either laborers or skilled tradesmen, with a few men
 O’Neill 32

employed in clerical style occupations scattered in the mix of soldiers. This allowed for the

regiment to take men from all walks of life and subsume them into the regiment, creating a

cohesive unit which fought well and was the best that the British army had to offer. Though the

wills from the regular soldiers and non-commissioned officers indicate different goals and

attitudes towards their respective lives as soldiers, both allow for the expansion of our

understanding of who were the soldiers that made up the regiment of the First Foot Guards.

The First Foot Guards that were deployed to the American colonies during the American

War for Independence made up the elite of the British army. These men were very similar to

the rest of the men of the British army, showing that while the King’s personal regiment were

the best trained troops and some of the army’s best soldiers, they were still soldiers and regular

men. They were the everyday men who made up the backbone of the British Empire, the

landed and unlanded middle class. The Guardsmen who made up the regiment of the First Foot

Guard when it was sent to the colonies were the average man of the British Empire, as he was

somewhat educated, participated in a profession before joining the army, and brought his life

experiences with him when he joined the regiment. Guards were just men and “when under

the enemy’s fire, are just as likely to fall as other men.”cix This essay seeks to explain this

connection between the regular man who made up the British army yet highlighting the elite

nature of the First Foot Guards. By looking at the various anecdotal stories, regimental rolls,

battle engagements, and conduct while not on the field of battle, the conclusion that the

regiment was made up the same type of men as the rest of the British army, can be drawn.

General Hamilton, a Guard’s officer in the 1800s wrote that the history of First Regiment of

Foot Guards, by then the Grenadier Guards, “is a microcosm of that of the whole British army”
 O’Neill 33

showing that even a Guard’s Officer drew the same conclusion about the type of men who

made up the Guards.cx

The elite nature of the regiment can be confirmed by the actions of the regiment during

the various battles in which they participated and their training as a standing regiment in

England. Although the campaigns in the American colonies during the War for Independence

are some of the darkest periods in the First Foot Guard’s history due to its ultimate outcome

with the regiment’s capture and imprisonment, General Hamilton further writes on the Guards

in America saying;

the conduct of the Guards, wherever engaged, proves that they carried the same high
spirit across the Atlantic against the tough republican levies that Washington had
trained to conquer, as they had shown in Flanders and Bavaria and Spain against the
greatest French generals of the earlier part of the century.cxi
The regiment’s actions at the Battle of Long Island, Monmouth Courthouse, and Guilford

Courthouse showcase the integral role the regiment played in the success of the British army in

these battles. None is more apparent than at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, where the

Guards enabled a severely outnumbered British army to hold the line and push the American

army off the field of battle. Their coolness in combat, discipline while engaged in combat, and

ferociousness in hand-to-hand fighting, won the day for the British at Guilford Courthouse, for

without the Guards, the British army would have faltered and been overrun by the superior

numbers of the American army. This was the battle in which the Guards proved their worth in

the war for American Independence, for while they were integral in other battles in the war,

none more so than Guilford. Their training enabled them to hold this integral role in the British

army, as consistent and continuous drill, as the King’s personal regiment, crafted the First Foot
 O’Neill 34

Guards into the best soldiers in the British Army. Even though their campaign eventually ended

in defeat and capture at Yorktown with the British Army under Lord Cornwallis, the First Foot

Guards acquitted themselves admirably wherever they went and lived up to their reputation as

the elite and professional soldiers of the British army.

The First Foot Guards were an elite regiment made up of ordinary individuals. The

soldiers in the regiment were the common middle-class men of England, and they were trained

using the same manual of arms as the other regiments of the British army. Yet the difference

between the regular army and the First Foot Guards lies in the fact that the regiment was

always an active standing force, which was garrisoned in London and was the Guard to the King.

Thus, they received the best uniforms and equipment, and were consistently and constantly

trained. This made them an elite fighting force when deployed on the field of battle, as the the

Non-Commissioned Soldiers, both officers and enlisted men of the regiment were professional

soldiers always ready for war. Thus, the Non-Commissioned soldiers of the First Foot Guards

were both the highly elite professional soldiers of the British Empire, while at the same time the

regiment was made up of the common everyday subject of the British Empire under His

Majesty King George III.

 O’Neill 35

i
Colonel Mark Mayo Boatner III, Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (New York City: David McKay Company
Inc., 1996). 927.
ii
Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes (New York City: W.W.
Norton and Company, 1990). 81.
iii
Hibbert, 83.
iv
Hibbert, 84.
v
Don N. Hagist, “The Fate of the British Regular,” Journal of the American Revolution (March 21, 2013),
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/03/the-fate-of-british-regulars/.
vi
Hagist, “The Fate of British Regulars”.
vii
Don N. Hagist, Noble Volunteers (Yardley: Westhome Publishing LLC, 2020). 181.
viii
Don N. Hagist, British Soldiers American War (Yardley: Westhome Publishing LLC, 2012). 154-155.
ix
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 186.
x
Kevin Phillips, The Cousins' War- Religion Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America (New York City: Basic Books-
A Member of the Perseus Books Group, 1999). 245.
xi
Phillips, 254.
xii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 178.
xiii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 178-179.
xiv
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 152.
xv
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 14-15.
xvi
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 16.
xvii
Phillips, 244-245.
xviii
Phillips, 244-245.
xix
Phillips, 245.
xx
Don N. Hagist, “How Old Were Redcoats?”, Journal of the American Revolution (May 21, 2014),
https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/05/how-old-were-redcoats-age-and-experience-of-british-soldiers-in-america/.
xxi
“Roll of the Age, Size, Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd.” Compiled by Linea M. Bass, (Unpublished
Compilation, 1997). 1.
xxii
Bass, “Roll of the Age, Size, Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd.”, 1.
xxiii
Bass, “Roll of the Age, Size, Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd.”, 5.
xxiv
Compiled by William W. Burke and Linnea M. Bass, Transcriptions by Linnea M. Bass. Documentation for
Uniforms Brigade of Guards on the American Service. (Unpublished Manuscript, 1997),
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12HjgH6njEuEF_vxPDhbB7381oVAAgEdyBMEXIpMRc84/edit, 4.
xxv
Hibbert, 305.
xxvi
John U. Rees, “’What is this you have been about to day?’ The New Jersey Brigade at the Battle of Monmouth,”
Friends of Monmouth Battlefield (2003), Appendix G,
https://revwar75.com/library/rees/monmouth/MonmouthG.htm.
xxvii
"The Origin and History of the Grenadier Guards. by Lieutenant-General Sir F. W. Hamilton, Late Grenadier
Guards. in Three Volumes, 8vo. London: 1874." 1874. The Edinburgh Review Volume 140 (Issue 286) (October 1):
479, https://geisel.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-periodicals/origin-history-
grenadier-guards-lieutenant/docview/1298978101/se-2?accountid=13640.
xxviii
Hamilton, 480.
xxix
Hamilton, 479-480.
xxx
Editors Richard K. Showman, Dennis M. Conrad, Roger N. Parks, Elizabeth C. Stevens. The Papers of General
Nathanael Greene. Vol. VII. (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994). 435.
xxxi
Richard Wheeler, Voices of 1776 (New York City: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1972). 131.
xxxii
Wheeler, 371.
xxxiii
Hibbert, 305.
xxxiv
Mark Urban, Fusiliers, (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 2007). 242.
xxxv
Urban, 243.
xxxvi
Urban, 243.
 O’Neill 36

xxxvii
The Regimental Headquarters of the Grenadier Guards, Regimental History, (London, England: 2021),
https://www.grengds.com/regimental-history.
xxxviii
The Regimental Headquarters of the Grenadier Guards, Regimental History.
xxxix
Bass and Burke, Documentation for Uniforms Brigade of Guards on the American Service, 23.
xl
Bass and Burke, Documentation for Uniforms Brigade of Guards on the American Service, 24.
xli
Edited by Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, Arms and Independence- The Military Character of the American
Revolution, (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1984), 193.
xlii
Hoffman and Albert, 193.
xliii
Urban, 45.
xliv
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 10.
xlv
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 11.
xlvi
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 11.
xlvii
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 17-18.
xlviii
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 18-20.
xlix
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 20-22.
l
Linnea M. Bass and William W. Burke, "Preparing a British Unit for Service in America The Brigade of Foot Guards,
1776." The Company of Military Historians (1995), http://military-
historians.org/company/journal/guards/guards.htm.
li
Bass and Burke, "Preparing a British Unit for Service in America The Brigade of Foot Guards, 1776."
lii
Bass and Burke, Documentation for Uniforms Brigade of Guards on the American Service, 5.
liii
Bass and Burke, Documentation for Uniforms Brigade of Guards on the American Service, 5.
liv
Wheeler, 130.
lv
Thomas Glyn, Transcribed by Linnea Bass, "The Journal of Ensign Thomas Glyn, 1st Regiment of Foot Guards on
the American Service with the Brigade of Guards 1776-1777." (Palatine, IL: Published and Distributed by Linnea
Bass, April 29, 1987). 6,
file:///C:/Users/Connor%20O'Neill/Documents/St.%20Anselm%20College/St.%20Anselm%20Senior%20Year/Resea
rch%20Seminar-
%20Honors%20Thesis/Primary%20Documents/The%20Journal%20of%20Ensign%20Thomas%20Glyn-
%20Cover%20Page.pdf and
file:///C:/Users/Connor%20O'Neill/Documents/St.%20Anselm%20College/St.%20Anselm%20Senior%20Year/Resea
rch%20Seminar-
%20Honors%20Thesis/Primary%20Documents/The%20Journal%20of%20Ensign%20Thomas%20Glyn-%20Body.pdf.
lvi
Richard Archer, As If An Enemy’s Country, (New York City: Oxford University Press, 2010). 133.
lvii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 163.
lviii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 163-164.
lix
Bass, “Roll of the Age, Size, Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd.”, 2.
lx
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 167.
lxi
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 167.
lxii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 167.
lxiii
Bass, “Roll of the Age, Size, Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd.”, 2.
lxiv
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 167.
lxv
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 166.
lxvi
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 217.
lxvii
Bass, “Roll of the Age, Size, Service, Etc. of the Non-Commiss’nd.”, 11.
lxviii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 217.
lxix
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 205.
lxx
Glyn, 26.
lxxi
Archer, 116.
lxxii
Urban, 17.
lxxiii
Urban, 17.
lxxiv
Urban, 292.
lxxv
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 48.
lxxvi
Hagist, British Soldiers American War, 48.
 O’Neill 37

lxxvii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 123.
lxxviii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 123.
lxxix
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 130-131.
lxxx
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 133.
lxxxi
Wheeler, 396.
lxxxii
Wheeler, 400.
lxxxiii
The Guards Museum, History of the Foot Guards- The wars of the 1700s (London, England),
https://theguardsmuseum.com/about-the-guards/history-of-the-foot-guards/the-wars-of-the-1700s/.
lxxxiv
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 233.
lxxxv
Rees, Appendix E.
lxxxvi
Boatner III, 467.
lxxxvii
Boatner III, 467.
lxxxviii
Boatner III, 470.
lxxxix
Wheeler, 374.
xc
Wheeler, 374.
xci
Hibbert, 306.
xcii
Boatner III, 1249.
xciii
Boatner III, 1249.
xciv
Wheeler, 405-406.
xcv
The Regimental Headquarters of the Grenadier Guards, A Short History of the First or Grenadier Regiment of
Foot Guards, (London, England: 2021), https://www.grengds.com/history.
xcvi
The Guards Museum.
xcvii
Urban, 319.
xcviii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 235.
xcix
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 235.
c
Hoffman and Albert, 191.
ci
Hoffman and Albert, 191.
cii
Hoffman and Albert, 191.
ciii
Hagist, Noble Volunteers, 235.
civ
Carpenter, William. Will of William Carpenter, Private in the Seventh Company of the second
Battalion of the First Regiment of Foot Guards of Saint James Westminster, Middlesex. Will. London: 20 July 1799.
From The National Archives, Kew England. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D331505 (accessed
September 11, 2021).
cv
Carpenter.
cvi
Carpenter.
cvii
Cumberlidge, Joseph. Will of Joseph Cumberlidge, Serjeant in Colonel Munston's Company of the first Regiment
of Foot Guards of Saint Margaret and Saint John the Evangelist, Middlesex. Will. London: 19 August 1797. From
The National Archives, Kew England. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D328435 (accessed
September 11, 2021).
cviii
Cumberlidge.
cix
Hamilton, 462.
cx
Hamilton, 464.
cxi
Hamilton, 479.