Uniforms of the American Revolution 1775-1783, Volume 1

322 Pages·2006·26.892 MB·English

by  Timothy J. Reese

UUNNIIFFOORRMMSS
ooff tthhee
AAMMEERRIICCAANN RREEVVOOLLUUTTIIOONN
11777755--11778833,, VVoolluummee 11
GR
DDiiggiittaall IIlllluussttrraattiioonnss ooff HHiiss MMaajjeessttyy’’ss CCoommbbaatt LLaanndd FFoorrcceess
aanndd
TThhee AAmmeerriiccaann CCoonnttiinneennttaall AArrmmyy aanndd SSttaattee FFoorrcceess
TTiimmootthhyy JJ.. RReeeessee
22000066
Introduction
At the time of the American War for Independence military costume was
undergoing a period of transition in both style and supply. Stylish fashion forms
dictated in European salons gradually yielded to the demands of far-flung climates
hot and cold, wet and dry. The period from 1750 to 1800 marked a divergence
from roomy, almost gratuitous garments toward a classic tight-fitting style
prevalent well into the 19th Century.
Moreover, the demands of continental campaigning from Canada to the West
Indies hastened the process. The rigors of forest, swamp and steamy savannah
compelled regimental officers to adopt local clothing concessions, to strip down
equipment, and to hybridize both clothing and accoutrement to accommodate
fast-moving campaigns over great distances. The Revolution spurred wider
employment of light infantry and riflemen, roving punitive detachments, dramatic
restructuring, and novel deployment of elite troops. America was a vast chess
board. The game would be won through arrangement of the strongest pieces at
the most advantageous and timely locales.
Here too a strained system of procurement and supply further taxed uniformity.
The complexities of late 18th Century uniforms and gear quickly adapted to
whatever was available in sufficient quantity. A military standard was maintained
whenever and wherever possible, determined only through a quartermaster’s
ingenuity or desperation as the case may have been.
For British troops the American scene was no stranger. The French and Indian
War had underscored many shortcomings. However this new conflict would
greatly magnify those experiences in highly mobile campaigns covering many
more miles. The Revolution would be won and lost more by shoe leather than by
weapons. To some degree costume adaptation would speed its conclusion.
For the infant United States this would be a war equally against time and scant
supply. Clothing, equipment and weapons would only materialize through
combing every possible resource. In the end these necessities were largely
furnished by France and Spain, both of whom had old scores to settle with Great
Britain. In the final analysis, material wants and the freedom to utilize them would
tip the balance. Without the unflinching assistance of Britain’s traditional foes, the
thirteen colonies would have stood little chance for independence.
The British Army
At war’s commencement British Army uniforms were tightly regulated by the King’s
Clothing Warrant of 1768 by which all forms of dress were laid out with allowances
for flank companies and specialized needs.
As always, the most striking and individualistic uniform trait was a regiment’s
facings, that is the color and hue adopted for coat collar, lapels and cuffs. To this
can be added the type and array of lace buttonhole loops applied to the coat,
these being every bit as distinctive.
Clothing regulations for the period would have been rather streamlined were it not
for the myriad regimental peculiarities and practices jealously guarded as
regimental identity. Costume had always been a tug of war between the King’s will
and a colonel’s preference. The farther a regiment served from home, the more
likely deviation from the former, this despite generous concessions made in
regulations. Many of these will be closely examined throughout.
Generally speaking, uniforms and equipment were held to a certain standard with
modifications for a unit’s flank companies, one each per regiment of grenadiers
and light infantry. Carriage of cartridge pouches and bayonets on shoulder belts or
waist belts was still a matter of unit preference, often determined by supply.
American service urged the cutting down of coats, the jettisoning of extra gear,
and a decided trend toward the foe’s appearance and adaptations. Indian
influences had made themselves felt in the French and Indian conflict, revived in
this new encounter.
Fighting so far from home, the British soldier increasingly made do with whatever
materiel reached him via long sea voyage to distant ports. Often “disappointed” in
supply, routine economy measures found wider utilization as the norm. In time
only the red of his coat would distinguish him, and his officer would all too often be
recognizable only by his crimson sash, a prudent concession to the ubiquitous
Yankee sharpshooter.
Though the Revolutionary War was ultimately lost to him, the British soldier came
away with a masters degree in solid campaign adaptation well prepared for empire
building. The Duke of Wellington later asserted that “the battle of Waterloo was
won on the playing fields of Eton.” More prosaically, the army with which he
pacified Napoleonic Europe had come of age in America pitted against gathered,
intractable foes.
American Forces
It has been fairly argued that the American colonies embarked on war against their
mother country with little or no idea of how to accomplish it. The Continental
Congress was in effect a token body with no real influence over individual colonies
for procurement of scarce resources. Clothing, weapons, food, ammunition, and
leadership were all in short supply among disparate states long accustomed to
dependence on Britain for nearly everything.
Be that as it may, it was the shared experiences and practices of the French and
Indian War which served as solid groundwork for a hastily created army. George
Washington himself was a byproduct of that conflict, as well the cadre around
which he struggled to erect an American military edifice in the midst of war.
From the start conflicts arose between Congressional and state authority and
supply. Both levels of government often worked to cross-purposes, duplicated
effort, or withheld resources awaiting contingencies. Some states were overly
generous, even self-denying in their generosity, while others husbanded their
resources in case they became a singular target for British expeditionary forces.
This climate made uniformity of clothing and equipment almost unachievable by
even the most rudimentary standard.
Congress did not venture to establish clothing regulations for the Continental Army
until 1779 by which time foreign alliance had soundly bolstered prospects for true
independence. In the meantime regimental colonel’s had been forced to adopt
whatever uniform appearance they could for their soldiers as resources would
allow. This proved to be a competitive endeavor because states and the Congress
concurrently raised their own regiments in direct conflict for clothing and weapons.
Some American units went off to war wearing red coats, others dressed more like
civilians or even frontiersmen.
Though the 1779 regulations laid down a blue coat as a standard, a veritable
rainbow of colors already in use continued in wear. America’s embryonic woolen
industry could not have met the demand in any event. What emerged was a
peculiarly localized perception of the soldier’s appearance, its vagaries so broad
and mismatched as to defy anything approaching recognition.
What little we do know of this mélange comes down to us primarily from deserter
descriptions appearing in period newspapers wherein at least a soldier’s coat and
facing colors are described, occasionally headdress. But even these often mislead
due to inconsistencies within a regiment.
In truth the standard for American military uniformity was, more often than not,
confined to company level or lower. Add to this the influx of foreign materiel and
we find it nearly impossible to illustrate the American soldier with any certainty.
Extrapolation from common usage then of necessity becomes our guide. A
regiment’s clothing and turn-out fluctuated between the well-appointed to the near-
naked. In time failure of supply and hard campaigning rendered all into rags.
If it is indeed true that “clothes make the man”, then the Continental soldier most
certainly broke the mold with a vengeance. Garbed in whatever came to hand,
toting his gear in whatever contrivance he could bear for dreary weeks at a time,
often barefoot, frequently hefting a British, French or Spanish musket, eating
things no civilian would touch, he persevered and ultimately overcame. At the
Yorktown surrender British officers were appalled at his gaunt, disheveled
appearance, and so tried to yield their swords to the French instead without
success. How could this rabble have beaten them? Their own shortcomings had
been their undoing, ably abetted by unyielding American will.
(cid:87)
The figures depicted in this compact disc are a generous sampling of the
regiments committed to the American conflict. It is by no means a survey of all.
Some license has been taken in instances where specifics of uniform and
equipment are marginally known. Scholarly research is ongoing in primary sources
to further define our knowledge of the subject.
The use of digital diagrammatic illustration—in all its crispness and clarity—allows
portrayal of intricate detail in all its complexity where contemporary paintings and
drawings all too often leave doubt.
By these means we come ever closer to the ideal, a reasonably accurate graphic
portrayal of all soldiers’ appearance which remains too often the purview of the
written word alone.
In gratitude, a snappy present-arms goes to “Ouatach”, Peter D. Albertsen of
Baltimore.
Timothy J. Reese
Sources
Lawson, Cecil C.P., A History of the Uniforms of the British Army, Vol. 3 (1961).
Mollo, John and Malcolm McGregor, Uniforms of the American Revolution (1973).
Elting, John R., ed., Military Uniforms in America: The Era of the American
Revolution, 1755-1795; from the series Produced by the Company of Military
Historians. (1974).
Troiani, Don, Earl J. Coates, and James K. Kochan, Don Troiani’s Soldiers in
America, 1754-1865. (1998).
(web site) The American Revolution, 1775-1784.
http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/index.htm
IIIIII
Senior Officer Corps
As one would expect, senior British officers were clothed in an elegant style far
superior to the rank and file.
The humble private soldier’s red coat was made of wool dyed to a Madder or dark
red shade. Sergeants’ coats were made up in slightly finer and brighter material
befitting their rank. Flaming scarlet best wool goods were reserved for officers,
generously trimmed with gilt buttons and gold lace.
Some latitude of dress among officers was typical, usually determined by branch
of service or theater of operations. Leg and footwear were gauged by these
factors as well.
Distinctive badges of rank were the ubiquitous crimson sash, a walking cane
usually strung with gold tassels, and a gorget or metal throat piece, this a last
holdover from the days of suit armor. Senior officers in fact often dispensed with
the gorget as a nuisance.
The figure second from right is based on the uniform of Lt. Gen. Thomas Gage
bearing all the consummate trademarks of high office. Other figures depict various
ranks of staff and field officers wearing uniform variations in keeping with their
assignments.
Unlike junior officers, senior ranks retained a bevy of personal assistants or
“batmen” to look after their clothing and kit.

IIIIII
1st Foot Guards
The vaunted 1st Foot Guards were active from early operations around New York
down to Yorktown. They were in fact loosely formed into a composite Guards
regiment of two battalions made up of 15 picked men from each company—
approximately 1100 officers and men—while the balance of each regiment
remained in the British Isles.
Royal blue facings were trimmed out in diamond or “bastion”-shaped lace loops in
single or regular array denoting the First Regiment. The grenadier at left has
swallowtail epaulettes, the mark of flank companies, and wears the grenadier’s
bearskin fur cap. A match case is attached to his cartridge pouch belt, formerly
encasing a lit saltpeter match to ignite hand grenades, by then of obsolete use but
still a badge of distinction.
The ensign second from right bears the regimental colors. In Line Regiments the
King’s color was of the Union pattern, the regimental color of the unit facing color
with a small Union in the upper corner nearest the staff. In Guards Regiments this
usage was just the opposite, the Union flag serving as regimental color while a
dark red field with Union canton served as the Sovereign’s color. This practice
continues today.
Note the ensign’s gorget, gold lace and epaulettes. Ensigns were traditionally
chosen from the youngest subalterns, they being far heartier to carry the unwieldy
colors in a stiff breeze. Colors measured 6 feet by 6 feet 6 inches affixed to a 9
feet 10 inches pole.