United States Army Headgear 1855-1902 - Libreria Militare Ares

NUMBER 30 19Hardtack and Coffee, called them "one of the supposed-to-beuseful, if not ornamental stupidities"of the war, and stated that while whole regimentswent south with them, if one survived three monthsactive service, he had yet to hear of it."' Anothermemoir was equally explicit, stating that the havelockswere so impractical that they were almost immediatelytransferred "to the plebian use of a dishclothor a coffee strainer.""' Despite this evidence,havelocks do not appear in any official Army costof clothing lists for the Civil War period, nor arethey mentioned in any issue directives coming fromthe office of the Quartermaster General during thesame time span."' During the year ending 31 December1864, no contracts were let for havelocksand none were mentioned as being on hand at anydepot."' Yet the U.S. War Department's AnnualReport of the Quartermaster General for 1865 listed613 havelocks on hand as of 1 July 1864, 456,943purchased during the fiscal year, and 6682 on handas of 31 July 1865. These could not have been the"glazed cotton covers and capes" purchased in1861, for no such were listed, and 190,189 "capcovers" were listed as on hand as of 31 July 1865.""This odd succession of figures, combined with thefact that no authenticated specimens are known tothe author, makes the havelock, as stated above,"something of a puzzler."The "McClellan" or "Chasseur" CapMuch has been said about the popularly called"McClellan' type cape preferred by so many officersand worn by some enlisted men.'" There is noquestion that it was a distinct type, though differingfrom the regulation pattern less than thecampaign hats worn by many officers,"' and waspreferred by the majority of officers over the issueitem. A check of Millers Photographic Historyshows the officers wearing the nonregulation overthe regulation in a proportion of about three totwo.Actually, when measured there is far less differencebetween the two than meets the eye, and inphotographs the two are sometimes very difficultto tell apart because of the degree of floppinessand the angle from which they are viewed. "Mc­Clellan" types measured, including caps formerlybelonging to General McClellan himself (Figure10) and to General William S. Harney, variedfrom 3 to 31/2 inches high in front and 5 to 6 incheshigh in rear, as opposed to the issue item, whichvaried from 3i/2 to 43^ inches in front and frombYi to 6i/2 inches high in rear. One reason for thevisual difference is the quality of the material andthe method of construction. While the issue modelshave the sides welted to the crown, a majority ofFIGURE 10.—General McClellan's cap.