"Plan for the Cloathing of the [Continental] Infantry" by Freiherr de Steuben

Dear Reader,

Today, I am sharing a primary source regarding clothing in the American Continental Army. This is a proposed plan created by Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr de Steuben, for clothing the infantrymen of the Continental Army.  Obviously, this plan was never fully adopted by the United States, and shortages continued throughout the war. This plan, however, gives a clear vision for the type of clothing which Continental troops could expect to receive, and also Steuben's view of what the ideal clothing of a soldier consisted of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newburgh, August 14th, 1779

Gentlemen,

...The distribution of cloathing should be made with more regularity. As long as [one] regiment receives shirts, whilst another receives shoes and their stockings, or what is still worse, when a regiment receives 20 hats, another 200, and another none at all, we must not think of having our Army cloathed.

The distribution of cloathing should be made at certain fixed periods in the year.

Whatever the soldier is to receive should be determined. Every article of the cloathing should be valued at a certain rate, he who receives more than his allowed should refund the price of the surplus and he who receives less should have an adequate compensation made to him.

The annexed plan of such an arrangement will make it clear and more sensible to you, and although at first sight it may appear so much an expenditure, yet I dare assert it will prove advantageous and oeconomical to the United States.

Plan

for the Cloathing of the Infantry

Whatever Cloathing the soldiers receive from the states may be reduced to these Heads:

1st. The Necessaries

2nd. The Uniform

3rd. The Small Mounting 

The necessaries of a soldier consist of:

A haversack of calf or goat skin

A Knapsack of Grey linen

A Blanket

A Pair of shoe buckles

A Pair of Knee Ditto

A Stock Ditto

A Clothes Brush

A Pair of Shoe Brushes

A Large Comb                   I  

A Small Tooth Ditto            I

Six needles                        I    [These] Enclosed

Two Oz Blue thread           I > in a leather case

Two Oz White Ditto            I

A Pocket Knife                   I

A Tin Spoon                       I

The Uniform of a Soldier Consists of: 

A Hat

A Pair of Wool Overalls

A Coat

A Leather Stock

A Waistcoat

A Pair of Garters and Buckles

A Pair of Wooll Breeches

A Pair of Woollen Gloves

The Small Mounting Consists of:

Two Shirts                                      I          Once of each Articles

Two Pair Woollen Stockings          I  >       Every Four Months 

A Pair of Shoes                              I

x A Queue Ribbon and One every six months

A Hunting Shirt                            I

A Pair Wool Overalls                   I> Per Year 

The soldiers should receive their necessaries at their first entering in the Regiment

They should receive their Uniform every New Years Day 

Their small mounting should be made at four different parts of the year:

1st Delivery/ Jan 1st

A  shirt, a pair stockings, a par of shoes, a queue ribbon

2nd Delivery/ April 1st

A shirt, a pair of Lin. Overalls, a pair of shoes

3rd Delivery/ June 1st

A Hunting Shirt, A pair of overalls a Queue Ribbon

4th Delivery/ Sept 1st

A shirt, a pair stockings, a pair of shoes 

The soldiers' necessaries always belong to the states, and when a soldier leaves the service

he must be accountable for them to the Regimental paymaster.

The Uniform belongs to the soldier after sixteen months service and when a soldier dies or quits the Regiment before the expiration of that time his uniform must be must be delivered to the paymaster
who will keep it in his store to distribute its  to the soldiers who will arrive in the course of the year.

The small mounting belong to the soldier after four months service, in case of Death or Discharge, but as long as he remains with the Regiment he must account at each review for the following articles:

3 shirts 3 pair stockings 1 pair of shoes 1 hunting shirt
1 pair linen overalls when a recruit enters a regiment from
January to April, inclusive he receives:
His necessaries
His Uniform new and Compleat
2 shirts
2 pair of stockings
1 pair shoes
1 Queue Ribbons

When a recruit enters his Regt from
May to Aug inclusive he receives
His necessaries
A complete Uniform from those in the paymasters' stores
2 shirts
2 pairs of stockings
1 pair of shoes
1 Queue Ribbon

A recruit who enters from September to Jan inclusive receives

His necessaries
A Complete Uniform from the paymaster's [stores]
2 shirts
2 pairs of stockings
1 Pair of shoes
1 Queue Ribbon

Steuben /////
Maj. General[1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always: 

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steuben Papers, 2:10. 

Young Historian Spotlight: Davis Tierney

Davis Tierney as a Loyalist

Today, we are continuing with the second of a series of interviews with a number of young historians. By the time this series concludes in early November, we will have heard from Jack Weaver, Andrew Warren, Ben Olex, Casey Hill, Samantha Sproviero, and Davis Tierney. All of these individuals are broadly interested in the Kabinettskriege era, and have been selected as a result of recent promotion, impending graduate school applications, or work recently begun in graduate school or at a historic site. Today's young historian Davis Tierney, a seasoned historic interpreter, and graduate of William and Mary. Davis currently works as the director of the Old Fort Niagara historic interpreter program.

Alexander Burns: What drew you to study the history in this era? In 2018, much of popular memory of military history in the United States is focused on World War 1, World War 2, and the Vietnam War. What about the history of the 1688-1815 era do you find so compelling?

Davis Tierney[1]: Honestly? I totally stumbled into it. I’d always liked history but never really nailed down a particular period, but if I had to credit one thing, it was being introduced to Rev war reenacting in college, particularly going to events at Colonial Williamsburg. I had worked at Jamestown doing 17th century stuff in the past, and had been doing great war for a while, but being in a living 18th century town of that scale and seeing everything that 18th c. living history could offer really got me hooked. The more I read about the time period the more interesting I found everything. I liked being able to see the battlefields without having to buy a plane ticket, I loved (and still love) the aesthetic of the period, and found many of the period writers surprisingly relatable.

AB: Is there a particular person, conflict, event, or geographical setting which draws you to this era?

DT: I’m definitely a revolution junky. I enjoy reading about and studying the other conflicts (Seven years war is my #2) but the revolution is what I always come back to. In particular, the study of loyalists during the revolution is a subject that really grabbed onto me in college and didn’t let go. Whether it’s looking at tories raiding the New York frontier with Six Nations war parties, highland loyalists at moore’s creek, or the better known loyalists under Simcoe and Tarleton, I’m all about it. Loyalists have been given such a bad reputation for such a long time. I feel like much of the American public either knows nothing about them, or believes they are the incarnation of satan (Thanks Mel Gibson). As a public historian I feel it is my responsibility to humanize these people, explain their motivations, and show the public the facts of their actions in as plain terms as is possible, and let them draw their own conclusions.

Davis (left) with some of his interpretive staff from Fort Niagara

AB: Working at a historic site, do you ever get push-back from the public as you attempt to humanize these figures? As your historic site is close to Canada, what do Canadian visitors think of your humanization of Loyalists?

DT: It’s extremely rare that people react negatively in any significant way. They might crack a joke or two, but I have yet to encounter anyone really nasty about it. The closest I get are traitor comments, (in a joking manner) which are easy to direct into a discussion about who is betraying who in this conflict. As to the Canadians, they love it, as it’s totally not the perspective they thought they’d get in the US. Southern Ontario, being the place where many loyalists ended up after the war, is full of families that can trace their heritage to American Loyalists, and references to important loyalist figures are all over the area.

AB: How do you plan to continue your research into this era? Many of you have been employed in public history settings, or are currently applying to graduate programs. Why have you chosen your particular path?

DT: I chose public history largely because I needed a break from school. I just didn’t have it in me at the time to go get another degree, but I still wanted to spend my time doing historical work, and now here I am. I absolutely love my job. I get to go to work, do cool stuff, learn interesting things, and then tell other people about them. I get to come up with the programs that will (hopefully) light a spark in some kid’s head, maybe convincing them to become historians. The further I get from my undergrad days, the more I like the idea of going back to school, but that’s years in the future.

AB: How does your particular line of research or interpretation style share your topic, not just with fellow historians and researchers, but with the public in the United States?

Davis working at Old Fort Niagara

DT: Being at a historic site, sharing with the public is the job. The key to that is making sure you’ve done your reading on the academic side, and knowing how to distill With Zeal & With Bayonets Only into a demonstration in a way that people who aren’t massive nerds like us will actually understand. Generally I find that the public, whether children or adults, are almost always capable of understanding more than you might initially think. We are here to make this more than an old place with some “boomsticks”. It is the job of a good interpreter to impart why all of this is important, how did these things change the lives of very real people, and what can we learn from them.

AB: What have you been reading, recently? Could you recommend one book on your topic of interest, or any recent work on the era?

DT: I’ve been working my way through a bunch of books by Gavin Watt. Right now I’m on his book called  I am heartily ashamed, The Revolutionary War’s Final Campaign as waged from Canada in 1782.   I continue to be impressed by the degree of specificity with which he nails these raids down. Compared to reading about the massive coastal battles, his works on the frontier war feel much more personal and specific (perhaps because of the smaller scale?) and are introducing me to an element of the revolution I only had vague knowledge of. I knew there were raids, and what their broader objectives were, but to get nice and detailed about each one is fantastic.

AB: Thanks Davis! I look forward to seeing where your career takes you!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Davis Tierney has been a historic interpreter for nine years, both professionally and as a hobbyist, starting out with the Jamestown-Yorktown foundation. After graduating from the College of William & Mary with a bachelors in History, he worked for the Colonial Williamsburg foundation as a tour guide, military interpreter, and a brief stint in historic trades. He is currently the Interpretive Program Manager at Old Fort Niagara.

How did the British Army adapt to North America in the French and Indian War?

Old Fort Niagara Staff portraying 46th Grenadiers in July of 2016
Photo Credit: Lee Charles Gugino

Dear Reader,


By this point, in most academic, reenacting, and wargaming circles, it has been firmly established that the British army adopted a two-rank, open-order formation during the course of the American War of Independence. Thanks to the painstaking research of individuals such as Matthew Spring, Don Hagist, and Steve Rayner, we know much more about the British Army during the American War of Independence than was thought possible thirty years ago. This shallow open formation, coupled with a rapid advance was the hallmark of British tactics for most of the American War of Independence.[1]

A company of AWI British reenactors formed in the "common open order of two deep" 

Scholars and reenactors rightly point out the importance of inter-war experimentation in the development of this formation, namely those carried out by Townshend and Howe in the early 1770s. However, the point of today's post is to highlight the use of this formation during an earlier war in North America: the French and Indian War.

Stephen Brumwell's excellent 2002 work, Redcoats:  The British Soldier and War in the Americas, 1755-1763, should be the starting point for anyone interested tactical developments of the British army during this era. How did the British army fight in North America? And is that fighting style accurately portrayed by reenactors and simulated by wargamers?

Observers in the era of the American Revolution remembered the adaptations of the British army during the French and Indian War quite clearly. During his stay in Canada in 1776, General Friedrich Riedesel (a soldier from Brunswick fighting as a British ally) recalled:

“But the English make it one of their chief rules and principles in this country, that no maneuvers may ever be carried out in serried ranks in these districts that are so terribly wooded. They found that out to their cost in the last war against the French in North America, in which they were always unsuccessful at the commencement, until they had taught their men to maneuver with open ranks and cover themselves by means of trees, after which they were always successful.”[2]

Riedesel's wife also kept a detailed journal of her experiences on campaign in North America

It is possible that Riedesel's received this information from British soldiers or French Canadian locals who were present at events. This quote makes it seem as though the British adopted this formation as a result of the harsh terrain of North America- a commonly cited reason for its adoption in the American War of Independence. Other observers in the revolutionary era, such as David Dundas, also commented on the development of the two-rank open-order formation as arising in North America during the French and Indian War.

"The Method almost universally adopted in our infantry, and in ours only, of forming two deep, and at open files, deserves the most serious consideration. It was not produced by the experience of the German war [War of Austrian Succession], but by that of the first American [French and Indian War]...The desultory service there carried on by small bodies of men...first introduced it as proper for that country[.]"[3]

Dundas clearly states that the low number of British troops made a two-rank open-order tactical system feasible in North America. As we shall see, contemporary commanders from the French and Indian War agreed.  Dundas also formulates another belief on why the two-rank open-order system could be adopted in North America: the lack of cavalry:

"The very small proportion of cavalry employed in the American wars, has much tended to introduce the present loose and irregular system of our infantry. — Had they seen and been accustomed to the rapid movements of a good cavalry, they would have felt the- necessity of more substantial order, of moving with concert and circumspection, and of being at every instant in a situation to form and repel a vigorous attack."[4]

There are numerous orders indicating that men should be drawn up two deep. Captain John Knox reproduces several of the general orders from Amherst in the campaign of 1759 in his journal. These orders give us a good window into how common practice of forming men two-deep had become in the French and Indian War era:

"The grenadiers and brigades are, do be drawn up on all services two deep...The men to be acquainted that this is ordered, as the enemy have very few regular troops to oppose us, and no yelling of Indians, or fire of Canadians, can possibly withſtand two ranks, if the men are silent, attentive, and obedient to their Officers, who will lead them to the enemy ; and their silence will terrify the enemy more than any huzzaing or noise they can make, which the General abſolutely forbids[.]"[5]

Careful students of the American War of Independence will notice that this is quite the opposite of British noise discipline practice then, when British soldiers were encouraged to cheer at the enemy frequently. So, why did British infantry embrace this practice in North America, and were the files spaced apart, as in the American War of Independence?

Two men, possibly from the 60th Regiment Light Company,
portrayed in a painting by Benjamin West

The first explanation is that it was simply a North American practice transferred from the provincial forces to the regular army. Amherst recommends that the provincials form in a two-deep order, "as they have always been accustomed to it."[6] This would go a long way towards explaining why the regulars did so early in the war, especially at disasters like the Battle on the Monongahela in 1755 and Carillon 1758. The British did indeed form in two ranks deep at both of these disasters.[7]

On the other hand, it is possible that necessity forced the British to open their files, and that the two-rank formation was not always in open order. Quarter Master Sjt. John Johnson of the 58th Foot explains that at the Plains of Abraham in 1759, Wolfe ordered the British fight with a formation opened to a three-foot space between files, in order to extend the line.[8]

You can almost hear him nitpicking.

Again and again, sources indicated that the practice of drawing up two deep in the battle was a desperate measure designed to make the British force appear larger than it actually was, or extend the line to cover key portions of terrain. At Sainte-Foy in April of 1760, John Knox reports that, "The second line was composed of the thirty- fifth, and the third battalion of Royal Americans, drawn up, to appear more numerous, two deep."[9] So, perhaps as the war continued, the slightly different practice of forming two deep was modified into what became the "common open order of two deep"  by the American War of Independence.[10]

This could occasionally have disastrous consequences, as Brumwell argues happened at the Battle of Sainte-Foy. At Sainte-Foy, the open ranks of the British formation produced a relatively low volume of musket fire, especially as the firefight continued for a long period of time. Likewise, the British regiments at the Battle of Freeman's Farm in 1777 were unable to quickly drive off the enemy and began the process of slowly losing an infantry firefight with rebel Americans. Fortunately for the British at Saratoga, they had German allies prepared to support them in the nick of time; there were no such allies at Sainte-Foy in 1760.  

So, what does all this mean? For reenactors, forming in two ranks, usually in open order, should become the norm if portraying troops after 1758. It could certainly be used before 1758, although more sources have survived from the Plains of Abraham and Sainte-Foy to document its specific use in those field battles. Again- just to be clear, these sources are not describing light infantry, but rather are orders designed to manage the entire rank and file of the British army. 

For wargamers, basing British units a bit wider than normal might be a way to incorporate these changes. Also, after the first volley (which was quite devastating at close range at Quebec in 1759) the firepower of British infantry in this formation should drop off considerably. Likewise, they might want to take slightly fewer casualties than normal, to represent the space in the formation. At the Plains of Abraham, this formation was used to full effect: the British advanced with opened files, taking light casualties from long-range French fire before replying with a devastating double-loaded volley of their own. The ready adaptability of the supposedly hide-bound British army proved to be a great strength at battles such as Quebec and Brandywine. However, it also proved to be a weakness in the face of determined opposition, in battles like Sainte-Foy and Freeman's Farm.

 If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Best Regards,




Alex Burns

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Spring, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only, 139.
[2] Riedesel, Journal of General Riedesel, in Hessian Documents of the American Revolution, 118. (Microfilm)
[3] Dundas, Principles of Military Movement, 51.
[4]Ibid, 11.
[5] Knox, An Historical Journal of the Campaign in North America, Vol I, pg 384-395.   
[6] Ibid, 374.
[7] Brumwell, Redcoats, 255.
[8] Doughty eds, The Siege of Quebec and the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, Vol V, 107.
[9] Knox, An Historical Journal of the Campaign in North America, Vol II, pg 293.
[10] Quoted in Spring, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only, 143.

A Defense of Progressive Reenacting

Dear Readers,


It was a busy weekend in American Revolutionary War reenacting circles. Whether you are a member of the BAR, BB, CL or, NWTA, the fact of the matter is that drama is unfolding in the reenactor world. I am personally aware of two units splitting apart, over some aspect of the division between progressive and mainstream reenactors. Yesterday, this article appeared, criticizing a minority of progressive reenactors for bullying mainstreamers. So, from the perspective of a professional historian, I would like to give a defense of the progressive moment.

First of all, what is a progressive reenactor? You will often face various straw men in the search for the progressive. The first is the stitch counter- a reenactor who sews all their own clothing by hand, and aggressively encourages all around them to do the same. The next is the campaigner, who sleeps out on the ground at every event, and looks down on all of those who fail to follow suit. The third is the misogynist, who actively opposes women in a military role at reenactments.

The purpose of this post is to make the following four contentions. First: reenacting is a hobby, but one with a serious duty to honor the past. Second: a progressive is not any of the straw men presented above, but rather, anyone who makes an effort to improve their historical impression consistently. Third: individuals of any income, gender, or knowledge base can meet with the above definition of progressive. Four: despite the potential to ruffle feathers, progressivism is undoubtedly a GOOD thing.

All hobbies have barriers to entry. In order to kayak you must own a kayak, or borrow from someone who does. In order to paintball you must have a gun, protective equipment, and paintballs. Reenacting is the same way. You must be willing to invest to some degree, or find a generous unit with unlimited loaner equipment.  However, reenacting has another, very important barrier to entry.

As a historical professional, I feel reenacting has an additional barrier to entry: you must be willing to honor the past. In my opinion, talking on a cellphone in front of the public at a reenactment dishonors the past. Being unwilling to break from a first person impression when members of the public are clearly confused also dishonors the past. Wearing white sneakers at an event dishonors the past. In the same way, angrily confronting said sneaker-wearer and driving them out of the hobby as a result also dishonors the past. ALL reenactors have a duty to read and learn, not just the history of their particular unit, but how that history fits within the story of the period as a whole. This is part of honoring the past, and a barrier to entry in reenacting.

A very wise reenactor once indicated to me that there are levels of being progressive. Not everyone is going to be a stitch counter-campaigner. Being progressive is not a set standard of requirements, it is a state of mind- a constant search for further historical accuracy. At a recent event, a unit I am a part of went to battle in full kit, and grounded non-essential kit in front of the public, showing the public an often overlooked aspect of combat in the American Revolutionary War. Many members of the unit were not in hand sewn kit- but it didn't matter- that was a progressive moment for the unit. Another easy way to demonstrate historical accuracy on the battlefield is to represent the breakdown of fire-control. Start a battle firing crisp volleys, and devolve to independent fire as the battle wears on. A willingness to improve, rather than a gold standard, should be the benchmark for progressivism.

A frequent objection to progressives is the cost of high-quality materials associated with progressive kits. Not everyone can afford Kochan and Phillips broadcloth for their uniforms, nor should they. Not everyone has the time to hand sew all of their kit, nor should they. I would rather see a well-fitted coat made of Woolrich cloth with the inside seams machine sewn than a poorly-fitted hand sewn coat made of Kochan and Phillips. If you are on a budget, but want a high quality kit, talk to those around you who sew. Many reenactors are happy to come alongside new members on a budget. In addition, a large portion of the reenactors I spend the most time around are still in school- no excess of money there. However, I often find that those with little excess cash are the most motivated to construct good quality kit. And, at least in my opinion, construction of good quality kit is a way of honoring the past.

Women desiring to portray soldiers often face objection from progressive reenactors. As someone self-identifying as a progressive, I would rather see a female soldier in well-fitted kit than a man swimming in a grossly oversized regimental. However,  I believe that female reenactors portraying soldiers have a duty to attempt to hide their gender. Many women (including my girlfriend) practice the art of hiding their gender while in the ranks. Along with having a well-fitted kit, this is a way of honoring the past.

Some progressives have the potential to be abrasive. I would encourage them to tone it down. However despite the possibility of hurting feelings, I contend that progressivism is definitely a good thing, and that it should continue to forge ahead. As reenactors, we have a duty to honor the past. While we should also attempt to have a good time, honoring the past should be ever present. And, at least in my mind, honoring the past and having fun seems to be a largely overlapping Venn diagram.

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns