/ 







Figure 28.— Dragoon Cap, 1833-1851. 



In 1832, when the infantry-artillery cap was yet in 

 the de\elopmentaI stages, Ir\inc had expressed con- 

 siderable doubt as to the ad\isability of using wool 

 felt as opposed to leather for the body of the cap.'"' As 

 the result of three years experience with the felted 

 models, he had Henry Cressman make up a model in 

 1836 in light, durable leather which he sent to the 

 Cllothing Bureau for submission to the Secretary of 

 War with a commentary that was both an example 

 of his practicality as Commissary General of Purchases 

 and of the growing nationalism of the times. It also 

 echoes his feelings on the subject expressed in 1813. 

 He wrote Garland : 



I ha\e forwarded to your address a leatlicrn cap, 

 which, on its receipt. I will thank >ou to suliniit to the 

 examination of the Secretaiy of War. I propose its 

 adoption in lieu of the cap now in use with the Army for 



the following reasons. It is made entirely of a material 

 the production of our country, to be had in abundance, 

 and which is known to be durable. It is lighter by two or 

 three ounces than the present cap, a matter of some mo- 

 ment. . . . Such caps can be completed in one shop, 

 or by one mechanic, and can be supplied in any re- 

 quired numbers in a short time. The competition in 

 supplying such caps will be great, whereas the princi- 

 pal material in the present cap is of foreign growth, is 

 imported in small quantities, gets into the hands of 

 speculators by which competition is lessened and there 

 is but one person, known to me, who understands the 

 composition and manufacture of the materials.'-'* 



The suggested change was never made. 



There was much dissatisfaction with both the in- 

 fantry-artillery and dragoon models expressed bv troops 

 in the field. .Although established to deal primarily 

 with the quantity of caps issued the troops, the 1844 

 Uniform Board recommended .sc\eral changes: 



Uniform Cap 

 For Dragoons — To be lower behind, giving a surface 

 to rest on the head instead of an edge — and to rise 

 gradually to the front^the visor to be reduced in 

 width, and to be cut according to the pattern fur- 

 nished — For mounted Artillery — according to the 

 modified pattern, the band and tassel red, the plume 

 of red horse-hair — For Ordnance, .\rtillery, and In- 

 fantry according to the pattern exhibited by Col. 

 Stanton — The same impro\'ement as for Drags .... 

 The principal advantages to be derived from the fore- 

 going modifications are these — The uniform cap for 

 Dragoons which as now constructed is liable in rapid 

 movement to be thrown off and exceedingly painful to 

 the head, will retain its place, and be supported with 

 more ease to the \vearer. . . .'-" 



These modifications were probably never made prior 

 to the 1851 uniform change. Certainly no specimens 

 are known which conform. The band and ta.ssel and 

 the red horsehair plume, howe\er, were adopted for the 

 mounted artillery.' '" 



NOTES 



"* In RG 94, N.\. In regard to the "gilt star, silver 

 eagle," Campbell and Howell, op. cit., p. 26, states that 

 "the eagle is basically the Napoleonic type adopted by 

 the British after the Battle of Waterloo and altered by 

 omitting the lightning bolts in the talons and adding a 

 wreath to the breast." This is not correct. M. Jean Brunon 

 of Marseilles, the distinguished French military liistorian 

 and collector of French militaria, has informed the 

 authors: ".\mong the 13 Eagles taken by the English 

 (11 in Spain, 2 at Waterloo) only the Eagle of the 8th 

 Regiment of the French Line lost by us at the battle of 



33 



