Belts--- color?

[Robert Braun]

Recent readings regarding the color of accouterment belts-- either white buff or black bridle leather-- for cartridge box belts and bayonet belts has caused me to AGAIN resurface this issue.

Did militia volunteers armed with U. S. Muskets wear black or buff belts?


GIVEN:
1. The U. S. Army's preference was for buff leather belts. Contractors were able to keep with demand prior to the War of 1812 and into the first year or so.

2. As demand for troops increased, so too did demand for accouterments and hence accouterment straps. Manufacturing of buff leather was a lengthy time-consuming process, so procurement of accouterment switched from buff to black belts.

3. The Regular Army issued such black belts in quantity. For example, most if not all of the Regular regiments in Brig. Gen. Winfield Scott's brigade was equipped with black belts by Spring, 1814.

4. The Regular Army still retained significant quantities of black belts at the end of the war. U. S. Regulars landing in present-day Wisconsin to establish Fort Crawfort in 1816 were recorded wearing black accouterment belts.

5. By 1818, Army correspondence begins to show a preference for, and a return to, buff belts for the Regulars.

Apparently, after the War of 1812, the Federal Government through the U. S. Army Bureau of Ordnance shipped off surplus equipage to the states for their militias. States like Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri received shipments of belts, boxes, and cavalry goods. A resonable presumptions would be that the bulk of these accouterment were fitted with wartime black belts. Interestingly, the Michigan Territory and Illinois are NOT mentioned in this listing.

So the question remains: black or buff? And why?

Regards. Bob.

[Greg Carter]

Bob,

you raise an interesting point, for certain. The question in my mind is this first, primarily because I have not read all correspondence relating to materials...

Is there any evidence at all pointing to the specific use of black or white items by militia?

I think that comparing other states in the same time period might be a mistake since none of them contributed seriously to the conflict. Of course, if equipments were issued from St. Louis, and black leather goods are known to have been distributed in Missouri... there is a possible connection there but not guaranteed.

I personally would believe that if the US Army was able to revert back to white equipments by 1818 or 1819 that there could be sufficient used items in white available by 1832. On the other hand, the older muskets being issued out instead of newer weapons (say the 1816) could point to an issue of 1812-era black goods?

Other thoughts?

GMC

[Robert Braun]

GMC... specific references to militia belt colors are rare birds. While we can delve into some of the accounts for the more prestiegous Eastern militia companies, I am not sure that their experience is necessarily applicable to the western states and territories.

My goal in looking at what other states received from the Federal government in terms of war surplus was to "rule out" stocks available to Illinois and the Michigan Territory. If Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee recieved stocks of war surplus accouterment for their respective state arsenals, what goods did Illinois receive? While it is clear that Illinois DID have stocks of weapons and accouterment available for issue, I do not think the same could be said for the M.T.

Therefore, searching the SOURCES of equipage may lend some insight into belt color. I think it is reasonable to presume that the subsequent shipments to Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, et al, was most probably black belting.

[Greg Carter]

Ok,

well, I am loathe to admit this, but don't know how to find sources of equipment. Can I get a tutorial of sorts or something? I assume that when the USG sells off something it must keep records someplace?

GMC

[Robert Braun]

I have some sources and leads we can consult.

Check with me off-board...

Bob

[Nick Hoffman]

Speaking of belt color...

Rene Chartrand's book, Uniforms and Equipment of the United States Forces in the War of 1812, cites a description of black leather belts in February 1812 (pg 103-104). Chartrand states, "The boxes and black belts were to be "similar to the pattern" and were to "be glazed".

Looking at a few of the surviving original cartridge boxes and bayonet belts shown throughout the book, there appears to be more than a simple dye on the leather. It also appears as if this is more than clay on the leather, which is commonly used on white leather to clean and preserve, as this leather looks polished. In the past when I have experimented with black ball it leaves a similar appearance to what the black War of 1812 belts appear like. However I think it is too quick to assume that black ball is what is being used in this case as well in mass production for the conflict.

Does anyone have more information on what the black "glossed" coloring might be and if it is something other than black ball, are there directions available for reproducing this method?

Thanks,
Nick Hoffman

[pshrake]

I do not know if this would be relevant but I do have a book THE UNITED STATES RECIEPT BOOK OR COMPLETE BOOK OF REFERENCE FOR THE MANUFACTURER, TRADESMAN, AGRICULTURIST OR HOUSEKEEPER dated 1849 which has the following recepiet

"Black Japan for Leather"

1gallon of boiled oil
5 ounces of burnt umber
5 ounces of asphaltum
1 pound of lamp black

thin with spirits of turpentine


It also has two recepiets for black ball

Pete Shrake

[Rusty Ayers]

That sounds almost identical to the period descriptions for Japanning tinware. A belt coated with an asphaltum compound would look quite different (more "glazed" looking?) than one coated with blackball. I made blackball back in my Rev War days and the appearance of black-balled belts was similar to modern-day shoe polish.

[Greg Carter]

A thought on the 1808 pattern belt and plate, I am aware of at least one that was used by a Confederate soldier and found in Virginia, showing their widespread distribution and longevity of use or re-appearance. It was etched "CS" crudely by hand on the face. It can be seen in Steve Mullinax' book on CS belt buckles and plates.

GMC

[Nick Hoffman]

Thanks for the information.

Also, on the RevWarProgressive Egroup they have photos of an original white US bayonet belt circa 1820. Two photos are shown, one of which has great close up detail. The caption that the poster placed with the photos states that the belt has pipe clay only on the side facing out. That obviously makes sense, as pipe clay can be a bit messy and would dirty uniforms much faster than they needed to be.

Thanks,
Nick Hoffman

[pshrake]

Hi Nick,

Do you by chance have a web address for your Rev War Egroup?

Pete Shrake

[Nick Hoffman]

Pete,

Here's the link to RevWarProgressive:

groups.yahoo.com/group/RWProgressive/

The images are in a file in the photo category marked "Buff Leather items".

Later,
Nick Hoffman

[Greg Carter]

reverting the subject a bit here, the Volunteer Rangers of Knox County, IL, and the Rock River Rangers of what is now Rock Island County were issued equipments directly from the supply closet at Fort Armstrong. Given the high probability that these were discarded uniform items that may have been as recently discarded as the uniform change of 1828 (belt plates), I suspect the accouterment belts for muskets were most likely white, not black.

GMC

[Robert Braun]

Interesting observation.

The same could be said of war equipage shipped to Fort Jackson from St. Louis via Fort Crawford for use by militia units at the various forts and strongholds in the Michigan Territory. These materials came directly from Federal sources, suggesting that accouterment belts were white.

In contrast, several states (Illinois not being on the list) recieved overage accouterment for their respecitve militias from the U. S. Army that certainly dated from the War of 1812. The chances are good that these accouterment belts were black.

Bob.