boards and the Secretary of War in considering pro- 

 posed changes. During periods when the Army was con- 

 sidering changes in clothing items, officials in Washing- 

 ton (not wishing to rely on memory) would call for 

 specimens from the Military Storekeeper in Philadel- 

 phia in order to examine previous styles, fabrics, and 

 methods of manufacture. Thus the collection, coupled 

 with field testing, was a valuable asset in research and 

 development of new clothing and equipage. 



Permanent status was given to the collection in the 

 fall of 1865 when Brevet Major General Montgomery 

 C. Meigs, the Quartermaster General of the Army, 

 1861-1882, directed the officer commanding at 

 Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia to establish at the 

 Arsenal a museum of samples of uniform clothing and 

 equipage in a fireproof building then about to be con- 

 structed. All "standard samples" were to be in locked 

 display cases and all specimens were to be "'properly 

 labeled, catalogued, and protected." The project was 

 not allowed to lag, indeed Meigs evidenced an active 

 and continuing interest in it — both for historical and for 

 research and development purposes — until his retire- 

 ment. By 1869 the Museum had become well enough 

 known to attract notice in the local press. 



Beyond its research and development functions and 

 its historical value, the museum ser\ed a broad public 

 relations purpose. It was a point of interest to visitors 

 to the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Portions of the 

 collections were made available for public exhibit and 

 were .seen by hundreds of thousands of people at var- 

 ious national and international expositions beginning 

 with the Centennial of 1876 and continuing into the 

 early years of World War I. During the same period, 

 a number of specimens were placed on long-term ex- 

 hibit in the State- War-Navy Building in Washington. 



In 1916, after the return of material loaned to the 

 Panama-Pacific Exposition held in San Francisco the 

 previous year, the entire collection at Philadelphia was 

 placed in storage for want of space at the Arsenal. In 

 1919 it was turned over to the U.S. National Museum 

 of the Smithsonian by the War Department. At the 

 same time the specimens in the State- War-Navy Build- 

 ing were also transferred to the Smithsonian. 



Over the years the collections had grown consid- 

 erably: by 1913 there were 238 "lay figures" (uni- 

 forms on manikins) on exhibit. A few of these were 

 patent reproductions, primarily of the Continental and 

 War of 1812 periods for which authentic specimens did 

 not exist in the Army. These reproductions, which have 



been isolated in the Smithsonian's collections and can 

 be accounted for, will be the subject of a special note 

 in a succeeding volume. 



The biographical collections of the Smithsonian, 

 although extensive but not to be compared with those 

 from the War Department, are also of great impor- 

 tance. They contain many outstanding examples of 

 officers' wear not included in the Philadelphia 

 collection. 



1854 has not been arbitrarily selected as a cut-oflf 

 date; it happens in fact to mark the end of an era in 

 headgear styling. In 1855 the broad-brimmed 

 campaign hat was prescribed for the newly organized 

 1st and 2d Cavalry Regiments for both dress and fatigue 

 and for the entire Army in March 1858. In November 

 1858 the "bummers" type forage cap was authorized 

 and in the spring of 1859 all remaining stocks of the 

 1851-1854 cap were ordered issued for fatigue use. 



During the months this study was in preparation, 

 many people and institutions gave generously of their 

 time and facilities. Foremost were the personnel of 

 the Army-Air Force Branch of the National Archives, 

 Mr. Elmer Parker, Mrs. Sara Jackson, Mr. Milton 

 Chamberlain, and Mr. Sidney Haas. Their enthusiastic 

 and continuing interest, their willingness to search and 

 search again for an elusive document, and their sound 

 advice based on years of experience with archival col- 

 lections made this work possible. Also of great help has 

 been the continuing aid of two experienced research- 

 ers working on projects of their own but never too 

 busy to make note of or bring to the authors' attention 

 material pertinent to this work: Mr. Detmar Finke of 

 the Office, Chief of Military- History, who re\iewed 

 the manuscript, and Mr. James Hutchins, Assistant 

 Director, National Armed Forces Museum Advisory 

 Board. Dr. Erna RLsch, former chief, Historical Of- 

 fice, U.S. Army Materiel Command, also contributed 

 much from her wide knowledge of the history of Army 

 supply. Mrs. Grace Rogers Cooper, Curator, Division 

 of Textiles, Museum of History and Technology, gave 

 most generously of her time and her technical knowl- 

 edge of fabrics. Thanks are also owing to Col. J. Dun- 

 can Campbell, the West Point Museum, the Coe 

 Collection of the Yale University Library, and M. 

 Knoedler and Co., New York, for illustrative material. 



Edgar M. Howell 



Curator, Division of Military History 



Donald E. Kloster 



Museum Specialist, Division of Military History 



