Talk:Scammell's 1781 Light Infantry Regiment

Notes on using pension records

In many cases pensions files are used as a basis for proof of service. In most cases this is reliable; there were three kinds of documents in pension files that were used: (1) Sworn affidavit given by the soldier himself, (2) Departmental summary of a soldier's service, and (3) Sworn supporting affidavits given by other soldiers in support of their commrade's claim. The criteria to obtain a pension was minimum service and being in a state of poverty.

The proportion of soldiers with pensions that have research value is quite low. Take, for example, the New Hampshire troops in Scammell's light detachment. There were somewhere between 75-125 soldiers who would have been in service at some time during the existence of this detachment. Fifteen percent of these were alive and applied for a pension in 1818 or later; of these the criteria to be used was that they specifically named their chains of command and described their services; some of which was remarkably detailed. For instance, Hubbard Carter's affidavit in support of Uriah Ballard is very descriptive, or affidavits in Pomp Sherborne's pension give valuable insight to the day-to-day workings of the Continental Army.

All of the pensions were accessed from the www.fold3.com website (formerly footnote.com). Recruiting records and company rolls in the New Hampshire Rolls of the Revolutionary War Soldiers aided in determining which pensions to research.Cfrye66 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC) (moved by TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} )

Sitrep

A few things. One, is it really essential to name every single man? Two, I see no need to italicize names (frex Pike). Three, I'd rather you added a bullet (an asterisk will format as one) before the officer names. Four, I'd break off "Highland ops" into another heading; as it is, the header is too long, & the section is combining two things I'm not sure really belong together. This is just at a glance; I can read more carefully if you want. If so, message my talk; I'm not watching this page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:52 & 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC) (P.S. Would you sign the above post? Just add ~~~ before the ~~~~~ already there.)

Thanks for the pointers; they make sense. The reason for including all the names is that this is that this constitutes the only roll as none are known to exist; I'm fine putting the details here, but think it's important to illustrate the changeable state of the regiment's composition and that the companies were not filled exclusively by their commander's states; a practice that was supposed to have been outmoded with the new organization of the Army in 1781. Instead, I think Washington found that he should have dictated two light companies per line regiment of infantry. I'll think on it and get it sorted out. Cfrye66 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Progrep

All but the full roll are addressed; though still including the full roll, knowing its questionable scope. There is a small group of ARW MH ppl that would find this highly useful. One thought is along the lines of how Emmerich is done. is that a good precedent? Cfrye66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC).