Correct Accoutrements

[[e-mail]]

Does anyone have any verified information on the correct baldric plate for the US regulars of 1832? I have seen at least six different ones from the time period and do not know what one is right. Just curious.

[Robert Braun]

Greg... officially, the Army intended to migrate to the round eagle plate (called by some the "Pattern of 1833 Eagle Plate") made so popular in the Civil War. The firm of Robert Dingee first struck the plates for the Army circa 1827-8 in both brass for the Artillery, and semi-metal for the Infantry. This plate was meant to replace the brass Pattern of 1817 "U. S." plate.

Two problems erupted: one was that the numbers of plates struck by Dingee were small, and this made replacement of the current brass plates a problem. Worse, supply issues meant that a.) some regiments or companies didn't get the plate right away and b.) some of the Regulars didn't like the new plate in semi-metal.

The short answer appears to be that Regular Army units were supposed to either have, or be mirgating to, the round eagle plate... yellow brass for Artillery and white semi-metal for Infantry.  Eventually, the white semi-metal plate fell out of use, so that by the Mexican War, most, if not all, of the bayonet belt plates were of brass.

Interestingly enough, the Army--frugal by even contemporary standards-- dabbled in a production of pick and brush sets done up in white semi-metal, the color of the Infantry. Apparently matching colors appealed to the higher echelon. Anyway, the idea never really caught on, so by the time of the BHW it would appear that both Infantry and Artillery used brass-mounted pick and brush sets.

[Greg Carter]

Bob,

I have found some documentation on the baldric plates. It is reflective exactly of what you said. The company of the 5th US Infantry stationed at Ft. Snelling during the Sauk War was using the 1819 "US" oval brass plate. The company of the 5th who landed at Chicago with Winfield Scott were using the white metal round plate. Interesting, and certainly a vexing problem when assembling gear for a regulars impression, wouldn't you say?
GMC

[Robert Braun]

It just goes to show you that proper research is essential to approach the reality of one's impression.

It IS true that the Army was migrating away from the War of 1812-ish brass plates for their P. of 1808 bayonet belts and substituting plates of semi-metal. It is just as true that elements within the Army resisted the change... and less than ample supplies of the plates  played into the hands of the malcontents.

I know we started the militia impression with the assumption that the militia was issued U. S. Army accouterment (which in many cases was true) but the round eagle bayonet belt plate I was wearing in semi-metal was...in all probablility INCORRECT. So I switched base dupon the research to one of the older Army plates.

Continued research appears to support this change. And we appear to be closer to what the militia, and hence the Army, was actually wearing.

Great post.  Bob.

[Greg Carter]

Thanks for the compliment on the posting Bob. Here is another confusing piece- the 1825 Chako. (forage cap) I have read the regulations. The boys at Snelling wear a dark blue chako piped in white with 20 black spokes. The regulars down this way wear ones of the same description, with 10 white spokes. Now, I asked why Snelling used the black color. They said that they had seen an original with 20 spokes, but they actually couldn't tell what color they originally were (faded with age) and so they went with black. Before buying my copy of the hat I asked for a copy of the regulations from the Army MHI. Upon reading them, I discovered that the regulations not only do not mention spokes or spindles at all, but further do not indicate the correct number of them. Comparing reenactors, I have noticed that with the many ranks of the Cottonbalers, there seem to be a mix of both colors of spokes. Do you have any opinion on probabilities? Just curious. I went with Fort Snellings choice because they had at least a piece of tangible evidence.
GMC

[Robert Braun]

TheAlmanac said:

Here is another confusing piece- the 1825 Chako. (forage cap) I have read the regulations. The boys at Snelling wear a dark blue chako piped in white with 20 black spokes. The regulars down this way wear ones of the same description, with 10 white spokes. Now, I asked why Snelling used the black color. They said that they had seen an original with 20 spokes, but they actually couldn't tell what color they originally were (faded with age) and so they went with black. Before buying my copy of the hat I asked for a copy of the regulations from the Army MHI. Upon reading them, I discovered that the regulations not only do not mention spokes or spindles at all, but further do not indicate the correct number of them. Comparing reenactors, I have noticed that with the many ranks of the Cottonbalers, there seem to be a mix of both colors of spokes. Do you have any opinion on probabilities? Just curious. I went with Fort Snellings choice because they had at least a piece of tangible evidence.
GMC

Man... you got me. Once upone a time I had the photocopied section on the chako from Howell's book, but I'll be hanged if I can find it (it wasn'y in my Heritage Hill 1836 file when I did that in the EARLY 1990s.) Dang.

Until I can lcate Howell's book or my copy, the short answer is: follow Fort Snelling's advise. Tom Shaw is a good friend of mine and a careful researcher.

[Greg Carter]

Good advice bob. I was glad I did copy the one from Snelling. Jarnagin & Co. made it for me from the same patternt they use at Snelling. Nice piece of hand-sewn headgear for a good price too. I just wish it was good for militia, because it is a nice and comfortable hat. Oh well, I still like slouches too.  
GMC