Kepi vs bummer

Taji04

Private
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Location
The Great White North (brrrr)
I am new to the forum and am looking into reenacting. To that end I have this question: As I look for headgear, I have noticed that both the kepi and the forage cap were both worn by enlisted soldiers. I understand that the kepi was a privately purchased item, but how prevalent was the kepi? Was it widely used? And which version of the forage cap was used the most?Really open-ended, I know, so I am not expecting precise info, just an idea. I am looking into a Wisconsin or Minnesota unit. (I assume that the use and availability of each type varied from unit to unit as well as the time period portrayed.) Thank you in advance for your input!
 
If you are doing Western Federal forget either and go with a Tim Bender Hardee.

If you are going AoP get a Forage Cap.

Final answer is look at the unit you plan to portray and see what they were issued.
If doing US the Kepi isn't really that appropriate past a private purchase item, some Zouves or a couple specific units that ended up w/ them.

I own a Forage Cap & a Tim Bender... I am almost never seen w/ the Forage Cap.
 
What Herr Steele says.... If portaying the Army of the Tennessee, Army of the Cumberland, or Army of the Ohio, definitely a Hardee (more correctly a Dress Hat)... keep it untrimmed, and either keep it as is or shape to taste, including telescoping it. Rice C. Bull, of the 123d NYSV makes comment about how the Western troops chided the 11th and 12th Corps when the joined the AotC about their "little caps" (the forage caps they wore, coming from the AoP). While there are images of Western troops wearing forage caps, often in the same images of men wearing hats, the number of hats far out paces the number of caps. And not just dress hats, but also many forms of civilian hats were adopted by the Western troops. It really comes down to the unit, time, and place... and practicality.. hat is so much more effective against the sun and rain then a cap is. :D
 
“This Army looked quite unlike our own that had originally been part of the Army of the Potomac. They all wore large hats instead of caps; were carelessly dressed, both officers and men; and marched in a very irregular way, seemingly not caring to keep well closed up and in regular order. These were faults in marching which we had been taught to avoid. They could be excused for their loose marching, however, as they had just made a 300 mile movement on the way to join Grant. We found their boast was that they "put on no style." They were a large fine type of men, all westerners; it was easy to see that at any serious time they would close up and be there. As they passed by we viewed their line and a good deal of friendly chaffing was done. They expressed their opinion that we were tin soldiers. “Oh, look at their little caps. Where are your paper collars? Oh how clean they look, do you have any soap?” And so on. We took it good naturedly. They came to know and respect us latter on, after the first battle, where we stood in line together. As the war went on we had no better friends than the men in those two Corps that were with Sherman’s army in the Atlanta Campaign, the March to the Sea, and on until we finally parted after the Grand Review of that Army in Washington.”

Rice C. Bull, 123rd New York
 
I would honestly be very interested in the documentation of kepis in mounted arms over forage caps. Most extent images I have seen of Federal Cavalry Enlisted, especially Eastern, show forage caps, with most of the Kepis belonging to officers. Not trying to be a PIB, just very curious about your statement.
 
Not to hi-jack the thread but do you know what's interesting? Try to find a period reference to the US 1858 Army hat as a "Hardee hat." They are called "black hats," "tall hats," etc. No one is quite sure when the name "Hardee" was first used to describe it, but "Hardee" does not appear to be a period term for the 1858 Army hat. For one thing, Hardee was on the 1855 committee formed to come up with a new Cavalry hat back when Jefferson Davis was the Secretary of War. The 1855 Cavalry hat was similar but not the same as the 1858 design. When they got around to re-designing the US Army hat in 1858 neither man was involved any longer. Floyd was Secretary of War by then and another future Confederate General (AP Hill) was on the 1858 committee, but we don't call the resulting hat design a "Hill-hat," do we?

The US 1858 cap was what was called the forage cap or bummer. These were common in the AoP but not as much out West. Not very much protection from the elements. The US 1858 Army hat though...different story. The plumes, pins and cords came off, and the Army hat was shaped in a dozen different ways to suit the individual whims of the man. Very widely used. Great image of Sherman's men outside of Atlanta, six of the seven have on a US 1858 Army hat, but no two of them are wearing it exactly the same way and none are wearing it as it was issued.
 
Thank you gentlemen, you have been most helpful. If there is any more to say on the subject, I am all ears. It looks like I will be doing more research :D, and shopping. I have not decided what direction to go as to unit (have to wait to retire from Reserves), but as I narrow it down, I am sure that I will have many more questions.
 
There are several excellent Wisconsin units, the Iron Brigade being well represented. Minnesota has several good Infantry units as well as several outstanding Arty units. Good Luck
 
Hence why i put the words.Dress Hat in my post sir :smile:

Another fine point, it was never officially called the"Dress Hat" by the US Army, but that was the net effect because of the simultaneous issuance of the forage cap. Note the following from US Army Headgear 1855 to 1902 by Edgar Howell:

"In this connection, however, it must be remembered that although the (1858 Army) 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 blouse in November of 1858 (before the hat went into general issue), for all intents and purposes relegated it to a near dress-wear status."
 
You have never looked at photos of them and thought "that is one sharp outfit" I am only trying to be authentic.

Dont get me wrong..... I agree that it can be a sharp look. One of the things I like about one of the units i do is the fatigue uniform of blue shell jacket trimmed in white, sky blue trousers with a wide white stripe, or white trousers in the summer, and a blue kepi with a bit of silver braid around the band. The Dress uniform is in my avatar. My intention is that a sharp look should not be the goal, but determining what th unit wore, historically, or what was PEC for the time and place, ex. ANV in 62, or Longstreet's Corps at Chickamauga, or Military Division of the Mississippi during the Atlanta Campaign or March to the Sea/Carolinas Campaign. For example, even though its a sharp look, I would never dream of wearing a 1850-Dec 1861 Republican Blues fatigue uniform for a Kennesaw Mountain or Battle of Atlanta scenario.

Expired Image Removed
 
There are several excellent Wisconsin units, the Iron Brigade being well represented. Minnesota has several good Infantry units as well as several outstanding Arty units. Good Luck

Thanks, Johan. I am leaning toward one of the the Iron Brigade regiments which means one of those "**** black hats". More options. Not a bad place to be, methinks.
 
Back
Top