Читать книгу American Military Insignia, 1800-1851 - J. Duncan Campbell - Страница 3

Table of Contents

This catalog is a descriptive and interpretive listing of the insignia of the Army of the United States—other than buttons, epaulets, and horse furniture—in the National Collections that were prescribed or worn during the period 1800–1851. The subject of early American military buttons has been covered by L. F. Emilio in The Emilio Collection of Military Buttons (Salem, Massachusetts: Essex Institute, 1911), W. L. Calver and R. P. Bolton in History Written with Pick and Shovel (New York: New York Historical Society, 1950), and David F. Johnson in Uniform Buttons, American Armed Forces, 1784–1948. (Watkins Glen, New York: Century House, 1948, 2 vols.). For epaulets, see Mendel L. Peterson, "American Army Epaulets, 1814–1872," Military Collector and Historian (March 1961, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–14).

Most of the specimens described here are from the huge W. Stokes Kirk Collection acquired in 1959, supplemented by the War Department Collection and the numerous biographical collections of the United States National Museum; in addition, a few insignia in the collections of J. Duncan Campbell and others are included.

The unique W. Stokes Kirk Collection, unmatched in scope, volume, and rarity, is worthy of special note. It was begun in 1878 by W. Stokes Kirk, Sr., of Philadelphia, a dealer in U.S. Government surplus. Struck by the beautiful design and delicate art work in some of the early insignia, Mr. Kirk put aside all old and unusual devices for his personal collection. As his business expanded, so did his interest in military rarities and curios. After each bulk purchase from government sources, he would have all the odd and unusual items sorted out for his examination. The best of such items went into his personal collection, which included rare firearms, powder flasks, insignia, epaulets, military caps, and the like. W. Stokes Kirk, Jr., who succeeded his father and expanded the business nationally until it became almost as well known as Bannerman's Military Store in New York City, maintained and enlarged the collection. After his death, in 1946, the collection was continued by his widow, Mrs. Linnie A. Kirk Mosler. Items in this catalog from the W. Stokes Kirk Collection are indicated by the letters "S-K" in parentheses following the United States National Museum number.

Although this catalog is, in more than one sense, a developmental history of American military insignia, it is not, and is not intended to be, a definitive study. The picture is far too incomplete. Whereas the record of Regular Army devices after 1821 is fairly clear—despite the fact that the uniform regulations continued sometimes to use the tantalizing phrase "according to pattern"—there remain serious gaps in the pre-1821 period when regulations were exceedingly vague and fragmentary at best; for example, the badges of the Regiment of Light Artillery (1812–1821). These gaps will be filled only by excavating at sites known to have been occupied by specific Regular units during particular periods. Indeed, since this study was begun, four unique and significant insignia were excavated at the site of a War of 1812 cantonment, and these greatly enrich our knowledge of the period.

The record of insignia of the veritable multitude of independent uniformed Militia companies in existence during the period under consideration may never be complete. The selection presented here, however, is an excellent representative chronological cross section of typical designs and variations of insignia worn by the uniformed or "volunteer" Militia, as opposed to the "common" or "standing" Militia.

The best sources of documentation and dating for Regular Army devices are the uniform regulations and ordnance regulations; these are supplemented by pertinent records in the National Archives, notably the letter files of the Purveyor of Public Supplies and of the Commissary General of Purchases. The letter files are voluminous, but in some cases badly mixed and in many cases incomplete. We have conjectured a reason for this incompleteness. The two prime contractors for military insignia during the period 1812–1821 were George Armitage and William Crumpton, both of whom had their small factories in Philadelphia within a mile of the office of Callendar Irvine, Commissary General of Purchases. The paucity of written transactions in the records in the National Archives between these gentlemen and Irvine tends to bear out our assumption that most of their dealings were conducted verbally in Irvine's office. This would account for the lack of sketches and drawings of cap plates and belt plates in files of the National Archives. In cases where no specific documentary evidence is available, dating has been based on a careful evaluation of design development and comparison with biographical specimens that can be more fairly dated through knowledge of the former owner's career. Excavated insignia from datable sites have also reduced the problem considerably.

For Militia insignia worn about 1835, the best documentation is to be found in U.S. Military Magazine, published between 1839 and 1842 by Huddy and Duval of Philadelphia, and in New York Military Magazine, published by Labree and Stockton of New York during 1841. In 1939, Frederick P. Todd described the Huddy and Duval prints in detail (Journal of the American Military Institute, 1939, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 166–176). However, evaluation and consideration of over-all design development and comparison with dated biographical specimens of the earlier period, before 1835, are difficult and must be done cautiously, as there is no orderly pattern. One generalization does seem clear: during the decade after 1821, when the Regulars discarded large cap plates, the Militia almost universally adopted them and continued to wear them well into the 1840's. Very few insignia include the maker's name or initials, but when they do, bracketing within a definite period is relatively easy. Similarly, when a cap plate appears to be original to a cap, the design of the cap and its maker's label, if included, are of great help. Finally, when there is nothing else to rely on, the "feel" of the specimen, gained through the experience of studying several thousand, has been used, although with reluctance.

The year 1800 was selected as the opening date of the study because it was in that year that the first metal ornament was prescribed to designate a particular branch of service. The closing date of 1851 was chosen because Regular Army devices for that year and thereafter are well documented in uniform regulations, manuals, and catalogs of manufacturers such as William Horstmann and Sons. Militia dress after that general date becomes so increasingly complex that it should be attempted only as a separate study.

Most of the specimens described in this study were struck from steel dies; however—despite the relative wealth of knowledge on the striking of coins—little is known of the exact process, especially prior to the appearance of the punch press in the 1830's. Several insignia dies dating as early as the War of 1812 period and a number dating in the 1840's do exist, however. All of these examined were found to be female dies, with the design in intaglio rather than in relief. The design was worked into the die—the art generally termed "die-sinking"—in the same basic manner as in coin dies. The die sinker first softened the steel to suit his particular taste and then incised the design, using a succession of small chisels. The steel was then retempered to withstand high impact pressures. Although there is no documentation on the subject, manufacturing techniques of the period indicate that the following process was probably employed: the die was locked in place at the base of a drop press, similar to a guillotine, so that it could be struck accurately from above; a piece of pure lead was then affixed to the bottom of the weighted drop and allowed to strike the die a sufficient number of times to completely receive the impression of the die and become, in effect, a male counterpart; lastly, a thin sheet of brass, copper, or pewter was placed on the female die and struck with the weighted lead male, receiving the desired impression but without the excessive stretching and resultant cracking that a steel-on-steel strike might have produced. Examination of finished products in the national collections bears out this theory of production; few if any of the specimens show evidence of having been struck with a steel male die.

With only a few exceptions, all specimens have been photographed on a 1-inch grid. All references to right and left are made according to heraldic usage; the heraldic right is always on the left as viewed.

During the months this work has been in progress, many people and institutions have generously assisted in many ways. It is a pleasure to thank them for their help.

Mr. Detmar Finke of the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, reviewed the Regular Army portions of the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions. Mr. Frederick P. Todd, director of The West Point Museum, graciously answered many questions relative to both Regular Army and Militia insignia. Through the courtesy of Mr. James Koping and Miss Elizabeth Ulrich of the Pennsylvania State Library, The U.S. Military Magazine of Huddy and Duval was made available for unlimited use.

Thanks are also given to the following, who furnished photographs of specimens in their collections: Mr. Waverly P. Lewis, Devon, Connecticut; Mr. William E. Codd, Monkton, Maryland; The Filson Club, Louisville, Kentucky; The West Point Museum; The Fort Sill Museum; Old Fort Erie Museum, Ontario, Canada; The Niagara Historical Society Museum, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada; The Washington County Historical Society Museum, Fort Calhoun, Nebraska; the Valley Forge Chapel Museum, and Dr. John Lattimer, New York City.

Mr. Michael Arpad of Washington, D.C., was especially helpful in matters pertaining to the techniques of chasing and die sinking.

J. Duncan Campbell

Edgar M. Howell

March 1, 1963.