|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Jul 7, 2002 21:53:33 GMT -5
A vexing question on haversacks for the Regulars impression. There are discrepancies as to the correct one to use. Several sources I have read indicate the use of a white cotton, canvas or linen bag with a scalloped flap suspended from the shoulder by a matching sling, closed by three pewter "dot" buttons, as was common during the War of 1812. I have also hear references to a white canvas or linen haversack of similar dimensions, only with a plain rounded flap and a black leather/buckle closure (similar to an 1858 US Haversack from the Civil War) as was used by numerous troops during the Mexican War. The quandary at hand is: "Which one is more right?" Although many pieces of equipment carry over from the War of 1812, including some muskets and rifles, canteens, knapsacks (the 1825 knapsack is little more in than a modified Lherbette Knapsack in reality) and some buttons, does this same logic apply to haversacks as well? It would strike me that the Regulars coming into the conflict from the East (Scott's contingent of the 5th) would have more modernized equipment, however I also stipulate that the posts on the outer rim such as Fort Snelling may not have had such adequate supplies. Although I do recall a posting concerning General Atkinson's request for materials for haversacks, the same request does not specify a type or style. Perhaps the ones in use by his command at the time were old or welll used and becoming threadbare? At the same time it could also be possible that his post did not use any (a noted tendency during garrison duty) for lack of need. Opinions?
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Jul 8, 2002 9:41:23 GMT -5
1. The haversack from the War of 1812 has not been deduced to my complete satisfaction. Based on antebellum haversacks seen in the Sturbridge Village collection and in the New York Historical Society (accepting the assumption that these haversacks mirrored U. S. Army convention at the time, I suggest that the haversack of the pre-Mexican War period did not have a scalloped closure flap. Rather, the flap was straight across, and closed with either two or three buttons; 2. I challenge the notion that raised dot buttons were used on American haversacks during the War of 1812; 3. There seems to be consensus that the haversack from the Mex. War period DID have a scalloped closure flap. Where this idea comes from (except from reenactor catalogs) is not clear to me. I have not heard of the buckle closure haversack which you describe for Mex. War. 4. General Atkinson's requision of May 30 requested 500 haversacks. These appear to be complete items; in that he did not request materials and "thread and needles to make it up" as he did for the wallets. The number of haversacks in the May 30 requisition seems to correlate with the number of regular infantry then in the field. Were these haversacks earmarked for the Regulars? Did the regulars march with haversacks when they left Fort Armstrong and other points? 5. Finally, I question the notion that just because Fort Snelling was located on the fringe of the then-frontier, that supply was a huge problemproblem. The fort was not constructed on the moon!  River access meant that supplies and materiel could easily be shipped up river from New Orleans, St. Louis, and points East. I'm not saying that materiel always arrived rapidly or in sufficient quantity. I suggest that issues of supply may have had more to do with the frugality of the U. S. Army at that time, and not just availability of supplies. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Jul 8, 2002 16:04:30 GMT -5
Bob,
I agree with your point on finding examples of scalloped flap haversacks only in Reenactor catalogs. I have, however, seen one example with the raised dot buttons in a book I have at home, in fact the same book that I used to base the cheesebox canteen ;D on when I had it reproduced. I will have a look at it and put it's description on here.
I also agree that Fort Snelling was not on the moon! My comment is only making suggestion that perhaps the troops stationed for long periods of time in a garrison where they had gardens and no immediate need to carry food around for any length of time may have let their simpler belongings (i.e. haversacks) perhaps fall into disrepair. I know this doesn't exactly jive well with the blackened boots, neck stock and pompon image people all have of the regulars, but I can't see any reason why else General Atkinson's men would have been without haversacks to begin with unless perhaps they were old or worn out and needed immediate replacement. I agree with you on the frugality concept as well.
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Jul 9, 2002 10:47:00 GMT -5
Almanac, I am familiar with the Osprey book to which you are referring. I know Phil Katcher (did some events with him in the early 1980s. In fact... I specifically recall one particulalrly poor CW event bannered at the "Battle of Monocacy" where about 8 million crap-clad rebs descended upon about 120 poorly led Federals. The public loved it, but it was a reenactor's nightmare.  Our group got seperated in the melee... and eventually congregated back at our fire pit. Phil strolled in, dropped his canteen and haversack, looked at the expressions of dismay on our faces and announced "Well... that sucked." It was perhaps the most profound pronouncement on an event that year) and have read several of the "Osprey" series books he has authored. I believe the illustration to which you are referring is a circa Mex. War haversack... on whcih the raised dot buttons generally would be appropriate. However... One caution! the books tend to be illustrated with a mix of actual relics and reenactor accuterment, gear, or whathaveyou. Some of Phil's reenactor stuff is pretty good; some of it is not. Nearly ALL of the reproduction stuff can be picked out as reproduction--despite the fact the the picture captions sometimes do not allude to the fact that what is pictured is not original gear. I THINK the scalloped haversack is one of these repop items. In contrast, the "U.S." cheesebox canteen gives every appearance of being an original. Bring your copy along on Friday for the trip to LNS, and we'll go over your observations and my thinking on antebellum haversacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Jul 9, 2002 18:36:38 GMT -5
Bob,
You do have a good point about the use of reproduction stuff in the various Osprey books. I have noticed that myself. I will bring it along though. Now that I think of it, the specimin they have in the book does seem a bit too white for an original. That's pretty funny about the whole Monocacy scandall. One thing I should also point out as far as the discussion on dot buttons, I have only noticed that one vendor of reproductions uses them at present, and that is Jarnagin. Of the several other vendors I have seen, all use utility grade tin buttons with holes in the centers.
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Jul 10, 2002 10:51:07 GMT -5
I checked my copy last night. The haversack with the scalloped edge is definately a repop, IMHO. He uses several repops in his b&w illustrations. The Rev War tin canteen; the CW haversack, and the horrible repop CW knapsack ... plus others. I checked relic sources from Sturbridge Village. ALL of the antebellum haversack/knapsacks in their collection have a straight flap edge. Just WHEN the army went from a straight edge haversack to the scalloped edge haversack is not clear to me. For purposes of an 1832 impression, I would be inclined to use an older pattern. Admittedly, that's a guess. More work is needed. And maybe those vendors need to indicate their sources for the goods they purport to be of "this" period, or "that" period. r. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Jul 10, 2002 10:58:19 GMT -5
Bob,
I guess only some digging will correct this situation! I just don't know where exactly to start.
;D
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Aug 18, 2002 18:53:01 GMT -5
Ok, I think I am on to something. In the book "The Mexican-American War of 1846-48", published by Brassey's Ltd., 2001, the author briefly discusses the haversack issue. According to his research, the US Army officially began using the scalloped flap pattern, white cloth haversack in 1806, and continued its use from time to time all the way up to the Civil War. Materials and button styles varied. It was originally specified to have a 30" shoulder strap.
However, I suspect and agree with Bob that the haversacks made up at Atkinson's request may have been a simpler version made with expediency of issue in mind.
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Aug 24, 2002 23:27:40 GMT -5
I would be very interested in learning the source of this material. I believe it contrasts strongly with the findings of Fred Gaede, and the haversack patterns used during the War of 1812.
Even Rene Chartrande, the "guru" of American War of 1812 material culture, does not strike a solid chord regarding the style/design of War of 1812 haversacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by floridawar on Jul 10, 2009 23:11:00 GMT -5
As a side note, I'd like to add that no Florida Seminole War (1835-1842) fort or battlefield site has yet to yeild any of the distinctive pewter "dot" haversack buttons as seen on the original Mexican War period haversacks. Very interesting thread. the question does remain; when did the scalloped flap and distinctive buttons become the norm?
James Marshall
Florida Frontier Guard.
|
|
River access meant that supplies and materiel could easily be shipped up river from New Orleans, St. Louis, and points East. I'm not saying that materiel always arrived rapidly or in sufficient quantity. I suggest that issues of supply may have had more to do with the frugality of the U. S. Army at that time, and not just availability of supplies.
Our group got seperated in the melee... and eventually congregated back at our fire pit. Phil strolled in, dropped his canteen and haversack, looked at the expressions of dismay on our faces and announced "Well... that sucked." It was perhaps the most profound pronouncement on an event that year) and have read several of the "Osprey" series books he has authored.
