Did the chin straps on Civil War caps fit under the chin?

The idea that the M1858 Forage cap was to be used as a bucket or even for forage is mainly a re-enactorism. Forage and fatigue were used interchangeably in the military and as such there were "forage" caps going back to the inception of the US Military. The M1858 forage cap was the idea of Major William H French who at the time was the artillery officer in command of Fort McHenry. During this period the M1839 forage cap (wheel cap) had been discontinued and the only real forage/fatigue cap the men had were either the M1851 or M1854 shako. The men, for comfort sake removed the stiffening of the shakos "to wear them on fatigue", this was not uncommon, the Utah Expedition photographs show most of the soldiers had done the same to their mixture of shakos.

French found this incredibly unsightly and looked for an alternative, many of his peers requested going back to the M1839 cap, while McClellan upon observing the Crimean War postulated:
"....a police cap, without visor and of such nature that it can be folded up and carried in the pouch, or wherever is convenient; the Scotch bonnet, Turkish fez, a Greek cap of knit or woven wool, a flexible cap of the shape of the old forage cap---any of these would answer." Report of the Secretary of War, Communicating the Report of Captain George B McClellan.

Due to the above, French advocated for a "light, comfortable, military" cap that was also cheap to produce. He had 4 samples made, one for artillery, cavalry, infantry and staff, with the appropriate color trim. He did not go through proper military channels, but when the samples reached the secretary of war, were approved and forwarded to the quartermaster general. General Order No 13, War Department, November 30, 1858:

"For fatigue purposes, Forage caps, of the pattern in the Quartermaster General's Office, will be issued, in addition to hats, at the rate of one per year. Dark blue cloth, with a cord or welt around the crown of the colors used to distinguish the several branches, and yellow metal letters in front to designate companies. For unassigned recruits dark blue cord or welt around the crown and without distinctive badge."

If soldiers were to truly forage in the field, the haversack holds 4 times the amount of a forage cap, in addition, the chinstrap would not hold much in regards to weight before either the strap or button thread would part. The forage cap chin strap is a two piece adjusting strap with loosely sewn leather guides and a strap buckle that would not bear much weight.

One could see a soldier stuffing eggs in the cap for a short trip back to camp, but this was not its designed purpose or intent, it was for the comfort of the soldier on fatigue or field duty. Below is a shako of the 6th Massachusetts, Co G and a very early M1858 Forage cap of a soldier in the 9th PA Co E, as you can see the M1858 has the regulation brass in the correct positioning of an early war regiment. View attachment 200113

Thanks for the post. Very informative! As a reenactor, I portray both a Union musician and US Marine musician. As a result, I need a forage cap for the infantryman and a kepi and a shako for the Marine. They all have chin straps, but I've never used the one on the forage cap in many years of reenacting. However, after owning a sailboat and sailing around the Chesapeake bay in all kinds of weather, I can appreciate how a Marine serving on an oceangoing sailing vessel in the 1800s could benefit from having a chin strap on his kepi. The shakos were probably worn only occasionally by Marines while at sea, since they are part of the dress uniform (below), but for everyday headgear, it would have useful to have something on your kepi to help hold it on. I can't find historic pictures of Marines wearing their chin straps, so here's some pictures of me wearing mine on the USS Constellation:

marine cropped.jpg me ship 0614 - Copy.jpg

BTW, my reproduction Union forage cap (seen in my profile picture) is an Early War Enlisted Lewis J. & Issac Phillips Type 1 Forage cap, which resembles a kepi. I prefer it to the Type 2 Forage Cap worn later in the war by most Union enlisted men or the McDowell cap (yet another pre- or early war variation which I also have but rarely wear).
 
Last edited:
I think the point here is that just about every reenactor at some juncture was told the myth of the forage cap...

Myth is an exaggeration. Of course what we've been calling forage caps were designed to cover a head. Yet they are (and were) most obviously serviceable for foraging. That's the extent of it, no big claims either way.

It's not quite a reenactorism to simply recognize that soldiers, particularly volunteers, were (a) people, and (b) not hung up on government contract specification. Same category as using bayonets as candle holders. Nothing to be making righteous pronouncements about.
 
Last edited:
This is the first cap that the Army referred to as a "forage cap".

View attachment 200137
It came out in 1825 and does not appear to have been designed to be use to carry forage or for use as a bucket. Over the next 40 years other style of forage caps were issued.
It should also be noted that the RAF continued to use the term forage cap into WWII:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmg9eynXw32peqjbIFtSaV3JIFOPHf9Ro5O00F3vCzO3JY7LIL-Q.jpg


The verb Forage has a French origin, meaning to "Plunder or Pillage, to Hunt"
 

Attachments

  • images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmg9eynXw32peqjbIFtSaV3JIFOPHf9Ro5O00F3vCzO3JY7LIL-Q.jpg
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmg9eynXw32peqjbIFtSaV3JIFOPHf9Ro5O00F3vCzO3JY7LIL-Q.jpg
    6.4 KB · Views: 28
In French "le fourrage,"means feed, fodder, forage ("search widely for food or provisions"), provender ("dry food; fodder, food, provisions").

Funny that a cap that was not intended for such would be called that.
 
Last edited:
The Africa Corps also called their soft baseball like caps, forage caps, I think it apparent that they were called so due to their utilitarian and comfort in lieu of a dress cap and not for foraging.

The current Russian Army call their “garrison” or peaked caps, forage caps, I think it obvious that the name has followed those caps through history and that they are not intended to contain forage.

Major French, the inventor of the M1858 forage cap, in his description, said that it was intended for fatigue duty in lieu of the M1854 Shako which was then the required headgear for fatigue duty. The men were looking for comfort as stated by McClellan and the result was the M1858 cap. There is no mention of the cap being intended for foraging or are there any documented episodes as such.

The cap itself would not hold much as previously stated and the idea of it being used like a bucket is ludicrous, as the strap would not bear the weight since it is two piece and held by only two single cross cotton strands.

The haversack holds over 4 times what a forage cap holds regardless.

The advent of the M1839 Forage cap was basically for the same reason, the current tar buckets of the day were very unwieldy and the army was looking for a utilitarian piece of headgear for field duty. The end of the Mexican War brought about a desire to dress up he Army once more and the forage cap was replaced by the M1851 and subsequently the M1854 Shakos.

From what I have been able to gather, the earliest forage caps were made from old uniform sleeves for stable and field duty (France), these were similar to the Corsican cap.
 
The Africa Corps also called their soft baseball like caps, forage caps, I think it apparent that they were called so due to their utilitarian and comfort in lieu of a dress cap and not for foraging...
The current Russian Army call their “garrison” or peaked caps, forage caps, I think it obvious that the name has followed those caps through history and that they are not intended to contain forage...Major French, the inventor of the M1858 forage cap, in his description, said that it was intended for fatigue duty in lieu of the M1854 Shako which was then the required headgear for fatigue duty. The men were looking for comfort as stated by McClellan and the result was the M1858 cap. There is no mention of the cap being intended for foraging or are there any documented episodes as such....
The cap itself would not hold much as previously stated...The haversack holds over 4 times what a forage cap holds regardless...The advent of the M1839 Forage cap was basically for the same reason, the ,tar buckets of the day were very unwieldy and the army was looking for a utilitarian piece of headgear for field duty. The end of the Mexican War brought about a desire to dress up he Army once more and the forage cap was replaced by the M1851 and subsequently the M1854 Shakos....From what I have been able to gather, the earliest forage caps were made from old uniform sleeves for stable and field duty (France), these were similar to the Corsican cap.

...and after all that (btw just as impressive as the first time it was posted) isn't it funny that a cap that was not intended for forage would be called that.

...and the idea of it being used like a bucket is ludicrous, as the strap would not bear the weight since it is two piece and held by only two single cross cotton strands

Not so ludicrous. It's often demonstrated with an authentic repro forage cap/bummer how it easily can survive a long carry with apples, potatoes or eggs --cotton stitches intact (soldiers had a housewife in their haversack anyway to easily repair stitch failures). So intended purpose aside, it's in the interest of authenticity that the more experienced reenactors behave more as real soldiers did (people, humans) - variably and inventively. It's called immersion. A forage cap/bummer with forage in it is no big deal, no great violation of some sort of supposed historical master truth.
 
Last edited:
...and after all that (btw just as impressive as the first time it was posted) isn't it funny that a cap that was not intended for forage would be called that.



Not so ludicrous. It's often demonstrated with an authentic repro forage cap/bummer how it easily can survive a long carry with apples, potatoes or eggs --cotton stitches intact (soldiers had a housewife in their haversack anyway to easily repair stitch failures). So intended purpose aside, it's in the interest of authenticity that the more experienced reenactors behave more as real soldiers did (people, humans) - variably and inventively. It's called immersion. A forage cap/bummer with forage in it is no big deal, no great violation of some sort of supposed historical master truth.
Reproduction caps are very often made with synthetic thread which is far more resilient than the cotton thread of an original. I have three spools of original uniform thread and it is very easy to pull apart. The chin strap will not support such use and why would it when a haversack is available to do so.

Once again a reenactorism that has been passed on due to a misnomer, not to mention a true forage party would have wagons and not wool hats for foraging.
 
Reproduction caps are very often made with synthetic thread which is far more resilient than the cotton thread of an original.

Meh. I was referring to an authentic repro, cotton thread.

I have three spools of original uniform thread and it is very easy to pull apart.

I recommend you use a good repro thread. Spool thread back in the day was fresh stock.

...not to mention a true forage party would have wagons and not wool hats for foraging.

No. Foraging parties also and often consisted of individuals, assigned or not, on foot.
 
Well I just finished a little test of my own, utilizing a repro forage cap made by Joel Bohy, Joel was one the best when he made forage caps some years ago. He made them for Don Troiani and later sold through Chris Daley, he is now a historical consultant for Skinner Auctions and also Antiques Roadshow. I took a repro that he made of one of my originals and placed a 2-1/2 lb weight in it and then carried it by the chinstrap. I made it approximately a block before one of the buttons pulled off the side, there is nothing securing the button but thread on a repro or original.

I next took a William Wickham repro, otherwise known as "Dirty Billy" and did the same as above and made it 1/2 block before a button pulled off. I was wrong in thinking the leather chin strap would be the weak link. Construction of the M1858 Forage Cap was certainly not such that there was any thought to using it as a "forage bucket" since there are absolutely no provisions for reinforcement in the button areas.

Both of these caps, made by two of the most highly respected in their business, were in virtually new condition, without field wear as a M1858 cap would have had.

Probably the best source for foraging in the Union Army is written by John D Billings in his Hardtack & Coffee. He states that after the first few months of the war, foraging along the line of march was futile as the homes were picked clean, going further than that would engender an absent from camp or column without leave.

"A regularly authorized body of foragers, in charge of a commissioned officer, never gave way to excesses like those I have mentioned (wanton destruction of private property in Fredericksburg in 1862). Their task was usually well defined. It was to go out with wagons in quest of the contents of smokehouses or barns or corn barns; and if a flock of fowls or a few swine chanced to be part of the livestock of the farms visited, the worse for the livestock and Secessia and the better for the Union Army." p237 Nowhere in the entire chapter on foraging does he mention the forage cap as a means for transporting anything but a head.

He then defines foraging in the Western theater with Sherman, noting that the forage party, would consist of 50-60 men and precede the line of march with multiple wagons.
 
The early 15c., "to plunder, pillage," from forage (n.) or from Middle French fourrager. Meaning "hunt about for" is from 1768. Related: Foraged; foraging. Etymology Online Dictionary Douglas Harper https://www.etymonline.com/

The "hunt about for" could be significant, in that, a French forage cap could have been a scouting or light infantry cap, in lieu of a shako. I do not have the background in French military or uniform history to know. Maybe one of our Napoleonic or European Military historians could help out here?
 
Well I just finished a little test of my own, utilizing a repro forage cap made by Joel Bohy...I took a repro that he made of one of my originals and placed a 2-1/2 lb weight in it and then carried it by the chinstrap. I made it approximately a block before one of the buttons pulled off the side, there is nothing securing the button but thread...I next took a William Wickham repro, otherwise known as "Dirty Billy"...and made it 1/2 block before a button pulled off...Both of these caps, made by two of the most highly respected in their business, were in virtually new condition

Your name dropping aside (we're dutifully impressed) I'm calling you on that one. The thread should have failed at the very point the 2-1/2 lbs limit was first applied -- how long or how far the hats traveled was not additional stress -- unless added english was applied for the journey, as if the tester wanted the threads to fail. Perhaps jogging then? Not what a real person collecting eggs or apples would normally be doing.

The average soldier had basic life skills, could walk and chew tobacco at the same time, so they'd be inclined to hold a heaver load by the seam edge of the hat (as per what I'd seen demonstrated) and in that way easily and reliably carry even more than 2-1/2 lbs. The valid test of your hat should have been to act as a real thinking person would: to carry light loads by the strap, heavier loads by the seam, and as necessary supporting underneath with the other hand.

In that authentic context a forage cap/bummer works well enough as an improvised basket and probably did on occasion. This is not the reenactorism you're looking for.

At least in overstressing your nice hats you found out that apparently they would have failed anyway in the mode of strap deployed to the chin. By your own metric, all it would take is a mere 1-1/4 lb. of stress to cause one side or the other to fail -- so much for cavalry duty.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Wickepedia, which you reference, is a good starter source, but can't be trusted for serious study
 
Last edited:
anyway, the 1858 forage cap / bummer pattern construction details varied between suppliers. Here's an excerpt from a detailed description of an artifact currently listed for sale "...The chinstrap is held to the cap by two staff eagle cuff buttons whose maker’s marks are not visible. The buttons are fastened to the cap’s interior with coiled brass lock rings." Not cotton thread.
 
Last edited:
The "forage" cap was also known as a fatigue cap or, in French service, as a bonnet de police -- or in SergeantMajor's quote of McClellan -- a "police cap."

The purpose of the cap is comfort and saving wear on formal headgear, whether that be a shako or a fully dressed uniform hat.

It's no more designed for an aid to foraging than as an aid to shoveling dirt into the sinks on fatigue or policing trash from camp to "police" it. It's no more useful for foraging than, as suggested above, a haversack, knapsack, or blanket. For that matter, "foraging" is largely about collecting forage, which in a typical force where there were half as many animals as men would amount to four or five times as much as subsistence by bulk. If we wanted to be literal, the question of how much "forage" you could fit in a cap would be measured in bales rather than eggs.

Here's an article on the evolution of forage or fatigue caps in the British service during the Napoleonic era: http://www.warof1812.ca/foragecaps.htm

There's a nice illustration of uniforms of the Corps of Discovery showing an early American fatigue cap here (read the descriptions for images 10-12): https://history.army.mil/LC/The Mission/Facts/uniforms.htm

Hats aren't particularly useful for carrying items any distance anyway. I did use the hat in my profile picture as a bucket a few times, but only to carry the water from the river or creek I was fording to my head... :smile:
 
anyway, the 1858 forage cap / bummer pattern construction details varied between suppliers. Here's an excerpt from a detailed description of an artifact currently listed for sale "...The chinstrap is held to the cap by two staff eagle cuff buttons whose maker’s marks are not visible. The buttons are fastened to the cap’s interior with coiled brass lock rings." Not cotton thread.
If it's a staff cap it's an officer's and privately purchased, not issued by the army. In any case, since foraging was not one of the duties normally expected of a staff officer, it's not likely the button attachments were especially strong so he could do a better job of it than enlisted men... :wink:
 
We've only been talking about improvised use of a forage cap/bummer as a personal foraging basket. No one here thinks the hats were designed for foraging. No one here thinks that personal foraging resembles command-assigned foraging duty.

But that a forage cap/bummer can at times be improvised for use in personal foraging (nuts, mushrooms, apples, eggs etc.) is not a stretch. We absolutely know it works. Nothing about that justifies desperate scans of period army manuals. Such minor activity was well below official notice.

If there is a reenactorism here, it is to suppose that typical soldiers were dullards with little or no basic life experience, that none of them would have ever popped off their cap to grab a few grapes on the fly. Give us a break.

Those of us who have been at this a while chuckle at such scrambling over inane minor issues of gear and gear use. For this reason we prefer the input of real veterans who have experienced field deployment and know its many small vagaries, things that were never found in field manuals.

At living histories as a history museum educator, and at reenactments I'm boldly going to continue demonstrating how a forage cap can be used to collect apples or eggs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top