Were caps or hats better?

General Hancock commanded the 2nd Corps from June 9, 1863 (replacing Gen. Couch). Wounded at Gettysburg, returned to head of the corps on Dec. 15, 1863, and commanded through Nov. 26, 1864, when reassigned to organize and command of the "1st Veteran Corps," and from February, 1865 the "Middle Military Division" including the Army of the Shenandoah, etc.

Here's a few more be-hatted 2nd Corps chaps.

View attachment 521738

View attachment 521739View attachment 521740
145th Penn. Regt. Letter & order Book
1st Division, 2nd Corps Sept. 3, 1864
General Orders no. 215

It has been observed that in many instances the clothing of the men is neglected, and they are allowed to wear hats and other clothing different from the prescribed blouse, trousers and cap... Every man will ... be supplied with the badge of the Division, number of regiment, and letter of company... and he will be required to wear them. Anyone taking off either letter, number or badge will be punished by his Regimental commander.

Many officers have accustomed themselves to wearing the marks of their rank upon their coat collars. This is prohibited, and in the future every officer will be required to wear the regulation shoulder straps.

By order; Brig. Gen. Miles


I am still looking for Hancock's order, but the above clearly indicates that the 2nd Corps at least 1st Division had a prescribed appearance and would stand to reason it extended from the commanding general of the Corps.
 
General Hancock commanded the 2nd Corps from June 9, 1863 (replacing Gen. Couch). Wounded at Gettysburg, returned to head of the corps on Dec. 15, 1863, and commanded through Nov. 26, 1864, when reassigned to organize and command of the "1st Veteran Corps," and from February, 1865 the "Middle Military Division" including the Army of the Shenandoah, etc.

Here's a few more be-hatted 2nd Corps chaps.

View attachment 521738

View attachment 521739View attachment 521740
And later:

Regimental book 39th N.Y.Inf
H.Q.1st Division 2nd Army Corps
January 4, 1865

The General commanding is again obliged to call the attention of Brigade Commanders to irregularities quite prevalent throughout the command... officer will wear the uniform prescribed with the. Insignia of rank... upon the shoulder... noncommissioned officers will wear proper chevrons... also have stripe on the pantaloons.

Every soldier must have a cartridge box belt and plate thereon. It will be properly adjusted and always worn with his equipment. The Cartridge box will not be supported by the waist belt. he must also have and wear a cap with bugle and the number and number of his regiment securely fastened and with the red trefoil well sewed on. The felt hats so numerous in the Division will be destroyed. No soldier will be permitted to put on his equipment without first buttoning his coat. This is often done.

Bvt. Maj. General Miles/
 
That is simply not correct.
The regulations for clothing and other gear was the same for volunteers as it was for the regulars.

The Volunteer troops were subject to all US Army regulations. That is true. They were in the US Army.

However, they were not issued the full quantity of Army clothing, as provided to regular troops. They received a monetary allowance when not drawing army clothing in kind.

1726664336756.png


And even when drawing army clothing, which most did, through the army quartermasters, it was not necessarily the full outfit of the regular troops, but what was made available, and what the commands would draw, per orders, etc. It was only at the close of the war, in March, 1865, that the volunteer troops were to receive the same amount of actual clothing as the regular troops.


1726670491914.png


They where issued items are specific intervals.
If they did not need a new one they could push the issue and similar they might need a new to get a item earlier if they did not maintain it. But There where no option of saying No thanks or getting different items instead.

There certainly was such an option. As mentioned, if a volunteer unit did not draw army clothing, for example when supplied with uniforms by their State, etc., the men were to receive $3.50 a month from the army in commutation. From the Volunteer act of 1861:

1726666847084.png


The US Army is subject to the laws of Congress. So some volunteer troops took the option not to employ regulation army clothing, in spite of the extra expense to the men, etc.

1726664692465.png

1726664741861.png



In the first half of the war the State of New York provided clothing to many New York volunteer troops in US Service, including a particular jacket.


In the meantime, the Army Quartermaster's department was prepared to outfit ALL of the volunteer troops when and if necessary. And by the close of the war it was largely doing so.

The volunteers who were provided army clothing drew against the cost of a regular soldier's full kit, for a three year period:

1726668181536.png

1726668219941.png


For example, during late 1862, the US Army provided to the State of Pennsylvania the following army clothing for an initial issue to the newly raised volunteer regiments in that State. Notice only 6,000 regulation hats. very few fatigue blouses, No neck stocks, etc. etc.

1726669046809.png



(so they did not have a clothing budget. But a list of items they had to have)

You are confounding the regular troops with the volunteers. Only the regular troops had to have the full issued allowance in kind at every inspection, at least in garrison. It is evidently incorrect to assume that the majority of the volunteer troops were supplied with the entire bill of a regular soldier's clothing at all times. Or that they were required to be so completely equipped, until the passage of the act of March 3, 1865. Again, the act approved on that date stated:

1726671803858.png


To the extent volunteer troops conformed to the uniform regulations of the US Army prior to that act, in terms of the completeness of their clothing compared to the standard of the regulars, is merely a testament to the efficiency of the US Army Quartermaster Department, and of the volunteer regiments which strived to emulate regulars in that regard.

Not all did so. Some resisted to some or another degree even where they might just have cooperated. Henry Morford in his "Red Tape and Pidgeon Hole Generals" (1864) relates how a division commander in the Army of the Potomac ordered all regiments to draw uniform coats. A volunteer regimental commander declined, but was pressured to do so:




1726673589087.png

....
1726673735121.png

1726673763360.png





When the enlistment runs out for the soldier or leave the service for some other reason, then they have to pay of they used more than the regulated items and if he used less he would get paid the difference.

Correct. It was called the soldiers' clothing account. This accounting was the same for regulars or volunteers. For that reason, the Army calculated the allowance of clothing for volunteers as the same for regulars. The only difference being the regulars could not in any way commute or decline any part of the issued regulation kit.
 
145th Penn. Regt. Letter & order Book
1st Division, 2nd Corps Sept. 3, 1864
General Orders no. 215

It has been observed that in many instances the clothing of the men is neglected, and they are allowed to wear hats and other clothing different from the prescribed blouse, trousers and cap... Every man will ... be supplied with the badge of the Division, number of regiment, and letter of company... and he will be required to wear them. Anyone taking off either letter, number or badge will be punished by his Regimental commander.

Many officers have accustomed themselves to wearing the marks of their rank upon their coat collars. This is prohibited, and in the future every officer will be required to wear the regulation shoulder straps.

By order; Brig. Gen. Miles


I am still looking for Hancock's order, but the above clearly indicates that the 2nd Corps at least 1st Division had a prescribed appearance and would stand to reason it extended from the commanding general of the Corps.

Neat records! But just proves alot of the chaps were neglecting their clothing, and to that time were "allowed to wear hats" to Sept. 3, 1864. And more, that the order was not abided entirely as of January 4, 1865, or four months later, as it is reported felt hats were still numerous in the division:

And later:

Regimental book 39th N.Y.Inf
H.Q.1st Division 2nd Army Corps
January 4, 1865

The General commanding is again obliged to call the attention of Brigade Commanders to irregularities quite prevalent throughout the command... officer will wear the uniform prescribed with the. Insignia of rank... upon the shoulder... noncommissioned officers will wear proper chevrons... also have stripe on the pantaloons.

Every soldier must have a cartridge box belt and plate thereon. It will be properly adjusted and always worn with his equipment. The Cartridge box will not be supported by the waist belt. he must also have and wear a cap with bugle and the number and number of his regiment securely fastened and with the red trefoil well sewed on. The felt hats so numerous in the Division will be destroyed. No soldier will be permitted to put on his equipment without first buttoning his coat. This is often done.

Bvt. Maj. General Miles/

Had all the felt hats actually been destroyed after Jan. 4, 1865, it would have had no bearing prior, when they were still numerous in spite of general orders, and prior to Sept. 3, 1864, when they were "allowed."

During the Appomattox campaign in April, 1865, Lt. Col. Spaulding of the 19th Maine, 2nd Division, 2nd Corps, mentions some hats yet about...

1726676696787.png


Gen. McCallister of the 2nd Corps recalled men throwing "hats" in the air (though granted he may be generalizing headgear generally):

1726676191397.png


Col. Spaulding of the 19th Maine, also recalled on news of the surrender...

1726676456094.png


The Veterans of the 10th Mass. Battery with the 2nd Corps artillery brigade recalled:

1726676971270.png


The veterans of Battery B, 1st Rhode Island Light Artillery, also with the 2nd Corps artillery brigade similarly:

1726677519648.png
 
Neat records! But just proves alot of the chaps were neglecting their clothing, and to that time were "allowed to wear hats" to Sept. 3, 1864. And more, that the order was not abided entirely as of January 4, 1865, or four months later, as it is reported felt hats were still numerous in the division:



Had all the felt hats actually been destroyed after Jan. 4, 1865, it would have had no bearing prior, when they were still numerous in spite of general orders, and prior to Sept. 3, 1864, when they were "allowed."

During the Appomattox campaign in April, 1865, Lt. Col. Spaulding of the 19th Maine, 2nd Division, 2nd Corps, mentions some hats yet about...

View attachment 521881

Gen. McCallister of the 2nd Corps recalled men throwing "hats" in the air (though granted he may be generalizing headgear generally):

View attachment 521878

Col. Spaulding of the 19th Maine, also recalled on news of the surrender...

View attachment 521879

The Veterans of the 10th Mass. Battery with the 2nd Corps artillery brigade recalled:

View attachment 521882

The veterans of Battery B, 1st Rhode Island Light Artillery, also with the 2nd Corps artillery brigade similarly:

View attachment 521883
All the reference of caps and hats may be that officers participated (in the tossing in air or dipping of water), there is no doubt that the prescribed uniform for enlisted was to be uniformed in caps. Individuals would try to get away with what they felt more comfortable, particularly when certain commanders were absent, either by wounding or other. I believe the intent is clear via the aforementioned missives and there is an order from Hancock, that I have not had the time to find. (fiscal year closes next month and the natives are restless)
 
Neat records! But just proves alot of the chaps were neglecting their clothing, and to that time were "allowed to wear hats" to Sept. 3, 1864. And more, that the order was not abided entirely as of January 4, 1865, or four months later, as it is reported felt hats were still numerous in the division:



Had all the felt hats actually been destroyed after Jan. 4, 1865, it would have had no bearing prior, when they were still numerous in spite of general orders, and prior to Sept. 3, 1864, when they were "allowed."

During the Appomattox campaign in April, 1865, Lt. Col. Spaulding of the 19th Maine, 2nd Division, 2nd Corps, mentions some hats yet about...

View attachment 521881

Gen. McCallister of the 2nd Corps recalled men throwing "hats" in the air (though granted he may be generalizing headgear generally):

View attachment 521878

Col. Spaulding of the 19th Maine, also recalled on news of the surrender...

View attachment 521879

The Veterans of the 10th Mass. Battery with the 2nd Corps artillery brigade recalled:

View attachment 521882

The veterans of Battery B, 1st Rhode Island Light Artillery, also with the 2nd Corps artillery brigade similarly:

View attachment 521883
As early as January of 1862, Hancock made his preference known, even suggesting that general officers in the field should wear a forage cap and dispense with their epaulettes. Hancock was on a board to deliberate the future uniform of the US Army; board members included Butterfield, Hancock, McDowell, Kearny, Stoneman and Sykes. Hancock favored a light blue short frock trimmed in dark blue and donning a cap. Special Orders 31 Adjutant's General's Office January 11, 1862. He later got his way with the advent of the Invalid Corps, who by the way wore kepis or forage caps as the prescribed uniform, adopted by Hancock. GO No. 124 War Department May 15, 1863 & GO 158 War Department May 29, 1863 (the latter mandating that officers of the Invalid Corps wear a dark blue forage cap and shoulder straps of dark blue velvet.)

My point here is not whether the rank and file wore caps or not in the II Corps, but what Hancock's preference was and what he ordered to be worn. These were easy to find, I am still looking for his field order to the same affect.
 
All the reference of caps and hats may be that officers participated (in the tossing in air or dipping of water), there is no doubt that the prescribed uniform for enlisted was to be uniformed in caps. Individuals would try to get away with what they felt more comfortable, particularly when certain commanders were absent, either by wounding or other. I believe the intent is clear via the aforementioned missives and there is an order from Hancock, that I have not had the time to find. (fiscal year closes next month and the natives are restless)

Absolutely concur these order demonstrate that the official "uniform" of the units was to include only the forage cap among the troops in question, which seemed to be common among Union troops, and especially in the Army of the Potomac. That's what I've previously understood given the March 21, 1863 Gen. Hooker as the commanding general ordered the corps badges on caps specifically.

And that off duty or on the march etc. some men didn't concern themselves about the uniform, and chose to wear hats instead, and maybe for duty purposes when they were allowed...

1726884049269.png


Certainly the majority in the AoP felt constrained to forego a hat. The veterans of the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery recalled the forage caps only redeeming features, so far as the soldiers were concerned:

1726880770405.png

1726880818174.png



As the September, 1864 order of General Miles notes, some men of the 2nd Corps were wearing hats "allowed" during the recent campaign. So much so as to issue a general order against it. Waud sketch, 2nd Corps men on the Brock Road, May, 1864:

1726868250665.png



I'm sure in the immediate aftermath of the September order the 2nd Corps men showed up for duty with forage caps to avoid punishment. But by Feb., '65 notice numerous hats yet worn in the camps and threatened destruction of their hats where the uniform forage cap was required.

2nd Corps infantry at Armstrong's Mill Oct. 27, 1864:

1726867771366.png




Among the 2nd Corps, at the time these orders were issued relative to getting the troops back into a uniform standard, a large number of recruits had been received. By mid-October a large part of the personnel, and more arriving. General Humphrey's noted these recruits were not previously instructed or disciplined.

1726768661948.png


Before the end of 1864, the Corps was taken from the lines for rest and drill...in a position "in reserve" near the front:

1726768225860.png



1726870923259.png



1726873630218.png


The day after the Feb. 4, '65 order to destroy any felt hats worn in lieu of the caps, the corps went back into action near Hatcher's Run on Feb. 5-6. Gen. Humphrey's was pleased with their actions...

1726768965048.png



In the same 1865 period as the 2nd Corps orders quoted, there are some similar references from the 6th Corps. From February 28, 1865 ordering the men in their winter camp situation to wear their caps, in lieu of their many hats and regulation shoes instead of their boots in the mud, emanating from Gen. Seymour. As the veterans of one regiment noted:

1726878949739.png


No doubt these orders were obeyed. Yet by April 9, as the Appomattox campaign concluded, these orders were renewed again, because some fellows were again wearing hats. And where General Miles had threatened to destroy any hats in the ranks of his command, Seymour evidently limited the destruction to the light colored ones particularly:

1726782638507.png


A veteran of the 5th Wisconsin, with the Sixth Corps' first division, noted later they drew new caps prior to the Grand Review at Washington at the end of May.

1726891291974.png



At the Grand Review of the army of May 23, 1865, it was noted in several accounts, the Army of the Potomac troops appeared to great advantage, almost universally in their uniform forage caps. Chaps of the 7th Rhode Island recalled their staging for the grand review...

1726878756122.png


Here's General Humphrey's of the 2nd Corps with his staff, in that parade wearing hats.

1726869688753.png


No doubt the 2nd Corps troops parading behind were in the army's uniform, in forage caps like most of the Army of the Potomac.

1726869793183.png


Given it was a grand review, etc. it would not have been appropriate for the soldiers to have worn other than the required forage caps.

The next day many of Sherman's troops were there paraded wearing hats...

1726866287105.png


Like these 20th Corps fellows:

1726870127001.png


One of Sherman's troops, however, mentions his regiment drew forage caps to wear the day before the parade...though the balance of their clothing was somewhat worn and shabby, and determined to make a good showing...

1726886661747.png



Post-war, the regular troops continued to wear the uniform hat as a campaign hat or slouch hats, etc. in the field. For example in the Modoc War of 1872-73.

1726881927730.png


Even the Modoc Army scouts seemed to like them...

1726881818270.png


That same year the US Army revised its uniform regulations, to include a hat specifically for "marches or campaigns" while common garrison wear included dress caps or helmets, and forage caps.

1726882150828.png
 
Last edited:
That circular brim also gets in the way when drilling with rifle or sword - and catches the wind so well! (note the dent in, and the color of, the skin of the forehead when rammed on to keep it there!) It also catches branches, undergrowth and is an absolute BEAST to pack away as it never really regains its proper shape afterwards. Not terribly uniform then, is it?
There a fewvvery good pieces written on hats by Adolphus.

The beginning of four on caps:


And on hats:


Personally, given my druthers I'm staying under something round. I'd go as far as saying straw in certain parts of the south.
 
I've always gotten the feeling that those dress hats given to the scouts in the Modoc War were something of a field sign. You know, a way of telling our Indians from their Indians. Quartermasters had to know that new regulation items were coming and that was a great way to "utilize existing stock until depleted."
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top