United States Army Headgear 1855-1902 - Libreria Militare Ares

104 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY""Meigs to Rogers, 19 April 1881, OQMG, LS, Clothing,RG 92, NA.""Meigs to Rucker, 28 April 1881, OQMG, LS, Clothing,RG 92, NA. The actual contracts were dated 5 May.These contracts specified that OQMG was to furnish thenecessary dies and cutters. See contract with Horstmanndated 5 May 1881 in Branch E, Regular SuppHes, RG 92,NA. There were of necessity four separate dies for the frontplates, i.e., one for infantry, artillery, cavalry, and staff.Comparison of a number of these plates shows a few minorvariations between the four in the basic design.'"Contracts with Raymold and Whidock, 1 July 1882and 4 June 1883, both in Exec. Doc. No. 83, Senate, 49thCongress, 1st Session. CHAPPELLE, in his monograph "BrassSpikes & Horsehair Plumes" (p. 31), states that the earlier1881 pattern helmets, especially those of the 1882 and1883 contracts, "were blocked in much the same style asthe model 1872 helmet." This is incorrect. This author hascarefully examined 28 1881 enlisted models with contractdates running through the entire 21 years of the model's use,and there is no such blocking or variation as he states. Admittedly,the illustrations Mr. Chappell cites are misleading,primarily because the specimens in them are shownwith the top pieces in place.'"G.O. No. 52, HQ of A, 14 June 1881, RG 94, NA.'" An excellent cut-down version carrying this label isin the personal collection of Gordon Chappelle.'" Information received from Dr. Byron Fairchild, Departmentof State, 13 March 1972 and in HEITMAN, HistoricalRegister, yo\. 1."^ There is an extant photograph of Kilpatrick's bier inValpariso surmounted by what appears to be a U.S. Armygeneral officer's coat with elaborate nonregulation cuff andcollar embroidery and this helmet. The matter of dress fordiplomats was vague in this period, to say the least. GenerallyAmerican diplomats wore what they wished, no matterwhat the Department of State said. An 1853 State Dept.circular stated that "simple citizen's dress" was preferred,but allowed discretion in individual cases to conform tothe customs of the foreign nation concerned. The Act of28 July 1866 (14 Stat 332) permitted a Civil War Unionveteran to wear the uniform prescribed during the war, anda resolution of Congress in 1867 prohibited diplomats fromwearing uniforms or official dress not previously authorizedby Congress. Information from Department of State (HistoricalDept.).""G.O. No. 67, HQ of A, 28 September 1886, RG 94,NA.'" U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Regulations for the Army ofthe United States, 1889, p. 207.'"U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1883, pp. 18, 56."" Capt. H. F. Kendall, "An Army Uniform.""" Journal of the United States Cavalry Association, vol.10 (June 1897), pp. 188-192, 192-195.'" For the Woodhull Report, see p. 28.'"For details on this, see pp. 52-57.'"Meigs to Sir Edward Thornton, 6 March 1875, AG,LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG 94, NA."* Meigs to Sec. War, 13 March 1875, AG, LR, MC 666,roll 440, RG 94, NA. The origin of this helmet is somewhatuncertain. Written on the margin of the letter oppositethe first mention of the helmet is the notation:"These samples were left at the QM Gnls. office in August1869 by William A. Dr . (?) & Co. of Phila.""" 1st Endorsement 18 March 1875, to Meigs to Sec. War,13 March 1875 MC 666, roll 440, RG 94, NA.""Thornton to Meigs, 8 May 1875; Meigs to Thornton,14 May 1875; both AG, LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG 94, NA.'"Meigs to Sec. War, 19 May 1875, AG, LR, MC 666,roll 440, RG 94, NA.'"2d and 3d Endorsements, 1 June 1875 and 26 June1875, to Ibid, [note 437]."" Ingalls to Col. Robert Allen, San Francisco, 28 June1875; Col. Van Vliet, Phila., to QMG, 4 October 1875 and3d Endorsement; all in AG, LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG94, NA."" There are a number of these comments appended toLt. Col. C. A. Reynolds, Ft. Yuma, Cal. to Meigs, 30 June1877, AG, LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG 94, NA.'"Capt. Hooker, 9th Cav., to AG, 26 January 1878, AG,LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG 94, NA.'"6th Endorsement, 18 March 1878, to Hooker to AG,26 January 1878; Meigs to Lt. Duggan, 10th Inf., 16 October1878, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA."' 7th Endorsement to Hooker to AG, 26 January 1878[note 441].'"Bingham to Rucker, Phila., 9 April 1878; Rogers toMajor Dana, Phila., 6 May 1878, and 2d Endorsement; bothAG, LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG 94, NA; Gen. Schofield,West Point, to Meigs, 6 April 1878, AG, LR, RG 94, NA.These specifications were generally similar to, but somewhatmore elaborate than, those for the original cadetmodel given in G.O. No. 121 WD.""Meigs to Rucker, 10 May 1878, AG, LR, MC 666, roll440, RG 94, NA. The maker is unknown. No contract forthe order appears in executive documents. They apparentlywere bought on an open order in the interest of speed andin view of the small amount involved.""Col. Geo. Getty, Ft. Monroe, to AG, 21 May 1878,AG, LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG 94, NA. The cadets receivedthe chin chains and the brass spikes in 1881. On this,see TODD, Cadet Gray, p. 71."'4th Endorsement to Col. Getty to AG, 21 May 1878[note 446]; AG to CO Arty. School, 14 June 1878, AG,LS, RG 94, NA.'"U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1878, p. 79; (ibid.,1879, p. 70. Although the statement of purchases and issuesfor FY 1879, in the latter citation, shows 251 cork helmetspurchased and 250 issued (the extra one obviously beingretained as a sample) the statement does not show that anychin chains and spikes were procured, although the metalfittings for other head gear are listed in detail.""QM Specification No. 2, adopted 5 May 1880, RG 92,NA. These specifications were drawn up expressly for thehelmet to be issued the artillery school and were followedwhen the headpiece was approved for general issue. SeeVan Vliet (for Meigs) to Rucker, 15 May 1880, OQMG,LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA.'""QM Specification No. 2, adopted 5 May 1880, RG 92,NA.'"' U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1884, plate 4.'"' Shafter to AG, 13 May 1880, AG, LR, RG 94, NA.