The Musket

The Shot Heard Round the World

The weapon most closely associated with the American Revolution, that is, the times of the Yankee Doodle Spies is the musket. Regardless of who fired the first shot at Lexington Green in 1775, it most certainly came from the barrel of a smoothbore musket. The musket is an icon in American lore and its use during the struggle for independence (as well as before and after) has repercussions that continue right into today's politics and headlines.  Throughout history, certain peoples, certain cultures, certain societies have been linked to a specific weapon: the Romans carved an empire with the short sword from Iberia; the Mongols swept across Eurasia with the composite bow; Islam spread through the Middle East and North Africa on the edge of the scimitar.  And then there was the English longbow. The ubiquitous use of this simple yet elegant weapon not only presented English kings victories over more powerful opponents, it helped shape the status of the yeoman and thus helped forge a fledgling middle class of citizen warriors, in England. Ironically, the citizen warrior, transplanted to America would overturn a regime bolstered by paid professionals and hired mercenaries.

First Firefight: Lexington

What They Fired

Fast forward to colonial America. The culture of the longbow was forged into the consciousness of the Britons who settled America. Instead of a six-foot stave flinging yard-long arrows the settlers of the new world relied on the smoothbore musket using the French style flintlock firing mechanism.  These were at once simple, yet complex weapons. By the second half of the 18th Century, the most advanced flintlock muskets were made by the French but the English quickly followed their lead in design.  Then, as today, ease of manufacture and cost were factors affecting what type of weapon would be supplied en masse to troops in the field. In America manufacturing was restricted. The colonies were seen as sources of raw materials, not needed to compete with English shops and mills.  But America had plenty of gunsmiths and a burgeoning gun industry was in place at the time of the revolution.  But the exigencies of war required masses of weapons as the older model muskets from the French and Indian wars wore out or became obsolete. Where the British had a robust supply chain, America relied on weapons smuggled from offshore or captured on the field of battle. Add the German muskets to the mix and one begins to see a war that featured a variety of weapons. When the French and Dutch entered the war, America's supply of quality European weapons of all types, but especially muskets, improved greatly. And Americans did make their own line of weapons, often from European parts.

The Minute Man relied on his musket

A Gun for All Seasons

I don't have the time to delve into the multiple types of weapons used so I'll profile two of the most noted.   The British began the war still using the Long Land Service musket, sometimes referred to as the Brown Bess. It had a barrel length of 46 inches, weighed over 11 pounds, had a caliber of .753 inches, and fired a 490-grain ball charged by a 124-grain powder charge (although some of the powder was used to ignite the charge described below).  Its overall length was 62 inches. This presented a clumsy and but reliable weapon.  But by the  1770s, the British began replacing this with the Short Land Service musket of similar construction and technology (sic) but shorter a 39-inch barrel and a smaller charge. It had better balance than the Long musket although it was only a few ounces lighter.  The French had several muskets in use during the time of the revolution, many made at the famed Charleville works - all 60 inches in overall length. They were 1773, 1774, and 1777 muskets.  Each weighed around 9 pounds and had a barrel length of 44 3/4 inches. The caliber was .69 and which, like the latter version of the Brown Bess, were carried by French infantrymen through and beyond the Napoleonic Wars. There were many, many types of muskets used besides these and I haven't accounted for carbines, fusils, naval muskets, and rifles.  More on all these later.

Muskets were the basic weapon of both sides

How They Fired

The weapon was simple but the firing process complicated.  Normally, the powder and ball (a lead bullet that ranged from a half to three-quarter inch in caliber), combined in a paper cartridge. The shooter began the process by biting off a piece of the powder end of the cartridge and pouring some of the black powder into the flintlock's firing pan. He then rams the ball and powder cartridge (powder side first) down the barrel, brings the weapon to his shoulder and pulls the trigger hoping that the hammer's flint, striking the firing pan's frizzen (steel plate) would actually spark and ignite the powder causing an explosion of the charge in the barrel and propelling the projectile downrange (so to speak). Now, there were numerous other variables that could complicate an effective and accurate shot: like putting the hammer into full cock, following the rigid manual of arms (when with a trained body of men), weather conditions, powder build-up, smoke, and, oh yes, enemy fire. Theoretically, a well-trained soldier could fire five such shots a minute.  In reality, only two or three were achieved in the heat of battle. Accuracy was not a factor for the British who drilled their men to fire in volleys at masses of the enemy.  But it was for the Americans, who had fewer resources and made every attempt to make each shot count. The British did however have light infantry units and Loyalists who tended to fight more like the rebels. How accurate could they be? A trained marksman could theoretically hit a target at 75 yards but the British line infantryman was trained to point his barrel at the enemy without aiming - the volley would take care of that for him! 

Loyal to a Fault?

A House Divided

The American Revolution was as much a civil war as a rebellion.  Yes, the colonies rebelled against the king and parliament's laws, but not everyone entered into rebellion. And most who joined the rebellion did so initially to defend their rights as Britons. Many more (some say most) remained indifferent to it.  Although it had no grand capitals or palaces as in Europe, America in 1775 was thriving. The Atlantic seaboard was a constellation of small cities and towns, with plenty of well-run farmsteads between them.  In the south, many (but not all) of those were cash producing plantations. Trade was growing and merchants were making money. People were prosperous and healthy compared to Europe because of the economy, a better diet, and less crowded living conditions. In 1775, the American colonies had arguably the best standard of living in the world. Many saw this prosperity as a direct result of America's place within the British empire and saw no reason to put it all at risk. Then came the taxes to pay for the war against the French.

Who are these people?

John Grave Simcoe

The Loyalists, (and initially many patriots), saw themselves first and foremost as British subjects loyal to their King. Politically, they were Tories. For many that about ended any discussion about America's status and relegated the discussion as to how best retain certain British liberties. Many of the Loyalist leadership, such as Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania, struggled passionately for a political solution to the troubles. They wanted Americans to retain their rights and obtain self-rule as part of the British empire. One can only imagine the emotions churning as their fellow countrymen, Whigs (the patriots), slowly but surely determined on a complete split.  Imagine that sickening feeling watching your country, your world, slip away from you. Still,  few Loyalists envisioned the outcome would be anything but the King triumphant.  That made the end an even more bitter potion to drink. Some pundits have noted the division in loyalty at the outset of the war was 30-30-30.  One-third rebel, one-third loyal, and one-third neutral.  I suggest that the numbers fluctuated with the fortunes of war and the proximity of the British Army.  But many so-called neutrals, in my mind, were not so neutral.  That's a good starting point but the situation was more complex.  Certain regions like the Mid-Atlantic tended to have more Loyalists than say, New England.  The south was more evenly split as the brutal fighting there attests. As the war progressed and France entered on America's side, the Loyalists numbered between 15 and 20% of the 2.1 million whites living in the colonies.

Why Remain Loyal?

For the Loyalist, it was about, well, loyalty. I know, sounds trite, but those who remained loyal throughout the eight-year war were men and women with a world view that called for an ordered state, the cornerstone of which was a monarch bolstered by royalty, the nobility, and the upper classes. Loyalists were complacent with the world they lived in and did not welcome the disruption caused by rebellion. They had a disdain for the extremism displayed by the patriots.  The Loyalists prided themselves in Britain's superior form of government with representation in two houses of Parliament and a constitutional monarch as head of state. And they had a sense of place and order that came with a class system. They (the British) had defeated the hated French in the Seven Years War and in the French and Indian War in America.  The "empire" had not reached its high water (which would come some 80 or so years later) but the King indeed ruled over a growing global empire held together by mercantile trade.  Trade that they and all "good Britons" profited from. Who could argue?  And who would give that up?  Who indeed...

 

What did they Contribute?

The Loyalists were both a boon and a crutch to the British generals running the war in America. In a way, they were merely a placebo.  British authorities were constantly assured by leading Loyalist figures that most Americans favored the King and were at best neutral in the struggle and thus quite ready to be won over.  So little real effort was made to win the hearts and minds of the Americans. In some ways the thinking was loyalty coaxed was no loyalty at all. This meant the rebellion would be crushed by British power. The Loyalists readily played their part. They formed regular units akin to the patriot Continental Line and had all sorts of local Loyal militias.  In the "Cowboy versus Skinner" guerrilla fights they had the Cowboys. And they had Loyalist spies and sympathizers everywhere ready to tip off a British commander as to the whereabouts of the hated rebels.  That, coupled with the most powerful army and navy in the world, should have made suppressing the rebellion a quick and simple task. In numbers, the Loyalists under arms were substantial. At any one time during the course of the war  an average of 10,000 Loyalists were in well organized and equipped "regular" units.  And this did not count numerous Loyalist militia units that ebbed and flowed with the pulse of the conflict.    George Washington would have traded all of Mount Vernon for that number in Continental Line. By most accounts, the Loyalists of all stripes fought well. And although they had nowhere near the number of great leaders as the rebels, they had some very good ones such as Colonel John Graves Simcoe (Queen's Rangers); General Cortland Skinner (New Jersey Volunteers); General Oliver Delancey (Volunteer Corps); and Colonel John Hamilton (North Carolina Volunteers). In some theaters, particularly the south, Loyalist irregulars were considered even more effective fighters than Loyalist regulars.

Loyalists fought ferociously but vainly in most battles
especially at King's Mountain

What was their Vision?

Loyalist plans for America's future centered on some sort of local representation within the construct of the British empire. In the early days of the political struggles, prior to open rebellion, that was the overwhelmingly popular view in all the colonies. But after Lexington and Concord, the slippery slope grew slicker as the British made mistake after mistake.  When the scales tilted toward rebellion the Loyalists had to improvise both in political and military action.  But they never had a real plan and certainly no strategy.  Why would they need one?  They were, after all, Britons.  They had overwhelming power on their side. They had the King and all his wealth and military might to fall back on. I believe that was ultimately their undoing. Over-reliance on the British authorities, military and civil, made the Loyalists complacent and even dependent. Since losing to the rebels was inconceivable, developing a comprehensive Loyal alternative never really emerged. It certainly wasn't articulated to the populace. Conversely, as the war progressed the British placed less and less stock in Loyalist political and military usefulness. By war's end, the British found the Loyalists somewhat a nuisance and the Loyalists became resentful of their benefactors.

What was their fate?


I plan future deep dives into the Loyalist cause but obviously - they lost. They lost big time:  land, slaves, homes, families, and pride. With bitter and despondent hearts, some 80,000 or so left the 13 colonies for "British" lands such as Canada, East Florida, the West Indies, and Great Britain itself. Their struggle continued as the now largely impoverished diaspora was treated poorly by its one-time benefactor.

Loyalist refugees flee to
Canada (most went by ship)