"Gentlemen, have a care..." Topic

Is this generally true?

link

Sorry, I don't do FaceBook

Nor do I.

I don't either. And I don't 'tweet.'

Well, dear me. What a faux pas.

The gist of the post from a re-enactor group was that soldiers in the Continental army were addressed as "Gentlemen"- an indication of the egalitarian respect for the individual that lay at the heart of the revolution. Something o'that.

"Gentlemen-… handle your firelocks!" etc

Better than "comrade"

Nor I. Thanks for the extract.

I am not sure about this. Like many things which David H. Fischer says I would go his footnotes and check out where he got the information from. He does turn up a great number of things, and often has very interesting interpretation of things. But sometimes he just throws a guess in without and sources or documentation. An prime example of this is his story of It. Adair on Lexington green.

BTW while I am not on Facebook the quotation was right there to read.

I have read the passage, but I've never read anything to support it. Personally, I don't believe it for a number of reasons.

Will set me straight about Lt Adair a few months ago.

The transformation of "gentleman" from someone of gentle birth to, well, any adult male, happened. I would wager that it happened first and most in America, rather than in Europe or Britain. So the story strikes me as something that COULD be true.

Similar to "Citizen" in the French Revolution.

link

Britannica says it meant a man entitled to bear arms who was not a nobleman. So it seems the American officer, if he said what Fischer quotes, was correct in addressing his men that way.

Since it was held that a gentleman bore arms, it followed that anyone who bore arms was a gentleman, and in the fluid social conditions of the 16th and 17th centuries many acquired the right to bear arms who were ignobiles. Hence the term nobleman came to be reserved for members of the peerage, while anyone who could afford, as William Harrison put it in Description of England (1577), to "live without manual labour, and thereto is able and will bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman," could "for money have a coat and arms bestowed upon him by heralds…and [be] reputed for a gentleman ever after."

If the upheavals in Britain during the 16th and 17th centuries produced such changes, still more would have been felt in the colonies.

It would seem that "gentleman" so defined would have applied most directly to the militia, REQUIRED by law to own a firearm, subject to fines for not proving such at monthly musters. In Virginia, at least, an otherwise eligible man who could prove indigence would have a musket furnished by the county, paid for from fines, and would then have to prove at muster that he still had it and was maintaining it and had not sold it for booze.

So, no evidence as yet.

If at all true. I suspectit would have been a courtesy rather than a social category- which makes me wonder if the suggestion is something of an anachronism.

"Gentle" derives from the Latin 'gens' and meant of recognised descent, or as we might say, 'of good family.' The association with good social training and courtesy – 'appropriate to the Court' or otherwise, came much later.

The 'right to bear arms' doesn't refer to weapons.

link

Coat of arms, the principal part of a system of hereditary symbols dating back to early medieval Europe, used primarily to establish identity in battle. Arms evolved to denote family descent, adoption, alliance, property ownership, and, eventually, profession.

42, what do you understand "arms" to mean in this sentence from Britannia? I understand that eventually heraldry expanded from its original battlefield purpose, but were there people riding around displaying heraldry that they just made up? Seems more likely to mean weapons.

Since it was held that a gentleman bore arms, it followed that anyone who bore arms was a gentleman, and in the fluid social conditions of the 16th and 17th centuries many acquired the right to bear arms who were ignobiles.

And it is worth reminding all that I, and anyone holding a military commission under the United States, am a gentleman by act of Congress. Which is to say, the social status stems from the military rank.

docmcb, as indicatedin your earlier post above, the reference to 'bearing arms' relates to the heraldic emblems commonly referred to as a 'coat of arms,' That term derives from the various forms of fabric covering worn over body armour in the high Middle Ages which together with the shield and helmet, served as a 'field' for the personal and family emblems adopted by men-at-arms, and became a mark of social status.

'Arms' in this case therefore to refers to armour and its decorated covering rather than to weapons.

'were there people riding around displaying heraldry that they just made up?'

Well, as far ss choosing the emblems, essentially, yes- but within the bounds of increasingly sophisticated rules and social limits, administered, supervised and catalogued by royally appointed officials, the heralds.

Interesting, but I think the connection between weapons use and status was quite powerful in essence, though no doubt fraying around the edges as customs often do. As Machiavelli advised the Prince, between an armed and an unarmed man there can be no equality. And conversely, and Machiavelli knew this too, with his emphasis on armed colonists and on militia, between different groups of armed men there MUST be some degree of equality, or at least of respect. Or as Heinlein observed, "an armed society is a polite society." Gentlemen.

Congress does not appointment or make gentlemen. It commissions officers, who are already presumed to be gentlemen (or ladies). The word "gentleman" is not mentioned anywhere in the oath or on the commission itself.

I find it impossible to believe that the Continental Army expected its officers to refer to a 17 year old shoeless hayseed as a gentleman.

It is in UCMJ article 133.

link

We were always told, in ROTC, that we were "gentlemen by act of Congress." I never bothered to check that.

"Gentlemen" can also be said sarcastically.

"The gist of the post from a re-enactor group was that soldiers in the Continental army were addressed as "Gentlemen"- "

As the OFM said above, but there could be other names, depending on the mood of the sergeant… ;-)

And it is worth reminding all that I, and anyone holding a military commission under the United States, am a gentleman by act of Congress. Which is to say, the social status stems from the military rank.

An 'officer and a gentleman' by an act of Congress…

"Interesting, but I think the connection between weapons use and status was quite powerful in essence"

@docmcb, i'd say that's a different issue, the distinction being between 'armed' and 'bearing arms.'

True, 'man-at-arms' indicated a individual with the minimum equipment to provide service as an armoured cavalrymen (horse, armour, sword, and lance) and that came to imply a minimum social status because of the means required to provide that equipment. However non-noble men such as sergeants also served in that function (not to mention the mercenaries of the free companies), and farther down the scale, for instance, with a different role in battlewe have the freeman archers who served as contractors and were also armed, etc., etc.

Only gradually did the right to go armed become the preserve of a 'gentleman' (but also various public servants), in the same way that 'Bearing arms' proclaimed the lineage and/or the means to identify oneself as a 'gentleman,' long after the practical value of wearing a personal badge on the battlefield no longer applied.

I am familiar with the Article. Again, the UCMJ does not make people gentlemen, it reinforces the expectation that officers behave as gentlemen.

Back on topic, I think it is possible (likely?) that the quote listed by the OP is political theater designed to convince readers of the nobility of the war.

Has anyone here read anything to substantiate the post in any first hand accounts or diaries? I have not.

Correct, the UCMJ has nothing to do with becoming an officer and a gentleman, merely having a punitive article that an officer can be punished by not acting like one.

I think we need to be careful. Attitudes about class distinctions varied between the different colonies. The composition of the army changed not only depending on where units were raised but also on when they were raised.

I know of a couple of individuals who were refused commissions due to "Ungentlemanly Conduct", They had police records.

I don't think that is a reenactor unit. I've never heard of them and there's not a single photo of any reenactors or events.

Washington was extremely class conscious.

Your surmise is correct hg. It is a regimental history blog-type-thing

8thvirginia.com
The history of Virginia's frontier regiment in the Revolutionary War