info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Revisiting -- Ship's Crew, 1748 - Full Muster Roll
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Dexter Kenfield
May 8, 2012, 3:38:53 PM5/8/12
to
I now have the full muster roll of the ship MASSACHUSETTS, Moses Bennet,
captain, dated at Boston 18 September 1748. A scan is at:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/ShipMassachusettsMuster1748.pdf
Very interesting, in view of previous suggestions that "F.M." might mean
foretopman or a variant thereof, first mate, or landsman.
There are 125 crewmen listed, including a few shown as servants in
addition to their shipboard positions. I see (modernizing the spellings):
Captain, Master, First Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant, Doctor, Chaplain,
Pilot, Gunner, Coxswain, Boatswain, Steward, Carpenter, Armorer, Cooper,
Mate, Cook, Doctor's Mate, Carpenter's Mate, Gunner's Mate, 2
Quartermasters, 3 Bosun's Mates, 4 Midshipmen.......
and no less than 97 F.M. Corrections appreciated if I've mis-counted.
So much for the First Mate suggestion. No way.
So much for the Landsman suggestion (which came from a military expert
at the National Archives in London) - the term was used at the time, but
that can't be it here. No way a warship would be manned almost entirely
by inexperienced crew.
One usage of "foretopman" suggests it is tied to a specific watch. Not
here -- all of the seamen have that title or "quality." A watch should
only have a portion of the crew.
If it means "foretopman" at all, it could only be in the sense of being
synonymous with "able seaman." But an entire crew of them???
If that's it, it would suggest to me one of two things: either (a) it
proves beyond doubt how easy it was to man a ship in 18th-Century New
England with qualified sailors, or (b) this was perhaps the most
over-qualified crew in the history of the navy. Not an ordinary seaman
to be found.
A couple of other interesting observations. Most of the servants were
servants of other crew members -- but not all. Two were servants of
Edward Tyng, a former captain of the MASSACHUSETTS. One was a servant of
William Phips, perhaps a descendant of a 17th-Century Massachusetts
governor.
There was one person whose single name I could not read - "a Negro,"
near the bottom of page 1 -- who was a servant of M. Deering, not in the
crew as far as I could see, and there were three Indians, none of them a
servant. All of the F.M.s were paid the same amount, whether servants or
not.
Any further thoughts out there on "F.M."?
Dexter
captain, dated at Boston 18 September 1748. A scan is at:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/ShipMassachusettsMuster1748.pdf
Very interesting, in view of previous suggestions that "F.M." might mean
foretopman or a variant thereof, first mate, or landsman.
There are 125 crewmen listed, including a few shown as servants in
addition to their shipboard positions. I see (modernizing the spellings):
Captain, Master, First Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant, Doctor, Chaplain,
Pilot, Gunner, Coxswain, Boatswain, Steward, Carpenter, Armorer, Cooper,
Mate, Cook, Doctor's Mate, Carpenter's Mate, Gunner's Mate, 2
Quartermasters, 3 Bosun's Mates, 4 Midshipmen.......
and no less than 97 F.M. Corrections appreciated if I've mis-counted.
So much for the First Mate suggestion. No way.
So much for the Landsman suggestion (which came from a military expert
at the National Archives in London) - the term was used at the time, but
that can't be it here. No way a warship would be manned almost entirely
by inexperienced crew.
One usage of "foretopman" suggests it is tied to a specific watch. Not
here -- all of the seamen have that title or "quality." A watch should
only have a portion of the crew.
If it means "foretopman" at all, it could only be in the sense of being
synonymous with "able seaman." But an entire crew of them???
If that's it, it would suggest to me one of two things: either (a) it
proves beyond doubt how easy it was to man a ship in 18th-Century New
England with qualified sailors, or (b) this was perhaps the most
over-qualified crew in the history of the navy. Not an ordinary seaman
to be found.
A couple of other interesting observations. Most of the servants were
servants of other crew members -- but not all. Two were servants of
Edward Tyng, a former captain of the MASSACHUSETTS. One was a servant of
William Phips, perhaps a descendant of a 17th-Century Massachusetts
governor.
There was one person whose single name I could not read - "a Negro,"
near the bottom of page 1 -- who was a servant of M. Deering, not in the
crew as far as I could see, and there were three Indians, none of them a
servant. All of the F.M.s were paid the same amount, whether servants or
not.
Any further thoughts out there on "F.M."?
Dexter
Bob Melson
May 8, 2012, 3:57:24 PM5/8/12
to
On Tuesday 08 May 2012 13:38, Dexter Kenfield (dken...@mindspring.com)
opined:
Given the last paragraph, listing "a Negro", the only thing I can think of
is "Free Man". While that's definitely not a naval rating, it might be
used to indicate an individual's, ummmm, social status. Still, that's a
stretch and I propose it as a possibility only in the absence of anything
better.
Since this is a naval vessel, even if colonial, you'd expect the "ratings"
in the 4th para, which clearly include both the skilled positions (Master,
Quartermaster, Bosun's Mates, etc.) and the leadership (Captain, First
Lieutenant and the rest). From what I've read, the Royal Navy had not yet
begun rating crewmen as landsmen, ordinary and able seamen - that was to
come somewhat later - and I'd imagine a colonial naval force would follow
the same pattern. That said, however, I have nothing to suggest beyond my
comment above.
Seaworthy Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated
in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine
opined:
is "Free Man". While that's definitely not a naval rating, it might be
used to indicate an individual's, ummmm, social status. Still, that's a
stretch and I propose it as a possibility only in the absence of anything
better.
Since this is a naval vessel, even if colonial, you'd expect the "ratings"
in the 4th para, which clearly include both the skilled positions (Master,
Quartermaster, Bosun's Mates, etc.) and the leadership (Captain, First
Lieutenant and the rest). From what I've read, the Royal Navy had not yet
begun rating crewmen as landsmen, ordinary and able seamen - that was to
come somewhat later - and I'd imagine a colonial naval force would follow
the same pattern. That said, however, I have nothing to suggest beyond my
comment above.
Seaworthy Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated
in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine
Dexter Kenfield
May 8, 2012, 4:08:59 PM5/8/12
to
Your suggestion of "Free Man" is intriguing. But it doesn't work here.
The reference to "a Negro" is a parenthetical in the Name column (as are
the "Indian" references), and he is a F.M. like everyone else.
I'm wondering if indeed the ship might have been manned entirely by
experienced seamen, hence foretopmen. That does seem very odd, but after
all, this is New England we're talking about. No press gangs needed there.
Or else there is some other meaning that no one has come up with so far.
Dexter
The reference to "a Negro" is a parenthetical in the Name column (as are
the "Indian" references), and he is a F.M. like everyone else.
I'm wondering if indeed the ship might have been manned entirely by
experienced seamen, hence foretopmen. That does seem very odd, but after
all, this is New England we're talking about. No press gangs needed there.
Or else there is some other meaning that no one has come up with so far.
Dexter
Bob Melson
May 8, 2012, 5:18:41 PM5/8/12
to
On Tuesday 08 May 2012 14:08, Dexter Kenfield (dken...@mindspring.com)
opined:
> Your suggestion of "Free Man" is intriguing. But it doesn't work here.
> The reference to "a Negro" is a parenthetical in the Name column (as are
> the "Indian" references), and he is a F.M. like everyone else.
>
> I'm wondering if indeed the ship might have been manned entirely by
> experienced seamen, hence foretopmen. That does seem very odd, but after
> all, this is New England we're talking about. No press gangs needed
> there.
>
> Or else there is some other meaning that no one has come up with so far.
I suspect this is the case. It's either something blindingly obvious or so
obscure only those intrigued by minutiae would "get it". As for me, I'm
out of ideas. Sorry.
Seasick Ol' Bob
opined:
> Your suggestion of "Free Man" is intriguing. But it doesn't work here.
> The reference to "a Negro" is a parenthetical in the Name column (as are
> the "Indian" references), and he is a F.M. like everyone else.
>
> I'm wondering if indeed the ship might have been manned entirely by
> experienced seamen, hence foretopmen. That does seem very odd, but after
> all, this is New England we're talking about. No press gangs needed
> there.
>
> Or else there is some other meaning that no one has come up with so far.
obscure only those intrigued by minutiae would "get it". As for me, I'm
out of ideas. Sorry.
Seasick Ol' Bob
Keith Nuttle
May 8, 2012, 5:19:54 PM5/8/12
to
basically three groups of people in the US at that time. Free Men,
Indentured secants, and slaves. A similar concept to that if France
after the their Revolution they called Citizen. Therefore FM would be
any one not indentured or held in slavery. There Free Blacks living in
New England at that time.
The title of the column 4, is not servants but "Names of Fathers and
Mather (Mothers?) if sons under age, and servants". Based on the same
last names, some appear to be mothers and some fathers. I would assume
that an indentured servant could be lent for use on a warship
considering the fact that money could be made by the crew when ships
were captured. I would assume that the father could be the guardian or
the person legally responsible for the person under age.
In the end Free Men makes sense for FM
Anne Chambers
May 8, 2012, 5:50:39 PM5/8/12
to
Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> Trying to look at F.M. in the context of the time, I believe there were basically three groups of people in
> the US at that time. Free Men, Indentured secants, and slaves. A similar concept to that if France after the
> their Revolution they called Citizen. Therefore FM would be any one not indentured or held in slavery. There
> Free Blacks living in New England at that time.
>
> The title of the column 4, is not servants but "Names of Fathers and Mather (Mothers?) if sons under age, and
> servants". Based on the same last names, some appear to be mothers and some fathers. I would assume that an
> indentured servant could be lent for use on a warship considering the fact that money could be made by the
> crew when ships were captured. I would assume that the father could be the guardian or the person legally
> responsible for the person under age.
>
> In the end Free Men makes sense for FM
It's 'Fathers and Masters of Sons under Age and Servants'
>
> Trying to look at F.M. in the context of the time, I believe there were basically three groups of people in
> the US at that time. Free Men, Indentured secants, and slaves. A similar concept to that if France after the
> their Revolution they called Citizen. Therefore FM would be any one not indentured or held in slavery. There
> Free Blacks living in New England at that time.
>
> The title of the column 4, is not servants but "Names of Fathers and Mather (Mothers?) if sons under age, and
> servants". Based on the same last names, some appear to be mothers and some fathers. I would assume that an
> indentured servant could be lent for use on a warship considering the fact that money could be made by the
> crew when ships were captured. I would assume that the father could be the guardian or the person legally
> responsible for the person under age.
>
> In the end Free Men makes sense for FM
--
Anne Chambers
South Australia
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com
Anne Chambers
May 8, 2012, 5:55:30 PM5/8/12
to
Dexter Kenfield wrote:
>
> Any further thoughts out there on "F.M."?
>
> Dexter
It must be some form of colonial description of what the Royal Navy called 'private men' (see my much earlier
>
> Any further thoughts out there on "F.M."?
>
> Dexter
post quoting NRM Rodgers) i.e. those of the crew below the rank of petty officer.
Dexter Kenfield
May 8, 2012, 6:12:49 PM5/8/12
to
I had indeed missed the fact that two of those listed in that column
have the same surname as the crewman -- Jenners on page 1 and Howells on
page two -- so those could be father/son. Doesn't work for the rest, though.
Dexter
have the same surname as the crewman -- Jenners on page 1 and Howells on
page two -- so those could be father/son. Doesn't work for the rest, though.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
May 8, 2012, 6:12:55 PM5/8/12
to
This is the most promising idea so far, I think. I'm familiar with the
term "private men" from infantry ("foot") units -- also "private
sentinels" or simply "privates." All show up on muster rolls I have,
dating back to before 1700.
But this is the first time I've encountered anything like it on ships.
Even there, hard to fully understand what words it could stand for.
Free man is perhaps possible, but I think unlikely.
I do suspect it may be some local New England usage. Calls for more
research in local sources. Too bad I live 2,500 miles away.
Dexter
term "private men" from infantry ("foot") units -- also "private
sentinels" or simply "privates." All show up on muster rolls I have,
dating back to before 1700.
But this is the first time I've encountered anything like it on ships.
Even there, hard to fully understand what words it could stand for.
Free man is perhaps possible, but I think unlikely.
I do suspect it may be some local New England usage. Calls for more
research in local sources. Too bad I live 2,500 miles away.
Dexter
Anne Chambers
May 8, 2012, 6:33:22 PM5/8/12
to
Dexter Kenfield wrote:
> I had indeed missed the fact that two of those listed in that column have the same surname as the crewman --
> Jenners on page 1 and Howells on page two -- so those could be father/son. Doesn't work for the rest, though.
>
> Dexter
>
To quote Rodgers again
> I had indeed missed the fact that two of those listed in that column have the same surname as the crewman --
> Jenners on page 1 and Howells on page two -- so those could be father/son. Doesn't work for the rest, though.
>
> Dexter
>
"These servants....were boys being bred up to the sea life, almost as apprentices to their masters...there
were boys at sea of six or eight....officer's servants could come from almost any background...there were
noblemen's sons among them....at a suitable age the young man would be allowed to walk the quarterdeck as a
young gentleman... and even to mess with the lieutenants in the wardroom..."
Dexter Kenfield
May 8, 2012, 7:13:51 PM5/8/12
to
But would those "boys at sea of six or eight" be paid the same as the
rest of the crew? That was the case here. All the FMs were paid 3.2.6
per month.
Too bad they didn't have a column for age.
Dexter
rest of the crew? That was the case here. All the FMs were paid 3.2.6
per month.
Too bad they didn't have a column for age.
Dexter
Bob Melson
May 8, 2012, 9:14:37 PM5/8/12
to
On Tuesday 08 May 2012 17:13, Dexter Kenfield (dken...@mindspring.com)
opined:
Ship's boys were pretty common in navies of the time. They were the
messengers, the powder monkeys, drummers and "nippers" (I'll leave that to
the curious). They were commonly between 8-12 years old, but could go
younger by a year or so. I don't imagine they were paid, if they were
paid at all beyond food and found, at the same rate as adult crewmembers.
Servants were an entirely different class of critter and might include the
captain's steward, the wardroom (officers' mess) steward(s), and others of
that ilk. I have no doubt that some were personal slaves, but that
doesn't appear to be the case here.
I'm beginning to think the suggestion that "FM" might mean "free man" might
come closest to the mark. I certainly wouldn't put any money on it, but
there doesn't seem to be much else it could be (other than the glaringly
obvious or completely obscure, as I noted previously).
Shorebound Ol' Bob
opined:
messengers, the powder monkeys, drummers and "nippers" (I'll leave that to
the curious). They were commonly between 8-12 years old, but could go
younger by a year or so. I don't imagine they were paid, if they were
paid at all beyond food and found, at the same rate as adult crewmembers.
Servants were an entirely different class of critter and might include the
captain's steward, the wardroom (officers' mess) steward(s), and others of
that ilk. I have no doubt that some were personal slaves, but that
doesn't appear to be the case here.
I'm beginning to think the suggestion that "FM" might mean "free man" might
come closest to the mark. I certainly wouldn't put any money on it, but
there doesn't seem to be much else it could be (other than the glaringly
obvious or completely obscure, as I noted previously).
Shorebound Ol' Bob
Anne Chambers
May 8, 2012, 9:22:52 PM5/8/12
to
Dexter Kenfield wrote:
> But would those "boys at sea of six or eight" be paid the same as the rest of the crew? That was the case
> here. All the FMs were paid 3.2.6 per month.
>
> Too bad they didn't have a column for age.
>
> Dexter
>
Minor meant under 21, - one of the boys (Howell) was a midshipman which means that he was probably quite a bit
> But would those "boys at sea of six or eight" be paid the same as the rest of the crew? That was the case
> here. All the FMs were paid 3.2.6 per month.
>
> Too bad they didn't have a column for age.
>
> Dexter
>
older than 6 or 8; the was probably true of Jenner as well - a 20 year old, while still a minor, would be a
useful crew member and would be paid accordingly.
Dexter Kenfield
May 8, 2012, 9:35:22 PM5/8/12
to
I read Howells (Ephraim) as an FM -- Ditto from two lines up. Son (or
servant?) of George Howells, the ship's carpenter.
Dexter
servant?) of George Howells, the ship's carpenter.
Dexter
Keith Nuttle
May 8, 2012, 10:25:49 PM5/8/12
to
taking a nap earlier today.
The fact that the one man, indicated as a negro, is listed as a FM (Free
Man) does not change the definition as there were many legally free
Blacks in the north at that time. If you look you can find them
fighting in the America Revolution and earlier.
This information can be found else where but in 1790, the first U.S.
census counted 13,059 legally free blacks in New England, with another
13,975 in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson freed some of their slaves early
in our history.
There is a show on PBS hosted by Henry Louis Gates where he explorers
the genealogy of various noted people. He has found several with free
blacks in their genealogies. (A very good show if you have not seen it)
Dexter Kenfield
May 8, 2012, 11:34:02 PM5/8/12
to
You are correct about that. I think I mis-reacted earlier, and too
quickly. My apologies to all concerned. Must take time to fully consider
posts. Must take time to fully consider posts. Must take time to fully
consider posts. Must take time to fully consider posts.
In any event, the mystery about FM continues. I do not believe that free
man is it. That would apply equally to the officers and ratings. It
just doesn't fit with anything else I've seen in my New England research
over several decades.
But I could be wrong.
Dexter
quickly. My apologies to all concerned. Must take time to fully consider
posts. Must take time to fully consider posts. Must take time to fully
consider posts. Must take time to fully consider posts.
In any event, the mystery about FM continues. I do not believe that free
man is it. That would apply equally to the officers and ratings. It
just doesn't fit with anything else I've seen in my New England research
over several decades.
But I could be wrong.
Dexter
paul c
May 9, 2012, 12:21:36 AM5/9/12
to
how many guns this ship had?
(I'm not a naval expert, but I gather that as warships go, as opposed to
small auxiliary war craft, this was a fairly small one, and non-expert
that I am, I'd find it plausible that a newish colonial navy might not
adhere to the same formal terms as an older one or even that a hastily
recuited clerk was an amateur incompetent - my own admittedly amateur
interest is that I have lots of RN people in my own tree, even though
most of them weren't ancestors, rather brothers or uncles - it seems
that most of my Brit' ancestors were the sons who went into the clergy
or commerce rather than the military. I find it fascinating to speculate
about what their day to day trials and tribulations must have been like.)
Bob Melson
May 9, 2012, 12:25:05 AM5/9/12
to
On Tuesday 08 May 2012 21:34, Dexter Kenfield (dken...@mindspring.com)
opined:
<snip>
their positions. The ordinary crew would not have (later, yes,
as "landsman", "ordinary seaman", "able (bodied) seaman", but not at this
point in history). (Kinda like the joke of years ago: they fellow who
concocted the patent nostrum "Hadacol" was asked why he named it that, to
which he replied, "well, I had t'call it somethin'"). If, for purposes of
pay and victualling, you had to call them _something_, "free man" would
suit the need. I can think of nothing else reasonable or close, although
I'm still not sure I'd want to bet on it.
Soggy Ol' Bob
>
> But I could be wrong.
>
> Dexter
opined:
<snip>
> In any event, the mystery about FM continues. I do not believe that free
> man is it. That would apply equally to the officers and ratings. It
> just doesn't fit with anything else I've seen in my New England research
> over several decades.
Except that the Captain, Gunner, Cooper, etc., had titles appropriate to
> man is it. That would apply equally to the officers and ratings. It
> just doesn't fit with anything else I've seen in my New England research
> over several decades.
their positions. The ordinary crew would not have (later, yes,
as "landsman", "ordinary seaman", "able (bodied) seaman", but not at this
point in history). (Kinda like the joke of years ago: they fellow who
concocted the patent nostrum "Hadacol" was asked why he named it that, to
which he replied, "well, I had t'call it somethin'"). If, for purposes of
pay and victualling, you had to call them _something_, "free man" would
suit the need. I can think of nothing else reasonable or close, although
I'm still not sure I'd want to bet on it.
Soggy Ol' Bob
>
> But I could be wrong.
>
> Dexter
paul c
May 9, 2012, 12:28:22 AM5/9/12
to
Anne Chambers
May 9, 2012, 1:55:57 AM5/9/12
to
Dexter Kenfield wrote:
> I read Howells (Ephraim) as an FM -- Ditto from two lines up. Son (or servant?) of George Howells, the ship's
> carpenter.
>
> Dexter
>
You're right - I had missed the FM under Midshipman three lines above. Still probably true that a minor of 20
> I read Howells (Ephraim) as an FM -- Ditto from two lines up. Son (or servant?) of George Howells, the ship's
> carpenter.
>
> Dexter
>
would have been paid full wages though.
Anne
>
> On 5/8/2012 6:22 PM, Anne Chambers wrote:
>> Dexter Kenfield wrote:
>>> But would those "boys at sea of six or eight" be paid the same as the
>>> rest of the crew? That was the case
>>> here. All the FMs were paid 3.2.6 per month.
>>>
>>> Too bad they didn't have a column for age.
>>>
>>> Dexter
>>>
>>
>> Minor meant under 21, - one of the boys (Howell) was a midshipman which
>> means that he was probably quite a bit older than 6 or 8; the was
>> probably true of Jenner as well - a 20 year old, while still a minor,
>> would be a useful crew member and would be paid accordingly.
>>
> On 5/8/2012 6:22 PM, Anne Chambers wrote:
>> Dexter Kenfield wrote:
>>> But would those "boys at sea of six or eight" be paid the same as the
>>> rest of the crew? That was the case
>>> here. All the FMs were paid 3.2.6 per month.
>>>
>>> Too bad they didn't have a column for age.
>>>
>>> Dexter
>>>
>>
>> Minor meant under 21, - one of the boys (Howell) was a midshipman which
>> means that he was probably quite a bit older than 6 or 8; the was
>> probably true of Jenner as well - a 20 year old, while still a minor,
>> would be a useful crew member and would be paid accordingly.
>>
Dexter Kenfield
May 9, 2012, 10:16:57 AM5/9/12
to
We've all pretty much exhausted the subject for now, so I'm going to
drop the thread. Lots of fascinating discussion, but in the end we're
all just speculating.
In response to paul c, it was indeed mentioned some time ago, but
briefly, this was a ship built for civilian purposes, but taken over by
the colony of Massachusetts just before launching and converted for the
upcoming attack on Canada. If I recall correctly, she had either 12 or
20 guns. Certainly not a large warship.
At some point, I hope to find some sources more focused on Colonial
practices at this time. For now, it suffices that John Brown most
decidedly was NOT "first mate," as another John Brown researcher told me
years ago. That was what got me interested in the roll to begin with.
Ironically, in the end it may not matter. I do not even know that the
John Brown on this muster is the one I'm researching. But that's another
story, involving a Rhode Island marriage on which three Mayflower
ancestors hinge -- and which a leading authority got wrong.
Again, many thanks to all of you who have participated.
Dexter
drop the thread. Lots of fascinating discussion, but in the end we're
all just speculating.
In response to paul c, it was indeed mentioned some time ago, but
briefly, this was a ship built for civilian purposes, but taken over by
the colony of Massachusetts just before launching and converted for the
upcoming attack on Canada. If I recall correctly, she had either 12 or
20 guns. Certainly not a large warship.
At some point, I hope to find some sources more focused on Colonial
practices at this time. For now, it suffices that John Brown most
decidedly was NOT "first mate," as another John Brown researcher told me
years ago. That was what got me interested in the roll to begin with.
Ironically, in the end it may not matter. I do not even know that the
John Brown on this muster is the one I'm researching. But that's another
story, involving a Rhode Island marriage on which three Mayflower
ancestors hinge -- and which a leading authority got wrong.
Again, many thanks to all of you who have participated.
Dexter
Richard L. Hall
May 10, 2012, 2:40:23 AM5/10/12
to
"Dexter Kenfield" <dken...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eqCdnWj_DLrI6zTS...@earthlink.com...
>
> One usage of "foretopman" suggests it is tied to a specific watch. Not
> here -- all of the seamen have that title or "quality." A watch should
> only have a portion of the crew.
>
> If it means "foretopman" at all, it could only be in the sense of being
> synonymous with "able seaman." But an entire crew of them???
>
> If that's it, it would suggest to me one of two things: either (a) it
> proves beyond doubt how easy it was to man a ship in 18th-Century New
> England with qualified sailors, or (b) this was perhaps the most
> over-qualified crew in the history of the navy. Not an ordinary seaman to
> be found.
>
According to the online Merriam-Wester Dictionary, the first known use of
> One usage of "foretopman" suggests it is tied to a specific watch. Not
> here -- all of the seamen have that title or "quality." A watch should
> only have a portion of the crew.
>
> If it means "foretopman" at all, it could only be in the sense of being
> synonymous with "able seaman." But an entire crew of them???
>
> If that's it, it would suggest to me one of two things: either (a) it
> proves beyond doubt how easy it was to man a ship in 18th-Century New
> England with qualified sailors, or (b) this was perhaps the most
> over-qualified crew in the history of the navy. Not an ordinary seaman to
> be found.
>
the word foretopman was in 1816, well after the period noted here.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foretopman
--
Richard
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them. (Albert Einstein)
R S H
Jan 26, 2013, 12:30:28 PM1/26/13
to
Since Impressment started in 1664, and rating depended on whether or not someone was impressed or freely accepted their position on the
ship, I suspect that F.M. stands for Free Man or Free Member of the crew, as opposed to Impressed member of the crew. In 1748 this ship
likely did not need impressment to fill the crew, since there was little in the way of 'warfare at sea' for the crew to worry about, and
almost anyone taken on board would accept the token coin to join the crew as a free man instead of being impressed, so F.M. used to
differentiate against Impressed makes sense to me. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
FWIW
RsH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ship, I suspect that F.M. stands for Free Man or Free Member of the crew, as opposed to Impressed member of the crew. In 1748 this ship
likely did not need impressment to fill the crew, since there was little in the way of 'warfare at sea' for the crew to worry about, and
almost anyone taken on board would accept the token coin to join the crew as a free man instead of being impressed, so F.M. used to
differentiate against Impressed makes sense to me. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
FWIW
RsH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dexter Kenfield
Jan 26, 2013, 5:00:32 PM1/26/13
to
Possible, but doubtful. This was not a Royal Navy ship; she was purely
a vessel of Massachusetts -- sort of a naval militia. Still a colony at
that time, of course, but I don't think they ever used the press.
The staff at the Massachusetts State Archives also did not suggest that
sort of usage. Nor did they have a definitive explanation.
I'm inclined to think "Free Man," not in the sense of "not impressed,"
but in the sense of "as opposed to an officer or a servant." That has
more of a Colonial Massachusetts ring to it, and is consistent with the
other evidence, limited though it be. But it remains a bit of a puzzle.
Dexter
a vessel of Massachusetts -- sort of a naval militia. Still a colony at
that time, of course, but I don't think they ever used the press.
The staff at the Massachusetts State Archives also did not suggest that
sort of usage. Nor did they have a definitive explanation.
I'm inclined to think "Free Man," not in the sense of "not impressed,"
but in the sense of "as opposed to an officer or a servant." That has
more of a Colonial Massachusetts ring to it, and is consistent with the
other evidence, limited though it be. But it remains a bit of a puzzle.
Dexter
0 new messages