The Hudson River Valley once again welcomed our unit to a picturesque site on the river that almost spelt disaster for the Continentals. Members in attendance were Mark and Carol Cafazzo, Cliff Nichols, Chris and Marcia Kennick, Justin Kennick, Tom DeLucco and Brian Zawodniak. Our sergeant for the event was Mark Cafazzo. Mark wisely chose Brian for his trusty corporal!

The highlight of the event, in this humble corporal's opinion, was our visitors. Those who came to our fly and Tom's lean-to (which did attract a lot of attention even though he did not linseed it) spent good deal of time talking to us about our unit's history, our weaponry, our food and the real story of the loyalists in the Revolution. I think we were all impressed by this attention. As I have said before, we are educators first and foremost.

Saturday was a beautiful day for our street battle. The provincials were led by Major Moderacki who had given us a lesson in bridge defense before we marched out. We pushed the Doodles uphill (of course) through the heart of downtown Peekskill. Our trusty sergeant did a great job of keeping us together during the hot firing. In the end, Peters' Corps was in front, ready for the final push with the bayonet. After the Rebels left the streets, Peters' Corps, fully armed, commandeered The Royal Restaurant (very appropriate) for some well-deserved refreshment.

Saturday's dinner was wonderful. Marcia and Carol prepared a delicious ham and potato soup that was not only enjoyed by us but by some fellow reenactors. To top it off, the rum shrub hit the spot. I have forgotten how many toasts we actually had.

The camp was fairly quiet that night. Marcia, Chris and I enjoyed some fine country dancing. Justin was recovering from a leg issue and was taking the night in easy stride. Tom found the rum ration of the 5th Connecticut. He claimed he was trying to persuade them to come over to the side of the King. As corporal, I could have flogged him. . .

On Sunday the public came full of curiosity. The tactical was a demonstration of different formations and movements done for the general public on the parade ground. After that, Peters' Corps marched toward the crowd to tackle any questions that came our way.

The day winded down with more visitors and a leisurely breaking of camp. It was a fine event, and more importantly, an educational one.

Your most humble servant,

Corporal du jour Linseed

**********************************************************************************************

The following article appeared in The Crescent recently and was penned by Sjt. Wade O'Grady of the Queen's Rangers, one of our favorite people. It would seem to indicate that the same sort of problem is shared by different units. That the problem illustrated below is pandemic does not sanctify it in the least. Our sympathies go out to Sjt. O'Grady and we thank him for his candor.

It might be well for us to consider having recruits, upon the occasion of signing the Articles of Enlistment, read and sign an oath never to buy anything they mean to insinuate into the unit impression without getting authorization (in triplicate) first. We hasten to add Billy McMillen's old formula, "If you can prove it, you can do it!".

WW

It has been my observation and/or come to my attention that some members are purchasing items for use in our portrayals without asking their Board Members for advice. I/we have advised for many years now that you should always ask before buying. I for one, am very tired of seeing members waste their money on unnecessary or incorrect items. These are often members who are lacking some important articles to complete their kit. They may take this as a criticism but I mearly want to make sure you spend your hard earned money wisely and that you don't end up with a closet full of items that are not proper for our impression in the hobby. We "old timers" all have some items we purchased in our youthful enthusiasm for our new found hobby

Sgt. O'Grady
Queen's Rangers

It has long been a contention of mine that the statistics of life expectancy, as they pertain to years prior to the twentieth century, give a false impression of the average age at which a person could expect to die. I recently ran across a reprint of the May 1775 issue of the Gentleman's Magazine of London. In it were published the mortality rates for the period 4/28/1771 through 5/27/1771. These showed that during that period a total of 1359 people died in London. Of these, 473 were under the age of two at the time of their deaths, 159 were between the ages of 2 and 5, 61 between 5 and 10, and 42 between 10 and 20. Almost exactly 114 people died in each of the decades between 20 and 60 years of age. Sixty-seven died between the ages of 60 and 70, 69 between 70 and 80, 25 were octogenarians, and 8 were between 90 and 100 years of age.

For statistical purposes, I assumed a median age for each age group, and found that the average life expectancy during this one month of 1771 was 24 years. Statistically true, of course, but nonetheless, an absurdity.

The figure that leaps out immediately, of course, is the first, 473 children between birth and age two. Also disturbing are the figures for the next two age groups, two to five and five to ten. Of course, it has long been known that infant mortality before the institution of modern medical practices was extremely high. So, I did some additional calculations, eliminating the infant deaths from the calculation, and found that this yielded a life expectancy of 47.

Then I looked at the death rates for the age groups 20 to 30 and 30 to 40. What struck me about this group is that it included the normal childbearing ages for women. It is known that, again absent modern medicine, the death rate for women during childbirth was higher than at present, when it is practically zero. So in these age groups, I eliminated one half the deaths, representing approximately the female proportion. It may well be argued that a figure higher than 50% should have been discounted, and I agree, but was unable to establish any method for determining exactly what that percent should be. Therefore, I decided to use the minimum rate. This yielded an increase to 50 ½ years as the average life expectancy.

It may be suggested that to assume modern survival rates for 18^th century mortality is to distort the figures, but to that I say that not to make that assumption is in itself to distort the truth. The point I am trying to make is that, if you were a woman and survived both your own infancy and the hazards of childbirth, you could reasonably expect to live to age 47. By the same token, a man who avoided death as an infant could expect to survive until at least age 50 or 51.

While these figures may seem low compared to modern mortality rates, they are considerably higher than are suggested by an uncritical acceptance of straight statistical analysis. By further restricting the field of consideration, it might even be possible to raise the rate even higher. For example, it would seem possible that in the age groups from 20 to 60, a fairly high number of deaths might have been caused by agricultural accidents. Even today, agricultural communities suffer a higher than normal rate of deaths and injuries to men in this age range. So a reduction of the number of deaths in these age groups would yield a corresponding increase in life expectancy for men and women not directly involved in farming, to perhaps as high as 58. Your own knowledge or experience might suggest other areas of adjustment to you.

Since writing this, I came across a copy of Jackson Turner Main's Society and Economy in Colonial Connecticut. In his chapter "On Population," he discusses the question of life expectancy at some length. He primarily uses probate records, which by their very nature exclude women and all who died under the age of 21. For the period 1770-1774, he comes up with a median age of death of 56.5. He notes that the periodic declines in the median age of death reflected during other periods correspond with the dates of the various wars in which Connecticut was involved.

In reviewing the data available for the Loyal Rangers, the unit which was formed from an amalgamation of the Queen's Loyal Rangers and the King's Rangers (Jessup's Corps) after the end of the Saratoga Campaign, I find that a total of 172 men were enlisted during the spring of 1777. Some, but probably not all, were enlisted for one or the other of the two corps. However, since they were all recruited from the same population pool, there is unlikely to be any statistical difference due to this mixture. The average age of these recruits at the time of enlistment was 27 years. The oldest at time of enlistment was 60 years old, while the youngest was 15. Of the total, 28 (16%) were between the ages of 15 and 20, 88 (51%) were 21 to 30, 34 (20%) were from 31 to 40 years old, 15 (9%) between 41 and 50, and 7 (4%) were 51 to 60.

If any conclusion can be drawn from these statistics, it is that, considered as a group, we are on the average considerably over age (except, of course, at heart.) Two choices therefore present themselves. One, we can recruit enough younger members to bring our average age down, or two, we can undergo an age reduction procedure. Does anyone out there know how we can do that?

- Bruce Wallace

To view past editions of our unit newletter, The Loyal Gazette, click here.

Back to Peters' Corps Home Page