Combat of Zalamea, 15 April 1810

Combat of Zalamea, 15 April 1810

Combat of Zalamea, 15 April 1810

The combat of Zalamea of 15 April 1810 was the first defeat suffered by General Ballesteros during his raid into western Andalusia in the spring of 1810. Having been detached from La Romana’s army of Estremadura with orders to invade the Condado de Niebla and to threaten Madrid, Ballesteros had defeated a French cavalry brigade at Valverde (19 February), before advancing east to Ronquillo, twenty miles north of Seville. There he had fought an inconclusive battle against Gazan’s infantry division, before retreated back west to Zalamea, just to the north of Valverde.

This battle so close to Seville provoked Marshal Mortier into action. He left Seville at the head of an infantry division, and on 15 April defeated Ballesteros at Zalamea. Ballesteros was forced to retreat north, back into the mountains on the southern borders of Estremadura, but even there he was not entirely safe, for on 26 May he suffered a second defeat at Araçena.

Napoleonic Home Page | Books on the Napoleonic Wars | Subject Index: Napoleonic Wars

Bookmark this page: Delicious Facebook StumbleUpon


Napoléon Bonaparte [a] (15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), usually known as just Napoleon, was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the Revolutionary Wars. He was the de facto leader of the French Republic as First Consul from 1799 to 1804. As Napoleon I, he was Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814 and again in 1815. Napoleon dominated European and global affairs for more than a decade while leading France against a series of coalitions in the Napoleonic Wars. He won most of these wars and the vast majority of his battles, building a large empire that ruled over continental Europe before its final collapse in 1815. One of the greatest commanders in history, his wars and campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide. He remains one of the most celebrated and controversial political figures in human history. [3] [4]

Napoleon had an extensive and powerful impact on the modern world, bringing liberal reforms to the numerous territories that he conquered and controlled, especially the Low Countries, Switzerland, and large parts of modern Italy and Germany. He implemented fundamental liberal policies in France and throughout Western Europe. [b] His lasting legal achievement, the Napoleonic Code, has been highly influential. Historian Andrew Roberts says, "The ideas that underpin our modern world—meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on—were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon. To them he added a rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, the abolition of feudalism and the greatest codification of laws since the fall of the Roman Empire." [11]

Born Napoleone di Buonaparte on the island of Corsica not long after its annexation by the Kingdom of France, Napoleon's modest family descended from minor Italian nobility. He supported the French Revolution in 1789 while serving in the French army, and tried to spread its ideals to his native Corsica. He rose rapidly in the Army after he saved the governing French Directory by firing on royalist insurgents. In April 1796, he began his first military campaign against the Austrians and their Italian allies, scoring a series of decisive victories and becoming a national hero. Two years later, he led a military expedition to Egypt that served as a springboard to political power.

He engineered a coup in November 1799 and became First Consul of the Republic. Intractable differences with the British meant that the French were facing the War of the Third Coalition by 1805. Napoleon shattered this coalition with decisive victories in the Ulm Campaign, and a historic triumph at the Battle of Austerlitz, which led to the elimination of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1806, the Fourth Coalition took up arms against him because Prussia became worried about growing French influence on the continent. Napoleon quickly knocked out Prussia at the battles of Jena and Auerstedt, then marched the Grand Army deep into Eastern Europe, annihilating the Russians in June 1807 at Friedland, and forcing the defeated nations of the Fourth Coalition to accept the Treaties of Tilsit. Two years later, the Austrians challenged the French again during the War of the Fifth Coalition, but Napoleon solidified his grip over Europe after triumphing at the Battle of Wagram.

Hoping to extend the Continental System (embargo of Britain), Napoleon invaded Iberia and declared his brother Joseph the King of Spain in 1808. The Spanish and the Portuguese revolted with British support. The Peninsular War lasted six years, featured brutal guerrilla warfare, and culminated in a defeat for Napoleon's marshals. Napoleon launched an invasion of Russia in the summer of 1812. The resulting campaign witnessed the catastrophic retreat of Napoleon's Grand Army and encouraged his enemies. In 1813, Prussia and Austria joined Russian forces in a Sixth Coalition against France. A chaotic military campaign culminated in a large coalition army defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig in October 1813. The coalition invaded France and captured Paris, forcing Napoleon to abdicate in April 1814. Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba, between Corsica and Italy. In France, the Bourbons were restored to power. However, Napoleon escaped from Elba in February 1815 and took control of France, "without spilling a drop of blood" as he wished [12] [13] . The Allies responded by forming a Seventh Coalition, which ultimately defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815. The British exiled him to the remote island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic, where he died in 1821 at the age of 51.

March 22, 1765: Stamp Act

Like the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act was imposed to provide increased revenues to meet the costs of defending the enlarged British Empire. It was the first British parliamentary attempt to raise revenue through direct taxation on a wide variety of colonial transactions, including legal writs, newspaper advertisements, and ships’ bills of lading. Enraged colonists nullified the Stamp Act through outright refusal to use the stamps as well as by riots, stamp burning, and intimidation of colonial stamp distributors.

War of 1812 Discharge Certificates

NARA microfilm publication M1856, Discharge Certificates and Miscellaneous Records Relating to the Discharge of Soldiers from the Regular Army, 1792-1815 (6 rolls) reproduces discharge certificates and miscellaneous other records relating to the discharge of soldiers from the Regular Army, 1792-1815. These records are part of the Records of the Adjutant General's Office, 1780's-1917, Record Group (RG) 94, and are part of the records identified as Series 19, "Post Revolutionary War Papers, 1784-1815," in Lucille H. Pendell and Elizabeth Bethel, comps., Preliminary Inventory 17, Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Adjutant General's Office (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Service, 1949).

Roll List
Roll 1 Miscellaneous Folders
Infantry: Legion of the United States
Infantry: Sublegions
Infantry: 1st - 12th
Roll 2 Infantry: 13th - 24th
Roll 3 Infantry: 25th - 38th
Roll 4 Infantry: 39th - 40th
Roll 5 Infantry: 42nd - 45th
Riflemen: 1st - 3rd
Roll 6 Riflemen: 4th
Miscellaneous Units
Unit not Indicated

All 13 of NARA's Regional Archives Microfilm Reading Rooms have M1856. For details search Microfilm ID "M1856" in the Microfilm Catalog. M1856 is available for sale. Cost is $85 per roll to U.S. addresses ($95 to foreign addresses). See How to Order Microfilm for ordering procedure.

The War Department was established by the act of Congress of August 7, 1789 (1 Stat. 49). During the early years of the republic, the Regular Army was a relatively small fighting force supplemented by regiments of volunteers or state militia units during Indian wars, the Whiskey Rebellion, and other conflicts. At the declaration of war with Great Britain on June 18, 1812, the Regular Army consisted of about 10,000 men, half of whom were new recruits. An act of June 26, 1812 (2 Stat. 764) mandated that the Regular Army was to consist of 25 regiments of infantry, 4 of artillery, 2 of dragoons, 1 of riflemen, plus engineers and artificers, for a total authorized strength of 36,700 men. An act of January 29, 1813 (2 Stat. 794-797), authorized enlargement of the army to 52 regiments of cavalry, artillery, dragoons, and infantry. In addition to these troops, volunteer regiments and state militia also took part in the conflict.

Each Regular Army infantry regiment was recruited from a particular state (or states). Rifle, artillery, and dragoons were recruited at large. For example, the 12th, 20th, and 35th infantry regiments were recruited from Virginia. Most, but not all, of the men recruited for a particular infantry regiment were from the state of recruitment. For a list showing the regimental recruiting districts, see William A. Gordon, A Compilation of the Registers of the Army of the United States from 1815 to 1837, 1 (Washington, DC: James C. Dunn, 1837), reproduced on the microfilm following this introductory material.

The enlistment and system of payment of troops is described by Donald R. Hickey thusly:

By law army pay could not be more than two months in arrears "unless the circumstances of the case should render it unavoidable." But even in the first year of the war, when the government had ample resources, administrative inefficiency and slow communication kept many troops from receiving their pay on time. In October, 1812, men who had enlisted five months earlier "absolutely refused to march untill they had recd. their pay," and other troops also mutinied for want of pay. As the war progressed, the problem of paying the troops became almost unmanageable. By the fall of 1814, army pay was frequently six to twelve months in arrears, and in some cases even more.

In the 19th century, soldiers discharged from the Regular or Volunteer armies received a discharge certificate that became their personal property the War Department generally did not retain a copy for its own records. If the soldier was owed pay upon his discharge, the soldier presented the discharge to the paymaster in order to collect the pay. Numbers upon the face of some discharge certificates (adding and subtracting dollar amounts) suggests that these discharge certificates were used in connection with the payment of back pay.

Records Description

These records relate solely to the discharge of soldiers from the regular army no militiamen or volunteers are included, although several civilians are mentioned. Most of the over 2,200 discharges are for the period 1812-15, although a few date from the 1790s. The records are of several types:

Record Type 1: Certificate of Discharge

The Certificate of Discharge unambiguously states that the soldier was discharged from service on a particular day and may indicate the reason for discharge. It also typically includes the dates of the soldier's enlistment and discharge, the company and regiment in which he served, the amount and kinds of clothing provided to him, and the period for which he was due pay upon discharge. The discharge may also provide his place of birth, age, physical description, and occupation, so that the discharge could not be used for improper purposes in the event it was lost or stolen from the veteran. For example, the discharge of John Buntin (Capt. Samuel G. Hopkins's Troop, 2nd Light Dragoons) indicates the reason for detailing his physical description as follows: "To prevent imposition or an improper use being made of this discharge . . . be it known that the sd. John Buntin is of the following description . . ." The discharge of Gabriel Caves (Capt. John B. Long's Co., 39th Infantry) states, "and to prevent fraud hear [sic] follows His personall [sic] description. . . ." As an example of the complete text of a discharge certificate, here is that for Samuel Dawson, a private in Capt. Samuel G. Hopkins's Troop, 2nd Light Dragoons, which states:

Record Type 2: Descriptive List

The Descriptive List provides a description of the man and may indicate the clothing and other supplies furnished him. Some are in chart form while others are in narrative form. Both types sometimes indicate the information was taken from the company's record book. The Descriptive List of William T. Smith (Capt. John Machnesney's Co., 16th Infantry), which is in chart form, indicates his age physical description (height, color of eyes and hair, and complexion) place of birth date, place, and term of enlistment and the name of the officer who enlisted him occupation amount of bounty paid and amount due amount of pay due and the number and type of each item of clothing issued to him. Finally, the officer's certification indicates the information was "taken from the Company Book."

Record Type 3: Certificate of Death

The Certificate of Death usually indicates the soldier's date of death and unit in which he served. For example, the certificate of death for Henry Carman (2nd Artillery) states:

The Pay Voucher usually indicates the amount of pay due and/or the period of time for which pay was due. For example, a pay voucher for Henry Carman (2nd Artillery) states:

Other records may be found with, or instead of, one of the four records listed above. Examples of such "other records" include (1) a simple note written by the commanding officer recommending that the soldier be discharged (2) a furlough (e.g., George Shippey, Light Dragoons) (3) an affidavit by the father indicating the son did not have permission to enlist (e.g., William B. Marvin, Capt. John N. McIntosh's Co., Light Artillery) (4) a record of enlistment or procurement of substitute (e.g., John Miller, 1st Light Dragoons, or Hugh S. West, Capt. William Gates's Co., 1st Artillery), or (5) a record of birth or marriage of a man who died (Henry Carman, 2nd Artillery). The records relating to William Briggs (Capt. Abraham F. Hull's Co., 9th Infantry) include an affidavit from his father, Thomas Briggs, who served in the same company and regiment, regarding William's date and place of birth.

The "year" listed in Appendix III is the year of discharge indicated on the discharge certificate. For a small minority of soldiers, however, if there was no discharge certificate, then "year" is the year of death, furlough, date to which last paid, or the latest year indicated on the available records for that man.

In Appendix III, if a regiment but no company is listed, it means that the soldier's discharge records will be found in the folder for "__ Regiment, Company not Indicated."

Notes on the Men who Served

Military Age

Most of the men serving were of the usual military age (20s-30s), but a few were outside that range, such as Drury Hudson, who was 60, and Solomon Stanton, who was 54.

African Americans

African Americans also served in the Regular Army, primarily in the 26th Infantry. The notation "(B)" appears following their names in Appendix III for those whose physical description indicates black or mulatto skin color. Persons whose skin was described simply as "dark" are not indicated as "black" since they were probably "dark" caucasians. "Blacks" and "mulattos" noted during records arrangement are:

Note on Records Arrangement

In arranging the records and preparing the lists of men in each unit, two principles were followed:

Principle No. 1. The records were arranged by regiment, then by company, with the exception of the miscellaneous records reproduced at the beginning of roll 1. If the discharge or other record unambiguously stated that John Doe served in Richard Roe's company, then John Doe's record was placed in a folder with other men discharged from Richard Roe's company. If, however, the discharge simply stated that John Doe served in a given regiment, but did not specifically and unambiguously indicate the company in which he served, then John Doe's record was placed in a folder for "__ Regiment, Company not Indicated." In reading these records, we found that the words "John Doe was enlisted by Capt. Smith . " did not necessarily mean that John Doe served in Capt. Smith's company more likely than not, he served in and was discharged from some other company. In addition, we found that John Doe's discharge was frequently signed by a company commander other than his own.

Principle No. 2. During and at the end of the War of 1812, changes were made to the organization and designation of the various infantry, artillery, dragoon, and riflemen regiments. For details, see Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army from its Organization, September 29, 1789 to March 2, 1903 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1903), and William A. Gordon, A Compilation of the Registers of the Army of the United States from 1815 to 1837 (Washington, DC: James C. Dunn, 1837). Selected pages from both books are reproduced on the microfilm following this introductory material. These pages trace the changing designations of the regiments for which records are found in this microfilm publication. Variations in the name of the regiment to which the company was assigned are sometimes noted in Appendix IV, List of Soldiers by Unit. Researchers studying individual soldiers should (1) carefully note the text of the discharge for the soldier to determine the exact regiment in which he was serving upon discharge and (2) consult Heitman for details on the individual's regiment's designations through time. Researchers studying an entire artillery, dragoon, or riflemen company or regiment should probably study all artillery, dragoon, or riflemen discharges, as the case may be, as well as understanding the chronology provided in Heitman.

Note on Condition of Records

There is great variation in the quality and condition of the original records reproduced in this microfilm publication. Some of them were written with ink that has greatly faded with time they are hard, sometimes nearly impossible, to read. Some were written on highly acidic paper that has turned "dark" with the passage of time. Most were "trifolded" for filing purposes some of the folds turned brittle and broke, and words at broken folds may be hard to read.

We have provided transcripts [on the microfilm] for some of the hardest-to-read records. In particular, the records of the 39th Infantry were almost uniformly written with ink that has faded on paper that has darkened. A transcript has been provided for each of the records of that regiment.

Notes on Locating Men in the "Miscellaneous" Folders

Some men have a record in both the "Company" folder and in a "Miscellaneous" folder. Other men only have a record in a "Miscellaneous" folder. The appendices direct the researcher to the "Miscellaneous" folders in following ways:

    Appendix I, List of Units and Subunits, makes references such as "Men at Fort Mifflin and Province Island Barracks" or "Squadron on Lake Champlain." These references point to lists within "Miscellaneous" folders.

If the researcher is uncertain in which folder(s) to look for records for a particular man, refer to Appendix III, since it gives the most precise references.

Notes on Editorial Conventions Used in Appendixes

Officers' names were standardized according to the spelling used in Heitman, which, as with any publication, may itself contain errors. The spelling used by the officer on the records is, in fact, sometimes different than the spelling given by Heitman. [The one major exception to this rule is that we followed the spelling used by Capt. Joseph Marechal, 14th Infantry--"Marechal" instead of Heitman's "Marshall"--since his signature was clear, consistent, and agreed with other published sources.]

Great effort has been made to make the Appendixes as accurate as possible, but difficulty in interpreting sloppy handwriting has probably resulted in some errors.

Related Records

Since the War Department did not retain copies of discharge certificates, relatively few are found among the records in NARA custody. Thus, thorough research of a soldier, company, or regiment requires inquiry into numerous other records, such as the registers of enlistments, enlistment papers, descriptive rolls, muster rolls, certificates of disability, bounty books, inspection returns, monthly returns, and post returns, all in the Records of the Adjutant General's Office, 1780's-1917, RG 94 records relating to courts-martial in the Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Army), RG 153 company or orderly books in the Records of U.S. Army Commands, 1784-1821, RG 98 and various records in the Records of Accounting Officers of the Department of the Treasury, RG 217.

The registers of enlistments, reproduced as NARA microfilm publication M233, Registers of Enlistments in the U.S. Army, 1798-1914 (81 rolls), deserve special mention. The registers covering the period 1798-1815 include notations of all kinds of information entering the Adjutant General's Office about each soldier. Naturally, the amount of information varies considerably. It usually includes the name of the enlistee, his age, place of birth, physical description, the date he enlisted, the regiment for which he was enlisted, and the name of the person who enlisted him. It also includes the date and place of discharge. It may also include information such as where the soldier's unit was stationed, or that the soldier was included on a prisoner-of-war list, a muster roll, or subject of a courts-martial. If there was an issue relating to a pension, there may be a "see pension file" notation. The clerks entering the information appear to have been meticulous in entering data. For example, if there were discrepancies or conflicting information, such as different dates of enlistment or different places of birth given in different records, both dates or places were given. The 1798-1815 registers also include some notes about state militia officers, regular army officers, and U.S. Military Academy cadets. The registers for the 1798-1815 period are arranged roughly alphabetically by the first letter of the surname, then by first letter of the first name, then by the second letter of the surname, then by the second letter of the first name, and then roughly chronological by date of enlistment. Thus, for example, David Atkins would be found among other persons whose surnames and first names began with At___, Da___.


Numerous publications provide information about the causes and conduct of the War of 1812 and the persons involved. Two excellent histories of the war are Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989), and Robert S. Quimby, The U.S. Army in the War of 1812: An Operational and Command Study, 2 vols. (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997).

Information on the organization of the Regular Army is in Thomas H.S. Hamersly, ed., Complete Regular Army Register of the United States for One Hundred Years, 1779-1879 (Washington, DC: T.H.S. Hamersly, 1880 2nd ed., 1881), and William A. Gordon, A Compilation of the Registers of the Army of the United States from 1815 to 1837 (Washington, DC: James C. Dunn, 1837). In addition, many other books have been published about the Regular Army and/or militia units and personnel from particular states. For example, books on Virginia's contributions to the War of 1812 include Stuart Lee Butler, Virginia Soldiers in the United States Army, 1800-1815 (Athens, GA: Iberian Pub. Co., 1986), and Stuart Lee Butler, A Guide to Virginia Militia Units in the War of 1812 (Athens, GA: Iberian Pub. Co., 1988).

The microfilmed version of this descriptive pamphlet (DP) in Appendixes III and IV accidently listed two men named Sylvester Fuller, but only one should have been shown. Sylvester C. Fuller served in the 25th Infantry, Company not Indicated. There was no man named Sylvester Fuller who served in the 33rd Infantry, Capt. Isaac Hodson's Co. The erroneous entries have been omitted from the published pamphlet and the website publication.


Claire Prechtel-Kluskens wrote this descriptive pamphlet (DP). Cindy L. Norton assisted in compiling the indexes. Norma Clark Gransee, Marie Varrelman Melchiori, and Claire Prechtel-Kluskens arranged the records for filming.

Thanks is due these current or former NARA colleagues for helpful comments on a draft of this DP: Benjamin Guterman, Stuart Lee Butler, John K. VanDereedt, and Jo Ann Williamson. The website publication of the DP differs slightly from the original print and microfilm DP version.

This page was last reviewed on August 15, 2016.
Contact us with questions or comments.

History of Argentina

Assorted References

The following discussion focuses on events in Argentina from the time of European settlement. For events in a regional context, see Latin America, history of. Events that affected northwestern Argentina prior to the 16th century are described in pre-Columbian civilizations: Andean civilization.

This happened in Argentina following an electoral reform of 1912 that made universal male suffrage effective for the first time and paved the way for the Radical Civic Union party, with strong middle-class support, to take power four years later. In Chile a reformist coalition won the election…

…was seldom necessary, and in Argentina change came from outside, in the form of Great Britain’s embarrassing defeat of the Argentine military government’s 1982 attempt to reoccupy the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands that Britain had seized a century and a half before. That fiasco completed the discrediting of the Argentine regime…

, attended by representatives of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United States, and the Soviet Union.

…of the 12 governments (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway

…their ships visited ports in Argentina en route to the Straits of Magellan. The first recorded bout on the mainland occurred in 1903 between combatants identified as Paddy McCarthy and Abelardo Robassio. Thereafter British seamen organized local tournaments, and the first official boxing federation was founded in Chile in 1912.…

…a brutal political regime in Argentina from 1829 to 1852. Seeing his homeland split into partisan factions, Rosas sought to ensure a kind of peace by achieving the ultimate victory of one side. His iron-fisted administration, which made use of propaganda and a secret police force, pursued the interests of…

…and declared the independence of Argentina from Spain on July 9, 1816.

Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom, each of which claims the island, all have operated stations there. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes disturbed the island in 1967 and thereafter.

…from 1976 to 1983 by Argentina’s military dictatorship against suspected left-wing political opponents. It is estimated that between 10,000 and 30,000 citizens were killed many of them were “disappeared”—seized by the authorities and never heard from again.

…took their inspiration from the Argentine flags carried by José de San Martín and his Army of the Andes. Victorious against the Spanish at the Battle of Pichincha on May 24, 1822, General Antonio José de Sucre hoisted the horizontal yellow-blue-red tricolour that Francisco de Miranda had flown in 1806…

Argentina based its claim to the Falklands on papal bulls of 1493 modified by the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), by which Spain and Portugal had divided the New World between themselves on succession from Spain on the islands’ proximity to South America and on the…

…brief undeclared war fought between Argentina and Great Britain in 1982 over control of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and associated island dependencies.

…of South America when the Argentine military ruler, Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri—apparently to distract attention from the abuses of his dictatorship and an ailing economy at home—broke off talks concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and invaded the remote archipelago in April 1982. The British government of Margaret…

… between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982 exhibited the tactical environment of sea-based forces fighting land-based forces in the guided-missile era. In this, the only extended naval campaign after World War II, were observed several modern influences on naval combat. First, submarines were formidable weapons, not only in the…

In Argentina, for example, weaknesses in fiscal policy and three years of recession led to the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product (GDP) increasing from 37.7 percent at the end of 1997 to 62 percent at the end of 2001. Despite the provision of…

Argentine radio, for example, broadcast mostly music and news, with a “top 100 hits” format rating among the most popular. Although formatting was similar to that in stations in the United States, tango and other Latin music was common.

…States were especially popular in Argentina, where a boxing match between the American Jack Dempsey and the Argentine Luis Firpo in September 1923 was an enormously successful early broadcast that spurred sales of radio sets. In addition, dance music from the United States such as the fox-trot, boogie-woogie, and swing…

Argentine radio offered four national networks, three of them privately owned. Brazilian stations, all of them private, were required to carry a daily government program, but half their time on the air was given over to music. While many countries imported receivers, Chile manufactured enough…

Brazil and Argentina, on the other hand, experienced the emergence of unique systems of farming by European immigrants, which brought modern wage systems to important areas of their economies. Indeed, in those countries, immigration of Italians, Spaniards, and other Europeans transformed the ethnic composition and habits of…

…majority of those went to Argentina (more than half) and Brazil (more than one-third). Although many later left, the demographic and sociocultural impact of that influx was tremendous in Argentina, Uruguay, and (to a lesser extent) in southern Brazil. Immigration to other countries was numerically insignificant (although socioculturally meaningful), except…

The Río de La Plata region had been very much on the edges of the Latin American world since the conquest. The first founding of Buenos Aires in the early 16th century had failed, the survivors having taken refuge in the lands of the…

By the time of Le Corbusier’s Buenos Aires lectures in 1929, there was already a group of Argentine architects working in the modern vocabulary. The project for the Sugar City (1924)—a Marxist, perhaps utopian, experiment in the rural Tucumán province—by Alberto Prebisch and Ernesto…

…a three-year trade pact between Argentina and Great Britain, signed in May 1933, that guaranteed Argentina a fixed share in the British meat market and eliminated tariffs on Argentine cereals. In return, Argentina agreed to restrictions with regard to trade and currency exchange, and it preserved Britain’s commercial interests in…

…revolutions against Spanish rule in Argentina (1812), Chile (1818), and Peru (1821).

…single problem in assessing the American Indian art of this region is the unfortunate historical tendency to lump everything together under the heading “Inca,” as though no other culture had ever attained significance. In point of fact, when one undertakes to examine the continent critically, it is evident that the…

…Pampas of central and northern Argentina and western Uruguay. The Ona occupied the islands of Tierra del Fuego. The brush-covered, semi-arid Patagonian plateau was the home of the Tehuelche, while the Puelche and Querandí inhabited the flat grassy Pampas. The Charrúa lived in the grasslands north of the Río de…

… and the allied countries of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.

When Argentina denied his request for transit of a Paraguayan army, he declared war on Argentina as well, in March 1865. In May, as Paraguayan troops were approaching, a puppet Uruguayan government signed the Treaty of the Triple Alliance with Brazil and Argentina, committing all three…

Relations with

…following a costly war with Argentina (1825–28), appointed few mazombos (Brazilian Creoles) to high office, overly preoccupied himself with Portuguese affairs, failed to get along with the legislature, and signed treaties with Great Britain that kept import duties low and exacted a promise to abolish the slave trade. As a…

…to accept the declaration of Argentine independence in 1810 as applying to Paraguay. Nor could an Argentine army under Gen. Manuel Belgrano enforce Paraguayan acceptance, as Paraguayan militia repulsed Belgrano’s forces in 1811. Later, however, when the Spanish governor sought assistance from the Portuguese in defending the colony from further…

…a buffer between Brazil and Argentina the nation’s strategic location also served British interests by guaranteeing that the Río de la Plata would remain an international waterway. On July 18, 1830, when the constitution for the Oriental State of Uruguay was approved, the country had scarcely 74,000 inhabitants.

Timeline of Georgian History & Important Historical Events

Early 1st millennium BCE – The rise of Colchis, region on the East coast of the Black sea. Colchis has been also mentioned in the myth about the Golden Fleece

300 BCE – Iberia (also known as the Kingdom of Kartli) was founded at the eastern part of modern Georgia.

326 CE – Georgia has been converted to Christianity with the help of St. Nino.

End of 5th century CE – The Persian authority in Iberia deposed by King Vakhtang I Gorgasali the region gained independence, however only until the death of Vakhtang I.

8th and 9th centuries CE – Struggle of Iberia and other regions for independence from Arab Caliphate and Byzantine.

1008 – The appearance of the Kingdom of Georgia

1089 – David IV the Builder becomes the king of Georgia.

1122 – Tbilisi has been taken over from Turks invaders and became Georgia’s capital.

1184 – Start of the reign of Queen Tamar this period has been considered as the peak of the golden age of Georgia.

13th – 14th century – Mongol invasions in Georgia.

1460s – Disintegration of the kingdom into several different kingdoms and principalities.

late 15th – 16th century – partitioning the country between Ottoman Empire and Safavid Iran.

1709 – Introduction of the printing press to Georgia by the ruler Vakhtang VI.

1724 – Treaty of Constantinople, which divided territory of Georgia between Russian and Ottoman empires.

1760s – Eastern Georgia has been united politically for the first time in centuries by Heraclius II.

1783 – Treaty of Georgievsk, concluded with Catherine II, which made Georgia a protectorate of Russia, guaranteeing it territorial integrity.

1795 – Invasion of the country by Persian shah, Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, who burnt Tbilisi to the ground.

1801 – Kartli-Kakheti becomes part of the Russian Empire.

1810 – The Kingdom of Imereti is annexed by the Russian Empire as well.

1864 – Serfdom in Georgia has come to an end.

Late 19th century – The national and cultural revival of Georgia.

May 26, 1918 – Georgia proclaims independence, establishing the Democratic Republic of Georgia.

February 1921 – Invasion of the country by the Red Army, proclaiming Georgia as one of the Soviet republics.

August 1924 – National (patriotic) uprising against Soviet authority, which was suppressed by Stalin.

March 1956 – Demonstration against Nikita Khrushchev’s policy of de-Stalinization, which was suppressed by Soviet forces with hundreds of people being killed or injured.

1972 – Eduard Shevardnadze became the leader of Georgian Communist Party which resulted in the improvement of the Georgian economy.

April 9, 1991 – Georgia proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union.

May 26, 1991 – Zviad Gamsakhurdia was elected as the president of the country.

May 29, 1992 – South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia in an unrecognized referendum.

March 1992 – Shevardnadze became the head of the State Council which replaced Gamsakhurdia.

1992 – 1993 – War in Abkhazia between Georgian government forces and Abkhaz separatists forces.

November 1995 – Shevardnadze wins a presidential election in Georgia.

April 2000 – Shevardnadze re-elected as president for a second term.

November 2003 – Peaceful Rose Revolution, led by Mikheil Saakashvili, which led to the resignation of Shevardnadze, who was accused of electoral fraud and corruption.

January 2004 – Saakashvili wins an election for the position of the president.

September 2007 – Saakashvili accused of several misconducts including corruption, which later led to his resignation.

January 2008 – Saakashvili is re-elected for the position of the president.

August 2008 – South Ossetia war military conflict between Russia and Georgia after Georgia’s conflicts with local separatists in South Ossetia.

2008 – 2010 – Diplomatic crisis between Georgia and Russia.

November 2013 – Giorgi Margvelashvili inaugurated as the president of Georgia.

June 2018 – Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili resigns being replaced with Mamuka Bakhtadze.

December 2018 – Salome Zourabichvili becomes the first female president of Georgia, supposedly being the last popularly elected president as a result of constitutional changes that will come into life in 2024.

June 20, 2019 – The beginning of anti-government protests in Georgia.

September 2019 – Mamuka Bakhtadze resigns due to the protests with Giorgi Gakharia being nominated to the post of Prime Minister.

Want to know a bit more about Georgia? Check out our Georgia country facts, guide to whether Georgia is part of Europe or Asia, or our full Georgia travel guide. If you have any questions or know a historical event from Georgia’s past we should have included, leave a comment below. Thanks for reading!

Mariia Kislitsyna

Mariia Kislitsyna is a polyglot and literature fanatic, and she has a bachelor's degree in business administration and management. She loves to write about travel and education stories in the hopes of learning more for herself at the same time. Hailing from Kyiv, Ukraine, she now lives in Warsaw, Poland, where she is working on her master's degree in strategic management.

The Gruesome Story of Hannah Duston, Whose Slaying of Indians Made Her an American Folk “Hero”

On a small island north of Concord, New Hampshire, stands a 25-foot-tall granite statue of Hannah Duston, an English colonist taken captive by Native Americans in 1697, during King William’s War. Erected in 1874, the statue bears close resemblance to contemporary depictions of Columbia, the popular “goddess of liberty” and female allegorical symbol of the nation, except for what she holds in her hands: in one, a tomahawk in the other, a fistful of human scalps.

Though she’s all but forgotten today, Hannah Duston was probably the first American woman to be memorialized in a public monument, and this statue is one of three built in her honor between 1861 and 1879. The mystery of why Americans came to see patriotic “heroism” in Duston’s extreme—even gruesome—violence, and why she became popular more than 100 years after her death, helps explain how the United States sees itself in world conflicts today.

Born in 1657, Hannah Emerson Duston lived in Haverhill, Massachusetts, at a time when disputes among English colonists, the French in Canada, and various Native American nations resulted in a series of wars in the region. King Philip’s War (1675-1676), for example, decimated southern New England Indian nations, which lost between 60 and 80 percent of their population as well as their political independence. Many were sold into slavery. By the late 1680s and the start of King William’s War, fragments of those southern tribes had joined the Abenaki and other northern New England Indian nations allied with the French to fight the continuing expansion of the English colonists to the north and west. Native men conducted raids on frontier English settlements, burning property, killing or injuring some colonists, and taking others captive, either to ransom them back to their families, or to adopt them as replacements for their own lost family members.

Such was the context in which one group, most of whom were likely Abenaki, attacked the town of Haverhill on March 15, 1697—and encountered 40-year-old Hannah Duston at home with her neighbor Mary Neff. The Indians captured the women, along with some of their neighbors, and started on foot toward Canada. Duston had given birth about a week before. The captors are said to have killed her child early in the journey.

The group traveled for about two weeks, and then left Duston and Neff with a Native American family—two men, three women, and seven children—and another English captive, a boy who had been abducted a year and a half earlier from Worcester, Massachusetts. 14-year-old Samuel Leonardson may have been adopted by the family he certainly had their trust. At Duston’s request, he asked one of the men the proper way to kill someone with a tomahawk, and was promptly shown how.

One night when the Indian family was sleeping, Duston, Neff, and Leonardson—who were not guarded or locked up—armed themselves with tomahawks and killed and scalped 10 of the Indians, including six children. They wounded an older woman, who escaped. A small boy managed to run away. Duston and her fellow captives then left in a canoe, taking themselves and the scalps down the Merrimack River to Massachusetts, where they presented them to the General Assembly of Massachusetts and received a reward of 50 pounds.

This statue of Hannah Duston was the second one erected in Haverhill, Massachusetts. In other statues, she holds scalps, but here she points her finger accusingly. (Gregory Rodriguez)

Hannah Duston never wrote down her story. Most of what we know about her comes from the influential Puritan minister Cotton Mather, who published three versions of her tale between 1697 and 1702, embedded in his larger works on New England history. Mather frequently portrayed Indian people as instruments used by the devil to thwart the Puritan mission. He described Duston as a righteous ringleader who had every reason to convince the other captives to act. He stressed the “savagery” of her Indian captors, providing a horrific description of the murder of her child (“they dash’d out the Brains of the Infant, against a Tree.”). We will never know the full truth of Duston’s ordeal—was her baby murdered or did it die?—but Mather’s version of the death highlighted Indian violence to justify Duston’s gruesome vengeance.

Mather asserted that Duston and Neff never meant to kill the small boy who escaped he was “designedly spared” so they could bring him home with them, if he hadn’t run away. At the same time, Mather was apparently unconcerned that six of the “wretches” the captives scalped were children. He compared Duston to the biblical heroine Jael, who saved her people by driving a spike through Sisera’s head while he slept. Cotton Mather understood the wars between New England Puritans and Indians as battles between good and evil and this clearly shaped the way he told Duston’s story. She was a heroine saving her people from “savage” outsiders, fighting a justified war.

After 1702, Americans forgot about Hannah Duston until the 1820s, when there was a half-century-long revival of interest in her story, stoked by the nation’s expansion westward into Indian lands. The nation’s foremost literary figures, including Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry David Thoreau, and John Greenleaf Whittier, all wrote about her. Virtually all histories of the United States from that time contained a version of the story, as did numerous magazines, children’s books, biographies of famous Americans, and guidebooks. A mountain in northern New Hampshire was named “Mt. Dustan” in her honor—and of course, communities erected the three monuments.

It is no coincidence that Americans renewed their interest in the Duston story during this time. From the 1820s, when Georgia began pressing for the forced removal of native people, through the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890, the so-called “Indian problem” was almost always in the news. 19th-century white Americans were well aware of the moral issues that Indian removal raised, and engaged in heated national debates. As an 1829 “Circular: Addressed to Benevolent Ladies of the United States” put it, “The present crisis in the affairs of Indian Nations in the United States, demands the immediate and interested attention of all who make any claims to benevolence or humanity.” The circular described Indians as “free and noble” yet “helpless,” and “prey of the avaricious and the unprincipled” who wanted to steal their land, not caring that Indians would “perish” if removed.

Women, excluded from formal politics at this time, were active in the anti-removal campaign. They justified their involvement in a political issue by framing Indian removal as a moral question. In the 1820s, virtue was central to American national identity, and embodied in women. This is why Columbia became such a popular symbol of the nation—and why some turned to the story of Hannah Duston as ammunition in the debate over Indian removal.

How could a virtuous democratic nation evict Native Americans from their homelands, and wage war against them when they refused to give up those lands? It was possible only if those Indians were “bloodthirsty savages” who attacked innocent white Americans. Because female virtue was linked to the nation’s virtue, what violent act could be more innocent than that of a grief-stricken mother who had just witnessed the murder of her newborn child?

The idea of a feminized, always-innocent America has become the principle by which the United States has structured many interactions with enemy others.

Accordingly, like Cotton Mather’s accounts, 19th-century versions of the Duston story depicted Native Americans as excessively violent. In a popular 1823 history textbook by Charles Goodrich, the Indians who took Duston captive burned “with savage animosity” and “delighted” “in the infliction of torment.” Goodrich claimed that “[w]omen, soon expecting to become mothers, were generally ripped up” by Indian captors and that some captives were even “roasted alive.”

But one problem remained: How could an “innocent” wronged mother murder someone else’s children herself? Tellingly, the fact that the “innocent” Duston killed six children was increasingly erased from accounts of her actions from the 1830s on. She thus became an American heroine.

Efforts to commemorate Duston began in earnest with the acceleration of western expansion in the 1850s. The first monument, built in Haverhill in 1861, was a marble column. On its base was a shield, surrounded by a musket, bow, arrows, tomahawk, and scalping knife. Engravings on its sides told the story of the “barbarous” murder of Duston’s baby and her “remarkable exploit” the column was topped by an eagle, symbol of the American nation. The monument’s builders, however, never fully paid for it, and in August 1865 it was stripped and resold to another town as a Civil War memorial.

The second monument was the 1874 New Hampshire scalp-wielding statue. Located on the island where it was thought Duston had killed the Native American family, it was unveiled on June 17th, the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, making the link between Duston, her violent acts, and American patriotism explicit. Haverhill built the last monument in 1879, as a replacement for the repossessed column. This time around, Duston, in long flowing hair and a gown, held a tomahawk in one hand and pointed the other outward in accusation, both highlighting her violence and suggesting that responsibility for it lay elsewhere. The scalps were gone. At its installation, the philanthropist who donated money for the statue emphasized its patriotism, stating that the purpose of the monument was to remember Duston’s “valor” and to “animate our hearts with noble ideas and patriotic feelings.”

As long as the so-called “Indian problem” continued, Duston remained an important historical figure, her story presented as moral justification for American expansionism onto Indian lands and into Mexico. But by 1890 officials had pronounced the “frontier” closed. The Indian population had reached a historic low, and the U.S. government confined virtually all Natives who remained in the West to reservations the “Indian problem” was over. The nation reassessed its attitudes toward Native Americans, and public interest in Duston’s story plummeted correspondingly. The tale disappeared from textbooks and popular culture.

Still, the powerful dynamic the story helped to establish remains with us today. The idea of a feminized, always-innocent America has become the principle by which the United States has structured many interactions with enemy others. In international wars as on frontiers past, it has portrayed itself as the righteous, innocent, mother-goddess-of-liberty patriotically defending herself against its “savage” enemies.

Record of Pennsylvania marriages prior to 1810. [and,] List of officers of the Colonies on the Delaware and the Province of Pennsylvania, 1614-1776

Marriage record of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, 1702-1745 and 1760-1803 -- Marriage register of the Moravian Church, Bethlehem, 1742-1800 -- Marriage register of the Moravian Church, Nazareth, 1742-1800 -- Marriage register of the Moravian Church, Litiz, 1743-1800 -- Marriage register of the Moravian Church, Philadelphia, 1743-1800 -- Marriage register of the Moravian Church, at Emmaus, 1758-1800 -- Marriage record of the Neshaminy Presbyterian Church, Hartsville, Bucks County, 1785-1804 -- Marriage record of St. James' Episcopal Church, Perkiomen, Montgomery County, 1788-1810 -- Marriage record of the Abington Presbyterian Church, Montgomery County, 1716-1821 -- Marriages authorized by the Philadelphia Monthly Meeting of Friends, 1682-1756 -- Marriages authorized by the Middletown Monthly Meeting of Friends, 1685-1810 -- Marriages authorized by the Falls Monthly Meeting of Friends, 1700-1800 -- Marriages authorized by the Buckingham Monthly Meeting of Friends, 1730-1810 -- Marriages authorized by the Quakertown Monthly Meeting of Friends, 1752-1810 -- Marriages authorized by the Wrightstown Monthly Meeting of Friends, 1744-1809 -- Marriages authorized by the Richland Monthly Meeting of Friends, 1800-1810 -- Marriage record of St. Michael's and Zion Church, Philadelphia, 1745-1800 -- Marriage record of St. Paul's Church, Philadelphia, 1759-1806 -- Marriage record of the Presbyterian Church, Churchville, Bucks County, 1738-1810 -- Marriage record of the Third Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, 1785-1799 -- Marriage record of the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, 1763-1812 --

List of officers of the Colonies on the Delaware and the Province of Pennsylvania, 1614-1776: Officers of the Colonies on the Delaware, 1614-1681 Officers of the Province of Pennsylvania, 1681-1776 Provincial officers of the Three Lower Counties, New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Provincial officers for the Three Original Counties, Chester, Philadelphia, and Bucks, 1682-1776 Provincial officers for the additional colonies, 1729-1776

Marriages recorded by the Registrar General, and also, marriage records of the churches of Philadelphia and vicinity

Addeddate 2011-03-28 12:52:03 Bookplateleaf 0004 Call number 71200908406621 Camera Canon 5D External-identifier urn:oclc:record:1052531695 Foldoutcount 0 Identifier recordofpennsylv00linn Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t6rz03w57 Ocr ABBYY FineReader 8.0 Openlibrary_edition OL24624873M Openlibrary_work OL15700332W Page-progression lr Pages 838 Ppi 400 Scandate 20110328170208 Scanner Scanningcenter indiana Year 1895

History of corsets

Corsets were first widely worn during the 16th century (first attested in Spain in the late 15th century as a upper part of the spread skirts of the incipient farthingale) [1] , and generally remained a feature of fashionable dress until the French Revolution (1789). These corsets were mainly designed to turn the torso into the fashionable cylindrical shape, although they narrowed the waist as well. They had shoulder straps they ended at the waist they flattened the bust, and in so doing, pushed the breasts up. The emphasis of the corset was less on the smallness of the waist than on the contrast between the rigid flatness of the bodice front and the curving tops of the breasts peeking over the top of the corset.

The corset then went into eclipse. Fashion embraced the Empire silhouette: a Graeco-Roman style, with the scanty skirts gathered under the bosom and the waist de-emphasised, and dresses sewn from thin muslins rather than the heavy brocades and satins of aristocratic high fashion.

The reign of the Empire waist was short. In the 1830s, shoulders widened (with puffy gigot sleeves or flounces), skirts widened (layers of stiffened petticoats), and the waist narrowed and migrated towards its "natural" position. By the 1850s, exaggerated shoulders were out of fashion and waistlines were cinched at the natural waist, above a wide skirt. Fashion had achieved what we now tend to remember as the Victorian silhouette.

Before the mid-19th century, the prevailing term in English was "pair of stays ladies stays girls stays" (but "corset in French).

In the 1830s, the artificially inflated shoulders and skirts made the intervening waist look narrow, even with the corset laced only moderately. When the exaggerated shoulders disappeared, the waist itself had to be cinched tightly in order to achieve the same effect. It is in the 1840s and 1850s that tightlacing is first recorded. It was ordinary fashion taken to an extreme. The Victorian and Edwardian corset differed from earlier corsets in numerous ways. The corset no longer ended at the waist, but flared out and ended several inches below the waist. The corset was exaggeratedly curvaceous rather than cylindrical.

Combat of Zalamea, 15 April 1810 - History

The troops in the War of 1812 were basically of two kinds - the regular army, known as regulars, and the militia. The regulars were entirely volunteers. All men belonged to the militia, but not all militias were called into service. Those who were actually enrolled were known as the detached militia they were obtained preferably by volunteers from the total militia or by conscription if not enough volunteered. The militia in the past had been thought of as a body of men only used for home defense, but in the War of 1812 they were not only used at home but were also sent out of the state to aid at other danger points.

U.S. Army Major William S. Hamilton was appointed to the rank of Colonel and placed in charge of recruiting in the state of North Carolina. He considered the War of 1812 to be a golden opportunity for those with "a pure spirit and a sacred impulse." He promised to equip volunteers in "Rifle dress and give you your favorite weapon, and . you will cover youselves with glory." The pay ranged from $8-$12 per month, plus a $124 bounty for enlisting and 160 acres of free land when the war was over. Newspapers across the state printed reports of volunteers on their way to a rendezvous prior to marching off to war.

About seventy (70) active enterprising young men from Fayetteville under Captain Thomas J. Robeson marched through Richmond County in August of 1812 three companies from Salisbury went to Norfolk for duty in April of 1813. That same month, another 140 men left Salisbury for Ft. Moultrie in South Carolina and Ft. Johnston at Southport, NC. Forty men from Haywood County marched to Raleigh in April of 1814, and two months later another forty came from the same area of the state. In Washington, fifty-two (52) men enlisted and marched to Tarboro to report. This group was gallantly escorted from town by three volunteer militia companies. One estimate claims that 1,200 men from North Carolina volunteered for the regular army.

Most North Carolinians were folded into the U.S. Army's 10th Regiment under Colonel James Welborn of Wilkes County, who resigned his commission as a general in the North Carolina Militia in order to join the regulars. Although other North Carolinians served in rifle companies and in the 12th, 13th, 15th, and 43rd Infantry Regiments of the U.S. Army, the majority of North Carlinians were in the 10th Regiment.

In the winter of 1813-1814, this regiment moved to the northward frontier. In January of 1815, Colonel Hamilton was at last released from recruiting duties in North Carolina and stationed in Fredericksburg, Virginia, to winter before going north in the spring. His troops were not needed, however, since the treaty of peace had just been signed.

The detached militia was to consist of 7,000 men, North Carolina's share of the 100,000 men called for by the Federal government at the outset of the war. In 1814, another levy was requested in addition to the original request. The method of filling the quota of detached militia was to call for a muster of the militia of a certain county on a given day and then ask for volunteers to fill up a company, usually around seventy (70) men. If not enough men volunteered, then lots were cast, or every tenth man was taken. Substitutes were permitted if the draftee could find someone willing to go in his place.

Wake County had more volunteers than needed, therefore a draft had to be used to select among them. The same was true for Edgecombe County. In Granville County, however, no one volunteered, so all had to be drafted, and in Orange County this was true of about half the needed number.

The entire detached militia of North Carolina consisted of two brigades composed of four regiments each, plus a regiment of cavalry, five companies of artillery, and six companies of riflemen. The commanding general was Major General Thomas Brown. In 1814, when the second levy was requested, Major General Montfort Stokes was named to the command although he did not take the field. After these men were organized into their brigades they were referred to as "embodied," but following this they returned home to await the call to duty.

There was no regulation uniform for the militia to wear. Governor William Hawkins drew up a design for the field officers' uniform. These officers were to have dark blue coats with buff linings and yellow buttons, very similar to those worn by General George Washington in the Revolutionary War. For winter, they wore white vests and blue pants in the summer the pants were white. Their boots were long, black, and shiny, of the type worn by the Russian General Suwarrow in the campaigns against Napoleon - hence, they were called suwarrow boots. On their hats were black cockades fastened with a golden eagle they wore red sashes around their waists and carried yellow-hilted swords.

Much political jockeying and maneuvering was done by men seeking appointment to high rank in the militia. One general complained that if another one was chosen he would withdraw, because "it would be very disagreeable and improper for us to be together in the same service." Others complained of officers who were reputed to be pro-British during the American Revolution.

The Federal government was very disorganized and slow about equipping the militia and defending North Carolina's coast. The militia at Ft. Johnston in August of 1812 reported for duty without uniforms. They served their entire time without being paid and had to go home without any money when they were released.

President James Madison indeed denied help to the state of North Carolina, saying that "an absolute protection of everyone is not possible." He promised, however, to send some gunboats "as soon as they can be made ready for service." The new Secretary of War, John Armstrong, in July of 1813, wrote to Governor Hawkins authorizing him to put three companies of militia on active coastal patrol. However, Armstrong did not mail the letter for two weeks, by which time the British invaded the Outer Banks at Portsmouth and Okracoke.

The main body of North Carolina troops destined for the Canadian front, the 10th Regiment under Colonel Wellborn, never took part in the fighting because the war came to an end while they were en route. Although not many Tar Heels engaged in military combat, those who did made excellent records of themselves. The total number of North Carolinians killed in combat was eighteen (18).

The following counties of the detached militia were called into service at Norfolk, Virginia by orders in September of 1814 - Bertie, Chatham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gates, Granville, Halifax, Hertford, Johnston, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Orange, Person, Wake, and Warren. Those from Chatham, Orange, and Person were ordered to return to their respective homes before they arrived at Gates Court House, the designated place of rendezvous.

The detached militia from the following counties were called into service at Wilmington by orders issued September 29, 1814 - Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Cumberland, Duplin, New Hanover, Robeson, and Sampson.

The detached militia from the following counties were called into service at New Bern by orders issues September 17, 1814 - Beaufort, Craven, Greene, Jones, Lenoir, Pitt, and Wayne.

The detached militia from the following counties were called to Hillsborough, the designated place of rendezvous, on November 28, 1814, where they were organized and from thence marched to Norfolk, Virginia, in the service of the United States, agreeable to a requisition made by the President to the Governor of the State - Chatham, Caswell, Guilford, Orange, Person, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Wilkes. The officers of this regiment were - Richard Atkerson, of Person County, as Lt. Colonel Commandant Samuel Hunter, of Guilford County, as Lt. Colonel James Campbell, of Rockingham County, as Major Joseph Winston, Jr., of Stokes County, as Major.

A requisition was made by Major General Thomas Pinckney for one Regiment to march to the defense of the Southern Frontier of the Sixth Military District of the United States. In consequence of which, orders were issued from this office, calling forth the detached militia from the following counties - Anson, Cabarrus, Moore, and Richmond, to rendezvous at Wadesboro, in Anson County, on February 24, 1815. Also to - Ashe, Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, and Rutherford counties - to rendezvous at Wadesboro, in Anson County, on March 1, 1815. The officers of this regiment were - Andrew Irwin, as Lt. Colonel Commandant John McGimpsey, of Burke County, as Lt. Colonel Jesse Allen, of Wilkes County, as Major and, Thomas Lenoir, of Haywood County, as Major.

The following lists of names come from "Soldiers of the War of 1812 - North Carolina," published in pursuance of the resolutions of the General Assembly of January 21, 1851, under the direction of the Adjutant General. Printed in Raleigh by CH. C. Raboteau at the Times Office - 1851.

Access Restrictions

Copyright Notice

Contents of this collection are governed by U.S. copyright law. For questions about publication or reproduction rights, contact Special Collections staff.

Preferred Citation

[Identification of item], [Box number], Historical New Hampshire Newspapers, 1756-1945, MC 2, Milne Special Collections and Archives, University of New Hampshire Library, Durham, NH, USA.

Acquisitions Information

  • Purchases: various sources, October 1983 - December 1996 (Accession numbers: 8317, 8628, 8678, 96.030)
  • Donations: various sources, March 1979 - February 1991 (Accession numbers: 019, 7966, 8178, 8365, 8380, 8473, 8574, 941)

Watch the video: интро 2