United States Army Headgear 1855-1902 - Libreria Militare Ares

96 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGYsource. The description of a havelock given in STEVENS,Berdan's U.S. Sharpshooters, p. 5, is completely at variancewith the generally accepted definition of the term.'"On this, see OQMG, LS, Clothing, 1861-1865, RG92, NA.""For the contracts, see Exec. Doc. 84, 38th Congress,2d Session, House; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG,1864.""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1865, pp. 209, 211."' As regards the officers, it must be remembered that the1861 uniform regulations, paragraph 1494 stated: "Commissionedofficers may [italics added] wear forage caps ofthe same pattern" [as the enlisted men], so there was no compulsionto wear the issue item. For enlisted men wearing the"McClellan," see BILLINGS, Hardtack and Coffee, p. 307.Just when and by whom this cap was first called the "Mc­Clellan" is unknown."' For comparison, see Illustrated Catalogue of Arms andMilitary Goods, p. 48."" On this, see MARGERAND, "Les coiffures de I'armeefrancaise," in Revue, No. 3 (June 1909), plate 8: figs. 4,5, 7, 8. Unfortunately, Margerand's text gives no measurementsfor these particular caps.'^"ToDD, in his Cadet Gray (p. 73), speaks of the "blueChasseur model" as having been adopted in 1861. He seemsto be in error ,as to the date of change. Photographs ofmembers of the class of 1857 show cadets wearing bothtypes. For the 1839 pattern see photograph of Cadet SamuelFerguson, class of 1857. For the chasseur pattern, seephotographs of Cadet William Sinclair, class of 1857 andW. Hemphill Bell, class of 1858, Cadet Orlando G. Wagner,class of 1859 and Cadet John Herbert Kelley, class of 1861but resigned in 1860. Photographs in files of SmithsonianInstitution. The 1857 USMA regulations merely describethe cap as "according to the pattern deposited with thequartermaster at West Point.""' See United States Army and Navy Journal, 4 January1868, p. 315, and 28 March 1868, p. 506.'" United States Army and Navy Journal, 20 February1869, p. 432. Also see advertisements in issues for 30 July1870, 6 August 1870, and 13 August 1870.'" HEITMAN, Historical Register and Dictionary of theUnited States Army, vol. 1, p. 444.'" U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Regulations for the Uniformand Dress of the Army.'" Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United States,1861, pp. 13-14; Quartermaster Manual, 1865, p. 15. Actually,the size of the letter for the forage cap is not given ineither citation, the one-inch size being that given the letterfor wear on the campaign hat.''" Uniform Regulations for the Army of the UnitedStates, 1861.'" For details of the officers' insignia, see pp. 14 above.'" On this see PELADEAU, "U.S. Sharpshooter Hat Insignia,"Military Collector and Historian, vol. 19, no. 3 (Fall1962), pp. 92-94.'"" For this, see MADAUS, "Notes on the Uniform of Berdan'sSharpshooters.""'"For Kearny's order and that of the 1st Div., 9th Corps,see WiKE, "The Wearing of Army Corps and Division Insigniain the Union Army, 1862-1865." Wike does not citethe location of the first two orders, but has stated to theauthor that he copied them from the originals in the NationalArchives when he was employed there many yearsago. For the Army of the Potomac order, see unnumberedcircular. Army of the Potomac, 21 March 1863, in U.S. WARDEPARTMENT, The War of the Rebellion, series 1, vol. 25,part 2, p. 152.'" Ibid."'During the Civil War a number of "Hght" batterieswere converted to "horse" artillery, with all personnelmounted, and grouped into "horse artillery brigades," whichoperated in direct support of cavalry operations. On this,see DYER, A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, vol.3, pp. 1693-1709, and BIRKHIMER, Historical Sketch ofthe Organization, pp. 70-72. Actually, as late as 1942 the82nd Field Artillery Battalion and the 61st Field ArtilleryBattalion, direct support elements of the 1st Cavalry Division,were "horse" units, or "animal mounted" as Army Regulationsthen called them, all personnel being individuallymounted. On the other hand, as late as 1942 the 6th FieldArtillery Battalion, then a G.H.Q. reserve unit, was "horsedrawn,"or "animal drawn" as the regulations called it, withsome personnel being individually mounted and the remainderriding the caissons and limbers. On the two modernterms, see AR 600-40, WD, 28 August 1941, RG 94, NA.Today the "field artillery," which accompanies the army inthe field, includes materiel of very heavy calibers becauseof modern means of transportation.'"' Unless otherwise stated, the material in this section istaken from BIRKHIMER, Historical Sketch of the Organization,pp. 54—74."'Ringgold to Jessup, 10 February 1839, OQMG, Reg.LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA; Ringgold to AG, 19 October1839, AG Reg. LR, RG 94, NA.'"=G.O. No. 36, HQ of A, 21 June 1839, RG 94, NA.Although the AG, in writing to Jessup in August 1844,stated that the Secretary of War had authorized red horsehairplumes and bands in November 1842, in May 1841 theCommissary General of Purchases, Callander Irvine, haddirected the Military Storekeeper at Philadelphia to issueto Ringgold's Company "C," 3d Artillery, 71 red horsehairplumes. See AG to Jesup, 5 August 1844, AG, LS, RG 94,NA; Irvine to Fayssoux, MSK at Philadelphia, Supply OrdersIssued to QM and MSK at Philadelphia, 1813-1843,RG 92, NA.""Uniform Board Report, 27 April 1844, AG Doc. File,B 136, 1844, Box 150, RG 94, NA. This report is very difficultto use; notations added on the margin, apparently bythe Quartermaster General to whom it was routed by theAG, (to ascertain whether or not certain recommendationswere approved) are almost illegible.'"'Jesup to Judd, 11 April 1844, OQMG, LS, Clothing,RG 92, NA; Jesup to Scott, 13 April 1844, OQMG, LS,Clothing, RG 92, NA.'"'The Ringgold uniform is discussed in depth in KLOST­ER, United States Army Uniforms to 1854, vol. 3.'""Sibley (for Jesup) to Lt. H. W. Clossen, 1st Arty., 20June 1859, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA; Col. CharlesThomas, Asst. QM at Phila., to Jesup, 22 April 1859,