54SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGYFIGURE 37.—1872 campaign hats.down is eliptical rather than round, measuring 5inches in width on the sides, 33/^ inches at thehooks and eyes, and 4i/4 inches directly in the frontand rear. The crown is 5i/4 inches top to bottomwithout the crease. The brim is edged with tworows of black stitching i^ inch from the edge andan equal distance apart. The hat band is of blackribbed silk one inch wide with a bow on one side.Two of the specimens examined still carry sweatbands of tan leather, 2 inches wide, and carryingthe maker's label "P. Herst & Son/Manufacturers/Philada./Contract Oct. 12, 74." One officer's modelis known, that formerly belonging to Capt. FrederickW. Benteen (Figure 38). It conforms to thedescription above and differs from the enlistedmodels only in quality and in the black silk bindingon the edge of the brim.Reaction to the hat was somewhat slow to surface,but when it did, it was little short of violent,creating something of a minor crisis in the Quar-
NUMBER 30 55FIGURE 38.—Captain Benteen's campaign hat.termaster Department, and resulted in the replacementof the hat with a new pattern. In May 1874,in a routine weekly report to Major C. E. Compton,commanding officer at Fort Dodge, Kansas, CaptainE. Butler of the 5th Infantry stated that his menwere complaining of the lack of durability of theissue hats."' Compton forwarded the complaintthrough channels to Washington whence it was referredto Captain Rogers, the Military Storekeeperat the Philadelphia depot, for comment. Rogersanswered that the hats issued to the 5 th Infantrywere fully up to standard and, in his opinion, freefrom objection as to quality. He went on to say thatthis was the only complaint he had heard, otherofficers heard from being universally in favor ofthe model, but recommended that Captain Butlerforward samples of the faulty item. This Butlerdid, enclosing also a statement signed by eight enlistedmen to the effect that the hats issued themshowed signs of breaking up after a week's wearand becoming totally unserviceable after about 120hours actual wear in the field. The forwardedsamples were submitted by Rogers to experiencedhatters in New York and Philadelphia for examinationand comment. All agreed that the hats wereof good quality and that it would be impossible toget the specimens in such condition in 120 hourswear. In his endorsement, Rogers called the complaint"inconsiderate, groundless, and sweeping"and added that Butler had been deceived by hismen "and led into the blunder of a hasty and unjustcondemnation of a good article." He suggestedthat Butler be instructed to investigate the matterfurther, especially in regard to the length of timethe hats were in use, and report his findings. Butlerretorted with affidavits from 44 enlisted men andstatements from a number of officers of the 5thInfantry and 6th Cavalry, all condemning the hatin positive terms, with details as to how long individualhats had lasted, the average for the enlistedmen being one month in the field or in garrison,with one officer stating that he personally completelywore out an issue item on a 20-day scout.Meanwhile the Secretary of War had ordered allpost commanders throughout the country to reporton the suitability of the issue clothing and equipmentfor use by the Surgeon General in a reporton the hygiene of the <strong>Army</strong> at large."' The resultingnumerous comments hit the hat as hard asButler and his supporters had. Two officers favoredit, one a major of ordnance stationed at Ft. Monroe,Virginia, and the other an acting assistant surgeon,in reality a civilian. The others reporting,and they were numerous, disliked the hat and saidso, remarks running from "inferior" to "worthless"and "a complete failure" (Figure 39).All the criticism was echoed at the highest level,although somewhat belatedly, by Bvt. Maj. Gen.Edmund Schriver, the Inspector General of the<strong>Army</strong>, in an inspection report on a trip throughthe West. His comments were short and direct:"Ridiculous in design [and] faulty in manufacture. . better suited to a wet nurse than a soldierin the ranks .... I state this without fear ofcontradiction."""The evidence was too strong and Rogers wentover to the defensive, admitting that the hat hadnot given satisfaction, but at the same time maintainingthat the shape of the hat, not the qualityof the material, was at fault. Meigs then directed
- Page 1:
• ^ - :lP-'L^ry\'^ ^iT
- Page 4 and 5:
ABSTRACTHowell, Edgar M. United Sta
- Page 7 and 8:
ContentsPagePrefaceiiiThe 1855 Cava
- Page 9 and 10:
United States Army Headgear 1855-19
- Page 11 and 12: NUMBER 30report, stated: "The hat p
- Page 13 and 14: NUMBER 30acorns %g inches long and
- Page 15 and 16: NUMBER 30the pattern." The rate of
- Page 17 and 18: NUMBER 30FIGURE 3.—1858 Army hat.
- Page 19 and 20: NUMBER 3011model, number 60 in the
- Page 21 and 22: NUMBER 30 13"the desired modificati
- Page 23 and 24: NUMBER 30 15the sun in the top. The
- Page 25 and 26: NUMBER 30 17FIGURE 8.—1858 forage
- Page 27 and 28: NUMBER 30 19Hardtack and Coffee, ca
- Page 29 and 30: NUMBER 3021FIGURE 11.—a, Brigadie
- Page 31 and 32: NUMBER 30 23short "shell" jacket "f
- Page 33 and 34: NUMBER 30 26broad, securely soldere
- Page 35 and 36: NUMBER 30 27worn in the picture wer
- Page 37 and 38: NUMBER 30 29This communication elic
- Page 39 and 40: NUMBER 30 31FIGURE 17.—"The [Scot
- Page 41 and 42: NUMBER 30 33time for issue in the c
- Page 43 and 44: NUMBER 30 35be at too great a dista
- Page 45 and 46: NUMBER 3037half (5/2) part of washb
- Page 47 and 48: NUMBER 30 39trimmings for all enlis
- Page 49 and 50: NUMBER 30 41ing the upper space for
- Page 51 and 52: NUMBER 30rear one to a correspondin
- Page 53 and 54: NUMBER 30 46FIGURE 29.—1872 enlis
- Page 55 and 56: NUMBER 3047FIGURE 32.—^The Bent &
- Page 57 and 58: NUMBER 3049of strong split-leather
- Page 59 and 60: NUMBER 30 51''""MttfenFIGURE 35.—
- Page 61: NUMBER 30 53(which he thought might
- Page 65 and 66: NUMBER 30 57campaign hat for the Ar
- Page 67 and 68: NUMBER 30 59salvage something from
- Page 69 and 70: NUMBER 30 61hat. In June 1899 the P
- Page 71 and 72: NUMBER 3063the left side, pass diag
- Page 73 and 74: NUMBER 30 65.LJU^.."*^..FIGURE 44.
- Page 75 and 76: NUMBER 30 67to be sent to Washingto
- Page 77 and 78: NUMBER 30 69with brass sliding-buck
- Page 79 and 80: NUMBER 30 71FIGURE 48.—Officers'
- Page 81 and 82: NUMBER 3073The adoption of the whit
- Page 83 and 84: NUMBER 3075i >•^\Wiii I ifiiiniim
- Page 85 and 86: NUMBER 30this last model made no pr
- Page 87 and 88: NUMBER 30 79WAR DEPARTMENT,QUARTERM
- Page 89 and 90: NUMBER 3081FIGURE 58.—1864 chapea
- Page 91 and 92: NUMBER 30geon 1880 and Surgeon Gene
- Page 93 and 94: NUMBER 3085FIGURE 63.—1895 forage
- Page 95 and 96: NUMBER 30 87of not less than 9.24 g
- Page 97 and 98: AppendixMAKERS OF HEADGEARThe chron
- Page 99 and 100: List of AbbreviationsAAGAAQMAGAGOAQ
- Page 101 and 102: NUMBER 3093all OQMG, LS, Clothing,
- Page 103 and 104: NUMBER 30 95"Jesup to Thomas, 8 Dec
- Page 105 and 106: NUMBER 3097OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing,
- Page 107 and 108: NUMBER 30 99October of 1870. See Me
- Page 109 and 110: NUMBER 30 101'"* See above, pp. 35-
- Page 111 and 112: NUMBER 30 103Monroe, Va., in 1878.
- Page 113 and 114:
NUMBER 30 105""Endorsement, 24 May
- Page 115 and 116:
ReferencesThe bulk of the source ma
- Page 117:
M MBIiR 30 10910, No. 355-10, 19 Se