"Jackson's Men" and Army Gray: Clothing the Volunteer Companies from New Orleans

Robert P. Wettemann, Jr.
Department of History, Texas A&M University

In articles in Military Collector and Historian, and more recently in this electronic forum, Edward L. Miller offered an interesting "historical perspective" on the uniform of the New Orleans Greys.1    In the latter case, he boldly suggested that "Anyone who examines all of the available sources . . . describing the New Orleans Greys uniform, will find a common description; that of a simple grey jacket and pants, and a hunting cap suitable and durable for life on the Texas prairies, which was somewhat uniform in appearance."2 While Miller effectively provides a review of many of the more readily available primary and secondary accounts which support such a description, there remains a considerable amount of evidence that Miller did not examine. These sources, overlooked in the initial analyses offered by Miller, definitively establish two important facts: First, surplus U.S. Army, old pattern gray uniforms were sold on Western civilian markets in the summer and fall of 1835. Second, Chief Bowles and the Cherokee Indians in both Indian territory and Texas had an intimate familiarity with the United States government and "Jackson's men" in the U.S. Army. Considered in conjunction with a better understanding of civil-military relations and nineteenth century military mobilization, these indisputable facts call into question most of Miller's arguments, principally the notion that the New Orleans Greys were entirely outfitted in civilian clothing acquired in New Orleans. Instead, the additional evidence herein provided strongly supports the traditional interpretation of the New Orleans Greys as being clothed in surplus U.S. Army uniforms prior to departing for Texas in the fall of 1835.

As Miller effectively noted, the diary of Herman Ehrenberg serves as an important starting point for any discussion of the New Orleans Greys.3 My intent is not to quibble with existing translations, as there are recognized limitations to every extant version.4 Dr. James Crisp is currently at work on a new translation, and when it is complete, perhaps then we will have the final word. Until then, we must carefully consider other extant sources, and pay careful attention to their accuracy and appropriate historical context.

In considering Henderson Yoakum's account of the arrival of the New Orleans Greys in Nacogdoches, Miller cautions historians from "reading too much" into Chief Bowles's first impressions of the New Orleans Greys.5 To the contrary, Miller does not read enough. In an earlier article, Miller suggested that Chief Bowles' inquiry was a function of the chief's own ignorance, writing:

The fact that Chief Bowles asked the question at all if they were Jackson's men, indicated that he did not know what "Jackson's men" looked like in the first place. What cannot be assumed is the far reaching notion that the question concerning "Jackson's men" equated the Greys' appearance to that of U.S. Army regulars. Secondly, Chief Bowles and his tribe had resided in the Piney Woods of East Texas since 1819. His contact with the military establishment in Texas was not with U.S. regulars, but with the Spanish and Mexican soldados of Nacogdoches, San Antonio de Bexar, and Saltillo.6

Instead of rejecting the Cherokee Chief's inquiry outright, it is necessary to carefully reconsider what Chief Bowles would have meant by "Jackson's men," and review the circumstances behind the tribe's arrival in Texas. When this is done, Bowles's likening of the New Orleans Greys to U.S. regulars is not as "far reaching" as Miller suggests.

By 1835, no single Indian tribe had dealt more with President Andrew Jackson and the United States government than the Cherokees. In 1808, the Cherokees agreed to surrender territory on the east side of the Mississippi River in exchange for a corresponding amount of land in Arkansas, where Chief Bowles resided before making his way to Texas in 1819.7 When a significant number of Cherokees refused to give up their eastern lands in 1816, then-Major General Andrew Jackson was sent to Georgia to negotiate their removal. Beginning in September 1816, Jackson, dressed in his general's uniform and accompanied by U.S. Army regulars, initiated discussion with tribal chiefs from Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee, making arrangements by which the individual chiefs could migrate west to join Bowles and the branch of the tribe already in Arkansas.8 On 7 July 1817, Jackson negotiated a treaty signed by 67 leaders of the Eastern Cherokee Nation, ultimately resulting in the removal of over six thousand Cherokees to lands west of the Mississippi River.9

Chief Bowles was not party to this 1817 treaty, and shortly thereafter migrated from Arkansas to the Piney Woods region of East Texas.10 However, as a result of Jackson's treaty, six thousand Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee Cherokees joined the Arkansas branch of the tribe between 1817 and 1819. Acknowledging Bowles's contact with the Spanish and Mexican military establishment in Texas, these more recent emigrants, the chiefs in particular, were intimately familiar with General Jackson, as "Old Hickory" addressed each one individually in the course of the treaty negotiations. Moreover, U.S. regulars under the command of General Jackson supervised the Cherokees' removal to the west prior to Jackson's discharge from the U.S. Army in 1821. Consequently, these Indians would have had an intimate knowledge of not only the appearance of General Jackson but also of "his men," information easily passed on to Cherokee Indians already in the west.11

If this is not sufficient evidence, the terms of the treaty of 1817 also reserved for the United States the right to construct factories, roads, and military posts in the new Cherokee lands west of the Mississippi River.12 Over the next two decades, a number of United States military posts were established around the Cherokee lands in the Piney Woods and Indian Territory, primarily to maintain peace among the different tribes. Fort Smith (1817), Fort Selden (1820), Cantonment Taylor (1821), Fort Jesup (1822), Fort Gibson (1824), Fort Towson (1824), and Fort Coffee (1834) were all built to protect the Cherokees and other tribes arriving in Indian territory from other Indians already living in the west.13 Upon establishment of the post in 1817, the garrison at Fort Smith immediately found themselves struggling to maintain peace between the Osage Indians and a warlike Arkansas sept of the Cherokees led by Tick-e-Toke, Taluntuskey, Chief Bowl, and Black Fox.14 Fort Gibson, located two and one-half miles above the confluence of the Neosho and Arkansas Rivers became the most important post in Indian Territory after its establishment 1824. Not only did it function as the western terminus of the "Trail of Tears," but Fort Gibson served as regimental headquarters for the Seventh Regiment, U. S. Infantry between the post's establishment in 1824 and the regiment's departure for Florida in 1839.15 All these posts were manned by U. S. regulars, representing the authority of the "Great White Father," who between 1829 and 1837 was none other than President Andrew Jackson.

Considering Jackson's Presidency, Chief Bowles's inquiry as to the identity of the New Orleans Greys as "Jackson's men" can not be considered as a testament of the Chief's ignorance as to the appearance of U.S. troops. While there were a handful of Spanish and later Mexican troops in the area, their numbers pale in comparison to U.S. regulars who came in contact with the Cherokees during the same period. Elements of the Seventh Infantry were stationed at all the aforementioned posts and camps in and around Cherokee lands between 1821 and 1839.16 Considering the significant number of U.S. regulars in immediate vicinity of Cherokee lands in Texas, Bowles's inquiry can not be considered as out of the ordinary, as the U.S. troops in the area were clearly "Jackson's men." Moreover, operating under the assumption that the New Orleans Greys did in fact wear surplus army uniforms, they would be virtually indistinguishable from the U.S. regulars stationed in the area who were until the fall of 1835 wearing the old pattern uniforms. While it is not possible to make this conclusion based solely upon an examination of the circumstances behind Bowles's question, supporting evidence for these contentions can be found in the records of the U.S. Army Quartermaster Department.

Like many departments in the United States Government, the U.S. Army Quartermaster Department frequently made use of all old supplies before issuing new equipment. As Colonel George Croghan observed in October 1838, troops at Buffalo Barracks were "clad in old fatigue dresses, much patched."17 Granted, the U.S. Army gradually phased out the old pattern grey uniforms throughout the spring, summer and fall of 1835. However, the Textual Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, Letters Relating to Clothing Estimates, should not be overlooked on this matter.18

These letters are significant for two reasons: First, they establish that the Seventh U.S. Infantry, stationed in and around Indian Territory, was the regiment designated to receive and make use of the old pattern uniforms before the new pattern uniform was issued, with additional issues of the old pattern going to elements of the Third Infantry. Second, the letters definitively establish that while there was an initial reluctance to sell any of the old pattern uniforms, a Board of Survey held by the War Department, of which the regimental commander of the Seventh U.S. Infantry, Brevet Brigadier General Matthew Arbuckle was a member, resulted in a change of opinion. As a result of their suggestions and personal communications had by Secretary of War Lewis Cass, uniforms of the old pattern were sold on the open market by the fall of 1835, at approximately the same time the New Orleans Greys were being raised for service in Texas. Despite prejudices against the regular army held by many in the United States, the ready availability of such uniforms would have made military surplus an obvious choice for outfitting any hastily raised volunteer company.

On 12 February 1833, Major John Garland sent the following to General Callendar Irvine, Commissary General of Purchases:

Your letter of the 7th instant has been received, your proposition for furnishing the three Regiments in such a way as to save time and material meets the entire approbation of the Secretary of War. The 7th Infantry is designated as the one to receive the uniform of the old pattern. If the new caps cannot be conveniently furnished them, you will of course have to send the old pattern.

I am much gratified that you will have it in your power to fit out the other two regiments with the new dress.19

Secretary of War Cass appeared to be motivated by reasons of economy in not wanting any of the old uniforms to be sold. Less than six months later, Garland sent a letter to Lieutenant Henry Prentiss, expressing Cass's reluctance to sell the uniforms of the old pattern.

In making the change if uniform, the Secretary of War was unwilling that the clothing on hand, of the old pattern, should be entirely lost to the government, he accordingly directed that as far as practicable it should be issued to the troops.

The object of your visit to Detroit will be to inspect the old clothing in depot at that place and report to the clothing bureau, as early as convenient, the quantity of good clothing which can be issued, and that which is damaged or unserviceable.

As soon as your report is received, a requisition will be made upon the Quartermaster General, to furnish that which is good to the troops on the lakes, the remainder will be ordered to be sold.20

In March 1834, Garland informed Irvine that the following articles of the old pattern uniform were available for issue at Fort Towson:

17 Sergeants Uniform Coats
27 Corporals Coats
Musicians Coats
210  Privates Coats
230  Pairs Wings
179  Wool Jackets
240  Pairs Wool Overalls
The Secretary of War directed that these articles were to be issued to companies A, C, G, and I of the Third Infantry stationed at Fort Towson.21

By October 1834, opinions in the War Department were in apparent flux. Secretary of War Cass appeared to be reluctant to sell anything, but would likely reconsider his position if a loss could be prevented, as evidenced in the following letter from Garland to Brevet Major Milo Mason of the First Artillery:

I herewith return to you the list of clothing left with me to be laid before the Secretary of War. I regret to say that the Secretary positively refuses to have an article sold, which can be issued to the troops. I presume he would have no objection to the sale of every article of the old pattern, if the original cost could be had for it, but he appears unwilling to run any risk of loss by public sale.22

The Seventh Infantry received enough of the old pattern uniforms to outfit the entire regiment throughout the spring and into the summer of 1834.23 However, by the end of 1834, at least some of the old pattern uniforms were sold. Writing to Secretary Cass on 28 November, Garland specified:

The issue of the old pattern clothing in obedience to an order from the War Department dated 23 July 1834, has had the effect to leave in the hands of the company officers a partial supply of the new uniform, and in the possession of the Commissary General of Purchases a large supply of clothing materials applicable to the issues of the ensuing year. Previously to the date of the order referred to, a portion of the old pattern clothing had been sold and the amount of $3,378.64 placed to the credit of the surplus fund.24

By the following year, Secretary of War Cass appears to have relented. In a letter dated 20 April 1835, Garland instructed Quartermaster General Thomas Sidney Jesup that:

The Secretary of War has decided that the "Infantry clothing, of the old pattern" in possession of the Asst. QM General at Fort Leavenworth shall be sold at public auction in the city of St. Louis, and directs that you give the necessary orders in the case.25

By July, this appears to have become the policy of the War Department, although these orders apparently reached some posts before it reached others. Regardless, the action to sell the old pattern uniforms appears to have been a result of the decisions made by a group of officers assigned to the problem, of which General Arbuckle was a member. As Garland wrote to him on 24 August:

The reasons assigned by the Board of Survey, of which you were President, have so far prevailed with the Secretary of War as to cause an order for the sale of the clothing, under the direction of the Quartermaster's Department. The order will reach you in a few days.

It is desireable that the officers communicate to this Bureau, any defect which they may find in the new pattern clothing, that the remedy may be speedily applied.26

It took some time for this information to make it to the far western posts. Previously, Secretary Cass had already authorized sales of the old pattern uniform on a larger scale in a letter he issued following communications with Major Henry Whiting in Detroit:

After having drawn from the depot of clothing at this place all the clothing of the old pattern required for issue to the troops on the upper lakes, there yet remains a large quantity on hand, which will in a short time become damaged and of no value to the government. It is proper that none of this clothing has been on hand less than three years and a portion of it ever since the war.

Major Whiting who has charge of the clothing, concurs on opinion with me, that it would be good economy to sell it.

I therefore recommend that the sale be ordered at such time, within the present year, as the quartermaster may appoint.

Approved, and the QM Gen. will take the necessary measures for having this property sold.

signed Lewis Cass27

As a result of the decisions made by this Board of Survey, and communications with Quartermaster Department officers in Michigan, Secretary of War Cass finally authorized the sale of old uniforms in the summer and fall of 1835.28 In each of the following letters from Garland to General Jesup specific instructions to sell what remained of the old pattern uniform were given.

The Secretary of War directs that the old pattern clothing in possession of the QM Department at Fort Coffee be disposed of in like manner with that at Ft. Gibson.29

The old pattern referred to in the enclosed letter from Lt. George Nauman, 1st Artillery Assistant Assistant QM at Fort Macon, NC, is, by direction of the Secretary of War, to be sold, at such time and in the manner you may direct.30

The Secretary of War authorizes the sale of the old woolen clothing, referred to, in the enclosed letter, from Assistant QM Lt. Anthony Drane 5th Infantry.31

The Secretary of War authorizes the sale of the old pattern clothing, referred to, in the enclosed letter, from the Assistant QM at Fort Jesup, Lt. Edmund Brooke Alexander 3rd Infantry.32

The Secretary of War authorizes the sale of the old pattern clothing referred to in the enclosed extract of a letter from Lt. George Henry Talcott, Assistant QM at Fort King, Florida.33

Although the extracts cited in the previous letters were not contained in the letter book from which these instructions were taken, corroborating evidence from an additional source is also available, providing incontrovertible evidence of the sale of the old pattern uniforms in the fall of 1835. After witnessing the new owners of the old pattern uniforms, "A Subaltern" published his views on the sale of surplus clothing in a letter appearing in the Army and Navy Chronicle, the U.S. Army's premier service journal. Under the heading "Army Clothing," he wrote:

Mr. Editor: Allow me, through the medium of the Chronicle, to call the attention of the proper authorities to a subject which calls loudly for their interposition.

I refer to the practice of disposing, at public sale, of soldiers' old uniform clothing. It is any thing but grateful to the eye and feelings of the profession, to see its uniform disgraced by exposure to public gaze upon the back of every Negro and ragamuffin he meets with, and these are the only persons which will purchase or wear it. I trust that due consideration will be given to this matter, and that the saving of a few dollars and cents, will not be regarded in a matter touching the pride and honor of our profession. Let this clothing be distributed among the several Military Posts, and issued at the discretion of the Commanding officers to soldiers on fatigue duty. Or if the system must be continued, let the trimmings be taken off the clothing before the sale.34

This letter not only confirms that uniform sales took place, but is also important in that it establishes that surplus uniforms were worn by "Negroes" and the lowest elements of American society. Considering Miller's earlier contention that the New Orleans Greys wore slave clothing, or plain suits of grey clothing, the inference is obvious, particularly if the suggestion to remove "the trimmings" was heeded.35 Removing the collar trim from the old pattern gray roundabout (a practice undertaken elsewhere to eliminate the martial appearance of uniform coats) leaves the wearer with a "simple grey jacket and pants" virtually identical to those described by Miller.36

A few words are also in order regarding the status of U.S. regulars in antebellum American society. Granted, there was considerable criticism directed towards the regular army, giving a certain amount of credence to their characterization as "whiskey-loving foreigners." However, prejudice against the professional military establishment can not be translated into the automatic rejection of the U. S. Army, as volunteer units were frequently brought into service to serve as an auxiliary to these professional units. Unlike the militia, which was organized under federal law, volunteer units were usually formed as an expression of the republican principles of the citizen-soldier. Despite their inherent belief in democratic ideals and egalitarianism, many volunteers frequently adopted uniforms which were some cases identical to the regulation uniforms issued to troops of the United States government. For example, Tennessee in 1840 (and home of former President Andrew Jackson) stipulated that "the uniform of the generals and generals' staff and field officers of the militia of this State shall be the same as that of the officers of the same grade in the United States' Army."37

Many volunteer units throughout the United States adopted uniforms distinctly different from those worn by U. S. regulars. However, these were usually volunteer units that had been in existence for some length of time.38 Throughout much of the nineteenth century, when militia units were raised quickly, and on an ad hoc basis for any conflict, they were faced with one of two options: wear civilian clothing, or adopt whatever uniforms were readily available.39

Calls for large number of citizen-soldiers usually paralyzed the existing supply structure of the U. S. military. President James K. Polk's call for 50,000 volunteer soldiers at the outbreak of hostilities with Mexico resulted in volunteer units adopting the uniforms worn by organizations in existence prior to the war with Mexico. Despite hostility towards the professional military establishment, some volunteers wore uniforms identical to those issued to the regular army. Captain John R. Kenly of the Baltimore and Washington Volunteers wrote in 1846, "The Baltimore Battalion . . . was dressed in the regular blue uniform and equipments of the regular troops of the line of the army, and was the only command of volunteers thus equipped that I am aware of . . . "40 Granted, there are instances of volunteer units attempting mutiny when faced with the prospect of wearing regular uniforms, however, such incidents place after the units had already established themselves as volunteers and did not wish to betray their identity as a corps of citizen-soldiers by wearing uniforms identical to those worn by U. S. regulars.41 While there is evidence to suggest that many Americans held the U.S. regular army in contempt, there is little that supports the notion that this animus can be expanded to encompass an automatic rejection of everything associated with the regular service.

Despite the evidence that has been collected by a number of scholars, Miller and myself included, we can not at this point definitively answer the question, "What did the New Orleans Greys wear?" as no physical examples of their clothing is known to exist. Until actual invoices for uniform purchases are located, we must base our conclusions upon a rigorous examination of the best information we have available, and be prepared to accept whatever evidence that might remain to be discovered in the future. Although Miller should be lauded for his attempt at revisionism, his new "historical perspective" of the New Orleans Greys uniforms fails to be persuasive, as the author failed to do what he set out to do, that being a careful examination of "all of the available sources." Revisionism is useful, but such efforts should always be the result of scholarly scrutiny based upon the analysis of "all of the available sources," and should not be undertaken for its own sake or for the forwarding of a personal agenda. Nor can Revisionism be considered the sole domain of the scholarly community, as Miller's suggestions regarding the style of "sealskin cap" worn by the Greys appear to be an avenue for additional research. However, it is always necessary to remember that the event which transpired in Texas between October 1835 and April 1836 did not take place in vacuum. A complete understanding of the nature of the New Orleans Greys and the uniforms they wore necessitates a better understanding of the social, political and cultural milieu of the entire Jacksonian era, as significant events relevant to the Revolution transpired both inside and outside the Republic of Texas.

The New Orleans Grays, as an ad hoc volunteer unit raised for immediate service, resorted to whatever means necessary to arm and equip themselves in as fast a way as possible. Since surplus U.S. uniforms were in fact available for sale in the area during the fall of 1835, and the unit was later likened to "Jackson's men" by Cherokee Indians who had more than a passing familiarity with U.S. regulars stationed in and around Cherokee territory since 1822, there appears to be only one logical conclusion: either one or both of the two companies of the New Orleans Greys wore old pattern U.S. uniforms when the units were initially raised for service in Texas.

This short paper is not intended to be the final word on the uniform of the New Orleans Greys, as additional documents might yet appear which might provide a more definitive conclusion. However, it should be noted that in claiming to have exhausted "all of the available sources," more evidence than that cited by Miller does in fact exist. The information provided proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that surplus U.S. Army uniforms were available on the open market at the same time the New Orleans Greys were being raised for service in Texas. Moreover, if Cherokee Indians saw men in such uniforms, their history of interaction with U.S. troops stationed and around the immediate vicinity serve to make any inquiry regarding the identity of "Jackson's men" a statement of similarity to U.S. regulars, and can not be considered a function of ignorance. After all, it was Jackson and the U.S. Army who sent the Cherokees west, and as the "Great White Father" in Washington, D.C., it was "his Men" who protected Cherokee settlements in and around Indian Territory. Based upon the additional evidence and analysis offered in this essay, it is necessary to reject the new "historical perspective" of the New Orleans Greys uniform offered by Ed Miller. While his description of "a simple grey jacket and pants, and a hunting cap suitable and durable for life on the Texas prairies, which was somewhat uniform in appearance," would appear to be correct, his evidence does not support the contention that they were outfitted exclusively in civilian clothing available in New Orleans. Rather, the evidence contained herein suggests that for a unit hastily raised in the fall of 1835 for service in Texas, the most practical, most logical, and most readily-available source of uniforms would have been U.S Army surplus uniforms recently made available for purchase on western civilian markets.


1Edward L. Miller, "The Texas Revolution, Civilian Suits, Whiskey-Loving Foreigners and the New Orleans Greys," Military Collector and Historian 48 (Spring 1996), 33-7 (hereafter referred to as Miller, "Texas Revolution"); Peter Stines and Edward L. Miller, "New Orleans Greys at San Antonio de Bexar, 1835," Military Collector and Historian 48 (Spring 1996), 40-1; Ed Miller, "The New Orleans Greys Uniform: A Historical Perspective." In Alamo de Parras, 1 April 1999. Hereafter referred to as Miller, ADP).

2Miller, ADP, 5.

3Miller, ADP, 2; Miller, "Texas Revolution," 33.

4James Crisp, "Sam Houston's Speechwriters: The Grad Student, the Teenager, the Editors, and the Historian," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 97 (October 1993), 203-37.

5Miller, ADP, 2.

6Miller, "Texas Revolution," 33.

7Mary Whatley Clarke, Chief Bolles and the Texas Cherokees (Norman: Univerity of Oklahoma Press, 1971), 11-3.

8The introduction to the treaty reads as follows: "Articles of a treaty concluded at the Cherokee agency, within the Cherokee nation, between Major General Andrew Jackson, Joséph McGinn, Governor of the State of Tennessee, and General David Meriwether, commissioners plenopotentiary of the Untied States if America, of the one part, and the chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Cherokee nation east of the Mississippi river, and the chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Cherokees on the Arkansas river, and their deputies John D. Chisolm and James Rogers, duly authorized by the chiefs of the Cherokees on the Arkansas river, in open ocuncil, by written power of attorney, duly signed and executed, in presence of Joséph Sevier and William Ware." See "Treaty with the Cherokees," in American State Papers: Indian Affairs 2 vols. (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1832-34), 2: 129-31 (hereafter referred to as ASP:IA).

9See Robert Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Empire, 1767-1821 (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), 328-35; Michael Paul Rogin, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975), 181-85. The leaders of the Eastern Cherokees are individually listed in "Letter to the Honorable Commissioners," 2 July 1817, ASP:IA, 2:142-43.

10Clarke, Chief Bolles, 13-17.

11Remini, Jackson and the Course of American Empire, 335.

12Ibid., 335.

13Francis Paul Prucha, A Guide to the Military Posts of the United States, 1789-1895 (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1964), 7-11.

14See Edwin C. Bearss and Arrell M. Gibson, Fort Smith: Little Gibraltar on the Arkansas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969), 20-65.

15See Brad Agnew, Fort Gibson: Terminal on the Trail of Tears (Norman: university of Oklahoma Press, 1980).

16The monthly postings for the Seventh U.S. Infantry regiment between June 1821 and December 1842 may be found in NARA, Record Group 94, Records of the Office of the Adjutant General, M665, Returns from Regular Army Infantry Regiments, rolls 77-78. Charles Martin Gray, The Old Soldier's Story: Autobiography of Charles Martin Gray, Co. A, 7th Regiment U.S.I. (Edgefield, SC: Edgefield Advertiser Print, 1868), 44-5, details the manning of Forts Selden and the contruction of Fort Jesup by the Seventh Infantry in 1822.

17Francis Paul Prucha, ed. Army Life on the Western Frontier: Selections from the Official Reports made Between 1826 and 1845 by Colonel George Croghan (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958), 59. Miller, "Texas Revolution," 35, quoted the Croghan reports as follows: "Some U.S. Army regulars were still reportedly wearing the gray 'old issue' fatigue uniform as late as 1838" (emphasis added). Croghan's statement, taken at Buffalo on 1 October 1838 actually reads: "None of the companies are in full uniform; in truth, very many of the men are but clad in old fatigue dresses, much patched." The word "gray" is an apparent interpretative addition by Miller, and is not found in the edited version of the Croghan reports.

18These may be found in National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 92, Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, Entry 1000, Letters Relating to Clothing Estimates (hereafter referred to as NARA, RG92, E1000).

19Major John Garland to General Callendar Irvine, Commissary General of Purchases, 12 February 1833, NARA, RG 92, E1000.

20Garland to Lieutenant Henry Prentiss, 3 June 1833, NARA, RG92, E1000.

21Garland to Irvine, 27 March 1834, NARA, RG92, E1000.

22Garland to Major Milo Mason, 29 October 1834, NARA, RG92, E1000.

23This statement is supported by excerpts from the following letters: "As I had anticipated in my letter to you of the 14th january last, it has been determined to issue to the 7th Regiment of Infantry the coats and wings of the old pattern. these articles being in the hands of the Assistant Quartermaster, will of course be issued upon your order," Garland to Brevet Brigadier General Matthew Arbuckle, 22 March 1834, NARA, RG92, E1000; "It has been ascertained that there are enough uniform coats of the old pattern, at Fort Gibson, for issue to the Seventh regiment of Infantry," Garland to Irvine, 22 March 1834, NARA, RG92, E1000.

24Garland to Secretary of War Lewis Cass, 28 November 1834, NARA, RG92, E1000.

25Garland to Quartermaster General Thomas Sydney Jesup, 20 April 1835, NARA, RG92, E1000.

26Garland to Arbuckle, 24 August 1835, NARA, RG92, E1000.

27Cass to Garland, 8 July 1835, NARA, RG92, E1000.

28It should be noted that prior to his service as Secretary of War, Cass served as territorial governor in Michigan between 1813 and 1831, hence his personal connection with officers in the region.

29 Garland to Jesup, 28 August 1835, NARA, RG92, E1000.

30 Garland to Jesup, 29 September 1835, NARA, RG92, E1000.

31Garland to Jesup, 14 November, NARA, RG92, E1000.

32Garland to Jesup, 8 December 1835, NARA, RG92, E1000.

33Garland to Jesup, 22 December 1835, NARA, RG92, E1000.

34Army and Navy Chronicle, 18 February 1836, Vol. 2, No. 7, p.109.

35Miller, "Texas Revolution," 34.

36Gene Annette Burger, "A Mexican War Roundabout," MC&H (42 (Winter 1990), 160-162. After examining the jacket, originally owned by Private Richard Coulter of the Pennsylvania "Westmoreland Guards" and constructed in a manner similar to that by which U.S. fatigue uniforms were made throughout the period, Burger notes that "There appears to have been braid on the collar because pick marks are still visible where it was removed and indentations in the wool are visible where the braid was originally sewn," 160.

37Marcus Cunliffe, Soldiers and Civilians: The Martial Spirit in America, 1775-1865 (New York: The Free Press, 1968), 132.

38Ibid., 218-30.

39For selected examples of both trends, see H. Charles McBarron, Jr. and Frederick P. Todd, "Colonel Brisbane's Regiment, South Carolina Militia, 1836," Military Collector and Historian 9 (Summer 1957), 40-1; H. Charles McBarron Jr., Harry T. Grube, and John R. Elting, "Indiana Volunteers in the Mexican War, 1846-1847," MC&H 23 (Fall 1971), 83-5; Peter Copeland and John R. Elting, "Tennessee Troops, New Orleans, 1814-1815," MC&H 46 (Summer 1994),82-3; Eric I. Manders and Wayne Colwell, "Mormon Battalion, New Mexico, 1846," MC&H 47 (Fall 1995), 128-29; Peter Copeland and John R. Elting, "Kentucky Troops, New Orleans, 1814-1815," MC&H 50 (Spring 1998), 44-5.

40John R. Kenly, Memoirs of a Maryland Volunteer in the War with Mexico, 1846-7-8 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1873), 77-8.

41See Richard Bruce Winders, Mr. Polk's Army: The American Military Experience in the Mexican War (College Station: Texas A&M University press, 1997), 112; and James M. McCaffrey, "Wearing Army Blue (and Green, and Red, and Gray . . .) During the Mexican War," Military History of the West 23 (Spring 1993), 39-45.