lP-'L^ry\'^ ^iT<^ 

^V'* ^ 

•^- : 

•'•5v' 

v^^i-r .- - ' 

''^M^y^- Li-. 

tP-TUnited States Army Headgear 1855-1902 

. 4^ , <* eP, *T ' * i.'2^-='*".//v; 

Catalog of United States Army Uniforms in the 

Collections of the Smithsonian Institution, II 9 3t i ^ 

'^^^ 

;-X- '?^*. 

£^^^r M Howell 

«y>. .'"'-li. 

^mit^nian Iqjtitution 

United States Army Headgear 1855-1902 

Catalog of United States Army Uniforms in the 

Collections of the Smithsonian Institution, II 

Edgar M. Howell 

^ C ; •"• ' I 

' h 
ABSTRAC T 

Howell, Edgar M. United States Army Headgear 1855-1902: Catalog of United 

States Army Uniforms in the Collections of the Smithsonian Institution, II. 

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, number 30, 109 pages, 63 figures, 1975.—This volume brings the story of the evolution of headgear in the 

United States Regular Army from just prior to the Civil War to the opening of 

the modern era. Strongly influenced by French, British, and German styles, the 

U.S. Army tried and found wanting in numerous ways a number of models, and 

it was not until the adoption of the "drab" campaign hat in the early 1880s 

that a truly American pattern evolved. The European influence carried on until 

the 1902 uniform change, and, in the case of the "overseas" cap and chapeau, 

even beyond. 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. SI PRESS NUMBER 5226. COVER 

DESIGN: "New Regulation Uniform of the United States Artillery" by A. R. Waud (from 

Harper's Weekly, 8 June 1867). 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data. 

National Museum of History and Technology. 

United States Army headgear 1855-1902. 

(Catalog of United States Army uniforms in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution: 2) 

(Smithsonian studies in history and technology: no. 30) 

Supt. of Docs, no.: SI 1.28:30 

1. United States. Army—Uniforms—Catalogs. 2. Head-gear—Catalogs. 3. Smithsonian 

Institution. I. Howell, Edgar M. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian studies in history and technology; no. 30. 

UC483.C37 vol. 2 [UC503] 355.1'4'0973s [355.1'4] 75-619152 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402—Price $5.90 (cloth cover) 

Stock Number 4701-00120 
Preface 

This volume is the second* in a projected series on Regular Army dress 

based on the collections of the National Museum of History and Technology of 

the Smithsonian Institution. Specifically it is a descriptive, critical, and documentary catalog of the headgear of the Regular Establishment from 1855 

through 1902. Succeeding volumes will cover headgear from 1902 to the present 

and uniforms and footwear from the period of the French and Indian War to 

the modern era. 

The rich collections of the Smithsonian Institution contain examples of 

most of the patterns of enlisted and officers' headgear mentioned in regulations. 

While this volume was not designed as a definitive history of military headgear 

for the period, it is essentially just that, as it illustrates, describes, and documents the specimens, furnishes official descriptions where available, and provides 

pertinent correspondence on specific items, contemporary criticism both official 

and unofficial, excerpts from uniform board proceedings, and reasons for adoption of new models. 

With two exceptions all the specimens discussed in detail are from the 

National Collections, most of them from the comprehensive War Department 

Collection, supplemented by the numerous biogiaphical collections of the 

museum. Unmatched in scope and rarity, the War Department Collection is 

discussed at length in volume 1 of this series. 

The year 1902 has not been arbitrarily selected as a cut-off date; it is in fact 

the end of an era in headgear concept and styling. The forage cap as such disappears and, in somewhat altered form, becomes the dress/service cap in very 

nearly the modern style; the service or campaign hat takes over the forage or 

field service function to undergo only a modification of the crown. Other headgear to be added, including the protective helmets, would be completely new 

and essentially modern and functional. 

During the months this study was in preparation, many people and institutions gave generously of their time and facilities. Foremost were the personnel 

of the Old Military Records Division of the National Archives, particularly Mr. 

Elmer Parker, Mrs. Sara Jackson, and Miss Anna Medley. Their enthusiastic 

and continuing interest, and their sound advice based on years of experience 

with archival collections made this work possible. The help and advice of my 

colleague here in the Division of Military History, Don Kloster, who is preparing the volumes on uniforms in this series, has been immeasurable. Thanks are 

also owing to the Royal Arsenal Museum (Tojhusmuseet) in Copenhagen, Denmark. And last but not least, my deep thanks are due to Mrs. Helen Finley and 

Mrs. Diana McGeorge for their skill and patience in typing a messy and difficult 

manuscript. 

*Volume 1, "United States Army Headgear to 1854: Catalog of United States Army 

Uniforms in the Collections of the Smithsonian Institution," by Edgar M. Howell and Donald 

E. Kloster was published as United States National Museum Bulletin 269 by the Smithsonian 

Institution Press in 1969. 

iii 

Contents 

Page 

Preface iii 

The 1855 Cavalry Hat 1 

The 1858 Army Hat 5 

The 1858 Forage Cap 12 

Cap Covers and Havelocks 18 

The "McClellan" or "Chasseur" Cap 19 

The 1864 Light Artillery Cap 22 

The 1872 Regulation Headgear 28 

The "Woodhull Report" 28 

The Marcy Board 33 

The 1872 Board 33 

The Full Dress Cap 35 

The Light Artillery-Cavalry Helmet 41 

The Forage Cap 48 

The Fatigue or Campaign Hat, 1872-1902 52 

The 1881 Helmet 62 

The Cork or Summer Helmet 73 

The Winter Cap 76 

The Indian Scout Campaign Hat 79 

The Chapeau, 1859-1936 80 

The 1895 Forage Cap 83 

Appendix: Makers of Headgear 89 

List of Abbreviations 91 

Notes 92 

References 107 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. "U. S. Cavalry Hat (Felt) " 3 

2. 1855 cavalry hat 4 

3. 1858 Army hat 9 

4. 1858 officer's Army hat 10 

5. The "Burnside" pattern 10 

6. General Sherman's hat 11 

7. 1858 forage cap 16 

8. 1858 forage cap with flat visor 17 

9. Gosline's Zouaves forage cap 17 

10. General McClellan's cap 19 

11. Brigadier General James H. Wilson, c. 1863, and Lieutenant Howard 

B. Gushing, c. 1869, wearing "McClellan" caps 21 

12. Light artillery cap, 1864 25 

13. "New Regulation Uniform of the United States Artillery" 26 

14. "Stiff Dress Hat" 30 

15. "Cloth Fatigue Cap" 30 

16. "Scotch Cap with Visor" 30 
Page 

17. "The [Scotch] cap with an additional piece of cloth" 31 

18. "The cloth detached from the [Scotch] cap" 31 

19. "External view of the Ventilated or Eastern Hat" 31 

«20. "Sectional views of the Ventilated Hat" 31 

21. "The Three-Cocked Hat" 32 

22. "The Cocked Hat, held under the arm" 32 

23. The Andrews hat 32 

24. 1872 regulation uniforms 34 

25. 1872 enlisted man's dress cap 38 

26. Enlisted personnel in 1872 dress coat and cap 39 

27. 1872 officer's dress cap 40 

28. Sketch of 1872 officer's helmet 42 

29. 1872 enlisted man's helmet 45 

30. The Custer helmet 46 

31. The Horstmann helmet 46 

32. The Bent 8c Bush helmet 47 

33. Paiute Chief Winnemucca in "Chief Coat" and 1858 Army hat with 

1872 helmet front eagle 47 

34. 1872 enlisted man's forage cap, with 1876 insignia 50 

35. General Hancock's cap and 1872 officer s forage cap 51 

36. Sketch of 1872 campaign hat 53 

37. 1872 campaign hats . 54 

38. Captain Benteen's campaign hat 55 

39. Army personnel wearing 1872 campaign hat 56 

40. 1876 campaign hat 58 

41. Drab campaign hat, c. 1883 60 

42. Drab campaign hat, model 1889 61 

43. Dress helmets for line officers of foot and mounted troops 64 

44. Summer helmets for officers and enlisted men 65 

45. Dress helmets for foot soldiers and enlisted men of mounted troops .. . 65 

46. Helmet for officers of foot troops, helmet with spike for field officers, 

and officer's summer helmet 67 

47. Helmet for enlisted men 68 

48. Helmets for field, mounted, and foot officers 71 

49. Helmet for enlisted men 71 

50. Helmet for mounted enlisted men 72 

51. The Kilpatrick helmet 72 

52. Altered model 1872 helmet 72 

53. Sketch of cork helmet, model 1880 74 

54. The Gordon helmet ... . 75 

55. Muskrat fur cap, model 1876 77 

56. Canvas winter cap, model 1884 78 

57. Indian scout campaign hat 80 

58. The 1864 Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham chapeau 81 

59. The 1877 Horstmann Bros, chapeau 81 

60. 1881 regulation chapeau 82 

61. The McClellan chapeau 82 

62. The Gorgas chapeau 83 

63. 1895 forage caps for officers and enlisted men 85 

VI 
United States Army Headgear 1855-1902 

Catalog of United States Army Uniforms in the 

Collections of the Smithsonian Institution, II 

Edgar M. Howell 

THE 18 55 CAVALRY HAT 

The settlement of the Oregon boundary question 

and the victory over Mexico added a wide stretch 

of territory to the Union and vastly increased the 

responsibilities of the Army. Following the conclusion of the War with Mexico, however, the Regular Establishment was reduced to a peacetime 

strength smaller than that authorized after the War 

of 1812. Although continued representations by 

General Winfield Scott, Commander-in-Chief of the 

.A.rmy, resulted in a small increase, it was not until 

Jefferson Davis, a West Point graduate and a volunteer regimental commander in the late war, became Secretary of War in 1853 that some positive 

relief was to be had. Under Davis' prodding that 

additional units were urgently needed for frontier 

service, the Congress on 3 March 1855 authorized 

four new regiments, the 1st and 2d Cavalry and the 

9th and 10th Infantry' to be added to the line establishments of two regiments of dragoons, one of 

mounted riflemen, eight of infantry, and four of 

artillery. 

General Order No. 4, 26 March 1855, which assigned the officers to the new regiments, specified 

that the units would be uniformed like their older 

counterparts except that the trimmings on the cap 

and coat of the cavalry were to be yellow instead 

of orange.' 

In July a board of officers of the cavalry regiments, set up to determine the horse equipment 

and arms to be issued them, reported among other 

things:" 

We recommend a hat instead of the present cap, to be 

made according to the pattern furnished, with the excepEdgar M. Howell, Department of National and Military 

History, National Museum of History and Technology, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560. 

tions to be noticed. The hat to be looped up on the right 

side and fastened with an eagle, the eagle to be attached 

to the side of the hat. The letter of each company to be in 

front for the enlisted & the number of the regt. for officers. 

The chin strap to be fastened on the sides. 

The hat for officers to be the same as for enlisted men 

with the exception mentioned. The hat for enlisted men 

to have one black feather on the left side two for company 

officers and three for field officers. The hat to be black. The 

cords to be yellow, secured so as to be easily removed. The 

cord for officers to be gold and for enlisted men to be 

worsted.^ 

The report was approved by Secretary of War Davis 

on 23 July ^ and three days later Brevet Major General Thomas S. Jesup, the Quartermaster General, 

forwarded the pattern hat furnished by the board 

to Major George H. Crosman, commanding the 

quartermaster depot at Philadelphia, and directed 

him to initiate procurement as soon as possible." 

On 3 August Crosman contracted with N. Fisher 

of Philadelphia for 2000 "hats for cavalry" at $1.05 

each.' 

General Order No. 13, 15 August 1855, prescribing the arms and accouterments of the two cavalry 

regiments, described the hat as follows: 

For Field officers—Black, trimmed with gold cord, and 

according to pattern in the Quartermaster's Department; to 

be looped up on the right side, and fastened with an eagle, 

the eagle being attached to the site of the hat; three black 

feathers on left side; the number of the regiment to be in 

front. The hat will be worn instead of the cap now used by 

the other troops. For all other Officers—same as for field 

officers, except that there will be but two black feathers. For 

enlisted men—same as for officers, except there will be but 

one black feather, a worsted, instead of a gold cord, and the 

letter of the company substituted for the number of the 

regiment.' 

Besides its black color, the only details about the 

hat given in the record are that it had a chin strap 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

(as had the voltigeur hat adopted in 1847), several 

buttons, a hat cord with acorns, a plume, and a side 

eagle, the cost |1.05 with a chin strap, the trimmings costing an additional $.50.° 

In 1857 the cost of the hat and trimmings were 

listed as: 

Hat 

Cord and acorns 

1 buckle, 1 letter, 

Plume 

Eagle 

2 buttons 

$1.22 

.13 

.05 

.15 

.05 

$1.60" 

It should be noted that as the hat was prescribed 

for wear by only the two cavalry regiments in the 

Army, no branch of service device other than the 

yellow hat cord was authorized. 

It is not strange that a broad-brimmed hat 

should have been adopted; rather it is reasonable 

to conjecture why such was not adopted earlier and 

then for two specific regiments only. With a large 

percentage of the Army on the frontier, the 1832-

1833 dress caps and the dual purpose 1851-1854 

cap were highly unsuitable.'' The 1839 forage cap 

was popular and reasonably serviceable, but it had 

the shortcomings of being pervious to water, with 

no waterproof cover provided, and of being issued 

at the rate of but one every five years.'' During the 

War with Mexico, although the troops had this 

forage cap, many officers and men alike purchased 

broad-brimmed felt or straw hats from the Mexicans." The natural answer was the Andrews or 

voltigeur-type hat, which, although it did not reach 

the troops in the field before the end of the war, 

was issued in the limited quantities manufactured 

to the 2d Dragoons in Texas in 1851." This was 

the story throughout the 1850s and, until a campaign hat was prescribed for the whole Army in 

1858, both officers and enlisted men of all the arms 

wore broad-brimmed, slouched hats of every color 

and description, which they had purchased themselves, as protection against the elements, despite 

the fact that the issue model was provided with a 

cover that had a cape covering the neck." Even 

more to the point, in 1858, after a hat had been 

authorized for the whole Army, Secretary of War 

John B. Floyd, in a letter to the Chairman of the 

House Ways and Means Committee justifying the 

extra expenditure involved in adopting the hat, 

wrote: "The old cap was . . . utterly unsuited for 

the service: affording little or no protection to the 

soldier, exposing him unnecessarily to scorching 

suns, to drenching rains, and cold and sweeping 

winds, and adding to the unavoidable hardships of 

active service one which could reasonably be obviated by the use of a felt hat such as has now been 

adopted." Floyd went on to state that many officers 

and men had provided themselves with hats at 

their own expense.'" 

Nothing is known of the origin of the pattern 

hat except that it was the property of a "private 

individual" and was returned to him after use by 

the board and the Quartermaster General." Whoever actually designed the hat, at least two members of the board may well have influenced the 

pattern. Major William Hardee, the recorder, had 

served in the 2d Dragoons during the period in 

which that unit was issued the voltigeur hats and 

may well have suggested the buttons and chin 

strap, both of which had been on the voltigeur pattern. Perhaps even more to the point regarding 

style, in 1854, Sumner, the president of the board, 

then of the 1st Dragoons, reporting on a lengthy 

inspection trip to Europe, stated in his "Notes on 

Troops in Belgium and Holland" that the best 

head dress for a soldier he had ever seen was worn 

by the Belgian Chasseur a Pied. "It is a hat with 

a medium sized brim, turned up on the left side, 

worn with a cover in undress, and without the 

cover, and with a cockade, and small black feather 

in full dress. I think it is well adopted to our service, and looks remarkably well, either singly, or in 

large bodies.'"' When Sumner returned from his 

trip, he brought back with him two hats he had 

purchased in London, not further described, and 

for which he was reimbursed by the government." 

These hats, of which nothing definite is known, 

were turned over to the Quartermaster General and 

forwarded to the Philadelphia quartermaster.'" As 

we know, however, neither of these was the pattern 

furnished by the board. 

Whatever exactly this hat was, despite the fact 

that Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War, approved 

the model, and despite the fact that Hardee was a 

member and recorder of the board that recommended it, it was not the hat that has become so 

well known as the "Jeff Davis" or "Hardee." In 

1858 when a "hat" was prescribed for the whole 

Army, Davis had not been Secretary of War for a 

year and Hardee was not a member of the board 

recommending the change. Th e 1858 board, in its 
NUMBER 30 

report, stated: "The hat proposed is in the opinion 

of the Board equally suitable for troops of all arms 

of the service and it is accordingly recommended 

for the whole Army, except for the Cavalry, as no 

necessity appears to exist for changing the hat of 

this Corps." The board then supplied detailed 

measurements for the model and two identical pattern hats made on request by Warnock and Co. of 

New York, one trimmed and one untrimmed."' In 

December 1858, Jesup, in answer to a query from 

an officer of the 1st Cavalry, wrote that the cost of 

the "Cavalry Hat complete, pattern of 1855 is 

11.46" and that "the cost of the Army Hat complete, pattern of 1858, is |3.37."" In 1859, one cavalry officer, in submitting his requisition for hats, 

stated that he "would prefer those of the new pattern,""' while another officer of the same regiment 

in asking for chin straps for use with the hats issued 

him stated that such "were issued with the old pattern hats."'' 

The size, shape, and appearance of this hat was 

long unknown, and no authenticated specimen of 

it was known to exist. The first hint came when 

this chapter was in draft with the discovery of a 

purported illustration of a "U.S. Cavalry Hat 

(Felt) " on what appeared to be an advertising 

broadside for military headgear found pasted to 

the inside cover of a copy of Horstmann's 1851 uniform catalog'^ (Figure 1). Although, as can be 

seen, the hat is black, or certainly dark, has a flat 

crown, and carries the side eagle, plumes, hat cord 

with acorns, and the chin strap as prescribed, the 

absence of citation made its authenticity questionable. 

A stronger hint regarding the hat was found in 

a block of the Quartermaster General's correspondence in the National Archives. Early in 1858 (it 

must be remembered that the first contract for the 

1858 Army hat was not let until 30 July 1858) the 

Secretary of War authorized the exchange of a 

number of items of arms, uniforms, and equipment with the Danish government. Among the 

uniforms listed was one "Cavalry Hat, with Eagle 

and plume" with the "letter A fixed on the Hat.'"" 

In the summer of 1970, a member of the Smithsonian museum staff located the exchanged articles 

in the Tojhusmuseet (Royal Arsenal Museum) in 

Copenhagen. Among the items was the "Cavalry 

Hat" with the "letter A" affixed, identical to that 

pictured in the advertizing broadside."' 

Figure 1—"U.S. Cavalry Hat (Felt)." 

(See text and note 25 for source.) 

The hat (Figure 2) is black, of a fur or wool 

felted material artificially stiffened with shellac. Six 

and one-half inches in height, the hat measures 

51/2 inches across the crown with a 3-inch-wide 

brim, tightly bound with a i^-inch black tape. The 

leather sweat band of a near-maroon color measures 23/8 inches. The crown is reinforced at the 

top and down the sides with a dish-like insert 13^ 

inches deep of an i/^-inch-thick hard cardboard-like 

material with a painted finish, apparently glued 

in. The i^/^-inch-wide two-piece black leather chin 

strap, I814 inches long overall, is stitched to the 

inside of the hat 3i/^ inches above the brim. (The 

other end had been similarly stitched but has come 

loose.) The brass chin strap buckle is Y^ by 3/^ 

inches with rounded corners. The brim is looped 

up on the right side with a small general service 

button sewed to the brim at the point of juncture. 

This button apparently was intended to hold in 

place the side eagle, which is missing with no sign 

of it ever having been affixed. The cords draped 

about the crown are of yellow worsted, two strands 

twisted, 'i/g inches in diameter, basted to the crown 

1 inch from the top in rear and draping 37/^ inches 

in front. The cord about the base of the hat, which 

is completely separate from the cords above, is of 

the same size and material and terminates in two 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 2.—1855 cavalry hat. 
NUMBER 30 

acorns %g inches long and Yg inches across.'' The 

letter "A" of brass is % by I14 inches, the same 

size as that worn on the 1851-1854 cap, and is affixed by a single wire loop, soldered to the reverse, 

inserted through the crown and held in place with 

a leather thong. The black ostrich plume on the 

left is held in place by a rosette made of four concentric circles of black yarn with a small general 

service button in the center, the whole placed Si/^ 

inches to the left of center front. There is no 

maker's label. 

Since the two cavalry regiments had already been 

forwarded their allotments of clothing and equipage for the fiscal year before the adoption of the 

hat, there was no general issue of the item until 

well into 1856, the units wearing the 1851-1854 

cap. There were several small issues to recruiting 

"rendezvous," however.^o The rate of issue, in view 

of the fact that it was the only piece of headgear for 

both dress and fatigue, remained the same as for 

the cap, that is, two the first and third years, and 

one the second, fourth, and fifth years.^" Although 

the "eagle" used to fasten up the right side of the 

hat is nowhere described (since the pompon eagle 

on the 1851-1854 cap and the eagle looping up 

the brim on the hat adopted for the whole Army 

in 1858 are virtually identical), it seems probable 

that this same eagle was used with the cavalry 

model." This eagle is a rendering in metal of the 

Arms of the United States as depicted in Army 

Regulations."' A number of these "eagles" have 

been examined on both the 1851-1854 caps and on 

the 1858 hats, and in a large majority of cases, 

the eagle's head faces the heraldic right (the left 

as viewed) despite the fact that the eagles depicted 

in the regulations had their heads turned to the 

heraldic left. 

A total of 5500 of these hats were procured during its life." Thus, if the two regiments were at full 

strength of 615 enlisted men each, at the prescribed 

rate of issue the supply would have lasted something less than three years. 

THE 1858 ARMY HAT 

The unsuitability of the 1851-1854 cap for field 

service and the widespread use of nonregulation 

slouch hats by officers and enlisted men alike, all 

coupled with the adoption of a hat for the Cavalry, 

made a change to a more practical headgear for 

the whole Army almost inevitable. Just what finally triggered the design and adoption of a hat for 

all branches is not completely clear, but the cavalry hat provided the impetus for strong requests 

for the adoption of the same for the other corps 

from senior and junior officers alike during 1857. 

Such experienced officers as Bvt. Lt. Col. John B. 

Magruder, 1st Artillery, and Lt. Col. Philip St. 

George Cooke, commanding the 2d Dragoons, requested the issue of cavalry hats to their units."^ 

Then in November 1857 Colonel E. B. Alexander, 

Commanding Officer of the 10th Infantry, when 

submitting his annual estimate for clothing and 

equipage, enclosed a letter to the Secretary of War 

suggesting that a board of officers be established to 

"devise and submit to the War Department a hat 

for foot troops," carrying the endorsement of General Scott, Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The 

Secretary of War approved the idea, and Special 

Order No. II, War Department, 25 January 1858, 

set up a board ordered among other things "to devise and report upon a hat for foot troops . . . for 

full dress . . . and for fatigue." The board was 

further ordered to recommend whether such a hat 

should be for foot troops only or for the whole 

Army.'" 

The board, made up of Lt. Col. J. E. Johnston, 

1st Cavalry, Lt. Col. G. W. Lay, 6th Infantry, Capt. 

DeLancey F. Jones, 4th Infantry, 1st Lt. A. P. Hill, 

1st Artillery, and 1st Lt. Roger Jones, Regiment of 

Mounted Riflemen, met as ordered and on 9 February submitted its report together with two sample 

hats, which had been procured at its instance from 

Warnock & Co. of New York City. The board 

found the proposed hat to be "equally suitable for 

troops of all arms of the service" and recommended 

it for the "whole Army, except for the Cavalry as 

no necessity appears to exist for changing the hat 

of [that] Corps."" 

The board described the proposed hat as: 

black felt, according to pattern 

Crown—6}/2 inches high, front and sides, oval head Yz inch 

curve 

Tip—5 Ys inches long by 5 % wide 

Brim—3 inches wide 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Crown of hat quite full just above the band to secure a 

hold upon the head. 

The report went on to describe at length the hat's 

trimmings for both officers and enlisted men.°* 

Although the board's recommendation was approved in principle by the Secretary of War,TM some 

minor exception was taken to the pattern hats submitted and Bvt. Col. C. A. May, 2d Dragoons, Superintendent of the Mounted Recruiting Service 

stationed in New York, was requested by the Adjutant General, Col. Samuel Cooper, to secure additional patterns from Warnock incorporating a 

change or changes unstated, and send one to Philadelphia and two to Washington.^" 

General Orders No. 3, dated 24 March 1858, 

stated: 

For Officers: Of best black felt. The dimensions of me 

dium size to be as follows: 

Width of brim, 3 54 inches, 

Height of crown, 6^4 inches, 

Oval of tip, !/2 inch. 

Taper of crown, ^ inch, 

Curve of head, % inch. 

The binding to be /a inch deep, of best black ribbed silk. 

For Enlisted Men: Of black felt, same shape and size as 

for officers, with double row of stitching, instead of binding, around the edge. To agree in quality with the pattern 

deposited in the clothing arsenal. 

Trimmings 

For General Officers.—Gold cord, with acorn-shaped ends. 

The brim of the hat looped up on the right side, and fastened with an eagle attached to the side of the hat; three 

black ostrich feathers on the left side; a gold embroidered 

wreath in front, on black velvet ground, encircling the letters U.S. in silver, old English characters. 

For Officers of the Adjutant General's, Inspector General's, Quartermaster's, Subsistence, Medical and Pay Departments, and the Judge Advocate, above the rank of Captain: 

The same as for General Officers, except the cord, which will 

be of black silk and gold. 

For the same Departments, below the rank of Field Officers: The same as for Field Officers, except that there will 

be but two feathers. 

For Officers of the Corps of Engineers: The same as for 

the General Staff, except the ornament in front, which will 

be a gold embroidered wreath of laurel and palm, encircling 

a silver turreted castle on black velvet ground. 

For Officers of the Topographical Engineers: The same 

as for the General Staff, except the ornament in front, which 

will be it gold embroidered wreath of oak leaves, encircling 

a gold embroidered shield, on black velvet ground. 

For Officers of the Ordnance Department: The same as 

for the General Staff, except the ornament in front, which 

will be a gold embroidered shell and flame, on black velvet 

ground. 

For Officers of Dragoons: The same as for the General 

Staff, except the ornament in front, which will be two gold 

embroidered sabres crossed, edges upward, on black velvet 

ground, with the number of the regiment in silver in the 

upper angle. 

For Officers of Cavalry: The same as for the Dragoons, 

except that the sabres will be reversed, with the number of 

the regiment in the lower angle. 

For Officers of Mounted Riflemen: The same as for the 

General Staff, except the ornament in front, which will be A 

gold embroidered trumpet, perpendicular, on black velvet 

ground. 

For Officers of Artillery: The same as for the General 

Staff, except the ornament in front, which will be gold embroidered cross-cannon, on black velvet ground, with the 

number of the regiment in silver at the intersection of the 

cross-cannon: The brim of the hat to be looped up on the 

left side, and the feathers worn on the right side. 

For Officers of Infantry: The same as for Artillery except 

the ornament in front, which will be a gold embroidered 

bugle, on black velvet ground, with the number of the 

regiment in silver within the bend. 

For Enlisted Men: The same as for Officers of the respective corps; except that there will be but one feather, the 

cord will be of worsted, and the badges of yellow metal. The 

letter of the company, of yellow metal, to be worn in front. 

All the trimmings of the hat are to be made so that they 

can be detached; but the eagle, badge of corps, and letter 

of company, are to be always worn. 

The order also included the statement that the regulation was to go into effect immediately, except 

that the clothing of the old pattern then on hand 

was to be issued until exhausted." 

After an initial objection by an economy-minded 

House of Representatives over the added expense 

of adopting the hat," a supplemental appropriation was made by the Congress and a contract was 

let with John G. Snyder of Philadelphia on 30 July 

for 16,500 hats at |2.75 each. This contract was 

unusual in that in addition to the phrase that the 

hats were to be "like and equal .. . to the sealed 

standard samples," it included the following detailed specifications: 

The material to be composed of four ounces extra prime 

Russia Hare, carrated, and one and a half ounces of best 

Scotch Coney, the stiffening of the best Campbell Shellac 

in solution of alcohol. Inside trimming to be of the best 

quality black japanned leather, three inches deep, sewed to, 

but not through the Hat, a double row of stitching of the 

best black silk instead of binding around the edge of the 

brim:—To be manufactured in the best workmanlike manner, and fully equal in all respects to the sample pattern 

furnished. . . *^ 

These specifications, with two slight changes in ingredients, continued in force through the life of 
NUMBER 30 

the pattern." The rate of issue for the hat was set 

at one per year." This issue rate is at some variance 

with that of the cavalry hat, seven in five years. 

This same order, however, setting the rate of issue, 

also authorized a forage cap for all enlisted personnel at the rate of one per year. 

In June a change in the trimmings for the hats 

of cavalry officers was ordered. It will be remembered that the cavalry's only distinguishing branch 

of service had been the color of the hat cord, yellow, with the number of the regiment in front for 

officers and the letter of the company for enlisted 

men. General Order No. 7 of 24 June stated: "The 

trimmings for the hat prescribed [in G.O. No. 3, 

24 March 1858] for officers of dragoons, will hereafter be worn by officers of cavalry, except that, for 

the latter, the number of the regiment will be in 

the lower angle of the . . sabers."" In other 

words, where the earlier order stated that the 

crossed sabers of dragoon officers were to have their 

edges upward with the number of the regiment 

above, and those of the Cavalry to have their edges 

"reversed," now the two corps were to be distinguished only by the placement of the regimental 

number. Since the earlier order states that the hat 

trimmings for enlisted men were to be the same as 

for officers of their corps, the enlisted device 

changed accordingly. 

In regard to the "eagle" which anchored the 

looped-up brim, comparison of a number of them 

taken from 1851-1854 caps and 1858 hats indicates 

that they are the same design, size, and composition, with the only difference being the method of 

attachment. During the 1961-1965 Civil War Centennial celebration, these hat eagles were reproduced in large numbers, many artificially aged, and 

collectors should approach specimens offered them 

with caution. 

The general order authorizing the hat was hardly off the press before units were requisitioning the 

item; but because of the stocks of the old pattern 

cap that had to be issued until exhausted, because 

units had already received their annual allotment 

of clothing, and because of manufacturing lead 

time, there was no general issue until 1859." An 

effort was made, however, to get the hats to recruit 

depots, although some recruits during this period 

were still issued the cap.^' 

Hardly had the hats reached the troops in the 

field than there were numerous complaints from 

officers of mounted units because the item was issued without the chin strap, which had been included with the cavalry model. Captain T. J. 

Wood of the 1st Cavalry in making his request for 

such, wrote: "The chin strap should be of light 

but very strong leather. Patent leather is too frail. 

. . The straps furnished with the first pattern of 

uniform hats were generally too short, and being 

of patent leather were soon broken. . . .'"" The reply of the Quartermaster General to one such complaint is worthy of note: 

Your suggestions as to Hats and Chin Straps are good and 

acceptable. It is only by reports from officers in actual command and service that the merits of the supplies furnished 

to the Army can be known, but it frequently happens that 

articles are adopted without reference to this Office, and in 

all cases it is our duty to conform strictly to the pattern 

furnished. It was from this cause that chin-straps were 

omitted this year from the Cavalry and Dragoon Hats. The 

attention of the War Department however has been called 

to the matter, and they will hereafter be supplied.TM 

Actually, the matter had been brought to the attention of the Secretary of War several months 

earlier, and he had authorized the addition of chin 

straps to hats issued to the Cavalry and Dragoons."' 

As a commentary on the matter, of the more than 

two score 1858 pattern hats examined, including 

one of an officer of the 2d Cavalry, none shows evidence of ever having had a chin strap attached nor 

do any of the hats pictured in Miller's Photographic History of the Civil War, either officers' or 

enlisted men's. 

Despite its apparent practicality and the pressure brought on the War Department to adopt it, 

the 1858 hat was not popular, to say the least. 

Comments on it ran from "nuisance," "heavy, hot, 

stiff, and ill-looking," to "abomination' and "unsightly abortion."^" One correspondent wrote to the 

Army and Navy Journal: "Many regiments refuse 

to draw them; others get rid of them as soon as 

possible after drawing them."" Another wrote: 

"The black felt hat is so much disliked by the entire Army, that it is never worn for even dress occasions if it can be avoided and in a garrison you 

cannot see two officers equipped alike.'"*' Several 

others suggested its replacement with a light weight 

gray or dust colored felt.'^ 

A Medical Report upon the Uniform and Clothing of the Soldiers of the U.S. Army, 15 April 1868, 

the so-called "Woodhull Report," which represented the concensus of more than 120 professional 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

soldiers and/or Army surgeons, was more specific: 

The hat is objectionable from its size and its great weight 

and want of ventilation, evils that grow in importance with 

the lowness of the latitude, until finally the head is oppressed by a constant, close vapor bath. In point of practice 

at nearly every post south of Washington the hat and cap 

give place in warm weather to a lighter substitute, generally of straw. On the northern frontier it does not adequately protect the ears in winter. 

The suggestions for relief all point to the necessity for 

increased lightness and ventilation in warm climates and to 

greater protection in cold regions.^ 

As a substitute, the report recommended what 

amounted to a tropical helmet for hot stations and 

a light-colored, brimmed hat similar to the Andrews model for more general wear.*^ 

A silent, but a most reliable witness, in regard to 

the popularity and utility of the hat is the photographic evidence of the period. Taking Miller's 

Photographic History of the Civil War^ as a reasonable standard, the forage cap easily outnumbers the hat by a hundred or more to one as worn 

by enlisted men in the many hundreds of pictures 

in this work. In this connection, however, it must 

be remembered that although the hat was originally adopted for both fatigue and dress—as the 

frock coat had been in 1851—the subsequent adoption of the forage cap (and sack coat or fatigue 

jacket) in November of 1858"' before the hat went 

into general issue, for all intents and purposes relegated it to a near dress-wear status. Of the group 

pictures checked of men wearing the hat, better 

than 80 percent were of troop units serving in the 

armies in the warmer south-central and southeastern States as opposed to the Army of the Potomac. 

The question as to which side of the hat was to 

be looped up and by whom is somewhat confusing. 

The 1855 hat was to be looped up on the right by 

both officers and enlisted men."" The 1858 model 

as originally authorized was to be looped up on 

the right side by all personnel except officers and 

enlisted men of the Infanty and Artillery." General 

Order 4, War Department, of 26 February 1861, 

stated that infantry and artillery officers were to 

loop up the brim on the right, while General 

Order 6, War Department of 13 March 1861, stated 

that the brim was to be looped up on the right by 

mounted men and on the left by foot soldiers." 

And finally, in the official Quartermaster uniform 

photographs taken in 1865 or 1866, all hats on 

mounted and dismounted personnel alike are 

looped up on the left." As far as officers are concerned, photographic evidence tells us that few ever 

looped up their brims on either side. 

More than 20 enlisted models of the hat have 

been examined (Figure 3) and there is remarkably little variance with the specifications. Two 

have crowns as low as 51/4 inches instead of the 

specified 614, and one has a brim as narrow as 234 

inches instead of 314. The crowns are flat and 

stiff, lined with black oil cloth glued to the surface 

to add rigidity, with the maker's labels printed 

thereon. With two exceptions these labels are similar: "U.S. Army" above a panoply of flags and 

arms with "Extra/Manufacture" below and the hat 

size again below. Of the two exceptions, one has a 

maker's name and address "Swift, Dickinson &: Co./ 

Manufacturers/65 Broadway/New York" below the 

"U.S. Army" and the panoply. The felt includes 

both hare and coney hair. The cords are of 

worsted, terminating in 2-inch tassels as opposed 

to the acorns on the 1855 model, and within an 

allowable tolerance of the prescribed 4-foot 6-inch 

length. The ostrich feathers average the set 10 

inches." Although the order authorizing the hat 

does not specify that the cords were to be the color 

of the facings of the branch of service, there are 

numerous instances in the record of issues of hats 

trimmed for infantry, artillery, etc., and all models 

examined carry colored cords.^ The 1861 regulations specify the cords to be "of the same color as 

that of the facing of the corps."°° 

As is well known, the officers of the period, especially during the Civil War years, wore a wide 

variety of hats, the non-regulation outnumbering 

the regulation by a good margin. There is in the 

National Collections an excellent example of a 

regulation officer's hat carrying the insignia of the 

2d Cavalry or 2d Dragoons, that is, with the regimental numeral in the upper angle of the crossed 

sabers " (Figure 4). This specimen conforms closely to specifications and is very similar to that illustrated as number 57 in Schuyler, Hartley, and 

Graham's 1864 catalog."* The flat crown is stiffened 

with glued pasteboard covered with red silk carrying the printed maker's label in gold: "Wm. H. 

Wilson/successor to/J. H. Wilson/Fine/Military/ 

and/Naval/Outfits/Philadelphia." The cord is of 

twisted strands of black silk and gold braid covered cotton, two each. Its original ownership is 

unknown. The popular low-crowned "Burnside" 
NUMBER 30 

FIGURE 3.—1858 Army hat. 
10 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FiGURi; 4.--185 8 officer's Army hat. 

FIGURE 5.—The "Burnside " ijattern. 
NUMBER 30 11 

model, number 60 in the Schuyler, Hartley, Sc 

Graham catalog"" is represented by a specimen worn 

by Lt. Nathan Levy of the 10th Michigan Infantry 

(Figure 5). In poor condition, it carries no maker's 

label, but there is evidence that the brim was 

looped up on the right. The 3-inch brim is near 

regulation, but the 5i/2-inch high crown is rounded 

rather than flat. It is interesting to note that the 

catalog calls this the "Burnside Pattern" indicating that it was so called as early as 1864. Another 

extremely popular model, to judge by photographic 

evidence, is that worn by Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman (Figure 6). With a 3-inch brim 

and a QYg-inch rounded crown, this hat shows no 

evidence of having had the brim looped on either 

side. Rather, the wear fore and aft on the crown 

indicates that it was most probably worn with a 

rather deep crease. In rather poor condition, the 

specimen carries no maker's label. The prescribed 

all-gold general officers' hat cord is missing. 

Although the general order authorizing the hat 

prescribed the insignia to be worn by both officers 

and enlisted men, it gave no sizes. A reasonable 

assumption, however, is that the badges were to 

follow those illustrated in full size in the 1851 

uniform regulations.'" 

Of the enlisted insignia, the sizes of only the 

number of the regiment, 5/^-inch long, and the letter of the company, 1 inch high, are given in the 

1861 uniform regulations. Each was to be fixed to 

the hat with two wires run through the fabric and 

bent over. A complete description of all the insignia, including measurements, is given in the 

1865 Quartermaster Manual, however. The hat 

"eagle" was to be 2i/2 inches high by 2 inches wide 

and fixed to the hat with two wire loops run 

through the felt and pegged on the inside; the engineer castle was to be 1 ^ inches wide by li^ 

inches high fixed with two wire loops; the ordnance shell and flame was to be 23/^ inches high by 

13^ inches wide, again fixed with two wire loops; 

the crossed sabers of the Cavalry were to be 33^ 

inches long each, with the width from the back of 

the hilt to the point of the other 1 ^ inches, the 

whole fixed with four wire loops. The infantry 

bugle, or "looped horn" as it is often called, was to 

be 31/2 inches long and li/^ inches wide at the loop, 

fixed with two wire loops; the crossed cannon were 

to be 31/2 inches long each, crossing at the trunnions, with the breech 5/^ inch wide and the muzzle 

1/2 inch wide, the whole fixed with four wire loops. 

The enlisted insignia examined all conform closely 

to these specifications. The "trumpet, perpendicular" prescribed in 1850 for both officers and enlisted 

men and in 1851 for officers only of the Regiment 

of Mounted Riflemen " was revived with the hat 

and was worn until the redesignation of the unit as 

cavalry in 1861." Quite naturally this insignia was 

FIGURE 6.—General Sherman's hat. 
12 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

mentioned in neither the 1861 uniform regulations, 

which were not published until 1862, nor in the 

1865 Quartermaster Manual. 

Of the officers' insignia, there is far less to go on 

and far more variation as to size. The 1861 regulations specified only that the staff and corps insignia were to be gold or silver embroidered on 

black velvet backgrounds. General and staff officers were to wear a gold embroidered wreath, of 

unspecified composition, encircling the silver letters "U.S." in Old English. Engineer officers were 

to wear a gold embroidered wreath of laurel and 

palm encircling a castle in silver, topographical 

officers a gold embroidered wreath of oak leaves 

encircling a gold embroidered shield. For officers 

of ordnance, cavalry, artillery, and infantry, gold 

embroidered shells and flames, gold embroidered 

crossed sabers, edges upward with the number of 

the regiment in silver in the upper angle, gold embroidered crossed cannon with the number of the 

regiment in silver at the intersection, and gold embroidered bugles with the number of the regiment 

in silver in the bend, respectively. No sizes were 

specified. Since the 1865 Quartermaster Manual 

dealt only with issue items, no specifications were 

given for officers' devices. Examination of a number of specimens reveals more uniformity in the 

size of the black velvet backgrounds than in the 

devices affixed thereon, the size of the devices averaging perhaps 10-15 percent smaller than those prescribed for enlisted personnel. If the 1851 uniform 

regulations and the Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham 

illustrations are taken as a standard, the documented or biographical pieces examined match 

rather closely, while the undocumented vary to a 

greater degree." Some officers' insignia in metallic 

imitation gold embroidery on black velvet backgrounds are known. All of the officers' hat cords 

examined carry acorns on the ends, similar to those 

on the 1855 cavalry hat, rather than the tassels on 

the enlisted model. 

THE 1858 FORAGE CAP 

Although the 1851-1854 cap was an improvement over the 1832 and 1833 dress models, as 

stated above it quickly proved impractical for active service. In 1854, Inspector General Sylvester 

Churchill reported that at posts he had inspected 

since the previous June, officers queried opposed 

the cap at a ratio of about two to one,'' and the 

commanding officer of at least one regiment complained bitterly about the unsuitability of the cap 

for wear in the field and especially for fatigue duty, 

and requested for his unit a reversion to the 1839 

pattern forage cap." Admittedly, this cannot be 

taken as representative of the opinion of the Army 

as a whole, but combined with the widespread wear 

of nonregulation broad-brimmed hats by officers 

and men alike of all arms during the period, it is 

strong evidence that the cap was both disliked and 

imsuitable. A fatigue or forage cap was needed. 

In February 1857, Lt. A. J. Donelson, Commanding Officer of the Company of Sappers, Miners, and 

Pontoniers then stationed at West Point, wrote Bvt. 

Brig. Gen. Joseph G. Totten, Chief Engineer of 

the Army, pointing out the disadvantages of the 

cap, especially for engineer troops who were essentially skilled laborers, and suggesting either that 

the cap be retained for dress only and either the 

old forage cap or a felt hat similar to the cavalry 

pattern be issued for fatigue wear, or that such a 

felt hat be issued for both dress and fatigue. He 

went on to suggest further that if the 1851-1854 

caps were retained, the allowance might be a fatigue or forage cap each year and a dress cap the 

first and third years, the total issue of headgear for 

the five year enlistment remaining unchanged." 

Major Richard Delafield, Superintendent of the 

Military Academy, passed the letter along with a 

covering letter of approval. Totten in turn endorsed the concept and referred the proposal to the 

Secretary of War with the recommendation that the 

"Engineer Soldiers" be issued "two caps of the 

present style and five forage caps of the pattern 

lately used [i.e., the 1839 pattern] . . with such 

modifications as may be necessary to adapt it better 

to fatigue duty .. . in lieu of the seven caps of the 

pattern now used." He pointed out that the cost 

of the seven caps and trimmings was about -l^ 14.80 

per enlistment while those proposed would total 

about $11.25. The Secretary of War, John B. Floyd 

approved the suggestion on 31 March," and Delafield was instructed to have a forage cap made with 
NUMBER 30 13 

"the desired modifications" so that it might be forwarded to the Quartermaster General as a pattern." 

Delafield passed the job on to Donelson, who had 

two cloth caps of the "chasseur pattern" made, 

which he forwarded to Washington. One of these 

had a low crown and one a high crown, which he 

said could be furnished by the maker at |1.00 and 

$.871/2 each by the hundred, respectively, without 

cover or insignia.TM The cap with the higher crown 

was selected and forwarded to Jesup as a pattern 

with the request that procurement and issue be 

made according to it. Jesup in turn forwarded the 

pattern to the Philadelphia depot with instructions 

to have 150 made with a supply to be kept always 

on hand.^" These caps were made at Schuylkill 

Arsenal rather than on outside contract.^' 

Although there is no specific mention of insignia 

in the endorsements of his proposal, Donelson, in 

his letter to Totten of 26 June, stated that "if either 

of the cloth caps were adopted, the supposition is 

that it would be worn always with the castle,"^' 

while Totten in his endorsement of the original 

proposal did speak of the price of "caps and trimmings."''^ Thus, the surmise must be made that the 

engineer castle was to be worn on the cap, probably 

that prescribed for the 1851-1854 cap, which would 

have been suitable as to size. The first listed issue 

was in January 1858 to engineer troops at Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas, "74 forage caps, 74 cap covers," the latter an item not heretofore mentioned." 

The exact design of this cap is somewhat uncertain, for as will be seen below, there is some 

doubt that this pattern was that selected for issue 

to the whole Army in 1858. The two caps that he 

sent to Washington Donelson called "cloth or chasseur."^ The dress of the French Chasseurs a Pied, 

or foot rifles, the elite of the French Army in this 

period, enjoyed quite a vogue with American officers, both regular and militia, in the 1850s, so 

neither the design nor the designation was particularly unusual. Actually, almost the entire French 

army had gone into a bonnet de police a visiere, or 

visored forage cap, in the mid-1840s, very similar 

in design and dimensions, if not in trim, to that 

adopted for the U. S. Army in 1858.'° Again, the 

Albany [New York] Burgesses Corps, one of the 

better known and more affluent of the nation's volunteer militia organizations, as early as April of 

1857 was wearing a forage cap very similar to the 

1858 pattern." 

Perhaps more to the point, Capt. George B. McClellan, on his return in 1856 from an inspection 

tour of the European armies, had been assigned to 

West Point where he supervised the construction 

of mortar and seige batteries.** While stationed at 

the academy, he must have worked on his official 

report, which contained comments on the uniforms 

and headgear of all European armies, and possibly 

with some help from Lt. Donelson,'" who could 

well have been influenced in regard to the design 

of forage caps that he submitted to Washington. 

Although in his report, McClellan recommended a 

visorless forage cap that could be folded and carried 

in pack or saddle bag, he did speak in some detail 

of the French forage cap, describing it as having a 

large straight visor and a loose conical top."" 

The closest thing we have to a description of the 

cap is a list of the materials used in its manufacture: 

%g yards of cap cloth, sweat leather, visor, two vest 

buttons, black muslin, fullers board, chin strap and 

buckle."^ 

Nothing further appears in the record in regard 

to forage caps until the following summer. In August Brevet Major William H. French, Commanding Officer at Fort McHenry, Maryland, and of 

Light Company K, 1st Artillery stationed there, 

wrote the Adjutant General: 

I send four fatigue caps of a pattern for service in garrison. It is light, comfortable, military, and cheap. It looks 

better as a dress cap than the old cloth cap. 

My men were in the habit of taking out the stiffening of 

their old caps, to wear them on fatigue, wh'ch looked so 

badly that seeing one of these worn by a bugler, I told the 

men that if all would wear them when at work or at stables 

they might get them for that purpose. 

In respectfully asking permission for my men to wear 

them I would add that the high stiff cap & the hat with a 

brim are not as well adapted for stable duty when grooming 

horses from the liability of touching the horse and being 

knocked off. 

I send four caps for artillery, cavalry, infantry, and staff."" 

This letter, which was received by the Adjutant 

General on 12 August, carries no endorsements, indicating that it was not seen by anyone outside the 

receiving office and it was not acknowledged, a 

highly irregular practice in the Adjutant General's 

Office."" Yet, as will be seen below, Jesup was in 

some way apprised of French's request and necessarily brought into the picture, for on 12 November 

he wrote Col. Thomas, the Assistant Quartermaster General in Philadelphia: "The Secretary of 
14 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

War is desirous of introducing the accompanying 

cap as a 'forage cap' for enlisted men and directs 

you report the cost of it .. . . The color of the welt 

around the crown is to correspond in color with 

the facings of the corps . . ."°' Three days later 

Thomas acknowledged the communication, giving 

an estimate of the cost, and returned the cap he had 

been sent together with two caps made at the 

arsenal, apparently of the engineer pattern, remarking that the only difference between the two patterns was in the visor. The letter, forwarded on to 

the Secretary of War, was returned to Jesup on 1 

December endorsed: "Respectfully returned with 

three caps and a copy of General Order No. 13 of 

this date. The style of the cap is to be exactly similar to the sample with the orange colored welt, 

without stiffenings or stitched bands, the visor however to be of the pattern described within as being 

cut to slope.""' The same day Jesup wrote Thomas, 

enclosing a copy of General Order No. 13 and the 

Adjutant General's endorsement, and adding that 

"the cap adopted was made in Baltimore under 

Bt. Major French's direction . . . ." and that the 

sample was to be followed in every particular "with 

the exception of the modifications ordered.""" 

A week later, Jesup wrote a rather curiously 

worded letter to Thomas: 

The stiffening or staying of the cap, that you suggest, was 

urged against the Engineer caps you sent on, by those having the matter in hand, and the absence of anything of the 

kind, in the cap adopted, was claimed, as an advantage in it. 

As our advice has not been sought in the matter, and a 

decision made without our consultation, I am not disposed to 

offer any suggestions, but to carry out the instructions given 

to me, and to leave the test of the Secretary's adoption to 

practical experience. 

If what you apprehend should occur, the Army will make 

it known, and it can be remedied."' 

From this it would seem that although the engineer cap and the patterns submitted by Major 

French were very similar in general appearance, the 

former had some stiffening in addition to that in 

the crown plus the "stitched bands" (whatever they 

may have been) and also a visor "cut to slope," or 

convex, this latter being adopted for French's 

model. This is further borne out by the fact that in 

the list of materials used in making the engineer 

cap, the cost of the fuller's board, id est, paper 

board, was set at $.05, and $.05 will buy a good bit 

of fuller's board. Thus, the cap adopted apparently 

was a combination of the body of French's cap and 

the visor of the engineer model. 

Actually, in more than one sense, French's cap 

had its inspiration in the 1851 model, for the two 

are quite similar in measurement: the height of 

the front and back and the diameter of the top 

averaging 6, 7i/2, and bY^ inches respectively, in the 

earlier pattern, and 4, 6i/^, and 534 inches in the 

later model. If one took out the cap body, or stiffening, as French's men did, he would have a cap 

very similar to that adopted. In matter of fact, in 

April 1859, the Quartermaster General directed 

that all caps of the earlier pattern were to be issued as forage caps and, one would judge, with 

the bodies, or stiffening, removed."' 

General Order No. 13 stated: 

For fatigue purposes Forage Caps, of pattern in the Quartermaster General's Office, will be issued, in addition to hats, 

at the rate of one a year. Dark blue cloth, with a cord or 

welt around the crown of the colors used to distinguish the 

several arms of service, and yellow metal letters in front to 

designate companies. For unassigned recruits dark blue cord 

or welt around the crown and without distinctive badge. 

Commissioned officers may wear caps of the same pattern 

with dark blue welt and the distinctive ornament, in front, 

of the corps and regiment."" 

The sizes of the insignia were not given, but the 

1861 uniform regulations specified the number of 

the regiment and the letter of the company worn 

on the hat as 5/^ inch and 1 inch high, respectively, 

and it seems probable that these same were used on 

the cap."" The sizes of the corps device for officers 

are nowhere given. Although the author has never 

seen or heard of an authentic regulation issue cap 

with the colored welt, there is no question that they 

were issued, the first such issue being ordered as 

early as 16 December 1858, 84 caps for Company E, 

1st Infantry, and in January caps specifically for 

infantry, engineers, and artillery."' The caps were 

manufactured at Schuylkill Arsenal at an initial 

cost of $.85, the cost dropping to $.57 a year later.'"' 

General Order No. 4 of 26 February 1861 brought 

an end to the colored welt, stating that thereafter forage caps were to be made with a dark blue 

welt like that originally prescribed for vmassigned 

recruits."' 

Criticism of the cap varied from good to bad, but 

nowhere was it attacked so violently as the campaign hat. One complained that it was a "waste of 

cloth, too baggy, and caught the wind,""* while 

another called it "useful and even natty" though 

not particularly beautiful. "No other cap is so 

comfortable. There is room for a wet sponge, green 

leaves, a handkerchief, or other protection against 
NUMBER 30 15 

the sun in the top. The slanting visor fits easily to 

the forehead.""" Most complaints referred to the 

cap's appearance, recommending that it be replaced 

by the "jaunty cadet" model.'"" The Woodhull Report spoke of the difficulty of cleaning the cap, the 

"interference of the oblique visor with vision, its 

want of grip . . its want of warmth, the deficient 

protection it affords the face and neck against the 

sun and rain . . . , and, especially, the absence of 

ventilation.""' 

The earliest found detailed specifications for the 

cap, those in the 1865 Quartermaster Manual, state: 

Forage Caps—are of 6 sizes; the bodies to be made of 

dark blue forage cap, or facing cloth. A cap of medium 

size is 15 inches in circumference at base; height in front, 

4 ^ inches; in rear, measured from base to crown on a 

curved line, 5^4 inches; diameter of crown, 5 inches; the 

body to be stiffened around the base by a piece of buckram, 

2% inches wide; a single row of machine stitches, 16 to the 

inch, sewed through the buckram and body of cap, with 

black silk or linen thread, commencing at a point in the centre of front, 1 Yi inches below the crown, and extending each 

way, by curved lines, around the sides of the body to a 

point in centre of rear, 1 /a inches above the base of the 

cap; the crown to be stiffened with a stout circular sheet of 

pasteboard, and the cap lined throughout, inside, with good 

black silesia; a sweat leather, of good black goatskin morrocco, 2 inches wide, to be strongly sewed to the base of the 

cap and through the cloth buckram and lining; a vizor 

of stiff glazed leather, best quality, black above and 

green below, in form of a crescent, the outer curved edge 13 

inches long, and the interior edge 9 inches long, 2 inches 

wide in the middle, to be strongly sewed on the front of the 

base of the cap; a chin-strap, of best quality soft and pliable 

black glazed leather, composed of two pieces Ys inch wide, 

each piece 9/2 inches long, and having sewed on one end of 

each, a black leather loop of same width and material, and 

on the other end a vest button of brass, strongly sewed to 

the cap near the extreme points of the vizor; on one of 

these pieces is to be attached a slide, of No. 19 sheet brass, 

Ys of an inch long and % of an inch wide, made with a 

bar in the centre, over which the strap passes and fastens 

at the middle of the chin-straps in front of the cap; at the 

base, over the vizor and around the crown, a welt of the 

blue cloth covering is inserted; weight of cap, 4 % ounces."' 

A number of specimens of obvious regulation 

origin '"" have been examined, including one sealed 

sample, and their general construction and basic 

measurements vary little except in relation to cap 

sizes (Figures 7, 8). This is somewhat to be wondered at when one considers that these must be 

taken as a cross-section of several million made during the period by a number of different contractors. 

In those checked, the heights of the fronts vary 

from 314 to 43^ inches, the rears from 5.^ to 6i/^ 

inches, the diameters of the crowns from 4 ^ to 6 

inches, and the width of the visors in the middle 

from lYs to 2i/^ inches. The bases of the cap bodies 

are stiffened with buckram under the sweat leathers and the interiors are lined with glazed cotton. 

The crowns of all are stiffened with pasteboard. 

Many carry makers' labels as "Geo. Hoff M&G, 

N.Y.,." and "U.S. Army/L. J. & I. Phillips," with 

the addition of the contract date in some cases. All 

are cut in the rear in such a way as to come to a 

slight point over the nape of the neck. Although 

the cap was originally ordered to have a visor "cut 

to slope,""" that is, somewhat convex, about 50 percent of those examined have visors completely flat. 

While the 1865 Quartermaster Manual does not 

precisely describe the shape of the visor, it does say 

that it was to be two inches wide in the center. Of 

the caps examined, all the convex visors are exactly 

2 inches wide in the center, while the flat visors 

measure lYs inches in each case. A check of all clear 

group pictures in Miller's Photographic History of 

the Civil War show the convex to outnumber the 

flat visors in a proportion of something better than 

two to one. The one pattern cap, or "sealed sample," of regulation style examined carries a convex 

visor, two inches wide in the center. 

This pattern cap is unusual enough to deserve 

a special note, in that its color, rather than the 

regulation dark blue, is a medium to dark green, 

carries half-round, blank, composition buttons, with 

the red wax "sealed sample" wafer on the sweat 

band and a pasteboard label attached with ribbon 

bearing the legend "Sample/Green Forage Cap/ 

(Berdan) and maker s label "Geo. Hoff & Co./ 

Philada" in the crown. In all respects, its dimensions and construction are very close to the other 

regulation caps examined."' 

Although the green "Berdan" uniform will be 

discussed in depth in a succeeding volume, some 

note of the 1st and 2d Regiments of United States 

Sharpshooters should be made here."' Hiram Berdan of New York, one of the most noted rifle shots 

in the country, in June 1861 wrote President Lincoln regarding the possibility of his forming a regiment composed of proven marksmen. The letter 

passed on to General Winfield Scott (to whom Berdan seems to have appealed personally) through 

the Secretary of War. Scott replied to Berdan that 

he was personally "very favorably impressed" with 

him and thought that such a regiment of sharpshooters "would be of great value and could be 
16 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 7.—1858 forage cap. 
NUMBER 30 17 

FIGURE 8.—1858 forage cap with flat visor. 

FIGURE 9.—Gosline's Zouaves forage cap. 
18 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

advantageously employed . . in the public service.""' The unit was ordered into the service in 

August."' 

No official authorization for the issue of a uniform of a special color to this unit has been found. 

Such an issue at this time was not an exception, 

however, despite the tremendous pressure on the 

Quartermaster Department to clothe a rapidly 

growing army, for a number of so-called elite organizations as the numerous Zouave regiments, the 

Clinton Rifles, and the 4th Regiment of the Excelsior Brigade received such."^ In any case, Berdan, 

who has been described as a highly aggressive individual,"" was given a uniform of near regulation 

cut but of a medium to dark green color, as well 

as leather knapsacks of a "Prussian" pattern and 

leather leggings of "a sample approved" by Berdan,"' and a green forage cap carrying a black 

plume."^ The caps were first issued some time prior 

to 5 November. The maker of the first cap is unknown, but the first group of green uniforms was 

made by Martin Brothers of New York City."" Both 

the uniforms and caps were not children of the 

first heat of the war, but like Zouave uniforms, 

continued to be issued, the green to the sharpshooters as late as 1864.''° 

One other sealed sample has been examined, although nonregulation, and is of considerable interest, that manufactured for Gosline's Zouaves, 

the 95th Regiment of Infantry, Pennsylvania Volunteers (Figure 9). Of dark blue cloth, it is piped 

in red at head band and crown and vertically front, 

rear and sides. Somewhat lower than the issue 

item, it measures 3 inches high in front, 5i/2 inches 

high in rear and is fitted with a flat visor. Affixed 

to the interior of the crown with a red wax seal 

with "Office of Clothing . . . [most probably 'and 

Equipage'] USA " surrounding an eagle impressed 

on it, is the contemporary handwritten label 

"Charles Laing & Co./100 Zouave/Forage Caps/for 

Col Goslines/Regiment.' 

Cap Covers and Havelocks 

One of the long-standing complaints against both 

the 1825 and 1839 forage caps, besides their issue 

at the rate of but one per five year enlistment, had 

been the fact that they were pervious to water and 

were issued without a water-proof cover.'" When 

the multipurpose 1851 cap was adopted, however. 

a cap cover " (to be worn in bad weather) black, 

of suitable water proof material, with a cape extending below the cap ten inches, coming well 

forward, and tying under the chin" was authorized."' When forage caps were first issued to the 

Company of Sappers, Miners, and Pontoniers early 

in 1858, cap covers of an unspecified design and 

material were issued with them."' 

When a forage cap was adopted for the whole 

Army later that year, however, the question of a 

cap cover was not mentioned. In fact, such was not 

included in official cost of clothing lists until 

1862."' Schuylkill Arsenal had continued to manufacture the caps until the great expansion of the 

Army in 1861, and although contracts for them 

were let as early as July, it was not until late October that caps 'with cotton glazed covers and 

capes" were purchased."* These were listed in the 

1862 cost of clothing list at $.18, but no rate of 

issue was indicated."" Despite the fact that these 

covers were purchased in relatively large numbers 

and were available for issue throughout the war, 

they apparently were seldom worn. Pictures of 

their use are rare, there being few such in the whole 

of Miller's Photographic History of the Civil 

War.''-'' During the fiscal year ending 30 June 

1865, no covers were bought or manufactured, with 

more than 190,000 remaining on hand on the latter date."' These cap covers are extremely rare 

today and are not represented in the National Collections. For this reason, no illustration is included. 

The question of havelocks is something of a 

puzzler. A havelock was a light cloth covering for 

headgear, hanging well down over the neck, worn 

for protection against the sun, reputedly designed 

by Sir Henry Havelock, a British general serving in India. It must have been somewhat similar 

to the 1851 cap cover."" There is no question that 

such were worn in the early days of the Civil War. 

Although no photographs showing their use have 

been found by the author in the many volumes of 

Civil War photographs checked, the special artist, 

Alfred R. Waud, who was noted for his accurate 

detail, very definitely depicts a scouting party wearing them in a sketch dated June 1861."" In addition, several lithographs and woodcuts of the Battle 

of Bull Run in July 1861 show Federal troops in 

havelocks."' There are also references in war memoirs that leave no doubt that they were worn, if to 

a very limited degree. John D. Billings, in his 
NUMBER 30 19 

Hardtack and Coffee, called them "one of the supposed-to-be useful, if not ornamental stupidities" 

of the war, and stated that while whole regiments 

went south with them, if one survived three months 

active service, he had yet to hear of it."' Another 

memoir was equally explicit, stating that the havelocks were so impractical that they were almost immediately transferred "to the plebian use of a dishcloth or a coffee strainer.""' Despite this evidence, 

havelocks do not appear in any official Army cost 

of clothing lists for the Civil War period, nor are 

they mentioned in any issue directives coming from 

the office of the Quartermaster General during the 

same time span."' During the year ending 31 December 1864, no contracts were let for havelocks 

and none were mentioned as being on hand at any 

depot."' Yet the U.S. War Department's Annual 

Report of the Quartermaster General for 1865 listed 

613 havelocks on hand as of 1 July 1864, 456,943 

purchased during the fiscal year, and 6682 on hand 

as of 31 July 1865. These could not have been the 

"glazed cotton covers and capes" purchased in 

1861, for no such were listed, and 190,189 "cap 

covers" were listed as on hand as of 31 July 1865."" 

This odd succession of figures, combined with the 

fact that no authenticated specimens are known to 

the author, makes the havelock, as stated above, 

"something of a puzzler." 

The "McClellan" or "Chasseur" Cap 

Much has been said about the popularly called 

"McClellan' type cape preferred by so many officers 

and worn by some enlisted men.'" There is no 

question that it was a distinct type, though differing from the regulation pattern less than the 

campaign hats worn by many officers,"' and was 

preferred by the majority of officers over the issue 

item. A check of Millers Photographic History 

shows the officers wearing the nonregulation over 

the regulation in a proportion of about three to 

two. 

Actually, when measured there is far less difference between the two than meets the eye, and in 

photographs the two are sometimes very difficult 

to tell apart because of the degree of floppiness 

and the angle from which they are viewed. "McClellan" types measured, including caps formerly 

belonging to General McClellan himself (Figure 

10) and to General William S. Harney, varied 

from 3 to 31/2 inches high in front and 5 to 6 inches 

high in rear, as opposed to the issue item, which 

varied from 3i/2 to 43^ inches in front and from 

bYi to 6i/2 inches high in rear. One reason for the 

visual difference is the quality of the material and 

the method of construction. While the issue models 

have the sides welted to the crown, a majority of 

FIGURE 10.—General McClellan's cap. 
20 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the "McClellan" types have the sides merely sewn 

to the crown, the latter giving a distinctly lower 

appearance. All of the "McClellan" types examined and a majority of those to be seen in photographs have flat visors, which adds to the illusion. 

McClellan's cap carries the maker's label "B. H. 

Stinemetz/236 Penna Avenue/Washington D C" 

in the crown while Harney's carries the label "Warnock 8c Co./No. 519 B'Way/New York." The other 

specimens examined carried no label. 

T h e origin of this nonregulation pattern is difficult to determine. As with the issue model, the 

inspiration for the pattern may well have been 

French. Th e forage caps prescribed for general 

officers of the French army 1852-1870 were very 

similar to the "McClellan" in both height and 

shape and definitely lower than the American issue 

item."" Then it must be remembered that in 1857 

when Lt. Donelson requested the adoption of some 

sort of working cap for his company of sappers at 

West Point, he was instructed to have a forage cap 

made for the Quartermaster General to use as a 

pattern. He had two caps of the "chasseur pattern' 

made up, one with a low crown, one with a high 

crown, the latter of which was adopted. The same 

year, that is in 1857, the USMA cadet forage cap 

apparently was changed from the 1839 Army model 

to the "chasseur" type.'" As the cadet model appears to have a lower crown than the regulation 

army pattern, it is possible that its basic design is 

Donelson's low-crowned but rejected cap. As postCivil War references to officers' wartime forage caps 

often describe them as being of the "cadet" pattern, 

it seems very possible that the origin of the "McClellan" lay at the Military Academy.'" 

There is no question that the lower crowned 

"jaunty" cap was more popular than the regulation 

model, primarily because of its looks, and as the 

war decade drew to a close the crown dropped even 

lower giving an even more jaunty look (Figure 

11a). Early in 1869 the firm of Bent &: Bush of 

Boston was advertising a very low-crowned "Officers' French Chasseur Cap," which certainly must 

be considered a direct forerunner of the pattern 

adopted in 1872.'" This model certainly made its 

way into the Regular Establishment well prior to 

the 1872 change, for the National Collections include one such formerly belonging to Captain 

Henry S. Gansevoort, 5th U. S. Artillery, who died 

early in 1871.'" When Gansevoort purchased the 

cap is unknown, and the maker's label cannot be 

deciphered, but the sweat band shows evidence of 

considerable use. This cap, measuring as it does 

13^ inches in front and 6 inches in the rear, is even 

lower in front than the 2 ^ inches prescribed in 

1872.'" Again, a photograph of Howard B. Gushing (Figure lib), who was appointed a 2d Lieutenant, 4th Artillery, in 1863 and who transferred to 

the 3d Cavalry in 1867 [killed in action against the 

Apaches in 1871], shows him wearing a cap equally as low as the Gansevoort specimen and with the 

regulation 4th Artillery insignia attached. 

On the insignia, the enlisted men were to wear 

metal letters 1 inch high on the front of the cap 

to designate the companies to which they belonged.'" As in the case of the campaign hat, the 

sizes of the prescribed officers' insignia are not given, the regulations merely describing them as the 

"distinctive ornament of the corps and regiment in 

front.""" Four biographical caps with insignia attached have been checked, and three of the four 

match the Schuyler, Hartley & Graham's Illustrated 

Catalogue very closely, while the fourth, the "US" 

in wreath on General McClellan's cap is some thirty 

percent smaller than that on General Harney's 

cap and of a much inferior quality."' Two additional officers' cap insignia should be mentioned. 

A photograph of Col. Hiram Berdan in the National Archives shows him holding a forage cap on 

the front of which is a gold wreath within which 

are crossed muskets with the letters "US" in the 

upper angle and "SS" in the lower.'" In addition, 

there is an extant photograph of Col. Henry A. V. 

Post of the Sharpshooters showing a cap insignia 

comprising a gold wreath enclosing the letters 

"U S S S" without the crossed muskets."" Nothing 

is known of any cap devices worn by enlisted men 

of the Sharpshooters. 

Other than branch and unit cap insignia were 

the quasiregulation so-called "Corps Badges," generally worn on the crown of the cap. First instituted by General Philip Kearny in June 1862 for 

his 3d Division, 3d Army Corps, Army of the Potomac, as a means of increasing esprit de corps, the 

concept was picked up by the 1st Division, 9th 

Army Corps, in February 1863 and then by the 

whole of the Army of the Potomac the following 

month.'" 
NUMBER 30 21 

FIGURE 11.—a, Brigadier General James H. Wilson, c. 1863, wearing a. "McClellan" cap; 

h. Lieutenant Howard B. Gushing, c. 1869, wearing a "McClellan'' cap. {a, U. S. Signal Corps 

photograph, Brady Collection, National Archives.) 

The Army of the Potomac order was quite specific: 

For the purpose of ready recognition of Corps and divisions in this Army and to prevent injuries by reports of straggling and misconduct through mistake as to organizations 

the Chief Quartermaster will furnish without delay the following badges to be worn by the officers and enlisted men of 

all the Regiments of the various Corps mentioned. 

They will be securely fastened upon the center of the top 

of the cap. 

Each corps was given a distinctive design to be 

worn in red by the 1st Division, in white by the 2d 

Division, and in blue by the 3d Division.'" From 

this start, the concept spread to the greater part of 

the Army by the end of the war. 
22 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

THE 1864 LIGHT ARTILLERY CAP 

T h e term "Light Artillery" for many years was 

loosely used to include both "horse'' or "flying" 

artillery in which all personnel were individually 

mounted, and "mounted" or "harnessed" artillery, 

in which some personnel were individually mounted 

and the remainder rode the caissons and limbers. 

In the Civil War, the term generally indicated the 

artillery which accompanied the army in the field 

as opposed to fortress or siege artillery."" 

"Light" artillery in the Army properly dates 

from 1808 with the organization of the Regiment 

of Light Artillery. Of this unit, only one company, 

that of Captain George Peter, was ever mounted 

and then only for a period of about a year for 

reasons of economy. In the Army reduction of 

1821, the Regiment of Light Artillery was disbanded, all the artillery of the army being organized into four regiments, one company of each 

regiment to be designated and equipped as light 

artillery. The latter provision was inoperative until 1838 when, at Secretary of War Poinsett's instance. Brevet Major Samuel Ringgold, commanding "C" Company, 3d Artillery, was directed to 

organize a "light" company in which all personnel 

were to be individually mounted; in other words, 

a company of "horse" artillery."'^ The following 

year one company from each of the other three 

regiments was equipped as a "light" company as 

opposed to "horse." In 1847 Congress authorized an 

additional company from each regiment to be 

equipped as light artillery. During the War with 

Mexico some of these companies fought as "light" 

companies. Several never received their "light" 

equipment, and several fought as infantry. Following the war, a series of changes and counterchanges left the Light Artillery in a state of flux 

until the outbreak of the Civil War. 

Major Ringgold, who was an extremely aggressive and influential officer, had no sooner begun 

the organization of his "horse" company in 1838 

than he was agitating for a distinctive uniform for 

the unit including first, dragoon caps, and then red 

horsehair plumes.'^' Th e plumes were authorized 

for officers in 1839 and for enlisted men in 1841 

with bands and tassels added.'^ 

Early in 1844 a board of officers, of which Ringgold was a member, was set up to consider the 

quantity of clothing issued to the Army. In its report, in addition to reporting on its assigned mission, the board made certain recommendations in 

regard to the headgear of the Army. Specifically, in 

regard to the Light Artillery, the report recommended: "For Mounted Artillery—according to the 

modified pattern, the band and tassel red, the 

plume of red horsehair . ""' Actually, before the 

board rendered its report, some change in the pattern of the cap to be issued the Artillery, and presumably the Light Artillery as well, had been made. 

On 11 April 1844, the Quartermaster General, in 

replying to a complaint of Lt. H. B. Judd, 3d Artillery, regarding the quality of the issue caps, wrote 

that while the caps issued had been procured by 

the late Commissary General, Mr. Tyson, Colonel 

Henry Stanton, the depot quartermaster at Philadelphia, had since been able to supply a cap of 

better material at the same price. Two days later 

he wrote Captain J. B. Scott, 4th Artillery, in regard to issue of the new type. He stated that while 

the old pattern had to be issued until exhausted, 

the quality and pattern of the cap had been improved.'" Just what this change was is unknown, 

but since Ringgold was a member of the board and 

had been successful in his advocacy of a distinctive 

uniform for his "horse" company,"' the pattern may 

have been issued to his alone. As late as 1859 when 

the mounted companies were requesting distinctive headgear, letters to and from the Quartermaster General and the Philadelphia Depot speak of 

light artillery companies being supplied with "the 

uniform cap in use by them anterior to 1851" and 

of "the Ringgold Cap used prior to 1851.'"^° Although the modification must have been slight, a 

modification it must have been, for the 1845 cost 

of clothing lists carried the uniform cap of both 

"Light Artillery" and "Horse Artillery" at $1.27, 

with that of the Infantry and Artillery at $1.22 and 

that of the Dragoons at $1.23. In the same lists the 

band and tassel of both the Light and Horse Artillery was listed at $.53 and that of the Dragoons at 

$.50, and the hair plume of the former at $.78 and 

the latter at $.42, indicating a difference throughout.'"" 

T h e 1851 uniform change brought to an end, 

for several years at least, a distinctive uniform and 

headgear for the Light Artillery. Although General 

Order No. 1 of 30 January 1854 authorized the 
NUMBER 30 23 

short "shell" jacket "for all mounted men," the 

1851 cap and its 1854 counterpart continued to be 

issued to all artillery units."' Sometime in 1857, 

however, before the adoption of the campaign hat 

for the whole Army, there seems to have been some 

agitation in favor of the cap and the horseliair 

plume as opposed to the hat by one or more of the 

mounted companies."" Th e agitation increased in 

the next months to the point that even after the 

hat was prescribed for the whole Army in Alarcli 

1858, the Secretary of Wa r instructed Jesup to issue 

the 1851-1854 pattern with horsehair plume to 

those light companies which preferred them to the 

hat.'°' Jesup then proceeded to call in all caps and 

plumes in stock at various posts around the country for such issue."" Rather oddly, some of the light 

companies preferred the hat, for during the general 

period there were instances of the issue of caps 

and plumes to some light companies and hats to 

others.'"' Indeed, this seems to have carried over to 

as late as 1861, even after the War Department had 

ordered that the light artillery companies were to 

use the "old pattern imiform cap with red horsehair 

plume.""' In Jun e 1861, Harper's Weekly carried a 

woodcut of Company "E," 3cl Artillery, definitely 

equipped as light artillery but with all personnel 

wearing frock coats and hats.'"' 

Wlien several of the light companies first began 

requesting the caps and plumes. Colonel Thomas, 

the depot quartermaster in Philadelphia evidenced 

some doubts as to the cap being strong enough to 

carry the plume and as a result made several issues 

of the "Ringgold cap, used prior to 1851.'""' This 

resulted in some small confusion because of the two 

different types being in use at one time until Brevet 

Lt. Col. J. B. Magruder, 1st Artillery, demonstrated 

a method of strengthening the 1851-1854 model so 

that it would successfully carry the plume.'"" This 

slight modification, whatever it was, came to the attention of the Secretary of Wa r and resulted in 

General Order 20 of 1860 noted above.'^" 

With the outbreak of war, this cap and plume, 

which could hardly have been more unsuitable for 

field or combat wear, all but dropped out of sight. 

A search of thousands of photographs for the period 1861-1865 has failed to uncover a single picture of light artillery so uniformed, and a search 

of letters emanating from the Office of the Quartermaster General directing issues of such indicates 

that but few were sent to the troops. Lt. Philip S. 

Chase, 1st Rhode Island Light Artillery, said that 

it was rare for a volunteer unit to receive the cap 

and plume and that he saw very few of them during 

the war.'"' 

In the latter part of 1863 there seems to have 

been a slight revival of interest in the cap. In September, Colonel George H. Crosman, the depot 

quartermaster in Philadelphia, instructed the military storekeeper at Schuylkill Arsenal to send 170 

light artillery caps with trimmings to New Bern, 

North Carolina, for issue to the "23rd New York 

Battery.'"'' And in November, in answer to a query 

from Lt. Guy V. Henry, 1st Artillery, the Quartermaster General replied that the uniform for officers 

and men of light artillery was given in "Article LI, 

revised regulations of 1861" which stated that the 

"hat" for "companies of Artillery equipped as Light 

Artillery [was to be] the old pattern uniform cap, 

with red horsehair plume, cord and tassel.'"" Then 

in November, Meigs directed Lt. Col. D. H. Vinton, 

the quartermaster in New York City, to send 333 

"uniform caps. Light Artillery" with plumes, cords, 

etc., to New Orleans.'" Vinton, in turn, placed a 

requisition with the Philadelphia depot for 500 

light artillery caps and trimmings, the disparity 

between 500 and 333 seemingly representing Vinton's desire to build up his stocks of these items.'" 

Despite the fact that on 31 December 1863 there had 

been on hand in Philadelphia 2345 light artillery 

caps,"" Crosman, on 29 January 1864, let a contract 

with W. C. Dare of Philadelphia for 1452 "Light 

Artillery Uniform Caps" according to "sealed samples" in his office, at $2.89 each, "each piece to be 

marked with the contractor's name." Th e same 

day he contracted with William Horstmann Brothers of Philadelphia for 1600 red hair plumes, 1600 

bands and tassels, and 374 brass eagles "for Light 

Artillery caps.'"" 

Just what this Dare cap was can be surmised with 

a fair degree of certainty but with no absolute 

surety. Th e stocks of the 1851-1854 pattern had 

not been exhausted and no contract for light artillery caps, other than that let to Dare, was let by the 

Philadelphia Depot during 1861 or the period 15 

August 1862 through 1865.'" Ther e is no evidence 

in the record that a change in cap form was ever 

requested by Crosman or that such was ever authorized, and, unfortunately, the press copies of his 

letters sent for the period November 1863 through 

July 1864 cannot be found. Actually, under exist-
24 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

ing procedures, Crosman did not need authorization 

from Washington to negotiate a contract for so 

small an amount."" Indeed, the letter books of the 

office of the Quartermaster General for 1863-1864 

indicate many issues of special type uniforms and 

equipment without stated or apparent authorization from the top.'*" In any case, in April 1864, 

Meigs directed the issue of 1500 light artillery caps 

with all trimmings to the quartermaster at New 

Orleans.'^' In June 1864, however, when Meigs was 

making up his cost of clothing lists for publication, 

he very curtly asked Crosman why he had priced 

Hght artillery caps at $1.06 in 1863 and $2.89 in 

1864 and if the increase included the trimmings."' 

Crosman's complete reply is missing, and the Office 

of the Quartermaster General's register of letters 

received merely states, in reply to Meigs letter, the 

price paid for light artillery caps "with explanations.""" Whatever Crosman's "explanations" may 

have been, they must have been acceptable to Meigs 

for nothing more of the matter appears in correspondence between the two and the cost of clothing 

list published in July carried the light artillery cap 

at $2.89 with the trimmings an additional $1.94.'" 

The origin of this cap form, which in general is 

similar to the 1851-1854 pattern although quite 

different in detail, is unknown and there is no hint 

given in the corresponence of the period. However, 

in an unpublished report of a board of officers established in 1862 to explore the possibility of a 

uniform change is included: "Cap for Light Artillery Officers—The cap ornaments and trimmings as 

now worn in full dress, except that the cap shall be 

of the shape of model, deposited in Qr. M. Genls. 

Office. Trimmings and plume as now worn.'"'^ 

Whether this is the pattern cap referred to in Crosman's contract with Dare is of course unknown, but 

at least a pattern was available. The 1865 Quartermaster Manual describes the cap and trimmings in 

minute detail. 

Uniform caps for light artillery—of 6 sizes; the following are 

the specifications for caps. No. 3, medium size, viz: body of 

cap made of stiffened felt, so as to preserve its form; made 

on sample block, and covered with dark blue forage cap 

cloth; diameter at the base, 7/2 inches; at the crown, 5 ^ 

inches; covered at top with stiff glazed leather, of best quality, extending over the body % of an inch; sewed strongly at 

4 points,—front, rear, and sides, with 5 stitches each, and 

depressed in the crown %c, of an inch; a band of thin glazed 

leather, best quality, 1 Ys inches wide encircling base; height 

of cap in front, 5 ^ inches; in rear, curved, JYa inches; 

circular vizor of stiff glazed vizor leather, 11 Yl inches long, 

inside edge, and 19 inches on outside edge, breadth in the 

middle, 2% inches, strongly sewed on body with 20 stitches; 

sweat leather of black morrocco of best quality % of an 

inch wide, sewed on exterior of base of cap, and folded inside; a small piece of morrocco, I/2 inches long and 1 inch 

wide, sewed inside of body of cap, l/ a inches from the top, 

with ten stitches, leaving a loop to receive the whalebone 

stick of hair-plume; two chin straps of thin glazed leather, 

best quality, Ys inch wide, one of which to be 8 inches long, 

having sewed on one end a strong ^-inch buckle, of No. 19 

brass; at the other end a yellow vest button, with a piece of 

No. 18 iron wire, 2/2 inches long, looped in the eye of the 

button, with which to fasten the end of the strap to the cap, 

and having a glazed leather slide attached to strap, through 

which to pass the end of the other strap after it has been 

buckled; the other chin strap of soft glazed leather, of same 

quality and width of short chin strap, and 12/2 inches 

long, and having at one end 4 holes, punched at equal distances, to receive the tongue of buckle under the chin, and 

2 additional holes near the middle of strap, to receive the 

tongue of buckle when on the cap; the other end of this 

strap is fastened to the hat by a yellow vest button, with 

wire, similar in all respects to that described above for fastening the end of the other strap to hat. 

Brass crossed cannon,—stamped on a thin sheet of brass. 

No. 28, representing 2 cannon crossing each other at the 

trunnions, muzzles upwards; length, 8/2 inches; breadth at 

breech of cannon, Ys inch; breadth at muzzle, 5/2 inch provided with 4 small brass wire loops, YB inch long, strongly 

soldered on the back, to fasten them on hat. 

Brass bugles,—stamped on a thin sheet of brass. No. 28, 

length, 3 5/2 inches; height across a crook, 1Y2 inches; provided with 2 iron wire loops, one of which is YB inch and 

the other Yi inch long, strongly soldered on back of bugles, 

to fasten them on the hat. 

Horse-hair plume—of bright scarlet, fast color, length 15 

inches; circumference at the bast, where it is encircled by 

a brass ring, 3J4 inches; diameter of brass wire ring Ys inch; 

securely plaited and fastened for a distance of 4 inches on 

a square piece of whalebone, 8 inches long and Yi inch 

square; the plume to be secured at its lower end, around the 

whalebone, by a. piece of red morrocco Yt inch wide, sewed 

around it. 

Tulip, for horse-hair plume.—A thin sheet brass, No. 28, 

tulip of 4 leaves, strongly soldered to a shell and flame of 

same metal; length from bottom of shell to top of tulip 

leaf, 3^4 inches; length of tulip proper 2 ^ inches; diameter 

measured across top of tulip leaves, 1 inch, opening at top 

to receive the plume; at bottom of tulip proper a round 

opening, Y^ inch in diameter; a strong loop of brass wire, 

1-16 [Vio] inch diameter, % inch long, forming a rectangle, 

and strongly soldered to inside of shell, so as to pass through 

the cap and hold the tulip and plume. 

Ea'jle, for light artillery cap,—of thin sheet brass, No. 28, 

holding in left talon 3 arrows, and in dexter talon an olive 

I)ranch, and with beak turned to the right; height, from 

talons to beak, 2 inches; breadth, from tip to tip of wings, 3 

inches; breadth, from arrow points to tip of olive branch, 2 

inches; a strong, brass wire loop Y2 inch long and Ys inch 
NUMBER 30 26 

broad, securely soldered on back of eagle, to pass through 

the cap and hold the lower end of plume stick. 

Cord and tassle for light artillery caps,—to be made of 

scarlet worsted braided cord, (with cotton filling inside of 

cordj) and braided on a carrier machine, about guage [sic] 5 

or 3-16 [%6] inch thick; two plaits, with about 2}4 inch 

cord between them; the one for front of cap 14 inches long, 

and the one for back of cap 17 inches long; from each plait 

is 6 feet of cord, with a round plaque, 2Ys inches in diameter, (made of 3 gimps,) and a tassel, attached to end of 

each cord; these two cords pass through a tassel and two 

small slides, and about 4 inches above the plaques; to have 

a small loop netted on, by which to attach and suspend the 

plaques and tassels, from a button on the breast of the coat. 

The tassels (three in number,) are to be of solid worsted, 

with a netted head, about 2/2 inches long, including head; 

the skirt or fringe of tassels, composed of from 80 to 90 ends 

of bullions; the cord and tassels to weigh about 3/2 ounces. 

Scroll and ring, for light artillery caps.—^The scroll to be 

a circle, sheet brass, No. 28, 1 inch in diameter, corrugated, 

convex J4 inch: a hole in the centre in which is inserted a 

double loop of brass wire 54 inch long, projecting J4 inch 

on outside and 5/2 inch inside, strongly soldered on inside of 

scroll; a double ring of stout brass wire, J/a inch diameter, 

passed through the outer loop, from which to hand the 

tassel cord. 

Several caps in the National Collections (Figure 

12) that carry the maker's label in the crown 

"W. C. Dare/Manufacturer/21 North Second St./ 

Phila." conform to these specifications with tolerances of no more than i/^ inch. And the Schuyler, 

Hartley & Graham catalog of 1864 illustrates a very 

similar pattern with a sunken tip as "Artillery Cap," 

albeit with incorrect insignia.^*" Then again, the socalled official quartermaster uniform photographs, 

originally believed to have been made in 1862, but 

now known to have been taken in 1866, very clearly 

illustrate the Dare cap form with the insignia as 

called for in the 1865 Quartermaster Manual 

quoted above.'" 

Throughout the remainder of the war, there were 

small issues of light artillery caps but only to 

mounted batteries or to units previously provided 

with them, and never to recruits. In fact, the issues 

made during the period were confined to units in 

garrison at established posts."^ Whether or not 

these issues included examples of the "old" or 1851-

1854 pattern is unknown, but probably so, since 

there were stocks of the "old" on hand as of 30 

June 1865. As of that date, there were a total of 

3398 light artillery caps on hand at the various 

depots throughout the country. Of these, more than 

half had to be of the earlier model as the Dare contract was the only such made during the calendar 

year 1864 or fiscal year 1865.'"° 

In the reorganization of the regular establishment following the war, the artillery strength was 

set at five regiments of twelve companies each, two 

companies in each regiment to be mounted with a 

special strength of 122 enlisted men each.'"" Three 

years later the number of mounted companies was 

cut to one per regiment, for a total of five.'" 

Soon after the regulars went into occupation in 

the south or into garrison, there were numerous 

requisitions for and issues of light artillery caps, 

albeit only to the mounted companies.'*' 

Fortunately there are several contemporary illustrations showing the cap in use. Two photoFiGURE 12.—Light artillery cap, 1864. 
26 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

graphs of Capt. William M. Graham with the officers and color bearer of Light Company K, 1st 

U. S. Artillery, and another of the color bearer 

alone, show the cap worn by all, although only that 

of the color bearer carries the correct insignia. The 

cap of the fatter very definitely has the sunken tip 

as prescribed in the Quartermaster Manual and 

shown in the Schuyler, Hartley and Graham catalog, while this detail is unclear in regard to the 

officers' caps.'"' Harpers Weekly for 8 June 1867, 

carries a very clear woodcut entitled "New Regulation Uniform of the United States Artillery" 

(Figure 13). This caption is misleading in regard 

gard to the word "new," for the artillery was not 

given a new uniform until the 1872 change despite 

considerable agitation for such.'" That the caps 

FIGURE 13.—"New Regulation Uniform of the United States Artillery," by A. R. Waud. 

(From Harper's Weekly, 8 June 1867.) 
NUMBER 30 27 

worn in the picture were "new" to most of the 

public is obvious for they had seldom been seen 

during the war and the woodcut was made after a 

drawing made in Richmond, Virginia, by Alfred 

Waud. The note accompanying the woodcut is 

somewhat clearer: 

Regulation Artillery Uniform 

Our engraving on page 356 represents the uniform 

adopted by the Government for the artillery arm of the 

service. The sketch was made at Richmond, Virginia, while 

one of the batteries of the Fifth United States Artillery was 

on dress parade. The coat of the officers and the jacket of 

the privates are a dark blue in color; the horse-hair plume 

of the hat is scarlet, as also are the ornaments and aiguillettes upon the jackets of the privates (the same decorations of the officer's uniform being of gold), and the trowsers, as in present regulation, are of light blue cloth."' 

With an authorized enlisted strength of 1220 enlisted men in the light companies and an issue rate 

of five caps per five year enlistment, something of a 

drain was placed on the cap supply by these units. 

From a total of 2886 on hand as of 30 June 1866, 

stocks dropped to 1943 as of 30 June 1867 and to 

zero sometime early in 1868."" 

At this point, the record becomes somewhat 

cloudy, but the sequence of events can be deduced 

from the evidence at hand. Sometime in the fall of 

1867, seemingly as the result of a requisition for 

400 caps from San Francisco, which Crosman in 

Philadelphia reported as being unable to fill,"" 

Perry contacted Horstmann Bros. & Co. in Philadelphia and had them prepare a "block" for a light 

artillery cap and then several sample caps, one of 

which was forwarded to the Secretary of War for 

approval. Crosman was then authorized to purchase enough caps to fill the San Francisco order to 

the number of 220 as he had recommended, and 

this he did.'"^ For the rest of its life, the light artillery cap lived a "hand-to-mouth" existence, the 

Philadelphia Depot being authorized to "purchase 

[them] if not on hand.""*° 

It seems most probable that all the caps purchased during this period were made by Horstmann. The firm had an excellent reputation with 

the Army and always seemed willing to produce in 

small quantities if asked to do so. Indeed, the last 

reported purchase was from Horstmann, 34 caps, 

at 13.16 each.'"" 

Sixteen light artillery caps have been examined. 

Five carry a round white label pasted to the crown: 

"[numeral for size number]/W.C. Dare/Manufacturer/21 North Second St.,/Phila." The other 

eleven carry a round green label pasted to the 

crown: "[numeral for size number]/Horstmann, 

Bros. & Co./Manufacturers of/Military Goods/Fifth 

and Cherry Sts.,/Philadelphia." One of these latter 

is a sealed sample. No cap of this pattern with any 

other makers' labels has ever come to the author's 

notice. A careful check of the Horstmann caps 

against those made by Dare and against the specifications in the 1865 Quartermaster Manual reveals them to be practically identical in every 

respect and in accordance with the specifications 

as set forth. Thus, when one considers the chronology of this cap, the specifications in the manual 

must have been based on the Dare cap and the 

"block" prepared by Horstmann must have been 

based either on the Dare cap or the specifications 

in the manual, or both. 

In the late spring of 1867, a rumor seems to have 

started going the rounds of both the Army and the 

uniform houses that a change in either the entire 

artillery uniform or the artillery cap alone was to 

take place. The rumor must be given some credence, for Perry on two occasions wrote his quartermasters in the field that a change in the cap was 

contemplated."" During the same period, suppliers 

were asking about such a change and receiving the 

answer that such had neither been authorized nor 

announced.^"' No change of any sort in the cap was 

mentioned in orders prior to the publication of the 

1872 regulations. The origin of the rumor can only 

be conjectured at, but the publication of the Woodhull Report in April 1868 recommending a number of changes in army headgear may have been 

the source. Oddly enough, there is no mention of 

such a possible change in the United States Army 

and Navy Journal for the period. 

When the mounted batteries were reduced from 

two to one per regiment in 1869, there were complaints about the units thus dismounted losing 

their shell jackets, "gorgeous shako'' and "brilliant 

aiguillettes," while at least one regiment requested 

that the entire unit, mounted and foot, be authorized to wear the same uniform as the light battery, 

that is, shell jacket and cap with plume.^"' As a result of this latter request, the Secretary of War authorized the issue of shell jackets to all artillery 

companies since there were some 120,000 on hand, 
28 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

but withheld the issue of caps to any but the light 

batteries since they would have to be purchased, 

adding to his endorsement that "the new regulations may prescribe a new uniform."""' 

T h e end of the light artillery cap in the Army 

came in the summer of 1872 with the authorization of a new uniform for the whole Army and a 

directive by the Secretary of Wa r to sell at auction 

all such caps and insignia (but with no mention 

of the red hair plumes) at public auction.'"' 

THE 1872 REGULATION HEADGEAR 

War Department General Orders Nos. 76 and 92, 

issued 29 July and 26 October 1872, respectively, 

prescribed an almost entirely new uniform for the 

officers and enlisted men of the Army. As to headgear, for full dress, for general officers, officers of 

the general staff, and staff corps, a chapeau; for 

light artillery, cavalry, and enlisted men of the 

Signal Corps a black felt helmet with appropriate 

trimmings, distinctly Prussian in style; for foot 

troops a cap, again appropriately trimmed, of 

French design; for undress, a forage cap, "chasseur 

pattern," very reminiscent of the "McClellan" type, 

which had been so popular with officers during and 

after the Civil War; and for fatigue and campaign 

wear, a campaign hat of a distinctly different pattern from that adopted for the whole Army in 1858. 

Despite some agitation within the Army, particularly among the officers, during the middle and 

late 1860s for a change, such was just not economically feasible.'"" Of the more than 1,000,000 volunteers on the rolls in May 1865, better than 800,000 

had been demobilized by November of the same 

year. By September 1866 the strength of the 

Regular Establishment had dropped to less than 

39,000.'°' Thus, the Army was left with huge stocks 

of uniforms, arms, and equipment which could 

only be disposed of on the open market at a tremendous loss, which would have brought screams of 

anguish from economy-minded Congress, and thus 

had to be used.'"' In 1870 Meigs in his annual 

report wrote: 

No appropriation for the clothing and camp equipage of 

the Army has been made since the war [and none had been 

asked for]. The large appropriation made early in 1865 and 

the proceeds of sales of surplus and damaged clothing have 

sufficed for . . . the purchase or manufacture of such articles 

as were not in store and have been needed for the past five 

years. 

Meigs went on to say, however, that the Act of 

12 July 1870 forbidding the use of balances of appropriations, except for the payment of obligations 

incurred during the year for which the appropriations were made, had left the Army with no funds 

for the purchase of such clothing and equipage not 

in store during the current fiscal year.'"" 

In closing his report, Meigs mirrored the conservatism of some of the older officers regarding a 

uniform change: 

Some officers desire to see a change in the Army uniform. 

I think that, while so large a stock of clothing still remains 

on hand, such a change is inadvisable. It would involve an 

unnecessary expenditure of public money. The uniform in 

which the people of the country fought the battles and made 

the campaigns of the war is endeared to them by the recollection of many a hard-fought field and many a bivouac. It 

is simple, inexpensive, serviceable, and military. Those who 

lead lives, like that of the soldier, in the forest or in the 

wilderness, seek to purchase the surplus articles of Army 

clothing as the most durable and serviceable they can obtain. 

The armies of Europe tend to the use of materials like ours. 

The dark blue coat and blouse, the light blue trousers, form 

a uniform unsurpassed in any service for actual duty in the 

field."" 

But stocks of many items were running low or had 

been exhausted and long storage had resulted in 

considerable deterioration, all of which necessitated 

a request for a deficiency appropriation in the fiscal year 1871."' Th e time for a uniform change 

was approaching. 

The'^Woodhull Report" 

On 3 August 1867, C.H. Crane, the Assistant 

Surgeon General of the Army, wrote as follows to 

the Medical Directors and Chief Medical Officers 

of the Army: 

You are respectfully requested to call upon med'cal officers of experience, serving under your command, for their 

opinions regarding the hygienic fitness (for the localities 

where they are now on duty) of the present uniform and 

allowance of clothing for enlisted men, and to invite suggestions for its modification. 

You will please collect these reports, without delay, and 

transmit them, with your remarks, to this office. 

By order of the Surgeon General:"' 
NUMBER 30 29 

This communication elicited in the next several 

months a total of 168 replies from all geographical 

areas covered by the Army. These were digested 

and worked into a report for the Surgeon General 

by Assistant Surgeon General Alfred A. Woodhull 

and submitted in manuscript form on 31 January 

1868. It was published in printed form as A Medical Report upon the Uniform and Clothing of the 

Soldiers of the U.S. Army under the imprint of the 

Surgeon General's Office, 15 April 1868."' It was 

apparently printed in a limited edition in the small 

printing shop annexed to the Surgeon General's 

office at this time.'" 

Of far greater importance than the report itself 

are the 168 reports and/or letters on which it was 

based. But here we encounter an utter void and 

disappointment, an exercise in research fascination 

and frustration worthy of being included in Richard Altick's Scholar Adventurers had the ending 

been a happier and more fruitful one."" 

During 1867 and a portion of 1868, Asst. Surgeon 

Woodhull was assigned to the Surgeon General's 

Office carrying out administrative and professional 

duties as assigned."" Sometime during the fall of 

1867 he was given the task of collating and digesting the reports requested by the Surgeon General 

in August. The task was Woodhull's alone, for the 

special orders of the period do not show that any 

board was appointed for it and the assignment 

was verbal insofar as the record shows. This latter 

would not have been unusual, however, for the 

office was a small and intimate one in those days."' 

But here the trouble begins. We know from the 

final report that 168 replies were received."' Yet 

from August 1867, when Crane's order went out, 

until 15 April 1868, the date of the printed report, not one single communication dealing with 

the directed subject matter was entered in the register of letters received at the Surgeon General's 

Office or in the name and subject index of letters 

received. Similarly, Woodhull's formal letter of 

transmittal enclosing the manuscript report, 31 

January 1868, was not entered in the register. A 

list of the officers who replied to Crane's letter, as 

well as the entire statements of 22 officers, were 

submitted with the manuscript report but were 

omitted from the printed version "on account of 

their voluminousness.""" The names of the twenty 

two whose "entire statement" were omitted were 

included however."" The fate of these "backing" 

papers can only be guessed at. It does seem most 

possible, however that Woodhull, under the press 

of work, instructed the clerks in the office to set 

aside all answers to Crane's August letter for his 

immediate perusal when time permitted from his 

other duties (being sent from all over the country, 

the letters would have dribbled in over quite a 

wide time span) and thus were never entered in 

the register of letters received. 

The report contains some excellent recommendations and some of rather dubious value, and it 

was of considerable influence in the 1872 uniform 

changes. Those portions relating to headgear are 

as below: 

HAT AND CAP 

A very respectable number stationed between the fortieth 

and forty-second parallels silently acquiesce in the present 

head-covering, but elsewhere it is the subject of general 

complaint. 

Proportionably to the exposure of the head to heat and 

confinement of its exhalations, is the tendency to cerebral 

oppression and disease. In northern climates all the wellknown effects of cold follow the absence of adequate 

protection. 

The hat is objectionable from its size and its great weight 

and want of ventilation, evils that grow in importance with 

the lowness of the latitude, until finally the head is oppressed by a constant, close vapor-bath. In point of practice 

at nearly every post south of Washington the hat and cap 

give place in warm weather to a lighter substitute, generally 

of straw. On the northern frontier it does not adequately 

protect the ears in winter. 

The objections to the cap are, the difficulty of cleansing 

with soap and water, owing to the pasteboard it contains, 

the interference of the oblique visor with vision, its want of 

grip, for the northern stations in winter its want of warmth, 

the deficient protection it affords the face and neck against 

sun and rain in any climate, and, especially, the absence of 

ventilation and the transmission of solar heat by its resting 

directly upon the top of the head—an evil that is aggravated 

by its color. 

The suggestions for relief all point to the necessity for 

increased lightness and ventilation in warm climates and to 

greater protection in cold regions. 

They are chiefly these: 

1. Authority to wear on all occasions an ordinary light 

straw hat during the warm weather, a period that varies 

with the locality. The value of the straw hat consists in its 

lightness, its porosity and its defense against the direct rays 

of the sun. But it is not readily transported, is fragile, is 

rarely sightly, is somewhat inconvenient in the exercises of 

the manual, cannot be slept in, and is unsuitable for cold 

weather. Its general informal use is due to the necessity of 

substituting something for the uniform, its accessibility, and 

its low cost. 

2. For dress a stiff hat, resembling that formerly worn in 
30 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the army and Hned or unlined according to season, with a 

woolen pompon, as shown in the accompanying illustration 

[Figure 14]. This is easily lined, is susceptible of ventilation 

and ornamentation, and is generally associated with notions of 

soldierly appearance. Its chief defects are its weight, its inadequate protection for the ears and neck, and its unyielding 

structure. 

For fatigue, a cloth bag cap, such as is worn in the French 

and Austrian services and shown in the accompanying illustration [Figure 15]. This, which may be regarded as the 

natural complement of any stiff hat, is admirable for its portability, being transportable in the pocket, and for its adaptation to sleeping and to many fatigue duties. The side flaps 

may be turned down at night and in cold weather, but the 

cap is not suited for exposure to the sun in hot climates."' 

3. The Scotch or Glengarry cap with a visor, as advocated by Dr. Parkes for the British Army [Figure 16]. This 

FIGURE 15.—"Cloth Fatigue Gap." 

(From Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 2.) 

FIGURE 14.—"Stiff Dress Hat." 

(From Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 1.) 

FIGURE 16.—"Scotch Cap with Visor." 

(From Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 3.) 

is recommended for ours from its lightness, its portability, 

its coolness in summer by being set upon top of the head, its 

warmth in winter by being pulled down over the ears and 

back of the neck, and its capability of being slept in. It is 

imperfectly illustrated here. It also allows the addition of a 

fur band, that may be turned down, in cold climates and a 

capote can readily be pulled over it. (The bag cap possesses 

these last two advantages, also.) It has the very serious defect, but no more than the present cap, of not shielding the 

sides of the head, face and neck from the sun and rain. 

With whatever cap is worn in hot climates a long broad 

Havelock, properly made of white linen and quilted half 

an inch thick, must be worn to protect the back of the neck 

and occiput. 

In cold climates in winter the contrivance reported by 

Bvt. Lieut. Colonel Alden, as used by the troops on the 

plains, would be a valuable addition to an ordinary cap. It 

consists of a piece of wadded cloth, to be attached, by means 

of three button holes on the upper edge, to the buttons on 

the sides of the cap and to an extra button sewed on the 

middle seam behind, and tied beneath the chin by tapes 

attached near the lower front corner. 

The shape and application are illustrated in [Figures 17 

and 18.] 

4. For hot stations either a kepi or casque or light 

brimmed hat, essentially after the style of the Malay hat. To 

be made of some stiff, light material with a pearl-colored 

cover and an air-space of half an inch between the ring and 
NUMBER 30 31 

FIGURE 17.—"The [Scotch] cap with an additional piece of 

cloth, as used in winter on the plains." (From Woodhull 

Report, 1868, fig. 4.) 

FIGURE 19.—-"External view of the Ventilated or Eastern 

Hat." (From Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 6.) 

FIGURE 18.—"The cloth detached from the [Scotch] cap, 

showing its attachment by button holes and tapes." (From 

Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 5.) 

the head, as is here illustrated [Figures 19, 20]. The exeat 

form, for which there are several suggestions, is immaterial 

while the principle is adhered to. 

5. A light-colored, brimmed felt hat. This is, by all odds, 

the most generally recommended, either as a simple felt or 

looped up for dress, somewhat as in these imperfect illustrations [Figures 21, 22]. This may be kept perfectly simple, or be adorned in the most ornate manner. The brim 

should have a width about equal to the height of the crown. 

Probably the most serviceable hat ever used in the United 

States Army was supplied the Second Dragoons by General 

Harney, in Texas, in 1853. It was a broad-brimmed, soft 

felt, of a pearl or stone color, capable of being looped up, 

but with a stiff brim when let down, and with an orifice for 

FIGURE 20.—"Sectional views of the Ventilated Hat." 

(From Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 7.) 
32 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 21.—'The Three-Cocked Hat." 

(From Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 8.) 

FIGURE 22.—"The Cocked Hat, held under the arm." 

(From Woodhull Report, 1868, fig. 9.) 

ventilation on each side of the crown that might be closed at 

pleasure. This was exclusively used for scouting, but if authorized it might well be used for all purposes. It appears 

to combine all the essentials of protection and comfort and 

not a few elements of beauty. 

[Further investigation has shown that the hat here spoken 

of was designed during the Mexican War by Colonel T. P. 

Andrews, (Paymaster General, retired, very recently deceased,) then commanding the Voltigeur Regiment. A number of this pattern were made but, not being sent out in 

FIGURE 23.—The Andrews hat: a, "as generally worn"; b, 

"in the rain or excessive solar heat"; c, "compressed for 

transportation." (From Woodhull Report, 1868, figs. 10, 11, 

12.) 
NUMBER 30 33 

time for issue in the campaign, were stored until obtained 

by General Harney as just mentioned. No specimen of this 

hat can now be found in the Quartermaster's Department, 

or elsewhere, but, after this report was originally submitted, 

a model hat was constructed on this plan, from information 

received from Colonel Andrews and from officers who had 

seen and men who had worn the original. It is picturesque 

and soldierly when cocked; it affords the amplest protection 

from sun and rain when turned down; it can be laterally 

flattened for transportation without detriment. Three views 

of this hat illustrate these characteristics [Figure 23]. The 

model, now deposited in the Army Medical Museum, was 

made, by direction, by Wm. R. Cole & Co., hatters, of Baltimore. It is believed that this hat is the most appropriate 

that has been proposed. The manufacturers estimate that it 

can be furnished of good quality at a wholesale cost not to 

exceed two dollars and a half.]''"' 

A gray, light felt hat of some description is, without doubt, 

the most serviceable and should be fairly tried. There might 

be two grades for ordinary use [suited to the different climates] of such a quality that either might be worn in an 

emergency and sufficiently inexpensive to be frequently issued. For the very cold stations a pattern of extra warmth 

might be issued without inconvenience or special expense to 

the government or soldier. 

[Several officers in Arizona recommend a light-color 

brimmed hat, the under side of the brim to be lined with 

green as a relief for the eyes from the glare of the sun in that 

verdureless region.] An experimental issue of the Malay 

style might be tried, but it is probably the Harney [Andrews] 

hat properly made would fulfill every necessary indication. 

But whatever covering is worn, it must be light in color and 

be raised from the crown, to save the soldier from the 

disastrous effects of direct solar heat and confined hot air. 

The Marcy Board 

In December 1867, the Headquarters of the 

Army convened a board of officers, consisting of 

Generals Sherman, Sheridan, and Augur, to consider a long overdue revision of the Articles of 

War."' The board rapidly completed its work and 

on 28 January 1868 Sherman, as chairman, submitted a draft to the Adjutant General."' A few 

days later Sherman wrote the Adjutant General regarding the preparation of a new system of revised 

Army regulations and closed by saying that he was 

leaving to resume command of his Indian-troubled 

Division of the JVTissouri."^ On 14 February the remaining members of the board reported their completion of a revision of regulations and submitted 

them to headquarters."" Meanwhile, Surgeon General Barnes had received Woodhull's report and 

forwarded it to the Hea^dquarters of the Army with 

the recommendation that it "and accompanying 

papers be referred to the Board of General Officers 

[then] in session . . . having the subject under consideration." The report was accordingly ordered 

sent to Sherman."^ Despite this, there is no evidence 

that the board either saw or acted upon the report, 

and here the whole matter drops from official sight 

for some time. 

The 1872 Board 

In July 1871 the Secretary of War directed the 

General in Chief to establish a board of officers to 

convene in New York City "for the purpose of preparing a system of General Regulations for the administration of the affairs of the Army," or in other 

words to revise the current regulations."^ Comprising the board were Col. R. B. Marcy, the Inspector 

General of the Army, Col. J. H. King, 9th Infantry; 

Col. Henry Hunt, 5th Artillery; Maj. Richard 

Dodge, 3d Infantry; and Maj. Andrew Alexander, 

8th Cavalry."^ In September Marcy wrote the Secretary of War. "Do you wish that we should bring 

into [the] new regulations any changes in uniform? 

We think it can be improved upon and made better for the service. At present so much clothing 

of the old pattern has been sold to citizens that 

they are found wearing it everywhere. If material 

changes were made this would not be the case 

. . """ This letter carries no endorsement and apparently remained unanswered. Meanwhile Marcy 

requested and was furnished a copy of the report 

of the 1862 uniform board over which Gen. McDowell had presided.'" There is no further mention of a uniform change, either in correspondence 

or in those proceedings of the board that have survived, until the next spring. Late in the following 

April, the board, having completed its work on the 

regulations, was ordered to reconvene early in May 

to consider the subject of a uniform change.'" This 

it did in rather short order, submitting its report 

on 21 June and being formally dissolved a few 

days later.'" 

The board, which worked on the uniform question less than two months, appears to have kept no 

formal minutes of its deliberations, rather working 

initially from the printed uniform regulations of 

1861 (reprinted in 1863 as revised edition) with 

handwritten comments and changes, and proceeding to a final draft in page proofs, again with 

changes and comments in longhand.'^' There is 
34 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

no documentary evidence that the board asked for 

or saw the Woodhull Report, but the individual 

pieces of uniform and headgear that it recommended and that were adopted, especially the 

pleated blouse, the campaign hat, and to a lesser 

extent, perhaps, the dress cap, make it plain that 

considerable weight was given to the illustrations 

in the report, if not to the text. Samples of a dress 

coat, fatigue jacket, dress cap, helmet, forage cap, 

and campaign hat, both for officers and enlisted 

men, were made up by private concerns at the behest of the board for its consideration and submission to the Secretary of War, all without consultation with the Quartermaster General and/or the 

Philadelphia Depot. As to the headgear, Horstmann of Philadelphia made the sample helmet and 

R. Warnock of New York the dress cap, the forage 

cap, and the campaign hat, for which they were 

paid $69.60 and |40.50, respectively."" After adoption the samples were forwarded to the Assistant 

Quartermaster General at Philadelphia so that the 

clothing depot could estimate probable costs and 

production lead time, the officers' models being 

then returned to Washington where they were to 

be protographed for reproduction with the new 

regulations."" 

The new uniform was described in General 

Order No. 76, War Department, 29 July 1872 and 

General Order No. 92, War Department, 26 October 1872 (Figure 24). The two orders are identical 

in wording, but the earlier one was issued in bound 

form with colored lithographic plates of the officers' headgear (less the "fatigue hat") dress and undress coats, sword belts and plates, and shoulder 

knots—the headgear and accoutrements to scale, 

seemingly as an aid to civilian tailors who might 

FIGURE 24.^1872 regulation uniforms. (From Harper's Weekly, September 1872.) 
NUMBER 30 35 

be at too great a distance from Washington or 

Philadelphia to make use of the sealed samples 

available there. The headgear was described as 

follows: 

HAT OR CAP (FULL DRESS). 

For General Officers, Officers of the General Staff, and 

Staff Corps: Chapeau, according to pattern. 

For Officers of Light Artillery and Cavalry: Black felt helmet, with gold cords and tassels, and gilt trimmings, according to pattern. 

For all Storekeepers: Forage cap of dark blue cloth, without braid: badge same as for General Officers. 

For all other Officers: Of dark blue cloth, ornamented 

with gold braid and trimmings, according to pattern. 

For Enlisted Men of Light Artillery and Cavalry: Black 

felt helmet, same pattern as for officers, with cords and tassels 

of mohair—red for Light Artillery and yellow for Cavalry. 

Helmet, ornamented with yellow metal trimmings, as per 

pattern. 

For all other Enlisted Men: Of blue cloth, same pattern as 

for officers, ornamented with mohair braid of the same 

color as facings of the coat; trimmings of yellow metal, 

according to pattern. 

FORAGE CAP. 

For General Officers: Of dark blue cloth, chasseur pattern, 

with black velvet band and badge in front. 

For all other Commissioned Officers: Of dark blue cloth, 

chasseur pattern, with badge of corps or regiment in front, 

top of brass to be even with top of cap, and according to 

pattern in Quartermaster General's Office. 

For all Enlisted Men: Of plain blue cloth, same pattern as 

for officers, with badge of corps or letter of company of 

yellow metal worn in front as for officers. 

FORAGE GAP BADGES. 

For General Officers: A gold embroidered wreath on dark 

blue cloth ground, encircling the letters U.S. in silver, old 

English characters. 

For Officers of the General Staff, and Staff Corps: Same 

as for General Officers, with the exception of those for Ordnance Officers which will have a gold embroidered shell 

and flame on dark blue cloth ground. 

For Officers of Engineers: A gold embroidered wreath of 

laurel and palm encircling a silver turretted castle on dark 

blue cloth ground. 

For Officers of Cavalry: Two gold embroidered sabres, 

crossed, edges upward, on dark blue cloth ground, with the 

number of the regiment in silver in the upper angle. 

For Officers of Artillery: Two gold embroidered cannons, 

crossed, on dark blue cloth ground, with the number of the 

regiment in silver at the intersection of the cross-cannon. 

For Officers of Infantry: A gold embroidered bugle, on 

dark blue cloth ground, with the number of the regiment in 

silver within the bend. 

FATIGUE HAT. 

For Officers and Enlisted Men: Of black felt, according to 

pattern, to be worn only on fatigue duty and on marches 

or campaigns. 

PLUMES FOR OFFICERS. 

For General-in-Chief: Three black ostrich feathers. 

For other General Officers, for Officers of the General 

Staff, and Staff Corps: Two black ostrich feathers. 

For Regimental Officers of Foot Artillery and Infantry: 

Of cock's feathers, to rise five inches above the top of the 

cap, front feathers to reach the vizor, rear feathers to reach 

the top of the cap, with gilt ball and socket: color of plxune 

to be red for Artillery and white for Infantry. 

For Officers of Light Artillery and Cavalry: Horse-hair 

plume; gilt ball and socket, plume to be long enough to 

reach the front edge of the vizor of the helmet: color of the 

plume to be red for Light Artillery and yellow for Cavalry. 

PLUMES AND POMPONS FOR ENLISTED MEN. 

For Artillery: Red pompon, pattern shape; ball and socket of yellow metal. 

For Infantry: White pompon, same shape and with same 

ball and socket as for Artillery. 

For Ordnance: Crimson pompon, same ball and socket as 

for Artillery. 

For Engineer Troops: Red pompon, with white top; same 

ball and socket as for Artillery. 

For Light Artillery: Red; and for Cavalry, yellow horsehair plume, same size and length as for officers; socket 

according to pattern. 

THE FULL DRESS CAP 

The "full dress" cap prescribed for all foot officers and foot enlisted men was very definitely 

French in origin as was the British infantry cap 

of the period."' In general form it was a cut-down 

version of the 1851-1854 pattern with a narrower 

visor. Just where the uniform board got its immediate inspiration is not recorded. The Woodhull Report carried an illustration of a similar cap. 

although bound with leather at the top and bottom.'^ A very similar cap, again bound with leather at the top and bottom, was advertised by Bent & 

Bush of Boston early in 1869, indicating its possible use by militia units prior to 1872."° 

The cap is described in regulations only as "of 

dark blue cloth, ornamented with gold braid and 

trimming, according to pattern," for officers and 
36 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

"of blue cloth, same pattern as for officers, ornamented with mohair braid of the same color as 

facings of the coat; trimmings of yellow metal" for 

enlisted men. Officers' caps were to have plumes 

of cock feathers rising 5 inches above the top, the 

front feathers reaching the visors, red for artillery 

and white for infantry. Enlisted men were to have 

pompons, "pattern shape; ball and socket of yellow 

metal," red for artillery, white for infantry, crimson for ordnance, and red with a white top for engineer troops."" 

The first contract was let on 30 October with 

Bent Sc Bush of Boston for 18,000 caps, complete 

with trimmings at .12.49 each. No specifications 

were included with the contract, but the caps were 

"to be equal to the sealed samples except that the 

bodies . [were to] contain two ounces of Double 

Ring Russia and one half ounce of Coney each."'" 

By 1878 the unit price without trimmings was 

quoted at .11.59, and by the next year had dropped 

to .11.16.'" The initial issue rate was set at one per 

year of enlistment at a cost of .f2.00.^' The date of 

first issue is uncertain. Although issue of the cap 

was ordered as early as 4 December 1872, because 

of a shortage of funds and the fact that manufacture of the new uniform coats was delayed, only 

1456 were issued during the fiscal year ending 30 

June 1873. By comparison, 14,382 caps were issued 

during fiscal year 1874.'^' 

Prior to 1876 no detailed description and measurements of the 1872 headgear were given, the 

bidders being furnished official sealed samples of 

the enlisted models, and the lithographs included 

with General Order No. 76 providing guidance in 

regard to the officers'. Although sealed samples of 

the officers' headgear were on file in the Quartermaster General's office, few suppliers of this latter 

appear to have used them, for as early as 1874 

there was enough dissension among senior officers 

about the lack of uniformity in dress for the Secretary of War to take action. In October of that year 

he directed the Quartermaster General to prepare 

an accurate description of all articles of officers' 

dress for dissemination throughout the Army.'" In 

relation to the headgear, Meigs had the standard 

samples which had originally been used by the 1872 

board forwarded to the original makers requesting 

that they furnish the proper "trade specifications," 

that is, detailed descriptions, for his use.'^" Based 

on the information received and on samples retained in his office, he then had a detailed description of all items of officers' clothing drafted in the 

form of a general order and forwarded it to the 

Philadelphia Depot for review and comment.^' 

The draft was commented on at some length by 

the military storekeeper there, the comments including valuable descriptive material and several 

sketches."' These together with the draft general 

order were returned to the Quartermaster General 

and referred to a board of officers set up to review 

matters relating to the Quartermaster Department."" This board in turn drew up a complete 

description, with illustrations, of all items of officer 

clothing which was published in the War Department's Annual Report of the Quartermaster General for 1876. The illustrations, of "cuts," were 

merely a reprint of the lithographs which accompanied the 1872 regulations. A description of the 

campaign hat was not included, but rather that of 

the 1876 pattern, which had been recommended 

but not formally approved.'^ 

The full-dress cap was described as follows (the 

descriptions of other pieces of headgear will be included below where appropriate): 

FULL-DRESS CAP. 

Pattern as shown in accompanying cuts numbered 5, 6, 

and 7, felt shell, covered with indigo-blue cloth; 3/a inches 

high in front; 4/2 inches high on sides; 6/2 inches high over 

the swell of the back; crown 5/2 inches long by 5 inches 

wide; revolving ventilator in crown; gold-wire braid Ys of 

an inch wide around the lower edge and around the crown 

at top, also, from top to bottom at each side and at back; 

patent-leather vizor unbound; patent-leather chin-strap Y^ 

of an inch wide with gilt slide; gilt side or chin strap buttons, vest size, according to arm of the service; japanned or 

goatskin sweat-leather, silk lining; plume-socket of leather on 

inside at front with metallic guard at opening on top and 

front edge of crown; gold-embroidered eagle with shield on 

breast, surmounted by thirteen stars in silver; length from 

top of stars to end of tail, lYs inches; width from tip to tip 

of wings, 1/2 inches; tips of wings joined by an arc of rays; 

embroidered badge of arm or corps in front; bottom of 

badge to be even with top of chin-strap.*" 

War Department Quartermaster Specification 

Number 3, 31 May 1876, described in detail the 

enlisted model: 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL' S OFFICE 

Specifications for Dress-Caps. 

The body or shell is made of felt composed of equal parts 

of Russia, best coney-backs, muskrat, extra coney, and one-
NUMBER 30 37 

half (5/2) part of washblow. It weighs, uncovered, two and 

three-fourths (2?4) to three (3) ounces, according to size. 

Front vertical about three and one-half (3/a) inches high; 

back five and one-half (5/2) inches long, rises upward and 

forward in a convex sweep, and meets the crown at a point 

one and one-eighth (1^ ) to one and one-fourth {1J4) 

inch higher than the point where it meets the upper edge 

of the front. 

The crown is slighly oval, five and one-fourth (5^4) 

inches in diameter from front to back, four and one-half 

(4/2) inches across. Ventilator in center of crown. At the 

front edge is an opening, bound with a thin strap of enameled metal, to admit the stem of the pompon, which is 

also held in position by a small leather socket sewed to the 

inside of the cap-front, about one-half {Y2) inch below 

the crown. 

The body is covered with fine wool-dyed indigo-blue 

cloth, braided around the upper edge immediately below 

the crown, around the lower edge one-fourth (J4) to fivesixteenths (%6) of an inch above the latter: also straight 

down the back, and in a straight slanting line on both sides, 

equidistant from back and front seam. This braiding is 

worsted three-sixteenth (%6) of an inch wide, and of the 

following colors: for infantry, sky-blue; engineers and artillery, scarlet; ordnance, crimson; commissary sergeants, gray; 

hospital stewards, green. A visor of heavy enameled leather, 

straight and horizontal, front edge slightly convex, sides 

straight, corners rounded, inner edge following the shape 

of the cap on both sides, ending in a point about five (5) 

inches from front seam. 

On each side, immediately behind the end of visor, is it 

small regulation brass button for chin-strap. 

The latter is made of thin enameled leather five-eighths 

(Ys) of an inch wide, in two parts, eight and one-half (8^2) 

to nine (9) inches each, and arranged to be lengthened and 

shortened, as described for helmet chin-strap. Sweat-leather, 

one and three-fourths (1 ^ ) to two (2) inches wide of 

Belgium leather. In front, immediately below the crown, is 

a brass eagle, and below the latter the badge of the corps 

or arm of services. 

Sizes same as of helmets. 

Adopted May 31, 1876. 

Pompons for Dress-Caps—Of fine worsted, firmly made on 

a woodblock. 

Nap well raised and close. To be pear-shaped, three (3) 

inches long, one and three-fourths (1 %) inch in diameter 

at bottom, and one (1) inch at top. Under the center of the 

bottom is a brass half sphere about eleven-sixteenths (^^e) 

of an inch in diameter, from which protrudes a stem three 

(3) inches long, made of strong copper wire. 

Color of pompons for infantry, white; artillery, scarlet; 

engineers, lower half scarlet, upper half white; ordnance, 

crimson; commissary sergeants, gray; hospital stewards, 

green. 

Adopted May 31, 1876. 

M. C. MEIGS, 

Quartermaster General. 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A."' 

A number of examples of the cap have been examined, including six sealed samples (Figures 25, 

26) and three officers' models (Figure 27) which 

can be included in the same category. Two of these 

latter, one made by Horstmann and the other by 

Bent & Bush, carry attached a label reading: 

1747 Qr Mr Gens Office 

1874 Received Jun 17 1875 

The third carries a label in a handwriting very 

similar to General Marcy's: 

's Uniform cap for 

. . . .ents of foot artillery & Infy. recommended by 

the Board for revision of Army 

Regulations 

R B Marcy 

I. Genl & Presdt. of Board 

The latter cap carries the maker's label of Warnock 

& Co. in the crown and definitely must be considered the original or one of the original models 

supplied the board. 

The enlisted models all follow the 1876 specifications within allowable tolerances, while the officer's examples, the three mentioned above plus 

several others, are closer in detailed measurements 

to the one-half scale lithographs. The differences 

between the two are not great, but they are consistent; height in front for officers, 37/8 inches, for 

enlisted men, 3i/4; height in rear, for officers, 6i/^ 

inches, for enlisted men 5i/^; diameter of crown, 

for officers, 6 inches, for enlisted men, 514. 

The regulations prescribed the insignia for the 

cap only as "gold trimmings" or "yellow metal, according to pattern" for officers and enlisted men, 

respectively. No clear indication was given as to 

exactly what badge each branch of the service was 

to wear, possibly relying on usage that had been 

in effect since 1832. In November 1872 the inspector general prescribed for hospital stewards, ordnance, and engineer soldiers, respectively, a wreath 

of brass with the letters "U.S.," "O.D.," and "E.G." 

inside, but said nothing of the badges for the line 

units. This order also prescribed that the cap 

braid and pompon for hospital stewards was to be 

emerald green.'*' As late as mid-December the 

Philadelphia Depot quartermaster was seeking information from Washington as to the size and 

pattern of insignia for both headgear and unilorni 

coat collars. The query brought from the Secretary 

of War the endorsement: "Forage caps, badges, and 
38 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 25.—1872 enlisted man's dress cap. 
NUMBER 30 39 

FIGURE 26.—Enlisted personnel in 1872 dress coat and cap. 

trimmings for all enlisted men, same as now worn, 

but reduced in size." Whether this meant that forage caps as well as the insignia were to be reduced 

in size or that the badges for forage caps alone 

were to be smaller is not clear from the terse language. In view of the context of the original inquiry, however, the latter seems more probable."^ 

In March 1873 the badge for commissary sergeants 

was changed to a crescent in white metal placed 

vertically,'*' and in June the engineer and ordnance 

badges were changed to the castle and shell and 

flame, again with nothing said about the line 

units.'*' The cost of clothing list issued the same 

month seemed to resolve the matter, however; for 

under "Uniform Dress Cap" are listed "eagle, 

crossed cannon, castle, bugle, crescent, and wreath," 

but no letters or numbers, although they were 

listed under "Forage Cap.'"*' In fact, the matter of 

regimental and company designation does not seem 

to have been officially resolved until 1877 when 

letters and numbers were prescribed for both dress 

and forage caps.'*' In 1875 the "bugle" or "looped 

horn," so long the badge of the infantry, was discarded for that branch, being replaced by crossed 

rifles with the number of the regiment in the upper 

angle.'*" This was altered somewhat several months 

later when the letter of the company was ordered 

placed in the lower angle. Field and band musicians were to continue to wear the bugle and letter then prescribed.'"" 

Quartermaster Specification No. 8, adopted 31 

May 1876, gave the measurements for insignia: 
40 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 27.—1872 officer's dress cap. 

Cap Bugles: an old-style bugle with circular crook, and a 

cord slung three fold around the lower part, terminating in 

in two tassels on one and one tassel on the other side. 

Height across crook 5/2 inch; width from mouth piece to 

outer edge of bowl 2/2 inches. 

Castles for Cap: an ancient cast with three towers; height 

of center tower YB inch; of side towers; 1 J/a inch; of battlements between towers, Ys inches; width at base 1% inch. 

Crescents for Caps: width from point to point, lYs inch, 

greatest width in center J/a inch. 

Crossed Cannon: two cannon crossing each other at the 

trunninons, muzzles upward; length, 2Ys inches; breadth 

at breeches, 2 inches; at muzzles, lYs inch. 

Crossed Rifles: two rifles crossing each other at a point equidistant from the butt and muzzle; muzzles pointing upward 

and outward, hammers upward, their position crossed mak-
NUMBER 30 41 

ing the upper space form an angle of 137°; length of rifle, 

2Ys inches; the whole ornament occupying a rectangular 

space about 2%6 inches wide by l^/^ inches high. 

Eagles for Cap: To be worn on caps of all arms of the service; an eagle with national shield on breast, head surmounted 

by a scroll bearing the motto "E pluribus unum," extending 

downward and meeting olive branch and arrows in the talons of eagle; height, I/2 inch; greatest width between tips 

of wings, 1Y2 inch. 

Shells and Flames for Cap: diameter of shell, % inch; 

height of flame from upper edge of shell, Ys inch; greatest 

width of flame, 1 Ys inch. 

Wreaths for Hospital Stewards Cap: two olive branches held 

together at the bottom by a loop and knot, turning upward 

and bending in an oval shape, approaching each other at 

the top; height, 1Y2 inch; greatest distance between outer 

edges, 2Ys inches; greatest width of single branch, Ys inch. 

Brass Letters for Cap: "A" to "M" ; Roman capitals; Ys 

inch long; edges beveled. 

Letters "U.S." : of white metal, chased; Roman capitals /a 

inch high; to be placed within the wreath. 

Numbers for Cap: Nos. "1 " to "0" inclusive: Ys inch long, 

edges beveled."" 

Taken in toto, the reaction to and comment on 

the dress cap was slight and rather noncommittal. 

Quartermaster General Meigs disliked the white 

plume of cock feathers on the officers' caps, stating, 

perhaps somewhat facetiously, that he was "revulsed" at United States Army officers being "made 

liable to the state joke of 'showing the white feather'.""" On the other hand, the United States Army 

and Navy Journal editorialized that the cap was 

'admitted on all sides to be a vast improvement" 

over the old "dress hat," i.e., the campaign hat that 

had been adopted for the whole Army in 1858,"" 

and Military Storekeeper Rogers at the Philadelphia Depot thought the cap to be "admirable.'"** 

General Order No. 6 of 1876 which asked for officer comment on issue clothing brought little more 

reaction. An assistant surgeon wrote that the small 

ventilator in the crown was worthless, which it obviously was; Colonel Glitz of the 10th Infantry 

thought the cap well made, durable, light, and 

comfortable; Colonel Andrews of the 25th Infantry considered it "suitable for its purpose"; Lt. Col. 

Whistler, commanding officer at Fort Riley, called 

it a "decided improvement"; while Captain Morse 

of the 6th Infantry thought its quality excellent 

and the color good, albeit asking for instructions 

on cleaning the pompons.'"* Only the Miles Equipment Board of 1879 was strongly derogatory—openly favoring as it did the adoption of a modification 

of the mounted helmet for all branches—stating in 

its published report that "the present shako .. . of 

the Infantry [was] objectionable and cause[d] great 

dissatisfaction; . [was] of poor material . . 

and badly shaped . . . ."'°° 

On 7 February 1882, after the adoption of the 

spiked and/or plumed helmet as a dress item for 

all branches, the Secretary of War directed that all 

remaining caps of the 1872 pattern be sold."" 

THE LIGHT ARTILLERY-CAVALRY HELMET 

The 1872 Light Artillery-Cavalry helmet may 

have seemed a rather violent departure from the 

stylistic drabness of the 1858 campaign hat and 

forage cap, which were so closely associated with 

the Army in the Civil War and post-Civil War 

periods. Though different in basic design, it was 

hardly more flamboyant or more useless for other 

than strictly dress wear than the 1832 InfantryArtillery cap, the 1833 Dragoon cap, or the 1864 

Light Artillery'"' cap, all with their cords, bands, 

tassels, and metal hardware. Certainly, it was in 

step with the times. 

Much has been speculated about the immediate 

origin of this helmet form. Because of the Prussian-Germanic addiction to the spiked helmet, and 

more especially the German victory over France in 

1870, it has long been generally accepted that the 

immediate influence was German. Actually, in the 

absence of any formal minutes of the 1872 board 

and the absence of any mention of influence foreign or otherwise in the fragments of proceedings 

which do exist, the question becomes somewhat 

academic. The Army merely states that it shovild 

approach "in shape the helmets as seen in antique 

Greek sculpture.'""" Anson Mills, then Major, 3d 

Cavalry, among others, believed it to be primarily 

of Prussian derivation."" Actually, the Prussian 

Army did lead the way in the matter of the plumed 

and/or spiked helmet, first adopting a deep version 

with a rather extended "lobster tail" in the rear in 

1842, and retaining the general form with considerable variation well into World War I.'" In 1843, 
42 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the British followed suit, adopting a helmet of 

"Germanic origin" for the Household Cavalry, and 

several years later a similar headpiece for the 

heavy cavalry and the "Mounted Staff Corps.'"" 

Colonel Henry J. Hunt, 5th Artillery, one of the 

ranking members of the 1872 board, writing in 

1875, seemed to settle the matter as far as the U.S. 

Army is concerned when he stated flatly that "the 

model was that of the English Horseguards.'"" 

The first contract for helmets was let on 30 October 1872 with Horstmann Bros. & Co. of Philadelphia, the firm that had made the sample for the 

board. The accepted bid was for a total of 9000 

(8700 cavalry and 300 artillery) with trimmings; 

that is, plumes, cords, and bands, and hardware, at 

$5,461/4 each.'" The allowance to each soldier was 

set at one with trimmings in the first and third 

year of a five year enlistment and issued at a cost 

of $5.47.'" The date of the first issue of the helmets 

is uncertain. Although General Orders No. 76 and 

92 prescribed that the new uniform was to be 

regulation as of 1 December 1872, shortage of funds 

prior to the 1873 appropriation plus difficulties experienced in obtaining colorfast facing cloth for 

the dress coats set production and issue back some 

months."" Although the contract for helmets with 

Horstmann was let in October 1872, as of 30 June 

1873 only 228 were listed as having been purchased, 

and 194 as issued.'" 

As was the case with the other headgear, a description and measurements of the helmet were 

not detailed until the Army started publication of 

printed specifications of clothing and equipage in 

1876. Even the description of the officers' helmets 

in the 1876 Quartermaster General's annual report 

gave no dimensions stating merely "measurements 

about as indicated on cuts,'"" despite the fact that 

Military Storekeeper Rogers in his "comments" on 

the draft description of officers' clothing included 

a sketch with measurements (Figure 28)."" Detailed measurements of the helmet trimmings, 

which Rogers furnished, were included, however. 

HELMET. 

Pattern as shown in accompanying cuts numbered 8, 9, 

and 10; heavy body of fur bound with fine patent leather; 

measurements about as indicated on cuts; patent-leather 

chin strap Ys oi an inch wide with gilt slide; patent-leather 

vizor-strap folded Ys of an inch wide, double tsitched, connecting chin-strap buttons; goat-skin sweat-leather. 

Ornaments as follows: 

Eagle.—Of yellow metal, gilt; pattern same as in coat of 

arms of the United States, with national shield on breast; 

FIGURE 28.—Sketch of 1872 officer's helmet. 

(From MSK Rogers' "Comments," RG 92, NA.) 

head surmounted by scroll with motto "E Pluribus Unum'' 

in relief letters, scroll extending downward and outward and 

joining olive branch and arrows in talons of eagle; whole 

height, 4/2 inches; greatest width between tips of wings, 4 

inches; secured to helmet by wire stems. 

Top piece and plume-socket.—Of yellow metal, gilt; base 

or foot a cross-piece made convex to fit the top of helmet; 

ends of arms mitre-shaped and fastened to helmet by ornamental buttons; length between points of opposite arms, 5}4 

inches; arms at widest part lYi inches, edges grooved and 

beveled; sphere one inch in diameter, on base surmounted 

by short neck with ring, (neck Y^ inch, ring Ys inch diameter,) from which is raised an inverted conical tube representing rays and displaying on front an heraldic eagle, the 

head of which is surmounted by a star, in relief; diameter 

of tube at top one inch; height, (including sphere at bottom,) three inches; the plume held in posittion at top of 

socket by a brass pin 4% inches long, having ornamental 

head, and a small brass disk; this pin enters through the 

socket and top piece; the shell of helmet and concave brass 

disk, (1 Ys inches in diameter,) on the inside, and is secured by a brass thumb-nut. 

Scrolls and rings.—Of yellow metal, gilt, placed at sides 

near top, between the arms of the top piece; the scroll, (or 

button,) is ornamented to correspond with the fastenings of 

top piece, and in ^4 of an inch in diameter; small eye and 

ring, {Y2 inch in diameter,) in center, to hold cords and 

bands; stem to enter shell of helmet and fasten on the inside. 

Side or chin-strap buttons.—Of yellow metal, gilt, YB of an 

inch in diameter, according to arm of service; edges beveled 

and grooved, surface slightly convex and chased; secured to 

helmet as the scrolls are. 

Plumes.—According to arm of service. 

Cords and bands or braids.—Of gold-thread cord, 2J/2 

lines; the bands loop plaited and fastened to rings and 

scrolls at sides and festooned on front and back of helmet; 

the front festoon falls to the upper edge of vizor and the 
NUMBER 30 

rear one to a corresponding depth behind; the loop plaiting 

is about Yi of an inch wide; at left ring and scroll a pendant 

tassel of sixty or seventy fringes where the cords are fastened; 

gilt cords about 5 feet 8 inches long with two netted sHdes 

of about Yl inch diameter; flat braided ornament 2% inches 

in diameter and tassels on each end of cord. 

Specification Number 1 adopted 31 May 1876 

described the enlisted model in great detail.'*" 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL^S OFFICE 

Specifications for Helmets. 

To be made of felt composed of one part each of Russia, 

best coney-back, muskrat, extra coney, and a half part of 

wash-blow. The body approaches in shape the helmets as 

seen in antique Greek sculpture—top spherical, sides vertical, 

front and back gently sloping outward to the point where 

the helmet is to rest on the head; thence, in a more diverging line extending in front to a vizor, in the back to a cape 

for the protection of the neck. From center of top along the 

sides to lower edge about eight (8) inches, to extreme point 

of vizor eleven and one-half (11 /a ) inches, to extreme point 

of back eleven (11) inches. 

Vizor is gradually narrowing, and rounded at the front; 

length about three and one-half (3^ ) inches, width across 

the forehead about twelve (12) to twelve and one-fourth 

{12Yi) inches, across the front (one inch above the extreme 

point) about five (5) inches. 

The neck-cape is about seven and one-fourth (7 J4) inches 

wide, three and one-fourth (3J4) inches long, corners 

rounded. 

The edge of helmet, vizor, and cape is bound with fine 

enameled leather. On either side, about three and one-half 

(3 /a ) inches above the lower edge, is a ventilator. 

At the lower edge, on either side, is a button-fastening for 

chip-strap. 

The latter consists of two parts, made of enameled leather, five-eighths (Ys) of an inch wide, each about nine and 

one-half (9J/2) inches long. These parts are united, and can 

be lengthened or shortened by means of a loop (same material as strap) at the end of one, and a brass bar-buckle one 

(1) by three-fourths (%) of an inch at the end of the other 

part. From one side button to the other, straight across the 

front, is another strap of enameled leather, five-eighths (Ys) 

of an inch wide, stitched on the body of the helmet. 

Sweat-leather, two and one-half (2 /a) inches wide of 

Belgium sheepskin. 

The helmet is ornamented with eagle, top piece, and 

plume-socket, scrolls and rings, and side buttons, and is 

trimmed with hair plume and cords and bands. 

Helmet ornaments are made of sheet-brass. No. 24. 

Hair Plumes for Helmets: Made of good horse-hair, dyed. 

To droop from top of socket over back and sides of helmet. 

The hairs are woven and sewed together at one end, giving the latter the form of a flattened knob about one and 

five-eighths (1 ^ ) inch diameter, with star-shaped brass 

eyelet in center to admit the pen of the top piece. Length 

of plume from eyelet to end, fourteen (14) inches. 

Cords and Bands for Helmets: Made of worsted. No. 26, 

and "machined" cord. The bands are loop-plaited, fastened 

to the scroll-rings, and festooned on front and back of helmet, the festoons reaching in front to the upper edge of 

chin-strap, and approaching the lower edge of back within 

two (2) inches. 

The loop-plaiting is about one (1) inch wide, and ends 

under the scrolls on the left side in a tassel of sixty (60) to 

seventy (70) fringes one and three-fourths (1%) inch long. 

Through the braided head, about three-fourths (%) inch 

diameter, passes the continuation of the bands in the form 

of two cords, each five (5) feet eight (8) inches long, with 

two (2) slides netted over a fuller's board three-fourths (%) 

inch in diameter, five-eighths (Ys) of an inch high. Three 

inches from the lower end the cords are fastened together 

by a braided knot holding a loop about two and threefourths (2%) inches long. At the end of each cord is also 

a small braided knot and aiquillette, plaited flat in three 

strands of smaller cord, in oval shape, two and threeeighths {2Ys) inches long, two and three-fourths (2^ ) 

inches wide. From the lower end of each aiguillette is suspended another tassel of from sixty (60) to seventy (70) 

fringes one and three-fourths (1 §4) inch long, with braided 

head three-eighths (Ys) of an inch high, three-fourths (^4) 

inch diameter. 

Adopted May 31, 1876. 

M. C. MEIGS 

Quartermaster General, 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A. 

Specification Number 8, adopted 31 May 1876, 

described the helmet's metallic ornaments.'^" 

Eagles for Helmet.—Made of sheet-brass, No. 24, of the 

shape of the eagle in the coat of arms of the United States, 

with a national shield on the breast, head surmounted by a 

scroll with the motto "E pluribus unum"; scroll extending 

downward and meeting olive branch and arrows in the talons of the eagle. Whole height, four and one-half {^Ya) 

inches; greatest width between tips of wings, three and seven-eighths (3%) to four (4) inches. Two loops of strong 

wire soldered on the back to fasten to helmet by means of 

two small pieces of leather. [Adopted May 31, 1876.] 

Side Buttons for Helmet.—One on each side, a little 

above lower edge of helmet. 

They are one (1) inch diameter, edge beveled and 

grooved, surface slightly convex, and chased. 

They are secured to the helmet by double brass-wire 

loops, as the scrolls are. 

Design for Cavalry and Signal Service: Two crossed sabers, hilts downward and outward. For Light Artillery: Two 

cannon crossed at the trunnions. [Adopted May 31, 1976.] 

Plume-Sockets for Helmet.—A cross-shaped foot, with 

convex bend, to fit exactly the surface of helmet top. 

Each leaf-shaped point of the cross is fastened by means 

of an ornamented button with stem of two thin wires. 

Length of cross between alternate points, five and a quarter {5Yi) inches; each leaf one and a quarter (1/4) inch 

at widest, three-quarters (Yt) of an inch at narrowest part; 

edge beveled and grooved. 

On the center of the cross rests a sphere one (1) inch in 

diameter, surmounted by a short neck with ring, the former 

one-half (/a), the latter five-eighths (Ys) of an inch diameter, combined about one-half (/a) inch high, from which 
44 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

arises an inverted conical tube, fluted, ornamented by an 

heraldic eagle with star above his head. 

The top of the tube ends in four triangular points. Width 

of tube across top, one (1) inch. The plume is fastened to 

the top of this socket by means of a brass pin one-fourth 

(Yi) of an inch thick, four and three-quarters (4^4) inches 

long, with ornamented button at upper and screw-thread at 

lower end. 

The latter enters through the socket and helmet, and is 

fastened at the inside by means of a brass washer one and 

seven-eighths {lYs) inch diameter, and a thumb-nut. The 

plume is held in a drooping position by the head of the 

above-mentioned brass pin, and a brass disk, one and onefourth (154) inch diameter, laid under the woven top part 

of the plume and resting on the points of the socket. 

[Adopted May 31, 1876.] 

Scrolls and Rings for Helmet.—One on each side, between 

the leaf-shaped points of the top piece, its lower edge onehalf (/a) inch below these points. 

The scroll is three-fourths (%) inch in diameter, ornamented to correspond with the fastening of the top piece. 

On the top of the scroll, in the center, is an eye of thin 

wire three-sixteenth (%6) of an inch high, holding a thin 

brass ring one-half (/a) inch in diameter, to keep the cords 

and bands in position. 

The stem of scroll is formed of two pieces of thin brass 

wire to fasten it at the inside of helmet. [Adopted May 31, 

1876.] 

A number of enlisted models of the helmet have 

been examined, including one sealed sample, and 

one officer's model that formerly belonged to Lt. 

Col. George A. Custer. The sealed sample carries 

the maker's label of Horstmann Bros. &: Co., who 

made the pattern helmet for the uniform board 

and who was the first contractor for the model,'" 

and thus may very well pre-date the specifications 

(Figure 29). In any case, the sample conforms 

closely and the other enlisted examples follow within allowable tolerances. Although the lithographs 

accompanying General Order No. 76 state that the 

headgear pictured are "1/2 size of pattern," there is 

a noticeable difference in the scaled measurement 

of the crown to visor, IO14 inches instead of III/2. 

and in the visor contour when compared with the 

sealed sample. In this, however, it should be noted 

that all the headgear in the lithographs are designated for officers." The Custer helmet conforms to 

these (Figure 30) and stays within range of the 

printed specifications in other respects, except as 

to quality. 

The difficulty of two contractors, in different 

cities, producing such a helmet without some variation in contour resulted in two distinct helmet 

shapes although in each case measurements are the 

same. Figure 31 is of the sealed sample made by 

Horstmann. Figure 32 is of an example made by 

Bent & Bush of Boston.''' Notice that where the 

rear of the Horstmann example slopes almost immediately from the center of the crown, the body 

of the Bent & Bush helmet is much more fully 

rounded, the "lobster tail" sloping to the rear from 

a much lower point and giving the illusion of its 

point being closer to the point of the visor, which 

it is not. Also, where the rear of the Horstmann 

helmet has a very gentle curve from side to side, 

the sides of the Bent & Bush "lobster tail" are 

sharply almost squared in. These differences were 

noted and commented on by quartermaster officers, 

but no corrective action is known to have been 

taken."' One other small but noticeable difference 

between the Horstmann and Bent & Bush helmets 

is in the type of ventilators used; where Horstmann 

used a round screen wire model. Bent & Bush used 

one resembling a pinwheel but without moving 

parts (not observable on Figure 32). 

The proper manner of attaching and arranging 

the helmet cords in a uniform manner throughout 

the Army proved a bit of a problem and in 1873 

a general order was issued clarifying the matter. 

The helmet cords will be attached to the left side of the 

helmet and come down to the left shoulder, where they are 

held together by a slide; one cord then passes to the front 

and the other to the rear of the neck, crossing upon the 

right shoulder and passing separately around to the front 

and rear of the right arm, where they are again united and 

held together by a slide under the arm; the united cords 

then cross the breast and are looped up to the upper button 

on the left side of the coat.^' 

The general reaction to the helmet was not favorable. Captain John R. Rogers of the Philadelphia Depot, commenting from the practical angle 

of a veteran quartermaster officer, thought the 

crown too light and not broad enough to take the 

strain of the plume and socket and the binding 

around the edges too light and too narrow. (Indeed, of the enlisted models examined, all have 

either cracked crowns or split visors or both.) Still 

Rogers believed it to be "the most sightly headgear" he had ever seen."" Col. Henry Hunt, 5th 

Artillery, who had been a member of the Marcy 

Board, stated that the issue item was "not according to the model selected in 1872"; the visor was 

too large and awkward, the helmet in general did 

not have the military style of the pattern, and the 
NUMBER 30 46 

FIGURE 29.—1872 enlisted ihan's helmet. 

plume was too large, awkward, heavy, and long.'" 

The largest number of comments came as a result of General Order No. 6, War Department, 29 

January 1875, which directed commanding officers 

of posts to comment on, among other things, the 

suitability of the clothing then issued.^* The general consensus published in Circular No. 8 by the 

Surgeon General's Office"" was that the helmet was 

too heavy, had too steep a visor, and generally 

caused headaches. A survey of the actual correspondence on which the circular was based places 

the emphasis somewhat differently. The greatest 
46 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

km 

m 

i . A 

'^^^V< -^i^ m^ 

j'/'i^^^M 

'^Kj^H 

\ li^^^^^^H 

^^^^^^^^^H 

W J & 

^L 

Hv^^ 

^^ '^ 

^fii"1 ife 

•F^^te A 

ILlJj^^ ^ 

^IV'^^HHH^^ 

HQ^if^^^^HL^ TV^ B 

Ifl^^B Wfifi ^ B u!^^^^^^lk.v^ 

^^H 

FIGURE 30.—The Custer helmet. 

FIGURE 31.—The Horstmann helmet. 
NUMBER 30 47 

FIGURE 33.—Paiute Chief Winnemucca in "Chief Coat" and 

1858 Army hat with 1872 helmet front eagle. (Courtesy of 

Nevada Historical Society.) 

FIGURE 32.—^The Bent & Bush helmet. 

condemnation of all the 1872 model headgear 

came from active service posts on the frontier, especially those on the high plains of the north and 

northwest, with little or no complaint from posts 

in the Division of the Atlantic. Letter after letter 

spoke sharply of the unsuitability of all the types 

of issue headgear for winter wear and asked for 

fur caps and ear flaps.^" As to the actual weight of 

the helmet, an issue specimen complete with bands, 

cords, tassels, and plume proved to weigh 16 

ounces. In contrast, the World War I issue steel 

helmet weighed 34.8 ounces, and the World War 

11 helmet with liner 52.3 ounces.'*' 

In 1881 when a somewhat different pattern helmet was adopted for the whole army, all of the 

1872 models were ordered shipped to the Philadelphia Depot where they were turned over to 

Horstmann & Bros, who cut them down to conform 

to the new style. They were then reissued."* 
48 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

THE FORAGE CAP 

The forage cap adopted by the Marcy Board was 

little more than a continuation of the nonregulation "chasseur" or "McClellan" pattern so popular 

with officers during and after the Civil War and 

which hatters had been advertising during the late 

1860s.'°' Indeed, the 1872 regulations used the term 

"chasseur." It is apparent that the members of the 

board personally favored the model for there is no 

evidence that they paid attention to the comments 

regarding it in the Woodhull Report as they did 

in relation to the campaign hat."^ Woodhull had 

written pointedly of the cap's shortcomings, its 

"want of grip . . its want of warmth, the deficient 

protection it afford[ed] the face and neck against 

sun and rain . . . and . . the absence of ventilation." The Report also noted the difficulty of 

cleaning it and had suggested the adoption of a 

detachable flap for the rear and sides to be used 

in cold weather.'"^ The regulations read: 

For General Officers: Of dark blue cloth. Chasseur pattern, with black velvet band and badge in front. 

For all other Commissioned Officers: Of dark blue cloth. 

Chasseur pattern, with badge of corps or regiment in front, 

top of badge to be even with top of cap, and according to 

pattern in Quartermaster General's Office. 

For all Enlisted Men: Of plain blue cloth, same pattern 

as for officers, with badge of corps or letter of company of 

yellow metal worn in front as for officers. 

Warnock & Co. made the pattern or patterns for 

the board and the first contract was let with Bent 

& Bush of Boston oh 30 October for 28,000 caps at 

.f 1.071/2 each.'*" The allowance was set at one cap 

and cover per year of enlistment at a price to the 

individual of $1.08 for the cap, $.21 for the cover, 

and $.03 for the insignia.'" The first issue was ordered in February 1873.'*' 

The first real description of the cap was of that 

for officers. Indeed, it had been the wide divergence from standard of the officers' forage caps that 

in large part triggered the description published 

in the 1876 Annual Report of the Quartermaster 

General.'** 

FORAGE-CAP. 

Chasseur pattern, as shown in accompanying plates numbered 3 and 4; of indigo-blue cloth; 3 inches high in front; 

3/a inches high on sides; 6 inches from edge of crown to 

bottom of band at back; crown 5 inches in diameter; 

depth of band about 1^4 inches; gilt side or chin-strap buttons, vest size, according to arm of service; patent-leather 

chin-strap Ys of an inch wide; patent-leather vizor unbound; japanned or goat-skin sweat-leather, silk lining; embroidered badge of arm or corps in front; bottom of badge 

to be even with top of chin-strap. 

For general officers, the band of cap to be of black 

velvet. 

FORAGE-CAP BADGES. 

For general officers.—A gold-embroidered wreath on darkblue cloth ground, encircling the letters U.S. in silver, old 

English characters. 

For officers of the general staff and staff corps.^Same as 

for general officers, with the exception of those for ordnance-officers, which will have a gold-embroidered shell and 

flame on dark-blue cloth ground. 

For officers of engineers.—A gold-embroidered wreath of 

laurel and palm, encircling a silver-turreted castle on darkblue cloth ground. 

For officers of cavalry.—Two gold-embroidered sabres, 

crossed, edges upward, on dark-blue cloth ground, with the 

number of the regiment, in silver, in the upper angle. 

For officers of artillery.—Two gold-embroidered cannons, 

crossed, on dark-blue cloth ground, with the number of the 

regiment, in silver, at the intersection of the cross-cannon. 

For officers of infantry.—Two gold-embroidered rifles, 

without bayonets, barrels upward, on dark-blue cloth 

ground, with the number of the regiment, in silver, in the 

upper angle. 

Even with these specifications, the officers' model 

continued to diverge from the standard seemingly 

at the whim of the individual concerned, the trend 

always being toward a lower crown. As late as 1892 

the Quartermaster General was stating in his annual report that as the crown of the forage cap 

had gradually been lowered to the extent that it 

was difficult to keep on the head, steps had been 

taken to return to the original model, including 

specifications and new samples. This statement 

could hardly have referred to the enlisted model, 

unless the soldiers were buying them from civilian 

sources, as a check of those specimens bearing contract dates in the late 1880s and early 1890s shows 

them to conform to the 1876 specifications as to 

height of crown.'*" 

Quartermaster Specification No. 5, adopted 31 

May 1876, gave the first detailed description of the 

enlisted cap: 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL'S OFFICE 

specifications for Forage Caps. 

Made of best wool-dyed indigo-blue cloth. Band about 

one and one-fourth (1 }4) inch wide, strengthened by a strip 
NUMBER 30 49 

of strong split-leather of the same width, sewed in between 

llic cloth and the sweat-leather. The front rises straight and 

vertical one and one-half (I/2 ) to one and five-eighths 

(lYo) inch above the band, sides straight and slightly converging toward the crown. The back, about live (5) inches 

long, rises from the band forward at an angle of 45 degrees, 

slightly convex. 

The crown is circular, about four and three-fourths (4%) 

inches in diameter, made upon strong "tarred board." 

The shape of the cap would thus give an incline to the 

crown of one (1) to one and one-fourth (I'/i) inch from 

rear to front. 

A straight horizontal vizor of patent enameled leather, 

about three-sixteenths (%o) of an inch thick, shaped as described for dress-caps. A small brass regulation button on 

each side, immediately behind the end of the vizor, for chinstrap. 

The latter is made in two parts, of fine enameled leather 

about one-half (/a) inch wide, each part about nine (9) 

inches long, and arranged, as on dress-cap, to be lengthened 

and shortened at will. 

Sweat-leather of Belgium leather, one and one-half (1 /a) 

inch wide. 

Lining of glazed muslin, fastened by its lower edge only 

to the inner stiffening of the band, the upper edge gathered 

with strong thread. 

Adopted May 31, 1876. 

M. C. MEIGS, 

Quartermaster General, 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A."" 

Between 1876 and 1895 when another pattern was 

adopted, the specifications were changed somewhat, 

but to no appreciable degree.""' 

Late in 1883 the Headquarters of the Army ordered the black leather chin strap on officers' caps 

replaced by a two-strand "cap-strap' of gold on 

silver cord.'*^ It seems probable that this order 

merely legitimatized what had been in being for 

some time, for of the nine officers' caps examined, 

all had the gold "cap-strap" rather than the leather 

chin strap, one of them having belonged to an 

officer '*' who left the Army over two years before 

the order was issued, and all show evidence of considerable wear. There was some minor confusion 

as to the style of these cords, some terminating at 

the chin strap buttons in a figure eight, others having a gold thread "slide" or "turk's head" on either 

side. In 1884 the Quartermaster General furnished 

the United States Army and Navy Journal with 

specifications calling for the gold "slides,'' one-half 

inch long and of three-eighths inch diameter.'*^ 

A number of enlisted models of the cap have 

been examined and all follow the specifications 

within allowable tolerances (Figure 34). The officers' models are something again. With the exception of that worn by Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott 

Hancock (Figure 35a) all are lower in the front 

than called for, several by as much as 50 percent 

(Figure 35b), even when they can be dated later 

than the officers' specifications of 1876. 

The regulations were more specific as to the insignia for the forage cap than they had been in 

the case of the dress cap, although the problem of 

size was not settled until 1877. Caps of general 

officers and officers of the general staff and staff 

corps (all of whom were authorized the chapeau 

rather than the dress cap) were to carry a gold embroidered wreath encircling the silver letters "US" 

in Old English, except those of ordnance officers, 

which would carry a gold embroidered shell and 

flame, and of engineer officers, which were to bear 

a silver turreted castle within an embroidered 

wreath of laurel and palm.'"" Cavalry officers were 

to wear gold embroidered crossed sabers, edges up, 

with the number of the regiment in silver in the 

upper angle; artillery gold embroidered crossed 

cannon with the regimental number in silver "at 

the intersection;" "" and for infantry, a gold embroidered bugle with the regimental number in 

silver in the "bend" or loop. Enlisted arm and 

branch insignia followed those prescribed for the 

dress cap in design and dimensions.'"' In 1882 the 

badge of hospital stewards was changed from the 

wreath and "US" to the wreath and caduceus.'"* A 

year later, officers of the Adjutant General's Department were authorized to wear a "solid silver 

shield bearing thirteen stars'' within a gold embroidered wreath, and the following year signal 

corps officers were authorized a gold embroidered 

wreath encircling two crossed signal flags with a 

vertical burning torch at the intersection."* In 

1885 signal corps enlisted men were authorized the 

crossed signal flags and torch (what they wore before that date is unstated) and the classification of 

musicians was clarified somewhat with "band" 

musicians being authorized a lyre in white metal, 

"field" musicians continuing with the bugle or 

"looped horn" with the number of the regiment in 

the loop and the company letter above, the cavalry 

trumpeters being authorized the cavalry crossed 

sabers with the number above and the letter below. 

The dimensions of the bugle and crossed sabers apparently were to be the same as those given in the 

1877 specifications, but nowhere were the dimensions of the lyre and signal flags given in detail. 

At the same time, post quartermaster sergeants 
50 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

ilia»Sl'jSJS«VrA«KK»?Mt;m»«7'.;K»«W«a»S^^^ 

FIGURE 34.—1872 enlisted man's forage cap, with 1876 insignia. 
NUMBER 30 51 

''""Mttfen 

FIGURE 35.—Officers caps: a. General Hancock's cap; h, 1872 forage cap, with very low front. 

were authorized a crossed key and pen in white 

metal, apparently to be worn within a wreath, although the general orders did not specify this until 

1888.'" In 1887 there was another change for hospital stewards, the caduceus and wreath (color of 

metal wreath not specified) being replaced by a 

Geneva cross in white metal within a wreath of 

white metal, while the enlisted men of the Hospital 

Corps were to wear merely the cross in white metal. 

The dimensions of the cross were not given."' 

In 1889 there was another change, the crescent 

for commissary sergeants going from a vertical position to horizontal with points upward."' The next 

year officers of the Inspector General's Department 

were authorized a gold wreath encircling "gold or 

gilt sword and fasces, crossed and wreathed" in lieu 
52 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

of the "U S." '" In 1891 there was another change. 

Signal Corps enlisted men being authorized a 

vneath of unburnished gilt metal to go about their 

crossed signal flags.'"* The regulations outlining 

the uniform for Indian scouts as approved in 1890 

did not authorize a forage cap.''' 

Except for the response to the Secretary of War's 

request for comments on the uniform made in 

1875, there was little positive reaction to the forage cap one way or the other. Even then, the 

greatest percentage of comments indicated at least 

tacit acceptance in that the correspondents, rather 

than voicing objection, recommended an increase 

in the issue rate from one to two per year of enlistment.'" Advocates found the cap "neat" and an 

improvement over the old model, "excellent in 

every respect,' and "suitable in every way." '" The 

United States Army and Navy Journal reported that 

a large majority found the cap "graceful, nobby, 

and soldierly in appearance," commenting further 

that the defects in the cap could easily be remedied; 

that if the crown was too low, it could be raised; 

if the visor was objectionable, a sloping one could 

be substituted; that in so doing, its military style 

would be maintained."" The opponents of the cap 

were more vociferous in their protests. Their greatest objection to it was its lack of protection against 

the elements, certainly a sound one. Others commented that it was uncomfortable, that it tended to 

fall off easily, this latter because of its low crown, 

and that it caused headaches and even "baldness." "° Perhaps the most comprehensive comments came from an infantry captain in a letter to 

the editor of the United States Army and Navy 

Journal. Of the headgear in the Army, he wrote, 

the forage cap was the most widely worn and yet 

did not meet normal requirements in a single particular. Such a cap, he continued, should be flexible, light, and waterproof, should protect the eyes 

and the back of the head, should fit comfortably, 

and should be military in style.'" This was indeed 

comprehensive, but not very practical. 

In 1877, as a result of a number of reports that 

the issue cap covers were unpopular with the men 

and were either not being drawn or were being 

thrown away, their purchase was discontinued and 

they were omitted from the supply table.'" 

THE FATIGUE OR CAMPAIGN HAT, 1872-1902 

The "fatigue hat" adopted by the 1872 Board 

was described "for officers and enlisted men: of 

black felt, according to pattern, to be worn only on 

fatigue duty and on marches and campaigns." "" 

Even in the absence of any of the board's proceedings, the hat was definitely based on that as pictured, but not as described, in the Woodhull Report."" The pattern was unusually broad-brimmed, 

could be worn with the brim down or hooked up 

on the sides, and could be folded and carried under 

the arm like a chapeau bras. The board either ignored or overlooked the salient features of Woodhull's recommendations, however; that is, it specified that the hat was to be black, as opposed to the 

recommended light color to reflect the sun's rays, 

and made no provision for ventilating the crown, 

a point of much complaint in regard to the 1858 

model."^ 

The pattern hat adopted by the board and the 

specifications for its material were furnished by 

Warnock &: Co. of New York. The components of 

the material were as follows: 

Materials for 14 dozen hats. 

15 lbs. B.C.B.Y. Coney 

15 " Extra " 

10 " White Blown 

10 " Muskrat natural 

10 " No. 1,H. 2dQuaHty 

60 lbs. 

14 oz. 

840 oz. for 14 dozen hats—5 oz. to each Hat."'" 

These specifications were sent to Col. L. C. Easton 

in Philadelphia with instructions that the contracts 

let should require the manufacture of the hats "according to the proportions given."'" On 16 September Easton forwarded to Meigs two hats, the 

pattern adopted by the board and another made 

by P. Herst, a hatter of Philadelphia with whom 

Easton had had previous correspondence regarding 

hats and with whom Easton had placed an order 

for a lot of 1000, requesting that Meigs make a 

choice."* The finish of the board pattern was described as "plain" and that of the Herst model as 

"velvet." '" Meigs, in his reply stated that, while 

he preferred the velvet finish of the Herst hat 
NUMBER 30 53 

(which he thought might be chosen as far as outward appearance went), he was not an expert on 

the matter and directed Easton to seek the best professional advice, especially as regarded durability."" This Easton apparently did for it was not 

until a month later, 19 October, that he let a contract with Herst for 9000 hats complete with cords 

and tassels at $2.831/4 each. On 29 October he contracted with the same supplier for an additional 

10,000 at 12.80, the latter without cords or tassels, 

which were to be supplied from stocks of the 1858 

pattern cords still on hand. Herst later provided 

an additional 22,000 in 1874 at $2.30 each."' 

The allowance was set at one per year of enlistment at an initial issue price of $2.90 complete, 

this dropping to $2.46 two years later.'" The first 

recorded issue was ordered on 4 December 1872, to 

Battery K, 5th Artillery at Fort Sullivan, Maine."' 

The term "fatigue," although used in the regulations prescribing the hat and in much official correspondence regarding it, quickly dropped out of 

usage being replaced officially by the term "campaign," and continuing in official and unofficial use 

until the demise of the general pattern early in 

World War II."" 

No detailed description of the enlisted pattern 

is known. Since, as will be detailed below, this pattern was replaced by another in 1876, the specifications published that year describe an entirely 

different hat. The officers' model, on the other 

hand, is described in detail in the Quartermaster 

General's draft description of items of officers' 

clothing, with additional comments and sketches 

in Rogers' comments thereon:"* 

Fatigue Hat 

Body of felt composed of 

1J4 oz. yellow carott. Best coney backs, 

1 /4 " " " extra coney 

1 " " " H double ring russia 

1 " Raw Muskrat, 

1 " extra piece carott 

Net Weight of Hat 5 oz. 

Goat skin Sweat-Leather. Black silk binding 1 inch wide to 

show J/a inch on each side of brim. Black hooks and eyes."" 

Rogers' comments and sketches were as follows: 

The crown of the Fatigue Hat is made lens-shaped so as 

to fold with crease in centre lengthwise of the Hat. The 

brim turns up at each side and is hooked at the outer edges 

in front and rear of body of hat thus giving the outline a 

sweep nearly semi-circular from extreme point of front to 

extreme point of rear. The brim is fiat and is 4/2 inches 

wide-—outer edges slightly concave where the hooks and 

eyes are sewed [Figure 36]. 

Four specimens of this hat (which are extremely 

rare) —three of which appear to be unworn—have 

been closely examined and all conform very narrowly with extant descriptions, with contemporary 

photographs, and with each other (Figure 37 shows 

three views of a sample). The felt is of animal fur 

of several different types, at least one of which is 

rabbit, bonded only with steam. The brim when 

^AJL ^/C ^^^-***<' 4^«5r 

FIGURE 36.—Sketch of 1872 campaign hat. 

(From MSK Rogers' "Comments," RG 92, NA.) 
54 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 37.—1872 campaign hats. 

down is eliptical rather than round, measuring 5 

inches in width on the sides, 33/^ inches at the 

hooks and eyes, and 4i/4 inches directly in the front 

and rear. The crown is 5i/4 inches top to bottom 

without the crease. The brim is edged with two 

rows of black stitching i^ inch from the edge and 

an equal distance apart. The hat band is of black 

ribbed silk one inch wide with a bow on one side. 

Two of the specimens examined still carry sweat 

bands of tan leather, 2 inches wide, and carrying 

the maker's label "P. Herst & Son/Manufacturers/ 

Philada./Contract Oct. 12, 74." One officer's model 

is known, that formerly belonging to Capt. Frederick W. Benteen (Figure 38). It conforms to the 

description above and differs from the enlisted 

models only in quality and in the black silk binding on 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 55 

FIGURE 38.—Captain Benteen's campaign hat. 

termaster Department, and resulted in the replacement of 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, Captain 

E. Butler of the 5th Infantry stated that his men 

were complaining of the lack of durability of the 

issue hats."' Compton forwarded the complaint 

through channels to Washington whence it was referred to Captain Rogers, the Military Storekeeper 

at the Philadelphia depot, for comment. Rogers 

answered that the hats issued to the 5 th Infantry 

were fully u p to standard and, in his opinion, free 

from objection as to quality. He went on to say that 

this was the only complaint he had heard, other 

officers heard from being universally in favor of 

the model, but recommended that Captain Butler 

forward samples of the faulty item. This Butler 

did, enclosing also a statement signed by eight enlisted men to the effect that the hats issued them 

showed signs of breaking u p after a week's wear 

and becoming totally unserviceable after about 120 

hours actual wear in the field. Th e forwarded 

samples were submitted by Rogers to experienced 

hatters in New York and Philadelphia for examination and comment. All agreed that the hats were 

of good quality and that it would be impossible to 

get the specimens in such condition in 120 hours 

wear. In his endorsement, Rogers called the complaint "inconsiderate, groundless, and sweeping" 

and added that Butler had been deceived by his 

men "and led into the blunder of a hasty and unjust condemnation of a good article." He suggested 

that Butler be instructed to investigate the matter 

further, especially in regard to the length of time 

the hats were in use, and report his findings. Butler 

retorted with affidavits from 44 enlisted men and 

statements from a number of officers of the 5th 

Infantry and 6th Cavalry, all condemning the hat 

in positive terms, with details as to how long individual hats had lasted, the average for the enlisted 

men being one month in the field or in garrison, 

with one officer stating that he personally completely wore out an issue item on a 20-day scout. 

Meanwhile the Secretary of Wa r had ordered all 

post commanders throughout the country to report 

on the suitability of the issue clothing and equipment for use by the Surgeon General in a report 

on the hygiene of the Army at large."' Th e resulting numerous comments hit the hat as hard as 

Butler and his supporters had. Two officers favored 

it, one a major of ordnance stationed at Ft. Monroe, Virginia, and the other an acting assistant surgeon, in reality a civilian. Th e others reporting, 

and they were numerous, disliked the hat and said 

so, 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 

Army, in an inspection report on a trip through 

the West. His comments were short and direct: 

"Ridiculous in design [and] faulty in manufacture . . better suited to a wet nurse than a soldier in the ranks ... . I state this without fear of 

contradiction.""" 

T h e evidence was too strong and Rogers went 

over to the defensive, admitting that the hat had 

not given satisfaction, but at the same time maintaining that the shape of the hat, not the quality 

of the material, was at fault. Meigs then directed 
56 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

•'::Ml^^iLM:i-^^ 

FIGURE 39.—Army personnel wearing 1872 campaign hat. 

(Idaho Historical Society.) 

one of the hats be sent to Warnock & Co. for their 

opinion on the material, as they had originally furnished the sample approved by the board. Warnock replied to the effect that while the hat submitted contained the same material as the sample 

originally furnished and in the correct proportions, 

they had discovered that they had made a mistake 

in the stock used. They proposed to substitute a 

new combination of materials to remedy the defect, 

which would result in a new hat somewhat more 

expensive but one which they would guarantee. 

All this Meigs reported to the Secretary of War in 

a brief"" and asked for instructions as to how to 

proceed. The Secretary replied that in his opinion 

it was poor economy to buy something cheap simply 

because it was cheap, and directed Meigs to have 

Warnock make up a dozen sample hats of different 

quality and pattern, but of the recommended material, and subject them to trial. 

The Philadelphia Depot was instructed to procure the hats from Warnock, as well as samples 

from other manufacturers and send them to Washington. Philadelphia found the Warnock hats to 

be "stiff and ungainly" and unsuited to field wear 

and sent only one on to Meigs together with three 

made by P. Herst of Philadelphia, indicating strong 

preference for one of the Herst models. Meigs in 

turn forwarded the preferred Herst hat along with 

the Warnock pattern and an issue model to the 

Secretary with the recommendation that 100 of the 

Herst be purchased and sent to the Department of 

Arizona for trial by the same troops that were then 

running tests on cork helmets. The suggestion was 

approved 18 September and the hats procured and 

sent West. 

On 2 October, Meigs wrote the Adjutant General 

requesting that a board of officers be set up to consider among other things "the best pattern of a 
NUMBER 30 57 

campaign hat for the Army." Such a board, to be 

headed by Bvt. Maj. Gen. D. H. Rucker, was ordered convened in December.'" 

In January 1876, Meigs forwarded the board all 

correspondence on the question of a change in hats 

with the information that 100 of a proposed new 

model had been sent for trial to the Department of 

Arizona and requested that it review the whole 

matter.'" The board in turn requested all reports 

of the trials and was told that none had been received. (Actually no reports of the trials were received in Washington prior to the submission of 

the board's report.)'" 

Late in March, after somewhat lengthy deliberations, the board submitted its report together with 

a sample of the hat it recommended.'" Taking its 

directive comprehensively, the group did not confine itself simply to the pattern of the hat, but 

rather "extended its inquiries to the questions of 

material, weight, ventilation and durability combined with a proper degree of economy." As an 

example of somewhat inverse thinking, the remainder of the report is quoted in full. 

The board is of the opinion that the Campaign Hat for 

the Army should be soft and pliable, of light-weight, firm 

texture and the greatest possible durability that can be obtained for a reasonable price. 

With this view the Board has procured information from 

all available sources in regard to the manufacture and component materials of the various hats of the character named 

fabricated for Army and commercial purposes. Experts in 

the manufacture of hats of all kinds have been examined 

and their opinions obtained. 

There appear to be two distinct kinds or classes of felt 

hats:—one made from fur and the other from wool. 

Those manufactured from fur are of it vast variety of 

qualities ranging from very low to very high prices according to the quality and kind of material. It is, however, generally conceded that no fur hat, that will give good service, 

can be manufactured, except from the better quality of 

furs and at a price varying from $2.50/100 to $3.00/100 

each. If from the best quality of furs, the prices would 

range much higher. 

Whether made from fur or from wool, no inspection can 

exactly determine the particular material or materials from 

which made, so that in any case, much reliance must be 

placed on the integrity of the manufacturer. No positive 

test can be applied save that of actual wear. 

It is, however, thought by the Board that there will be 

less opportunity for imposition in the manufacture of woo] 

hats, while the cost of material being much less, there w'll 

be less inducement in that direction. 

From all the information the Board has been able to obtain, wool hats of the best grade will give equal service with 

the best grade of fur hats. This has been attested, even by 

prominent hatters engaged exclusively in the manufacture of 

fur hats. Severe tests were also instituted by the Board with 

satisfactory results. 

In view of all these facts, and the greatly decreased cost 

to the soldier, together with the large saving to the government, the Board is induced to recommend felt hats made of 

wool for issue to the enlisted men of the Army. 

The pattern recommended for adoption, has been sent to 

the office of the Quartermaster General, duly sealed for 

identification. It is a plain black, velvet finished, hat, similar 

to the fatigue hat worn by officers during the late war; with 

crown 5/2 inches high, and brim 2% inches wide, for medium sized hats, the edge of the brim turned over and 

stitched, without binding; with a revolving ventilator in 

each side 3/2 inches above the brim; and with a japanned 

sweat leather. 

For all purposes of the service it is believed that black 

is the most desirable color. 

It is further recommended that the campaign hat for officers be of the same color and pattern as that for enlisted 

men, either of fur or wool as may be preferred by the individual officer. If of fur, the brim need not be turned over 

nor bound. A sample hat of fur, duly sealed, has also been 

sent to the Quartermaster General's Office. 

The Secretary of War approved the findings of 

Meigs and directed Rucker to submit three additional hats of the same pattern together with specifications, the latter being duly adopted.'" 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL' S OFFICE 

Specifications for Wool Campaign Hats. 

Mixture.—To be of clean wool, of fine grade, equal in 

quality to XXX Ohio fleece. No waste or shoddy to be used 

in mixture. 

Weight.—Hat bodies to be weighed out, five and one-half 

(5 /2 ) ounces heavy, of clean wool. 

Shape.—The 7J^-size to be six (6) inches deep to center 

of tip, and five and one-half (55/2) inches deep at front and 

rear. Other sizes in proportion, varying one-sixteenth (Vie) 

of an inch to each size. 

Brim.—Edge of brim to be turned over three-eighths (Ys) 

of an inch on the upper side, and stitched down with two 

(2) rows of stitching, and to measure two and a half (2 Va) 

inches in front and rear and two and five-eighths (2^ ) 

inches in width at sides. 

Trimming.—Trimmed with eight (8) ligne Union braid, 

same quality as on sample hat; to be sewed on by sewing 

machine. Sweat to be of brown Japanned lea her, turned 

on top, one and three-quarters (1 ^ ) inch wide, and sewed 

in hat by sewing machine. Two of "Brachers' Patent Ventilators," one on each side of crown, three and one-half (3^2) 

inches from brim. 

The hat to be velvet finished, soft and pliable, same as 

standard sample. 

Not more than six (6) hats to be packed in each bandbox. 
58 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Adopted June 14, 1876. [Figure 40] 

M. C. MEIGS, 

Quartermaster General, 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A. 

The first contract was let in June with John T. 

Waring & Co., Yonkers, New York, for 15,000 hats 

at 11.25 each and the cost to enlisted personnel was 

set at the same with an additional |.07 for the cord 

and tassel."" Because of the large existing stocks of 

the old model, no matter what its deficiencies, issue 

was delayed until April 1877, and then with the 

proviso that they were to "be supplied only to 

troops in the field or on the frontier, as required 

by existing numbers.'"" 

Early in 1878 the old pattern hats were being 

sent to the military prison at Ft. Leavenworth for 

issue to prisoners, and the following fall all existing stocks were ordered turned in and shipped to 

the Philadelphia Depot.'" There, in an attempt to 

FIGURE 40.—1876 campaign hat. 
NUMBER 30 59 

salvage something from them, it was found that by 

reducing the width of the brim and reblocking the 

crown, the old hats could be made to conform to 

the new pattern, in appearance at least. Due to 

their lack of strength and durability, however, the 

Secretary of War directed that they not be issued 

to enlisted personnel, but rather reserved for sale 

to officers.^'" Issue to prisoners at Ft. Leavenworth 

continued and in 1881 a lot of 300 of those altered 

were sent to Washington for sale to District of Columbia 'extra or Inauguration Police." The remainder were apparently sold to surplus dealers.TM 

Throughout its life, this hat was worn with cords 

and tassels of the pattern prescribed for the 1858 

hat, the majority of them from surplus 1858 pattern stocks. These were priced at |.07 each."' 

It is obvious from its report that the board reasoned in its selection of a wool over a fur felt for 

the new pattern, but no explanation can be found 

in the proceedings or in allied correspondence for 

the choice of the black color other than the bland 

statement: "For all purposes .. . it is believed that 

black is the most desirable color." On the contrary, 

recommendations in regard to campaign hats had 

almost universally called for a light color as opposed to dark because of the former's capacity to 

reflect heat and that of the latter to absorb it. As 

early as 1847 the commanding officer of the Regiment of Voltigeurs and Foot Riflemen requested 

a campaign hat of gray or drab color, and throughout the Mexican War and the years nearly up to 

the Civil War, nonregulation drab colored hats 

were common in the frontier army.'"' Despite the 

adoption of the black 1855 cavalry model and the 

1858 pattern for the whole Army, agitation for a 

light colored, as opposed to black, hat continued, 

culminating in a strong recommendation for such 

in the Woodhull Report."^' Although the very outspoken criticism of the 1872 hat was aimed primarily at its lack of durability, much of the correspondence included criticism of the black color 

because of its tendency to absorb heat.^^' 

Although there was no widespread voiced reaction to the new model one way or the other for the 

first several years of its use, what criticism that 

was heard generally related to the question of color. 

Actually, during the period more attention seems 

to have been placed on the trials of the summer 

cork helmet which had been initiated in 1875 and 

which were to continue for some years."^ By 1880 

the criticism was becoming more noticeable with 

the question of durability coming to the surface. 

Early in 1882, Major J. C. Breckinridge, an assistant inspector general, in his report following an 

extensive tour of frontier posts, suggested that a 

campaign hat of better quality than the current 

model in either black or drab color "according to 

climate" be issued. He stated further that the price 

of the issue hat was too low "to warrant a good 

article" and that the enlisted men were buying nonregulation hats whenever they could afford them.^ 

When this report came to the attention of Brig. 

Gen. Rufus Ingalls, the new Quartermaster General (Gen. Meigs had retired on 6 February), he 

directed the Philadelphia Depot to turn the matter 

over to Captain Rogers, the Military Storekeeper, 

who was to furnish the Quartermaster General's 

office with several sample hats of different colors 

and quality. Ingalls stated that the question of 

issuing drab or slate colored hats had been frequently brought to his attention in the past months. 

Rogers complied, indicating in his letter of transmittal a decided preference for a change in material and color. "The only proper substance to use 

in the manufacture of hats of this character," he 

wrote, "is a fair quality of fur felt. They will cost 

considerable more to begin with than the wool hats, 

but a reasonable careful man can make two of 

them last through a term of enlistment, whereas he 

would want five of the wool ones." He then went 

on, recommending the omission of the patented 

"Brasher" ventilator called for in the specifications 

as being too expensive and its replacement by a 

simple eyelet.'^' Ingalls made a selection of fur felt 

hats and requested authority to purchase 1000 for 

test, stating that they would cost about $2.00 each 

in quantity as opposed to the then current |.67 for 

the fur model. The Secretary of War approved and 

they were procured and issued to troops in the 

Southwest.'^' By mid-1883 reports from the field 

were so overwhelmingly in favor of the drab hats, 

in many cases considering them superior to the 

cork helmets, that another 1000 were ordered with 

large ventilating holes in the side. Following receipt of additional favorable opinions, the Secretary of War in October directed that thereafter 

only drab fur felt hats were to be procured, these 

to have a large ventilator replacing the "Brasher," 

which was considered essentially worthless, and 

that samples should be sealed and specifications 
60 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

C/IMPAIGH MAT. 

Scokte 

Size Numbers . 

Correspo'ttlxn^ Trad*? StrGS. 

1 

6^ 

Z 

sir 

3 

7 

4 

rj 

5 

ri 

6 

7^ 

'8 

FIGURE 41.—Drab campaign hat, c. 1883. 

(From Annual Report of the Quartermaster General, 1884.) 

drawn.'^" These were adopted 14 December 1883 

and later were published together with a line drawing of the hat (Figure 41) in the annual report of 

the Quartermaster General for 1884. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL' S OFFICE. 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR FUR CAMPAIGN HATS. 

Mixture.—To be composed of two-thirds best coney and 

one-third fine blown nutria. 

Weight.—Hat bodies to be weighed—4% ounces heavy. 

Shape.—Block to be 5% inches deep to center of tip. 

Brim.—To be 2% inches wide in front and rear, and 3 

inches wide at sides; to be of double thickness, and to have 

two rows of sitching, as shown on sample. 

Color.—To be a drab or other suitable color, as per 

sample. 

Trimmings.—To be trimmed with 8-ligne union band— 

same quality as on hat—to be sewed on by hand. Sweat to 

be an imported lined leather, 2^4 inches wide, sewed to the 

reed by zigzag stitch. A wire-gauze ventilator to be on each 

side of the hat, 3 ^ inches from brim—to be of size as on 

sample hat. 

The hats to be doe finished, as per sample. 

To be packed three hats in each bandbox. 

Adopted December 14, 1883 

S. B. HOLABIRDj 

Quartermaster-General, U.S.A.^'^ 

The first of these hats were purchased in mid1883 and early 1884 on the open market in relatively small lots from William H. Hurlbut of New 

York at prices ranging from |1.75 to |1.89 each. The 

first contract was let with Raymold 8c Whitlock of 

New York in June 1884 for 8007 at $1.67. The item 

was issued at a cost to the men of .|1.79.'"' With 

some relatively minor changes, this hat continued 

in use until 1912 when the "Hat, Service," "olive 

drab" with the "Montana Peak" was approved."" 

Several of these changes are worth noting for 

identification and dating purposes. In 1889 the 

rows of stitching on the brim increased from two 

to three and the "wire gauze" ventilator was replaced by a number of small holes punched in the 

sides and arranged in design as on the "standard 

sample'"" (Figure 42). In 1895 the weight of the 

hat was dropped from 43^ to 3:^4 ounces and in 

1897 the upper edge of the sweat band Avas turned 

over 14 inch and cemented and a narrow strip of 

oiled silk about I/2 inch wide was welted in between the sweat band and the body of the hat.""' 

The advent of the war with Spain brought some 

renewed attempts to increase the ventilation in the 
NUMBER 30 61 

hat. In June 1899 the Philadelphia Depot was directed to procure 1000 hats with corrugated wire 

side ventilators similar to those abandoned in 

1889, and corrugated insertions under the sweat 

bands, 500 of leather and 600 papier mache, to be 

sent to Cuba for trial. Specifications for these were 

issued as an addition to, not as a substitute for, 

those for the standard then in use. An unspecified 

portion of the trial hats were to have the edge of 

the brim turned under and secured with three rows 

of stitching, the remainder merely to have the edge 

of the brim stitched like the standard model.""^ 

Then in December 1900, Horstmann & Co. submitted to the Philadelphia Depot a sample hat with 

a corrugated sweat band insert made of aluminum. 

As the leather and papier mache inserts had not 

proved to retain their stiffness, the Quartermaster 

General authorized the procurement of 2000 trial 

hats, 1000 to have inserts of aluminum and 1000 inserts of celluloid. These were to be secured by nonrustable wire; as in the 1899 trial models they were 

to have wire side ventilators and the edges of the 

brims were to be turned over and stitched or merely 

stitched. All were to be sent to Manila and Cuba 

for trial. During the fiscal year 1900, more than 

350,000 of these models with the sweat band inserts 

were purchased."" Both the wire side ventilators 

and the corrugated sweat band inserts were dropped 

in the 1904 specifications.'"' 

Of the examples examined, none conformed to 

the 1883 specifications, that is, having the wire 

gauze side ventilators and two rows of stitching on 

^Z/"' //////MA,/.. *., /'/////' '/ 

FIGURE 42.—^Drab campaign hat, model 1889. 
62 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the edge of the brim. Others followed closely the 

1889-1895 and 1899 specifications. Of those following the latter, all examined had sweat band inserts of papier mache rather than leather and had 

the brim merely stitched rather than turned over, 

and none examined had the aluminum and/or celluloid inserts called for in 1900. All carried the 

contractor's name and date of contract. The officers' models examined all generally followed the 

various specifications, but were of a far superior 

quality. 

Although nothing specific was said about the hat 

cords for either the 1876 black or the 1883 drab 

models until 1887, they were issued in fair numbers throughout the entire period and presumably 

worn.'"' In 1887 a gratuitous issue of one cord with 

each hat issued was authorized, to be continued 

until old stocks were exhausted.""" Issue continued 

until the outbreak of war when procurement in 

large numbers was initiated."'" 

Although the old and new model cords were of 

the same length and were worn in the same manner, they differed radically in method of construction and terminals. While the 1858 cord was made 

of four strands twisted with tassels at either end, 

the 1899 cord was braided of 16 strands and carried 

acorn terminals like the 1855 cavalry model and the 

Civil War period officers' models. Colors prescribed 

were: Post quartermaster sergeant, buff; post commissary sergeant, gray; Hospital Corps, green; Engineer Corps, Scarlett and white, with alternate 

stripe running lengthwise; Ordnance, crimson; Signal Corps, black; Cavalry, yellow; Artillery, Scarlett; Infantry, blue." This infantry blue was soon 

changed to white"" and in 1902 the Hospital Corps 

changed from green to maroon and white with alternate stripes running lengthwise. Ordnance from 

crimson to red and black, again with alternate 

stripes running lengthwise, Signal Corps from 

black to orange and white with alternate lengthwise stripes, and Infantry from blue to light blue. 

Officers' cords were to be of gold for general officers and of gold and black silk intermixed for 

others."'" For organizational identification of enlisted men in 1899, the letter of the company and 

the number of the regiment were prescribed for 

wear on the hat. In the case of engineer troops the 

letter of the company only was to be worn."^* 

Rection to the drab model was generally positive 

over the years, and the fact that it was continued 

from its inception until the early years of World 

War II with only an alteration in the shape of the 

crown bears mute evidence of its utility. 

THE 1881 HELMET 

In January 1881, after protracted consideration, 

the full dress cap adopted in 1872 was discontinued 

and a helmet, a rather modified version of that 

then prescribed for the Cavalry and Light Artillery, adopted for all personnel other than general 

officers and officers of the general staff and staff 

corps.""" 

The 1872 cap had never been liked and this combined with the growing popularity of the Germantype spike helmet both abroad and among American militia units resulted in the change."'" 

The change grew out of the report of the 1878-

1879 Army Equipment Board headed by Colonel 

Nelson A. Miles. This board, set up primarily to 

consider the subject of entrenching tools "and also 

the equipment of troops in general" "" interpreted 

its mission in the broadest possible sense and duly 

submitted a voluminous report that seemed to go 

far beyond the directed task and included a number of recommended changes in Army dress."'^ In 

regard to dress hats the comments and recommendations were specific: 

The present shako and helmet of the Infantry, Cavalry, 

and Artillery are objectionable and cause great dissatisfaction. They are of poor material (felt) and badly shaped, 

and the Board accordingly recommends the adoption for all 

officers and men of the line of the Army of helmets of the 

patterns herewith submitted and which may be generally 

described as follows: 

For all mounted officers of the line, a cork helmet covered 

with black cloth, with eagle and chin-chain of the pattern 

submitted, further trimmed and ornamented with hat cord 

and braid arranged as now prescribed for the helmets of officers of Cavalry and Light Artillery: the plume to be detachable, of buffalo hair, and of the color of the facings 

of the corps. 

For all dismounted officers of the line, a cork helmet covered with black cloth, with spike and eagle and chin-cha-n 

of the pattern submitted. The chin-chains of foot officers 

will not be worn down habitually; it will be attached to 
NUMBER 30 63 

the left side, pass diagonally up across the front of the 

helmet and be secured at the back. 

For all enlisted men of Cavalry and Light Artillery a 

helmet of the pattern submitted, ornamented and trimmed 

the same as prescribed for mounted officers, except that the 

eagle shall be as now worn, the chin-strap shall be of leather, the braid and hat-cord of worsted, and the plume of 

horse-hair, to be detachable. 

For all other enlisted men, a helmet of the pattern submitted, to be ornamented with spike, eagle, and black chinstrap, as per pattern submitted. 

This change of hats, if approved, will reduce the first 

cost of the dress hat five dollars or more, and the weight of 

the hat for mounted troops six ounces. 

Soon after the appointment of the board and 

perhaps indicative of the comprehensive scope it 

intended to pursue. Nelson asked the Adjutant 

General to circularize the Army for comments regarding improvements that might be made in the 

"general equipment" of the troops and at the same 

time asked to examine any foreign uniforms and 

equipment in possession of the government or 

which might be obtained from abroad."'" Headquarters of the Army complied in regard to the 

circular and the response was quite heavy."^" 

Just what actually triggered the board into recommending the Prussian-type helmet as a replacement for the caps other than the current popularity 

of things Prussian and the poor shaping of the 

mounted helmet is not clear from the record. At 

least one experienced officer wrote the board at 

some length as to the unpopularity of the dress cap 

with many line officers and the great satisfaction 

the British infantry was finding in the helmet. The 

writer went on to describe at some length the "admirable military appearance" of a volunteer militia 

unit he had seen in San Francisco wearing spiked 

helmets with brass trimmings and chain chin straps, 

stating further that the piece appeared light, snugfitting, and comfortable, "the true and only headgear that should cover a soldier's head for full 

dress.""" 

Whatever the reasoning, the board, then sitting 

in New York, leaned heavily toward the helmet 

and had Henry V. Allien, a well-known hatter of 

that city, make up six sample helmets, both summer and winter, and seven watercolor drawings of 

each variation in trimmings, that is, for enlisted 

men of foot troops, front and side view, enlisted 

men of mounted troops, summer helmet for enlisted 

men, helmet for line officers of foot troops, that for 

all mounted line officers, and summer helmet for 

all officers. (Figures 43-45)."'' In addition, the 

board procured from the Philadelphia Depot four 

other sample helmets, with trimmings, made by 

Horstmann."'" 

When the board submitted its report, it returned 

the sample helmets and paintings to Washington, 

commenting on the paintings. "They are complete 

except for the eagle ornament of the officers' helmets which is in paper instead of metal ... . The 

tiger head on the officers' helmets will be modified 

somewhat when the perfect die is cut.""" 

Whether the trimmings on the helmets recommended for adoption were all prepared by Allien 

or were partially pirated from the Horstmann 

models furnished the board is unknown, but exmination of the paintings for the enlisted patterns 

(those whose eagles were of metal) reveals that the 

front plates were those prescribed for the 1872 

helmet and originally furnished by Horstmann. It 

may be that they were a mixture of the two, for in 

a set of detailed notes furnished by Horstmann 

with its samples is the comment that two of the 

front plates were the "present U.S. Cavy. Helmet 

Eagle[s]" and the side buttons on one were those 

used by the "English Militia," perhaps the same 

"tiger head" side ornaments mentioned by the 

board and shown on the officers' model."*" These 

are the side buttons that later became the subject 

of some little controversy at the time of the final 

adoption of the helmet. Captain J. P. Sanger, the 

recorder of the board, in his letter of 6 May to 

Meigs cited above, called the device a "tiger head." 

In this he was mistaken, as was Horstmann in relating them to "English Militia." Most of the 19th 

century helmets of the British regular cavalry had 

their chin straps or chains attached with lion head 

bosses."'" 

When the board's report was submitted for consideration by the General of the Army, it was forwarded for comment to the Quartermaster General 

and the Chief of Ordnance. Upon receiving it, 

Meigs passed it on to the Philadelphia Depot for 

an estimate of the cost of the proposed changes."" 

The subject of the helmet seemed to interest Meigs, 

for while waiting for Rogers' figures, he instructed 

the quartermaster in Philadelphia to procure and 

send to him four German helmets: One Guard 

Cuirassiers, one dragoon, one artillery, and one 

infantry of the line."** These he discussed with 
64 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 43.—^Dress helmets: a, for line officers of foot troops (note "tiger head" side buttons); 

b, for all mounted line officers. 

General Sherman, retaining the cuirassier model 

in Washington and sending the others back to 

Philadelphia.TM 

When Meigs reported that the proposed uniform 

changes would entail a deficit of something over 

1525,000 for that fiscal year, Sherman disapproved 

almost all those which could not be effected without cost, among them the helmet. The Secretary 

of War concurred with the endorsement: "No 

changes will be made at any time which involve an 

expenditure not clearly within existing appropriations, and great care will be taken to avoid a 

deficiency."""" 

The issue of the dress cap versus the helmet was 

far from dead, however. Feeling on the subject 

ran higher than had been realized, for late the next 

year a group of some 573 officers sent General Sherman a signed petition requesting the adoption of 

the helmet in place of the cap."" The petition. 

which was given considerable publicity in the service-oriented press,""" seemed to ring a bell with Sherman, for he had the petition referred to Meigs for 

comment and directed that the sample helmets 

recommended by the Miles Board the previous 

year, together with a comparison of cost of the then 

regulation enlisted cap and the helmet, be sent to 

his office.""" When this was done, Sherman indicated 

that he would approve for all arms a black felt, 

as opposed to a cork, helmet and asked for a cost 

estimate. Meigs relayed the request to Philadelphia. Somewhat confused, Rogers wired Meigs 

back for information as to which of the samples 

Sherman preferred so that it might be used as a 

guide in checking cost and preparing further 

samples."" Without waiting for an answer, Rogers 

requested Allien & Co. of New York, who it will be 

remembered prepared the Miles Board samples, to 

send to Philadelphia the blocks and dies used in 
NUMBER 30 65 

.LJU^.. 

"*^.. 

FIGURE 44.—Summer helmets: a, for all officers (note "tiger head" side buttons) 

b, for enlisted men. 

^ ' -.',... • 

FIGURE 45.—^Dress helmets: a, for all foot soldiers; h, for enlisted men of mounted troops. 
66 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

making them, apparently for use in making additional samples.""' 

Commimication on the subject between Meigs 

and Sherman continued with the Quartermaster 

General rather neatly summing up the whole matter: "The present cavalry officer's helmet is of felt 

and weighs lOi/g ounces complete [while] the present officer's cap is cloth covered pasteboard and 

weighs 714 ounces." Meigs then went on to say that 

the helmet asked for in the petition was that recommended by the Miles Board and weighed 1714 

ounces for the mounted article. "You have signified that you will approve a black felt helmet properly ventilated," he continued, "as soon as one can 

be invented that won't weigh down the wearer ... . 

As the outward appearance of the officer's helmet 

as an article of uniform is all that directly concerns 

the government (since they buy their own) will 

it not be sufficient to adopt some pattern and color 

leaving the material to be selected by the officer 

himself? . . If the officers generally desire the 

change, will it not be well to indulge them? Whenever the officers get a helmet, petitions to give the 

same to the enlisted men will be in order and must 

be met. But in the meantime actual trials and experience of officers will probably develop the best 

material and pattern." """ The tone of this letter 

leads one to believe that Meigs was plumping for 

adoption of the helmet for enlisted personnel as 

well as officers, and if this is what he intended, he 

was successful, for several days later Sherman approved the change for the whole Army and directed 

Meigs to draft a general order for submission to the 

Secretary of War."" 

Meanwhile Meigs continued to press Rogers for 

the additional samples then being made and a good 

bit of confusion resulted, which was not resolved 

for several months.""" On 16 December, Rogers forwarded four helmets made by several manufacturers with a long letter describing them, their prices, 

and a general discussion of their possible ornaments, making a particular point of saying that in 

order to insure uniformity, the government should 

procure and own the dies for the metal trimmings, 

to be loaned to manufacturers, a point on which 

Meigs agreed.""" On 27 December Meigs forwarded 

to Sherman his draft of the general order on the 

helmets which was in turn published as General 

Order No. 4, Headquarters of the Army, 7 January 1881. •'"" 

By direction of the Secretary of War the following modifications in the uniform of the Army are made: 

I. The dress cap for regimental officers and men will be 

discontinued and in lieu thereof the following adopted: 

Helmets for field officers.—According to the pattern on 

file in the office of the Quartermaster General. Body: of 

cork or other suitable material covered with black cloth, or 

of black felt at the option of the wearer. Trimmings: cords 

and tassels, top piece and plume-socket, chain chin-strap 

and hooks, eagle with motto, crossed cannon, rifles, or sabres, 

all gilt, with the number of the regiment on the shield in 

white; plume of buffalo-hair, white for infantry, yellow for 

cavalry, and red for artillery. 

Helmets for other officers of mounted troops and of Signal 

Corps.—Ssime as above, except that color of plume shall be 

orange for Signal Corps. 

Helmets for other officers of foot troops.—Same as above, 

except that the trimmings are as follows: Top piece, spike, 

chin-strap with hooks and side buttons, eagle with motto, 

cross rifles or cannon, all gilt, with the number of the regiment on the shield in white. 

Officers' summer helmets.—Body: of cork as per pattern 

in the office of the Quartermaster General, covered with 

white facing-cloth; top piece, spike, chain chin-strap, and 

hooks, all gilt. 

Helmets for all mounted troops.—Body: of black felt as 

per pattern in the office of the Quartermaster General, with 

leather chin-strap, large crossed cannon or sabers, letter of 

company and number of regiment, plain side buttons, top 

piece and plume-socket, all brass; horse-hair plumes and 

cords, and band with rings of the color of the arm of service. 

Helmets for all foot troops.—Of same pattern and material as for mounted troops, with leather chin-strap; and 

plain side buttons, top piece and spike, of brass. 

Trimmings.—Commissary sergeants, a crescent of white 

metal; hospital stewards, a wreath of brass, with letters 

U. S. in white metal; engineers, a castle, with letter of 

company; ordnance, a shell and flame; artillery, crossed cannon; infantry, crossed rifles, and letter of company and 

number of regiment, all in brass. 

The allowance of helmets will be one in the first and 

one in the third year of enlistment. 

This order will go into effect, except for cavalry and light 

batteries, on the 1st of July next or as soon thereafter as 

the supplies can be procured by the Quartermaster's Department; for cavalry and light batteries whenever the present stock of helmets is exhausted by issues. 

A new price-list and table of allowances, based upon 

these changes, will be promulgated by the time this order 

goes into effect. 

Officers may use the new helmet immediately if they so 

desire. 

Following the publication of the order, Meigs 

had the approved samples photographed and the 

pictures rather widely distributed.^"' Several days 

later he forwarded to Philadelphia the sample 

adopted for enlisted men with instructions to procure four similar models for use as sealed samples 
NUMBE

R 30 

67 

to be sent to Washington together with specifica-

tions for the same.*"' It should be noted here that 

because of the confusion over the samples, which 

was to increase over the next several weeks, the 

specifications were not drafted until much later, 

finally being published in May after a number of 

changes had been made. On 14 January, Rogers 

wrote Meigs for information as to the officers' hel-

mets and asked that the models that had been 

adopted be sent to him."" Meigs replied in a rather 

involved letter that, as will be seen, served to con-

fuse the Philadelphia Depot even more. The Quar-

termaster General stated that he was returning the 

six helmets recommended by the Miles Board, two 

of which had been adopted for officers (that for 

field and mounted officers and the officer's summer 

helmet), and made the point that Sherman partic-

ularly desired that the helmets be uniform in 

shape. He inclosed a set of the helmet photo-

graphs.*** 

The confusion became complete with the publi-

cation of the 22 January issue of the United States 

Army and Navy Journal, which carried a feature 

article, including illustrations made from six of the 

seven photographs of the approved patterns. Even 

a cursory glance indicates the confusion: The ap-

proved patterns were not all of one shape; the se-

lection included helmets both from the Miles 

Board samples and the four furnished by Rogers; 

and the brass trimmings differed between officers' 

and enlisted models and between foot and mounted 

officers. The pattern for enlisted men, although 

quite similar to that selected by the Miles Board 

(as shown in the drawings), was apparently pat-

terned on one of Rogers' four models in that it 

carried a pin-wheel ventilator on either side, in 

addition to crossed cannon without an eagle for a 

front plate, plus a spike base taken from the 1872 

helmet (Figures 46, 47) .*" It should be noted, how-

ever, that the side buttons carried the branch of 

service device as in the Miles Board drawings. That 

for foot officers was from the Rogers models as op-

posed to the Miles Board helmets in that the shape 

was distinctly different, the spike base was again 

FIGURE 46.—Officers' helmets: a, officers of foot troops 

(note shape and model 1872 spike base); b, field officers' 

helmet with spike (note shape and "tiger head" side but-

tons) ; c, summer helmet (note shape and "tiger head" side 

buttons). 
68 

FIGURE 47.—Helmet for enlisted men (note "pin-wheel" 

ventilator). (From United States Army and Navy Journal, 

22 January 1881.) 

that used on the 1872 model, and the side buttons 

were of a chain-link rosette type as opposed to the 

Miles Board drawing "tiger head." The officers' 

summer helmet was taken directly from the drawings with a wreath of foliage spike base and "tiger 

head" side buttons,^°° as was that for field and 

mounted officers. The front plate for enlisted men 

was the crossed weapons called for in General Order No. 4, but that for officers was of an entirely 

new design made up by Rogers and mentioned in 

his letter to Meigs of 16 December."' In addition, 

the chin chain on the officers' summer helmets was 

arranged high to low from left to right as viewed, 

while that on the foot officers' winter helmets was 

just the reverse."' 

Just how and why these discrepancies in the patterns crept in is not the least clear. Certainly there 

was no need for undue haste once Sherman had approved the change. It does seem possible, however. 

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

that since the selection of the insignia and trimmings had obviously not been settled at the time 

of approval, to say nothing of the helmet shape, 

the photographs were deliberately released to the 

press and others in order to evoke comment as to 

the preferences of the members of the service. In 

any case, before any such comment was forthcoming Rogers was working at standardizing the ornaments and front plates. Working with Horstmann 

he came up with a set of designs, which he forwarded to Meigs in care of the draftsman suggesting 

that the enlisted men be given a front eagle similar 

to that for officers.*"" After considerable correspondence between Philadelphia and Washington, a 

second trip to Washington by the Horstmann designer, plus consideration of designs solicited from 

other suppliers, Rogers personally took to the capital the fruits of his labors, which Meigs submitted 

to Sherman who approved them. The helmet shape 

was that designed originally by Allien, that is, that 

formerly furnished to the Miles Board.*^" 

Several days later, Rogers, in forwarding to the 

depot quartermaster his estimates for the brass 

trimmings and front plates for the coming year, 

stated that the estimate did "not comprehend any 

. . . for mounted helmets as the present stock will 

be issued to them until exhausted as per General 

Order No. 4," which accounts for the 1872 front 

plate on cut-down 1872 and Model 1881 helmets 

in numerous photographs.*" The next day Meigs 

ordered depot quartermasters to forward all 1872 

pattern helmets to Philadelphia for alteration to 

conform with the new pattern.*'' On 16 March, 

Rogers forwarded to Washington the specifications 

for the pattern as last approved, which were 

adopted 6 May and published.*" 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL' S OFFICE. 

Specifications for Helmets for all Troops. 

Material.—To be black: To be made of felt composed of 

one part each of "Russia" and best "coney/' and one-half 

part of short stock nutria or beaver; wine stiffened. Such 

other suitable material besides felt of the above composition 

as may from time to time be determined upon bids received 

in response to advertisement may be used if approved; in 

which case the character and quality of such material, as 

shown in the sample submitted and accepted, will govern 

the contract. 

Shape, Etc.—To be in shape according to standard sample. Black enameled leather band, about seven-eighths {Ys) 

of an inch wide, to surround the helmet at base of crown, 

and to have an adjustable chin-strap of the same material 
NUMBER 30 69 

with brass sliding-buckle, as on sample. The lower edge of 

helmet to be bound with black enameled leather and the 

inside of visor all around to be lined with green Morocco 

leather, pasted to the body with rubber cement. The sweat 

to be of Belgian sheep-skin, about two (2) inches wide; inside the sweat band about an inch wide of heavy enameled 

leather or cloth. All to be well stitched in place. A shell 

ventilator, according to pattern, to take the place of toppiece or spike when desired. 

Sizes.—To be of six (6) standard sizes, numbered from 

one (1) to six (6) inclusive, corresponding to the trade 

sizes 6% to 75^ inclusive. 

The standard sample to be followed in all respects as to 

shape, quality of materials, workmanships. Etc. 

RUFUS INGALLS, 

Quartermaster General, 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A. 

Adopted May 6, 1882, in lieu of specifications (No. 1) 

adopted May 31, 1876, which are hereby canceled. 

690- -Q.M.G.O.,1882. 

C. & Eq. 

Supplies. 

NOTE.— 

Ornaments and Trimmings for Foot Troops.—The toppiece to consist of a spike on a base of oak leaves according 

to sample, and to be made to screw into the base of ventilator, as shown in sample. Eagle with shield and motto, and 

side buttons, according to pattern, for each arm of the 

service. All to be of yellow metal. 

The number of regiment or device of corps to be in white 

metal (German silver), and be borne in the lower half of 

shield on eagle's breast, according to pattern. 

For Mounted Troops.—The top ornament to consist of a 

horse-hair plume (color according to arm of service) and 

a yellow-metal plume-socket, as described in specifications, 

which rests upon the oak-leaf base. Eagle with shield and 

motto, and side buttons, according to arm of service. All to 

be of yellow metal. 

The number of regiment or device of corps, in German 

silver, to be borne on shield, as described for foot troops.''" 

With very few modifications these specifications 

held good for the life of the helmet. In April 1882 

a description of the trimmings was detailed in 

specifications. Further changes in these trimmings 

followed those for the insignia for forage caps (see 

pp. 49-52). 

The specifications for the trimmings were as 

follows:'" 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL' S OFFICE. 

Specifications for Metallic Ornaments for Helmets, Forage 

Caps, and Uniform Coats. 

FOR HELMETS. 

Eagles.—Eagle according to pattern, made of No. 24 

sheet-brass (high); American eagle displayed proper with 

national shield on breast and bearing in beak scroll with 

motto "E pluribus unum;" olive branch in dexter talon and 

bunch of arrows in sinister. For troops of the line the distinguishing arms are displayed under the shield, viz: Artillery, the crossed cannon; cavalry, crossed sabers; infantry, 

crossed rifles, and upon the lower part of shield is borne 

the regimental number in German silver. For the staff and 

staff corps, the crossed arms are omitted and the designating 

badge, in German silver, is borne upon the lower part of 

shield, viz: For hospital stewards, the caduceus; for commissary sergeants, the crescent; for engineers, the castle, for 

ordnance and ordnance sergeants, the shell and flame, and 

for signal service, the crossed flags. When flat the eagle is of 

about the following dimensions: Greatest width between 

tips of wings four and one-quarter (4^4) inches; from upper edge of scroll to tip of tail three and seven-eights (3^ ) 

inches. It shall be molded to the form of helmet shell and 

be provided with three (3) wire loops by which to fasten 

it on. 

Spike and Base (Foot Troops).—Spike to be of polished 

high brass, according to pattern, hexagonal, fluted surface, 

with screw of brass to fit socket in top of helmet. Height of 

spike three (3") inches; widest diameter one (1") inch; 

length of screw (in the clear) three-fourths (^" ) of an 

inch; base of No. 24 sheet-brass (high) ; oak-leaf design according to pattern, eight (8) points, bed in center to 

receive base of spike and hole cut for spike-screw. 

Plume Socket (for Mounted Men's Helmets).—To be of 

high brass, according to pattern. An inverted fluted cone 

with mitered top (four points), front ornamented with the 

national eagle and shield and a single star surmounting 

eagle head. Spherical base, into the mouth of which the 

cone is securely brazed, and which is formed into ii hexagonal pedestal at the bottom similar to that of spike so as to 

rest firmly upon the oak-leaf base and be bored for the 

plume pin. Height of spherical base (including mouth and 

pedestal) about one and one-half (IJ^" ) inches; of cone 

two (2") inches; diameter of cone at top one (1") inch, at 

bottom five-eighths (Ys") of an inch; diameter of spherical 

base one (1") inch. Plume pin, with ornamental head and 

plain washer (each about one and one fourth (1J4") inches 

in diameter), about four and three-quarter (4%" ) inches in 

length, the thread of which shall be cut so as to screw into 

ventilator socket in top of helmet. For the lower end of pin 

a large open washer or disk with beveled edge to bear 

against the inside of helmet shell for the better security of 

the top piece, and be kept in place by a small brass thumbnut. Diameter of disk, about two and one-half {2Y2") 

inches. 

The oak-leaf base to be the same as described for foot 

helmets. 

Side Buttons.—Side buttons to be of high brass, according 

to pattern, with flat brass double stems. Devices on buttons 

in relief: For engineers, the castle; for ordnance, the shell 

and flame; for hosptal stewards, the caduceus; for commissary sergeants, the crescent; for signal corps, the crossed 

flags; for artillery, the crossed cannon; for cavalry, the 

crossed sabers; for infantry, the crossed rifles. 

Numbers.—Numbers to be one-half (/4") inch in height 

and made of No. 18 German silver, according to pattern, 

with two soft copper wire stems to hold them on shield. 
70 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Devices.—Devices for staff and staff corps to be of German 

silver, according to patterns. Designs as mentioned in description of eagle, and stems as for numbers. 

Scrolls and Rings (Mounted Troops).—Scrolls and rings. 

One on each side, between the leaf-shaped points of the top 

piece, its lower edge one-half (J/a") inch below these points. 

The scroll is three-fourths (Yt") diameter, ornamented 

to correspond with the fastening of the top piece. On the 

top of the scroll, in the center, is an eye of thin wire threesixteenths (%6") of an inch high holding a thin brass ring 

one-half (Yz") inch in diameter, to keep the cords and bands 

in position. The stem of the scroll is formed of two pieces of 

thin brass wire to fasten it at the inside of helmet. All to 

be high brass. 

Adopted April 21, 1882, in lieu of specifications No. 8, of 

Book of Specifications, and conforming to standard samples 

this day adopted. 

[Signed] RUFUS INGALLS, 

Quartermaster General, 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A. 

35. Q.M.G.O., 1882 

G & Eq.: 

Supplemental. 

When specifications were published in 1892 detailing the uniform for Indian scouts, the helmet 

front plate was to be "the eagle prescribed for 

mounted men with the device (crossed arrows) in 

lieu of the number." Since the scouts normally 

operated with the cavalry, it seems evident that 

they wore the front plate of that arm with the 

crossed arrows as pictured in the specifications on 

the shield. The side buttons were also to carry the 

crossed arrows.*" 

One small detail remained. On being queried by 

the regimental quartermaster of the 15th Infantry, 

the General of the Army decided that the regimental staff officers of artillery and infantry, being 

mounted, were to wear the helmet trimmings prescribed for officers of mounted troops, that is, the 

plume and cords as opposed to the spike."' 

Because of the confusion caused by the photographs made in January and published in the 

United States Army and Navy Journal, Rogers conceived the idea of making "phototypes" of the finally approved models to obviate any further 

trouble. This was done and the pictures were distributed to all quartermaster officers and to the 

headquarters of military divisions and departments 

and published in that year's Annual Report of the 

Quartermaster General.''^' 

Even before a contract was let for the new model, 

altered 1872 helmets were being sent to subordinate 

installations for issue to "all branches." '^" The 

first contract for the new helmets was let to Raymold and Whitlock of New York City, 16,000, untrimmed, at |1.69i/4 each. Horstmann won the 

contract for the front plates, side buttons, and 

white metal numbers, while Raymold and Whitlock supplied the top pieces and spikes.'"* Subsequent contracts, also with Raymold and Whitlock, 

dropped the unit price of the untrimmed helmet 

to $1.39 in 1882 and $1.29 in 1882.'" The initial 

issue price was set at $1.70 for the basic helmet with 

the trimmings additional; varying between foot and 

mounted troops. The rate of issue was one for the 

first and third years.'" 

A number of these helmets have been examined, 

both officers' and enlisted including one officer's 

summer model, and all conform to the specifications within allowable tolerances (Figures 48-51). 

The altered helmets were something else again. As 

can be seen (Figure 52), they were of a distinctly 

different shape, but, as we know, were issued and 

presumably worn. Those examined carried the 

Horstmann label with "Remodeled 1881" added."' 

The officer's summer model (Figure 51) is particularly interesting in that it is apparently a very early 

one, was made by Allien, is almost identical in 

shape and construction to that shown in the AllienMiles Board watercolors and in the helmet photographs made in December 1880 and reproduced in 

the United States Army and Navy Journal; among 

its nonregulation trimmings it carries the lion head 

side buttons which caused some adverse comment. 

It formerly belonged to Bvt. Maj. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick, a 1861 graduate of West Point. Kilpatrick 

resigned from the service in 1865 and served as minister to Chile 1866-1870 and from May 1881 until 

his death there in December of the same year.'"' The 

helmet, which must have been purchased prior to 

his departure for South America in May 1881, was 

apparently intended to serve as part of a quasidiplomatic uniform.'^ In addition to the lion head 

side buttons and rear chin chain hook with chain, 

it carries a regulation 1881 staff front plate (which 

was not authorized for wear on the summer helmet) 

with two silver stars affixed to the shield and the 

1881 oak leaf plume or spike base to which is fixed 

a four inch hexagon metal piece surmounted by a 

flowing plume of black cock feathers. 

Due to some confusion as to the proper method 

of wearing the helmet cords by mounted individuals, the Headquarters of the Army in 1886 prescribed the following: 
NUMBER 30 71 

FIGURE 48.—Officers' helmets: a, field and mounted officers' helmet 

(spike substituted for plume); b, foot officer's helmet. 

The helmet cords are attached to the left side of the 

helmet, and come down to the left shoulder, where they are 

held together by a slide; one cord then passes to the front 

and the other to the rear of the neck, crossing upon the 

right shoulder, under the shoulder strap, and passing separately around to the front and rear of the right arm, where 

they are again united and held together by a slide under 

the arm; the united cords then cross the breast and are 

looped up to the button of the shoulder-strap on the left 

side.""" 

And in 1889, all band musicians were given the 

privilege of wearing mounted helmet trimmings, 

that is, plumes and cords."' 

Reaction to the helmet, pro or con, was slow to 

surface. Military Storekeeper Rogers, on a tour of 

western posts in 1883, found troop units generally 

satisfied with the change except for several easily 

corrected small details, such as the length of the 

chin straps."" Not until the 1890s was there any 

adverse comment. Captain H. F. Kendall, 8 th 

Cavalry, in writing on the uniform in the Journal 

of the United States Cavalry Association, stated: 

"Beginning with the head, we have the forage cap, 

the helmet, and the campaign hat. The two former 

offer us object lessons on the military supremacy 

of the two leading nations of Europe, which is just 

about the limit of their utility."'" Others called 

FIGURE 49.—Helmet for enlisted men. 

the helmet "hot and heavy," "uncomfortable for 

all occasions," and "frequently causing headache."" Perhaps it was time for a change. Still, all 

in all, it must be remembered that this helmet continued in use for a total of 21 years, longer than 

any previous piece of dress headgear. 
72 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 50.—Helmet for mounted enlisted FIGURE 51.—The Kilpatrick helmet. 

FIGURE 52.—Altered model 1872 helmet. 

(Courtesy of Gordon Chappelle Collection.) 
NUMBER 30 73 

THE CORK OR SUMMER HELMET 

The adoption of the white (and sometimes 

brown or khaki) summer helmet for use in especially hot climates together with the change in color of the general issue campaign hat from black to 

drab was a continuation of the long struggle by 

certain elements of the Army for better protection 

from the heat in both uniforms and headgear. 

True, the Army had worn white cotton dress in 

the 1830s and 1840s, dropped in the 1851 uniform 

change, but it had never had a true hot-weather 

issue headpiece. The Woodhull Report of 1868 

had recommended a "casque or light brimmed hat" 

similar to the "Malay hat" with the head sitting 

in a ring and an air space between the ring and 

the hat, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that any consideration was ever given the 

recommendation or that it had any influence on 

the helmet when it was adopted."' 

The immediate impetus for the adoption of a 

summer helmet for trial stemmed directly from the 

controversy over the failure of the 1872 campaign 

hat.'^' During the latter stages of the little crisis, 

the Quartermaster General, motivated by a picture 

in the Illustrated London News showing British 

troops in India wearing a hot weather helmet, 

asked the help of Sir Edward Thornton, the British 

Minister in Washington, in obtaining a specimen.'" 

Before receiving a reply, Meigs broached the subject of summer helmets with the Secretary of War, 

sending him a sample and recommending that 200 

similar to it be authorized for purchase and issue 

for trial in the Southwest."' The recommendation 

was turned down on the grounds of lack of funds.'" 

Some weeks later Meigs received through Minister Thornton a sample of the helmet, with puggaree, then in use by the British Army in the tropics with the promise of a further sample of a pattern just adopted.'^ When this letter was received, 

Meigs forwarded it to the Secretary with a covering 

letter in which he recommended that "in view of 

the failure of the campaign hat . . . they should be 

tried as a substitute therefor." He further recommended that the British pattern be submitted to 

the Medical Department for its views and asked 

that he be permitted to purchase a number for 

trial in Texas and Arizona, adding that funds were 

available under the current appropriation.'^' When 

the Surgeon General concurred in the concept of 

such a trial, the Secretary directed that 100 with 

puggaree be procured and sent to the Southwest 

for trial and report."' The purchase was at a unit 

cost of $3.00 per helmet plus an additional $.50 for 

the puggaree, the entire group being sent through 

San Francisco to units in Southern California and 

the Arizona Territory."" 

Reaction to the helmet was, for the most part, 

somewhat negative. While the general pattern was 

found suitable for the climate, most reports complained that the model was too heavy and had insufficient space between the head and the body of 

the helmet for proper ventilation.'" 

In January 1878 the commanding officer of Company E, 9th Cavalry, requested that his unit be 

issued the " 'India Helmet' of a light dust colored 

drab, nearly white, similar to that adopted for 

Cadets in GO No. 121, of 1877" for wear in the 

summer heat of the Southwest.'" When referred to 

Meigs for comment, he replied that while he personally would prefer such a helmet in hot climate, 

reports on the first test indicated that it was a failure. He said that he felt, however, that such radical changes were seldom liked at first and that the 

model would eventually win approval in the 

ranks."' The Secretary of War approved the issue 

of 100 of the cadet helmets for trial.'" The Philadelphia Depot obtained a sample of the helmet, 

which originally had been furnished the Academy 

by Henry V. Allien of New York, and drew up 

specifications.'" These Meigs approved and directed to Philadelphia to have 100 manufactured 

and forwarded to Santa Fe."'^ The exact appearance of the cadet model is unknown as there is no 

authenticated specimen of it in the National Collections or at the West Point Museum and none 

has come to the attention of the author. 

Several months later the commanding officer of 

the Artillery School at Fort Monroe, Virginia, requested the adoption of a summer helmet for warm 

weather wear at the school, "a modified shape from 

that prescribed . . for the Corps of Cadets," and 

enclosed a description of it prepared by Allien & 

Co. of New York. The modifications mentioned 

were minor, the cloth covering the crown to be in 

four sections as opposed to six in the cadet mod;l 

and the visor being longer in the rear than in tl:e 

front. The description also called for a gilt chain 
74 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

chin strap backed with white leather and a gilt 

spike for full dress, items not prescribed for cadets."" The request was approved on 11 June 1878 

and the Quartermaster General so informed.'" Two 

hundred and fifty were procured and issued, although, as far as the record shows, without the 

chin chains and spikes as requested.'" Also, when 

the specifications for this helmet were finally issued 

on 5 May 1880, the chin chain and spike were 

omitted.'" They were finally authorized in G.O. 

No. 4, Headquarters of the Army, 7 January 1881, 

when the helmet was prescribed for the whole 

Army. 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL''S OFFICE 

Specifications for Cork Helmets. 

Shape and weight.—-To be in shape according to standard 

sample, and to weigh about seven and one-fourth (7 {4) 

ounces when finished; reasonable variations (from this 

weight) due to sizes to be allowed. 

Material, etc.—The shell to be composed of two thicknesses of the best quality of cork, laminated or scarf-seamed, 

and securely cemented together with shellac. The linings to 

be firmly shellaced to the inside of shell; that for the dome 

to be of slate-colored drilling, and that for the visor or shade 

to be of emerald-green merino or cashmere. Sweat-leather 

to be on frame or hoop as in sample, well separated from 

the shell (for ventilation) by ten (10) small cork studs securely fastened; sweat to be about one and three-eighths 

{lYs) inch deep, and to be provided with a drawing string. 

Outside covering to be of the best quality of bleached cotton 

drilling, in four (4) sections, welt seamed and secured to 

the shell with shellac. Band of same material, about threefourths {Yi) of an inch deep. Edge to be bound with stout 

bleached stay-binding. Adjustable ventilator at top as in 

sample. Chin-strap of white enameled leather, and brass 

hooks for same, as in sample. 

Adopted by the Secretary of War May 5, 1880. 

M. C. MEIGS 

Quartermaster General, 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A."' 

The Annual Report of the Quartermaster General 

for 1884 carried even clearer and more detailed 

drawings of the helmet (Figure 53)."'' 

On 13 May, Colonel W. R. Shafter, whose 1st Infantry was on orders for Texas, wrote the War Department relative to the possible issue of helmets 

to his regiment there.'^'^ When the letter was referred to Meigs for comment, he wrote: "In the 

1 , SHcUVcnCaeter. 

J / Brim.. 

A- , Chir\ Strap . 

FIGURE 53.—Sketch of cork helmet, model 1880. 

(From Annual Report of the Quartermaster General, 1884.) 
NUMBER 30 75 

i > 

• ^ 

\ 

Wiii I ifiiinii mtitii^ilSSm 

FIGURE 54.—The Gordon helmet. 
76 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

5th instant the Secretary adopted a standard cork 

helmet for the Artillery School and I suggest this 

helmet be made also the standard for the Army." 

He went on that it was very hot in Texas and that 

the 1st Infantry would need the headgear quickly. 

He estimated the cost per helmet would be $3.00 

to $3.50 each.'^' This recommendation regarding 

the whole Army the Secretary approved, and on the 

following day Meigs directed the Philadelphia Depot to purchase immediately 500 helmets in anticipation of a requisition from Shafter's unit. These 

were purchased from Horstmann.'^' 

Approval of the helmet was formalized in General Order No. 72, Headquarters of the Army, 4 

November 1880, issue to be made only to troops 

in hot climates and then in lieu of campaign hats, 

the necessity to be certified by the department 

commander. The rate of issue was to be one each 

for the first and third years of an enlistment. The 

first contract was let with Apple & Co. of Philadelphia, 25 May 1881, for 6000 at $1.69 each, this 

price dropping to $1.43i/4 by 1883.'" 

There was some minor experimentation with the 

helmet in the next few years that should be mentioned. A model made of crushed cork, as opposed 

to laminated sheet cork, was tried and found to be 

impractical. As a result of a number of complaints 

that the white helmet offered too conspicuous a 

target, both khaki and "drab" covered helmets 

were issued for trial.'"'' These trials were seemingly 

inconclusive as there was no general issue of other 

than white helmets until the turn of the century. 

The original specifications remained in force 

from 1880 to 1899 with the exception of a very 

slight change in weight in 1892.'^' In 1899, however, there was a distinct change in shape, dimensions, and color. All to be covered with "Government Standard Khaki," and the visor width increased from 2 to 21/2 inches in front and from 2i/2 

to SYs inches in the rear to give greater protection 

to the neck."' Then in 1900 came specifications for 

"Cork Helmets (khaki and white)," essentially the 

same model as that of the previous year except that 

the visor was to be lined with green wool instead of 

cotton."*" Specimens examined generally conform 

with very slight tolerance except that no example 

has been seen with a wool visor lining. These last 

specifications were the basis for all subsequent issues of the helmet, which generally carried through 

the Philippine Insurrection period. It is interesting 

to note that the 1902 uniform change called for 

both a white and a "service" helmet for all personnel. General Order No. 197, War Department, 31 

December 1904, gave final clarification of the status 

of both white and khaki, directing that they be 

issued until exhausted and then discontinued.'"" 

One officer's model has been examined, that belonging to Captain Charles Garnett Gordon, 6th 

Cavalry, who served from 1867-1887. This specimen (Figure 54), which should not be confused 

with the officers' summer helmet authorized in the 

general order prescribing a helmet for the whole 

Army, seems to have done double duty for field or 

fatigue use in place of the campaign hat, as well as 

for a dress helmet, in that it is fitted with chin 

chain side and rear buttons and shows evidence of 

having had the oak leaf spike or plume base attached. It resembles more nearly the shape and 

dimensions of the 1899 model than the 1880, is 

covered with a white wool flannel, and carries the 

maker's label "Henry V. Allien & Co./New York." 

THE WINTER CAP 

No authenticated example of the winter caps 

issued between 1876-1902, either fur or canvas, is 

in the National Collections or is known to the 

writer. Discussion of these is included because of 

the widespread use of the models. 

Although a headpiece especially designed for 

wear in cold climate was not authorized until 1876, 

in addition to field expedients that one can be sure 

both officers and enlisted men used in extremes of 

weather, there were a few instances where the Army 

did make provision of a sort for the protection of 

the head and ears against cold. 

The earliest recorded example of an issue winter 

cap was the gray wool forage cap authorized in 

1820 and described as designed to "be worn so as 

to cover the greater part of the face and jaws, 

which is considered to be important in cold climate.'" Actually in this particular instance protection was admittedly secondary to appearance as evidenced in the change to the 1825 pattern."" While 
NUMBER 30 77 

this last model made no provision for protection 

against bad weather, the leather forage cap, which 

replaced it in 1833 (replaced by another pattern 

in 1839), had in the dragoon model (but not that 

for other troops) a flap in the rear, which could 

be let down some 6 inches to protect the neck. All 

troops were prescribed a band of fur to be attached 

to the bottom and tied in jEront."" There was no 

such provision for the dress caps. All three types 

of the 1839-1851 forage caps had "capes" attached 

to the rear as integral parts which provided some 

protection against cold/" The all-purpose cap 

adopted in 1851 did have a cap cover, which was 

to extend down onto the shoulders 10 inches below 

the lower edge of the cap and tying under the chin; 

but this was to be of a "suitable water proof material," which indicates a rather dubious value as protection against cold.'** The forage cap and "Army" 

hat adopted in 1858 made no provision for such 

protection. 

Just prior to the Civil War General W. S. Harney's winter campaign in the Oregon and Washington Territories and the Mormon Expedition 

brought some relief in the form of "great coats with 

capotes or hoods" and "caps with ear pieces (old 

pattern forage or last pattern cap)." '" During the 

Civil War the only strictly protective wear issued 

in any bulk were mittens.'" The Woodhull Report 

of 1868 made several very pointed recommendations in regard to winter headgear, which were not 

followed in the 1872 uniform change.'"" 

Sometime between 1865 and 1870 a total of 304 

"fur caps" (not otherwise described) turned up on 

inventory in the Philadelphia Depot and remained 

there unissued at least through 1873, despite the 

fact that during the same period considerable numbers of buffalo overshoes and buffalo overcoats 

were procured and issued.*** In 1876 a board of 

officers convened to consider certain proposed uniform changes and recommended the issue of seal 

skin caps and gauntlets. This was approved for 

troops serving at "extreme northern posts" when 

recommended by the department commander concerned, to be issued at the rate of two per five year 

enlistment and to be charged to the individual at 

contract prices (Figure 55).'TM The caps were to be 

made of "wool seal skin, with ear flaps, cape, and 

vizor, according to pattern" with a "lining of Turkey red chintz, padded with cotton wadding." *" 

The first contract was let on 22 June 1876 with 

FIGURE 55.—Muskrat fur cap, model 1876. (Drawing by 

Donald W. Hoist, adapted from illustration in QM Specification No. 6, 12 March 1879, RG 92, NA.) 
78 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Edmund R. Lyon of Philadelphia for 2000 caps 

and the next cost of clothing list carries them at a 

cost of $2.78 to the soldier.'" A total of 6158 were 

purchased during fiscal year 1877, and 6250 were 

issued.'" Almost immediately the seal skin was 

found to become brittle after being wet and following a short trial a switch to a model of muskrat 

skin was made."* Specifications were drawn and the 

first contract was let with Edward S. Mawson Sz 

Son of Philadelphia on 14 September 1878 for 

2500 at $.841/^ each.'^' 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL' S OFFICE. 

Specifications for Muskrat Caps. 

To be made according to standard sample, of muskrat 

skin, with ear-flaps, cape, and visor, according to pattern. 

Lining of brown chintz or silesia, padded with cotton 

wadding. 

Sizes same as for dress and forage caps. 

Adopted March 12, 1879. 

M. C. MEIGS, 

Quartermaster General, 

Bvt. Major General, U.S.A."' 

This model was successful and appreciable numbers were procured and issued during the next 

few years.'" 

In 1884, in an economy move, caps made of surplus tentage, waterproof, dyed brown, and lined 

with heavy blanket material were substituted for 

the fur caps. These were made up at clothing depots and issued gratuitously with the same stipulations regarding geographical area as in the case 

of the fur models (Figure 56). They were considered warmer than those of fur."^ 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE. 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR CANVAS CAPS. 

Material.—To be made of 6-ounce cotton duck, dyed 

brown, lined with light blanket cloth next the duck, and 

with light-colored cotton jean in the inside; to have two 

buttons on the cape to button at the throat, and one vest 

size, brown "lasting" button on the top for finish. The visor 

and edges bound with ^4 brown cotton tape. 

Style.—Scull cap with extension, forming a cape reaching 

to the shoulders and meeting in front, covering the throat, 

and buttoning together with two buttons. A visor of the 

same material bound with ^ brown cotton tape sewed on 

the forehead (to be worn up or down as desired), and having hook and eye to fasten it when turned up. 

Workmanship.—To be cut and made in conformity with 

the sealed standard sample adopted this date. 

Adopted April 17, 1884. 

S. B. HOLABIRD, 

Quartermaster-General, U.S.A. 

In 1886 a scarlet wool lining was substituted for 

the 'cotton jean" in the interest of warmth."* Beyond this there was no significant change. The 

next year the Secretary of War approved the issue 

of fur caps in place of canvas whenever requisitioned."' Thenceforward the fur cap gradually replaced the canvas and in 1902 was comprehensively 

described.'*' 

A , CANVAf.lVMvwW 

C , Cotl-on JIAN. 

FIGURE 56.—Canvas winter cap, model 1884. (Drawing 

from QM Specification No. 109, 17 April 1884, RG 92 NA.) 
NUMBER 30 79 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL'S OFFICE. 

specifications for Muskrat Fur Caps. 

Material.—Fur portion to be of full furred and seasoned 

trapped muskrat skins (winter or spring skins only), thoroughly dressed with butter or oleomargarine, and cleaned 

with white or yellow sawdust (no alum or vitriol or other 

chemicals to be used), each skin to be sufficiently large to 

admit of the half crown being cut in one solid piece, except 

one small additional piece is allowed at each side to make 

required width. The lining to be of good quality brown 

sateen, counting about one hundred and twenty (120) 

threads to the inch of warp and two hundred (200) threads 

to the inch of filling, sustaining a tensile strength of not less 

than thirty-six (36) pounds both in the warp and the filHng; 

the sateen weighing about two and one-fourth (2 ^ ) ounces 

to the linear yard, thirty-six (36) inches wide. Interlining 

of good quality cotton wadding in the body of the cap, with 

an interlining in the cape and ear-laps of furniture hair 

cloth, medium weight, as shown in the sealed standard 

sample, counting about sixty-two (62) threads to the warp 

and forty-two (42) threads to the filling. 

Measurements.—Height of crown to be about seven (7) 

inches on the pelt, full in the circular slant, as shown in the 

sealed standard sample. The greatest depth of the ear-laps 

to be about five (5) inches, continuing around the cap, 

forming in the back a cape of about three (3) inches, with 

a visor in the front, properly shaded, its greatest depth being 

about two and three-fourths (2^ ) inches; the fur composing this section of the cap embodying no more piecing of 

the fur than is shown in the sealed standard sample. At the 

top of each ear-lap a black tape string about nine (9) inches 

long and one-half (Y2) inch wide for the purpose of extending over the crown of the cap and tying to hold the 

ear-laps and capes in position. The lining and interlining 

of the body of the cap to be quilted in block pattern, as 

shown in the sealed standard sample, not less than twelve 

(12) stitches to the inch; the joining of the body of the 

cap to the lining thus prepared to be neatly and securely 

sewed with about six (6) stitches to the inch. The ear-lap 

and cape to have an interlining of furniture hair cloth to 

give that portion of the cap stability, and applied as shown 

in the sealed standard sample. 

The above measurements and descriptions based on size 

seven and one-eighth (7^) , all other sizes to be in proportion. 

To be like and equal the standard sample in every 

particular. 

Adopted August 25, 1902, in lieu of specifications of 

March 12, 1879 (No. 6), which are canceled. 

M. I. LUDINGTON, 

Quartermaster General, U.S. Army. 

THE INDIAN SCOUT CAMPAIGN HAT 

In 1866 the Congress in reestablishing the peacetime Army authorized the President "to enlist and 

employ in the Territories and Indian country a 

force of Indians, not to exceed 1000, to act as 

scouts, who shall receive the pay and allowances 

of cavalry soldiers, and to be discharged whenever 

the necessity for their employment is abated . . . .""" 

As of October 1868 there were 412 such scouts in 

the service.'*' Over the years these scouts were enlisted for periods varying from three months to six 

years, the greater majority being for six months 

(this latter period later becoming the allowable 

maximum) and receiving in addition to pay and 

allowances forty cents a day extra if they furnished 

their own horse and horse equipment."^ 

In the late winter of 1889-1890 Lt. E. W. Casey, 

22d Infantry, commanding a company of scouts at 

Fort Keogh, Montana, conceived the idea of a distinctive uniform for the scouts to attract them to 

the service and improve morale. When the concept was approved, Casey submitted his recommendations in detail including a variant campaign hat, 

hat cord, insignia, overcoat, and guidon, plus a 

distinctive facing for the issue dress coat. The 

Secretary of War approved and directed the Quartermaster General to initiate procurement."" The 

hat and trimmings were described in Circular No. 

10, Headquarters of the Army, 11 August 1890: 

Fatigue Hat 

Of black felt, brim 3/2 inches wide, crown 3/2 inches high-, 

brim to be well stiffened. 

Hat Cord 

Of white worsted cord, one strand of scarlet, terminating in 

two tassels \Yi inches in length, same color and material 

as the cord. 

Hat Ornament 

Two arrows crossed, to be made of nickel or some white 

metal, 3 inches in length, the letters U.S.S. in the upper 

intersection. 

Samples were prepared and approved and the 

Schuylkill Arsenal was directed to contract for a 

total of 400 men.'" The first contract for the hats 

was let with W. H. Hurlbut of New York for 400 at 

$1.24 each. Edward Eicks of New York contracted 

to supply a like number of hat cords at $.lOi/4 

each and J. H. Wilson of Philadelphia to furnish 

the hat ornaments, 400 at $.25 each."* The first 

issues were made in November (Figure 57)."" As 

tension increased over the Ghost Dance troubles 
80 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 57.—Indian scout campaign hat. 

(which came to a head at Wounded Knee Creek) 

an increase in the enlistment of scouts was anticipated and the Quartermaster General directed the 

procurement of uniform items to equip an additional 800, with consideration to be given to any 

items then unissued. Horstmann of Philadelphia 

was awarded a contract for 577 hats at $1.40 each.'°° 

The following spring with the Indian troubles 

resolved, the number of scouts was directed to be 

dropped to a total of 150 in all departments, and in 

1899 to 75. In the uniform change of 1902, the distinctive hat and overcoat for scouts was dropped.'"' 

Two specimens of the hat have been examined, 

both from the War Department Collection and in 

unissued condition. They conform to specifications 

within close tolerances and both carry the maker's 

label "W.H. Hurlbut/Contract/Sept. 29th 1890./ 

737 Broadway, New York" on the inner side of the 

I^-inch brown leather sweat. The edge of the 

brim carries three rows of stitching and the black 

silk band measures s/^ inches. The one hat cord 

in the National Collections also conforms to specifications. The only insignia examined is an admitted reproduction, asserted to have been made 

from an original. It also conforms. The specification describing this latter also describes the helmet 

front plate for scouts as being that "prescribed for 

mounted men with the device (crossed arrows) in 

lieu of the number," that is, on the shield. Helmet 

side buttons were also to carry the crossed arrows.'"' 

THE CHAPEAU, 1859-1936 

Although the "chapeau," "chapeau bras," or 

"chapeau de bras," as it was variously called, had 

been a standard item of military headgear since the 

turn of the 19th century, it was not authorized in 

the 1851 uniform change. As a concession to the 

ranking officers of the service, however, general officers and colonels holding the brevet rank of general 

were allowed to continue wearing their chapeaux 

on ceremonial occasions and when not serving with 

troops.'"' In 1858 a chapeau was reauthorized for 

general wear, and this time for field officers as well 

as those of the general staff. In December 1859 a 

new style of chapeau came into being, the 1858 

order being modified "to permit all officers of the 

General Staff, and Staff Corps, to wear, at their option, a light French chapeau, either stiff crown or 

flat . officers below the rank of field officers to 

wear but two feathers." '"' 

No more detail was given over the years in the 

regulations and no specifications were drafted intil 

1912. Still there is no doubt that the form, following the French as it did, was much lower than formerly."" This is borne out by an illustration in the 

1864 Schuyler, Hartley, and Graham, Illustrated 

Catalogue (Figure 58).'"" The 1872 and later regulations carry only the notation "according to pattern." The only other mention of the chapeau was 

in the 1873 general order which stated that it was 

to "be worn with the front peak turned slightly to 

the left, showing the gilt ornaments upon the right 

side." '"^ 

In 1877 Horstmann Bros, catalog depicts a "cha-
NUMBER 30 81 

FIGURE 58.—1864 chapeau. (From Schuyler, Hardey, & Graham, Illustrated Catalogue, 1864.) 

FIGURE 59.—1877 chapeau. (From Horstmann Bros. & Co., Illustrated Catalogue, 1877.) 

peau—U.S. Army—Staff" (Figure 59) with a somewhat lower fan than that in the Schuyler, Hartley, 

and Graham catalog and which closely approximates the chapeau in the illustrated 1881 regulations. (Figure 60) .'"* This lower fan form continues 

in the illustrated 1888 regulations, in an 1897 

W. A. Raymold catalog, and in the illustrated 1907 

regulations. In these latter three, however, there 

are two distinct changes from the earlier models 

which carry on through: the loop (which carries the 

insignia) becomes noticeably more narrow and 

shorter and the black silk cockade, which backs the 

loop changes from round to eliptical.'" 

The only official description came very late, in 

1912. 

13. CHAPEAU.—To be of black silk plush having a rosette 

of black silk, elliptical in shape, about 5 inches long and 3 

inches wide on right side in center, slanting forward; in the 

center of this to be a strip of gold lace, the coat of arms 

of the United States in gold or gilt bullion embroidered on 

the upper end; the lower end to have one large gilt coat 

button, all to be surrounded by gold or gilt embroidery Y^ 

inch in width. To have over center of chapeau two black 

ostrich plumes extending down to end of chapeau in rear. To 

have in both front and back a tassel consisting of five each, 

large and small, gold or gilt bullions about 3 inches long, 

to have on each side a. IY2 inch black corded silk ribbon 

running diagonally from ball of tassel to center of chapeau, 

the ends fastened under sweat leather about 2/2 inches 

apart.^"" 

In the absence of precise descriptions and scaled 

illustrations of the pre-1912 models, we are fortunate in having at hand a number of biographical 

specimens, the use-dates of which can be accurately bracketed. The 1859 model is best typified 

by that owned by Major General George B. McClellan who resigned from the Army in 1864. This 

particular specimen (Figure 61) could hardly have 

been worn prior to 1859 since McClellan was an 

officer in the Corps of Engineers in 1851 when the 

chapeau was discontinued and his model 1840 
82 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 60.—1881 regulation chapeau. 

(From Horstmann Bros. & Co., Illustrated Catalogue, 1877.) 

Corps of Engineers chapeau is also in the National 

Collections.*"' The 1859 specimen measures 18i/4 

inches in overall length, the right fan 6 inches high, 

the left 6i/4. The gold braid loop is 6i/4 by 2i/^ 

inches on a round black silk cockade 4i/^ inches in 

diameter. The lining is of brown silk and carries 

the maker's label "St. Nicholas Hotel/No. 519 

B'way/New York/Warnock & Co." The sweat is of 

brown leather. The specimen folds flat and is very 

similar to the Schuyler, Hartley, and Graham illustration. Others of this model match it closely in 

all details. 

A number of biographical specimens of the lower 

fan pattern, which seems to have come into vogue 

1877-1881, are in the National Collections and all 

are very similar to one another in measurements 

and conformation. The average is 17i/4 inches 

long overall with the right fan 5 inches high and 

the left 51/4- The gold braid loops, however, vary 

from 414 to 51/2 inches in length and from 2 to 21^ 

inches in width. The eagle on the loops of the majority of them is the 1872 cap eagle in metal. The 

chapeaux formerly belonging to Generals Sherman 

and Sheridan are of particular interest in that they 

carry, instead of the loop and eagle, the cockade 

ornament prescribed for general officers in the 1832 

regulations, although of slightly reduced dimensions in accordance with the reduced dimensions of 

the chapeaux: "gold rays emanating from the eagle 

21/2 inches computing from the center, terminating 

in 24 silver stars." ^- The eagle in the center of the 

rays in these two cases is an embroidered cut-down 

version of the 1858 hat eagle. 

The version described in the 1912 specifications 

is best typified by that formerly owned by Major 

General William Crawford Gorgas, Assistant Sm-
NUMBER 30 

geon 1880 and Surgeon General 1914-1918 (Figure 

62). It conforms closely to the 1877-1881 models in 

overall measurements and conformation, although 

the loop is somewhat smaller than that prescribed, 

being 4i/^ by 2 inches. The eagle is in gold embroidery. The sweat is of brown leather and the 

lining is black silk with the maker's label "S.N. 

Meyer/1231 Pa. Ave. N.W./Washington/D.C." The 

specimen folds flat. 

It is interesting to note that of all the chapeaux 

examined that date from 1859 onward, less than 

10 percent have a "stiff crown," that is, are "form 

fitted," as opposed to "flat." 

Although for all intents and purposes it died 

with the United States' entry into World War I, 

the chapeau was not finally and officially dropped 

as an item of officers' dress until 1936. General 

Order No. 49, War Department, 28 April 1917, and 

General Order No. 63, War Department, 15 May 

1917, suspended the wear of dress uniforms except 

at White House functions. These orders superceded the uniform regulations published in Special 

Regulations 41 and 42, War Department, 15 August 1917 (which, although of a later date, merely 

described the uniform), which authorized the chapeau and described it in detail. General Order No. 

86, War Department, 3 July 1919, rescinded regulations prescribing dress uniforms for both officers 

and enlisted personnel. Dress blues as described in 

Special Regulations 41 and 42 cited above were reauthorized, however, on an optional basis in 1929 

by Circular 5, War Department, 26 January 1929. 

Circular 66, War Department, 15 October 1936 

rescinded Circular 5 of 1929 and substituted new 

tentative regulations for dress blues, which were 

formalized in Army Regulation 600-38, War Department, 17 August 1938. This latter did not 

mention a chapeau. 

THE 1895 FORAGE CAP 

The forage cap adopted in 1895 had a short and 

somewhat strange history. There is no doubt that 

a change in undress headgear was needed. The 

1872 "chasseur pattern" offered but slight protection from the weather and was too shallow to sit 

firmly on the head. A change was made, but the 

result was never popular. 

As to styling the change marked an end to French 

influence and in a sense a return to the British."' 

Although the pattern might be said to be a natural 

progression from the 1825 American model, in actuality its origin probably lies more with the caps 

worn by several British regiments in the 1850's, 

which the U.S. Navy seems to have copied in its 

1864-1866 uniform change.""' Whatever the origin, 

the model was popular in certain civilian circles, 

becoming almost standard wear in the last quarter 

of the century by trainmen, streetcar operators, 

and baseball players. 

During the 1870s, 1880s, and into the 1890s agitation in the army for a change continued, sometimes with drawings and even samples of proposed 
84 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

caps being submitted. In several cases the War 

Department had samples prepared by the Quartermaster General for circulation in the Army for 

comment and the United States Army and Navy 

Journal carried frequent discussion on the subject.''"" 

The n in 1889 the Secretary of War approved a 

new cap for the enlisted personnel of the Signal 

Corps very similar to that adopted for all branches 

six years later. This move apparently was in line 

with the desire of the Chief Signal Officer to set the 

Corps off as an elite entity. At the time the total 

for signal enlisted men was set by law at 470, with 

appropriation actually made for only 315.TM" The 

general order authorizing and describing the cap 

was revoked two years later and there is no evidence in the record that sealed samples were ever 

prepared or that the cap was ever procured and 

issued.TM' 

As late as the first two months of 1895 there had 

been no decision regarding a change in cap despite 

the number of samples submitted and the serious 

consideration given the matter. Then on 13 March 

"an informal" board of officers was appointed to 

consider "the advisability of a change." Two days 

later the board submitted its report recommending 

the change and describing the new cap in detail. 

This was approved and illustrated specifications 

were published the following September.TM' The 

change was to be effective for officers 1 July 1895 

and 1 January 1896 for enlisted personnel. The 

cost of the issue item was set at $.67 without insignia 

(Figure 63) .^^ 

Quartermaster Specification No. 367, adopted 5 

September 1895, described the cap: 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL' S OFriCE 

Specifications for Forage Caps. 

Cloth.—To be made of dark blue cloth, wool-dyed indigo, 

unless otherwise authorized by the purchasing officer; to be 

fifty-four (54) inches wide; to weigh not less than fourteen 

(14) ounces to the linear yard; to contain sixty-two (62) 

threads to the inch in the warp, and fifty-eight (58) threads 

to the inch in the filling; to be capable of sustaining a 

strain of not less than thirty-two (32) pounds to the inch 

in the warp, and twenty-eight (28) pounds to the inch in 

the filling; the cloth to be well sponged without refinishing, 

before being made up into caps. 

Band.—The band to be one and one-half (1 '/a ) inches 

wide, formed by the material of the body of the cap, between two welts, each welt at top and bottom projecting 

one-eighth (Ys) inch, the bottom welt being one-eighth 

{Ys) inch above the base of the cap; the band to be 

strengthened by a strap of strong split leather, about onesixteenth {Vie) inch thickness all around, and two and onequarter (254) inches wide, sewed in between the sweat 

band and the body of the cap with the lining of the cap 

between the two. 

The height of the cap to be three and one-quarter (3J4) 

inches all around; the seam around the top without a welt 

and neatly stitched on each side; the diameter of the top 

from right to left to be six and one-half (6/2) inches, and 

from front to back seven and five-eighths {^Ys) inches. 

Visor.—To have a slanted visor of patent enameled leather, black above and green underneath, about one-eighth 

{Ys) inch thick, and bound with black patent leather to a 

depth of about three-sixteenth (%6) inch, neatly stitched; 

the width of the visor from the lower edge of the cap to the 

inner edge of the binding at its widest part to be one and 

three-quarters (1^4) inches, and the entire visor to be 

moulded to shape. 

Trimmings.—A small regulation button on each side immediately behind the ends of the visor for chin straps; the 

side buttons to be fire gilt; the chin strap to be made of good 

enameled leather in two parts, each part about ten (10) 

inches long and one-half (/a) inch wide, fitted with a stout 

fire gilt slide on the end of the under part, and a leather 

keeper on the end of the upper part, through which the end 

finished to it point will project about one-half ('/>) inch, to 

permit the strap to be adjusted at will; the sweat leather to 

be of Belgian leather, about one and seven-eighths {lYs) 

inches wide, turned on the upper edge and properly cemented; the lining of strong black satin, cut and shaped 

to the inner body of the cap, the crown of the lining to 

be made with an interlining of black muslin of good quality, there being an interlining of hair cloth of good quality, 

cut and shaped to the entire inner portion of the crown of 

the cap, extending from the top to the lower edge of the 

body of the cap between the band and stiffening and the 

body. Each cap to have four (4) black metal eyelets for 

ventilation, two (2) on each side, placed above the band, 

the center of each eyelet to be about five-eighths {Ys) inch 

from the upper seam of the cap and one and one-half (1 /a) 

inches apart from each other. Each cap to be finished with 

d loop of black Mohair or worsted braid not less than oneeighth (Ys) inch wide, and securely fastened under the 

sweat leather at the back of same. 

The above specifications based on cap size 7Ys- Materials, 

workmanship, and finish to conform to standard sample. 

Adopted September 5, 1895, in lieu of Specifications of 

April 12, 1892 (No. 324), which are hereby canceled. 

GEO. H. WEEKS, 

Assistant Quartermaster-General, U.S. Army, 

Acting Quartermaster-General.^'" 

This first model proved defective in several respects, which resulted in a revised pattern of heavier 

cloth, lighter and nonshrinkable lining, and better 

workmanship, with the price, rather than rising, 

dropping to 1.57."" 
NUMBER 30 85 

FIGURE 63.—1895 forage caps: a, officers (from 1895 

Regulation) ; b, c, enlisted men. 
86 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

In 1896 a distinct improvement was made in the 

composition of the cap ornaments. Where they 

had been die struck from sheet brass and fastened 

to the cap by means of wires soldered to the reverse, 

they were now to be struck from solid brass and 

attached by means of a brass screw with washer and 

nut.'''' This being the first really comprehensive 

description of a group of headgear insignia, the 

specifications are included below. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE. 

Specifications for Cap Ornaments. 

Material.—The devices to be made of solid bronze, struck 

in one piece, by sharp keen dies, free from all imperfections. 

The numbers and letters are also to be struck from solid 

bronze and attached to the device by means of hard solder, 

the number above and the letter below, except where otherwise designated, supported on the back by an extra piece 

of bronze also hard soldered to the device. At the back of 

each device there shall be an attachment, to connect the 

device with the body of the cap, consisting of a brassthreaded post, about one-half (/a) inch long, over which 

is passed a brass washer about five-sixteenth (%G) inch in 

diameter, and the whole attachment made secure to the 

cap by a thumbscrew about one-half (Y2) inch in diameter, 

concave, and a hollow threaded post about one-quarter (54) 

inch deep, in the center, to fit over the threaded post above 

described. 

All ornaments to be shaped so as to fit the oval surface 

of the cap, and to have soldered to the backs thereof two 

(2) sharp needle points about three-sixteenth (%G) inch 

long, for the purpose of holding the ornaments securely in 

position on the cap. 

Infantry Device.—To consist of two (2) rifles crossing 

each other at a point equidistant from the butts and muzzles, 

the muzzles pointing upward and the hammers upward. 

Length of rifle about two and five-eighths (2^ ) inches; 

distance • between the extreme points of the muzzles about 

two and one-quarter {2Yi) inches, and between the butts 

about two (2) inches. All to be thoroughly gold plated and 

burnished, and to admit of an assay of not less than 4.84 

grains of gold to each dozen ornaments. 

Artillery.—To consist of two (2) cannons crossing each 

other at the trunnions, muzzles upward; length of cannons 

about two and one-eighth (2^/8) inches; distance between 

the muzzles about one and seven-sixteenths (1%6) inches, 

and between the cascabels about one and seven-eighths 

{IYB) inches. All to be thoroughly gold plated and burnished, and to admit of an assay of not less than 5.06 grains 

of gold to each dozen ornaments. 

Cavalry.—To consist of two (2) sabers crossing each 

other at the center, representing two cavalry sabers in 

scabbards, with hilts and edges upward. The extreme distance between the guards to be about two and three-eighths 

(2%) inches, and between the points of the scabbards 

about two and three-eighths {2Ys) inches. Each ornament 

to be thoroughly gold plated and burnished, and to admit 

of an assay of not less than 3.52 grains of gold to each 

dozen ornaments. 

Engineers.—To consist of a castle, representing an ancient 

castle with three towers. The height of the center tower to 

be about seven-eighths {Ya) inch; side towers about one 

and one-eighth {lYs) inches; battlements between towers 

about five-eighths {Ys) inch; width at base about one and 

six-eighths (1%) inches: at top of side towers about one and 

three-quarters (1%) inches. The letter to be attached to 

the top of the center tower. The whole to be thoroughly 

gold plated, satin finished, and burnished, as shown in the 

standard sample, and to admit of an assay of not less than 

10.03 grains of gold to each dozen ornaments. 

Post Quartermaster Sergeant.—To consist of a wreath 

represendng two (2) olive branches, held together at the 

base by a loop and knot, turning upward and bending in an 

oval shape approaching each other at the top. The distance 

between the two points of the wreath to be about one (1) 

inch; the extreme outside measurement across the wreath 

about two and five-eighths (2^4) inches; extreme height 

about one and one-half (1 /a ) inches. To have in the center of the wreath a silver-plated key and quill pen, crossing 

each other and supported by a silver-plated bar extending 

from side to side of the wreath; the key, quill pen, and bar 

to be silver plated on white metal, and hard soldered to the 

wreath. The wreath to be thoroughly gold plated, satin 

finished, and burnished, as shown in the standard sample, 

and to admit of an assay of not less than 9.24 grains of 

gold to each dozen ornaments. 

Signal Corps.—To consist of a wreath, representing two 

(2) olive branches, held at the base by a loop or knot, 

turning upward and bending in an oval shape approaching 

each other at the top. The distance between the two points 

of the wreath to be about one (1) inch; the extreme outside 

measurement across about two and five-eighths {2Ys) 

inches; and the extreme height to be about one and one-half 

(I/2) inches. To have in the center of the wreath two (2) 

crossed signal flags, with a torch in the center standing 

perpendicularly, all soldered to and resting on a crossbar 

extending from side to side of the wreath and hard soldered 

to same. The signal flags, torch, and bar to be silver plated 

on white metal. The wreath to be thoroughly gold plated, 

satin finished, and burnished, as shown in the standard 

sample, and to admit of an assay of not less than 9.24 

grains of gold to each dozen ornaments. 

Commissary Sergeant.—To consist of a wreath, representing two (2) olive branches, held at the base by a loop and 

knot, turning upward and bending in an oval shape approaching each other at the top. The distance between the 

two points of the wreath to be about one (1) inch; the extreme outside measurement across about two and five-eighths 

{2Ys) inches, and the extreme height to be about one and 

one-half (1/2) inches. To have in the center of the 

wreath a silver-plated crescent, cusps pointing upward, 

supported by a silver-plated bar extending from side to side 

of the wreath, and firmly hard soldered to same; the crescent and bar to be silver plated on white metal. The wreath 

to be thoroughly gold plated, satin finished, and burnished, 

as shown in the standard sample, and to admit of an assay 
NUMBER 30 87 

of not less than 9.24 grains of gold to each dozen ornaments. 

Hospital Steward.—To consist of a wreath, representing 

two (2) olive branches, held together at the base by a loop 

and knot, turning upward and bending in an oval shape approaching each other at the top. The distance between the 

two points of the wreath to be about one (1) inch: the extreme outside measurement across the wreath about two 

and five-eighths {2Ys) inches, and the extreme height about 

one and one-half (1 J/a) inches. To have in the center of 

the wreath a Geneva cross, the extreme measurements of 

which shall be about seven-eighths (Ys) inch, and each arm 

to measure about five-sixteenth (%6) inch in width, supported by a silver-plated bar extending from side to side 

of the wreath and firmly soldered to same. The cross to be 

silver plated and highly burnished, and the wreath thoroughly silver plated, as in the standard sample, and to admit 

of an assay of not less than 44 grains of silver to each dozen 

ornaments. 

Hospital Corps.—To consist of a Geneva cross, the extreme measurement of which shall be about seven-eighths 

( YB ) inch, and each arm to measure about five-sixteenth 

(%o) inch in width. To be heavily silver plated on white 

metal and highly burnished. To admit of an assay of not 

less than 10.84 grains of silver to each dozen ornaments. 

Ordnance.—To consist of a shell and flame. The diameter 

of the shell to be about three-quarters (Yi) inch, and the 

height of the flame from the upper edge of the shell to be 

about seven-eighths (Ys) inch. The greatest width of the 

flame to be about one (1) inch. The whole to be thoroughly gold plated, the shell burnished, and the flame satin 

burnished, as shown in the standard sample, and to admit 

of an assay of not less than 4.62 grains of gold to each 

dozen ornaments. 

Field Musicians.—A device representing an old-style 

bugle with circular crook, and cord slung three folds around 

the lower part, terminating in two tassels on one side and 

one tassel on the other side. The height across crook to be 

about one and one-eighth {lYs) inches, and the width from 

mouthpiece to outer edge of the bell about two (2) inches. 

The number to be placed in the center of the circle on a 

bar extending from side to side and hard soldered to the 

under side of the bugle, and the letter to be placed above 

the number and hard soldered to the upper turn of the 

center of the bugle. The whole to be thoroughly gold plated 

and highly burnished, and to admit of an assay of not less 

than 3.3 grains of gold to each dozen ornaments. 

Band Musicians.—To consist of a lyre the full height of 

which shall be about one and one-half (1 /a) inches, and its 

greatest width about seven-eighths (Ys) inches, made in accordance with the pattern of the standard sample, and silver 

plated on white metal, satin finished, and burnished, as 

shown in the standard sample. To admit of an assay of not 

less than 25.53 grains of silver to each dozen ornaments. 

Trumpeter of Cavalry.—Same as described for cavalry 

devices. 

The regimental sergeant majors of artillery, infantry, and 

cavalry, and the regimental quartermaster sergeants of artillery, infantry, and cavalry; the battalion quartermaster 

sergeant, and the battalion sergeant major, engineers; the 

saddler sergeants, cavalry, and the chief trumpeters, cavalry; 

the principal musicians, infantry and artillery; and the chief 

musicians, artillery, cavalry, and infantry, are the same as 

the cap ornaments herein before described for artillery, infantry, cavalry, and engineers, except that in each case the 

letter is omitted. 

The U.S. Mint Assayer in all cases to determine the 

amount of gold or silver. 

All numbers or figures to be one-half (Y2) inch long, and 

all letters Roman capitals one-half ('/a) inch long. 

The ornaments to be like and equal to the standard 

samples in every particular. 

Adopted January 13, 1897, in lieu of that part of the 

specifications of March 10, 1892 (No. 318), having reference to Forage Cap Ornaments. 

C. G. SAWTELLE, 

Quartermaster-General, U.S.A.'" 

In 1899 electrician sergeants were authorized "a 

symbol representing forked lightning" of German 

silver enclosed in a wreath of dead or unburnished 

gilt metal, and in 1901 the "Geneva Cross'' of the 

Hospital Corps was changed to a modified Maltese 

cross of German silver, Yghy y^ inches."" One further addition was the badge for the enlisted men 

of the Army Service Detachment at West Point 

adopted in 1900, the letters "Q. M. D." in white 

metal within a wreath of unburnished gilt metal.''"' 

The 1898 uniform regulations authorized under 

undress caps "white linen caps" for both officers 

and enlisted men for wear at Fort Monroe, Jackson 

Barracks, Key West, Washington Barracks, Fort 

Barrancas, and Sullivan's Island. Nothing was said 

about the pattern or insignia.'"" Actually approval 

for a "white cap, with removable canvas portion 

such as is worn at the Artillery School" for wear at 

Key West was granted in 1896.''" Then in 1900 

"white linen caps, conforming to pattern in the 

Office of the Quartermaster General" were authorized for officers "during the warm season if authorized by post commanders." No ornaments were to 

be worn on the front of the caps, but cap cords 

were prescribed: for general officers, of gold lace 

about % inch wide; for general staff and staff corps, 

of gold bullion i/^ inch in diameter; and for line 

officers, silk cord, i/^ inch in diameter of the color 

of the arm of service. No mention was made of the 

caps for enlisted personnel."'* 

A number of specimens of the 1895 model, other 

than the white pattern, which can be attributed to 

the regular Army, have been examined and all generally conform to the specifications. No examples 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

of the "white linen" model have come to the author's attention."'" Despite the illustrated specifications, manufacturers of the officer's models, both 

blue and white, tended to diverge from the set pattern, especially in the angle of the visor.''° The 

solution of this problem was left unrecorded, perhaps due to the urgency of the conflict in Cuba and 

the Philippines and the 1902 uniform change. In 

regard to the enlisted models, a number of examples have been examined which definitely do not 

conform to specifications and do not carry the required name of contractor and contract date and 

the "Q. M. D." designation. Apparently these were 

prepared for sale to militia units and possibly 

quasimilitary and civilian bands. 

Reaction to the cap was hardly favorable, much 

appearing in the United States Army and Navy 

Journal. An editorial in an April issue more or less 

set the pattern. "The new forage cap is in the position of a foundling left on a doorstep, no one 

seems willing to assume responsibility for its paternity. The military goods dealers are willing to 

sell it, but without exception they rail at it, and 

some of its sharpest critics are members of the 

board to whom its selection was committed.""'' 

Most other comments followed along this same 

line: "dull, heavy, clumsy effect"; "a square top arrangement, a cross between a bicycle cap and a car 

conductor's cap"; "baseball cap"; "a cross between 

the cap of a sleeping car porter and that now worn 

by naval officers"; "conspicuously barren of military 

smartness.""" On the other side of the fence was Lt. 

Hugh D. Wise, 9th Infantry, who wore the cap 

during a bicycle ride from Madison Barracks, New 

York, on Lake Ontario, to Governor's Island in 

New York Harbor and was "enthusiastic" about it, 

saying it was "comfortable" and "did not once fall 

off.""'" Perhaps it was just as well that the 1902 

change brought relief as soon as it did. 
Appendix 

MAKERS OF HEADGEAR 

The chronological listing below contains the 

names of firms that were awarded contracts to make 

headgear by the War Department during the period 1855-1901. As of 1808 the Congress required 

the Secretary of War to furnish a complete listing 

of all contracts made by his office with civilian 

firms during each calendar year. This information 

was published in House or Senate documents for 

most years, a regrettable exception being the period 

1862-1865, and can be readily located under "Army 

Contracts" for the appropriate year in Ben. Poore's 

A Descriptive Catalogue of Government Publication of the United States, September 5, 1774— 

March 4, 1881 (Senate Misc. Doc. No. 67, 48th 

Cong., 2d Sess.) (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1885) . After 1881 listings are not regular, although the Annual Report of the Quartermaster General carries them 1884-1889. 

The listing of a firm's name is not proof that it 

actually produced headgear, for some never fulfilled their contracts, but for the most part these 

names represent actual makers. The location of 

the manufacturies are given where known. The 

numerals following the model hats listed indicate 

the number of items contracted for; question marks 

indicate that number of items is not known. 

Year 

contract 

awarded Firm 

1855 

1857 

1858 

1859 

1859 

1860 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1861 

1863 

1863 

1863 

1863 

1863 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

Henry Fisher 

W. J. McCoy 

John G. Snyder 

R. H. Jackson 

W. J. McCoy 

W. C. Dare, Phila. 

Golding & Dunlap 

L. J. & I. Phillips' 

Meyberg & Hellman 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

David Woodruff 

Brooks & Brother 

A. W. Adolph 

W. C. Dare, Phila. 

George Hoff, Phila. 

S. D. Walton, Phila. 

James H. Prentice 

Nathan Seely 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

Harris Rothstein 

C. B. Camp 

C. B. Camp 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

Thompson, Goodrich 

B. Meyberg 

H. W. Duryea 

Baldwin & Dodd 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

Shethar & Nichols 

Type of 

headgear 

Cavalry hats 

Cavalry hats 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Army hats 

Number of 

headgear 

2,000 

3,500 

16,500 

8,000 

5,000 

15,000 

2,000 

2,000 

10,000 

2,000 

10,000 

10,000 

40,000 

40,000 

20,000 

10,000 

50,000 

50,000 

31,852 

36,000 

3,030 

900 

35,000 

20,000 

20,000 

20,000 

40,000 

3,200 

40,000 

40,000 

50,000 

Year 

contract 

awarded Firm 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1864 

1865 

1867 

1872 

1872 

1872 

1872 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

George Hoff, Phila. 

A. W. Adolph 

W. C. Dare, Phila. 

Adolph & Keen 

Adolph & Keen 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

George Hoff, Phila. 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

James T. Fulton 

Murphy & Griswold, N.Y. 

Thompson, Goodrich 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

Thompson, Goodrich 

Adolph & Keen 

Julius Sheldon 

George Hoff, Phila. 

L. J. & I. Phillips 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

P. Herst, Phila. 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

P. Herst, Phila. 

Bent & Bush, Boston 

Type of Number of 

headgear h 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Lt Arty caps 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Army hats 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Army hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Lt Arty caps' 

Campaign hats 

eadgear 

32,500 

100,000 

100,000 

100,000 

200,000 

100,000 

150,000 

7,200 

1,452 

30,000 

3,000 

28,000 

12,000 

200,000 

100,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

150,000 

36,000 

100,000 

50,000 

200,000 

50,000 

9,000 

Cavalry and Arty 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Dress caps 

9,000 

10,000 

18,000 

'Name appears as both L. J. & J. and L. J. & L Phillips. "Several small groups; number not stated. 

89 
90 

Year 

contract 

awarded 

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Firm 

1872 Bent & Bush, Boston 

1874 P. Herst, Phila. 

1874 C. W. Walton, Phila. 

1874 Bent & Bush, Boston 

1874 Bent & Bush, Boston 

1874 L. J. Phillips 

1875 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1875 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1875 C.W.Walton 

1876 Edmund R. Lyon, Phila. 

1878 Charles F. Bush, Boston 

1878 Charles F. Bush, Boston 

1878 P. Herst, Phila. 

1878 D. L. Kottshofski, N.Y. 

1878 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1878 J. H. Wilson, Phila. 

1878 Edmund R. Lyon, Phila. 

1878 Edward S. Mawson 

1878 P. Herst, Phila. 

1878 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1878 C. H. Tenney 

1879 Baldwin & Flagg 

1879 J. H. Wilson, Phila. 

1879 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1879 Edward S. Mawson 

1879 C. H. Tenney 

1880 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1881 Apple & Co. 

1881 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1881 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1881 John M. Kennedy 

1881 Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

1881 C.H. Tenney 

1882 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1882 Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

1882 Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

1883 Lyon Bros 

1883 Henry V. Allien, N.Y. 

1882 Hirschberg 

1883 Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

1883 C. H. Tenney 

1884 Wm. A. Wheeler, N.Y. 

1884 Hirschberg & Co., N.Y. 

1884 Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

1884 Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

1885 W. H. Hurlbut, N.Y. 

1885 B. Y. Pippey, N.Y. 

1885 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

1885 Jacob S. Issacs, N.Y. 

1885 Hirschberg & Co., N.Y. 

1885 Charles Lehman, N.Y. 

1885 J. H. McKenney, N.Y. 

1885 Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

1885 J. S. Isaacs, N.Y. 

Type of 

headgear 

Number of 

headgear 

Forage caps 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Dress caps 

Helmets 

Forage caps 

Dress caps 

Helmets 

Forage caps 

Sealskin caps 

Helmets 

Dress caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Helmeits 

Dress caps 

Dress caps 

Muskrat caps 

Forage caps 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Campaign hats 

Dress caps 

Forage caps 

Muskrat caps 

Campaign hats 

Cork helmets 

Cork helmets 

Forage caps 

Cutting down 

1872 helmets 

Muskrat caps 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Helmets 

Cork helmets 

Muskrat caps 

Cork helmets 

Forage caps 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Cork helmets 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Cork helmets 

Cork helmets 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

28,000 

22,000 

10,000 

10,800 

8,500 

10,000 

3,125 

160 

30,000 

2,000 

800 

1,540 

6,000 

24,000 

1,500 

150 

1,550 

2,500 

40,000 

1,000 

10,000 

5,000 

2,500 

14,250 

5,000 

10,000 

500 

6,000 

25,000 

3,000 

16,000 

13,000 

30,000 

15,000 

5,000 

6,000 

6,000 

30,000 

18,000 

12,000 

12,000 

35,000 

2,500 

8,007 

5,000 

15,000 

4,993 

3,000 

15,000 

5,000 

4,000 

6,000 

5,000 

Year 

contract 

awarded Firm 

887 

887 

887 

887 

887 

887 

889 

889 

889 

889 

889 

889 

889 

889 

889 

889 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

Horstman Bros., Phila. 

Chas. F. Lehmann, N.Y. 

Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

J. S. Isaacs, N.Y. 

Lyon Bros., N.Y. 

M. L. Kottshofski, N.Y. 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

J. H. McKenney, N.Y. 

Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

Raymold & Whitlock, N.Y. 

Van Alstyne & Keck, 

JohnVtown, N.Y. 

B. Y. Pippey, N.Y. 

Benj. M. Whitlock, N.Y. 

Lyon Bros., N.Y. 

B. Y. Pippey, N.Y. 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

Benj. M. Whitlock, N.Y. 

Chas. F. Lehmann, N.Y. 

W. H. Hurlbut, N.Y. 

W. H. Hurlbut, N.Y. 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

Benj. M. Whidock, N.Y. 

W. H. Hurlbut, N.Y. 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

B. M. Whidock, N.Y. 

Chas. F. Lehman, Brooklyn 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

B. M. Whidock, N.Y. 

B. M. Whitlock, N.Y. 

B. M. Whidock, N.Y. 

E. R. Lyon, N.Y. 

J. R. Michael, N.Y. 

Lyon Bros., N.Y. 

W. H. Hurlbut, N.Y. 

B. Y. Pippey, N.Y. 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

Chas. F. Lehman, Brooklyn 

B. M. Whitlock, N.Y. 

B. M. Whitlock, N.Y. 

B. M. Whidock, N.Y. 

Ridabock & Co., N.Y. 

Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

890 W. H. Hurlbut, N.Y. 

891 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

891 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

891 Edmund R. Lyon, N.Y. 

891 B. Y. Pippey, N.Y. 

891 B. Y. Pippey, N.Y. 

891 Edmund R. Lyon, N.Y. 

891 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

891 Horstmann Bros., Phila. 

900 Marc Sternberg, N.Y. 

Type of 

headgear 

Number of 

headgear 

Forage caps 

Cork helmet 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Muskrat caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Cork helmets 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Muskrat caps 

Forage caps 

Campaign hats 

Muskrat caps 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Helmets 

Cork helmets 

Campaign hats 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Cork helmets 

Cork helmets 

Helmets 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Campaign hats 

Muskrat caps 

Muskrat caps 

Muskrat caps 

Campaign hats 

Forage caps 

Forage caps 

Cork helmets 

Helmets 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Cork helmets 

Indian scout 

campaign hats 

Indian scout 

campaign hats 

Helmets 

Campaign hats 

Muskrat caps 

Forage caps 

Campaign hats 

Muskrat caps 

Cork helmets 

Helmets 

Forage caps 

20,400 

6,000 

1,000 

12,004 

5,000 

24,000 

10,000 

2,000 

1,500 

17,000 

2,500 

10,000 

5,000 

7,000 

23,500 

11,000 

5,000 

2,000 

10,000 

5,000 

10,000 

1,000 

1,200 

18,168 

2,000 

1,600 

4,506 

5,000 

10,000 

7,996 

5,000 

2,500 

2,500 

6,000 

4,978 

10,000 

1,000 

2,500 

5,000 

4,150 

3,000 

577 

400 

2,000 

4,000 

2,000 

10,000 

15,000 

5,000 

2,000 

2,500 

? 
List of Abbreviations 

AAG 

AAQM 

AG 

AGO 

AQM 

AQMG 

AR 

Arty 

CCF 

G.E. 

CGof P 

Cloth. Estab. 

Div. of Mil. Hist. 

G.O. 

HQo f A 

LR 

LS 

MC 

MS 

MSK 

NA 

n.d. 

n.p. 

n.v. 

OAC& E 

OQMG 

QM 

QMD 

QMG 

Reg. LR 

RG 

Sec. War 

SGO 

S.O. 

T.E. 

USMA 

USNM 

WD 

Assistant Adjutant General 

Acting Assistant Quartermaster 

Adjutant General 

Adjutant General's Office 

Assistant Quartermaster 

Assistant Quartermaster General 

Army Regulation 

Artillery 

Consolidated Correspondence File, Records of the Quartermaster General 

Corps of Engineers 

Commissary General of Purchases 

Clothing Establishment, Schuylkill Arsenal, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 

Division of Military History, Smithsonian Institution 

General Order 

Headquarters of the Army 

Letters Received 

Letters Sent 

Microcopy 

Manuscript 

Military Storekeeper 

National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

No date 

No pagination 

No volume 

Office of Army Clothing and Equipage, Philadelphia Depot 

Office of the Quartermaster General 

Quartermaster 

Quartermaster Department 

Quartermaster General 

Register of Letters Received 

Record Group 

Secretary of War 

Surgeon General's Office 

Special Order 

Topographical Engineers 

United States Military Academy 

United States National Museum 

War Department 

91 
Notes 

See "References" for complete citations. 

See "List of Abbreviations" for explanations of initials. 

'Ac t of 3 March 1855. See John F. Callan, The Military 

Laws of the United States, pp. 435-436. 

==0.0. No. 4 WD, 26 March 1855, RG 94, NA. The cap 

of course was the 1851/1854 pattern. See HOWELL and 

KLOSTER, "United States Army Headgear to 1854," pp. 59-

68. The 1851 uniform regulations had changed the color 

of dragoon facings from yellow to orange. 

' S.O. No. 58 WD, 9 April 1855, RG 94, NA. 

^ "Report Made by Officers of the 1st and 2d Regts. of 

Cavalry . ,"1 9 July 1855, AG, Letters Received (hereafter cited as LR), RG 94, NA. The report, as originally 

written, stated that the hat was "to be made according to 

the pattern furnished, with the exception of the crown, 

which should be flat." In the final version, the statement 

regarding the flat crown was lined out and the words "with 

the exceptions to be noticed" substituted. (There is a copy 

of this final version dated 24 July 1855 in Office of the 

Chief of Ordnance, RG 156, LR, NA.) 

^ Endorsement on above. Actually there is evidence that 

Davis actively considered some sort of a campaign hat for 

the two cavalry regiments and in the May previous had directed that the Philadelphia Depot prepare a sample hat, 

albeit of a rather radical design, and forward it to him. On 

this, see Maj. H. C. Wayne to Maj. Geo. Crosman, commanding the Philadelphia Depot, 3 May 1855, CCF (Caps), 

RG 92, NA. 

"Jessup to Crosman, 26 July 1855, Letters Sent (hereafter cited as LS), Office of the Quartermaster General 

(hereafter cited as OQMG), Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'This contract is in OQMG, CCF (Hats), RG 92, NA. 

The price quoted did not include trimmings. 

' G.O. No. 13 WD, 15 August 1855, RG 94, NA. 

"Contract with Henry Fisher, 3 August 1855, in CCF 

(Hats) ; Crosman to QMG, 25 August 1855, Register of 

Letters Received (hereafter cited as Reg. LR) Clothing; 

both RG 92, NA. Regarding the voltiguer hat with chin 

strap and buttons, see HOWELL and KLOSTER, "United 

States Army Headgear to 1854,'' pp. 54-55, and Maj. D. D. 

Tomkins, Phila., to St. John Burr & Co., New York, 7 May 

1847, Office of Army Clothing and Equipage (hereafter 

cited as OAC & E) LS, RG 92, NA. 

'"Babbitt to Jessup, 3 June 1857, OQMG, Reg. LR, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'^ See HOWELL and KLOSTER, "United States Army Headgear to 1854," pp. 56, 64-65. 

^^ Ibid., p. 50 and note 129. 

" Col. Timothy Andrews to Col. R. Jones, The Adjutant 

General, 6 April 1847, OQMG, LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"HOWEL L and KLOSTER, "United States Army Headgear to 1854," p. 54. 

" There are numerous references to this. See among others 

VIELE, Following the Drum, p. 224; BANDEL, Frontier Life 

in the Army, 1854-1861, p. 124; LOWE, Five Years a Dragoon, p. 105; PARKS, General Edmund Kirby Smith, p. 90; 

DUBOIS, Campaigns in the West, 1856-1861, p. 114; KIP , 

Army Life on the Pacific, pp. 121-123. 

''Floyd to J. Clancy Jones, 30 April 1858, Secretary of 

War Reports to Congress, vol. 9, pp. 222-223, Records of 

the Office of the Secretary of War, RG 107, NA. 

" Lt. Col. Chas. Thomas, Asst. QMG, to Crosman, 7 February 1856, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. It is possible that the hat was made by Warnock & Co., hatters of 

New York City, for in 1875 Warnock in a letter to the 

Philadelphia Depot stated: "We have furnished the patterns 

since 1853 but have never been favored with an order." 

Warnock & Co. to Col. Rufus Saxton, 9 July 1875, in CCF 

(Proceedings), RG 92, NA. 

" Sumner's Report on Trip to Europe, microfilm M-567, 

roll 506, frame 0172, AG, LR, 1854, RG 94, NA. 

'M October 1854, Decision Book No. 1, OQMG file reference, B 6, 36 S 848, RG 92, NA. 

'"Jesup to Crosman, 6 October 1854, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"' Proceedings of a Board of Officers, 25 January 1858, 

and correspondence appended thereto, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

These measurements are also given in G.O. No. 3 WD, 24 

March 1858. 

•• Jesup to Capt. Thomas Wood, Ft. Leavenworth, 2 December 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"Capt. F. J. Wood, 1st Cav., to Jesup, 15 January 1859, 

OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

''Maj. W. H. Emory, 1st Cav., to Jesup, 31 July 1859, 

OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

" Regulations for the Uniform and Dress of the Army of 

the United States, June 1851, from Original Text and 

Drawings in the War Department (Philadelphia, William H. 

Horstmann and Sons, 1851). This particular copy is in the 

U.S. Army Military History Research Collection, Carlisle 

Barracks, Pa., and the broadside carries the legend "Volunteer Uniform Caps" (although, as can be seen in Figure 1, 

the hat itself is labeled "U.S. Cavalry Hat" ) and "Drawn 

and Engraved by Pupils of the Philadelphia School of Design for Women." A check of the archives of the Moore 

College of Art, the descendent organization of the above, 

proved negative. A similar plate picturing the "U.S. Cavalry Hat" is in Regulations For the Uniform of the United 

States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Volunteer Militia of the Several States. The plate is unnumbered and 

carries the legend "Robert Weir, Military and Civic Costumer, Boston, F. Hedge, Wood Engraver." The whole Weir 

publication is essentially a pirated edition of the Horstmann 

1851 regulations cited above. 

"" Jesup to Thomas, Phila., 6 March 1858, 17 March 1858; 

Jesup to Col. W. de Raasloff, Washington, 19 March 1858; 

92 
NUMBER 30 93 

all OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. Col. H. K. Craig to 

Capt. R. H. K. Whiteley, New York Arsenal, 17 February 

1858, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Letters to Ordnance 

Officers, RG 156, NA. 

^ The Tojhusmuseet catalog reference is "F.H. IV (46) 

Amerika 1858; 1898/1902, side 82-83." 

''These acorns are in distinct contrast to the tassels on 

the ends of the hat cord prescribed for the 1858 pattern. 

'"Jesup to Recruiting Officer, Ft. Moultrie, S. C , 27 August 1855 and 6 October 1855, both in OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

=°Col. R. Jones to Jesup, 23 August 1855, AG, LS, RG 

94, NA. 

" O n the 1851-1854 eagle, see CAMPBELL and HOWELL, 

American Military Insignia 1800-1851, p. 29. 

^- U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, General Regulations for the 

Army, p. 155. The best representation of this eagle is in 

U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Regulations for the Uniform and 

Dress of the Army, plate 18. Both of these sources picture 

the eagle with his head turned to the heraldic left. 

" By law all Army contracts were listed in Executive 

Documents of the Senate or House of Representatives. Only 

two contracts for cavalry hats are so listed, one with Henry 

Fisher, 3 August 1855, for 2000 and one with William J. 

McCoy, 6 April 1857 for 3500. See Exec. Doc. No. 7, Senate, 

34th Congress, 1st Session, and Exec. Doc. No. 31, Senate, 

35th Congress, 1st Session. Both actual contracts exist: that 

with Fisher in CCF (Hats), RG 92, NA, and that with 

McCoy in Army Contracts, Diplomatic, Legal, and Fiscal 

Division, RG 217, box 30, 1857, NA. 

"Just when and by whom this hat was first called the 

"Jeff Davis" or "Hardee" is unknown. 

"See Bvt. Maj. J. H. Carleton, 1st Dragoons to AG, 27 

June 1857, enclosing Itr. Bvt. Lt. Col. John B. Magruder, 

1st Arty., 23 June 1857; Lt. Col. Philip St. George Cooke 

to AG, 1 August 1857; both in AG, LR, RG 94, NA; Lt. 

A. J. Donelson, commanding the Company of Sappers, Miners, and Pontoniers, to Col. J. G. Totten, Chief Engineer of 

the Army, 26 June 1857, AG, LR, re USMA, RG 94, NA. 

All of these communications were brought to the attention 

of the Secretary of War. 

'" Col. Alexander's original letter has not been found, but 

a gist of its contents with a brief of the endorsements is 

contained in AG to Jesup, 2 February 1858, OQMG, Reg. 

LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA. The special order was included 

with the board report itself. 

" Proceedings of a Board of Officers, appended to Lt. R. 

Jones to AG, 9 February 1858, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

'' Ibid. 

'"The report was submitted on 9 February and two days 

later Jesup wrote Col. Thomas in Philadelphia that since it 

was probable that a hat for the Army was to be adopted 

very shortly, he was to defer contracting for more cap bodies 

(for the 1851-1854 cap) until further notice. See Jesup to 

Thomas, 11 February 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, 

NA. 

'"May to Cooper, 19 March 1858 and 21 March 1858, 

both appended to "Proceedings of Board of Officers . . . ." 

[note 37], Cooper to May, 11 March 1858, AG, LS, RG 94; 

Cooper to Jesup, 11 March 1858, OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92; Cooper to Thomas, Phila., 25 March 1858, AG, 

LS, RG 94, all NA. 

"G.O . No. 3 WD, 24 March 1858, RG 94, NA. 

"' See page 2. 

"Contract with John G. Snyder, 30 July 1858, in Army 

Contracts, RG 217, NA. This is the first instance of detailed 

written specifications being furnished a contractor by the 

Quartermaster General found by the author. It was not until 1876 that detailed specifications of Quartermaster items 

were published in printed form. 

''^ In 1859, the Russian Hare component dropped from 4 

to 3/2 ounces, and the Scotch Coney rose from I/2 to 2 

ounces. See Contract with Wm. J. McCoy, 29 March 1859, 

CCF (Hats), RG 92, NA. In 1865 these components were 

prescribed as "3/2 ounces prime Russia hair, and one 

ounce of best Scotch coney." See Quartermaster Manual, 

1865, MS in RG 92, NA. This manual was never published. 

"G.O. No. 13 WD, 30 November 1858, RG 94, NA. 

'" G.O. No. 7 WD, 24 June 1858, RG 94, NA. 

•" There are numerous letters of transmittal and acknowledgment for requisitions for hats in OQMG, LS, Clothing, 

RG 92, NA. 

*^ Maj. E. S. Sibley, Asst. QM in Washington, to Thomas, 

11 June 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Jesup to Thomas, 13 

October 1858, LS, Clothing; both RG 92, NA. 

"" Quoted in Sibley to Thomas, 2 November 1859, OQMG, 

LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'^Sibley to Capt. T. J. Wood, 1st Cav., 1 November 1859, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

" Endorsement on letter from Maj. W. S. Emory, 1st Cav., 

to Jesup, 31 July 1859, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Sibley to 

Thomas, 24 September 1859, OQMG, LS, Clothing; both 

RG 92, NA. Although not so stated, this probably applied 

to the Regiment of Mounted Riflemen as well. 

^' United States Army and Navy Journal, 14 November 

1863, p. 180; 18 April 1868, p. 554; 1 February 1868, p. 

377. 

^Ibid., 14 November 1863, p. 180. Indeed, in 1864 the 

Quartermaster General wrote that there was "scarcely any 

demand" for them. See Meigs to I. T. Fulton, Washington, 

3 November 1864, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'^ United States Army and Navy Journal, 28 September 

1867, p. 90. 

'^Ibid., 9 November 1867, p. 186; 28 March, p. 506. 

"^ WOODHULL, A Medical Report upon the Uniform and 

Clothing of the Soldiers of the U.S. Army, 15 April 1868 

(hereafter cited as the "Woodhull Report"). 

" For the Andrews model, see "Woodhull Report" and 

HOWELL and KLOSTER, "United States Army Headgear to 

1854," pp. 54-55. 

°' Miller, Photographic History of the Civil War. 

«• G.O. No. 13 WD, 30 November 1858, RG 94, NA. 

""G.O. No. 13 WD, 15 August 1855, RG 94, NA. 

" G.O. No. 3 WD, 24 March 1858, RG 94, NA. 

" Both general orders in RG 94, NA. 

"' Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United States 

1861. In regard to this latter, however, it should be pointed 

out that some details in these photographs are inaccurate. 

"'' Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United States 

1861, paragraph 1488; Quartermaster Manual 1865. 
94 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

" On this, see OQMG, LS, Clothing, for latter half of 1858 

and 1859, RG 92, NA. 

"^ Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United States, 

1861, paragraph 1488. 

"' The 2d Dragoons were redesignated the 2d Cavalry on 

3 August 1861, the 2d Cavalry becoming the 5th. The 1861 

uniform regulations, which do not mention the Dragoons, 

placed the regimental number of the Cavalry in the upper 

angle of the crossed sabers. 

"^Illustrated Catalogue of Arms and Military Goods, p. 48. 

«^ Ibid. 

'" U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Regulations for the Uniform 

and Dress of the Army, plates 6, 14, 15. 

" On this, see HOWELL and KLOSTER, "United States 

Army Headgear to 1854," p. 59. 

" O n 3 August 1861, the 1st and 2d Dragoons and the 

Regiment of Mounted Riflemen were redesignated the 1st 

through the 3d Cavalry respectively, with the then 1st and 

2d Cavalry becoming the 4th and 5th. Although no mention 

of the revival of the trumpet has been found in orders, the 

insignia is listed in statements of cost of clothing for the 

period along with a letter and number. See G.O. No. 23 

WD, 30 November 1859, RG 94, NA. 

~'^ The bugle in Illustrated Catalogue of Arms and Military 

Goods is on an oval 3/a X 2Ys inches with the bugle 3 ^ 

inches wide and 1Y2 inches across the loop; the sabers are 

on an oval 3 % X 25^2 inches with the sabers 2>Ys inches 

long. These same insignia in the 1851 regulations are only 

slightly smaller. Of the documented specimens mentioned, 

the bugle is on an oval 3 % X 2Ys inches with the bugle 

3X1 ^ inches, the crossed sabers on an oval 3 §4 X 2^4 

inches with the sabers 3 inches long. 

'•' Churchill to Sec. of War Davis, 27 February 1854, AGO 

file No. B 136, 1844, RG 94, NA. 

" Col. T. T. Fauntleroy, CO . 1st Dragoons, to Col. Samuel 

Cooper, The Adjutant General, 30 October 1854, in U. S. 

Army Commands, Hq. 1st Dragoons, LS, 25 October 1849-

9 October 1863, RG 98, NA. 

'"Donelson to Totten, 4 February 1857, file No. M.A. 

1574, AG, LR, re USMA, RG 94, NA; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, "Stations of Engineer Units Regular Army 1846-

1937," p. 2. Donelson commanded the Company from 14 

February 1851 until 13 March 1858. See YOUNGBERG, History of Engineer Troops in the United States Army 1775— 

1901, p. 76. 

"Delafield to Totten, 9 February 1857, and covering 

endorsements, filed with Donelson to Totten, 4 February 

1857 [note 76]. 

"Totten to Delafield, 3 April 1857, AG, LS re USMA, 

RG 94, NA. Just what "the desired modifications" were are 

unknown. 

'"Donelson to Totten, 26 June 1857, AG, LR re USMA, 

RG 94, NA. 

-"Totten to Jesup, 10 July 1857, OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92; Totten to Delafield, 15 July 1857, Records of 

the Office of the Chief of Engineers. RG 77, LS; Jesup to 

Capt. E. S. Babbit, Phila., 14 July 1857, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92; all NA. The total of but 150 caps to be made 

may seem low, but as of 1 January 1856, there were but 150 

enlisted men authorized the Corps of Engineers. See U.S. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, Official Army Register for 1856. 

'^ No contracts for forage caps are listed in the contract 

lists in Executive Documents of the Senate or House of 

Representatives in the period 1857-1860. See also note 

Capt. Geo. Gibson, MSK, Phila., to Major Henry Wayne, 

asst. QM, Phila., 18 December 1857, CCF (Uniforms), RG 

92, NA. 

•*'Donelson to Totten, 26 June 1857, AG, LR re USMA, 

RG 94, NA. 

"Donelson to Totten, 4 February 1857, AG, LR re 

USMA, RG 94, NA. 

''Jesup to Col. Chas. Thomas, asst. QM at Phila., 20 

January 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. These 

engineer troops were a part of the Company of Sappers at 

West Point transferred west to participate in the Mormon 

Expedition. 

"^Donelson to Totten, 26 June 1857, AG, LR re USMA, 

RG 94, NA. 

'" On this, see MALIBRAN, Guide u I'usage des artistes et 

des costumiers, p. 305, and MARGERAND, "Les coiffures de 

I'armee francaise," in Revue, No. 3, (June 1909), esp. 

Etat Major General, plate 8: fig. 6. Both Malibran (p. 305) 

and Margerand (p. 26) quote the Description du 8 Octobre 

1845, which gives the diameter of the cap as varying from 

120 mm at top to 140 mm at the bottom and the height in 

front as 120 mm and the height in rear as 160 mm. 

^^ Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 4 April 1857, p. 

268. 

^' U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, The Centennial of the United 

States Military Academy at West Point, New York, vol. 2., 

p. 111. 

^"Donelson at least made an official offer to help get the 

manuscript in shape for the printer. See Donelson to AG, 

29 September and 1 October 1857, in AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

And as commanding officer of the engineer unit at the 

Academy, he would have been closely associated with McClellan in the construction of the batteries. 

°" Report of the Secretary of War, Communicating the 

Report of Captain George B. McClellan, p. 248. 

"Capt. Geo. Gibson, MSK, Schuylkill Arsenal, to Maj. 

Henry Wayne, Asst. QM, Phila., 18 December 1857, CCF, 

box 1169, RG92 , NA. 

"'French to Cooper, 11 August 1858, AG, LR, 102-F1858, RG94, NA. 

"' Normal practice would have sent the letter with the 

caps to the Secretary of War, with endorsements both ways 

and the Secretary's decision. If he had approved the suggestion, the letter would then have gone, through the AG, to 

the Quartermaster General (QMG) with an endorsement 

indicating the action to be taken. 

'^ Jesup to Thomas, 12 November 1858, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"''Thomas to Jesup, 15 November 1858, OQMG, Reg. 

LR, Clothing, with endorsement, RG 92, NA. The orange 

was for dragoons as prescribed in the 1851 regulations. The 

cap actually received the Secretary of War's authorization 

on 29 November. See Jesup to Thomas, 30 November 1858, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

""Jesup to Thomas, 1 December 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 
NUMBER 30 95 

"Jesup to Thomas, 8 December 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

*' Jesup to Commanding Officer, Ft. Laramie, 11 April 

1859, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

°*G.O. No. 13, WD, 30 November 1858, RG 94, NA. 

'"" Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United States, 

1861,pp. 13, 14. 

"'Jesup to Thomas, 16 December 1858, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing; Maj. Henry Wayne, acting QMG, to Thomas, 4 

January 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, both RG 92, NA. 

In regard to the absence of specimens with the colored welt, 

it must be remembered that as of 1 January 1859 the 

Army's authorized enlisted strength was but 11,859, with 

many units understrength. See U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, 

Official Army Register for 1859, p. 41. 

"'Jesup to Cooper, 8 December 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. G.O. No. 23 WD, 30 November 1859, RG 

94, NA. In February 1859 the QMG contracted for 2500 

yards of "dark blue cloth for caps." See Contract with G. V. 

Fox, Agent, 24 February 1859, in Exec. Doc. No. 22 (House 

of Reps.), 36th Congress, 1st Session. One of the first contracts for forage caps was let to Harris Rothstein, New York, 

31 October 1861, for 36,000 "forage caps with cotton 

glazed covers and capes" at $.70. See Exec. Doc. No. 101 

(House of Reps.), 37th Congress, 2nd Session. Forage cap 

covers first appeared in cost of clothing lists in 1862, listed 

at $.18. See G.O. No. 202 WD, 9 December 1862, RG 94, 

NA. 

"^ G.O. No. 4 WD, 26 February 1861, RG 94, NA. 

'"* United States Army and Navy Journal, 12 September 

1863, p. 36. 

"^ Ibid., 14 November 1863, p. 180. 

'""Ibid., 4 January 1868, p. 315; 28 March 1868, p. 506; 

8 August 1868, p. 810. 

"' Woodhull Report, p. 5. 

^"^ Quartermaster Manual, 1865, pp. 11-12. 

'"" All from the War Department collection. National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution. 

""Jesup to Thomas, 1 December 1858, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

' " There is another such green cap in the collections of the 

Milwaukee County Historical Museum that carries black 

rubber chin strap buttons with the regulation line eagle impressed on the obverse and "Goodyear's P-T. N.R. Co." on 

the reverse. See MADAUS, "Notes on the Uniform of Berdan's 

Sharpshooters," pp. 56-58. Similar rubber buttons also appear on a pattern "Berdan" coat in the national collections. 

"' The two units were organized progressively by company 

from September through December 1861. See DYER, A 

Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, vol. 3, pp. 1716-

1717. 

"' Lt. Col. Schuyler Hamilton, Military Secretary to Gen. 

Scott, to Berdan, 14 June 1861, in U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, 

The War of the Rebellion, series 3, vol. 1, p. 270. 

'"Thos. Scott, Asst. Sec. War, to Berdan, 13 August 

1861, Sec. War, LS, MiHtary Affairs, RG 107, NA. 

''''See OQMG, LS Clothing, July-December 1861, RG 

92, NA, for numerous examples of this. In fact, there are 

several instances where the QMG stated that volunteer 

units could be authorized special uniforms "the cost not to 

exceed that of the Army Uniform." See OQMG to Depot 

QM, Phila., 6 August 1861, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, 

NA. 

""BRUCE, Lincoln and the Tools of War, pp. 108-113. 

'"Meigs to Maj. D. H. Vinton, Asst. QM at New York, 

21 and 23 September 1861, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, 

NA. As an example of Berdan's apparent influence, the 

knapsacks were procured from Tiffany's at $3.75 each plus 

a 2/2 percent commission for the supplier, while the regulation knapsacks were being bought on contract for an average of less than $2.00. The leggings, which were not an 

item of regulation issue in any form, cost $2.25 a pair. 

"' STEVENS, Berdan's U.S. Sharpshooters, p. 5. See also 

photograph of Sgt. James W. Staples on p. 133. The first 

record of ordered issue to the 1st and 2nd Regiments of the 

U.S. Sharpshooters included 1100 ostrich feathers, although 

the units were not issued hats that normally carried such 

feathers. See Sibley (for Meigs) to Vinton, 12 November 

1861, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

""Vinton to Meigs, 25 November 1861 and Berdan to 

Meigs, 17 December 1861, both in OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA. Whether or not Martin Brothers made 

these first caps is unknown, as no contract for such or for 

the green uniforms has been found. In August of 1861, 

George Hoff & Co. of Philadelphia, who made the sealed 

sample, contracted to make 20,000 forage caps, but the contract clearly states that they were to be of "indigo blue wool 

dyed cloth." See contracts made by Hoff in Branch E, Regular Supplies, Contracts, Box 98, RG 92, NA. 

""Perry (for Meigs) to Gen. Rufus Ingalls, Chief QM, 

Army of the Potomac, 12 January 1864, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Capt. A. G. Robinson (for Meigs) to Crosman, 18 

February 1864, OQMG, LS, Clothing; both RG 92, NA. 

' " See HOWELL AND KLOSTER, "United States Army 

Headgear to 1854," pp. 24, 45. 

"'Ibid., pp. 60-61. 

'"Jesup to Thomas, Phila., 20 January 1858, OQMG, 

LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"See G.O. No. 14 WD, 9 December 1858; G.O. No. 23 

WD, 30 November 1859; G.O. No. 95 WD, 5 November 

1861; G.O. No. 202 WD, 9 December 1862; all RG 94, NA. 

""See Exec. Doc. 101, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, House, 

esp. contract with Harris Rothstein, 31 October 1861. 

"" G.O. No. 202 WD, 9 December 1862, RG 94, NA. 

' " MILLER, The Photographic History of the Civil War, 

vol. 3, p. 279. In this connection, however, it must be remembered that the cover was a wet weather item and the 

photography of the time precluded good pictures on dark, 

rainy days. 

'"U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG , 1865, pp. 208-209. 

"" See HOWELL AND KLOSTER, "United States Army 

Headgear to 1854," p. 60 and fig. 49. 

''"See DONALD, Divided We Fought, p. 15. The original 

sketch is in the collections of the Library of Congress. 

"'Fo r these, see ADAMS, Album of American History, 

vol. 3, p. 115; CUNLIFFE, Soldiers and Civilians, p. 6; The 

American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War, p. 106. 

"• BILLINGS, Hardtack and Coffee, pp. 305-306. 

'"CoGGiNS, Arms and Equipment of the Civil War, p. 14. 

Although Coggins quotes directly, he does not give his 
96 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

source. The description of a havelock given in STEVENS, 

Berdan's U.S. Sharpshooters, p. 5, is completely at variance 

with the generally accepted definition of the term. 

'"O n this, see OQMG, LS, Clothing, 1861-1865, RG 

92, 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 the 

1861 uniform regulations, paragraph 1494 stated: "Commissioned officers may [italics added] wear forage caps of 

the same pattern" [as the enlisted men], so there was no compulsion to 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 and 

Military Goods, p. 48. 

"" On this, see MARGERAND, "Les coiffures de I'armee 

francaise," in Revue, No. 3 (June 1909), plate 8: figs. 4, 

5, 7, 8. Unfortunately, Margerand's text gives no measurements for these particular caps. 

'^"ToDD, in his Cadet Gray (p. 73), speaks of the "blue 

Chasseur model" as having been adopted in 1861. He seems 

to be in error ,as to the date of change. Photographs of 

members of the class of 1857 show cadets wearing both 

types. For the 1839 pattern see photograph of Cadet Samuel Ferguson, class of 1857. For the chasseur pattern, see 

photographs of Cadet William Sinclair, class of 1857 and 

W. Hemphill Bell, class of 1858, Cadet Orlando G. Wagner, 

class of 1859 and Cadet John Herbert Kelley, class of 1861 

but resigned in 1860. Photographs in files of Smithsonian 

Institution. The 1857 USMA regulations merely describe 

the cap as "according to the pattern deposited with the 

quartermaster at West Point." 

"' See United States Army and Navy Journal, 4 January 

1868, p. 315, and 28 March 1868, p. 506. 

' " United States Army and Navy Journal, 20 February 

1869, p. 432. Also see advertisements in issues for 30 July 

1870, 6 August 1870, and 13 August 1870. 

' " HEITMAN, Historical Register and Dictionary of the 

United States Army, vol. 1, p. 444. 

' " U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Regulations for the Uniform 

and 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 in 

either citation, the one-inch size being that given the letter 

for wear on the campaign hat. 

''" Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United 

States, 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 (Fall 

1962), pp. 92-94. 

'"" For this, see MADAUS, "Notes on the Uniform of Berdan's Sharpshooters." 

"'"For Kearny's order and that of the 1st Div., 9th Corps, 

see WiKE, "The Wearing of Army Corps and Division Insignia in the Union Army, 1862-1865." Wike does not cite 

the location of the first two orders, but has stated to the 

author that he copied them from the originals in the National Archives when he was employed there many years 

ago. For the Army of the Potomac order, see unnumbered 

circular. Army of the Potomac, 21 March 1863, in U.S. WAR 

DEPARTMENT, The War of the Rebellion, series 1, vol. 25, 

part 2, p. 152. 

' " Ibid. 

"'During the Civil War a number of "Hght" batteries 

were converted to "horse" artillery, with all personnel 

mounted, and grouped into "horse artillery brigades," which 

operated 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 of 

the Organization, pp. 70-72. Actually, as late as 1942 the 

82nd Field Artillery Battalion and the 61st Field Artillery 

Battalion, direct support elements of the 1st Cavalry Division, were "horse" units, or "animal mounted" as Army Regulations then called them, all personnel being individually 

mounted. On the other hand, as late as 1942 the 6th Field 

Artillery Battalion, then a G.H.Q. reserve unit, was "horsedrawn," or "animal drawn" as the regulations called it, with 

some personnel being individually mounted and the remainder riding the caissons and limbers. On the two modern 

terms, see AR 600-40, WD, 28 August 1941, RG 94, NA. 

Today the "field artillery," which accompanies the army in 

the field, includes materiel of very heavy calibers because 

of modern means of transportation. 

'"' Unless otherwise stated, the material in this section is 

taken 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 October 

1839, AG Reg. LR, RG 94, NA. 

'"=G.O. No. 36, H Q 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 horsehair plumes and bands in November 1842, in May 1841 the 

Commissary General of Purchases, Callander Irvine, had 

directed the Military Storekeeper at Philadelphia to issue 

to Ringgold's Company "C, " 3d Artillery, 71 red horsehair 

plumes. See AG to Jesup, 5 August 1844, AG, LS, RG 94, 

NA; Irvine to Fayssoux, MSK at Philadelphia, Supply Orders Issued 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 difficult to use; notations added on the margin, apparently by 

the Quartermaster General to whom it was routed by the 

AG, (to ascertain whether or not certain recommendations 

were 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., 20 

June 1859, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA; Col. Charles 

Thomas, Asst. QM at Phila., to Jesup, 22 April 1859, 
NUMBER 30 97 

OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

""G.O. No. 54, HQ of A, 15 December 1845, RG 94, 

NA. 

'"'G.O. No. 1 WD, 30 January 1854; see OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA, for the period 1854-1858 for numerous directives to the Philadelphia Depot for such issues. 

'"'Sibley (for Jesup) to Maj. H. C. Wayne, Asst. QM, 

Phila., 25 September 1857, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, 

NA. 

'"'Jesup to Thomas, Phila., 25 October 1858 and 25 

January 1859, both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"'Ibid.; Jesup to Thomas, Phila., 23 December 1858 and 

Jesup to Capt. Van Vliet, Ft. Leavenworth, 23 November 

1858, both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'""See Jesup to Thomas, Phila., 29 January 1859, OGMG, 

LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'""G.O. No. 20 WD, 6 August 1860, RG 94, NA. 

'"' See MCBARRON AND TODD, "U.S. Light Artillery Companies, Dress, 1857-1872." The Uniform Regulations of 

1861 clearly stated: "For Companies of Artillery equipped 

as Light Artillery, the old pattern uniform cap, with red 

horsehair plume, cord and tassel." 

'""On this, see Thomas to Jesup, 22 April 1859, OQMG, 

Reg. LR, Clothing; Sibley (for Jesup) to Lt. H. W. Closson, 

1st Arty., 20 June 1859, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Sibley (for 

Jesup), to Lt. Henry Benson, 2d Arty., 29 Sept. 1859, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing; all RG 92, NA. 

'""Sibley (for Jesup) to Thomas, 25 June 1859, OQMG, 

LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

""See note 166 and Sibley (for Jesup) to Thomas, 6 

April 1860, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. Whether 

the caps issued were the original 1851 pattern with the red 

band or the 1854 pattern with merely the red welt on the 

dark blue band is unknown. 

'"LORD , Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia, p. 305. 

Unfortunately, Lord does not give his source in this instance. 

'"Crosman to Capt. Martin, MSK, 24 September 1863, 

press copies of LS, Depot QM, Phila., RG 92, NA. The 

unit was apparently the "23d Independent Battery Light 

Artillery." See DYER, A Compendium of the War of the 

Rebellion, vol. 3, p. 1401. 

'"Capt. A. J. Perry (for Meigs) to Lt. Henry, 7 Nov. 

1863, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA; Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United States, 1861, pp. 12-13. 

"^ Perry (for Meigs) to Vinton, 11 December 1863, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

""Vinton to OAC & E, Phila., Reg. LR, OAC & E, 14 

December 1863, RG 92, NA. 

"* Statements of Clothing and Equipage on Hand or Due 

from Contracts, 1860-1864, RG 92, NA. There were 1195 

on hand on 31 January 1864. 

' " Contract with Dare in Branch E, Regular Supplies, 

Contracts, Box 50, RG 92, and in RG 217; contract with 

Horstmann in Branch E, Regular Supplies, Contracts, Box 

102, RG 92; all NA. 

' " Statements of Clothing and Equipage on Hand or Due 

from Contracts, 1860-1864, RG 92; Registers of Contracts 

Relating to the Supplying of Clothing and Equipage, August 

1862-November 1874, RG 92; both NA. Although these 

registers cover only the activities of the Philadelphia Depot, 

no contract for these caps let by either the New York Depot 

or the Cincinnati Depot has been found. Although by law 

all Army contracts were to be reported to the Congress and 

published in executive documents, there are gaps in such 

during the Civil War period. 

"° For an excellent discussion of the contract system used 

during the Civil War, see RiscH, Quartermaster Support of 

the Army, pp. 338-357 and esp. p. 353. 

"" See OQMG, LS, Clothing, 1863-1864, RG 92, NA. 

"'Meigs to Vinton, 27 April 1864, OQMG, LS, Clothing; 

Vinton to OAC & E, Phila., 29 April 1864, Reg. LR, OAC 

& E; both RG 92, NA. Why New Orleans requisitioned so 

many of these caps is unknown. As of June 1865, 1500 of 

them were reported as still being on hand at that depot. 

See U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1865, p. 81. 

"'Meigs to Crosman, 7 June 1864, OQMG, LS, Clothing, 

RG 92, NA. 

"'Crosman to Meigs, 8 June, 13 June, 1864, OQMG, 

Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"•"CO. No. 220 WD, 1 July 1864, RG 94, NA. 

"^Report of board of officers established by S.O. No. 31, 

HQ of A, 11 February 1862, AGO, LR, 216-B-1862, RG 

94, NA. 

'*" Illustrated Catalogue of Arms and Military Goods, p. 48. 

"' Although the introduction to Uniform Regulations for 

the Army of the United States, 1861, dates the photographs 

as 1861 or 1862, the dating error that was discovered some 

months after publication was corrected in an annotated note 

in Military Collector and Historian, vol. 19, no. 3 (Fall 

1962), pp. 91-92. 

" ' Actually, the issues directed by OQMG were confined 

to elements of the 3d Arty at Ft. Trumbull, Conn., and of 

the 2d Arty at Ft. McHenry, Md., where the units were 

refilling depleted ranks. See Meigs to Vinton, NY, 15 

August 1864; Meigs to Perry, Phila., 28 September 1864; 

Meigs to Col. Biggs, Phila., 23 November 1864; Meigs to 

Biggs, 13 and 17 December 1864; Meigs to Col. McKim, 

Phila., 7 April 1865; all OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

Regarding restrictions on issues of the cap, see Meigs to 

Maj. Fred Walker, Army of the Tennessee, 8 December 

1864, and Meigs to Capt. Bowman, Baltimore, 17 December 1864, both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'^"Exec. Doc. No. 84, 38th Congress, 2d Session, House; 

ARQMG, pp. 72-73, 85. 

'""Act of 28 July 1866, as quoted in SPAULDING, The 

United States Army in War and Peace, p. 340; G.O. No. 139 

WD, 28 September 1865, RG 94, NA. 

'"'Act of 3 March 1869, and G.O. No. 6, HQ of A, 

February 1869, RG 94, NA. 

'"' On these issues, see OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA 

for the period. For the prohibition on issue to other than 

mounted batteries, see Perry (for Meigs) to Col. Brooks, 

Ft. McHenry, Md., 29 October 1867, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. There are numerous other references to 

this prohibition in OQMG, LS, Clothing, all the way to 

1872. 

'"' For these photos see Military Collector and Historian, 

vol. 15 (Spring 1963), p. 21, and vol. 16 (Summer 1964), 

p. 52. 

'"'On this, see OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA, for 
98 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the period 1865-1872 and annual reports of the Quartermaster General for the same period. In regard to a new 

artillery uniform, see Perry (for Meigs) to Lt. J. S. Totten, 

3d Ind. Btry., OVM, 9 July 1868, OQMG, LS, Clothing, 

RG 92, NA. 

^^ Harper's Weekly, 8 June 1867, pp. 356, 358. 

'""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, 1866, pp. 109-111; Ibid., 

1867, p. 538; Perry (for Meigs) to Bvt. Brig. Gen. C. G. 

Card, Ft. Leavenworth, 9 May 1868, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA states that the supply had been exhausted. 

Actually this is not quite accurate as to precise count, for 

ARSW, 1868 fisted 841 on hand with 220 purchased. Since 

Perry was an experienced quartermaster officer, having 

headed up the clothing and equipage branch of OQMG for 

many years, it must be assumed that the caps on hand, not 

purchased during the year, that is 621, were either of the 

1851-1854 pattern or unserviceable. 

'"'See Perry (for Meigs) to Crosman, 16 December 1867, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"'Horstmann to QMG, 13 November 1867, OQMG, 

Reg. LR, Clothing; Perry (for Meigs) to Horstmann, 14 

November 1867, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Horstmann to 

Perry, 15 November 1867, CCF (Caps) ; Perry (for Meigs) 

to Crosman, 11 December 1867 and 16 December 1867, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing; Horstmann to QMG, 16 December 

1867, OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing; Crosman to QMG, 19 

December 1867, OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing; all RG 92, 

NA. ARSW, 1867, pp. 878-879. 

'""Perry (for Meigs) to Col. Batchelder, New Orleans, 3 

April 1868; Perry (for Meigs) to Gen. Card, Ft. Leavenworth, 9 May 1868; Perry (for Meigs) to Gen. D. H. 

Rucker, Phila., 3 February 1869; Perry (for Meigs) to Van 

Vliet, Phila., 24 May 1869; all OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 

92, NA. 

'""Meigs to Van Vliet, Phila., 22 September 1871, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. No contracts with 

Horstmann, or with anyone else for that matter for these 

caps has been found. But this is not strange in that during 

this period, when the Army was living on stocks of clothing 

left over from the war, small purchases of clothing and 

equipage were authorized "without the formality of a 

written contract." On this, see Meigs to Lt. Col. L. C. 

Easton, Phila., 26 June 1872 and Bingham (for Meigs) to 

Capt. Hoyt, Jeffersonville, 29 May 1871; both OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"'Perry (for Meigs) to Gen. Card, Ft. Leavenworth, 9 

May 1868, and Perry (for Meigs) to Col. Moore, Richmond, 11 May 1868, both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, 

NA. 

'"'Perry (for Meigs) to Stiehl and McBride, NY, 2 September 1868; Perry (for Meigs) to Shannon, Miller, and 

Crane, NY, 3 September 1868; both OQMG, LS, Clothing, 

RG 92, NA. Exemplifying Horstmann's seemingly privileged 

position at the time. Perry stated in a letter to the firm: 

"The new hat or cap has not been announced in orders. 

When it is I will send you a copy." Perry (for Meigs) to 

Horstmann, 11 November 1868, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 

92, NA. 

'"' United States Army and Navy Journal, 23 October 

1869, p. 146; C. O. 1st Artillery, to AAG, 13 December 

1869, Dept. of the East, AG, LR, M-619, RG 94, NA. 

'"^ Ibid. 

'""Meigs to Sec. War, 30 August 1872; Meigs to Capt. 

Hoyt, Jeffersonville, 4 September 1872; and Meigs to Easton, 

Phila., 4 September 1872; all OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 

92, NA. 

'""Actually, a change in uniform was proposed for the 

Corps of Engineers in 1868 and pattern coat and trousers 

made up, but the projects went no further. See Perry (for 

Meigs) to Grossman, 13 April 1868, with endorsements, 

LR, Phila., RG 94, NA. 

'"' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ROTC Manual No. 

145-720, p. 275. 

'"^For a listing of the stocks of clothing and equipage as 

of mid-1865, see U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1865. 

'""Ibid., 1870, pp. 8-9. 

"" Ibid. 

'"Ibid.; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1871, pp. 

9-11. 

'"LS , SGO, 3 August 1867, RG 112, NA. 

'"Th e printed report is in OQMG, CCF, box 1171 (Uniforms), RG 92, NA. Another copy is in the collections of 

the National Medical Library, Bethesda, Md. 

" ' On the printing shop, see ASHBURN, A History of the 

Medical Department, p. 109. The Woodhull Report is assumed to have been printed there as it bears no imprint other 

than "Surgeon General's Office" and no trace of it has been 

found in the extant records of the Government Printing Office of the period (admittedly very sketchy) and there is no 

record of correspondence on the subject between SGO and 

the Superintendent of Public Printing. If it was printed by a 

private house, there is no evidence of such in either LS, 

SGO, or Reg. LR, SGO. It is impossible to determine if 

funds were expended for outside publication as the records of 

the 1st and 2nd Auditors of the Treasury Dept. for the 

period were destroyed by fire. 

"" ALTICK, Scholar Adventurers. This is "must" reading 

for any researcher, no matter what his discipline. 

' " During the period he was twice at West Point as a 

member of the medical examining board for incoming cadets, 

and in November 1867 was a member of a board to check 

on the ventilation of hospital tents. S. O. No. 286, HQ of 

A, 24 June 1867, RG 94, NA; SG to Woodhull, 23 August 

1867, LS, SGO; SG to Woodhull, 25 November 1867, LS, 

SGO; both in RG 112, NA. 

' " ASHBURN, A History of the Medical Department, p. 

109. 

=" Woodhull Report, p. 3. 

"" Ibid., p. 26. 

"" Records searched in NA for these "backing" papers include: SGO, LS, Reg. LR., name and subject index LR, 

RG 112; AGO, LR, Reg. LR, name and subject index LR; 

personnel jackets of all named medical officers, all in RG 

94; Inspector General, LS, Reg. LR, RG 159; Headquarters 

of the Army, LS, Reg. LR, RG 108; OQMG, LS, Reg. LR, 

CCF under names and subjects, all RG 92. In relation to 

this last, there is no evidence whatever that either OQMG 

or the Philadelphia Depot were consulted by Woodhull in 

the preparation of his report. Indeed, the QMG does not 

appear to have been forwarded a copy of the report until 
NUMBER 30 99 

October of 1870. See Meigs to AG, 3 June 1871, OQMG, 

LS, O AC & E, RG 92, NA. This communication had as an 

enclosure a letter SGO to QMG, 25 October 1870, in which 

a copy had been enclosed. A search of the archives of the 

Medical Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the National Library of Medicine proved equally 

barren. Outside of official repositories, some 20 boxes of 

Woodhull manuscript material in the collections of the 

Princeton University Library (Woodhull was an 1859 graduate) proved to contain only material relating to his undergraduate career. Further, although Woodhull was a prolific writer on medical and hygenic subjects throughout his 

career (he retired as Assistant Surgeon General) only this 

one time did he touch on the subject of the dress of the 

Army. 

' " It was this type of forage cap that McClellan recommended as a result of his inspection trip to Europe just prior 

to the Civil War. See p. 13 above and note 90. 

' " Woodhull must have corresponded directly and personally with Col. Andrews, et al., and with William R. Cole 

as there is no evidence of such in LS, or LR, SG, RG 112, 

NA. 

'"S.O. No. 523, H Q of A, 18 December 1867. This was 

an action which Gen. Winfield Scott had repeatedly urged 

during the 1850s. See UTLEY, Frontiersmen in Blue, p. 39. 

'"Sherman to AG, 28 January 1868, AG, LR, RG 94, 

NA. This draft was forwarded to the Secretary of War the 

next day. See Grant to Sec. War, 29 January 1868, HQ of 

A, LS, RG 108, NA. 

"" Sherman to AG, 3 February 1868, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

""Sheridan to AG, 14 February 1868, AG, LR, RG 94, 

NA. This whole business of two men, as experienced as 

they were, completely revising Army Regulations in 11 days 

is of course ridiculous, as the 1871 Board, which finally undertook the job in depth, required many months. 

'"SG to Gen. in Chief, 1 February 1868, SG, LS, RG 

112; Barnes to H Q of A and endorsements, 1 February 

1868, HQ of A, Reg. LR, RG 108; both NA. Just how and 

why the Surgeon General came to think that the Sherman 

Board was to consider clothing when it had been specifically 

set up to revise the Articles of War is unknown. 

"'Sec. War to AG, 3 July 1871, AG, Reg. LR, RG 94, 

NA. The board was set up by S.O. No. 260, HQ of A, 3 

July 1871. 

' " Ibid. 

""Marcy to Sec. War, 14 September 1871, AG, LR, RG 

94, NA. It is interesting to compare this statement with the 

contents in U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Department 

of the Army Pamphlet 355-10 (1947) regarding the introduction of the shade 44 green uniform after World War II. 

The pamphlet speaks of the issue of the olive drab uniform 

to displaced persons, foreign military forces under the military assistance program, and veterans upon discharge, plus 

the appearance of large stocks of the same in surplus stores, 

all having the effect of reducing the value of the "O.D." as 

the trade mark of the American soldier. 

'"Report of Board of Officers established by S.O. No. 31, 

HQ of A, 11 February 1862, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. This 

report is known only in manuscript form. 

'"AG to Marcy, 25 April 1872, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

' " For the date of the report, see Meigs to Sec. War, 29 

July 1872, AG, LR; for dissolution of the board, see Sec. 

War to AG, 26 June 1872, AG, Reg. LR; both RG 94, NA. 

'"Fo r these, see AG, LR, RG 94, NA. The actual final 

report of the board has not been found, unless the page 

proofs with comments mentioned above were submitted as 

such in the interest of speed. 

'""Meigs to Marcy, 28 June 1872; Meigs to Marcy, 16 

July 1872; Meigs to Easton, Phila., 9 August 1872; Meigs 

to Easton, 15 August 1872; all OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 

92, NA. 

""Meigs to Sec. War, 23 July 1872; Bingham (for Meigs) 

to Easton, 27 July 1872; both in OQMG, LS, Clothing, 

RG 92, NA. 

' " CARMAN, British Military Uniforms, p. 141. 

="' See Figure 14. 

'"" United States Army and Navy Journal, 20 February 

1869. 

''"G.O. No. 76 WD, 29 July 1872, RG 94, NA. 

'•" In QM Contracts, RG 92, NA. 

"'Contract with Chas. F. Bush, 11 February 1878, Exec. 

Doc. No. 40, Senate, 45th Congress, 3d Session; contract 

with J. H. Wilson, 22 March 1879, Exec. Doc. No. 56, Senate, 46th Congress, 2d Session. 

''"G.O. No. 38 WD, 20 March 1873; G.O. No. 73 WD, 

10 July 1873; G.O. No. 131 WD, 3 December 1874; all 

RG 94, NA. 

'''Bingham (for Meigs) to Easton, Phila., 4 December 

1872, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ibid., ARQMG, 1872, p. 60; 1873, p. 56. 

""Col. Dodge, CO . 23d Inf., to AG, 19 October 1874, 

CCF (Uniforms); AG to QMG, 24 October 1874, and endorsements, OQMG, Reg. LR; both RG 92, NA. 

"* See endorsements to AG to QMG, 24 October 1874; 

Meigs to Horstmann, 22 January 1875, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Horstmann to Meigs, 27 January 1875, CCF (Hats); 

both RG 92, NA. 

'"Endorsements to AG to QMG, 24 October 1874; the 

draft general order is in CCF (Hats), RG 92, NA. 

' " Untitled comments on "draft for General Order" by 

Capt. John F. Rogers, MSK, Phila. Depot, dated 9 June 

1875, CCF (Hats), RG 92, NA. 

""Col. Saxton, Phila., to Meigs, 19 June 1875, OQMG, 

Reg. LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA; endorsements to AG to 

QMG, 24 October 1874, RG 92, NA. This board, headed 

by Bvt. Maj. Gen. D. H. Rucker, Asst. QMG, was set up 

by S.O. No. 264 WD, 27 December 1875, to review a variety of QMD matters; hereafter referred to as the Rucker 

Board. 

'*' This description was approved by Sec. War on 8 May 

1876, in 2d Endorsement, to Capt. J. G. C. Lee to AG, 11 

April 1876, OQMG, LR, RG 92, NA. 

'"'U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1876, pp. 120-121. 

="' RG 92, NA. 

'"" 2d Endorsement to Itr. Col. Easton, Phila. to QMG, 25 

November 1872, LS, Phila., RG 92, NA. 

'"'Col. Easton, Phila., to Meigs, 14 December 1872, and 

endorsements, Phila., LS, CCF (Uniforms), RG 92, NA. 

'«' G.O. No. 38 WD, 20 March 1873, RG 94, NA. 

=""G.O. No. 67 WD, 25 June 1873, RG 94, NA. This 
100 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

general order did prescribe the "badge of corps" and "letter 

of company" for wear on the forage cap by infantry, artillery, cavalry, and engineers, but nothing was said of the 

dress cap. 

'"' G.O. No. 73 WD, 10 July 1873, RG 94, NA. 

="' G.O. No. 8 WD, 8 February 1877, RG 94, NA. 

'""G.O. No. 96 WD, 19 November 1875, RG 94, NA. 

=""G.O. No. 21 WD, 20 March 1876, RG 94, NA. 

="' Specification in RG 92, NA. 

'"'Meigs to Sec. War, 2 August 1872, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

' " United States Army and Navy Journal, 4 October 1873, 

p. 122. 

'"U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1873, p. 56. 

'""Asst. Surg. C. Ewen, to Post Adj., Baton Rouge, 10 

March 1875, enclosed with letter Capt. C. Hale to AG; Col. 

Clitz, Ft. McKarrett, Texas, to AG, 5 March 1875; Col. 

Geo. Andrews, Ft. Davis, Texas to AG, 25 February 1875; 

Lt. Col. Whisder, Ft. Riley, to AG, 1 March 1875; Capt. 

C. E. Morse, 6th Inf., to AG, 15 March 1875; all AG, LR, 

RG 94, NA. 

="" G.O. No. 76, HQ of A, 23 July 1879, RG 94, NA. 

=*' U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1882, p. 9. 

'"* The light artillery is referred to here in the same connotation as previously defined on p. 22; i.e., the mounted 

batteries as opposed to foot or fortress artillery. 

'"""Specifications for Helmets," OQMG, 17 June 1876, 

RG 92, NA. 

"" MILLS, My Story, p. 180. 

"'PIETSCH , Die Formations and Uniformierungs, vol. 1, 

pp. 54-59. 

"'CARMAN, British Military Uniforms, p. 132; Journal 

. for Army Historical Research, vol. 19 (1940), pp. 56-57. 

There is also evidence that a "Patent Leather Pickelhaub" 

was being either offered for sale to or being worn by volunteer militia units in the United States in the late 1850s. On 

this, see advertising broadside, "Volunteer Uniform Caps," 

referred to in note 25. 

""Hunt to AG, 13 March 1875, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

"' Contract in Branch E, Regular Supplies, Contracts, RG 

92, NA. This contract carries no specifications or description. 

""G.O. No. 73 WD, 10 July 1873; G.O. No. 38 WD, 20 

March 1873; both RG 94, NA. 

""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1873, pp. 55-57. 

For difficulties with the facing cloth, see OQMG, LS, 

O AC & E, August 1872-February 1873, RG 92, NA. 

'"U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1873, p. 60; ibid., 

1874, p. 56, listed 13,660 as purchased and 8069 as issued. 

"'' These "cuts" were merely a reprint of the /a-scale 

lithographs illustrating the 1872 uniform regulations. 

"" See p. 36 above and note 248. 

'*"RG 92, NA. It should be noted that the description 

of the "cords and bands" is virtually identical to that of 

the "cord and tassel" for the light artillery cap given in the 

1865 Quartermaster Manual. See pp. 24-25. 

''' RG 92, NA. 

'"' Four contracts with Horstmann for helmets are listed 

in Executive Documents 3 October 1872 for 9000; 21 June 

1875 for 160; 12 June 1878 for 1500; and 14 September 

1878 for 1000. 

'*'Two contracts with Bent & Bush for helmets are listed 

in Executive Documents 12 October 1874 for 8500; and 11 

February 1878 for 800. 

'"Untided comments on "draft for General Order" by 

Capt. John F. Rogers [note 248]. 

'"" G.O. No. 67 WD, 25 June 1873, RG 94, NA. 

" " U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1873, p. 56. 

'"'Hunt to AG, 13 March 1875, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

="' G.O. No. 6 WD, 29 January 1875, RG 94, NA. 

'*" U.S. SURGEON GENERAL, Circular No. 8. 

""For these, see AG, LR, February-April 1875, RG 94, 

NA. 

'*' Weighing by author. Meigs to Gen. of the Army, 8 

December 1880, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 94, NA, gives 

weight of officer's helmet complete as 19 ^ ounces. 

'"'U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1881, p. 73 states 

that they were cut down at a cost of $6.50 per dozen. Actually, one contract was for $6.00 per dozen and another for 

$7.80 per dozen. See List of Contracts for the Purchase or 

Manufacture of Clothing and Equipage, 1880-1908, RG 92, 

NA. For the reissue, see U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 

1881, p. 76. Whether or not Horstmann originally made 

the model that the firm cut down is unknown, but the ventilator is of the type used by Bent & Bush. 

'""See pp. 19-21; also Bent & Bush and Polland & Leighton advertisements in United States Army and Navy Journal, esp. 20 February 1869 and 23 July 1870. 

'"' For the campaign hat, see pp. 31-33. 

'"" Woodhull Report. 

'""Meigs to Easton, Phila., 15 August 1872, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA; Exec. Doc. No. 159, House, 43rd 

Congress, 1st Session. 

'"' G.O. No. 73 WD, 10 July 1873, RG 94, NA. 

'"'Bingham (for Meigs) to Easton, Phila., 3 February 

1873, OQMG, LS, Clothing RG 92, NA. This directive was 

the first which specifically mentioned "new pattern" caps 

with covers. 

'""On this, see particularly Col. Dodge, 23d Inf. to AG, 

19 October 1874, CCF (Uniforms), RG 92, NA. 

"""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1892, p. 97. 

""'RG92, NA. 

""'QM Specification Nos. 216, 5 January 1889, and 324, 

12 April 1892, substituted black satin for silesia in the lining 

and both carried detailed specifications for the blue cloth, 

which the earlier ones had not done. 

""'G.O. No. 102, HQ of A, 26 December 1883, RG 94, 

NA. 

'"' Frederick Dent Grant who resigned his commission in 

1881. 

'"" United States Army and Navy Journal, 29 March 1884, 

p. 11. 

'"" Although the wreath on the engineers officer's cap was 

prescribed as being of "laurel and palm," nothing was said 

of the composition of those of general and staff officer's caps. 

Of four examined, one general officer's, one engineer officer's, and two staff officers', the wreaths are all very similar 

and the arms are symmetrical, that is, either of laurel or 

palm, but not a mixture of the two. 

From specimens examined, this meant superimposed on 

the intersection. 
NUMBER 30 101 

'"* See above, pp. 35-41. 

'""G.O. No. 9, H Q of A, 27 January 1882, RG 94, NA. 

""G.O. No. 79, H Q of A, 3 November 1883; G.O. No. 

30, H Q of A, 14 April 1884; both RG 94, NA. 

"'G.O. No. 77, H Q of A, 13 July 1885; G.O. No. 104, 

HQ of A, 3 October 1885; G.O. No. 6, HQ of A, 8 February 1888;allRG94 , NA. 

"'G.O. No. 48, H Q of A, 6 July 1887, RG 94, NA. The 

"Geneva'' cross is better known as the "Greek" cross, that 

is, a cross with arms of equal length. 

»"G.O. No. 3, H Q of A, 15 January 1889, RG 94, NA. 

U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1889, p. 314, describes 

the wreath to be worn with the crescent as like that worn 

by post quartermaster sergeants and hospital stewards, an 

obvious error as the former was to be of "dead or unburnished gilt metal" and the latter of "white metal." G.O. 

No. 3 clearly specifies the wreath to be of "unburnished 

gilt." 

'"G.O. No. 53, H Q of A, 23 May 1890, RG 94, NA. 

""G.O. No. 74, H Q of A, 20 August 1891, RG 94, NA. 

""Despite this, the statement of clothing and equipage 

on hand at the various depots in the ARQMG for 1902 lists 

"Forage Cap Crossed Arrows," but nowhere lists the authorized crossed arrow device for the campaign hat. Both 

this latter and a crossed arrow "Helmet Eagle Device, Indian 

Scouts'' are pictured in QM Specification 318, adopted 10 

March 1892. 

" ' The Secretary of War made this request in G.O. No. 6 

WD, 29 January 1875. The responses are in AG, LR, RG 

94, NA. 

"'Asst. Surg. G. M. Kober to Post Adj., Gamp McDermit, Nev., 25 March 1875; Capt. C. E. Morse, 6th Inf., to 

AG, 15 March 1875; Col. Clitz, 10th Inf., to AG, 5 March 

1875; all AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

'"United States Army and Navy Journal, 18 May 1895, 

p. 625. 

""Lt. Col. L. P. Bradley, 9th Inf., to AG, 14 March 

1875; Capt. C. Hale, 16th Inf., to AG, 12 March 1875; Col. 

Geo. Andrews, 25th Inf., to AG, 25 February 1875; all AG, 

LR, RG 94, NA; United States Army and Navy Journal, 

2 February 1895, p. 373. 

' " A Capt. Andrews to editor. United States Army and 

Navy Journal, 14 April 1894, p. 572. 

"^Ibid., 1877, p. 73. 

'"G.O. No. 76 WD, 29 July 1872, RG 94, NA. 

' " See above pp. 29-33. 

""For an excellent discussion of the hat in some depth, 

see HuTCHiNS, "The Army Campaign Hat of 1872," pp. 

65-73. 

""Meigs to Surgeon General, 24 April 1875, AG, LR, RG 

94, NA; Meigs to Sec. War, 5 May 1875, CCF (Proceedings), RG 92, NA; Meigs to Col. Rufus Ingalls, 7 April 

1875, CCF (Proceedings), RG 92, NA. 

"'Meigs to Sec. War, 5 May 1875, CCF (Proceedings), 

RG 92, NA. Although written nearly three years after the 

adoption of the hat, this is an extremely valuable document 

in that it is described by Meigs as "a brief relative to Campaign Hats" compiled for the Secretary of War at the time 

the 1872 model was under very heavy criticism. 

"* Although no authorization has been found for this particular noncontractual procurement, Meigs allowed small 

lots to be purchased without advertising for bids. See Meigs 

to Bent & Bush, Boston, 15 October 1873, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. For Easton's previous correspondence 

with Herst, see Herst to Easton, 5 August 1872, CCF 

(Uniforms); Keen ("per P. Herst") to Easton, 14 September 1872, CCF (Uniforms); both RG 92, NA. 

""Easton to Meigs, 16 September 1872, CCF (Uniforms), 

RG 92, NA. 

""Endorsement by Meigs, 17 September 1872, on Ibid. 

[note 329]. 

'"Contracts with P. Herst, Phila., 19 October 1872, 29 

November 1872, and 12 October 1874, in QM Contracts; 

Col. Robert Allen (for Meigs), to Easton, 5 November 1872, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing; all RG 92, NA. 

""G.O. No. 73 WD, 10 July 1872; G.O. No. 104 WD, 

3 December 1872; G.O. No. 131 WD, 3 December 1874; 

all RG 94, NA. 

""Bingham (for Meigs) to Easton, Phila., 4 December 

1872, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"" The term "campaign" first appears officially in G.O. 

No. 80 WD, 9 August 1872, RG 94, NA. 

""See notes 247, 248. 

"" Draft general order in note 247. 

" ' Copies of correspondence, with endorsements, relating 

to this controversy are in one file in CCF (Proceedings), 

RG 92, NA, together with the "brief" of the whole matter, 

dated 5 May 1875, prepared by Meigs for submission to the 

Secretary of War. See p. 56. Unless otherwise cited, all 

references are from these sources. 

""G.O. No. 6 WD, 29 January 1875, RG 94, NA. The 

Surgeon General's report was published by the U.S. SURGEON GENERAL, as Circular No. 8; Also in RG 94 and RG 

112, NA. 

'"These letters are in AG, LR, RG 94, NA. A large 

portion of them are currently filed with papers relating to 

the Army Equipment Board which met from 16 December 

1878 to 31 March 1879 with Col. Nelson Miles as chairman, 

microfile 7721, AGO 1878, rolls 435-443, RG 94, NA. 

"" See note 337. 

'"Th e Acring QMG (for Meigs) to AG, 2 October 1875, 

in CCF (Proceedings) RG 92, NA. The board was set up 

by S.O. No. 264 WD, 27 December 1875, RG 94, NA. This 

is the same board referred to on p. 36 and note 249. 

'"Ingalls (for Meigs) to Rucker, 17 January 1876, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"Ingalls (for Meigs) to Capt. J. G. C. Lee, recorder of 

the Board, 27 January 1876, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Record 

of LR by Board, CCF 1061A (Proceedings); both 92, NA. 

There is no record in OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing, of any 

answer prior to 1 January 1877. 

'"Th e MS report is in CCF (Proceedings), RG 92, NA. 

""Meigs to Rucker Board, 11 May 1876, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing: Rucker to Meigs with endorsements and enclosures, 9 June 1876, CCF (Proceedings); both RG 92, NA. 

""Meigs to Rucker, 20 June 1876, OQMG, LS, Clothing, 

RG 92, NA; G.O. No. 107 WD, 31 October 1876, RG 94, 

NA. 

'"Meigs to Lt. Chas. Cresson, AAQM, St. Louis Barracks, Mo., 14 September 1876; endorsement on Itr. Chief 
102 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

QM, Dept. of Ariz, to Chief QM, Mil. Division of Pacific, 

31 October 1876; Meigs to Chief QM, Mil. Div. of Mo., 31 

October 1876; Meigs to Rucker, 7 April 1877; Meigs to 

Chief QM, Mil. Div. of Pacific, 2 June 1877; all OQMG, 

LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"' AAG, Dept. of the Platte, to CO Ft. Sanders, Wyo., 5 

October 1878, Ft. Sanders Document File, RG 393, Continental Commands, NA. 

""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1879, p. 64. A 

total of 3913 were so altered under contract at $.15 each. 

See Entry for 14 July 1880 in List of Contracts for the Purchase or Manufacture of Clothing and Equipage, 1880-

1908, RG92, NA. 

''^ Bingham, Deputy QMG, to Rucker, Phila., 25 September 1879; telegram, Meigs to Rucker, 26 February 1881; 

both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. Francis Bannerman's 1907 catalog offered unaltered 1872 pattern hats 

for sale for $1.50. 

""'Col. Robert Allen, Act. QMG, to Col. Easton, Phila., 

5 November 1872, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Bingham (for 

Meigs) to Capt. G. C. Smith, AQM, Ft. Union, N.M. Terr., 

19 September 1874, OQMG, LS, Clothing, both RG 92, 

NA; G.O. No. 131 WD, 3 December 1874, RG 94, NA. 

""'Col. T. P. Andrews to Col. Henry Stanton, AQMG, 

10 March 1847, OQMG, LR, Clothing, RG 92, NA; 

HOWELL and KLOSTER, "United States Army Headgear to 

1854," pp. 54-67. 

^" See pp. 28—33; United States Army and Navy Journal, 

9 November 1867, 28 March 1868. 

""'Capt. J. W. Mason, 5th Cav., Camp Verde, Ariz. Terr., 

to AG, 12 March 1875; Col. C. H. Smith, 19th Inf., Ft. 

Lyon, Col. T., to AG, 10 March 1875; Surg. A. A. Snively, 

Madisonville, La., to AG, 11 March 1875; Lt. Col. Whistler, CO, Ft. Riley, Kan., to AG, 1 March 1875; Lt. Wm. 

Wallace, 6th Cav., Ft. Lyon, Col. T., to post AG, Ft. Lyon, 

5 March 1875; all AG, LR, RG 94, NA. These and many 

others were written in response to G.O. No. 6 WD, 29 

January 1875, which asked for comments on clothing and 

equipment, and which were digested in U.S. SURGEON GENERAL, Circular No. 8; also in RG 94 and RG 112, NA. 

"""On the cork helmet and the 1881 dress helmet, see 

pp. 62-76. 

"""Inspection Report dated 15 March 1882, in OQMG, 

LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"'Rogers to Depot QM, Phila., 29 April 1882, in CCF 

(Hats),RG92 , NA. 

'"'Ingalls to Sec. War, 8 July 1882; Ingalls to Holabird, 

Phila., 17 July 1882; both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, 

NA. 

'"" A number of these reports favoring the drab hat are in 

CCF (Hats), RG 92, NA. See also Brig. Gen. S. B. Holabird, the QMG (he succeeded Ingalls on 1 July 1882) to 

Col. M. T. Ludington, Phila., OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 

92, NA; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1883, p. 56; 

Holabird to Sec. War, 18 October 1883; Holabird to Ludington, Phila., 24 October 1883; both in OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1884, 

p. 311. 

'""Ibid., p. 371 and plate 4. 

'"'Ibid., pp. 336-7, 367; ibid., 1885, p. 282. 

'"'See QM Specification No. 1145, approved, 23 January 

1912, RG92 , NA. 

'"'QM Specification No. 251, 8 February 1889, RG 92, 

NA. This design is a star on all examples known to the 

author and is so called for in QM Specification No. 651, 29 

January 1904. 

""'QM Specification Nos. 365, 1 May 1875, and 426, U 

March 1897; both RG 92, NA. 

'""QMG to Phila., 22 June, 24 July, 12 September, 1899, 

all Phila. Reg. LR, RG 94, NA; QM Specification No. 480, 

29 September 1899, RG 92, NA. 

'""Horstmann & Co. to Phila. Depot, 13 December 1900; 

QMG to Phila. Depot, 24 December 1900; both Phila. Depot Reg. LR; QM Specification No. 533, 27 December 

1900; all RG 92, NA; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 

1901. 

'"'QM Specification No. 651, 29 January 1904, RG 92, 

NA. 

'"'See U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1876-1898. 

'""Decision of the Secretary of War, 25 February 1887, 

Cir. No. 2, H Q of A, 1887, RG 94, NA. As of 30 June 

1887 there were 32,855 hat cords on hand. See U.S. WAR 

DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1888. 

""For example, in 1899, 363,121 were purchased and 

88, 746 were issued. See ibid., 1900. 

'"Q M Specification No. 470, 13 July 1899, RG 92, NA. 

"'Q M Specification No. 476, 12 September 1899, RG 92, 

NA. 

'"Q M Specification No. 589, 17 November 1902, RG 92, 

NA. U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1899, p. 97. 

' " Ibid. 

"" Those officers continued to wear the chapeau for dress. 

"" Several British mounted units had adopted a version of 

the helmet as early as 1843, some infantry units in 1876, 

with general issue to the whole British army authorized by 

War Office G.O. No. 40 of May 1878. See Home Service 

Helmet 1878-1914, p. 3. 

' " S.O. HQ of A, 11 November 1878, RG 94, NA. 

"" The proceedings of the board with many of the backing 

papers are in AG, LR, MC 666, rolls 435-443, RG 94, NA. 

The report of the board with comments thereon by the Chief 

of Ordnance, The Quartermaster General, and the General 

of the Army, together with the decisions of the Secretary of 

War was published as G.O. No. 76, H Q of A, 23 July 1879. 

General of the Army Sherman very definitely thought the 

board had overstepped itself in its wide coverage. See page 

40 of the report, RG 94, NA. 

"'"Col. R. S. Mackensie (for Miles) to AG, 16 December 

1878; Miles to AG, 17 December 1878; both AG, LR, RG 

94, NA. 

""Circular, HQ of A, 28 December 1878, RG 94, NA. 

Only a portion of the replies seem to have been included in 

the board proceedings. 

'"Capt. Fred Mears, 9th Inf., to Recorder of Board on 

Army Equipment, 23 February 1879, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

' " Allien was the manufacturer of the "White India Helmet" authorized for USMA Cadets in 1877 (see G.O. No. 

121, HQ of A, 22 December 1877) and the somewhat similar experimental summer helmets issued to elements of the 

9th Cavalry and the United States Artillery School at Fort 
NUMBER 30 103 

Monroe, Va., in 1878. On these, see 7th Endorsement, 21 

March 1878, to Itr Capt. A. E. Hooker to AG, 26 January 

1878; AG to C. O. Arty School, 14 June 1878; Lt. Chase, 

3d Arty, to Maj. J. P. Sanger (recorder of the Miles Board) 

22 March 1879; Gen. J. M. Schofield, West Point, to Meigs, 

6 April 1878; all AG, LR, RG 94, NA. The watercolors are 

signed "F.L.M.[?] Eng. Dept., Cooper Institute, N. Y." and 

are in AG, LR, RG 94, NA. A search of the files of the 

Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design, the 

descendent organization, revealed no further information on 

these paintings. For payment to Allien for the helmets and 

paintings, see Meigs to Rucker, Phila., 17 May 1879, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

""'MSK Rogers to Col. Miles, 27 March 1879, AG, LR, 

RG 94, NA. 

'"Capt. J. P. Sanger to Meigs, 6 May 1879, AG, LR, 

RG 94, NA. 

""MSK Rogers to Col. Miles, 27 March 1879, AG, LR, 

RG 94, NA. The notes by Horstmann were appended to 

the above. 

'"" See CARMAN, Head Dresses of the British Army— 

Cavalry, esp. the numerous plates. Oddly enough, the Home 

Service Helmet adopted in 1878 for the entire British Army 

had side buttons of a "rose" pattern. See Home Service 

Helmet 1878-1914, p. 3. 

'''Meigs to MSK Rogers, 9 May 1879, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

"^ Meigs to Rucker, QM at Phila., 17 May 1879, OQMG, 

LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

""»Meigs to Sherman, 18 July 1879; Meigs to Rucker, 24 

July 1879; both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'""Sherman to Sec. War, 15 July 1879 with endorsement 

by Sec. War, 19 July 1879, AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

""This represented some 27 percent of the officers of the 

regular establishment at the time. See U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Annual Report of the Adjutant General, 1880. 

' " It was printed in full with considerable comment in the 

United States Army and Navy Journal, 20 November 1880, 

p. 314. 

'"AG to Meigs, 16 November 1880, OQMG, Reg. LR, 

Clothing; Holabird (for Meigs) to Richer, Phila., 18 November 1880, OQMG, LS, Clothing; both RG 92, NA; U.S. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1881, pp. 72-3. 

'"'Rucker, Phila., to Meigs, 22 November 1880, OQMG, 

Reg. LR, Clothing; AG to Meigs, 2 December 1880, 

OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing; telegram Meigs to Rogers 3 

December 1880, OQMG, LS, Clothing; telegram Rogers to 

Meigs, 3 December 1880, LS, MSK, Phila.; all RG 92, NA. 

'""Rogers to Alfien & Co., 3 December 1880, LS, MSK, 

Phila., RG 92, NA. Allien & Co. had been paid for the 

blocks and dies, as well as the Miles Board samples. See 

Rogers to Rucker, Phila., 20 November 1880, LS, MSK, 

Phila., RG 92, NA. 

'""Meigs to Sherman, 8 December 1880, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"'Sherman to Meigs, 13 December 1880, OQMG, Reg. 

LR, RG 92, NA. 

"'Telegram Meigs to Rogers, 9 December 1880, OQMG, 

LS, Clothing; telegram Rogers to Meigs, 9 December 1880, 

LS, MSK, Phila.; both RG 92, NA. 

"""Rogers to Meigs, 16 December 1880, LS, MSK, Phila.; 

Meigs to Rucker, Phila., 28 December 1880, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing; both RG 92, NA. 

'"" In RG 94, NA. 

'"' Meigs to Supervising Architect of the Treasury, 6 

January 1881, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. For distribution of the photos, see OQMG, LS, Clothing for January and February 1881 in RG 92, NA. The photographs 

are in Audiovisual Branch, NA. 

'"= Meigs to Rucker, Phila., 9 January 1881, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"'Rogers to Meigs, 14 January 1881, OQMG, Reg. LR, 

Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"'Meigs to Rogers, 17 January 1881, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"" Unfortunately, the actual photograph of this enlisted 

model has not been found. See United States Army and 

Navy Journal, 22 January 1881, for a front view of Figure 

466. 

'""There were two similar but distinct patterns of the 

"tiger head," one on the specimens in the quartermaster 

photographs and the other on the Kilpatrick sunmier helmet 

(Figure 51). 

'"' See note 399. 

'"" See Figure 46a, c. 

'""Rogers to Meigs, 25 January 1881 (two letters), LS, 

MSK and QM, Phila., RG 92, NA. 

""Rogers to Horstmann, 26 January 1881, LS, MSK and 

QM, Phila.; Rogers to Meigs, 16 February 1881, LS, MSK 

and QM, Phila.; Rogers to Hartley & Graham, 7 February 

1881, LS, MSK and QM, Phila.; Meigs to Rogers, 18 February 1881, LS, OQMG, Clothing; Meigs to Rucker, 19 

February 1881, LS, Clothing; Rogers to Meigs, 8 March 

1881, OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing; Meigs to Gen. of Army, 

8 March 1881, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Hq of Army to Meigs, 

8 March 1881, OQMG, Reg. LR, Clothing; Rogers to 

Rucker, Phila., 24 March 1881, LS, MSK and QM, Phila., 

all RG 92, NA. 

'"Rogers to Rucker, 11 March 1881, LS, MSK and QM, 

Phila., RG 92, NA. 

"'See Meigs to Maj. R. Batchelder, San Francisco, 12 

March 1881, OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA. 

'"Rucker, Phila., to Meigs, 16 March 1881, OQMG, 

Reg. LR, Clothing; Meigs to Gen. of Army, 23 March 

1881, OQMG, LS, Clothing; Gen. Holabird to Col. Ekin, 

25 March 1881, LS, OQMG, Clothing; all RG 92, NA. 

' " RG 92, NA. 

'"RG92 , NA. 

' " See QM Specification No. 318, adopted 10 March 1892, 

RG 92, NA. 

'"A G to Lt. J. S. Bishop, 15th Inf., 25 March 1881, 

quoted in United States Army and Navy Journal, 26 March 

1881, p. 706. 

'"U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1881, p. 73. See 

also Rucker to Meigs, 26 March 1881, OQMG, Reg. LR, 

Clothing; Meigs to Rogers, 29 March 1881, OQMG, LS, 

Clothing; both RG 92, NA. "Phototype" was the commercial 

term for the products of the photomechanical process technically known as "collotype." These "phototypes" were of 

exceptional quality. See Figures 48, 49. 
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 the 

necessary dies and cutters. See contract with Horstmann 

dated 5 May 1881 in Branch E, Regular SuppHes, RG 92, 

NA. There were of necessity four separate dies for the front 

plates, i.e., one for infantry, artillery, cavalry, and staff. 

Comparison of a number of these plates shows a few minor 

variations between the four in the basic design. 

'"Contracts with Raymold and Whidock, 1 July 1882 

and 4 June 1883, both in Exec. Doc. No. 83, Senate, 49th 

Congress, 1st Session. CHAPPELLE, in his monograph "Brass 

Spikes & Horsehair Plumes" (p. 31), states that the earlier 

1881 pattern helmets, especially those of the 1882 and 

1883 contracts, "were blocked in much the same style as 

the model 1872 helmet." This is incorrect. This author has 

carefully examined 28 1881 enlisted models with contract 

dates 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 shown 

with 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 is 

in the personal collection of Gordon Chappelle. 

' " Information received from Dr. Byron Fairchild, Department of State, 13 March 1972 and in HEITMAN, Historical Register, yo\. 1. 

"^ There is an extant photograph of Kilpatrick's bier in 

Valpariso surmounted by what appears to be a U.S. Army 

general officer's coat with elaborate nonregulation cuff and 

collar embroidery and this helmet. The matter of dress for 

diplomats was vague in this period, to say the least. Generally American diplomats wore what they wished, no matter 

what 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 to 

the customs of the foreign nation concerned. The Act of 

28 July 1866 (14 Stat 332) permitted a Civil War Union 

veteran to wear the uniform prescribed during the war, and 

a resolution of Congress in 1867 prohibited diplomats from 

wearing uniforms or official dress not previously authorized 

by Congress. Information from Department of State (Historical Dept.). 

""G.O. No. 67, HQ of A, 28 September 1886, RG 94, 

NA. 

' " U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Regulations for the Army of 

the 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. 

'"Fo r 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 somewhat uncertain. Written on the margin of the letter opposite the first mention of the helmet is the notation: 

"These samples were left at the QM Gnls. office in August 

1869 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. 

'"2 d and 3d Endorsements, 1 June 1875 and 26 June 

1875, to Ibid, [note 437]. 

"" Ingalls to Col. Robert Allen, San Francisco, 28 June 

1875; Col. Van Vliet, Phila., to QMG, 4 October 1875 and 

3d Endorsement; all in AG, LR, MC 666, roll 440, RG 

94, NA. 

"" There are a number of these comments appended to 

Lt. Col. C. A. Reynolds, Ft. Yuma, Cal. to Meigs, 30 June 

1877, 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. 

'"6t h Endorsement, 18 March 1878, to Hooker to AG, 

26 January 1878; Meigs to Lt. Duggan, 10th Inf., 16 October 1878, 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 to 

Major Dana, Phila., 6 May 1878, and 2d Endorsement; both 

AG, 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 somewhat more elaborate than, those for the original cadet 

model given in G.O. No. 121 WD. 

""Meigs to Rucker, 10 May 1878, AG, LR, MC 666, roll 

440, RG 94, NA. The maker is unknown. No contract for 

the order appears in executive documents. They apparently 

were bought on an open order in the interest of speed and 

in 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 received the chin chains and the brass spikes in 1881. On this, 

see TODD, Cadet Gray, p. 71. 

"'4t h 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 issues 

for FY 1879, in the latter citation, shows 251 cork helmets 

purchased and 250 issued (the extra one obviously being 

retained as a sample) the statement does not show that any 

chin chains and spikes were procured, although the metal 

fittings 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 the 

helmet to be issued the artillery school and were followed 

when the headpiece was approved for general issue. See 

Van 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. 
NUMBER 30 105 

""Endorsement, 24 May 1880, to above [note 452]; copy 

in OQMG, LS, Clothing, under that date. 

*"* Meigs to Rucker, 31 May 1880; Meigs to Rucker, 28 

May 1880; both OQMG, LS, Clothing, RG 92, NA; United 

States Army and Navy Journal, 19 June 1880, p. 951. 

'""RG 94, NA; Exec. Doc. No. 51, Senate, 47th Congress, 

1st Session; contract with Henry V. Allien, 29 May 1883, 

Exec. Doc. No. 83, Senate 49th Congress, 1st Session. 

'""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1883, p. 56; United 

States Army and Navy Journal, 1 July 1882, p. 1109; Ingalls to Phila. Depot, 17 April 1882, OQMG, LS, Clothing, 

RG 92, NA. 

'"' See QM Specification No. 330, 5 August 1892, RG 92, 

NA. 

'"'U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1899, p. 6; QM 

Specification No. 478, 23 September 1899, RG 92, NA. In 

this particular case there is a disparity between the contract 

dates stamped in the specimens examined and the adoption 

date of the specification, 4 March and 27 June 1899, and 

23 September 1899. Since the specimens conform very precisely to the specifications it is reasonable to infer that the 

specifications had been drawn up some months before actual 

printed publication, a circumstance which often occurred. 

'""QM Specification No. 500, 25 January 1900, RG 92, 

NA. 

'""RG94, NA. 

'"' HOWELL AND KLOSTER, "United States Army Headgear to 1854," p. 22 and notes. 

'"' On this particular, see Callendar Irvine to Sec. War, 25 

April 1825, Commissary General of Purchases, LS, RG 92, 

NA. For a description of the 1825 pattern, see HOWELL 

AND KLOSTER, "United States Army Headgear to 1854," 

pp. 22-25. 

' " Ibid., p. 38. 

'"* Ibid., pp. 40-53. 

'""Ibid., pp. 60-61. 

'""Jesup to Col. Thomas, Phila., 10 September 1858, 

OQMG, LS, Clothing, and numerous similar entries for 

1859; all RG 92, NA. Other protective clothing during 

these campaigns included buffalo overshoes, worsted throat 

mufflers, and buckskin mittens lined with flannel and made 

to come up over the coat cuff. 

'"'U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1865, pp. 65, 81. 

'"^ See pp. 28-35 above. 

'""On this, see U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1871, 

pp. 51, 55; ibid., 1872, p. 57; ibid., 1873, p. 65. Apparently the 304 fur caps were issued during fiscal year 1874 

as the inventories for that year omit any mention of them. 

""G.O. No. 39, H Q of A, 10 May 1876. The board was 

set up by S.O. No. 264, H Q of A, 27 December 1875; both 

RG 94, NA. 

'"Q M Specification No. 7, adopted 23 May 1876, RG 

92, NA. 

'"Q M Contracts, RG 92, NA; G.O. No. 107, H Q of A, 

31 October 1876; RG 94, NA. 

'"U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1877, p. 77. 

'"Ibid., 1877, p. 26; ibid., 1878, pp. 79, 83. 

"" Exec. Doc. No. 40, Senate, 45th Congress, 3d Session. 

""QM Specification No. 6, 12 March 1879, RG 92, NA. 

"'Fo r this see U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1878-

1884. 

'"Ibid., 1884, pp. 21, 382, 612. 

"" Ibid., p. 681 and plate 6. 

, ""Ibid., 1886, pp. 186-187; QM Specification No. 175, 

22 June 1886, RG 92, NA. 

'" G.O. No. 48, HQ of A, 6 July 1887, RG 94, NA; U.S. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1887, p. 213. 

'"Q M Specification No. 580, 25 August 1902, RG 92, 

NA. 

'^'Act of July 28, 1866, "An Act to Increase and Fix the 

Military Peace Establishment of the United States," section 

6. 

"'U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARSW, 1868, p. 731a. 

'""Register of Enhstment of Indian Scouts; G.O. No. 38, 

HQ of A, 28 March 1890; both RG 94, NA. 

""Casey to Sec. War, 3 June 1890, and endorsements, in 

AG, LR, RG 94, NA. The Secretary of War's approval was 

dated 19 July 1890. 

'"'QMG (thru Deputy QMG, Phila.) to QM Schuylkill 

Arsenal, 17 September 1890, LS, Deputy QMG, Phila.; 

QM, Schuylkill Arsenal to Deputy QMG, Phila., 29 September 1890, LR, Deputy QMG, Phila.; QMG, to Deputy 

QMG, Phila., 13 September 1890, Reg. LR, Deputy QMG, 

Phila., 13 September 1890, Reg. LR, Deputy QMG, Phila.; 

all RG 92, NA. As of June 1890, there were a total of 383 

scouts in the service, including 32 sergeants, and 26 corporals. U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1890, p. 69. 

"'Deputy QMG, Phila. to QM Schuylkill Arsenal, 29 

September 1890, LS, Deputy QMG, Phila., RG 92, NA. 

'""QMG to Deputy QMG, Phila., 21 November 1890, 

Reg. LR, Deputy QMG, Phila.; Deputy QMG, Phila., to 

QMG, 22 November 1890, LS, Deputy QMG, Phila.; both 

RG 92, NA. 

'""QMG to Deputy QMG, Phila., 22 November 1890, 

LR, Deputy QMG, Phila.; Abstract of Proposals "Clothing 

for Indian Scouts" opened 8 December 1890, LR, Deputy 

QMG, Phila.; (Horstmann was the sole bidder); Horstmann 

to Deputy QMG, Phila., 10 December 1890, LR, Deputy 

QMG, Phila.; both RG 92, NA. 

'"'G.O. No. 81, HQ of A, 17 July 1902, RG 94, NA. 

'"'QM Specification 318, adopted 10 March 1892; RG 

92, NA. Both the regulation and the specifications are very 

specific as to the crossed arrow badge being for the fatigue 

hat. 

'"'G.O. No. 31, HQ of A, 12 June 1855, RG 94, NA. For 

the chapeau 1800-1851, see HOWELL AND KLOSTER, "United 

States Army Headgear to 1854," pp. 1-8. 

'"'G.O. No. 3 WD, 24 March 1858; G.O. No. 27 WD, 22 

December 1859; both RG 94, NA. 

'"" On this, see Margerand, "Les Coiffeurs de I'armee 

frangais." 

'"" Illustrated Catalogue of Arms and Military Goods, p. 

48. A photograph of General Winfield Scott and his staff 

taken in Washington in 1861 show all holding chapeaux, 

but, with the excepdon of Scott's, the details are unclear. 

Scott is definitely holding the earlier high fan model. See 

MILLER, The Photographic History of the Civil War, vol. 1, 

p. 170. 

'"'G.O. No. 67 WD, 25 June 1873. This requirement was 

repeated in later general orders. 

^^^ Horstmann Bros. & Co., Illustrated Catalogue; U.S. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, Uniform of the Army of the United 
1 0 6 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

States 1882. 

'"" U.S. QUARTERMASTER GENERAL, Regulations for the 

Uniform of the Army; Illustrated Price List of Officers' Uniforms and Equipments; W. A. Raymold ., Revised List, 

No. 300, for 1897; U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, The Uniform of 

the Army of the United States, October 1, 1908, plate 20. 

""" U.S.WAR DEPARTMENT, Specifications for the Uniform 

of the United States Army, January 25, 1912, p. 10. 

"'"' For this latter chapeau, see HOWELL AND KLOSTER, 

"United States Army Headgear to 1854," pp. 5-7. 

""'Ibid., p. 5. 

""' On this, ibid., pp. 22-25, 40-53. 

-"' The British models are well illustrated by Roger Fenton's Crimean War photographs, in GERNSHEIM, Roger Fenton, Photographer of the Crimean War, plates 13, 39, 59, 

60. For the U. S. Navy model, see TILY, The Uniforms of 

the United States Navy, pp. 128-155. 

""" In addition to various editions of the United States 

Army and Navy Journal, for the period, see also Col. J. A. 

Hardie, the Inspector General, to General Townsend, the 

AG, 27 March 1871, AG, LR, RG 94, NA; U.S. WAR DE -

PARTMENT, ARQMG, 1884, 1890; Proceedings of Equipment 

Board, 1888-1894, entries for 23 and 26 December 1890, 

AG, LR, RG 94, NA. 

"""G.O. No. 18, HQ of A, 16 February 1889 described the 

cap in detail. See also U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Annual Report of the Chief Signal Officer, 1889. 

""' No specifications were published and there was no mention of the cap in the correspondence of the Quartermaster 

General during the period. The revocation was by G.O. No. 

74, HQ of A, 20 August 1891. 

"°" The authorization for the board plus its report are in 

the Office of the Secretary of War, LR, 12 March 1895, file 

no. 2138, RG 107, and OQMG, LR, 22 April 1897, file no. 

C.L./62931, RG 92; both NA. Approval of the change is 

in G.O. No. 22, H Q of A, 12 April 1895, RG 94, NA, and 

the official description in QM Specification No. 367, approved 5 September 1895, RG 92, NA. 

"""G.O. No. 22, H Q of A, 12 April 1895; G.O. No. 39, 

HQ of A, 21 June 1895; both RG 94, NA. 

"" RG 92, NA. 

""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1896, p. 5; the 

changes were described in QM Specification No. 417, 

adopted 22 October 1896, RG 92, and the new price set by 

G.O. No. 37 WD, 12 June 1897, RG 94; both NA. 

""U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, ARQMG, 1896, p. 5; ibid., 

1897, p. 25; QM Specificadon No. 419, adopted 13 January 1897, RG 92, NA. 

""QM Specification No. 419, adopted 13 January 1897, 

RG 92, NA. 

""G.O. No. 80, H Q of A, 24 April 1899; G.O. No. 19, 

HQ of A, 21 February 1901; both RG 94, NA. 

="G.O. No. 14, HQ of A, 12 February 1900, RG 94, NA. 

"'" U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT, Regulations and Decisions 

Pertaining to the Uniform of the Army of the United States, 

note on page 13. 

""Maj. J. R. Myrick to AG, 9 March 1896, and 5th and 

7th Endorsements dated 23 and 31 March 1896, AG, LR, 

RG 94, NA. 

""G.O. No. 39, H Q of A, 2 April 1900, RG 94, NA. 

"'" Those caps attributed to the regular army are either 

documented biographical specimens or are from the Quartermaster Museum at Schuylkill Arsenal in the War Department Collection. 

^'"' ARQMG, 1897, p. 25. See also, especially for the visor 

angles: Ridabock & Co. [Catalog], p. 28. 

"" United States Army and Navy Journal, 20 April 1895, 

p. 551. 

""Ibid., 20 July 1895, pp. 776, 779; 8 June 1895, p. 682; 

4 May 1895, p. 589; 20 April 1895, p. 557. 

"" Ibid., 22 June 1895, p. 708. 
References 

The bulk of the source material for this volume 

was found in the files of the several branches of 

the War Department that are on deposit in the 

National Archives, Washington, D. C. A majority 

of the material is in Record Group 92, Records of 

the Office of the Quartermaster General, which includes files of subordinate offices, particularly those 

of the Assistant Quartermaster General at Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Depot (also called 

the Schuylkill Arsenal), which was the largest 

single storage depot as well as the principal factory 

and procurement office for Army clothing. 

As changes in the Army uniform had to be approved first by the Commanding General and ultimately by the Secretary of War, records of both offices (Headquarters of the Army, Record Group 

108; Office of the Secretary of War, Record Group 

107) are of great value. 

Record Group 94, Records of the Adjutant General's Office, contains all the orders that formally 

authorized specific changes in uniforms and frequently contains the reports of boards convened to 

discuss such changes. The letters-sent volumes 

contain additional information on the decisions of 

the Secretary of War on interpretation of existing 

orders of matters not deemed worthy of a formal 

order. Officers often wrote directly to the War Department giving their individual opinions regarding items of the uniform, these communications 

moving through the Adjutant General's office or 

terminating there. 

Other record groups consulted were Record 

Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers; Record Group 98, Records of United States Army 

Commands; Record Group 112, Records of the 

Office of the Surgeon General, as the Medical Department constantly displayed an interest in the 

dress of the Army for reasons of health; and Record Group 159, Records of the Office of the Inspector General, for reports regarding suitability 

and durability of the uniform and general reaction to individual items. 

ADAMS, JAMES TRUSLOW, editor. Album of American History. 10 volumes. New York: Scribner, 1946. 

ALTICK, RICHARD DANIEL. Scholar Adventurers. New York: 

Macmillan, 1960. 

The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War. 

New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, 

1960. 

ASHBURN, P. M. A History of the Medical Department of 

the United States Army. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 

Company, 1929. 

BANDELL, EUGENE. Frontier Life in the Army, 1854-1861. 

Edited by Ralph P. Bilber. Glendale, California: The 

Arthur H. Clark Company, 1932. 

BARNES, ROBERT MONEY. A History of the Regiments & 

Uniforms of the British Army. London: Seeley Service & 

Co., Ltd., n.d. 

BILLINGS, JOH N D . Hardtack and Coffee, or the Unwritten 

Story of Army Life. Chicago, 1960. [Originally published 

by George M. Smith & Co., Boston, 1887.] 

BIRKHIMER, WILLIAM E . Historical Sketch of the Organization, Administration, Materiel and Tactics of the Artillery, 

United States Army. Washington: James J. Chapman, 

Agent, 1884. 

BRUCE, ROBERT V. Lincoln and the Tools of War. New 

York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956. 

CALLAN, JOHN F . The Military Laws of the United States, 

Relating to the Army, Volunteers, Militia, and to Bounty 

Lands and Pensions, from the Foundation of the Government to the Year 1863, To Which are Prefixed the Constitution of the United States, (With an Index Thereto,) 

and a Synopsis of the Military Legislation of Congress 

During the Revolutionary War. Philadelphia: George W. 

Childs, 1863. 

CAMPBELL, J. DUNCAN, and EDGAR M . HOWELL. "American MiHtary Insignia 1800-1851 (United States National Museum Bulletin, 235). Washington, D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 1963. 

CARMAN, W . Y. British Military Uniforms from Contemporary Pictures, Henry VII to the Present Day. London: 

Leonard Hill (Books), Ltd., 1957. 

. Head Dresses of the British Army—Cavalry. 

Privately printed, 1968. 

CHAPPELL, GORDON. "Brass Spikes & Horsehair Plumes.'' 

Arizona Pioneers Historical Society (Museum Monograph, 

4.) 

"Summer Helmets of the U.S. Army, 1875-1910." {Wyoming State Museum Monograph, 1.) Cheyenne; 1967. 

COGGINS, JACK. Arms and Equipment of the Civil War. 

New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1962. 

CUNLIFFE, MARCUS. Soldiers & Civilians, The Martial 

Spirit in America, 1775-1865. Boston: Little Brown and 

Co., 1968. 

DONALD, DAVID, editor. Divided We Fought. New York: 

The Macmillan Co., 1961. 

DuBois, JOHN VAN DEUSEN. Campaigns in the West, 

1856-1861. Edited by G. P. Hammond. Tucson: Arizona 

Pioneers Historical Society, 1949. 

DYER, FREDERICK H . A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion. 3 volumes. New York: Thomas Yoseloft, 1959. 

GERNSHEIM, HELMUT and ALISON. Roger Fenton, Photographer of the Crimean War. London: Seeker & Warburg, 

1954. 

107 
1 0 8 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Harpers Weekly; A Journal of Civilization. New York: 

Harpers & Brothers, 1857-1916. 

HEITMAN, FRANCIS BERNARD. Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army. 3 volumes. Washington, D.C : Government Printing Office, 1903. 

Home Service Helmet 1878-1914 with Regimental Plates. 

The Collectors Series, Distributed by Star Products, London N.W. 2 [n.d., no author.] 

Horstmann Bros. & Co., Illustrated Catalogue of Military, 

Society Regalia, Theatrical Goods, Flags, Banners, etc., 

etc., etc. Philadelphia: A. C Bryson & Co., Printers, 607 

Chestnut Street, 1877. [Reprinted as Horstmann Bros. & 

Co., Catalogue of Military Goods for 1877. Staten Island, 

N. Y.: Manor Publishing Co., 1972.] 

HOWELL, EDGAR M. , and DONALD E. KLOSTER. "United 

States Army Headgear to 1854, Catalogue of United 

States Army Uniforms in the Collections of the Smithsonian Institution, Volume 1." {United States National 

Museum Bulletin, 269). Washington, D.C . Smithsonian 

Institution Press, 1969. 

HuTCHiNS, JAMES S. "The Army Campaign Hat of 1872." 

Military Collector and Historian, volume 16, number 3 

(fall 1964), pp. 65-73. 

Illustrated Catalogue of Arms and Military Goods: Containing Regulations for the Uniform of the Army, Navy, Marine and Revenue Corps of the United States. New York: 

Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, Military Furnishers, 1864. 

[Facsimile Greenwich, Conn., 1961.] 

The Journal of the Society of Army Historical Research. 

London: 1921-1972. 

Journal of the United States Cavalry Association. Washington, D. C, 1888-1918. 

KENDALL, CAPT. H . F . "An Army Uniform." Journal of 

the United States Cavalry Association, volume 7 (June 

1894). 

KIP , LAWRENCE. Army Life on the Pacific: A Journal of 

the Expedition Against the Northern Indians, The Tribes 

of the Coeur d'Alenes, Spokans [sic] and Pelouzes in the 

Summer of 1858. New York: Redfield, 1859. 

KLOSTER, DONALD E. United States Army Uniforms to 

1854, Catalogue of United States Army Uniforms in the 

Collections of the Smithsonian Institution, III (in prep.). 

Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly Newspaper. New York: 

Frank Leslie, 1855-1922. 

LORD, FRANCIS A. Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia. Harrisburg. Pa.. The Stackpole Co., 1963. 

LOWE, PERCIVAL G. Five Years a Dragoon and Other Adventures on the Great Plains. Kansas City, Mo.. The 

Franklin Hudson Publishing Co., 1906. 

MADAUS, H . MICHAEL. "Notes on the Uniform of Berdan's 

Sharpshooters." Military Collector and Historian, volume 

8, number 2 (summer 1966), pp. 56-58. 

MALIBRAN, H . Guide a I'usage des artistes et des costumiers 

contenant la description des uniforms de I'armee francaise de 1780 a 1848. Paris: Combet & Cie, 1904. 

MARGERAND, J. "Les coiffures de I'armee francaise." Series 

appearing 1909-1924 in Revue Mensuelle Illustree (Paris). 

MCBARRON, H . CHARLES, and FREDERICK P. TODD. "U . S. 

Light Artillery Companies, Dress, 1857-1872." Military 

Collector and Historian, volimie 3, number 2 (June 

1951), pp. 39-41. 

Military Collector & Historian—Journal of the Company of 

Military Historians. Volumes 1-24 (1949-1972). 

MILLER, FRANCIS TREVELYAN, editor. The Photographic 

History of the Civil War. 10 volumes. New York: Review of Reviews, 1911. [Reprinted 10 volumes in 5, New 

York: Thomas Yoseloft, 1957.] 

MILLS, ANSON. My Story. Washington, D.C : Privately 

printed, 1918. 

PARKS, JOSEPH H . General Edmund Kirby Smith. Baton 

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1954. 

PELADEAU, MARIUS B. "U . S. Sharpshooter Hat Insignia." 

Military Collector and Historian, volume 19, number 3 

(fall 1962), pp. 92-94. 

PIETSCH, VON PAUL. Die Formation's und Uniformierungs 

—Geschichte des Preussischen Heeres 1808-1914. 2 volumes. Hamburg: Verlag Helmut Gerhard Schulz, 1963. 

Regulations for the Uniform and Dress of the Army of the 

United States, June 1851, from Original Text and Drawings in the War Department. Philadelphia: William H. 

Horstmann and Sons, 1851. 

Regulations For the Uniform of the United States Army, 

Navy, Marine Corps, and the Volunteer Militia of the 

Several States. Boston: Robert Weir, 1857. 

Report of the Secretary of War, Communicating the Report 

of Captain George B. McClellan, (First Regiment United 

States Cavalry) One of Officers Sent to the Seat of War 

in Europe 1855 and 1856. Executive Document No. 1, 

Senate, Special Session. Washington, D.C . A. O. P. 

Nicholson, Printer, 1857. 

Ridabock & Co. [Catalogl, Formerly Baker and McKenney, 

Manufacturers and Importers of the Finest Quality of 

United States Army and National Guard Officers Uniforms and Equipments, No. 112 Fourth Ave. (2 doors 

below 12th St.) New York: Copyright, 1902. 

RISCH, ERNA. Quartermaster Support of the Army: A History of the Corps 1755-1939. Washington, D. C : Government Printing Office, 1962. 

SPAULDING, OLIVER LYMAN. The United States Army in 

War and Peace. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1937. 

STEVENS, C A. Berdan's U.S. Sharpshooters in the Army 

of the Potomac. St. Paul: Price-McGill Co., 1892. 

TILY, JAMES C The Uniforms of the United States Navy. 

New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1964. 

TODD, FREDERICK P. Cadet Gray: A Pictorial History of 

Life at West Point As Seen through Its Uniforms. New 

York: SterHng PubHshing Co., 1955. 

Uniform Regulations for the Army of the United States, 

1861, Illustrated with Contemporary Official War Department Photographs. Publication 4467. Washington, 

D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 1961. 

United States Army and Navy Journal. New York and 

Washington, 1863-1921. 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (Department of Defense). 

ROTC Manual No. 145-20 (17 July 1959): American 

Military History, 1607-1958. Washington, D.C . Government Printing Office, 1959. 

. Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 355-
M MBIiR 30 109 

10, No. 355-10, 19 September 1947. Washington, D.C . 

Government Printing Office, 1957. 

Quartermaster Manual, 1865. Unpublished manuscript. 

Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, National Archives and Records Service, Washington, D. C 

U. S. QUARTERMASTER GENERAL. Regulations for the Uniform of the Army of the United States, with Illustrations. 

Compiled by Direction of the Secretary of War under the 

Supervision of the Quartermaster General and Inspector 

General. Baltimore: Quartermaster General, Philadelphia 

Depot of the Quartermaster's Department, Isaac Friedenwald. Lithographer & Printer, May 1888. 

U.S. QUARTERMASTER'S DEPARTMENT. Standard Helmets 

and Trimmings, 1881. 

U. S. SURGEON GENERAL. Circular No. 8: A Report on the 

Hygiene of the United States Army with Descriptions of 

Military Posts. Washington: War Department Surgeon 

General's Office, 1 May 1875. [Also in Record Groups 

94 and 112, National Archives, Washington, D.C ] 

U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT. Annual Report of the Adjutant 

General, 1880. Washington, D.C : Government Printing 

Office, 1880. 

—-. Annual Report of the Chief Signal Officer, 

1889. Washington, D.C : Government Printing Office, 

1889. 

. Annual Report of the Quartermaster-General 

to the Secretary of War for the Fiscal Year Ending [various years 1865-1902]. Washington, D.C : Government 

Printing Office, various years 1865-1902. [Referred to in 

"Notes" as ARQMG.] 

Annual Report of the Secretary of War [various years 1800-1902]. Washington, D. C : Government 

Prindng Office. [Referred to in "Notes" as ARSW.] 

The Centennial of the United States Military 

Academy at West Point, New York. 2 volumes. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1904. 

General Regulations for the Army of the 

United States, 1847. Washington: Printed by J. and G. S. 

Gideon, 1847. 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, 

Stations of Engineer Units Regular Army, 1846-1937. 

(Number 70 in Occasional Papers, The Engineer School, 

United States Army, June 1938.) Washington, D.C : 

Government Printing Office, 1938. 

Official Army Register for 1856. Adjutant General's Office, Washington, D.C : Public Printer, 1 January 1856. 

-. Official Army Register for 1859. Adjutant General's Office, Washington, D.C : Public Printer, 1 January 1859. 

. Regulations for the Uniform and Dress of the 

Army of the United States, July 1872, from the Original 

Text and Drawings in the War Department. Washington, 

D.C : Government Printing Office, 1872. 

-. Regulations for the Army of the United 

States, 1889. Washington, D.C : Government Printing 

Office, 1889. 

Regulations and Decisions Pertaining to the 

Uniform of the Army of the United States. Washington, 

D.C : Government Printing Office, 1898. 

Revised Regulations for the Army of the 

United States, 1861 with a full index. Philadelphia: J. B. 

Lippincott & Co., Publishers, 1862. 

Office of the Quartermaster General, Specifications for the Uniform of the United States Army, January 25, 1912. Washington, D.C : Government Printing 

Office, 1912. 

Uniform of the Army of the United States 

1882, Prepared under Instructions from the Quartermaster General. Thomas Hunter, Lithographer, Philadelphia. 

The Uniform of the Army of the United 

States, October 1, 1908, Compiled by the Authority of 

the Secretary of War under the Supervision of Brigadier 

General J. B. Aleshire, Quartermaster General. U. S. A. 

[No publisher.] 

The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of 

the Official Records of the Union and Confederate 

Armies. 130 Volumes. Washington, D.C . Government 

Printing Office, 1880-1901. 

UTLEY, ROBERT M . Frontiersmen in Blue: The United 

States Army and the Indian, 1848-1865. New York: The 

Macmillan Co., 1967. 

VIELE, MRS . TERESA. Following the Drum: A Glimpse of 

Frontier Life. New York: Rudd & Carieton, 1858. 

W. A. Raymold . Illustrated Price List of Officers' Uniforms and Equipments in Accordance with U. S. Army 

Regulations . . . Revised, List, No. 300, for 1897. New 

York: W. A. Raymold, 1897. 

WIKE, JOHN W . "The Wearing of Army Corps and Division Insignia in the Union Army, 1862-1865." Military 

Collector and Historian, volume 4, number 2 (June 1952). 

WOODHULL, ALFRED ALEXANDER. A Medical Report upon 

the Uniform and Clothing of the Soldiers of the U. S. 

Army. Washington, D.C : Surgeon General's Office, 

1868. [Referred to throughout the text as the "Woodhull 

Report." The printed report is in OQMG, CCF, box 

1171 (Uniforms), RG 92, NA.] 

YOUNGBERG, FIRST LT. G. A. History of Engineer Troops 

in the United States Army 1775-1901. Washington, 

D.C : Press of the Engineer School, 1910. 

•d U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975 O 576-12 3 

SERIA L PUBLICATION S OF TH E SMITHSONIA N INSTITUTIO N 

The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed 

by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry articulated a program that included the following statement: 

"It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries 

in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge." 

This keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance 

of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing 

with the following active series: 

Smithsonian Annals of Flight 

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 

Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics 

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany 

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology 

In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing 

with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of professional colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired 

facts, synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These 

publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other interested institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be 

obtained from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available. 

S. DILLON RIPLEY 

Secretary 

Smithsonian Institution