The Project Gutenberg eBook ofAmerican Military Insignia, 1800-1851

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofAmerican Military Insignia, 1800-1851This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: American Military Insignia, 1800-1851Author: J. Duncan CampbellRelease date: February 2, 2012 [eBook #38738]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Charlene Taylor, Joseph Cooper, Christine P.Travers and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AMERICAN MILITARY INSIGNIA, 1800-1851 ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: American Military Insignia, 1800-1851Author: J. Duncan CampbellRelease date: February 2, 2012 [eBook #38738]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Charlene Taylor, Joseph Cooper, Christine P.Travers and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net

Title: American Military Insignia, 1800-1851

Author: J. Duncan Campbell

Release date: February 2, 2012 [eBook #38738]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Charlene Taylor, Joseph Cooper, Christine P.Travers and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AMERICAN MILITARY INSIGNIA, 1800-1851 ***

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIONUNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM

BULLETIN 235WASHINGTON, D.C.1963

The scholarly publications of the United States National Museum include two series,Proceedings of the United States National MuseumandUnited States National Museum Bulletin.

In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of Anthropology, Biology, History, Geology, and Technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects.

TheProceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents in the volume.

In theBulletinseries, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects.Bulletinsare either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in theBulletinseries under the headingContributions from the United States National Herbarium.

This work is number 235 of theBulletinseries.

Frank A. TaylorDirector, United States National Museum

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C.—Price $2

Shoulder-belt plate of Vermont Militia, attributed to Ethan Allen, about 1785. In collection of Dr. John Lattimer.

MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY

J. Duncan Campbell and Edgar M. Howell

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C.1963

PagePrefaceixBibliographyxivIntroduction3Organization of the Regular Army3Organization of the Militia6Insignia of the Regular Army7Cap and Helmet Devices7Shoulder-Belt and Waist-Belt Plates31Insignia of the Uniformed Militia51Cap and Helmet Devices51Shoulder-Belt and Waist-Belt Plates88

This catalog is a descriptive and interpretive listing of the insignia of the Army of the United States—other than buttons, epaulets, and horse furniture—in the National Collections that were prescribed or worn during the period 1800-1851. The subject of early American military buttons has been covered by L. F. Emilio inThe Emilio Collection of Military Buttons(Salem, Massachusetts: Essex Institute, 1911), W. L. Calver and R. P. Bolton inHistory Written with Pick and Shovel(New York: New York Historical Society, 1950), and David F. Johnson inUniform Buttons, American Armed Forces, 1784-1948. (Watkins Glen, New York: Century House, 1948, 2 vols.). For epaulets, see Mendel L. Peterson, "American Army Epaulets, 1814-1872,"Military Collector and Historian(March 1961, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-14).

Most of the specimens described here are from the huge W. Stokes Kirk Collection acquired in 1959, supplemented by the War Department Collection and the numerous biographical collections of the United States National Museum; in addition, a few insignia in the collections of J. Duncan Campbell and others are included.

The unique W. Stokes Kirk Collection, unmatched in scope, volume, and rarity, is worthy of special note. It was begun in 1878 by W. Stokes Kirk, Sr., of Philadelphia, a dealer in U.S. Government surplus. Struck by the beautiful design and delicate art work in some of the early insignia, Mr. Kirk put aside all old and unusual devices for his personal collection. As his business expanded, so did his interest in military rarities and curios. After each bulk purchase from government sources, he would have all the odd and unusual items sorted out for his examination. The best of such items went into his personal collection, which included rare firearms, powder flasks, insignia, epaulets, military caps, and the like. W. Stokes Kirk, Jr., who succeeded his father and expanded the business nationally until it became almost as well known as Bannerman's Military Store in New York City, maintained and enlarged the collection. After his death, in 1946, the collection was continued by his widow, Mrs. Linnie A. Kirk Mosler. Items in this catalog from the W. Stokes Kirk Collection are indicated by the letters "S-K" in parentheses following the United States National Museum number.

Although this catalog is, in more than one sense, a developmental history of American military insignia, it is not, and is not intended to be, a definitive study. The picture is far too incomplete. Whereas the record of Regular Army devices after 1821 is fairly clear—despite the fact that the uniform regulations continued sometimes to use the tantalizing phrase "according to pattern"—there remain serious gaps in the pre-1821 period when regulations were exceedingly vague and fragmentary at best;for example, the badges of the Regiment of Light Artillery (1812-1821). These gaps will be filled only by excavating at sites known to have been occupied by specific Regular units during particular periods. Indeed, since this study was begun, four unique and significant insignia were excavated at the site of a War of 1812 cantonment, and these greatly enrich our knowledge of the period.

The record of insignia of the veritable multitude of independent uniformed Militia companies in existence during the period under consideration may never be complete. The selection presented here, however, is an excellent representative chronological cross section of typical designs and variations of insignia worn by the uniformed or "volunteer" Militia, as opposed to the "common" or "standing" Militia.

The best sources of documentation and dating for Regular Army devices are the uniform regulations and ordnance regulations; these are supplemented by pertinent records in the National Archives, notably the letter files of the Purveyor of Public Supplies and of the Commissary General of Purchases. The letter files are voluminous, but in some cases badly mixed and in many cases incomplete. We have conjectured a reason for this incompleteness. The two prime contractors for military insignia during the period 1812-1821 were George Armitage and William Crumpton, both of whom had their small factories in Philadelphia within a mile of the office of Callendar Irvine, Commissary General of Purchases. The paucity of written transactions in the records in the National Archives between these gentlemen and Irvine tends to bear out our assumption that most of their dealings were conducted verbally in Irvine's office. This would account for the lack of sketches and drawings of cap plates and belt plates in files of the National Archives. In cases where no specific documentary evidence is available, dating has been based on a careful evaluation of design development and comparison with biographical specimens that can be more fairly dated through knowledge of the former owner's career. Excavated insignia from datable sites have also reduced the problem considerably.

For Militia insignia worn about 1835, the best documentation is to be found inU.S. Military Magazine, published between 1839 and 1842 by Huddy and Duval of Philadelphia, and inNew York Military Magazine, published by Labree and Stockton of New York during 1841. In 1939, Frederick P. Todd described the Huddy and Duval prints in detail (Journal of the American Military Institute, 1939, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 166-176). However, evaluation and consideration of over-all design development and comparison with dated biographical specimens of the earlier period, before 1835, are difficult and must be done cautiously, as there is no orderly pattern. One generalization does seem clear: during the decade after 1821, when the Regulars discarded large cap plates, the Militia almost universally adopted them and continued to wear them well into the 1840's. Very few insignia include the maker's name or initials, but when they do, bracketing within a definite period is relatively easy. Similarly, when a cap plate appears to be original to a cap, the design of the cap and its maker's label, if included, are of great help. Finally, when there is nothing else to rely on, the "feel" of the specimen, gained through the experience of studying several thousand, has been used, although with reluctance.

The year 1800 was selected as the opening date of the study because it was in that year that the first metal ornament was prescribed to designate a particular branch of service. The closing date of 1851 was chosen because Regular Army devices for that year and thereafter are well documented in uniform regulations, manuals, and catalogs of manufacturers such as William Horstmann and Sons. Militia dress after that general date becomes so increasingly complex that it should be attempted only as a separate study.

Most of the specimens described in this study were struck from steel dies; however—despite the relative wealth of knowledge on the striking of coins—little is known of the exact process, especially prior to the appearance of the punch press in the 1830's. Several insignia dies dating as early as the War of 1812 period and a number dating in the 1840's do exist, however. All of these examined were found to be female dies, with the design in intaglio rather than in relief. The design was worked into the die—the art generally termed "die-sinking"—in the same basic manner as in coin dies. The die sinker first softened the steel to suit his particular taste and then incised the design, using a succession of small chisels. The steel was then retempered to withstand high impact pressures. Although there is no documentation on the subject, manufacturing techniques of the period indicate that the following process was probably employed: the die was locked in place at the base of a drop press, similar to a guillotine, so that it could be struck accurately from above; a piece of pure lead was then affixed to the bottom of the weighted drop and allowed to strike the die a sufficient number of times to completely receive the impression of the die and become, in effect, a male counterpart; lastly, a thin sheet of brass, copper, or pewter was placed on the female die and struck with the weighted lead male, receiving the desired impression but without the excessive stretching and resultant cracking that a steel-on-steel strike might have produced. Examination of finished products in the national collections bears out this theory of production; few if any of the specimens show evidence of having been struck with a steel male die.

With only a few exceptions, all specimens have been photographed on a 1-inch grid. All references to right and left are made according to heraldic usage; the heraldic right is always on the left as viewed.

During the months this work has been in progress, many people and institutions have generously assisted in many ways. It is a pleasure to thank them for their help.

Mr. Detmar Finke of the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, reviewed the Regular Army portions of the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions. Mr. Frederick P. Todd, director of The West Point Museum, graciously answered many questions relative to both Regular Army and Militia insignia. Through the courtesy of Mr. James Koping and Miss Elizabeth Ulrich of the Pennsylvania State Library, TheU.S. Military Magazineof Huddy and Duval was made available for unlimited use.

Thanks are also given to the following, who furnished photographs of specimens in their collections: Mr. Waverly P. Lewis, Devon, Connecticut; Mr. William E. Codd, Monkton, Maryland; The Filson Club, Louisville, Kentucky; The West Point Museum; The Fort Sill Museum; Old Fort Erie Museum, Ontario, Canada; The Niagara Historical Society Museum, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada; The Washington County Historical Society Museum, Fort Calhoun, Nebraska; the Valley Forge Chapel Museum, and Dr. John Lattimer, New York City.

Mr. Michael Arpad of Washington, D.C., was especially helpful in matters pertaining to the techniques of chasing and die sinking.

J. Duncan CampbellEdgar M. Howell

March 1, 1963.

The following works have been used in gathering the material for this book. They are frequently referred to in the text in shortened form.

In almost all armies it long has been standard practice to use distinctive devices of cloth and metal to distinguish between arms and services, and between individual units of each arm, to enhance morale and develop esprit de corps. Colors of units of the British Army have had ancient badges emblazoned on them since before the establishment of the present standing army in 1661. By the end of the first half of the 18th century some of these badges had been authorized for placement on horse furniture or for wear on grenadier caps. This was especially true of the regiments of horse and a few of the older regiments of foot. The infantry regiments received numerical designations in 1751, and these numbers were worn on waist belts, shoulder belts, and cartridge-box plates. When the infantry units acquired county titles in 1782, these names often were added to the plates. In 1767 regimental numbers were ordered placed on the buttons of officers and other ranks; in practice these numbers were often combined with other devices.[1]

In the American Army such devices have taken many forms, ranging from distinctive buttons, plumes, cockades, cap plates, shoulder-belt plates, and waist-belt and cartridge-box plates to the well-known shoulder sleeve insignia and distinctive unit insignia of the present day. The origin of much of this insignia and many of the changes in its design can be tied more or less directly to the organization of the Regular Army—its contractions and expansions and its changes in arm and service designations—and to the peculiar circumstances surrounding the origin and growth of the volunteer or uniformed Militia. Thus, a short discussion of the organization of each is in order.[2]

Two months after the War of the Revolution officially ended with the signing of a peace treaty on September 3, 1783, General Washington directed the Army to turn in its arms and disband.[3]Since the Continental Congress had made no provision for a permanent establishment, Washington retained in service one infantry regiment and a battalion of artillery to guard military stores and take over posts to be evacuated by the British.[4]Early in June 1784 Congress ordered these units disbanded except fordetachments to guard stores at Fort Pitt and West Point; then, in order to secure the frontier against Indian unrest, it immediately authorized a regiment to be raised from the militia of four of the States to comprise eight companies of infantry and two of artillery.[5]This unit, called the First American Regiment, gradually turned into a regular organization.

The failure of an expedition commanded by Col. Josiah Harmar of the First American Regiment against the Indians in 1790 awakened the Congress somewhat to the threat in the Northwest and resulted in the organization of another infantry regiment, which was designated the 2d Infantry Regiment; the First American Regiment was redesignated the "1st".[6]Trouble with the Indians continued, and after another severe reverse Congress authorized the raising of three additional infantry regiments and, at the same time, empowered the President to organize the Army as he might see fit.[7]

Under this discretionary power, the Army was reorganized into the Legion of the United States. This was a field army in which the three combat branches—infantry, cavalry, and artillery—were combined. The Legion was in turn broken down into four sublegions, with each containing infantry, cavalry, artillery, and riflemen; thus, the sublegions were the fore-runners of the modern combined arms team. The 1st and 2d Infantries became the 1st and 2d Sublegions. Of the three additional infantry regiments authorized, only two were organized, these becoming the 3d and 4th Sublegions.[8]Under the forceful leadership of Gen. Anthony Wayne the Legion reversed the record on the frontier and decisively defeated the Indians at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. The temporary peace which followed turned attention to the problem of protecting the Atlantic seaboard, and in 1794 Congress authorized a large increase in the artillery, assigned engineer officers, and designated the new organization the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers.[9]The Legion was continued until it was replaced in 1796 by the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th Infantry Regiments, which were constituted from the four sublegions, two troops of light dragoons, and the above-mentioned Corps.[10]

The threat of war with France in 1798 brought further expansions. In April of that year an "additional regiment" of artillerists and engineers was authorized, with the Corps created in 1794 becoming the 1st and the new unit being designated the 2d Regiment of Artillerists and Engineers.[11]In the following July, 12 more regiments of infantry and 6 troops of light dragoons—to be combined with the two troops in existence to form a regiment—were authorized; an additional 24 regiments of infantry, plus units of other arms, authorized the following winter made a total of 40 regiments of infantry.[12]Actually, the greatest part of this force remained on paper. Only the 1st and 2d Infantries ever attained their required strength, and only 3,400 men were enlisted for the 5th through the 16th. There were no enlistments at all for the other regiments. Officers were assigned to the six troops of light dragoons, but no enlisted personnel were raised and no horses were bought.[13]

More quickly than it had arisen, the threat of a war with France abated. Early in 1800 action was suspended under the two acts creating the paper regiments, and the Army was reduced to the regular establishment of four regiments of infantry, two regiments of artillerists and engineers, and two troops of light dragoons.[14]Two years later the antipathy of the new Jefferson administration to a standing army further reduced this establishment to two regiments of infantry and one of artillery. The Corps of Artillerists and Engineers was abolished; a Corps of Engineers was organized to be stationed at West Point and "constitute a military academy"; and the light dragoons were disbanded.[15]

The Jeffersonian theories regarding a strong militia and a small professional army were rudely shaken in 1807 by theChesapeake-Leopardaffair. With war seeming imminent, Congress added to the Regular Establishment, though cautiously "for a limited time," five regiments of infantry, one regiment of riflemen, one of light artillery, and one of light dragoons. The new regiments of infantry were numbered the 3d throughthe 7th.[16]There was no further preparation for a fight with England until just before war was actually declared. In January 1812, 10 regiments of infantry, two of artillery, and one regiment of light dragoons were added; three months later a Corps of Artificers was organized; and in June provision was made for eight more infantry regiments, making a total of 25.[17]In January 1813, following the discouragements of the early campaigns in the Northwest, Congress constituted 20 more infantry regiments, bringing the total to 45, the largest number in the Regular Establishment until the 20th century.[18]A year later three more regiments of riflemen, designated the 2d through the 4th, were formed.[19]

In March 1814 Congress reorganized both the artillery and the dragoons. The three artillery regiments, which had never operated as such, but rather by company or detachment, were consolidated into the Corps of Artillery; and the two regiments of dragoons, which had never been adequately trained and generally had given a poor account of themselves, were merged into one.[20]The Regiment of Light Artillery remained untouched.

Almost as soon as the war ended, Congress moved to reduce the Army[21]by limiting the peacetime establishment to 10,000 men, to be divided among infantry, artillery, and riflemen, plus the Corps of Engineers. The number of wartime infantry units was reduced to eight, and the rifle units to one. The Corps of Artillery and the Regiment of Light Artillery were retained, but dragoons were eliminated.[22]

By 1821 the prospects of a prolonged peace appeared so good that Congress felt safe in further reducing the Army. Consequently, in that year the number of infantry regiments was cut to seven; the Rifle Regiment was disbanded; the Corps of Artillery and the Regiment of Light Artillery were disbanded, with four artillery regiments being organized in their stead; and the Ordnance Department was merged with the artillery,[23]an arrangement that continued until 1832.

The opening of the West in the decades following the War of 1812 brought an important change in the organization of the Army. Experience having shown that infantry were at a distinct disadvantage when pitted against the fleetly mounted Indians, in 1832 a battalion of mounted rangers was organized to quell disturbances on the northwest frontier,[24]but this loosely knit force was replaced by a regiment of dragoons the following year.[25]The mounted arm had come to stay in the Army.

When the second Seminole War broke out in 1836, a second regiment of dragoons was organized.[26]And, as the war dragged through another inconclusive year, a reluctant Congress was forced to increase the size of existing line units and to authorize an additional regiment of infantry, the 8th. Meanwhile, increasing demands for surveying and mapping services resulted in the creation of the Corps of Topographical Engineers as a separate entity.[27]

Meanwhile, the responsibilities of the Army in the opening of the West continued to increase, and in 1846 the Regiment of Mounted Riflemen was organized to consolidate the northern route to the Pacific by establishing and manning a series of posts along the Oregon Trail.[28]However, the outbreak of the War with Mexico postponed this mission.

At the start of the War with Mexico Congress leaned heavily on volunteer units, with the hardcore of the Regulars remaining unchanged. But early in 1847 it was found necessary to add nine regiments of infantry and one regiment of dragoons.[29]Of the infantry unit's, eight were of the conventional type; the ninth was formed as the Regiment of Voltigeurs and Foot Riflemen. Theoretically, only half of this latter regiment was to be mounted. Each horseman was to be paired with a foot soldier who was to get up behind and ride double when speed was needed. In practice, however, none of the Voltigeurs were mounted; the entire unit fought as foot riflemen.[30]

All of these new units proved merely creatures of the war, and the coming of peace saw a reduction to the old establishment of eight regiments of infantry, four of artillery, two of dragoons, and one regiment of mounted riflemen.[31]This organization remained substantially unchanged until 1855.[32]

The "common" Militia was first established by the various colonies of all able-bodied men between roughly the ages of 16 and 60 for protection against Indian attack. These militiamen were required by law to be enrolled in the unit of their township or county, furnish their own arms and equipment, and appear periodically for training. They were civilian soldiers who had little or no taste for things military, as their performance in both peace and war almost invariably demonstrated. They were not uniformed and contributed little or nothing to the field of military dress.

The "volunteer" or "independent" Militia companies, on the other hand, were something else again. These units, composed of men who enjoyed military life, or rather certain aspects of it, appeared rather early in the Nation's history. The first of these, formed in 1638, was The Military Company of the Massachusetts, later and better known as the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. By 1750 there were a number of independent companies in existence—many of them chartered—and membership in them had become a recognized part of the social life of the larger urban centers.

The concept of volunteer Militia units was confirmed in the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, which prescribed flank companies of grenadiers, light infantry, or riflemen for the "common" Militia battalions and a company of artillery and a troop of horse for each division, to be formed of volunteers from the Militia at large and to be uniformed and equipped at the individual volunteer's expense. Thus, from within the national Militia structure emerged an elite corps of amateur—as opposed to civilian—soldiers who enjoyed military exercise, and the pomp and circumstance accompanying it, and who were willing to sacrifice both the time and the money necessary to enjoy it. Since the members were volunteers, they were ready to submit to discipline up to a point; they trained rather frequently; many of the officers made an effort to educate themselves militarily; they chose their own officers; and their relative permanency gave rise to an excellent esprit de corps. In actuality, these organizations became private military clubs, and differed from other male social and fraternal groups only in externals.

The great urban growth of the Nation during the period 1825-1860 was the golden age of the volunteer companies, and by 1845 these units had all but supplanted the common Militia. It would be difficult to even estimate the number of volunteer companies during this period. They sprang up almost everywhere, more in answer to a demand by the younger men of the Nation for a recreation that would meet a social and physical need and by emigrant minorities for a group expression than for reasons military. It was a "gay and gaudy" Militia, with each unit in its own distinctive and generally resplendent uniform. If the "Raleigh Cossacks," the "Hibernia Greens," the "Velvet Light Infantry Company," or the "Teutonic Rifles" were more "invincible in peace" than visible in war, they were a spectacular, colorful, and exciting integral of the social and military life of the first half of the 19th century.

Uniform regulations prior to 1821 were loosely and vaguely worded, and this was especially true in regard to officers' insignia. For example General Orders of March 30, 1800, stated: "... the swords of all officers, except the generals, to be attached by a white shoulder belt three inches wide, with an oval plate three inches by two and a half ornamented with an eagle."[33]In 1801 the 1st Infantry Regiment directed that "the sword ... for platoon officers ... be worn with a white belt over the coat with a breast plate such as have been by the Colonel established,"[34]and in 1810 a regulation stated that "those gentlemen who have white sword belts and plates [are] to consider them as uniform, but those not so provided will be permitted to wear their waist belts."[35]As a result, the officers generally wore what they wished, and there was a wide variation in design. Most officer insignia were the product of local jewelers and silversmiths, although some known specimens are obviously the work of master craftsmen. Quality varied as well as design, depending on the affluence of the officer concerned. Some of the plainer plates appear to have been made by rolling silver dollars into an oval shape.

In regard to enlisted men's insignia, only the descriptions of the 1800 dragoon helmet plate and the 1814 and 1817 riflemen's cap plates give us anything approaching a clear picture. "Oblong silver plates ... bearing the name of the corps and the number of the regiment" for the infantry in 1812, "plates in front" for the 1812 dragoons, and "gilt plate in front" for the 1812 light artillery are typical examples. As a result, the establishment of a proper chronology for these devices has depended on the careful consideration of specimens excavated at posts where specific units are known to have served at specific times, combined with research in pertinent records of the period in the National Archives.

USNM 66330-M (S-K 86). Figure 1.

Back to Index Next