Revolutionary War Rifleman's kit

[Chris Treichel]

Here are the references I have to length...

HEADQUARTERS, 6TH VIRGINIA REGT., April, 1776. The Captains of the 6th Battalion, together with the other Officers, are immediately to provide themselves with Hunting Shirts, short and fringed, the men's shirts to be short and plain; the Sergeants' shirts to have a small white Cuffs and plain; the Drummers' shirts to be with dark Cuffs. Both Officers and Soldiers to have Hatts cut round and bound with black; the Brims of their Hatts to be two inches deep and cocked on one side, with a Button and Loop and Cockades, which is to be worn on the left. Neither man nor Officers to do duty in any other uniform. The Officers and Soldiers are to ware their Hair short and as near a like as possible.
By Order Of Mordecai Buckner, Colonel, Commanding

General Orders, 24 July 1776 Head Quarters, New York, July 24th 1776. Parole Virginia. Countersign Wales.
Each Brigadier, with the Colonel and commanding officers of the several Regiments, in his Brigade, are to meet and estimate the quantity of paper, absolutely necessary to serve a Regiment for Returns, and other public Uses for a Month, and make report thereof to the General at Orderly time on Friday next, that the Quarter Master General may be directed to provide & deliver the same Monthly to the Colonels, for the use of their respective regiments.
The General being sensible of the difficulty, and expence of providing Cloaths, of almost any kind, for the Troops, feels an unwillingness to recommend, much more to order, any kind of Uniform, but as it is absolutely necessary that men should have Cloaths and appear decent and tight, he earnestly encourages the use of Hunting Shirts, with long Breeches, made of the same Cloth, Gaiter fashion about the Legs, to all those yet unprovided. No Dress can be had cheaper, nor more convenient, as the Wearer may be cool in warm weather, and warm in cool weather by putting on under-Cloaths which will not change the outward dress, Winter or Summer—Besides which it is a dress justly supposed to carry no small terror to the enemy, who think every such person a complete marksman.
JCC, 5:853–56. The new monthly pay rates for officers were: “a colonel, 75 dollars; lieutenant colonel, 60; major, 50; captain, 40; lieutenant, 27; ensign, 20; quarter master, 27½; adjutant, 40 dollars.” Each soldier’s “suit of cloaths” was to consist “of two linen hunting shirts, two pair of overalls, a leathern or woollen waistcoat with sleeves, one pair of breeches, a hat or leathern cap, two shirts, two pair of hose, and two pair of shoes.” Congress on 8 Oct. also recommended to the states that had regiments in Continental service “at New York, Ticonderoga, or New Jersey, that they forthwith appoint committees to proceed to those places, with full powers to appoint all the officers of the regiments to be raised by their states under the new establishment, that such officers may proceed immediately to inlist such men as are now in the service, and incline to re-inlist during the war, and that such committees be instructed to advise with the general officers, and promote such officers as have distinguished themselves for their abilities, activity, and vigilance in the service, and especially for their attention to military discipline.”

You expressed apprehension that the rifle-dress of General Morgan may be mistaken hereafter for a wagoner’s frock, which he, perhaps wore when on expedition with General Braddock; there is no more resemblance between the two dresses, then between a cloak and a coat; the wagoner’s frock was intended, as a present cartman’s, to cover and protect their other clothes, and is merely a long coarse shirt reaching below the knee; the Dress of the Virginia rifle-men who came to Cambridge in 1775, (among whom was Morgan,) was an elegant loose dress reaching to the middle of the thigh, ornamented with fringes in various parts, and meeting the pantaloons of the same material and color, fringed in a corresponding style…It cost a trifle; the soldier could wash it in any brook he passed; and however worn and ragged and dirty his clothing might be, when this was thrown over it, he was in elegant uniform.
Johnathan Trumball 1836 (Painter with GW camp in 1776 then to Europe)

They have besides a Body of irregulars, or rifle Men, whose dress it is hard to describe. They take a piece of Ticklenburgh, or Tan Cloth that is stout and put it in a Tann Vatt, untill it has the shade of a dry, or fading leaf, they they make a kind of Frock of it reaching down below the knee, open before, with a large Cape, they wrapp it round the tight on a March, & tye it with their Belt in which hangs their Tomahawk, their Hatts as the others, and take their posts, to hit their mark -Silas Deane to Elizabeth Deane, 3 Jun 1775 (Delegate and envoy from Conneticut)

Morgan came with his regiment of riflemen either with Washington or soon after his arrival. The uniform of Morgan’s regiment was a short frock made of pepper and salt
colored cotton cloth like a common working frock worn by our people, except that it was
short and open before, to be tied with strings. Simeon Alexander 1832 Private in 5th PA Regt

[Artificer]

Chris,
Thank you for providing that information.  Though I had seen some of it before, it was most interesting to read the information I had not and to read it all together.

I found it noticeable that there seems to be only slight disagreement as to the lengths of the hunting shirts of Morgan’s Men, though they all describe the length as being mid thigh or longer, with the exception of the last quote that follows.  

The last quote by Simeon Alexander 1832, Private in 5th PA Regt, describes the hunting shirt as shorter than the working man’s smock as Elnathan has pointed out.  Also as he pointed out a smock normally went well below the knee’s, so a mid thigh length would have been “shorter” than a smock.  

I believe we should look at the dates to give us a better understanding of what was “going on.”  Morgan’s men arrived in Cambridge on 8 August, 1775.  That tells me that they wore their hunting shirts in the lengths they normally wore them before the war and “came as they were” when reporting so early for duty.  Though this is speculation on my part, it would explain why their hunting shirts were longer than later on.

The 6th VA that Chris mentioned, were not even raised for another 6 months later and not actually formed until Feb 1776, which was 8 months after Morgan’s Men arrived at Cambridge the year before.  Chris provided the quote “a hunting shirt well made and short just to come below the waistband of the breeches…” Orderly Book of the 6th Virginia Regiment, 26 March 1776 to 26.  This was over 9 months after Morgan’s Men arrived in Cambridge.   A later of entry of April, 1776. “The Captains of the 6th Battalion, together with the other Officers, are immediately to provide themselves with Hunting Shirts, short and fringed, the men's shirts to be short and plain; (etc)”  What that tells me is the order of a few weeks earlier, had not been implemented fully, yet?    

Though it seems clear the 6th VA were to all be clothed in Hunting Shirts, the companies came from different counties throughout VA and were composed of both Rifle Companies from the Western Counties and Musket Companies from what we would describe today as more “Central Virginia.”  The men who were recruited in each county would have “reported for duty” in whatever civilian clothes they owned.  I speculate that Riflemen from the western counties and who already had longer hunting shirts - would not have been provided with the “new pattern, short hunting shirts,” until at least the men who did not have hunting shirts were clothed in the “new, short pattern, hunting shirts?”  In a time when there were no sewing machines, and probably a lack of material that could be gathered all at one time, it would not have been easy to quickly cloth all the men even in hunting shirts.   We can’t forget it was/is one thing to issue an order on what the uniforms were supposed to be, but another thing entirely to try to get all the men in that uniform.  I still believe the “short pattern” was to conserve on the amount of material needed for the hunting shirts and also as so many men from Central Virginia would have “shown up” wearing breeches that shorter hunting shirts would have covered.    

Now to the trousers, I picked this out from the quote Chris provided from General Orders, 24 July 1776 Head Quarters, New York.  “(The General) he earnestly encourages the use of Hunting Shirts, with long Breeches, made of the same Cloth, Gaiter fashion about the Legs, to all those yet unprovided.”  Then we add from the Johnathan Trumball 1836 quote  “was an elegant loose dress reaching to the middle of the thigh, ornamented with fringes in various parts, and meeting the pantaloons of the same material and color, fringed in a corresponding style…”  What I found interesting about these quotes is they are describing the same thing, BUT from two different time periods and with descriptions that were common in each time period.  “Gaiter Fashion” in 1776 would have been a good way to describe trousers when the word “trousers” was not common or unknown to most people.  The word “pantaloons” was not used much before 1790 and didn’t become common until after 1800, BUT in 1836 it meant “trousers or pants” all the way to the foot.  So here we have two quotes that describe trousers and match the Sketch/Drawing at the beginning of the article.  

I personally am grateful to Chris for providing these quotes as it means “trousers” were indeed suggested and used by Riflemen and even Musket Armed troops  earlier than what some people have previously suggested.  

Gus

P.S.  I also want to thank Chris for this quote, “General Orders, 24 July 1776 Head Quarters, New York, July 24th 1776. Parole Virginia. Countersign Wales.”  In modern times, we call this the password of “Sign” in this case “Virginia” and we still use the term “Countersign” and in this case “Wales.”  These had to be published so Sentries could properly challenge anyone coming close to camp and to quickly determine friend from foe.  This is the earliest documentation I have ever seen on it for the American Army.  

[Chris Treichel]

I agree that the Riflemen who provided their own hunting shirts probably were homemade at the beginning of the war and unlike the ones later issued came in whatever length was preferred.

As to trousers, breeches and overalls (trousers with gaiters attached) The difficulty in supplying breeches to an army is that they need to be made to measure. Trousers had been around for a long time before the Revolutionary war but you don't see them in many paintings as only poor folk wore them. Trousers don't need to be made to specific measurements the same as breeches need to be. The fashion of the time was to have a tight fitting leg which complicates the issue.

[Artificer]

"Death or Liberty" is standard British anti-American cartoon propaganda.  It was probably always rendered this way as an insult.  This picture was drawn by the enemy.   

Now that is interesting.  So "Death or Liberty" was a deliberate British corruption of the American slogan "Liberty or Death," and was meant as deliberate scorn?  Good info for British Reenactors.
Gus

[Artificer]

As to trousers, breeches and overalls (trousers with gaiters attached) The difficulty in supplying breeches to an army is that they need to be made to measure. Trousers had been around for a long time before the Revolutionary war but you don't see them in many paintings as only poor folk wore them. Trousers don't need to be made to specific measurements the same as breeches need to be. The fashion of the time was to have a tight fitting leg which complicates the issue.

Cuthbertson and other original sources tell us that every year prior to the King’s Birthday, new clothing was issued to British Regiments and hopefully delivered in time the uniforms could be taken apart, tailored/fitted and resewn to best fit each soldier so they could “Parade” in their new uniforms on the King’s Birthday.  (As a career Logistician in the modern military, I can somewhat appreciate the nightmares that caused in the 18th century and especially for the Regiments on Foreign Service.  Grin.)  This work was performed by soldiers in each regiment who were tailors prior to being recruited or had experience with it.  They were excused from other duties until the work was done and supposed to have been paid extra for doing it.   

The American Army was born from the British Army traditions and some Rev War Officers had been Provincial or Regular British Officers prior to the war.  I assume they would have tried to follow the British example when/if they received new clothing, but have never seen documentation on it.  They may or even probably were not able to fit/tailor the uniforms like the British did once clothing supplies were received? 

Chris, I know trousers have been around since earlier than Roman times and used throughout the world in colder climates through the ages.  I am not trying to be contrary or difficult, but am wondering what documentation you have on the poor wearing trousers in the 18th century prior to the Rev War?  Was this for the poor throughout the colonies including Urban areas, or was it mainly on the frontier?  Any information you can provide would be most appreciated.
Gus

[Chris Treichel]

If you analyze art from the period as well as French fashion magazines, trousers do not show up as fitting for fashion until after the start of the French Revolution at the same time that shoe buckles and knee breeches went out of fashion. That is where the term sans culottes (those without breeches) comes from. If you look at British cartoons from the 18th century only lower classes are ever shown wearing trousers until after the French Revolution made trousers popular. 

Here is the Wikipedia about this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans-culottes

[Artificer]

Chris,

Thank you.  It would have been great to have had this information in the late 1970’s when I made a pair of fringed trousers out of buckskins with a “breeches style” top and fall front fly to wear in winter in the “ Northwest Territory” in what was "by then" Indiana.  We knew of Sailor’s Slops then, but we had no such information on 18th century trousers for “landlubbers.”   I reasoned as a prior military man who had worn overalls, that those “trousers” would have been a natural civilian adaptation of the military overalls.   We did not know it was authentic back then for civilians to have had them.  I had made my first trip to Colonial Williamsburg in 1975, but never heard a whisper of trousers then. 

So I did a search for 18th century trousers:

Trousers
 During the 18th century breeches were worn by all levels of society; however, trousers were also worn by middling tradesmen, laborers, sailors, and slaves. Trousers were generally cut with a straight leg and were worn to the ankle or slightly shorter. As trousers were utilitarian garments, they were made mostly of durable linens

http://www.history.org/history/clothing/men/mglossary.cfm

This link has links to original British Cartoons of the type I believe you meant:
http://johannfactotum.blogspot.com/2013/05/18th-century-trousers-for-neer-do-wells.html

Gus

[Kelhammer]

"Death or Liberty" is standard British anti-American cartoon propaganda.  It was probably always rendered this way as an insult.  This picture was drawn by the enemy.   

My first observation was the rifleman is looking the wrong way. This personally lends credit to the above statement.

[Dphariss]

I was going to ask for a period reference to "United States" used during the American Revolution. But then I remembered the John Thomas Rifle RCA 121. This shows that they were using the term United States in the time period of the American Revolution. John Thomas was a partriot not only in deed but in the decoration of his rifle.

Long shirts. Coats or shirts much longer than knee length or even knee length can hamper movement. I have a long capote I made back when I used to be a guide/horse packer etc. Its great horse back but must have the bottom buttoned back to walk in without a great expenditure of energy.

Dan

[Artificer]

I too found some trouble walking when wearing my long buckskin coat I made in the 70's.  It did not button down too far to restrict movement, but it still was a bit of a problem.  I solved the problem by taking a nod from 18th century Regimental coats and splitting it up the back slightly.   That way it still covered exposed flesh when wearing Indian Leggins and did not lose much if any value for warmth.
Gus